White House Islamists and Misprision of Treason

Misprision of Treason: Top DOJ Officials Abandon CAIR Terror Financing Prosecutions
FRANK GAFFNEY

It is a felony offense to know or have reason to know that seditious activity is underway and do nothing about it. The term used in the U.S. Code for such a crime is “misprision of treason.” Counterterrorism expert Patrick Poole reveals today that political appointees in the Obama-Holder Justice Department would appear, at a minimum, to be candidates for prosecution for obstruction of justice and perhaps guilty of violating this statute.

In a Pajamas Media article headlined “Did Obama and Holder Scuttle Terror Finance Prosecutions?” (and reprinted below), Poole reports that two Justice Department sources confirm that the decision not to prosecute unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial was taken “at the top” of the department, not by the federal prosecutors in Dallas who had secured convictions of five HLF officials and had planned next to put away their helpmates.

As a result, one of the most prominent and problematic of those listed by the prosecution – the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas front known as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) – has not only been allowed to continue to run its influence operations in Washington and elsewhere across the country. It has been free to enjoy what is, if anything, even greater access to and influence over the Obama administration than it enjoyed during previous presidencies.

A book published late last year by Patrick Poole and eighteen other national security professionals, Shariah: The Threat to America, documents how such access advances the Muslim Brotherhood’s mission in this country of waging a kind of “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.” As it happens, just yesterday, Chairwoman Sue Myrick (R-NC) convened the first of what she says will be a series of House Intelligence subcommittee hearings aimed at investigating the Brotherhood and its operations, here and abroad.

One of the most chilling passages of Poole’s article is a quote from a DoJ official who, on condition of anonymity, came forward with confirmation of this scandal:

"This is a national security issue. We know that these Muslim leaders and groups are continuing to raise money for Hamas and other terrorist organizations. Ten years ago we shut down the Holy Land Foundation. It was the right thing to do. Then the money started going to KindHearts. We shut them down too. Now the money is going through groups like Islamic Relief and Viva Palestina. Until we act decisively to cut off the financial pipeline to these terrorist groups by putting more of these people in prison, they are going to continue to raise money that will go into the hands of killers. And until Congress starts grilling the people inside DOJ and the FBI who are giving these groups cover, that is not going to change. My biggest fear is that Americans are going to die and it will be the very Muslim leaders we are working with who will be directly or indirectly responsible."

It is high time Congress starts “grilling the people inside DOJ and the FBI who are giving these groups cover.” If the facts warrant impeachment and prosecution on misprision of treason or other grounds, so be it.

________________________________________

Did Obama and Holder Scuttle Terror Finance Prosecutions?
PATRICK POOLE AT PAJAMAS MEDIA

It is high time Congress starts “grilling the people inside DOJ and the FBI who are giving these groups cover.” If the facts warrant impeachment and prosecution on misprision of treason or other grounds, so be it.

During the House Homeland Security hearing last month on the topic of radicalization in the American Muslim community, one exchange between L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca and Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN) concerned the relationship between the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department and Hamas terrorist front the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Sheriff Baca told the congressman:
We don’t play around with criminals in my world. If CAIR is an organization that is a quote “criminal organization,” prosecute them. Hold them accountable and bring them to trial.
But according to a high-ranking source within the Department of Justice, who spoke exclusively to Pajamas Media on the condition of anonymity, Sheriff Baca, a long-time supporter of CAIR, was probably already in on the joke.
The joke is that a number of leaders of Islamic organizations (all of whom publicly opposed the King hearings on Muslim radicalization) were about to be indicted on terror finance support charges by the U.S. attorney’s office in Dallas, which had been investigating the case for most of the past decade.
But those indictments were scuttled last year at the direction of top-level political appointees within the Department of Justice (DOJ) — and possibly even the White House.

Continue Reading... (PJM Exclusive)

Did Obama and Holder Scuttle Terror Finance Prosecutions?
High-level source concedes DOJ let off CAIR co-founders and others for political reasons.April 14, 2011 - by Patrick Poole

*************************************************************************************

THE CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public.


Hat tip to Smokey

Obama's vanity shines through

President Barack Hussein Obama's first major international interview, given to Al-Arabiya, the Middle East television network, did not come as a surprise.
Nor was it a surprise that the new occupant of the White House, displaying his rhetorical skills, attempted to placate the Arab streets and Arab leaders by indicating the Obama administration will restore "respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago."

It is only a leader as vain as Obama, surrounded by a sycophantic and genuflecting mainstream media, who would indulge in such sophistry.

Thirty years ago another Democrat, Jimmy Carter, was in the White House when an anti-American revolution rent asunder Iran under the Shah and pushed the entire region in the direction of Islamism, with the situation gone from bad to worse.

There was the invasion of Afghanistan by the former Soviet Union, an Islamist bid to overthrow the Saudi monarchy with the siege of Mecca, the Lebanese slide into civil war, the murder of Egypt's president Anwar Sadat by Islamists, and American diplomats held hostage in Tehran for over a year by Iran's clerical regime.

Since 1979 America has paid more attention to the Middle East than any other region of the world. It has to do with a host of reasons, but one not readily discussed is what Abdelwahab Meddeb -- a Tunisian scholar resident in Paris -- termed the "malady of Islam."

Pathology

Islam's malady, or pathology, is about the condition of people and society in the Middle East, primarily Arabs in Islam's history from its beginning to the present time.

Arabs are less than a fifth of the world's Muslim population, yet their political attitude and views are of dominant influence across the Muslim world. Non-Arab Muslims defer to Arabs and, therefore, the malady of Islam is bound with the norms of Arab culture.

The birth of modernity -- liberalism and democracy in politics -- took place in Europe. Arabs are proximate to Europe and, therefore, it might be asked of them how did they respond to modernity?

Despite apologetics and much obfuscation, the answer is the Arab majority has shown preference for totalitarian tyranny.

In the last century there were three ideological responses to liberal democracy within the Middle East representing the divisions among Arabs.

Secular Muslims responded with Arab nationalism embodied in the Baathist ideology.

Majority Sunni Muslims were mobilized by Wahhabi/Salafi Islamist ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Taliban. Minority Shiite Muslims supported Khomeinism, the Shiite variant of the Islamist ideology.

