Wednesday, May 20, 2009


– A national fund-raising campaign to erect billboards around the country questioning Barack Obama's eligibility for office was an instant hit with WND readers in its first 24 hours, said Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of the company and the man who came up with the idea.

"One thing I can say for certain after Day 1 of this campaign – billboards will soon be going up around the country," said Farah.
More than $10,000 has been raised thus far from many hundreds of donors – more than enough to begin putting up the first billboards. The average donation was $25. WND will keep viewers up to date when billboards are erected.

Farah said the campaign was born of frustration with timid elected officials in Washington, corrupt judges around the country and a news media that show a stunning lack of curiosity about the most basic facts of Obama's background – especially how it relates to constitutional eligibility for the highest office in the land.

"As Obama transforms this country from self-governing constitutional republic to one governed by a central ruling elite, the simple fact remains that no controlling legal authority has established that he is indeed a 'natural born citizen' as the Constitution requires," Farah said. "Obama's promises of transparency have become a bad joke as he continues to hide simple, innocuous documents like his birth certificate and his student records."

The idea behind the billboard campaign is to make sure Obama cannot avoid this question any longer. He must be asked to produce it at every turn, Farah says.

Billboard space is currently being negotiated in Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Sacramento, San Francisco, New York-New Jersey, Des Moines, Seattle and other metro areas.

"Is it unusual for a news agency to launch such a campaign?" asks Farah. "Yes it is. But we live in very unusual times. The founding fathers built special protections into the First Amendment for the free press. The reason they did that is because they understood a vibrant 'Fourth Estate' was necessary as an independent watchdog on government. It is in that tradition that WND assumes this role – since nobody else in the press will do it."

"I wish such a campaign were not absolutely necessary," said Farah. "I wish there were checks and balances in our political and electoral systems to ensure that constitutional eligibility of presidential candidates was established before politicians could assume the highest office in the land.

I wish my colleagues in the news media believed the Constitution really means what it says and pressed this issue as hard as we have pressed it at WND. I wish radio talk-show hosts were bold enough to ask this question. But wishing is not enough. It's time to raise the visibility of this issue vital to the rule of law in America. I ask everyone to pitch in and help WND make a simple yet profound statement:

That campaign continues. That list has been shared with members of the Electoral College and the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Your donation – from as little as $5 to as much as $1,000 – can be made online at the WND SuperStore to kickstart this campaign.

Those wishing to donate by check can send them to:WNDP.O. Box 1627Medford, OR 97501

(Donations are not tax-deductible. Donations of amounts greater than $1,000 can be arranged by calling either 541-474-1776 or 1-800-4WND.COM. In addition, donations of billboard space will be accepted, as will significant contributions specifically targeted for geographic locations.)

If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND.

Sunday, May 10, 2009


Alan note: unable to deal effectively with the foreign terrorists, Oba-Hussein-Khomeini has decided to kill two birds with one stone:

a) He has removed the Terrorists appellation from all three of the terrorist groups described below and transferred it to a fictitious Fourth group that oppose him NOT America.

b) This helps conceal his reluctance to deal with islamic jihadists anywhere in the world and covertly provide support for them in the USA

c) In order to appear to be active against terrorism he has instructed his less than informed and not so bright Director of Homeland Security to label our military veterans, right of center political proponents, deep patriots of the American way of life and culture, and anyone else who might oppose his dictatorship (so similar to the islamic iran Mullahs he publicly espouses) as the REAL Terrorists and has put them on the FBI and Homeland Security "watch list".

d) This way he can CREATE, PASS and effectively APPLY new laws that seemingly address terrorism but in reality take out his American, NON-MOSLEM, "falsely deemed terrorist" opponents INSIDE the USA.

Al-Qaeda may be the least of our worries.
May 6, 2009 – by Ryan Mauro

Perhaps the greatest mistake the West makes is equating the war on terror with the war on al-Qaeda, as if someone trying to help Sharia law replace democratic freedom must follow the standard set by bin Laden in order to be defined as an “extremist.”

When extremists condemn bin Laden and 9/11, there will always be some voice in the West eager to embrace them as the moderate counter to Islamic extremism, whether that be the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Courts Union of Somalia, or governments like Saudi Arabia and Iran.A recent analysis by the Middle East Media Research Institute of the harsh criticism of Ayman al-Zawahiri by Dr. al-Fadl, his former spiritual mentor, shows that there are three types of jihadists, differing on strategy and details, but sharing the same end goal.

