"I have not yet begun to fight!"

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976?Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. Unless you are in this field of investigative journalism, especially covering extremely sensitive subjects and potentially dangerous subjects as well, you simply cannot understand the complexities and difficulties involved with this work that I face every day.

Friday, August 9, 2013

Obama’s Untraceable Donations: $100M’s from Overseas? Campaign Turns Off AVS Verification?

October 6, 2012, 11:02 am by Maggie M. Thornton 4 Comments

Maggie’s Notebook

Saudi Arabia is the largest funder of terrorism in the world. How many Saudi Riyals would they commit to keep Barack Obama in office? How many Egyptian pounds will the Muslim Brotherhood give back from the billions we give them, to keep Obama in office? How will the Federal Election Commission know what is fraudulent and what is not? They did, after all, allow a Guyana-Born naturalized American to file to run for the Presidency, forcing us to fund a defense of Natural-born status. Here’s the latest on Abdel Hassan. Is Hassan a Muslim? Yes he is. I don’t think Saudis wants a nuclear Iran with mentally deranged Ayatollahs in charge, but neither do they want another George W. Bush or Mitt Romney in the Oval Office.

According to the sources, a taxpayer watchdog group conducted a nine-month investigation into presidential and congressional fundraising and has uncovered thousands of cases of credit card solicitations and donations to Obama and Capitol Hill, allegedly from unsecure accounts, and many from overseas. That might be a violation of federal election laws. Get the details at Libertarian Republican

It’s okay be Americans of Arab descent, or American Muslims who donate to Obama, but it isn’t okay to do so fraudulently from any place in the world, including from inside the U.S. Has that happened? I have no doubt that it has and is. Our government offices are out-of-control and baldly Liberal-leaning. Our government has no shame and I’m sick of it, and sick of paying for it, both through my tax dolars and the demise of my country.
Powerline April 2, 2012:

The Obama campaign even went the extra mile to raise campaign funds by failing to adopt standard protections against fraudulent and illegal giving. Federal law prohibits foreign contributions and requires the disclosure of identifying information for contributions in excess of $200. Campaigns must accordingly keep running totals for each donor and report them once they exceed $200…
The Obama campaign was able to take these donations because it had turned off the standard Address Verification System that screens credit-card charges for matching names and addresses.
As we and other noted, the 2008 Obama campaign’s records revealed big contributors with names like “Doodad Pro” (employer: “Loving,” profession: “You”) and “Good Will (same employer and profession). Both donated via credit card. I believe it was Pamela Geller who reported some donations came from overseas — raising the question of whether Obama was accepting donations from foreigners. (It can also screen cards issued by foreign banks.)
The McCain campaign used AVS and provided a searchable database of all donors, including those who fell below the $200 threshold. The Obama campaign chose not to use the AVS system to screen donations. (The McCain campaign rejected such donations through the use of the AVS system.) You can find a good description of the AVS and CVV fraud prevention devices here.

Later in the Powerline article, a reader verified to Powerline that the same thing is going on today, leading up to the November 6th election. This blog followed the lead at Powerline and made a fraudulent donation as well. See the screen shots at A Fistful of Neurons.
Today I went to the Obama donation site. Step 1 was how much I was donating. Step 2 asked for name, address, city, state, zip code and phone number. Step 3 moves to the page shown below, with one step left – I didn’t go there. I have no way to know if AVS (Address Verification System (allows verifying that the billing address for the credit card is the same as entered on the donation form) is turned off, but the CCV, the three digit number on the back of the card (maybe 4 digit as well) is not asked for on Obama’s site.
The CCV verifies that the number matches the card, with the assumption that if it does, the card holder has the card in his/her hand. Obama doesn’t have the CCV unless it is asked for in the last step, after giving the credit card number. Maybe it does, but usually the card number and the CCV are together. Notice that Romney’s site does ask for the CCV and everything is on one page to be seen by the donor.

One last thing, I’m listening to Bob Woodward on Hannity (night of 10-5-12) who is saying that there is a major, looming campaign donation scandal, involving overseas contributions and Obama’s campaign.
Remember the name DooDadPro from the Powerline story above.

According to knowlegable sources, a national magazine and a national web site are preparing a blockbuster donor scandal story.
Sources told Secrets that the Obama campaign has been trying to block the story. But a key source said it plans to publish the story Friday or, more likely, Monday. Source: Hot Air

Why would a campaign turn-off credit card verification systems?
Before the 2008 election, I spent hours at the Federal Election Commission website, documenting the donations to Obama from Arabic/sounding/seeming names, and linked back to them.
Never had so much hate mail in all my 5+ years of blogging. It was exhausting. I omitted all first/given names that sounded Western or other than Arabic. I got through the first 25 pages of the ‘A’s’ only before I gave up. I did the same for John McCain but it was immediately clear that if I found any Arabic/sounding/seeming names in his donor list, it would be a rare find. I searched the letters A, F, H, I, M, O, U and Z and didn’t find a single donation. This link will take you to all of Obama’s donors (supposedly) .
I’m ready for energy independence from Saudi Arabia and want to prove to Barack and Michelle Obama that they will not “equalize” my income or yours, or ever again vote against a bill and ten days later lie about it, with a lie designed to promote racial hate, call the death of a U.S. Ambassador and our Military, a bump in the road, try to take away our Second Amendment rights through programs like Fast and Furious, and that we will not forget that he has refused to set foot on Israeli soil, while tromping all over surrounding areas and…and…and… Many thanks to Facebook friend, Fred Hopkins for the tip.
Linked at BadBlue – the baddest news on the planet! – thank you!
Linked at Doug Ross and Larwyn’s Linx in Obama, Dems Almost Answerable to No One
Linked at SayAnythingBlog in a Saturday Linkaround – great links here!