These responses share in common the totalitarian collectivist values denying individual liberty, suppressing dissent and disdain for minorities.

Tyrannies

Two tyrannies -- Iraq under the Baath and Afghanistan under the Taliban -- have been demolished with American assistance. In both countries, such as with the post-1945 circumstances in Germany and Japan, American arms have put in place in Baghdad and Kabul governments at a minimum respectful of democracy.

Iran remains the third tyranny bent on reversing the post-9/11 gains for democracy in the Middle East.

But while Iraq's democratic evolution may likely influence positively future developments in the region, Iran will put President Obama to the test and his administration eventually will be judged on how he contends with or appeases the power-holders of a totalitarian regime.

Obama, the homegrown and international terrorists and Maxists friend

Ayers wrote 'Dreams of My Father' for Obama.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_wrote_dreams_from_my_fathe_1.html


Jack Cashill, a former editor and author, proves this by revealing a linguistic test I'd never heard of - Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES). Simply put, FRES mathematically calculates the similarity between two separate pieces of writing. If the pieces are written by two different authors, the mathematical comparisons are wildly different. However, if the SAME author wrote both pieces, the FRES scores are almost identical.


The FRES scores for Ayers' 'Fugitive Days' and Obama's 'Dreams of My Father' are practically mirror images of one another.


Obama didn’t write ‘Dreams’ – Ayers did. And frankly, I don’t need a FRES score to tell me that. From day on, I’ve smelled a rat about this ridiculous claim that Obama is a writer. Bull! Except for his two memoirs, Obama has written nothing. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. And that’s impossible given that Obama is a lawyer. Folks, as a legal secretary of a quarter century, I assure you that a man can not become a lawyer without being able to write. Of all the professions – save journalism – no profession demands the skill of writing more than the legal field. Again, you can not become a lawyer unless you know how to write. (For God’s sake, what do you think pleadings are made of? Colored pictures?) Writing is so vital to becoming a lawyer that you can’t even get IN to law school, let alone graduate from it, without writing. But if then on top of that, you also belong to the elite law school in America – Harvard – but even more incredible, you are the f**king President of its Law Review – then the fact that you did-not-write-a-single-thing is too ludicrous for words.


Yet, that is precisely what Obama has done. He did not write in law school. He did not write as President of its Review. He did not write in his law firm. He didn’t even write despite being a professor of law for nearly a decade. No writing. None. Zilch. And even the two writings Obama supposedly DID write - his memoirs – explode his mythical ‘literary’ ability to pieces. Obama was a flop at writing ‘Dreams’. In 1990, Simon & Schuster gave him a $125,000 advance to write that memoir. But Obama couldn’t. I’m not saying he produced bad drafts – I’m saying he produced nothing at all. Not a single sheet of paper. Things got so desperate he and Michelle fled to Bali to get inspired – but Obama flopped there as well. Finally, after two years, Simon & Schuster dumped him. But Obama’s agent then got him a $40,000 contract with Times book. Except that flopped as well. Two years later, Obama still hadn’t produced a single page of his memoir - until suddenly a strange thing happened.


Obama met a ‘guy in the neighborhood’. Bill Ayers. Unlike Obama, Ayers was having no trouble writing HIS own memoirs – ‘Fugitive Days’ which debuted to wild acclaim and huge book sales. (And make no mistake about it, Ayers wrote ‘Fugitive’ – every word of it.)



Now, remember - Obama insists Ayers was ‘just a guy in the neighborhood’. In fact, the two were such total strangers that Ayers appointed Obama to be chairman of Ayer’s CAC committee, giving Obama control of $110,000,000 to distribute. Yeah, never met the guy.



But guess what happened at the same time this ‘total stranger’ didn’t meet Obama? Somebody wrote “Dreams of My Father”. And FRES scores prove that whoever wrote ‘Dreams’ was the same guy who wrote ‘Fugitive Days’. Ahuh. Yeah, coincidence.



Remember – folks - you read it on this site.



(What? You were expecting to read it in the Times?)

Dhimmi Dummy of the Day - Individual

And the Award goes to..........COLIN POWELL



It wasn't enough to dis his Commander and Chief during war time as President George W. Bush's Secretary of State, but now his racist ignorant rants about Baraq Hussein Obama never being a Muslim, while completly ignorning FACTS, makes him my pick for DHIMMI DUMMY OF THE DAY AWARD.

Proudly declaring that Baraq Hussein Obama was never a Muslim and what in the heck is wrong with having a Muslim President shows such utter ignorance that it is astounding. Or like, IMHO, is it the same disease as Nancy Pelosi suffers from, that being a combination of ignorance, alzheimers, corrpution, drug addeled brain, and of course just plain dhimmitude.

How could a man so full of promise have fallen into such absence of sanity by repeating the lie that Barack Obama has “always been a Christian,” despite new information further confirming Obama’s Muslim childhood.

Proof abounds that Barry Mohammad Sottero attended an Indonesian school whose registration listed him as Muslim (only natural born Indonesian citizens, btw, were allowed to attend school in Indonesia at the time).

See the post at No Compromise for more information and research...because why should I spend time on rewriting what Tracey has already spent so much time on:

Instead, then, let us review a related subject – Obama’s connections and even indebtedness, throughout his career, to extremist Islam. Specifically, he has longstanding, if indirect ties to two institutions, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), listed by the U.S. government in 2007 as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding trial; and the Nation of Islam (NoI), condemned by the Anti-Defamation League for its “consistent record of racism and anti-Semitism.”



Colin Powell, is he another Affirmative Action man who still holds his racist views and doesn't have a clue how to think for himself or how to judge a person on Facts?


Colin Powell Dhimmi Dummy of the Day.

Barack Obama isn't just inexperienced

Friends

Anne Bayefsky sums up what we have been saying at the Walid Shoebat Foundation

Keith Davies, Walid Shoebat Foundation

Focus, People
A life-or-death election.


Since the time of Hitler, civilization has never been so close to the brink of total catastrophe. This American election will decide whether civilization as we know it will survive. As much as economic questions are currently front and center, with blame to go all round, this is not an election primarily about corporate greed, or individuals living beyond their means, or government neglect of economic oversight. Nor is it about whether we should have gone into Iraq where, like it or not, American boots on the ground have begun to create an emerging democracy. This election is about
whether there will be a nuclear holocaust.