The failure of the West to see these distinctions will lead to erred policy and strategy, forcing our grandchildren to fight a war that should be won on our watch.

I call the first group the “total jihadists.”

These are the terrorists that pose the most imminent threat, which it seems our strategy focuses solely on. Their mindset is to attack now and attack everywhere, striking Muslims, Arab regimes, or civilians in Europe and the U.S. without any clear methodology to achieve their objectives besides instilling fear.

Their actions are aimed at striking fear into the U.S., causing a withdrawal of support for overseas allies, allowing Arab regimes to fall and the beginnings of a puritan Islam that will eventually overtake the entire world.

Al-Qaeda is the shining example of this type of jihadist. Without a clear, comprehensive, long-range strategy to achieve this, they are reckless by nature, inadvertently shooting themselves in the foot by causing Muslim populations to turn against their brutality. They manage to grab the headlines with their beheadings and spark up a sweat with their suicide bombings, but al-Qaeda and the rest of the “total jihadists” are the smallest piece of the terrorist pie, and over the long term probably the least threatening.

The second group is the “near enemy jihadists.”

This group acts like a parasite, infiltrating and attaching themselves to regional conflicts, enlisting them in the global radical Islamic offensive. Posing as forces fighting occupation or oppression, this enables them to parade as nationalists in an attempt to gain some level of legitimacy, not only on the battleground but in the West as well.

Michael Moore’s praise of the Iraqi insurgents as “freedom fighters” liberating Arab land from foreign occupiers serves as a textbook example of this manipulation.

Their goal is to first remove Western military might from Muslim lands and then begin the process of cleansing these lands of Western influence.

Their strategy is a long-term one, seeking to first establish a foothold in the Islamic world that can be expanded until a superpower can be created. Hamas, the Taliban, Hezbollah, and the other groups that mostly focus on their own theaters (while building infrastructure in other places) are examples of these types of jihadists.

This does not mean they don’t have larger, more long-term objectives, but rather they are the grand prize to be pursued at the end.This group disagrees with the first in that they believe jihad should be focused on fighting the enemies overseas, closer to their homes, rather than fighting a worldwide conflict in every spot all at once.

Their goal is to defeat Western military forces in Muslim lands and their more local enemies like Israel and India. “Near enemy jihadists” share the same goals, but are probably the least monolithic of all the types of jihadists.

While they are united in opposition to the non-Muslim “oppressors” in their lands and to the regimes that are friendly with the U.S., there is a disagreement among members over tactics, targets, and strategy. Some believe that attacks on Muslim civilians and governments that don’t meet their puritan standards are justified and others favor only attacking military targets, especially those of non-Muslim infidels.

Some also profess to condemn the attacks of September 11, 2001, and may genuinely believe that mass murdering civilians anywhere is unacceptable, unless it’s in Israel, where they view such civilians as occupiers.

The third group is what I call the “practical jihadists,” which the previously mentioned Dr. al-Fadl belongs to.

They recognize that attacking the West now is impractical and therefore support ending violent jihad in any circumstance where they are too weak to take on their enemy. This type of jihadist favors cultural jihad, infiltrating and hijacking institutions, and bringing about Sharia law and Islamization from the bottom up and inside out.

In some cases, such as Israel, some members of this group may say violence is permissible, but it is always done with a cost-benefit ratio in mind.

The Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S., probably the most successful and crafty Islamist organization, is an example of the perfection of this strategy, although Jamaat ul-Fuqra deserves a mention as well as they are surely not acting to the fullest of their capabilities.

These jihadists intelligently embed themselves in their targeted countries, building a vast infrastructure for financing and waging political warfare.

In the case of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Western networks are sometimes used to support overseas “near enemy jihadists” like Hamas, highlighting the overlap among the three types of jihadists outlined here.

It is here that these masters of political and media manipulation prosper, carefully presenting themselves as moderates and as the widely supported legitimate voices of the Muslim community.

Simply condemning the attacks of 9/11, however, does not make one a moderate. If they condemn 9/11 but don’t condemn Hamas or Hezbollah, or they condemn “terrorism” but don’t condemn suicide bombings of Israeli civilians, or if they declare they love freedom and democracy but advocate Sharia law, then we cannot embrace them as moderates.