Obama Administration to Bypass Congress, Impose Backdoor Education Agenda

WASHINGTON, D.C. | September 26, 2011 - On Friday, President Obama announced the administration will bypass Congress and impose a new plan to waive federal elementary and secondary education law, currently known as No Child Left Behind, in exchange for states adopting the Secretary of Education’s preferred education agenda.

Many have expressed concerns this conditional waivers plan could slow Congressional efforts to rewrite the law and create more confusion for states and schools. Details of the administration’s plan are vague, but one thing is clear: the plan will grant the secretary unprecedented authority to handpick winners and losers in our nation’s education system.

House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (R-MN) outlined his concerns about the administration’s plan: “While I recognize the sense of urgency to reform current law, the Department of Education should not be granted the sweeping authority to bypass Congress,” Kline said. “Any initiative that holds temporary measures above quality, lasting reforms will create more upheaval and uncertainty for states in the long run.”

This concern has been echoed by school leaders across the country. In an NPR interview last week, Council of Chief State School Officers Executive Director Gene Wilhoit alluded to the potential confusion states could face in the coming months. “What we will have is a group of states who, if successful in getting a waiver, will be operating under this system and another group of states who will be operating under No Child Left Behind,” he said.

If added confusion and uncertainty wasn’t enough, the plan also raises legal questions. A recent Huffington Post article stated, “Under No Child Left Behind, the Secretary of Education may waive provisions of the law for states in need, but he has no explicit authority to ask states to adopt reforms in exchange. In August, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said Obama had approved plans to, in effect, reform the law without going through Congress: The secretary would waive specific provisions of the law in exchange for states agreeing to adopt favored reforms. The expanded waiver process is the administration's attempt to implement its own reforms, and the process comes with political risk.”

The nation needs long-term reforms that will enable every student to succeed, not short-term policy changes dictated by the Secretary of Education. That’s why Chairman Kline is advancing a series of targeted education bills that will roll back federal intrusion in classrooms, eliminate wasteful education spending, improve accountability, support more effective teachers, and provide more flexibility to state and local education leaders. Legislation to expand quality education opportunities for students passed the House in mid-September with strong bipartisan support.

For more information on Chairman Kline’s education reform agenda, visit www.edworkforce.house.gov.

Hamas offers fake Palestinian passport to top Muslim cleric: PNA

English.news.cn 2013-05-11 06:03:54

RAMALLAH, May 10 (Xinhua) -- The Palestinian National Authority (PNA) on Friday accused Hamas movement of offering a fake Palestinian passport to top Muslim Cleric Sheikh Yousef al- Qaradawi.
The PNA Interior Ministry said in a statement that it had sent official letters to countries that recognize the PNA, clarifying that the passport, which was given to Qaradawi, is "fake."
The PNA is ruling the West Bank and its Interior Ministry is the legal Palestinian body that is authorized to issue passports to the Palestinians or to give it to other nationalities as an honor.
Qaradawi, who began on Thursday a two-day visit to the Hamas- ruled Gaza Strip, was honored by Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haneya and was offered a diplomatic red Palestinian passport.
Hamas has been ruling the Gaza Strip since it violently seized control of it in the summer of 2007. The world does not recognize the rule of Hamas of the coastal enclave and the Islamic movement is not authorized to officially issue any passport.
The PNA statement said it had urged all countries that recognize Palestinian passport to confiscate any fake one that is not issued by the legal Palestinian representative of the Palestinian people.
Right after Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas deposed Haneya and his government and nominated a new Palestinian premier who formed a new Palestinian government.
However, Haneya and Hamas refused the decree of Abbas and kept ruling Gaza. Arab and global mediators have so far failed to end the division between Gaza and the West Bank and achieve reconciliation between the two rivals.
Qaradawi, 87, is the top Arab cleric for Arab Muslims. The Egyptian-born has close ties with the Muslim Brotherhood.
PNA Minister of Waqf (Islamic properties) Mahmoud al-Habbash slammed the visit of Qaradawi to the Gaza Strip, saying it "is illegal because it wasn't coordinated with the legal authority and legal leadership of the Palestinian people."

08-1234 Kiyemba v. Obama (3/1/10)
BARACK H. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ET AL.

Sandra Day O'Connor
President Barack Obama awarded Justice O'Connor with the nation's highest civilia

No
CLEMENT Counsel of Record H. CHRISTOPHER BARTOLOMUCCI NICHOLAS J. NELSON MICHAEL H. MCGINLEY BANCRO

10-775 Kiyemba v. Obama (04/18/2011)
BARACK H. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Supreme Court of the United States
Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.

Microsoft Word - Current Exhibitions 8-23-2011.doc
President Barack Obama awarded Justice O’Connor with the Nation’s highest civilian honor, the Presi

Oaths of the Current Court
with President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden in attendance.