Alarmist? I sure hope so. Isn't it about time that we got to the point about the stakes in this election? How many more pundits do we have to watch talking about the minutae - a candidate's look, an accent, a stumble, a slogan? We have four weeks to talk about the thing that matters most: a nuclear-armed Iran, and which candidate will prevent it.

The question that must be put point-blank to both presidential and
vice-presidential candidates is: "Will you authorize the use of force in time to stop Iran from acquiring the capacity to make nuclear weapons - yes or no?"

Wouldn't your beliefs for and against abortion fade if you thought nobody would be born into a world fit for living things? Wouldn't your worries about health care pale if you thought the mutilation, cancer, and death of millions upon millions, sure to follow nuclear war, would occur in your lifetime? Wouldn't your concerns about affording a college education fade if you thought your children will have the grim task of fighting a war of horrifying devastation instead of going to school?

Wake up. There is a genocidal maniac on the verge of reaching the point of no return in his ability to make a nuclear weapon. A fanatic with the stated ambition to murder five million Jews living in Israel - to start. A villain who has already funded and armed a terrorist war against the Jewish state that in 2006 forced one-third of Israel's population to live underground for almost a month. In other words, an individual who is ready, willing, and
able to give the nuclear trigger to a terrorist group - to terrorists who cannot be bargained with because they prefer their death to your freedom. As for the suggestion that the Mullahs are more powerful and nicer guys, the millions brutalized and subjugated in Iran tell a different story.

I don't know why it is possible after the Holocaust, to have such widespread denial of man's capacity for evil. Nor do I understand why Ahmadinejad's virulent anti-semitism and call for the destruction of Israel are dismissed as irrelevant factoids when calculating the Iranian threat. Time has a story about "experts" who believe that Iran seeks an atomic bomb not because they have ny interest in using it or passing it to others who will, but to deter, to ensure its security. According to Thomas Fringar, chairman of the U.S. National Intelligence Council: "Iran's biggest strategic concern is obtaining security assurances and accords," and it is the United States "which the Iranians consider a mortal threat." These "experts" have it
exactly backwards. If Iran were really driven by such security concerns, these concerns could be alleviated without spending a nickel - by stopping its nuclear-weapons campaign and its funding of terrorists.

No amount of ignorance, stupidity, or wishful thinking will change the reality that there are people who are prepared to kill you and your family for no good reason at all. Not because of poverty, or envy, or discrimination or because of anything you've done. But because they hate you - whether you live in Jerusalem, Washington, London, or Paris. They hate everything you stand for - liberty, tolerance, equality. And their minds are made up. Closed - period - to the entreaties of naïve foreign diplomats or would-be presidents and vice presidents.

During the vice-presidential debate, Joe Biden denied the undeniable fact that Senator Obama said he would sit down with the Iranian President without preconditions: "Barack Obama, he did not say 'sit down with Ahmadinejad.'" Perhaps he should read Barack's website: "The Obama-Biden Plan: Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions."

So let's look at the differences between the presidential tickets on what to do about the nuclear weapons ambitions of a would-be mass murderer.


On the one side:

Vice-Presidential Debate

DEBATE MODERATOR: "Let's move to Iran and Pakistan..Senator Biden. What's the greater threat, a nuclear Iran or an unstable Afghanistan?"

SENATOR BIDEN: ".I always am focused.I have been focusing on for a long time, along with Barack, on Pakistan..Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be very, very destabilizing.[T]hey are not close to getting a nuclear weapon that's able to be deployed.".

SENATOR BIDEN: [on Iran] "Our friends and allies have been saying, Gwen, "Sit down. Talk. Talk. Talk.".And if we don't.what makes you think the allies are going to sit with us?"


Ask yourself: does preventing a nuclear holocaust involve winning a
popularity contest?

First Presidential Debate

Senator Obama [on preventing a nuclear Iran]: "Now here's what we need to do. We do need tougher sanctions. I do not agree.that we're going to be able to execute the kind of sanctions we need without some cooperation with.Russia and China.[W]e are also going to have to.engage in tough direct diplomacy with Iran and this is a major difference I have with Senator McCain."

News flash: Russia and China have told us to take a hike on tough sanctions, Barack. Any other ideas?

Obama Website:

If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. "If" it continues? Anybody in Iran trembling?

And on the other side:


Vice-Presidential Debate


DEBATE MODERATOR: "Governor, nuclear Pakistan, unstable Pakistan, nuclear Iran? Which is the greater threat?"

GOVERNOR PALIN: "An armed, nuclear armed especially Iran is so extremely dangerous to consider. They cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons period."


First Presidential Debate

Senator McCain: "If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it is an existential threat to the State of Israel and to other countries in the region.[W]e cannot [allow] a second Holocaust. .Have no doubt about the ultimate result of them acquiring nuclear weapons.What Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand that if without preconditions you sit down across the table from someone who has called Israel a "stinking corpse," and wants to destroy that
country and wipe it off the map, you legitimize those comments. This is dangerous. It isn't just naive; it's dangerous. And so we just have a fundamental difference of opinion."


Barack Obama isn't just inexperienced. It isn't naiveté that drives him. I take him at his word. He and his vice-presidential candidate believe in "talk, talk, talk" regardless of the hourglass or the stakes or the intentions of the person across the table. No amount of learning on the job is going to change their way of thinking. Approving the use of force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is a Rubicon they will not cross - before civilization as we know it comes to an end.

So when you cast your ballot this election, make no mistake: you are voting for or against a nuclear holocaust. Not because Barack Obama wants such a horror, but because he will not prevent it. He will still be talking when the point of no return in Iran's nuclear program is reached. And the balance of power in the world will - with terrible consequences - have changed forever.

- Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute
and at Touro College. She is also editor of
www.EyeontheUN.org




Friends

Many of you have requested we sell the 4 Dvd series on our web site and you can now purchase on line .

We plan to set up a web download where you can down load Walid's teachings and speeches.

