HOME GROWN ISLAMIST TERROR CELLS IN THE USA BREEDING OPPOSING MILITIAS

The NYPD's Lawrence Sanchez (left) and Mitchell Silber discussed the role of local law enforcement in curbing Islamic terrorism at a 2007 Senate hearing.

This was prior to the Oba-Hussein admnistration gutting efforts by all agencies to combat Islamic terrorism and remove the words "terror" or terrorism" to be replaced by "man made disaster"!

AND enemy combatants to be mirandized in Afghanistan battle locations and tried not in military tribunals but with equal rights to U.S. in Fedral courts!

is still too early to tell what exactly motivated Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan to open fire on fellow American soldiers earlier this month, but the massacre came on the heels of a series of foiled terrorist plots involving Americans.

In light of revelations that Anwar al-Awlaki, an extremist American cleric based in Yemen, had e-mailed with Hasan, it is worth asking whether America faces a growing threat from domestic terrorism, and to what degree those involved in terrorism are becoming radicalized not in some far-flung locale, but right here in the United States.


In the years after 9/11, Muslims in the United States were widely assumed to be less sympathetic to Islamist radicalism than their European counterparts.

This has been attributed to the high skill level of many Muslim immigrants, their relative economic success, the peaceful form of Islam being preached in nearly all American mosques, the American principles of free speech and religious pluralism, and the melting-pot culture of the United States. And, indeed, the danger from homegrown terrorism in the years after 9/11 was less acute in the U.S. than in Europe, where many more serious plots were disrupted.

But recent events  (2007) suggest that things may be changing. As Mitchell D. Silber, the director of intelligence analysis for the New York City Police Department, told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Thursday,  "U.S. authorities have uncovered a significant and increasing number of radicalized clusters or individuals intent on committing violent jihad either in the U.S. or abroad," and that arrests during the last 12 months and intelligence gained by the U.S. government "indicate that radicalization to violence is taking place in the United States."

In the last six months there have been nine cases of Muslims in United States allegedly becoming involved in Islamist terrorism. On June 1, in what some have called the first post-9/11 terrorist attack on the U.S., Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, an American Muslim convert upset by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, allegedly opened fire on soldiers standing outside a military recruiting station in Little Rock with a semiautomatic rifle, killing one. According to court documents, he had "recently viewed a video pertaining to subversive activities which spurred him to commit this act."

In July it was announced that Bryant Neal Vinas, a Muslim convert, had pleaded guilty to involvement in a plot by Al Qaeda to target the Long Island Rail Road in New York, and the FBI arrested seven American Muslim men in North Carolina in connection with an alleged plot to attack the Quantico Marine base in Virginia.

In September the FBI broke up what it says was a Qaeda plot to bomb New York (allegedly orchestrated by a group of longtime American residents), and conducted successful sting operations against two Islamist extremists in Springfield, Ill., and Dallas. And just last month, FBI agents arrested two Chicago-area residents of Pakistani descent suspected of being involved in an Al Qaeda-linked plot to target a controversial Danish newspaper.

Before the recent spike, the incidences of terrorism and national security charges against American residents publicly linked to jihadi groups were actually on a downward trajectory, according to a database maintained by the NYU Center on Law and Security (with which I am affiliated). There have been more than 60 people convicted in the United States on such charges since 9/11 (Bush Administration).

Obviously, the Muslim individuals involved in alleged terror plots make up a tiny, unrepresentative fraction of America's Muslim community as a whole. A 2007 Pew poll found that the estimated 1.5 million adult American Muslims are "largely assimilated, happy with their lives, and moderate with respect to many of the issues that have divided Muslims and Westerners around the world."

Nonetheless, the same poll also found that a higher percentage of U.S.-born Muslims look kindly on Al Qaeda than do non-U.S. born Muslims. According to Pew, 7 percent of American-born Muslims held a "favorable" view of Al Qaeda in 2007, compared with only 3 percent of foreign-born Muslims who did, with 51 percent of American-born Muslims having a "very unfavorable" view of the terror group, compared with 63 percent of foreign-born Muslims who felt that way.

There is also some evidence that radical Islamist preachers are becoming increasingly active in the United States, and that, as the NYPD's Silber testified, "the Internet has become an even more important venue and driver for radicalization" of American Muslims. In Britain, a decade of proselytizing since the mid-1990s by a number of pro-Qaeda preachers radicalized a small but significant number of young British Muslims.
 
Since 9/11 more than 200 individuals have been convicted in the U.K. on terrorism and terror-related charges. In the late 1990s, a number of radical British preachers traveled across the Atlantic to the United States. One of them was Anjem Choudhary, then the deputy leader of Al Muhajiroun, a British pro-Qaeda support group. Earlier this month, Choudhary told me that in 1999 and 2000 he spent time in several parts of the United States, including New York, where he helped set up an American wing of his organization, which was disbanded in 2004. In the U.K., his leader, the firebrand Syrian-Cockney cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed, had already been preaching to hundreds of young British Muslims for more than half a decade.


Until the late 1990s, most pockets of extremism in the U.S. had been associated with Arabic-speaking clerics such as Omar Abdel-Rahman, the "blind Sheikh," who in the early 1990s briefly took over the Al Farooq mosque in Brooklyn, N.Y. Leaders of Al Muhajiroun proselytized in English, making Al Qaeda's ideology accessible to second-generation Muslims and converts who could not speak languages such as Arabic and Urdu. Although Al Muhajiroun was formally disbanded, Choudhary says that dozens of Americans tune into the online lectures of Bakri Mohammed, now based in Lebanon, every day.