P:\WordPerfect\USSC\Writs\11-117 PFC Reply.wpd
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Respondent MUISE Counsel of Record THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER 24 FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT DRIVE P.O. BOX 393 ANN ARBOR,

Associate Justice Elena Kagan Investiture Ceremony
President Barack Obama and Justice Elena Kagan outside the Justices' Conference Room prior to Justic

Presidential Involvement with Oath Ceremonies
Barack H. Obama Several days after Justice Sonia Sotomayor took her oaths of office, President Obama

Biographies of Current Justices of the Supreme Court
Search: rdoSCD All Documents rdoDocket Docket Files

Microsoft Word - 27502 Brown I cv 04
COOPER Counsel of Record DAVID H. THOMPSON HOWARD C. NIELSON, JR.

P:\WordPerfect\USSC\Writs\Thomas More Law Center PFC (R.Muise).wpd
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Respondent MUISE Counsel of Record THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER 24 FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT DRIVE P.O. BOX 393 ANN ARBOR, are President Barack Hussein Obama, in his official capacity as President of the United States; Kat

Journal October Term 2010
OCTOBER TERM 2010 Reference Index Contents: Page Statisti

08-1402 Berghuis v. Smith (03/30/2010)
1 (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2009 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as isbeing done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus

12-10 Agency for Int'l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int'l, Inc. (06/20/2013)
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2012 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as isbeing done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus

07-11073 Kelly v. California (11/10/08)
Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2008) 1 Statement of STEVENS, J. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DOUGLAS OLIVER KELLY 07–11073 v. CALIFORNIA 07–11425 SAMUEL ZAMUDIO v. CALIFORNIA ON PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF

Obama Administration to Support Anti-Israel Resolution at UN Next Week

Obama Administration to Support Anti-Israel Resolution at UN Next Week

THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned that senior Obama administration officials have been telling foreign governments that the administration intends to support an effort next week at the United Nations to set up an independent commission, under UN auspices, to investigate Israel's behavior in the Gaza flotilla incident. The White House has apparently shrugged off concerns from elsewhere in the U.S. government that a) this is an extraordinary singling out of Israel, since all kinds of much worse incidents happen around the world without spurring UN investigations; b) that the investigation will be one-sided, focusing entirely on Israeli behavior and not on Turkey or on Hamas; and c) that this sets a terrible precedent for outside investigations of incidents involving U.S. troops or intelligence operatives as we conduct our own war on terror." source - The Weekly Standard

Obama gives nearly half a billion dollars to terror organization HAMAS

Obama gives nearly half a billion dollars to terror organization HAMAS

Washington (CNN) - The United States will contribute $400 million in development aid to the Palestinian territories and work with Israel to loosen its embargo on Gaza, President Barack Obama said Wednesday. Obama's announcement came after White House talks with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. The money will be used to build housing, schools, water and health care systems in both the Palestinian Authority-controlled West Bank and Gaza, which is ruled by the Palestinian Islamic movement Hamas. Obama called the situation in Gaza "unsustainable," and said the United States would work with its European allies, Egypt and Israel to find a "new conceptual framework" for the Israeli blockade of Gaza." source - CNN

The brief I filed for Members of Congress makes this argument, as does Fisher’s brief for 23 states. Similar arguments regarding this point, or the related argument that courts are not able to draw lines telling citizens what they can and cannot say during prayers, are also made by briefs for constitutional scholars, theologians, Orthodox Jews, and many others.

The brief I filed for Members of Congress makes this argument, as does Fisher’s brief for 23 states. Similar arguments regarding this point, or the related argument that courts are not able to draw lines telling citizens what they can and cannot say during prayers, are also made by briefs for constitutional scholars, theologians, Orthodox Jews, and many others.

Obama Admits to Muslim Faith

Oh, my. Our mainstream media seems to be ignoring their job again…..
Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs apparently has to do the dirty work for them. It seems that when nobody was looking (or reporting), the Egyptian Prime Minister of Egypt went on TV and told of an interesting exchange that he had with Barack Obama…
“There was a recent “Nile TV broadcast in which Egyptian Foreign Minister Abul Gheit said on the “Round Table Show” that he had had a one on one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda. He asked that the Moslem world show patience. Obama promised that once he overcame some domestic American problems (Healthcare), that he would show the Moslem world what he would do with Israel.“
This has been verified in the May 2010 issue of “Israel Today” in an article titled “Obama, a ‘Strategic Catastrophe,’” by Aviel Schneider:
“The feeling among the Israeli public is that Obama is appeasing the Muslim world at the expense of Israel. “The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim,” said Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit on Nile TV.”

The author continues: “That could explain why Obama has instructed that the term “Islamic extremism” no longer be used in official government documents and statements. Furthermore, the US is now accusing Israel of harming American interests in the Middle East. General David Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, said Israel’s intransigence on resolving the conflict with the Palestinians is endangering US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the US Congress considers Obama’s behavior toward Netanyahu humiliating. Three-quarters of the House of Representatives, 337 of 435 members, signed a bipartisan letter to Clinton expressing “deep concern over recent tension” between the two countries, and demanding that it be smoothed over quickly and in private.“
It is presumed that the meeting between Obama and Gheit took place in January, 2010, when Gheit was visiting Washington DC . He was in town to convene with Hillary Clinton regarding MidEast Peace Talks on January 8, 2010.
So is Barack a Muslim or isn’t he?…..