Obama was born, raised and is still a Muslim

From another friend:

Absolute Proof Obama Was Born, Was Raised, or Still Is a Muslim


1. Barrack Hussein Obama was born to Generations of Muslims

2. Barrack Hussein Obama was raised for years in Muslim Nations

3. Barrack Hussein Obama attended Muslim schools, where he was registered as a Muslim

4. Barrack Hussein Obama wants you to believe that his opportunistic conversion to Christianity after being born to generations of Muslims who raised him for years in Muslim nations where he attended Muslim schools has completely eliminated his Islamic Roots and changed his Muslim sympathies.

5. Barrack Hussein Obama’s church of 20 years gave many awards to the radical, anti-white, pro-Islamic, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

6. Barrack Hussein Obama has been praised and endorsed by the Islamic terrorist group Hamas

7. Barrack Hussein Obama has been praised and endorsed by Palestinian Rashid Khalidi, who also has held a fundraiser for Obama. Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.

8. Barrack Hussein Obama has praised and endorsed, in his autobiography, the founder first President of Nation of Islam President Malcom X

9. Brother: Muslim ”Barack Obama’s brother Roy opted for Islam over Christianity, as the Senator recounted in his book when describing his 1992 wedding. “The person who made me proudest of all,” Obama wrote, “was Roy. Actually, now we call him Abongo, his Luo name, for two years ago he decided to reassert his African heritage. He converted to Islam, and has sworn off pork and tobacco and alcohol.”Abongo “argues that the black man must “liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture.” He urged his younger brother to embrace his African heritage.

10. Sister: Muslim In an interview with the New York Times, Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama’s younger half sister, told the Times, “I don’t want to deny Islam. I think it’s obviously very important that we have an understanding of Islam ... my brother has been a Christian for (only) 20 years.

11. Father: Muslim Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (Senior) was born in Nyangoma-Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya.

12. Step Father: Muslim Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo ws a devout Muslim and Obama went to Mosque on Fridays with him.

13. Mother: Muslim The evidence seems to quite clearly show that both Ann Dunham and her husband Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo were in fact devout Muslims themselves and they raised their son as such.”

14. Grandfather: lived for a time in Zanzibar, where he converted from Christianity to Islam. He was one of the first Muslim converts in his village.
Grandfather, for whom Obama was given the middle name, Hussein, was "fiercely devoted to Islam." He had at least 3 wives: Helima, who had no children, Akuma who gave birth to Sarah Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. and Auma Obama.

15. Obama’s teachers and the principal from the 1970's: Obama actively took part in the Islamic religious lessons during his years at his school in Muslim Indonesia. “I remembered that he had studied “mengaji” (recitation of the Quran)” “The actual usage of the word ‘mengaji’ in Indonesian and Malaysian societies means the study of learning to recite the Quran in the Arabic language rather than the native tongue. “Mengagi” is a word and a term that is accorded the highest value and status in the mindset of fundamentalist societies here in Southeast Asia. To put it quite simply, ‘mengaji classes’ are not something that a non practicing or so-called moderate Muslim family would ever send their child to. To put this in a Christian context, this is something above and beyond simply enrolling your child in Sunday school classes.”

16.The Obama Campaign: told the LA Times he wasn’t a “practicing Muslim.” (3/14/2007). Why didn't Obama's campaign just say he wasn't a "Muslim"?

17. Lebanese Raplph Nader Called Obama Pro-"Palestinian" Washington, D.C. (February 25, 2008) -- In remarks made by Ralph Nader on "Meet the Press," Nader added to the debate on Senator Obama's views on Israel and the Middle East and raised serious doubts and questions about the true leanings of Senator Obama on these important issues.

During his interview on "Meet the Press," Nader said that Sen. Obama had reversed his positions on Israel. Nader said Sen. Obama's "instincts and his knowledge have been censored by himself" and that Sen. Obama was "pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois before he ran for the state Senate" and "during the state Senate."

Sen. Obama has caught criticism for pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel statements and sentiments before. In March 2007, Sen. Obama was criticized for saying that "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinians." Obama has also been criticized for stocking his campaign with several controversial advisors including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Malley, Samantha Power and Susan Rice.

"People should be very skeptical of Barack Obama's shaky Middle East policies. When a long-time political activist like Ralph Nader, with a well-documented, anti-Israel bias, claims that Senator Obama shares this anti-Israel bias, that is alarming," said RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks. "If Senator Obama supports Ralph Nader's policies, which consistently condemn Israel's right to defend itself against terrorism, and if Sen. Obama has only reversed his positions to run for president, it once again raises serious questions about his grasp of the geo-political realities of the Middle East and puts into doubt his commitment to the safety and security of Israel. These are important questions we in the Jewish community will be asking."

18.Obama admits "My Muslim Faith".Obama acknowledged his Islamic Heritage Sunday, Septaember 7, 2008 during an exchange with ABC's George Stephanopoulos on "This Week", speaking of "My Muslim Faith".

This is one of the first times the candidate demonstrated he is torn between two religions, implying divided loyalties in the Global War Against Islamic Terror.

Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign

The article below was written by Kenneth Timmerman, President and director of the Middle East Data Project. He has authored a number of books including Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown in Iran. For his work in exposing the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear weapons program, he was nominated for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize. Mr. Timmerman is also a member of the Board of Advisors of our sister organization, American Congress for Truth.

Timmerman's article reveals extremely disturbing evidence that foreign nationals from the Muslim world are trying to influence our presidential election through illegal contributions to the Barack Obama campaign. We're not talking a few dollars here. As Timmerman notes, the Federal Election Commission has compiled a list of questionable foreign contributions totaling nearly $34,000,000! We urge you to read the entire article.

The "mainstream media" has virtually ignored this issue, in spite of the many, many news reports coming out of the Middle East and Muslim world that document the strong support Barack Obama has there. On WABC radio, April 13, 2008, Ahmed Yousef, political advisor for the Hamas terrorist organization, said "We like Mr. Obama and hope that he will win the election..." There have been reports that Hamas was running phone banks into the U.S. during the Democratic nomination campaign urging American Muslims to vote for Obama.

It's bad enough that billions in Saudi money have been spent to set up Middle East studies programs on American college campuses that indoctrinate students in a whitewashed, sanitized version of Islam that covers up its violent history and the supremacist doctrines of political Islam.