Al Awlaki, the Yemen-based preacher who had contact with Fort Hood shooter Hasan, developed ties to Al Muhajiroun when he lived in Britain after leaving the United States, according to former members of the organization in the U.K. Awlaki, who as a preacher in a Virginia mosque had contact with two of the 9/11 hijackers in the months before the attacks, has in the past several years emerged as an online guide to a generation of radical-leaning young Muslims in the United States.

Like American Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn, he translates the group's ideology into a vernacular that radical-leaning Muslims in the United States can understand through video sermons posted on his Web site. One of those suspects arrested for plotting to attack the Fort Dix military base in New Jersey in 2007 decided to move forward with the plan after viewing one of Awlaki's videos, according to the testimony of an informant. Until very recently, Awlaki continued to preach online from Yemen; he praised the Fort Hood shooting just hours after it took place. Awlaki's Web site went down shortly after that, replaced with an Islamic greeting and this message: "The Web site will be back to normal with a few days time."

Other American radical preachers have been active closer to home. The founders of Revolution Muslim, Yousef Al-Khattab and Younus Abdullah Muhammad, regularly preach and leaflet outside New York–area mosques about the need for Muslims to "rise up" against a United States engaged in a "war on Islam." While they say they don't encourage attacks in the U.S., neither do they hide their admiration for Osama bin Laden. "I love him more than I love myself," Khattab told CNN in an interview earlier this month. The founders of Revolution Muslim appear to be fans of Awlaki. In October they posted a statement from him on their blog that warned, "America cannot and will not win. The tables have turned and there is no rolling back of the worldwide Jihad movement."

Fortunately, America's Muslim community is largely immune to such messages. But, as in every Western country, there are some who feel alienated and frustrated, and who may be susceptible to radical ideologies. The recent experiences of some European countries suggest that the United States may have a problem if radical preachers continue to be able to proselytize on these shores.

Consider the different cases of Britain and France. Young Muslims in Britain are arguably as well, if not better, integrated into society than their French counterparts and have better economic opportunities, but according to European counterterrorism sources, Al Qaeda's violent, extremist ideology has significantly more followers in Britain than across the English Channel.

Perhaps that's because until recently, British authorities tolerated the presence of radical preachers, while France took a zero-tolerance approach, expelling extremist preachers from mosques and deporting foreign radical clerics from the country.

After the 2005 London terrorist attacks, Britain adopted tougher laws on radical preaching and arrested or banned from the country several extremist clerics, including Bakri Mohammed. (Clearly, concerns about civil liberties in the United States make restricting certain types of speech more difficult than it might be in France or Britain, which have less lenient free-speech regulations.)

It would be a nightmare for U.S. counterterrorism officials if what happened in the U.K. in the years before the London bombings were now playing out in the United States, especially because the growth of radical Web sites has made it much more difficult to counter extremist preaching.

Could the United States simply be lagging behind in terms of domestic radicalization? That is what Anjem Choudhary, the U.K.-based extremist preacher, believes. In an interview with CNN's Nic Robertson earlier this month, he said, "I do believe that the Muslims in America are five or 10 years behind in terms of the struggle they are engaging in." If true, there's still time for Americans, of all faiths, to fight the extremist movement.


(Paul Cruickshank, a fellow at the NYU Center on Law & Security, is working on a CNN investigative series on the homegrown terrorist threat).

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


The above was in 2007, now the appearance of Oba-Hussein and his promotion of fervent Islamists to top Homeland Security positions, his bringing American killer terrorists like Khaled Sheikh Mohammad to New York to receive full protection of our American laws, his protection of the Islamic Iran regime Mullahs while allowing them to slaughter thousands of anti-regime protesters with barely a raised eyebrow from the Moslem (with Communist upbringing)  Oba-Hussein gives rise to militias mushrooming up all over the USA. In opposition to the threat he poses (in their minds) for the general American public.

 NIKISKI, Alaska - Norm Olson's genial tone belies his reputation as a radical militiaman, yet here he is, at 63, an affable grandfather explaining why Americans should arm themselves against their government.


Walking stick in hand, clad in military fatigues, he strolls a trail in the woods near his home, located on 22 acres near Nikiski, a small, unincorporated community with isolated roads and no local government. The nearest state trooper post is two towns away.

A fellow militiaman, armed with an assault rifle, walks along as Olson — a man whose conspiracy theories were so extreme that he was kicked out of the group he founded, the Michigan Militia, 15 years ago — discourses on the need for a paramilitary Alaska Citizens Militia.

Ray Southwell, left, and Norm Olson, members of the Alaska Citizens Militia, stand by the woods near their home in Nikiski, Alaska, on Sept. 29. Olson's militia is small at the moment, but there has been a resurgence of the militia movement nationwide.


He lays out his ideas about imminent economic collapse and social chaos incited by federal bailouts and other forms of intrusion by a tyrannical government.


Olson's militia is minuscule at the moment, but there has been a resurgence of the militia movement nationwide, in part coinciding with the advent of the Obama administration.

At least 50 new right-wing militia groups have been identified by the Montgomery, Ala.-based Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit civil rights organization. All have formed within the last two years, many spreading their speeches and combat exercises on YouTube.

"It's the response to fear," Olson says.

Olson lets that sink in. Then he adds: "The federal government can roll into your driveway in the middle of the night and snatch you up and take you away and you'll never be seen again."

Heated rhetoric

If the words sound familiar, there is good reason. It is rhetoric that was typical of the so-called patriot movement of the 1990s, amid similar circumstances: A Democrat, Bill Clinton, was in office. There was heightened interest in gun control legislation. Veterans were returning from the first Gulf War. Elaborate conspiracy theories were spreading.