Here’s what’s interesting. Barack attended school in Indonesia under the name Barry Soetoro when he was young. His religion was listed officially on school documents as “Islam.” At some point, when he was a young adult, he started to refer to himself as Barack Hussein Obama again.
He must have been proud of the name or he wouldn’t have changed back, right?
Yet, during the Presidential campaign, it was considered “racist” to use the name “Hussein” when saying Barack’s name. Why? Could it be that he wanted to distance himself from his Muslim name, knowing that America was not ready to elect a president with Islamic roots?
He’s never explained.
If Barack has denounced his Islamic faith, as he claims, then he is in danger for his life because Sharia Law states that anyone who leaves the Islamic faith is considered an “apostate”- and could face grave consequences. An article in the Christian Science Monitor explains it this way: “There are two types of apostates. The first type is murtad milli, one who converted to Islam and later renounced the faith. The second, and most egregious, type is murtad fitri. It refers to a person born of a Muslim father who renounces his birthright.
According to Islamic jurisprudence, children of a Muslim father – even an apparently nonpracticing one, such as Obama’s father, and irrespective of the mother’s faith – are automatically Muslims. Most Muslims around the world agree: A child of a Muslim father is a Muslim. Period.”
Those who leave the Islamic religion face death threats.
Does Obama seem frightened of those in the Middle East when he visits there? If he were a true “apostate”, a man who had left Islam, you would assume that we’d see extra security when Obama visits Islamic countries overseas. Instead we see Obama bowing to a Saudi Prince, quoting from the Koran in Cairo, placating the Palestinians, and turning his back on Netanyahu and the Jews time and time again. He’s gone out of his way to hire more Muslims to his administration, to proclaim that the United States is NOT a Christian Nation, to ignore the Islamic connection to the Fort Hood massacre, to handle Muslim terrorists from Gitmo with kid gloves, and to downplay the “terrorism” involved in the thwarted attacks by the panty bomber and the NYC car bomb.
Is he doing this because he is afraid for his life or because he is still sympathetic to the religion of Islam?

And why is he telling Egyptian Foreign Minister Abul Gheit that he is still a Muslim and will show the Muslim world what he will do with Israel in due time?
Why are we now promising $400 Million to the Palestinians, money we have to borrow from China, when there is no guarantee that the money won’t be used for weapons against Israel by the terrorist government, Hamas? Why are we joining with Turkey and supporting a UN inquiry into the flotilla incident when it seems clear through reports and film footage that Israel had every right to defend itself and protect its blockade?
Who is the real Barack Hussein Obama?
And 18 months into his presidency, why don’t we know?
The media is to blame, folks. They have stopped investigating and started worshiping at the altar of our President. They don’t seem to understand how important it is for this country to keep Sharia Law at bay. If Obama is a Muslim and is pushing a Muslim agenda, then the citizens of the United States have a right to know.
If Gheit is lying about his exchange with Obama, then wouldn’t you think that Obama would like to clear up the lies?
And if he’s not a Muslim, then why is he acting like one?
lsm

Congress, States, and Even Obama's DOJ Rally to Prayer-Givers' Defense

the only reason why is he is islamic he must pray 5 times a day

273

Email Article

Print Article Send a Tip

by Ken Klukowski 8 Aug 2013 79 post a comment

Congress, half of the states across the nation, and many others are rallying to defend public prayer in a major case at the U.S. Supreme Court. Even the Obama administration weighed in with a surprising legal brief in what is shaping up to be a major religious-liberty case—and could even become the biggest religious-liberty win in over half a century.

This is an update to our earlier report on Town of Greece v. Galloway, regarding whether prayers at government events are an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Although the Supreme Court upheld the practice of “legislative prayer” in 1983 in Marsh v. Chambers, and this town in western New York allows any citizen to volunteer to pray—even a local witch and an atheist—the Second Circuit appeals court struck down the practice because too many Christians volunteered, many of whom mentioned Jesus during their prayers.
Now the first briefs have been filed. Tom Hungar of Gibson Dunn is lead counsel in this Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) case; his excellent brief is what you would expect from someone as accomplished as Hungar, as he prepares to argue for his 26th time before the Supreme Court.
A total of 25 amicus briefs (“friend of the court” briefs) were filed supporting ADF and the town of Greece. Among them is a brief by Indiana Solicitor General Tom Fisher on behalf of 23 states nationwide, a brief by Steffen Johnson representing 34 U.S. Senators, and the brief that I authored on behalf of 85 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Then came a welcome surprise for those on side of Greece in the case when Solicitor General Don Verrilli filed a brief for the United States strongly supporting the town and opposing liberal arguments that courts should bar “sectarian” references such as mentioning Jesus or quoting the Bible.
This is ironic, in that President Obama’s typical judicial nominees are “separationists,” who take a very restrictive view that the Establishment Clause does not allow “sectarian” prayers and allows courts to purge the public square of most traditional references to religious faith. But Verrilli’s brief takes a very different position, and with its filing, it becomes extremely likely that the prayer-givers will prevail in this case before the Supreme Court.
The real question will be how broad the Court goes. The Hungar/ADF brief thoroughly discusses how the lower court in this case (and a few others) got this case wrong by applying the “endorsement test”—a standard the Supreme Court adopted in 1989, saying that government action involving religion is unconstitutional if it gives someone the impression that government is endorsing religion.
This was Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s pet theory on religious liberty, and is completely divorced from the First Amendment’s original meaning and 200 years of precedent. The endorsement test has been a train wreck since the Court narrowly adopted it by a 5-4 vote, setting a very hostile obstacle in the way of countless peaceful and longstanding expressions of faith and history.
This is why many of the briefs filed in this case encourage the Supreme Court to take this opportunity to overrule the endorsement test. These briefs argue it should be replaced by the “coercion test”—under which the Constitution does not allow the government to coerce any citizen to participate in a religious activity that violates their conscience, or officially create a national religion (such as passing a law declaring that we are a Southern Baptist nation). So long as there is no coercion, the First Amendment allows all manner of peaceful expressions and passive displays of faith in the public square.
The brief I filed for Members of Congress makes this argument, as does Fisher’s brief for 23 states. Similar arguments regarding this point, or the related argument that courts are not able to draw lines telling citizens what they can and cannot say during prayers, are also made by briefs for constitutional scholars, theologians, Orthodox Jews, and many others.
This is the biggest religious-liberty case to go before the Supreme Court in years. If the Court agrees on a majority opinion siding with the town and prayer-givers, it will be the biggest religious-liberty win in at least 20 years. And if the Court goes the distance and returns the Establishment Clause to the coercion standard that was the rule under the Constitution for most of America’s history, this will be the biggest religious-liberty victory in at least half a century.
This is a case worth watching. Oral arguments will be in November or December, with a decision by next July.
Breitbart News legal columnist Ken Klukowski is senior fellow for religious liberty at the Family Research Council and on faculty at Liberty University School of Law. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.