Have we reached a point where petro-dollars in the hands of Muslim foreign nationals are trying to buy a presidential election as well? Whether one supports Obama or McCain is not the issue. If there's evidence of massive amounts of foreign contributions to McCain, we'll report that.

The issue is we are Americans first, and the prospect of foreign nationals trying to illegally influence our election process should be something that every American should oppose and want exposed, regardless of political party affiliation or candidate preference.


Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign

Monday, September 29, 2008, By: Kenneth R. Timmerman

More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose.

And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate.

Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign, according to new campaign finance report.

But because of Obama's high expenses during the hotly contested Democratic primary season and an early decision to forgo public campaign money and the spending limits it imposes, all that cash has not translated into a financial advantage -- at least, not yet.

The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee began September with $95 million in cash, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

The McCain camp and the Republican National Committee had $94 million, because of an influx of $84 million in public money.

But Obama easily could outpace McCain by $50 million to $100 million or more in new donations before Election Day, thanks to a legion of small contributors whose names and addresses have been kept secret.

Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).

Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark.

Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.

"Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed," said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. "They don't appear anywhere, so there's no way of knowing who they are."

The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.

It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.

Biersack would not comment on whether the FEC was investigating the huge amount of cash that has come into Obama's coffers with no public reporting.

But Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for CRP, a campaign-finance watchdog group, dismissed the scale of the unreported money.

"We feel comfortable that it isn't the $20 donations that are corrupting a campaign," he told Newsmax.

But those small donations have added up to more than $200 million, all of it from unknown and unreported donors.

Ritsch acknowledges that there is skepticism about all the unreported money, especially in the Obama campaign coffers.

"We and seven other watchdog groups asked both campaigns for more information on small donors," he said. "The Obama campaign never responded," whereas the McCain campaign "makes all its donor information, including the small donors, available online."

The rise of the Internet as a campaign funding tool raises new questions about the adequacy of FEC requirements on disclosure. In pre-Internet fundraising, almost all political donations, even small ones, were made by bank check, leaving a paper trail and limiting the amount of fraud.

But credit cards used to make donations on the Internet have allowed for far more abuse.

"While FEC practice is to do a post-election review of all presidential campaigns, given their sluggish metabolism, results can take three or four years," said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center.

Already, the FEC has noted unusual patterns in Obama campaign donations among donors who have been disclosed because they have gone beyond the $200 minimum.

(To continue reading this article and the information on foreign donations, click here)



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

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


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.

Obama's Dangerous Pals

O'S DANGEROUS PALS
BARACK'S 'ORGANIZER' BUDS PUSHED FOR BAD MORTGAGES, By STANLEY KURTZ



Chutzpah: ACORN's drive to lower mortgage standards paved the way for the meltdown - yet last week, it was holding protests like this one in Florida, trying to get a cut of the financial-market-rescue bill.Posted: 3:53 am
September 29, 2008

WHAT exactly does a "community organizer" do? Barack Obama's rise has left many Americans asking themselves that question. Here's a big part of the answer: Community organizers intimidate banks into making high-risk loans to customers with poor credit.

In the name of fairness to minorities, community organizers occupy private offices, chant inside bank lobbies, and confront executives at their homes - and thereby force financial institutions to direct hundreds of millions of dollars in mortgages to low-credit customers.

In other words, community organizers help to undermine the US economy by pushing the banking system into a sinkhole of bad loans. And Obama has spent years training and funding the organizers who do it.

THE seeds of today's financial meltdown lie in the Commu nity Reinvestment Act - a law passed in 1977 and made riskier by unwise amendments and regulatory rulings in later decades.

CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in "subprime" loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.

Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA - and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN.

In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America's financial institutions.

Banks already overexposed by these shaky loans were pushed still further in the wrong direction when government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up their bad loans and offering them for sale on world markets.

Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among minorities and the poor. However compassionate the motive, the result of this systematic disregard for normal credit standards has been financial disaster.

ONE key pioneer of ACORN's subprime-loan shakedown racket was Madeline Talbott - an activist with extensive ties to Barack Obama. She was also in on the ground floor of the disastrous turn in Fannie Mae's mortgage policies.

Long the director of Chicago ACORN, Talbott is a specialist in "direct action" - organizers' term for their militant tactics of intimidation and disruption. Perhaps her most famous stunt was leading a group of ACORN protesters breaking into a meeting of the Chicago City Council to push for a "living wage" law, shouting in defiance as she was arrested for mob action and disorderly conduct. But her real legacy may be her drive to push banks into making risky mortgage loans.

New York Post Story

A few comments from the website story:

jerseygirlforsarah wrote:
Obama's National Finance Chair/Top Fundraiser/Bundler, Penny Pritzker, cost the American taxpayer $460 million with the bailout of Superior Bank in 2001. After the bailout, the Feds sold Superior's bad loans to EMC, a subsidiary of Bear Stearns. Now with this proposed bailout, the American taxpayer will be buying them again. Penny Pritzker was Chairman of Superior Bank FSB, while her Chicago-based family sat on 50% of the board. Under Penny Pritzker's direction, Superior underwent a nationwide campaign of subprime lending for single family loans, auto loans, mobile homes, multi-family, and commercial properties.

bugbrain wrote:
This is exactly the kind of information that ought to be on every media's front page. Somehow, I missed it, but stumbled in from an outside link.

Democrates Covering for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam

Listen to Baraq Hussein Obama's economic advisor, Frank Raines, the criminal that cooked Fanne Mae's books


Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis

The Obama camp has been threatening television and radio stations to keep them from airing anti-Obama ads.

Obama Wants NRA Ads Banned

Saturday, September 27, 2008 8:10 PM

By: Newsmax staff


The Obama camp has been threatening television and radio stations to keep them from airing anti-Obama ads.


The latest target is the NRA and stations in Pennsylvania.


Earlier this week, the National Rifle Association's Political Victory Fund released a series of radio and television spots to educate gun owners and sportsmen about Barack Obama's longstanding anti-gun record. In response to the NRA-PVF ads, a clearly panicked Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are doing everything they can to hide Obama's real record by mounting a coordinated assault on the First Amendment.