The tendency of the West to look for any sign of rationality, open-mindedness, or humanity in radicals results in a remarkably low standard for which one can be designated a “moderate.”

The effect of such psychology, which often emanates from an outlook influenced by moral relativism, will be to embrace extremists at the expense of true moderates, resulting in a longer, and far more costly, war against radical Islam. The price to pay to become labeled a moderate by the West — namely, to be marginally less reckless and extreme in tactics than al-Qaeda — is quite the bargain, as such a strategy is more beneficial to their jihad in the long run anyway.Identifying the three groups of jihadists is a task that should have been done long ago.

Without so doing, the West mistakes extremists who may seem reasonable compared to “total jihadists” as the voices we need to work with, strengthening the hand of the smarter and ultimately more threatening jihadists. One day al-Qaeda will wither and die and the other jihadi groups will rise up.

The West will cheer, having downgraded al-Qaeda and the “total jihadists” to a nuisance, rather than a strategic threat capable of spectacular attacks, only to later find that another branch of the jihadi octopus remains virtually intact, embedded in societies throughout the world. While the U.S. takes joy in the defeat of the most obvious group of jihadists, the hidden ones will lie in the shadows waiting to pounce.

Source: Pajamas Media

Thursday, May 7, 2009



Freedom and Liberty run in our blood!
The President Who Hates His Country

Joan Swirsky Bio

In the last century, the impassioned words and actions of patriots like Winston Churchill – along with America’s heroic help and sacrifice – saved Europe. The eloquence and actions of “I’ve been to the mountaintop” Martin Luther King Jr. brought America to an unprecedented level of social justice.

The peerless oratory and tireless diplomacy of the man who would become Israel’s Foreign Minister, Abba Eban convinced the entire world that after the wanton murder of six-million Jews in the Holocaust its straggling survivors deserved their own state of Israel.

The inspiring words and decisive actions of President Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, tore down the Berlin Wall, and restored economic prosperity to America. The efforts of these towering figures resulted in a more highly-evolved world.

We have also seen the opposite in totalitarian leaders like Hitler, Mussolini, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, Mao, and Saddam Hussein, among others, who exploited their masses, destroyed their economies, brought havoc, turbulence, grief and massive death within and outside of their countries, and made the world a more dangerous and threatening place.

The one thing all of these virtuous and evil men had in common was love for their respective countries, in fact a burning passion that superseded all else. The virtuous believed in freedom and democracy. The evil believed in subjugation of their peoples and lifetime tenures for themselves in order to actualize their goals of conquering their eternal enemies – Americans and Jews.

Today, we have a new crop of inveterate America- and Jew-haters, among them the Marxist leader of Venezuela Hugo Chavez, Nicaragua’s president Daniel Ortega, Iran’s “death-to-America-and-Israel” study-in-abnormal-psychology Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the ever-sabotage-America and anti-Semitic “leaders” of the 22-Arab states that surround Israel.

I have either read about or observed firsthand all of these people. Yet in my decades of commenting on the political scene, I cannot recall a single leader of any country or regime who has ever spoken negatively of his country or tolerated others speaking ill of the land or the people he represented.

Until now!

Bizarre and, yes, repugnant as it is to our essentially centrist country, America now has a president who has broken that time-honored tradition. Barack Obama, on the campaign trail and as the leader of the free world is the first U.S. president to proclaim to anyone within earshot that he, like his wife, is not proud of his country, and is all-too-willing to offer serial apologies – for America! – to Americans and foreigners alike.

As Ed Lasky writes: “We know that during the campaign [Obama] warned that criticism of his wife was `off-limits’. But criticism of America – well, that is fine.”

We also know that during his run for the presidency, Obama expressed sneering condescension towards all those bible-clasping, gun-owning yahoos who “cling” to those silly things, and that in Europe he consistently gave voice to America’s supposed “sins.” But all that pales in comparison to the clear contempt – looks more like hatred to me – that Obama feels for the United States of America and for its most revered founding document, the U.S. Constitution.

In just the first 100-days of his tenure, Obama’s words and actions have demonstrated that he is no friend of the country he leads (AS AN USURPER). This is only a smattering of what happened on his recent three-continent trip abroad and to Mexico:

In France, Obama told his audience that America “has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward Europe.