EDITORIAL: Islamic flag over the White House Radical Muslims want America ruled by Shariah

EDITORIAL: Islamic flag over the White House

Radical Muslims want America ruled by Shariah

WHY IS THE WHITE HOUSE CLOSED FOR TOURS

OH THATS RIGHT OBAMA GAVE OUR WHITE HOUSE TO ISLAM

The Washington Times

Monday, October 4, 2010

Enlarge Photo
President Barack Obama speaks at a rally at the University of Wisconsin ... more >

Islamists say the Koran is destined to rule America. In fact, the Muslim takeover of the White House is not just an unfolding action plan but a directive from Muhammad himself.
In an interview Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” British radical Muslim activist Anjem Choudary made clear what he and his Islamist brothers have planned for the West. “We do believe, as Muslims, the East and the West will one day be governed by the Shariah,” he said. “Indeed, we believe that one day, the flag of Islam will fly over the White House.” He then quoted a hadith, or saying of Muhammad, as related by 10th-century Muslim scholar Al-Tabarani, that “the final hour will not come until Muslims conquer the White House.” Another version of the saying goes, “A small portion of Muslims will rise and conquer the White House.”
Many Americans believe this conquest is well underway, if not already secretly completed. President Obama was concerned enough about perceptions of his faith to address the question at one of his recent “backyard discussions” in New Mexico. Mr. Obama said he is “a Christian by choice,” which may or may not assuage the concerns of those who believe he is a Muslim by birth.

The president’s declaration of faith may not help with his vaunted outreach to the global Muslim community. A Gallup poll released last week showed that current approval of U.S. leadership in countries in the Middle East and North Africa is “similar or lower than what it was in 2008,” in some cases “erasing gains seen after the transition from the Bush administration to the Obama administration.” In no country was the approval rating above 30 percent. It’s fair to conclude that this experiment in engagement with Islam has failed.

As Mr. Choudary indicated, Islamist “engagement” with the United States is a holy obligation. Last week, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the leading proponent of global Shariah law, held a conference on “Islam and Muslims in America” in cooperation with the American Islamic College in Chicago. OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu called on Muslims in the United States to become involved in all aspects of American life, including local and national politics. The Obama administration gave its imprimatur to the gathering by sending its own small portion, including special envoy to the OIC, Rashad Hussain, Dalia Mogahed who works with the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and Farah Pandith, the State Department’s special representative to Muslim communities.
The OIC is currently campaigning to have so-called “Islamophobia” recognized by the international community as a form of racism prosecutable under international law. This would include any expression the Islamists find offensive, which in practice would amount to a global gag order on any critical discussion of Islam. Last year, the Obama administration co-sponsored with Egypt a U.N. Human Rights Council resolution against “racial and religious stereotyping,” which offered cover to the Islamists in their drive to put any criticism of their religion off limits.
The leading countries in the OIC are among the least religiously tolerant in the world. In most cases, Christians, Jews, Hindus and others may not freely practice their faith, and under Koranic law, converts from Islam face the death penalty. The OIC has stated that any freedoms in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that conflict with Shariah do not apply to its members. If this is the type of cooperation the Obama administration is seeking to promote with Islam, then the “final hour” draws closer still. Mr. Obama said Jesus Christ died for his sins, but the United States continues to suffer for the president’s mistakes.

OBAMA REWARD TO ISLAMIC TERRORIST WHO KILLED Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens HE GAVE THEM A WALL MART AWESOME ISLAMIC TERRORIST IN THE WHITE HOUSE DONT THINK I DONT KNOW HOW YOU GAVE OUR WHITE HOUSE TO ISLAM

A Wal-Mart for Libya?

Text Size

Published: Monday, 24 Sep 2012 | 11:43 AM ET

By: John Carney | Senior Editor, CNBC.com

Stan Honda | AFP | Getty Images

Former US President Bill Clinton during the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) in September 2008 in New York.