They have gone to desperate and outrageous lengths to try to silence your NRA by bullying media outlets with threats of lawsuits if they run NRA-PVF's ads.


The Obama camp is particularly angry with an NRA ad entitled "Hunter" which lays out Obama's record on gun control.


You can see the "Hunter" ad -- Go Here Now.


Other NRA ads include "Way of Life" and another focusing on Joe Biden's record, "Defend Freedom, Defeat Obama."


This week, Obama's campaign general counsel Bob Bauer wrote seeking to censor the ads at stations in Pennsylvania.


"Unlike federal candidates, independent political organizations do not have a 'right to command the use of broadcast facilities,'" Bauer writes. "Moreover, you have a duty 'to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising.'"


"This advertising is false, misleading, and deceptive," Bauer continued. "We request that you immediately cease airing this advertising."


The NRA says Obama's camp are sending out these "intimidating cease and desist letters" to cable operators and television stations, threatening their FCC licenses if they run the ads.


The NRA charged that "Obama and the DNC have been using strong-arm tactics reminiscent of Chicago machine politics to try and cover up the truth and silence NRA by forcing the stations to assist them in hiding Obama's radical anti-gun record."


And now, Obama and the DNC have opened a new front in their assault on your First Amendment rights by calling on their followers to contact these station managers to demand that the stations not run NRA-PVF's ads.


NRA stands behind the accuracy of these ads, and NRA attorneys have responded to the Obama campaign's despicable and abusive attempt to trample on the First Amendment by sending a thorough rebuttal to station managers. This rebuttal clearly and conclusively refutes the Obama campaign's fallacious claims that the ads are inaccurate.


The NRA has set up a web site detailing its position on Obama at www.gunbanobama.com.


A copy of the NRA's letter to station, written by its counsel Cleta Mitchell, follows below:


MEMORANDUM

CLIENT-MATTER NUMBER

999100-0130

TO: Station Managers


FROM: Cleta Mitchell, Esq.

Counsel to National Rifle Association


DATE: September 25, 2008


RE: Documentation for Advertising by National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund ("NRA-PVF")



This firm serves as counsel to the National Rifle Association (“NRA”) and the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund ("NRA-PVF"), which is the federal political action committee of the NRA and the sponsor of certain advertising purchased and soon-to-be purchased on your station. It has come to my clients’ attention that the Obama for President campaign is engaging in an effort to prevent or stop the airing of certain ads by NRA-PVF, falsely alleging that the ads are ‘inaccurate’. The Obama presidential campaign apparently relies on an article appearing in the Washington Post on September 23, 2008 to support its contention hat the NRA-PVF ads should not be aired.



The Washington Post is hardly an objective news source on any subject related to the issues to which the NRA is dedicated, having spent decades attacking not only the NRA but also fighting against the legislation and policies NRA supports to protect the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as supporting every conceivable government proposal or policy any officeholder or candidate suggests to weaken and disrupt the guarantees of the Second Amendment. It is therefore no surprise that the Washington Post would now attack the NRA for advertisements which truthfully disclose the anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment record of Barack Obama, the candidate supported by the Washington Post.



Attached please find the point-by-point refutation of the Washington Post’s article about the NRA-PVF ads regarding Obama’s record on the Second Amendment, as well as an article disclosing the bias of the decidedly not neutral “FactChecker” on which the Washington Post article is ostensibly based.



The NRA devotes 100% of its time and resources to protecting the Second Amendment and fighting for government policies and legislation furtherance of the rights of the American people to keep and bear arms.



The legislative and policy record of candidates and officeholders such as Barack Obama are well known and documented by the NRA on an ongoing basis. NRA-PVF’s advertising during the 2008 election cycle is based on that extensive research and documentation, which is being furnished to you with this Memorandum.



Accordingly, we respectfully request that your station disregard the shamefully false assertions from the Obama campaign and its attorneys regarding the NRA-PVF ads and that the ads run in accordance with the purchase(s) made by NRA-PVF in the media buy.









© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Obama's Muslim Brotherhood-linked aide hasn't really quit

Obama's Muslim Brotherhood-linked aide hasn't really quit

This is a couple of weeks old, but I don't recall anyone remarking upon it. Barack Obama's Muslim Outreach Coordinator, Mazen Asbahi, resigned under pressure in August after it was revealed that he was "a frequent speaker before several groups in the U.S. that scholars have associated with the Muslim Brotherhood."


The Muslim Brotherhood, of course, is engaged “in America [in] a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” — Mohamed Akram, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” May 22, 1991

And now it turns out that Asbahi hasn't really quit at all.

"Muslim Outreach Proves A Tricky Issue For A Campaign Lauded As Multicultural," by Sean Higgins for Investor's Business Daily, August 25 (thanks to Diana West):

Key Aide Hasn't Really Quit

Last month, his coordinator for Muslim outreach, Mazen Asbahi, a Chicago lawyer, quit after reports that he belonged to the board of an Islamic investment fund that included a radical imam.

Asbahi has not stopped working on behalf of Obama, though. He appeared at the luncheon to say that despite his official exit he was still "110%" behind Obama and that he was participating in campaign conference calls on Muslim outreach.

Stepping down was a "strategic decision," he told the audience. Asbahi declined to answer IBD questions clarifying his current role. [...]


SOURCE

Obama's domestic terrorist ties

American Issues Project Launches Ad
August 21, 2008

The American Issues Project today announced the debut of a new television advertising campaign examining the relationship between Sen. Barack Obama and unrepentant 1960's domestic terrorist, William Ayers. The ad -- entitled "Know Enough?" -- begins with a simple, yet pointed question: "Beyond the speeches, how much do you really know about Barack Obama?"

Supported by over one hundred pages of back-up documentation and historical accounts, the American Issues Project is using this ad to shed light on Obama's friendship with Ayers, the former leader of an American terrorist group known as Weather Underground.



American Issues Project Click Here

The Abomination's No Answer, Answer

Yesterday, August 16, 2008, in front of an audience of thousands and a network audience of millions, Obama was asked by Pastor Warren - 'at what point does a baby get human rights?'. Obama replied 'Answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade.'

You know, I find it the height of irony that Obama's non-answer actually WAS an answer. Unfortunately for Obama, it was an answer to some entirely different questions which he has stubbornly refused to confront since the beginning of his candidacy. Namely, questions of his beliefs.