In Prague, Obama – in true utopian-kindergarten fashion – pledged “with conviction” that America will “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” In other words, destroy big bad America’s ability to defend itself!

In London, Obama made clear that the world’s financial wealth was no longer made by those inferior leaders Roosevelt and Churchill, effectively ceding America’s leading role in creating and sharing wealth to nations that have never measured up to our country’s bountiful generosity or spirit of free-market entrepreneurship.

In Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, Obama sat passively while the Marxist Chavez handed him an American-bashing book and delivered another revile-America speech, while never once rising to defend our country.

In Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, Obama again sat passively while the Marxist Ortega blamed the United States for a century of what he called terroristic U.S. aggression in Central America, again emitting not a whisper of defense on our country’s behalf.

In Turkey, Obama said – incredibly and inaccurately – that America was not a Christian nation. (Note: Turkey is officially a secular country but has increasingly militant islamic under currents)

And in his recent trip to Mexico, Obama said that the escalating border violence was essentially America’s fault.

Scan you memory. Can you think of any other leader in world history who so consistently badmouths his own country, or fails to defend it? I can’t.

Wall St. Journal writer Dorothy Rabinowitz notes that Obama “had gone to Europe not as the voice of his nation, but as a missionary with a message of atonement for its errors.

No sitting American president had ever delivered indictments of this kind while abroad, or for that matter at home. When [our allies] see Obama’s moral equivalence, they realize they are on their own and must cut their own deals to survive – understanding that multicultural trendiness is now a cynical cover for moral laxity and ‘can’t we all get along?’

Historian Victor Davis Hanson also
noticed something odd about Obama’s apology tour. “Despite this fresh climate of atonement, there was a complete absence of a single apology from any other foreign leader…

not a word came from Britain about colonialism…

nothing from Germany on the Holocaust…

not a peep from France about Algeria or Vietnam.

Turkey was mum on the Armenian killings…

Russia said nothing about the 30 million murdered by Stalin…

Nothing came from China about the 70 million who perished under Mao…

Mr. Medvedev said nothing about Putin’s brutish rule…

We saw no concrete evidence of any help — or hope and change — from any foreign leader. Zilch.”

In addition, Hanson continues, “We hear nothing about our Gettysburg, or our entry into World War I. Iwo Jima and the Bulge are never alluded to.

Drawing the line in Korea and forcing the end of the Soviet monstrosity are taboo subjects. That we pledged the life of New York for Berlin in the Cold War is unknown.

Liberating Afghanistan and Iraq from the diabolical Taliban and Saddam Hussein is left unsaid.

The Civil Rights movement, the Great Society, affirmative action, and present billion-dollar foreign-aid programs apparently never existed.

Millions of Africans have been saved by George Bush’s efforts at extending life-saving medicines to AIDS patients — but again, this is never referenced.”

Blogger James Lewis says that Obama’s “obsessive need to put down his own country shows a stunningly ignorant man who has evidently never spoken to a concentration camp survivor, a Cuban refugee, a boat person from Vietnam, a Soviet dissident, or a survivor of Mao’s purges.”

Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell adds, “Obama `gets’ the America-haters.”

Abandoning allies, Embracing enemies

“If you are a longtime enemy of the United States, count on a grand reception from the Obama administration. All is forgiven and, worse, forgotten,” write Dick Morris and Eileen McGann. “But if you have a track record as an ally or friend, you won’t get the right time of day.”

Of course apologists for Obama & Co. point to “progress” in our foreign policy, ignoring, as Caroline Glick points out, that “America’s betrayal of its democratic allies makes each of them more vulnerable to aggression at the hands of their enemies – enemies the Obama administration is now actively attempting to appease.” Glick lays out the cold hard facts:

Obama abrogated America’s strategic commitment to the defense of our ally Japan when his administration reacted to North Korea’s ballistic missile test by saying the U.S. would only shoot the missile down if it targeted U.S. territory.

Obama slapped our ally India when he refused to make ending Pakistan’s support for jihadist terror groups attacking India a central component of its strategy for contending with Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Obama failed to assure our ally Iraq that democracy and freedom will be secured before U.S. forces are withdrawn next year.