Not long ago, most American companies were urged by the U.S. government to avoid doing business with Libya. It was a pariah state, a sponsor of terrorism, a sworn enemy of the West.
On Sunday, however, former President Bill Clinton asked the chief executive of Wal-Mart Stores if he would open a store in Libya.
"If the new president of Libya asked you to open a store in Tripoli, would you consider it?" Clinton asked CEO Mike Duke at the opening panel of the Clinton Global Initiative.
The Wal-Mart CEO said that the company does not currently have any stores in the Middle East or North Africa, although it does have stores in South Africa and fourteen other sub-Saharan African nations.
What followed next was quite interesting, because it exposed a gap between the way Clinton thinks and the way Duke thinks about business expansion.
Clinton’s question, which he reformulated a few moments later to be about any country’s president calling on Wal-Mart to open stores, packs in an assumption about the centrality of government’s role in business decisions. For Clinton, government really is the starting place. It’s not even a short jump from his Libya question to Obama’s infamous “you didn’t build that” claim. (More:Hillary Clinton: Raise Taxes on the Rich Everywhere)
Clinton described at length an attempt to construct something called “political risk insurance” that would promote business expansion in areas of politicial instability. Government or a government-linked financial institution would, under this scheme, underwrite the political risks of private, profit-seeking companies expanding into risky areas. Sort of Fannie Mae for global capitalism.
Perhaps it’s not surprising that Clinton thinks of business expansion as beginning with a phone call from a national president, but that is not the way Duke thinks about it. His answer began by explaining that Wal-Mart begins thinking about where to open a store by looking to see where there might be customers who are “under-served” by traditional retailers. In short, Wal-Mart thinks first about business opportunity questions: would market demand support a new store, and what kind of competition is in place? (More:Romney and Obama Will Have a Close Call)
The other panel members were U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Queen Rania of Jordan and World Bank President Jim Yong Kim. Duke was the only businessman on the panel.
Clinton’s next question was about the need to think holistically about education and economics. He asked whether the United Nations, the World Bank and other international institutions should be trying to design a “21st century education and economy system where “you don’t have education over here and economy over there—but you ask them to do it together.”
This wasn’t the way Duke talked about things. Instead, he talked very specifically about Wal-Mart doing “job training” for employees it actually wants to hire. Wal-Mart’s CEO isn’t designing a "21st Century System"—it is training the workers it needs for its stores.
By the way, Duke never answered Clinton’s question about a store in Libya.

Benghazi: Obama's Actions Amount To A Shameful Dereliction Of Duty

60 comments, 2 called-out

Comment Now

Follow Comments

A picture shows a burnt building at the US consulate compound in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi on September 13, 2012 following an attack late on September 11 in which the US ambassador to Libya and three other US nationals were killed. (Image credit: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife)

Enough facts are in the public record about the Benghazi murders of Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens and 3 others, including two Marines, that a final judgment can be rendered on President Obama’s handling of the affair. Obama’s actions, or inactions, amounted to dereliction of duty, and worse.
The Obama Administration received requests for additional security from the Embassy and the Ambassador himself as early as February. An embassy cable on June 25 expressed fear of rising Islamic extremism in eastern Libya around Benghazi, and noted that the black flag of Al-Qaeda “has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities.” On August 2, Ambassador Stevens sent a cable requesting 11 additional body guards, noting “Host nation security support is lacking and cannot be depended on to provide a safe and secure environment for the diplomatic mission of outreach,”
But these requests for additional security were repeatedly denied, as security officials testified before Chairman Darrell Issa’s House Oversight Committee earlier this month. Obama and his allies did not want a show of American force in the country that would offend Muslim sensibilities. They wanted to rely instead on the host country’s security that the embassy was telling them was inadequate and could not be depended upon.
As the anniversary of 9/11 approached, the Obama Administration should have known that more security was necessary to protect diplomatic missions in the increasingly hostile country, especially on that sensitive date. But they did just the opposite, reducing security. The Wall Street Journal reported on October 10 that the Administration removed a well armed, 16 member, security detail from Libya in August, to be replaced by the Libyan security personnel that Ambassador Stevens had just told them could not be relied upon.
Based on documents released by the House Oversight Committee, the day of the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, September 11, the White House situation room starts receiving emails at about 1 pm that the mission is under hostile surveillance. The only response was that the Pentagon sends a drone armed with a video camera so that everyone in Washington can see what transpires in real time, as it happens, at the White House, at the State Department, at the Pentagon, at the CIA.
The drone documents no crowds protesting any video. But at 4 pm Washington receives an email from the Benghazi mission that it is under military style attack. Subject: “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack.” The email states,

“The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17^th of February militia is providing security support.”

The attack was then fed to all of them, the White House, the Pentagon, the State Dept., the CIA, through live video feed. A later email that day reported, “Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.” The feed showed no protest of any supposedly offensive You Tube video.
Just one hour flight time away were U.S. Air Force bases that could have been rousted in minutes to send fighter planes and attack helicopters that could have routed the attackers in minutes of fighting. As Investors Business Daily editorialized on October 24, “Within an hour’s flight time from Libya, at the large naval air station in Sigonella, Italy, and at bases in nearby Aviano and Souda Bay, were fighters and AC 130 gunships that can be extremely effective in dispersing crowds or responding to a terrorist assault.” But the order for the rescue never came. Maybe because Barack Obama did not want to offend Muslim sensibilities by such a show of force.
The IBD editorial summarized the situation by the next morning as follows:

“When President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton stepped into the Rose Garden the morning of September 12, they likely knew [correction: they surely knew] the attack on our Benghazi consulate the day before was organized by terrorists. They knew because they were privy to a flurry of emails among administration officials discussing the attack in real time. Yet they said nothing about what they knew and, worse, had done nothing to mount a rescue despite American forces being less than an hour away during the seven hour blitz. According to Fox News, 300 to 400 national security figures received these emails in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding. These people work directly under the nation’s top national security, military and diplomatic officials.”