Today's troubled economy and the perception that other countries are rising in influence might also be fueling activity among white supremacist and militia groups, according to an intelligence assessment by the federal Department of Homeland Security.

A significant difference this time, according to the April analysis, is that the nation has its first black president. "Right-wing extremists," the report says, "are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool."

There is a violent edge to this movement.

Lone wolves and small groups who are "embracing violent right-wing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat," according to the report. It cited an April shooting in Pittsburgh that left three police officers dead at the hands of a gunman reportedly influenced by racist ideology and fears that a gun ban was imminent with Barack Obama in charge.

In the first five months of Obama's presidency, racist, right-wing extremists killed at least nine people, according to Chip Berlet, senior analyst with Political Research Associates, a Somerville, Mass., think tank.

Such attacks are a vent for racial anxiety and outrage at the perceived liberal government by people who feel powerless to reach the political elites, according to Berlet. Instead, they target those within reach.

"It's a perfect storm for violence," Berlet said. "You ignore it at our peril."

But Jonathan White, a professor at Allendale, Mich.-based Grand Valley State University who has done extensive research on violent extremism and terrorism, says most militia members are "rhetoric only" — and that's where he puts Olson. The danger comes, he said, when these ideologies prompt paranoid "Alamo" groups to gear up for a standoff with the perceived enemy.

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

With what Oba-Hussein is doing to America this could trigger sooner than later.
 
Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice: "If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?". - (Act III, Scene I).

SEPARATION OF MOSQUE AND STATE BEING IGNORED

Everyone has heard of “Separation of Church & State,” but what about “Separation of Mosque & State”?
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan yelled "Allahu Akhbar," Arabic for "Allah is great," before killing 13 and wounding 31 at Fort Hood, Texas.

He had praised Muslim suicide bombers on the Internet; refused, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; listed his nationality as “Palestinian”; dressed as a fundamentalist Muslim when not in uniform and attended the same Mosque as the 911 terrorists.
Some question if Hasan's killing of U.S. soldiers was motivated by his belief in Islam.
But before we condemn as “hateful” those who dare ask such a question, it should be determined what is meant by the term “Islam.”
Is Islam:
1) a religious system,

2) a political system, or

3) a military system?


The answer is all three, as Mohammed was:


1) a religious leader,

2) a political leader, and

3) a military leader.


One may ask, what relevance does Mohammed's life 1400 years ago have to us today?
Well, since Mohammad was the best Muslim, those striving to be better Muslims are trying to imitate him, just as Christians try to imitate Jesus, “WWJD-What Would Jesus Do.”
Mohammed's life is called “the Sunna,” which means “the way,” or “the example.”
By examining Mohammed's life, one gains insight into the motivations of his followers.

1) Mohammed was a religious leader in Mecca for 12 years, beginning in 610AD, making around 100 converts. When he became confrontational and threatening, the Meccans chased him out in 622AD.
2) Claiming to be a victim of harassment, Mohammed fled 200 miles north to the predominantly Jewish city of Medina. The Jews rejected Mohammed, so he went into the minority pagan neighborhoods where he made converts, gained a political following, and in a sense, acted as a community organizer.

With his new following, he went back to the Jews as a candidate of change, promising to be objective and fair as he was a newcomer to the city's heated partisan politics.

The Jews made a treaty and Mohammed became a political leader in Medina.
3) When Mohammed's followers back in Mecca began to threaten the city's political stability, they were chased out and their houses were confiscated. Fleeing as victims to Medina, Mohammed permitted them to rob the caravans headed to Mecca in retaliation for their harassment.

The Meccans then sent 1000 soldiers to protect their caravans and Mohammed, with just 300, defeated them at the Battle of Badr in 624AD. This amazing victory, being outnumbered 3 to 1, convinced Mohammed he was to be a military leader. He won 66 battles and raids in the next 8 years before he died.
Mohammed even sent his warrior, Abdullah, in 625AD, to lie in order to gain entrance into the military base of his enemy, chief Sofyan ibn Khalid. Abdullah convinced Sofyan of his loyalty, so Sofyan let down his guard. When the moment was right, Abdullah committed a terrorist attack, beheading Sofyan.
Since Mohammed was the best Muslim, those wanting to be better Muslims gravitate to following his example, religiously, politically ... and militarily.
Most Americans do not care what religion someone has, or in which direction someone prays, or if someone believes paradise is sex with 72 virgins.
But what Americans do care about is if their political freedom of speech is taken away; if their wives and daughters are threatened if not veiled; if nations, such as Israel, face extinction; or if terrorists attack their military bases.
It is political/military Islam that concerns Americans, not the religion of Islam.
When a political/military Muslim bows toward Mecca, he is effectively pledging allegiance to something other than the United States.
For the sake of discussion, let us not be concerned with religious Islam, and, for the moment, just examine political/military Islam.

Political/military Islam has two features:
1) a global conquest aspect, and

2) wherever it takes over, non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims.
THE QUESTION IS:
What other political/military systems has America had to face in the last 60 years that had:
1) a global conquest aspect, and

2) wherever they took over, non-adherents were not equal to adherents?