Obama de facto abandoned our allies in Eastern Europe when he announced his intention to forge a new alliance with Russia. “The Czech, Polish, Georgian and Ukrainian governments,” Glick says, “were quick to recognize that Obama’s strong desire to curry favor with the Kremlin and weaken his own country will imperil their ability to withstand Russian aggression.”

Obama “is sacrificing the U.S.’s alliance with our ally Israel “in a bid to appease the Arabs and Iran by supporting the immediate establishment of a Palestinian state,” which, Glick warns, “requires Israel to commit national suicide in exchange for `peace.’

” Obama also made clear “that from his administration’s perspective, an Israeli strike that prevents Iran from becoming a nuclear power is less acceptable than a nuclear-armed Iran.”

In addition, Obama sent Hamas $900 million of foreign aid, “channeled through the UNRWA, a United Nations front filled with Hamas operatives

Obama slapped our ally England when he returned the bust of Winston Churchill to Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Obama slapped our ally Colombia and its president Alvaro Uribe when he refused to submit the free trade deal with Bogota to the Senate.

“What a great time to be our enemy!” Glick exclaims. “What a terrible time to be our friend!”

And speaking about appeasing Iran, the Obama administration recently asked a federal judge to throw out a $6.6-billion class-action lawsuit against Iran filed by 52 American diplomats and military officials held hostage for more than a year at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran 30 years ago.

Nothing like selling out Americans to make brownie points with a bloodthirsty dictatorship like islamic iran!

Barry Rubin
explains: “Friends, especially in Europe, are pleased, applaud, but then add that they don’t have to give this guy anything because he is all apologies and no toughness.

They like the fact that he is all carrots and no sticks. If, however, they are states more at risk…they worry that they cannot rely on the United States to help and defend them.

Enemies or potential rivals…say that this guy is weak and defeated. He apologizes, offers unconditional engagements, and promises concessions…they’ll eat the carrots and, if possible, their neighbors as well.”

NY Post writer Ralph Peters, a former military intelligence officer, sums up the hate-America core tenets of the “Obama Doctrine” as follows:

(1) We’re to blame,
(2) Problems can be negotiated away,
(3) Problems that can’t be talked out can be bought off,
(4) Islamist terrorism doesn’t exist,
(5) It’s all our fault,
(6) Israel’s the obstacle to Middle East peace,
(7) Our nukes threaten world peace and we need to get rid of them,
(8) Our military is dangerous,
(9) Our intelligence services are even more dangerous than our military,
(10) It’s only torture if we do it, and
(11) Blame President George W. Bush.

Obama is clearly not satisfied with threatening the safety of our tried-and-true allies abroad. He is also determined to undermine the bedrock foundation of America’s security – our military and intelligence agencies.

By disclosing interrogation memos – and planning to release photographs associated with military probes into prisoner abuse – he has betrayed every heroic person who risks his or her life for our country, and unforgivably given aid-and-comfort to enemies who seethe with virulent anti-Americanism and lust for our demise (like Oba-Hussein himself?).

And in the Department of Homeland Security’s infamous memo, he has called members of our military, among others, potential domestic terrorists!

“After September 11th, the general outcry was, ‘Why don’t we have better overseas capabilities?’” said Porter Goss, director of the CIA from September 2004 to May 2006. “I fear that in the years to come, this refrain will be heard again.

It is certainly not trust that is fostered when intelligence officers are told one day ‘I have your back,’ only to learn a day later that a knife is being held to it.”

How horrifying to contemplate that it is the President of the United States himself who is wielding that back-stabbing knife!

Questioning Obama’s patriotism

Before the November election, legal scholar Henry Mark Holzer wrote – and scrupulously documented – a stunning indictment of Obama in which he stated that Obama’s repeatedly professed claim to be a patriot is “a fraud on the American people – and an insult to the countless true patriots who, for over two hundred years, have loved and loyally and zealously supported the United States of America.”

Patriots,” Holzer concluded, “don’t associate with and derive sustenance from terrorists, America-haters and anti-Semites;

they don’t countenance fixed elections;

they don’t keep secrets from voters;

they don’t intimidate their enemies;

they don’t denigrate and degrade our military;

they don’t gratuitously interfere with their government’s efforts to protect our country;

and they don’t disdain the symbol of this great nation, which for over two centuries men and women have fought and died: the American flag.

Whatever Barack Obama is, we can be certain that he is no patriot!”