By then everyone knew how the battle of Benghazi had turned out. The United States Ambassador to Libya, the personal representative of President Barack Obama, had been tortured, sodomized, dragged bloody through the streets of Benghazi, and murdered. Chris Stevens, along with the two Marines and another who were murdered along with him, had volunteered to serve his country. But under the leadership of Barack Obama, that is how his service ended.
By the evening of that next day, Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama was jetting off to a campaign fundraiser in Las Vegas, followed by parties with Jay-Z and Beyonce. Chris Stevens was already out of sight, out of mind. Except that Commander Obama could not wash off the stench of dereliction of duty, duty to far more worthy American warriors and servicemen, dereliction in failing to authorize worthy security for those who were sent in harms way under his leadership, and to order a timely rescue when he could. For such failure, any commander serving under the commander-in-chief should be court martialed. But the President expects you to give him four more years of such “leadership.”
The Truth-Challenged President
But the saga did not end there for the American people. The rest of us had to endure the President, Secretary of State Clinton, and UN Ambassador “explaining” to us that what really happened was that those irascible Muslims were all incited out of their minds by a previously unseen, unheard of You Tube video trailer by an unknown American immigrant, a movie that was never made outside the trailer advertising it, in Fool on the Hill style. Their protest had just got out of hand, you see.
Except they all knew when they were saying these very words that they were untrue. They were precisely calculated to deceive and to mislead. Yet there was our President Obama telling this mendacious fairy tale to the entire world at the U.N. And there was U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice telling the American people the same concocted fairy tale. Typical Progressives, they were so certain that they could easily buffalo a majority of their countrymen, no smarter than the representative Homer Simpson.
An incredulous IBD editorialized, “How could emails be sent to the White House Situation Room in real time describing a terrorist attack on sovereign U.S. territory in which four Americans were killed as it happened, and as a drone flew overhead recording the truth of the carnage, and the President and Secretary of State insist that it was all about a video and there was no evidence to the contrary.”
Or as Glenn Beck (yes Glenn Beck, and you can go read some New York Times lying propaganda if you don’t like it), summarized at his website The Blaze,

“The president of the United States of America, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State have all lied to you. They have lied to you and said this might be a video; we don’t have all the information; the information is still sketchy; it’s confusing. No. We now have the documents. We now have the documents that came into the situation room saying there’s an attack; they’re watching. Then we have the documents that we have a live video feed in the situation room, so they could see that there was no protest.”

How Clueless Does He Think We Are?
But the lies did not end even there. The President then went into a nationally televised debate with GOP nominee Mitt Romney, and before the whole country, expected to pull off another lie denying that he had lied, indeed, denying that what the entire country had just seen and heard, from him, from his Secretary of State, from his U.N. Ambassador, had even just happened.
Obama explained at the debate, “The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime.”
An exasperated Mitt Romney, shocked at the brazenness of this Soviet style propaganda, exclaimed, “I think interesting the President just said something which – which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said this was an act of terror.” “That’s what I said,” Obama lied in response. Romney leaped at the brazen discrepancy with reality, saying “I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the President 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.” Obama replied, “Get the transcript.”
It was a transparently pre-arranged, Soviet propaganda style, ambush that the supposed moderator Candy Crowley then jumped in to say, “He did in fact sir.” Obama then brazenly demonstrated his mastery over the Democrat Party controlled media, outright ordering right there before the American people, “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?” Crowley stood at attention, saluted, and “reported”: “He did call it an act of terror.”

This was so transparently pre-arranged because the transcript of the next day’s Rose Garden ceremony, in fact, does not report what Obama fantasized and Crowley “reported.” The transcript in plain black and white shows that Obama was not even talking about Benghazi when he mentioned terror, but about terrorism more generally, as displayed on 9/11. Do you see precisely the further “calculated deception?”
Romney alone among the three, ever sharp as a tack, and fully on top of the facts, persisted in recalling the truth: “The Administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction….It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group.”
Obama again interrupted and appealed to his plant for a further bailout, calling out, “Candy?” But Romney maintained his control and his ever classy demeanor, and unruffled by the blatant, Soviet style propaganda he was enduring, cut off this interruption, “Excuse me. The ambassador of the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and spoke about how this was a spontaneous…” But Obama interrupted again, appealing further for help, “Candy, I’m happy to have a longer conversation about foreign policy.” Crowley took the cue again from the Boss, “I know you, absolutely, but I want to move you on….” A relieved Obama responded with obvious joy, “OK. I’m happy to do that too.”
This spectacle of the President lying about his own lies to a national debate audience is unprecedented in American politics. It shows an absurdly haughty attitude, and an arrogant disrespect for the intelligence and awareness of the American people. But an Obama supporter calling into the Glenn Beck radio program indicated that Obama may be on to something after all. When Beck asked her, “Where is Benghazi?” she responded, “He is at Walmart.”

CENT WHEN DOES OBAMA get to pick who would be the presidency of the Central Bank

Obama: Declaration of the name of the candidate for the presidency of the "Fed" in the fall

Seventh Day

- 25 minutes ago

President Barack Obama said on Friday that Lawrence Summers and Janet Yellen both a high degree of efficiency of the Presidency of the Council of the Federal Reserve (Fed), but said he was considering other names for this position extreme importance. Obama told a press conference "Frankly, I think that Larry Summers and Janet Yellen candidates on a high degree of efficiency, there are other candidates on the high degree of efficiency also," he said, adding that the decision will be made in the autumn of this year. U.S. President said, that the selection of a candidate for the presidency of the Central Bank is certainly one of the most important economic decisions for the rest of ...