Beginning in the 1930's, Americans had to say - “We love Germans, but we have to identify and resist the political/military system of Nazism.”
Why? Because it had a global conquest aspect and wherever it took over, non-Nazis, like Jews, were not equal.
During World War II, Americans had to say - “We love Japanese, but we have to identify and resist the political/military system of Hirohito's Imperialism,” and “We love Italians, but we have to identify and resist the political/military system of Mussolini's Fascism.”
During the Cold War, Americans had to say - “We love Russians, but we have to identify and resist the political/military system of Stalin and Khrushchev's Soviet Communism.”
Americans had to say “We love North Koreans, Vietnamese, Cambodians and Chinese, but we have to identify and resist the Communist political/military systems of Kim Il-sung, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong.
Why? Because Communism has a global conquest aspect and wherever it takes over, non-Communists are not equal.
Today, Americans love Arabs, Indonesians, Turks and Egyptians, but Americans have to identify and resist the political/military system of Islam.
Why?
1) It has a global conquest aspect, and

2) Wherever Islam takes over, non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims.
Political/military Islam, though, has been harder to identify and resist, as it can advance under the cloak of religion.
Could it be that some Muslims with a political/military agenda are taking advantage of the freedom extended to Muslims who are simply practicing the religion of Islam?
In order to prevent more tragic episodes as the killings at Fort Hood, maybe a little more attention should be given to the separation of Mosque and State.

___

William J. Federer is author of “What Every American Needs to Know About the Qur'an.” http://www.amerisearch.net/store/product_info.php?products_id=60&osCsid=cc6ac9054d63a97efb01d0d6e19fe2e0

JIHAD HIDES BEHIND Oba-Hussein's imposed POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

OBAMA POLICY FORBIDS MILITARY OR HIS ADMINISTRATION MEMBERS - EVEN HOMELAND SECURITY - FROM BLAMING ISLAMISTS FOR ANYTHING! LEADING TO THIS KIND OF MASSACRE.

On the contrary, he elevates devout/fervent Moslems to positions of power in Homeland Security and according to the tenets of Islam ENDANGERS THE SECURITY OF THE USA!

Any officer reporting someone like Major Hasan risks being disciplined, so none do.

DESPITE FBI CUTTING TIES WITH CAIR (COUNCIL FOR AMERICAN ISLAMIC RELATIONS) ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER WILL SPEAK AT THEIR EVENT. Marxist-Islamist Oba-Hussein policy in plain view.

Some Koran items below show why Islam cannot co-exist with non-Moslems, nor-accept democracy, nor accept our Constititution AND CAN ONLY HAVE DOMINATION OF AMERICA as their aim.


Putting Moslems in charge of our security is inviting the fox to guard the hen house. Their religion demands certain behavior of them as can be seen below and thus trust cannot logically be rested on them when their very being is aimed at destruction and dominance over all infidels - and WE are infidels to them.


“In the Koran, you’re not supposed to have alliances with Jews or Christian or others, and if you are killed in the military fighting against Muslims, you will go to hell.”


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


Sura (5:33) - “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”






Sura (8:12) - “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”


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


Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared,”Kill any Jew who falls under your power.”


Ibn Ishaq: 327 - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

Every action taken by Oba-Hussein, when there is a choice, favors Islam and jihadi radicals against any possibility of action against them. Does anyone still doubt Oba-Hussein's Moslem beliefs? Or his Marxist upbringing that colors these?

CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW TO READ A VERY LONG BUT HIGHLY INFORMATIVE ARTICLE ON VIOLENCE IN THE KORAN AND THE BIBLE

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/696408/posts CLICK HERE

HOMEGROWN TERROR FLOURISHES UNDER OBA-HUSSEIN-KHOMEINI

Dearborn Shoot-Out Opens a Window into Homegrown Terror

By Robert Knight

Luqman Ameen Abdullah, who was the Imam of the Masjid Al-Haqq mosque in Detroit, died in a shoot-out on Wednesday after firing on FBI agents during a raid in Dearborn, Michigan. Another seven Muslims were apprehended and various weapons seized.

“We're not any fake terrorists, we're the real terrorists,” Abdullah (aka Christopher Thomas) once bragged to an undercover informant, according to an FBI affidavit.

Abdullah, 53, was a disciple of none other than H. Rap Brown. If you ever wondered what had become of the ‘60s Black Panther leader, well, he converted to Islam while in prison in the 1970s. And he apparently has not changed his mind about what he’d like to do to America.

Famous for saying, “Violence is necessary. It’s as American as cherry pie,” he goes by the moniker Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, and runs a Sunni group called Ummah (“community”). The Black Muslim organization’s goal is to establish an Islamic regime with Sharia Law within the United States. Brown is doing this from his prison cell at the ADX Florence supermax federal prison in Colorado, where he’s serving a state-imposed sentence for shooting two black police officers in Fulton County, Georgia in 2000.

In Wednesday’s raid, the agents targeted a Dearborn warehouse and two Detroit homes after a two-year investigation of the Ummah offshoot. A total of 11 Muslims (three were still at large) were charged with various conspiracy felonies involving stolen goods and firearms. Speaking of conspiracies, Abdullah is on tape saying that the FBI was behind Timothy McVeigh’s 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993.

The 43-page criminal complaint filed in U.S. District Court by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and which contains eyewitness accounts, says that boys as young as 7 were beaten “severely” (p. 24) and that Abdullah encouraged his followers to “pick up guns and do something.” (p. 3) He also said, “If they are coming to get me, I’ll just strap a bomb on and blow up everybody.” (p. 10) He also said while watching a TV show featuring a nuclear bomb that he would like to acquire a “little bomb” and target Washington, D.C. (page 18).