The events that have followed Obama’s election, Holzer says, “have compounded the proof of the president’s lack of patriotism,” which he has recently spelled out in a follow-up article.

A few of the many examples he provides of what “a patriotic American president does not do include:

Bankrupt this country and court massive inflation in order to implement his vision of a fascist/socialist nation.

Sit on his hands with a straight face while a South American thug insults his country.

Appoint America-haters to his cabinet.

Cozy up to a soon-to-be-nuclear-armed Iranian madman.

Impotently watch the probably-already-nuclear-armed North Korean Stalinists lob a ballistic missile across the Pacific.

Fail to stanch the flow of illegal aliens across the Mexican-United States border.

Cut the defense budget.

Strangle innovation during a serious recession by raising taxes.

Close Guantanamo Bay without a clue of how to handle the enemy combatants incarcerated there.

Publicly announce what measures military and CIA interrogators can use to extract information from terrorists.

Apologize to the world for what has made America great and grovel to persons, nations. and institutions unfit to shine our shoes!

Cede American sovereignty to the American-hating United Nations.

Defy the Second Amendment and a Supreme Court decision by making an end run that substantially reduces the supply of certain ammunition.

Repudiate the policy and practice of missile shield installation.”

Some dare call it treason

It is one thing to question a president’s patriotism, but even more serious to accuse him of treason. In an
open letter to Obama on Treason, Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III (U.S. Naval Academy, Class of 1975) minces no words in accusing the president of sending Army forces to Samson, Alabama, and Boston in violation of the Constitution. Here are excerpts of his letter:

“I have observed and extensively recorded invidious attacks by military-political aristocrats against the Constitution for twenty years.

Now you have broken in and entered the White House by force of contrivance, concealment, conceit, and deceit.

Posing as an imposter president and commander in chief, you have stripped civilian command and control over the military establishment…

“We come now to the reckoning. I accuse you and your military-political criminal assistants of TREASON. I name you and your military criminal associates as traitors. Your criminal ascension manifests a clear and present danger. You fundamentally changed our form of government. The Constitution no longer works….

“I identify you as a foreign-born domestic enemy. You are not my president. You are not my commander in chief.

Fitzpatrick is not alone. John Smitha blogger on, titled a recent article “Obama Is a Traitor.” Commenting on the president’s release of the “torture” memos, Smith says:

“Given the actions of Barack Obama in recent days, one has to wonder how many soon-to-be released State secrets have been gathered by radical left-wing traitors and hidden in the dark recesses of Washington, awaiting the Manchurian Candidate’s command to publish them…

(Alan note: including the leak of invaluable videos and photos for terrorist uses shot from the errant Presidential aircraft around the Statue of Liberty, which no other aircraft could do at all and certainly not with the impunity Oba-Hussein used).

“The motivation for Obama’s recent intentional disclosure of Top Secret CIA memoranda…was an act committed solely to increase his own political power through appeasement of the radical left…or was it …guided by the twisted moral imperative uniquely embraced by the Left, which dictates that only those actions that serve to limit individual liberty, punish patriotism, and destroy the traditions and culture of the United States of America are good?…

“Were Obama’s actions motivated by a deeply rooted desire to harm this Nation?…

“Article III of the Constitution defines Treason against the United States as “… levying War against them or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort…”.

“Top Secret information is the highest level of classification that we have on a national level. By definition, such material, if made public, will cause “exceptionally grave damage” to national security…

“The willful disclosure of Top Secret information is an act of Treason against the United States….A sitting President of The United States of America has committed Treason.”

Fitzpatrick and Smith are among a rising tide of voices – in and outside of the military – who have observed with growing horror Obama’s proclivity to destroy our capitalist economic system, subvert the U.S. Constitution, endanger our military and intelligence services, and obsequiously embrace America’s sworn enemies.

Dr. Jack Wheeler, a consummate Washington insider, goes one step further.

The evidence that the President of the United States is a traitor is mounting.

The evidence that the President of the United States is a mortal danger to America’s national security is mounting.

The evidence that the President of the United States will not defend America from threats and insults from every two-bit fascist dictator in the world …is not only mounting, it is overwhelming.”

Writer Amy L. Geiger-Hammer states: “I do wonder if Obama should be called a traitor or just incompetent…does he ever talk about what a great country America is?”