To begin with it, his non-answer 'answered' the question about whether he is a devout Christian. He isn't. A devout Christian would never equivocate about abortion - devout Christians are against it. Period. The next question his non-answer answered was the question of his moral beliefs. A person of strong moral beliefs (regardless of whether those beliefs are for or against abortion) would reveal that strength by giving a prompt and emphatic answer. That Obama did neither answers the question on that score. Then there's the question of his political beliefs - as a Democrat, Obama's stance [i]must[/i] be that of his party (after all, they've chosen him as their leader). Ergo, he should have instantly supported the Democratic stance on abortion, i.e., that abortion is a 'right' which must be protected at all costs, from the moment of conception up to the very second (and, unfortunately in Illinois, [i]beyond[/i] that second) of live birth. But Obama flatly refused to. And in so doing, answered the question of his politics.

But most astounding of all, Obama 'answered' the question of his own intelligence. Just think of what the answer really means - i.e, the reason Obama gave for not answering a simple question was because it was "..above (his) pay grade'. Folks, there's no way to get around it - Obama was literally admitting he wasn't smart enough to answer. Folks, this is a staggering admission. If there has been ONE constant, incessantly repeated qualification for the presidency which Obama and his followers have literally screamed from the rooftops since his candidacy began, it is the qualification of Obama's vaunted intelligence. He's not just smart, he's [i]damned[/i] smart. Obama was President of the Harvard Law Review, he's a former Law Professor at the University of Chicago. He's written books which have sold millions. In other words, this man is not just smart, he's smart with a capital 'S'. Yet , as a stunned world watched yesterday, Obama looked Pastor Warren straight in the face and in reply to a prepared question which Obama had seen beforehand and had had ample time to prepare for, replied that he wasn't smart enough to answer it.

Yes, it [i]is[/i] ironic, isn't it, that yesterday Obama actually DID answer some questions? Unfortunately, as Obama surely discovered too late afterwards (once Michelle bitch-slapped him offstage), it was an answer to the wrong questions.

http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/08/16/obama-says-pointed-abortion-query-above-his-pay-grade/

(BTW - if you read the article linked above, please check out the comments. Boy, if [i]their [/i]reactions to Obama's 'above my pay grade' remark are anything to go by, Michelle must be frothing by now.)

Carolyn

BTW dear readers, I am NOT Carolyn.

Oh oh! BUSTED!: Illegal Obama donors: Middle Eastern Arabs

My considered guess is this is only the TIP OF THE ICEBERG....follow the money folks! Didn't you ever wonder how this racist, lying, Marxist Revolutionary has raised so much money?

ELECTION 2008
Illegal Obama donors: Middle Eastern Arabs
Gazan brothers' illicit contributions listed in government campaign filings


By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

JERUSALEM – Palestinian brothers inside the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip are listed in government election filings as having donated $29,521.54 to Sen. Barack Obama's campaign.


Donations of this nature would violate election laws, including prohibitions on receiving contributions from foreigners and guidelines against accepting more than $2,300 from one individual during a single election, Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the Federal Election Commission, told WND in response to a query.

The contributions also raise numerous questions about the Obama campaign's lax online donation form, which apparently allows for the possibility of foreign contributions.

Last week, the Atlas Shrugs blog outlined a series of donations in 2007 made to Obama's campaign from two individuals, Monir Edwan and Hosam Edwan, totaling $29,521.54.

In an online form on Obama's campaign site, the Edwans listed their street as "Tal Esaltan," which they wrote was located in "Rafah, GA."

Rafah is not a city in Georgia. The Atlas blog immediately raised concerns that the money may have been donated from the Gaza Strip town of Rafah.

The Edwans' donations are listed in both FEC filings and other election filing sites, such as CampaignMoney and donordata.org.

Monir made 20 donations ranging from $717 to $2017.50 from October through November 2007. His donations totaled $24321.41. Hosam made seven donations ranging from $508.63 to $1725.96, totaling $5,200.13, all in October 2007.

A WND investigation tracked down the Edwans, who are brothers living in the Tal Esaltan neighborhood of Rafah, a large refugee camp in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

The Edwans are a large clan that include top Hamas supporters.


Speaking to WND, the two brothers praised Obama and admitted giving the money online to his campaign. They said they are not U.S. citizens or green card holders but are citizens of "Palestine."

The Edwans denied they are affiliated with Hamas. Palestinian sources in Gaza confirmed the Edwans in question are secular, but could not say whether they supported Hamas.

Monir and Hasam Edwan denied their financial transactions online – listed as donations in U.S. government election filings – were actual donations to Obama's campaign. Instead they claimed they purchased about $30,000 in Obama T-shirts from the presidential candidate's online store – a contention that did not hold up during a WND interview, when they changed their story several times.

"My brother Hosam and I knew that Obama will be a big hit even before he became a candidate. We knew the guy would be a celebrity in Gaza so we decided to invest the amount of $29,000 to buy Obama T-shirts from his website and sell them in Gaza," Monir Edwan told WND, speaking by cell phone from Gaza.

"I know on the back of this story Obama rivals will present our business as a donation and they will try to use this story to let Obama fall, but I'm telling you, we bought T-shirts," Edwan maintained.

Edwan said any profit made from purportedly selling the Obama T-shirts was not returned to the Obama campaign.

"We have nothing to do with the Obama campaign. We just like Obama and believe he will be the best for the Palestinians and for the world."

At first Monir Edwan claimed he sold the T-shirts in Gaza for around $9 and that a profit was made.

"Some young men even bought the T-shirts for 60 shekel ($17.29), which is a lot to spend in Gaza on a T-shirt, but that is how much Gazans like Obama," Edwan claimed.

But it was pointed out to Edwan the T-shirts for sale on Obama's website are listed as $20.08 and that selling the merchandise for less would not yield a profit.

"Maybe we sold the shirts for a lot more. I can't remember now," said Edwan.

Asked why he would purchase T-shirts at such a high rate and pay the cost of shipping when he could pay a company to produce T-shirts for less, Edwan replied, "We wanted the shirts to come from the campaign."