Well, that kind of talk, except for the fact that Washington is about 60 percent African-American, should make a proud man out of Al-Brown, who once said, “We must wage guerrilla warfare on the honky white man” and, “If America doesn't come around, then black people are going to burn it down.” The latter threat was made in Cambridge, Maryland, where fiery riots erupted shortly thereafter in July, 1967, fulfilling his prophecy.

A color photo of Abdullah was made available to the press by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the most prominent Muslim public relations group in America. CAIR has denounced terrorism, but has been named an unindicted co-conspirator in a prominent terrorist funding case. On the same day as the Michigan raids, CAIR put out an unrelated editorial “Islamophobia Machine Targets American Muslims,” which denounces Frank Gaffney, Geert Wilders and other prominent critics of radical Islam.

CAIR also assisted in the effort to have Christian convert Rifqa Bary, 17, sent Tuesday from Florida back to Ohio, where her Muslim parents are trying to regain custody. Rifqa fears an “honor killing” because she is an apostate, and although a deal was cut keeping her in foster care until she turns 18, her parents have since fired the attorney and are seeking to break the deal and bring her home. A custody hearing is slated on Nov. 16 in Franklin County Juvenile Court.

Back in Michigan, Dawud Walid, who heads the Michigan Council on American-Islamic Relations, said of Abdullah, “I know him as a respected man in the Muslim community,” according to the Detroit Free Press. The group’s Website on Thursday made no mention of the raids, and its top press release was about the Roseville Community Schools apologizing for sending out a permission slip for pupils to attend an off-campus Bible study. No parents had complained to the schools, but CAIR had adopted the ACLU’s bullying tactic of accusing school officials of violating the First Amendment.

Wednesday’s raids came on the heels of the Oct. 19 indictment of a Colorado Imam, Ahmad Wais Afzali, for allegedly lying to federal agents about an alleged terror plot to bomb targets in New York City. Najibullah Zazi, of Aurora, Col., and his father, Mohammed Wali Zazi, were arrested in September in Denver in connection with the alleged plot.

The Dearborn shoot-out is especially jarring because 30 percent of the city’s population of 98,000 is Muslim and where many billboards, street signs and storefront signs are in Arabic. At a local high school where 80 percent of the students are Muslim, the principal allegedly punched a boy who had converted to Christianity and “disgraced his family.”

Coral Ridge Ministries recently sent cameras into Dearborn, capturing footage that’s part of the video Radical Islam on the March. Faisal Malick, an ex-Muslim featured in the documentary, says that militancy is increasing among Muslims who “believe the whole world should submit to Islam. When they come into the United States of America, they want to see Sharia law implemented, they want to dominate every place of influence—in education and technology and law, in government, in finances.”

Referring to Christians and Jews, Abdullah said in a taped conversation, “we have to cut the ties to them … you cannot please them until you follow their religion. Obama is a Kafir [dog]. McCain, all the rest of them … you cannot make a good Kafir, bad Kafir…The promise of Allah and Islam said, ‘… the worst Muslim is better than the best Kafir.’”

Since “Kafirs” are still in power, that means that Abdullah’s followers need not worry about legalities. Or, as H. Rap Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin Brown once said, “We did not make the laws in this country. We are neither morally nor legally confined to those laws.”

Yes, you are. It’s why you’re behind bars right now.

JUDICIAL TERRORISM AGAINST OUR CONSTITUTION

JUDGE RULES THAT MASSIVE ELECTION FRAUD GIVES NO ONE STANDING!
by John Charlton

(Oct. 29, 2009) — In a ruling that has stunned none but those who love this Nation, Judge David O. Carter has granted the Motion to Dismiss presented by the Department of Justice, in the case Captain Pamela Barnett et al. vs. Obama et al..

The case involved the massive election fraud which occurred in 2008 General Election, when Barack Hussein Obama, though not an eligible candidate, was admitted to the ballot in California, and thus harmed and disadvantaged candidates running on third-party tickets, such as Wiley S. Drake, Alan Keyes, Gail Lightfoot, and Markham Robinson.

The ridiculous ruling was characterized by Dr. Orly Taitz, lead counsel for the Plaintiffs as something “written by the Defense,” according to the World Net Daily report.


The Post & Email will highlight the most vicious and erroneous statements in the ruling.

CARTER SHOWS HIMSELF TO BE A VICIOUS BAITER OF PATRIOTS
What Judge Carter did was not only deny justice, he viciously insulted and baited patriotic Military personnel everywhere, by his outrageous statement regarding the military plaintiff, Jason Freese in the case:

This Court will not interfere in internal military affairs nor be used as a tool by military officers to avoid deployment. The Court has a word for such a refusal to follow the orders of the President of the United States, but it will leave the issue to the military to resolve.

Just prior to this outrageous insult, the Carter shows himself to be a true supporter of dictatorship over law, when he claims that U.S. Military must serve even if their chief commander has no lawful authority to command them:

Furthermore, Lieutenant Freese’s claims are based upon the notion that his duty to serve is based upon who is in office. The duty to defend is not dependent upon a political or personal view regarding the individual who serves as President and Commander-in-Chief. It is an unequivocal duty to defend our country.

He then ridiculously claims that those who participate in the reception of funds taken unlawfully from the national treasury are not capable of being found guilty of crime, so long as they claim a reasonable doubt as to the legitimacy of the theft. For a Judge famed for his opposition to Mexican Mafia, he seems to have entire support for the Chicago Mob. Isn’t that a racist attitude, from the liberal point of view?

Carter’s laughable ruling also claims that you have a duty to pay taxes to the IRS, but you have no rights to ask whether the President who signs the spending bills for those taxes is legitimate: or in other words, you are a feudal serf, and must pay no matter how illegitimate or corrupt the Federal Government becomes, because, in the Judge’s words, the Supreme Court says so!