Mark Levin: Boehner “Cut Some Kind Of Deal With Obama” On Benghazi

K LEVIN: You know, ladies and gentlemen, I hate to say this, but it’s right in front of our faces. Obviously, John Boehner does not want to get to the bottom of what took place in Benghazi. It’s obvious. He’s been asked over and over again by a majority of the Republicans in the House to set up a special investigative committee as is the tradition in these types of investigations. So you concentrate expertise and resources and time in one special committee rather than multiple committees that are also investigating other matters and overseeing other matters and handling bills and so forth.
So, it’s as if the Speaker of the House, the Republican Speaker of the House, doesn’t want to get to the bottom of this. And I suppose his brain trust, Eric Cantor — by the law, Eric Cantor is on this Lecture America Tour about why illegal immigration is a wonderful thing for this country. Is he stopping it anybody’s neighborhood? I haven’t heard anything about it, have you Mr. Producer? He such a voice out there — in the wilderness, where he belongs. But, anyway, it’s obvious at this point, ladies and gentlemen, that we have to draw a very sad conclusion: John Boehner does not want to know what took place in Benghazi on that horrific day. And I’m honestly starting to think that he’s cut some kind of deal with Obama, because why else would he do this?
Obama has never answered for approximately eight-and-a-half hours of inaction, and I contend that he went to sleep. He’s never answered for this. And it goes on and it goes on. It’s preposterous that we can’t find out from the president of the United States, the Commander in Chief, whose going to be running all around the country lecturing us, telling us why our economic system sucks, why we should replace it with a top-down tyrannical-type of economic system, why we have to listen to his spokesidiot, this guy Carney, dismiss any serious questions that are asked. I mean, what the hell is this? Is this a joke? I feel like we’re living through a nightmare here.
So the greatest secret on the planet right now is what Obama was doing during eight-and-a-half hours when our consulate was under attack, our ambassador being slaughtered, two ex-SEALs coming to his rescue being slaughtered, and the security/information individual, gentlemen, being slaughtered. And we can’t get an answer. And John Boehner doesn’t want an answer, because John Boehner is what stands between setting up a special investigative committee and not.

- See more at: http://specialoperationsspeaks.com/articles/mark-levin-boehner-cut-some-kind-of-deal-with-obama-on-benghazi#sthash.5ZZjO6tp.dpuf

Hillary just threw Obama and Rice under the bus Hillary Clinton reveals what REALLY led to Benghazi massacre

Announcement of State Department dissent from rest of Obama administration could help protect Clinton during 2016 presidential run
Obama administration originally said assault stemmed from protests against anti-Islam video but then backtracked saying terrorists responsible
Officials tell how ambassador Chris Stevens was trapped in safe-room as assailants burnt the compound down
AK-47s, grenade attacks, and a smoke-filled safe-room - chilling account of the death of U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens revealed
Ambassador's whereabouts after attack not known until officials rang his cell phone - and found doctors trying unsuccessfully to save his life in hospital
Most serious attack on U.S. diplomatic compound since al-Qaeda bombed the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania 14 years ago

Hillary just threw Obama and Rice under the bus by exposing that Obama knew from the very outset that it was a terror attack and not a protest about a film. Clinton must want to be president still as she is stating that she was just following orders of the WH.

Arms and Influence in Syria: The Pitfalls of Greater U.S. Involvement

n the midst of growing public wariness about large-scale foreign interventions, the Obama administration has decided to arm the Syrian rebels. Those who call for increasing the scope of U.S. aid to the Syrian rebels argue that (1) arming the rebels is the cheapest way to halt a humanitarian catastrophe, hasten the fall of the Assad regime through a rebel military victory or a negotiated settlement, and allow the Obama administration to influence the broader direction of Syrian politics in a post-Assad world; (2) failure to step up U.S. involvement will damage America’s credibility and reputation in the eyes of our allies and adversaries; and (3) U.S. objective scan be accomplished with a relatively small level of U.S. commitment in Syria.
These arguments are wrong on all counts. There is a high risk that the decision to arm the Syrian rebels will drag the United States into a more extensive involvement later, the very scenario that the advocates for intervention claim they are trying to avoid. The unique characteristics of alliances between states and armed non state groups, in particular their informal nature and secrecy about the existence of the alliance or its specific provisions, create conditions for states to become locked into unpalatable obligations. That seems especially likely in this case.
The specific way the administration has chosen to increase the scope of its support to the rebels sets the stage for even greater U.S. commitment in Syria in the future. The Obama administration, therefore, should not have decided to arm the Syrian rebels.
Looking ahead, it is important for policymakers to understand the nature of alliances between states and armed non state groups even after the Syria conflict is resolved. Given that Americans are unwilling to support large-scale interventions in far-flung reaches of the globe, policymakers looking for military solutions to political problems may conclude that arming proxy groups may be an attractive policy choice. They should instead, however, avoid committing to conflicts that don’t threaten core national security interests.

Read the Full Policy Analysis

.pdf (378.98 KB)

Erica D. Borghard is a PhD candidate in political science at Columbia University. Her dissertation concerns proxy warfare and the conditions under which nonstate groups can involve their stronger allies in foreign policy misadventures.