And UK journalist Gerald Warner echoes that rising tide: “If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself.

Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter.

Obama’s problem is that he does not know who the enemy is.

To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. “ = (A threat to his narcissistic personality disorder).

Is America Lost?

Despite his signing his first and immediate Presidential Executive Order officially banning access to any information about him, multiple lawsuits to find proof that Obama is Constitutionally ineligible to be president are ongoing and will ultimately determine if he is an American or Kenyan or Indonesian or UK “natural-born” citizen.

To this date, he has spent over a million dollars blocking the suits about his still-missing birth certificate, and there is increasing evidence that the birth certificate attested to by,, and are forgeries.

And of course (blocked by the Executive Order and privacy laws) we still have not seen:

Obama’s Selective Service record,
medical records,
multiple visas,
college transcripts, et al.

If Obama is proven to be the fraud and interloper many suspect, every one of his edicts, bills, laws, dictates, Supreme Court selections, et al, will be overturned , leaving America to cope with serious problems – under the leadership of the incomprehensible Joe Biden – but nothing approaching this hate-America president’s far-left socialist domestic programs and appease-our-enemies foreign policy.

The huge national turnouts at the Tea Parties of April 15 were only the beginning of a movement that was spurred by ordinary Americans waking up to Obama’s destruction of our economy, his attempts to reshape America into a banana republic, the grave damage he’s inflicted on our military and intelligence services, and his unsavory predilection for embracing our enemies and apologizing non-stop for the most magnificent nation on earth.

In short, they are waking up to the president who hates his country. And is probably a traiterous, treasonous terrorist enabler.

Editor Charlotte Baker predicts that “the Tea Parties and other, more aggressive, protests will grow exponentially, and that the Obama juggernaut can and will be stopped.”

It’s crucial, she says, “for all Americans to recall the history they learned in school – at least before the Left hijacked what used to be known as `education.’

The Europeans, Japanese and Russians were all taken over by one form or another of totalitarianism because their combined history was one of absolute rulers – kings, czars and `divine’ emperors.

(Islamic Iran's Khomeini being the most similar in mind sets and recent of these)

They were totally conditioned to tyranny. “But the monstrous anti-American gang that used ACORN and rigged the voting system on November 4, 2008 – as they do routinely in Obama’s Chicago Machine politics – to push Obama into We-the-People’s White House, have shown – even before his inauguration – the kind of overreaching that arrogant tyrants always demonstrate.

Hitler, Mao, Tojo and Stalin all got away with overreaching, but they weren’t brutalizing Americans. “Tolerating totalitarianism is simply not in the genetic code – the DNA – of Americans!” Baker adds.

“Freedom and Liberty run in our blood!” Indeed!

Canada Free Press - Printer Friendly Page

Friday, May 1, 2009


An Iraqi man reads a local newspaper in Baghdad with a photo purported to show captured Abu Omar al-Baghdadi on Wednesday, April 29, 2009.

Iraq Better, Pakistan Worse, Iran the Most Active Terror Sponsor, Report Says

Friday, May 01, 2009
By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called al-Baghdadi "the head of evil" and accused him of trying to incite a sectarian civil war and working with other insurgents who remained loyal to Saddam Hussein.

- Along with a drop in terror attacks worldwide – significantly so in the case of Iraq – 2008 saw a dramatic rise in attacks in Pakistan and deterioration in Afghanistan, while Iran continued to facilitate terror.

India was among countries hardest hit, and the situation in Yemen and Venezuela remained worrisome, according to a new State Department report. Al-Qaeda and related networks, while losing ground, continued to pose “the greatest terrorist threat to the United States and its partners in 2008,” the annual report on terrorism said.

Overall, the number of terror attacks recorded around the world declined during 2008 by 20 percent, with 30 percent fewer fatalities, Russell Travers of the National Counterterrorism Center told a press briefing on the report’s release Thursday.
As it has for well over a decade, Iran continues to top the list of state sponsors of terrorism, where it has been since 1984. The list is now down to four since the removal last year of North Korea. Iran is joined by Syria (added in 1979), Cuba (1982) and Sudan (1993). Designation carries sanctions, including bans on arms-related sales. “Iran has long employed terrorism to advance its key national security and foreign policy interests, which include regime survival, regional dominance, opposition to Arab-Israeli peace, and countering western influence, particularly in the Middle East,” the report said.