Then, while Carter begrudgingly admits that third-party candidate suffered injury by being opposed by a potential ineligible candidate, he finds that his court cannot remedy the crime, and therefore he will not take action on the complaint! His argument ignores completely the question of eligibility of office, and presumes the fact that Obama is eligible, contrary to the fact of the case! He even implies that Congress can change the definition of what a Natural Born Citizen is, by its choice of a presidential candidate in Joint Session!

On quo warrento, Carter makes the bold face lie of claiming the D.C. code gives exclusive jurisdiction over quo warrento proceedings regarding the President to the D.C. courts!

Carter closes by personally attacking Dr. Orly Taitz
Finally, if there is anyone who thought that Judge Carter was impartial, his closing remarks, in which he devotes a very long paragraph insulting Dr. Orly Taitz should be read in full:

The hearings have been interesting to say the least. Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning.

Imagine that! Taitz’s supporters are “followers” and “prejudiced”! My my, what bigots we patriots are!

Judge Carter continues his diatribe thus:

While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her cocounsel (sic) Gary Kreep (“Kreep”), counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious issues before the Court

Any objective listener will remember, however, that it was Attorney Kreep who often criticized Taitz’s arguments in court, and not the other way around.

The Court has attempted to give Plaintiffs a voice and a chance to be heard by respecting their choice of counsel and by making every effort to discern the legal arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel amongst the rhetoric. This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service.

While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service.

Imagine that! When Obama and his lawyers pretended not to receive service, it is Taitz who is at fault!

Carter descends further into the house of the mad, when he writes:

Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules. See Order Denying Pls.’ Mot. For Modification of Mag. J. Nakazato’s Aug. 6, 2009, Order; Denying Pls.’ Mot. to Recuse Mag. J. Nakazato; and Granting Ex Parte App. for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal (Sep. 8, 2009).

Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel. See id.

Then Judge Carter gives a tantrum, because citizens wrote him letters encouraging him to be a patriot — clearly an offense that this usurper supporter will not pardon!

Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court’s decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court’s decision.

Then Judge Carter defames Attorney Taitz:

Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.

While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence this Court.

If Carter — he obviously does not deserve the title of “Judge” — showed his ethics by hiring Siddhart Velarmoor as law clerk, it is clear tha he has shown himself a traitor to the Nation, by his ruling in Barnett vs. Obama.

Finally, Carter closes with the most exquisite piece of pharisaical self-defense in the history of the American judiciary:

Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.

HENHOUSE FOXES?

When will the American people wake up to what is happening?

Now I feel safe!

Well, boys and girls, today we are letting the Oba-Hussein fox guard the henhouse.

Tomorrow, the Oba-Hussein wolves can herd the sheep! Some already are as Czars.

Obama Appoints TWO devout Muslims to Homeland Security Posts. Doesn ' t this make you feel safer already?

Arif Alikhan

Obama and Janet Napolitano appoint devout Muslims to Homeland Security post.
Arif Alikhan as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development Source for announcement:
Homeland Security Press Room:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/06/obama-appointment-arif-ali-khan-asst-secretary-dhs.html

Kareem Shora, who was born in Damascus , Syria .

Kareem Shora Appointed by DHS Secretary Napolitano on Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC). Washington , DC

June 5, 2009
http://www.adc.org/

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) is proud to announce that earlier today at a ceremony held in Albuquerque , New Mexico , DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore-in ADC National Executive Director Kareem Shora as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).


MORE CHANGE!  GOD HELP US ALL!


HOW CAN THE USA ENDURE THE OBAMA ONSLAUGHT FOR THREE AND ONE-HALF MORE YEARS?

ACORN FUNDING BAN ENDS IN A WEEK AND THEY CAN ALSO SET FEDERAL POLICY

You have got to be kidding me:


During consideration of H.R. 3126, legislation to establish a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee voted to pass an amendment offered by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) that will make ACORN eligible to play a role in setting regulations for financial institutions.

The Waters amendment adds to the CFPA Oversight Board 5 representatives from the fields of “consumer protection, fair lending and civil rights, representatives of depository institutions that primarily serve underserved communities, or representatives of communities that have been significantly impacted by higher-priced mortgages” to join Federal banking regulators in advising the Director on the consistency of proposed regulations, and strategies and policies that the Director should undertake to enforce its rules.

By making representatives of ACORN and other consumer activist organizations eligible to serve on the Oversight Board, the amendment creates a potentially enormous government sanctioned conflict of interest. ACORN-type organizations will have an advisory role on regulating the very financial institutions from which they receive millions of dollars annually in direct corporate contributions and benefit from other financial partnerships and arrangements. These are the same organizations that pressured banks to make subprime mortgage loans and thus bear a major responsibility for the collapse of the housing market.

Oh, Maxine and Barney will argue that they didn't specifically SAY members of ACORN could serve on the board but the fact remains that with this amendment it doesn't exclude them either. It allows ACORN to jump aboard and give them power they should never have.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/10/24/democrats-allow-acorn-to-have-authority-over-financial-institutions/

OBAMA CANNOT BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REGARDLESS OF WHERE BORN

What is a Natural Born Citizen?


In order to be a Natural Born Citizen, one must have parents - two parents, that are citizens of the Nation, and must be born on the soil of the Nation. It does not get any simpler than this.


By Dianna Cotter

For well over a year now, we have been hearing this question in regards to Barack Obama. It’s a good question, and one that is relevant only when discussing the President, Vice President, and anyone else who may assume the Presidency in the line of succession. This the only time that such a distinction matters.