But Edwan could not explain how he managed to get shipments of T-shirts into the Gaza Strip during the months he claimed to have purchased the merchandise, since Israel imposed a tight closure of the Gaza Strip starting in June 2007 that lasted until June 2008, when the Israeli government agreed to a cease-fire with Hamas in Gaza.

"We don't want to cause any damage to Obama's campaign," was Edwan's reply.

Edwan said he wants Obama to be president.

"Not just the people in Gaza but people from all over the world are rooting for this great (??????)(notice they do not call him an apostate!) man," he told WND.

FEC spokesman Biersack told WND contributions from overseas are allowed if the donations are coming from U.S. citizens or green card carriers. But he said accepting money from foreigners would violate election provisions. (also, not being born in the US is a violation of elligibility!)


He said there are strict guidelines against accepting more than $2,300 from one individual during a single election.

"I am not familiar with the particulars of the case, so I am commenting in general. The FEC will have to examine all the circumstances before determining any wrongdoing," Biersack clarified.

Obama's campaign did not return WND phone calls or e-mail queries. (Quick Baraq Hussein, call your lying spin doctors and your Marxist and Chicago Terrorist buddies for help!)

That the Edwans were able to contribute any money to Obama's campaign from Gaza opens questions into the methods used by the presidential candidate's website to accept online donations.


The website donation form asks each donor to affirm he or she is a U.S. citizen and is above the age of 16 but doesn't require donors to prove their citizenship status, such as providing a social security number. The form further requires the donor to affirm the contribution is not coming from a corporation, political action committee or lobby group.

Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71431

Obama's Lost Years

There's a reason they're lost. If Obama's years between 1996 and 2004 were found, they'd scare the hell out of the mainstream American voters he desperately needs to win the White House.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/386abhgm.asp?pg=1

As the above (incredibly detailed) piece by Stanley Kurtz for "The Weekly Standard" makes clear, Obama's legislative work in those 8 years reveals the reason why he and his campaign are so nervously quiet about those missing years. They reveal the political and psychological mindset of Obama more than anything - a mindset obsessed most of all with two things - race and socialism.

Though Obama's mouth chews arugula and his body lives in a mansion, his mind is firmly set in the socialist 'paradise' of Karl Marx. And black Liberation theology. Both of them go hand in hand - as proven by the article's revelation that Obama's ties with the unrepentent husband and wife terrorists, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. From the first Ayers and Dohrn loudly and strongly supported Obama - they were one of the first to hold fund raisers for him and later, after he was elected, they stood shoulder to shoulder with him in their mutual cause - destroying the criminal system in Illinois. Naturally, Ayers and Dohrn have no love for law enforcement since both spent their early adulthood (as members of the terrorist underground movement, the Weathermen) desperately eluding police who were trying to stop Ayers and Dohrn from killing huge numbers of people with bombs. Obama, also, has no love for law enforcement either - but his opposition is based on race. Obama firmly believes that the only reason many of his Black brothers and sisters are arrested is because of their race - they're Black. Neither Obama, Ayers and Dohrn give credence to the notion of 'guilt' - (Ayers certainly sees no need for it in his own life - when asked if he felt guilty about igniting bombs in his youth, he promptly responded that his only regret was that he didn't ignite more.). In particular, none of the three ascribe any guilt to young felons. Obama sees them as victims of racism while Ayers and Dohrn see them as childlike victims of societal inequities such as poverty, etc. Ayers' book "A Kind and Just Parent" stresses this. In court, he stresses it just as vehemently - which made for a really bizarre anecdote:

"Testifying at the trial of a young felon he'd been tutoring, Ayers calls him "nervous, a little shy...eager to please." (Please note the prosecutor's pithy response:) "Would you call shooting someone eight times at close range 'eager to please?'"

Obama's obsession with race resulted in him passing legislation which prevented Chicago police from using racial profiling at traffic stops. To Obama's delight, the level of arrests plummeted after this happened. Unfortunately, something else went in the opposite direction - auto thefts. Once car thieves realized cops couldn't stop them any longer, thefts of autos went through the roof. This result, however, was something which Obama - and Ayers and Dohrn - are stone silent on. (Though I'm sure the owners of the stolen cars would make quite a noise if given the chance.)

This article finely details Obama's obsession with race - proving with facts, quotes, data, etc., that Obama's lie that he is above race is just that. Race literally is how Obama defines himself. Over and over again. And never is that more surely proven than in those missing years of legislation in Illinois which he is so damned silent about.

Finally, Obama's obsession with socialism is extensively outlined in this excellent article. In a nutshell, spend spend spend on social policies such as welfare, affirmative action, set asides, socialized medicine, etc. And when that results in massive debt crippling the state - well, Obama has a neat solution. Spend even more.

All in all, this revelation of Obama's mindset, of his politics, of his actions once he's given the least bit of power is ample proof of why he and his followers are damned nervous about the rest of the country finding out about this. Any American voter reading this article would be scared to death to vote for him. (Especially those with cars.)

Please read. It's quite lengthy. But worth the effort.

Carolyn

38 Obama Falsehoods the Media Ignores

the below is from a post at NO COMPROMISE BLOG:
http://gto7.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/38-obama-falsehoods-the-media-ignores/

Also be sure to listen to No Compromise Blogtalk Radio:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/nocompromise


38 Obama Falsehoods the Media Ignores
May 29, 2008

By Michael Ashbury
MichNews.com
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….. (http://www.arcadeathome.com/newsboy.phtml? Barack_Hussein_Obama_-_Arab-)_
(http://www.arcadeathome.com/newsboy.phtml? Barack_Hussein_Obama_-_Arab-)
American,_only_6.25%25_African<_http://www.arcadeathome.com/newsboy.pht_(http://www.arcadeathome.com/newsboy.pht) 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”
(http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60559)

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.

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:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/07/24/will-media-report-concert-obamas-berlin-speech

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!

Hi XXXX

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 .

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?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11718.html


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.

Carolyn

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=1

"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?

Carolyn

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/15/anti-obama-bloggers-question-why-google-froze-their-accounts/

Anti-Obama Bloggers Question Why Google Froze Their Accounts
by FOXNews.com
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 SearchEngineLand.com.
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 FOXNews.com.

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.

Carolyn