It cited Tehran’s support for the Palestinian terror groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah in Lebanon, militant Shia groups in Iraq, and select Taliban members in Afghanistan. Iran’s main tool for cultivating and sponsoring terrorism abroad, it said, was the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Qods Force. The Qods Force’s involvement in Iraq included the provision of “lethal support, including weapons, training, funding, and guidance, to Iraqi militant groups that targeted coalition and Iraqi forces and killed innocent Iraqi civilians.”

Among other things, Iran supplied insurgents with especially lethal improvised explosive devices (IEDs), designed to overcome armored vehicle protection. The Qods Force, along with Hezbollah in Lebanon, also provided weapons training inside and outside Iraq for insurgents, the report said. The U.S. in 2007 imposed sanctions on both the Revolutionary Guard and the Qods Force for supporting terrorism.

Despite Iran’s malign role in Iraq, terror attacks there dropped almost by half during 2008.

Travers said that 3,258 terrorist incidents in Iraq in 2008 cost 5,016 lives, compared to 6,210 attacks in 2007 which killed 13,606 people. The U.S. troop “surge” deployment took full effect from June of that year.

Pakistan brought less promising news, however. Travers reported 1,839 incidents, which killed 2,293 people in Pakistan in 2008, a jump from 890 incidents in 2007 that cost 1,340 lives. Pakistan was both a major target of terrorism last year and a terrorist safe haven.

The report said al-Qaeda and allies had moved into “the remote areas of the Pakistani frontier, where they have used this terrain as a safe haven to hide, train terrorists, communicate with the followers, plot attacks and send fighters to support the insurgency in Afghanistan.” The report said the Pakistan government’s authority in the areas near the border with Afghanistan continued to be challenged.

It identified the Taliban umbrella group, Tehrik-i-Taliban (TTP), active in North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas, as “the most public signal of broad local militant coordination aimed at attacking Pakistani security forces.” Dealing with 2008, the terrorism report made no reference to a controversial peace agreement struck between the government and the TTP in the NWFP in February.

Previous such deals have been short-lived and, according to U.S. and NATO officials, have adversely impacted security across the border in Afghanistan.

The National Counterterrorism Center’s figures for Afghanistan also showed a climb in attacks and casualties – from 1,125 incidents killing 1,961 people in 2007 to 1,220 incidents killing 1,989 people last year. Travers said those figures were believed to be an undercount: “We just don’t have data as a result of reporting challenges.”

India was among countries worst afflicted by terrorism last year. While most attention was focused on the deadly attacks in Mumbai in November and the almost 200 victims, bombings in New Delhi, Jaipur, Ahmedabad and the northeastern state of Assam during the year also killed more than 240 others.

Other black spots in this year’s report include Yemen, which received a poor grade. “The government’s response to the terrorist threat was intermittent and its ability to pursue and prosecute suspected terrorists remained weak due to a number of shortcomings, including stalled draft counterterrorism legislation,” the report said.

“The absence of effective counterterrorism legislation that criminalized the activities of those engaged in planning, facilitating, or carrying out acts of terrorism, both in Yemen and abroad, contributed to Yemen’s appeal as safe haven and potential base of offensive operations for terrorists.”

After terrorists attacked the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa in September, killing 18 people, including an American, the government initially gave FBI investigators full access to evidence but cooperation later waned, according to the report. Another government identified as uncooperative in counter-terror efforts was that of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

The report noted Chavez’ “ideological sympathy” for Colombia’s FARC rebels and said his government had not systematically policed its border with Colombia to prevent the movement of armed terrorists or to interdict weapons or narcotics. It also highlighted concerns about Hezbollah activity in Venezuela, noting the U.S. Treasury Department’s designation in June of a Venezuelan diplomat and a travel agency owner as Venezuelan Hezbollah supporters.

The report said passengers on weekly flights connecting Caracas with Tehran and Damascus “were reportedly subject to only cursory immigration and customs controls” on arrival in Venezuela. “Venezuelan citizenship, identity, and travel documents remained easy to obtain, making Venezuela a potentially attractive way station for terrorists.”

In May 2008, Venezuela was re-certified as a country “not cooperating fully” with American antiterrorism efforts under U.S. arms export legislation.