It will help in this very important discussion to understand the differing types of Citizenship that the United States recognizes and what defines them.


A Naturalized Citizen is one who has applied for and has qualified for American Citizenship. Someone applying for and being granted US Citizenship must meet the following qualifications according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website.

To be eligible for Naturalization one must:


• Be at least 18 years old at the time of filing the Application for Naturalization, Form N-400
• Have been lawfully admitted to the United States
• Have resided as a permanent resident in the United States for at least 5 years or 3 years if you meet all eligibility requirements to file as a spouse of a U.S. citizen
• Have demonstrated continuous permanent residence
• Have demonstrated physical presence
• Have lived for 3 months in the USCIS district or state where the Application for Naturalization, Form N-400 is filed
• Demonstrate good moral character
• Show an attachment to the U.S. Constitution
• Be able to read, write, speak, and understand basic English
• Demonstrate a knowledge of U.S. civics (history and government)
• Take the oath of allegiance to the United States


The next type of citizen is that of a standard citizen. The USICS website describes a citizen thusly:


“A citizen of the United States is a native-born, foreign-born, or naturalized person who owes allegiance to the United States and who is entitled to its protection. In addition to the naturalization process, the United States recognizes the U.S. citizenship of individuals according to two fundamental principles: jus soli, or right of birthplace, and jus sanguinis, or right of blood (deriving citizenship through parent’s citizenship).
Whether someone born outside the U.S. to a U.S. citizen parent is a U.S. citizen depends on the law in effect when the person was born. These laws have changed over the years, but usually require a combination of at least one parent being a U.S. citizen when the child was born and having lived in the U.S. or its possessions for a period of time”


This passage from the USICS is important for two reasons. First, it makes the distinction clear that the United States uses two different means by which it derives citizenship; one by blood, and the other by place of birth.

Second, it makes clear that citizenship is completely dependent on that laws that were in effect at the time a person was born.

Today’s laws do not in any way effect or change the citizenship standing of a person who was born in 1961.

This statement tells us that it is a person’s standing at the time of his or her birth that is the determining instant which dictates that person’s citizenship status. It is only at birth or upon naturalization that a person can become an American Citizen. Barack Obama’s citizenship status was determined at his birth just as with all American citizens who were born inside the territory of the United States.


This brings us to the third type of citizenship, the one most hotly debated, and the one least understood. Because of the infrequency of its relevance, few people will ever be in the position to become President, it simply doesn’t come up very often.


What is a Natural Born Citizen?

FALSE MESSIAH - SON OF SATAN

OBAMA WORKS ON BAINWASHING OUR CHILDREN - AS PER COMMUNIST LENIN PHILOSOPHY

“Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted....

Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever.”



Vladimir Lenin



The Obama adoration choir in the major media have been assigning the "racist" and "extremist" labels to critics of the new president since before he was elected. No matter how controversial, unconstitutional, expensive, or expansive any Obama program proposal may be, you can be sure his supporters (both in and out of the media) will divine a bigoted, malicious motive lurking beneath the surface of even the most reasoned voice of opposition.

Consider the liberal-left choir's response to concerns that President Barack Obama would use his speech to the country's schoolchildren to indoctrinate children in support of his big-government, socialistic agenda. For example, on September 8, the day of the speech, HuffingtonPost.com blogger Mario Almonte wrote in a column entitled, "Republican Critics of Obama's School Speech Stoke the Fires of Bigotry in America":

... within this immense pool of 60 million who voted Republican thrives a disturbing core of religious fundamentalists, ultra conservatives, and all-purpose extremists whose true motivation — when you strip away their often irrational and contradictory rhetoric — is a hatred of everyone and everything that is different from them. They are the true Ugly Americans, who hate the Jews, the Blacks, the Latinos, the homosexuals — and anybody who believes in anything they do not.... These are the same people who Republicans now support when they publicly validate the dubious argument that Obama's true motive, in addressing school children, was to brainwash them into following his "socialist" agenda.

The following day, CNN anchor Campbell Brown intoned: "Can we have a rational conversation on health care, education and the economy?... It's time to get real and get at the facts. I want to take a minute to talk about some of the insanity we have witnessed over the past few days; the ridiculous charge that the president of the United States addressing American children is a dangerous thing.... Can we all take a deep breath and admit this whole episode was just nutty?"

It doesn't seem to matter that the Obama program thus far has already nationalized the auto industry as well as the banking and financial industry, or that he has appointed upwards of 40 "czars" (by recent count) who are exercising authority over vast swaths of our economy and society — without Senate confirmation, which is to say without any constitutional authority. Nor does it seem to matter that President Obama is pushing relentlessly for nationalized healthcare, a vast National Service program, and a national CO2 "cap and trade" program that will fasten draconian federal regulatory controls on virtually every human activity. Characterizing these socialistic programs as, well, socialistic, is verboten, according to the liberal-left Big Media thought cartel.

But, let's take CNN's Campbell Brown's advice (even though she didn't, herself) to "get real and get at the facts." The facts are that in advance of the address, Arne Duncan, Secretary of the federal Department of Education sent letters to educators throughout the nation suggesting lesson plans to coincide with Obama's message. Teachers in pre-kindergarten through 6th grade, for example, were encouraged to have their pupils "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals." Is it the job of the schools to instruct our children to "help the president" — even if that means helping him institute programs, policies, and legislation of which their parents strongly disapprove or even find morally reprehensible?

The federal Education Dept. guidelines also suggested that teachers tell students to "build background knowledge about the president of the United States by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama." As if our children have not already been saturated with Obamamania. The media adulation saturation for Barack Obama has far exceeded that for any previous President, including media darlings FDR and JFK. The public backlash to the plan caused the Obama Educrats to realize they'd gone too far too fast; they replaced the manipulative "classroom activities" on the Department website with more innocuous fare. Even Salon's very pro-Obama Joan Walsh admitted on MSNBC with Chris Matthews on September 4 that the administration was indeed "overreaching" with this scheme and that "there sometimes is a tin ear in the people around Obama. They do play into this cult of personality." (That did not prevent Walsh, seconds later, from joining Matthews in denouncing parents opposed to Obama's overreaching cult.)

It is this very real and disturbing cult of personality, combined with Obama's militant "change" agenda that understandably has many parents concerned - and rightfully so. The term "cult of personality" is something we associate with totalitarian dictators: Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Tito, Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe, Ayatollah Khomeini, Pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung. Americans, we smugly tell ourselves, would never succumb to such demeaning sycophancy and servitude; we're much too sophisticated and independent for that. However, many parents have viewed some of the videos on the Internet of fresh-faced children and youth singing and chanting their praises to Obama in scenes that look eerily, creepily similar to video clips of children in communist North Korea singing to the "Dear Leader," or to the scene from the movie "Cabaret" where the misguided, idealistic Hitler Youth sing the stirring "Tomorrow Belongs to Me."

The "Sing for Change" campaign video features a roomful of winsome children in UN-powder blue T-shirts emblazoned with "HOPE" earnestly hymning to the new savior: "We're gonna spread happiness, we're gonna spread freedom. Obama's gonna change it, Obama's gonna lead 'em. We're gonna change it, and rearrange it; we're gonna change the world."



Equally, if not more disturbing, is the "Obama Youth — Junior Fraternity Regiment" video of the black male teens, dressed in military camouflage fatigues, who march into a Kansas City, Missouri, classroom and chant their support for Obama and his healthcare plan. (HITLER JUGEND = youth BRAINWASH)



Here's another example from a school in Burlington, New Jersey:

(scrubbed/yanked from youtube)

This is indoctrination, not education. Ditto for the Fayetteville, North Carolina, teacher Diatha Harris, who asks her young students whether they're "pulling for" Obama or McCain and then browbeats to tears a young girl (whose father is a soldier in Iraq) for saying she supports McCain. This cruel child abuse and unethical exploitation of classroom authority was caught on video by a Swedish documentary crew (and then went viral over the Internet).



Parents know that these are not isolated incidents. They know the national teacher unions (the 3.2 million-member NEA and the 856,000-member AFT) comprise many of Team Obama's staunchest "change" cadres and provided the Obama campaign with some of its largest campaign contributions. Many of these teachers-cum-propagandists need no prodding from FedEd Secretary Duncan to turn every "teachable moment" into a programmatic push for every Big Government proposal imaginable, from Obamacare to Law of the Sea Treaty to Cap and Trade to National Service.

Many critics of Obama's education program are also aware that the President's speech to the schools was not happening in a vacuum, but was (and is) part of a concerted effort by the Obama administration, along with its Hollywood allies and billionaire politco-philanthropists to further nationalize and centralize American education. On the same day that his speech was broadcast to the nation's schools, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Viacom, the mega-media giant, launched their five-year "Get Schooled" National Education Initiative at the Paramount Pictures studio lot.

Serving as a launch pad for the venture is a "Get Schooled" video featuring President Obama with American Idol pop diva Kelley Clarkson and NBA superstar Lebron James that aired on the same day as the president's school speech over Viacom's massive network, which includes MTV, BET, CMT, COMEDY CENTRAL, Nickelodeon, Nick @ Nite, Spike TV, and VH1 (to name but a few channels). These Viacom "entertainment" vehicles have been some of the top villains in the ongoing corporate media culture war aimed at dumbing down, bumming down, and scumming down our society. Viacom has also distinguished itself by unfailingly pushing a leftward political agenda, from enlisting youth in Al Gore's battle to save the universe from the global warming non-crisis, to a global "Safe Sex" campaign that prescribes condom use ("Rubber Rocks!" is the MTV slogan) while engaging in the promiscuous sex promoted by the Viacom's lewd, crude, raunchy programming.

Of course, there is also the incredible pro-Obama "I Pledge" video produced by Oprah Winfrey's Harpo Productions, in which sundry self-important Hollywood narcissists pledge their fealty to Barack Obama. A slew of shallow celebrities, including Demi Moore, Ashton Kutcher, Eva Mendez, Cameron Diaz, and P Diddy, tell viewers: "I pledge to reduce my use of plastic ... to sell my obnoxious car and buy a hybrid ... to be more green ... to turn the lights off ... to flush only after a deuce, never a single ... to go to USAService.org ... to be of service to Barack Obama ... to be the change ... to be a servant to our president."



This "serve Obama" propaganda video also has been shown to captive school audiences.

In our 24/7 pop culture of celebrity idolatry, Barack Obama is constantly presented to young people as the epitome of cool, hip, smart, and sexy — and he is all but worshipped by Hollywood demigods whom our youth are taught to idolize. This engenders a mindset that is conducive to tyrants and fatal to freedom, limited government and our constitutional safeguards. The charges of Fidel Castro and his like-minded comrades in the Big Media punditocracy notwithstanding, parents are not "racist" or "insane" for suspecting that President Obama and/or his fanatical followers would exploit his speech to the schools to further his Big Government political agenda.