Obama’s new OIC envoy defended top jihadist — and someone has covered up the evidence

2010 February 15

by Robert Spencer

Sami al-Arian is the former Florida professor who turned out to be a leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and who waged an immensely successful propaganda campaign charging that his prosecution was a manifestation of “Islamophobia” — until he pled guilty, that is. And Rashad Hussain was part of that campaign, although someone has tried to cover up that fact. “Obama’s New OIC Envoy Defended Activist Who Aided Terrorist Group,” by Patrick Goodenough for CNS News, February 15:

(CNSNews.com) – President Obama’s newly appointed envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference was quoted in 2004 as saying an American who aided a Palestinian terrorist group was the victim of “politically motivated persecutions” who was being used “to squash dissent.”Rashad Hussain was quoted as telling a Muslim students’ event in Chicago that if U.S. Muslims did not speak out against the injustices taking place in America, then everyone’s rights would be in jeopardy.

The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) cited Hussain as making the remarks in connection with Sami al-Arian, a university professor and activist sentenced in 2006 to more than four years in prison (including time already spent in custody) after he had pleaded guilty to conspiring to aid the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ).

The U.S. government designated the PIJ as a foreign terrorist organization in 1997, and in 2003, then Attorney-General John Ashcroft described it as “one of the most violent terrorist organizations in the world.”

Palestinian Islamic Jihad has killed more than 100 Israelis in suicide bombings and other attacks. Its victims include American citizens Alisa Flatow, a 20-year-old New Jersey college student killed in a 1995 suicide bombing in Gaza, and 16-year-old Shoshana Ben-Ishai, shot dead in a bus in Jerusalem in 2001.

In sentencing al-Arian, Judge James Moody of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida described him as a “leader of the PIJ” and a “master manipulator.”

Al-Arian remains under home detention in Virginia pending contempt of court charges relating to his refusal to testify in an unrelated case involving an Islamic think tank. Sympathizers view him as a victim of post-9/11 law enforcement zeal and anti-Muslim prejudice. (The WRMEA article described him as “an innocent man targeted for free-speech activities, whose rights were stripped thanks in part to the PATRIOT Act.”)

Among those sympathizers, evidently, was Rashad Hussain, who at the time of the cited remarks was a Yale Law School student and an editor, from 2003-2005, of the Yale Law Journal. He went on to serve as a Department of Justice trial attorney and in January 2009 was appointed White House deputy associate counsel.

On Saturday, Obama named the Texas-born, 31-year-old Indian-American as his envoy to the OIC, the 57-member bloc of Islamic states. The appointment is in line with the president’s goal, expressed in his speech in Cairo last June, to reach out to the Islamic world.

Obama made the announcement in a video address at a U.S.-Islamic World Forum meeting in Qatar, which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Hussain attended over the weekend.

“Rashad has played a key role in developing the partnerships I called for in Cairo,” Obama told the gathering in the video message. “And as a hafiz of the Koran, he is a respected member of the American Muslim community, and I thank him for carrying forward this important work.” (A hafiz is someone who has memorized the Islamic text.)

And someone is whitewashing the record

Complete Story:

Prairie Fire: The Communist Manifesto Of Bill Ayers’ Weather Underground

Click image to read 'Prairie Fire' onlineBarry started his Political Career in this man’s living room and yet he didn’t know who this man was. Seems to me that Barry isn’t all that smart. Especially when you read who the book is dedicated to.  1Dragon

Ironic Surrealism v3.0

The title Prairie Fire is an allusion to Mao’s observation in a 1-5-30 letter that “A Single Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire.”

In 1974 Dohrn co-authored — along with Bill Ayers (her future husband), Jeff Jones, and Celia Sojourn — a book titled ‘Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism’.

This book contained the following statements:

  • “We are a guerrilla organization. We are communist women and men … deeply affected by the historic events of our time in the struggle against U.S. imperialism.”
  • “Our intention is to disrupt the empire, to incapacitate it, to put pressure on the cracks, to make it hard to carry out its bloody functioning against the people of the world, to join the world struggle, to attack from the inside.”
  • “The only path to the final defeat of imperialism and the building of socialism is revolutionary war.”
  • “Revolutionary war will be complicated and protracted. It includes mass struggle and clandestine struggle, peaceful and violent, political and economic, cultural and military, where all forms are developed in harmony with the armed struggle.”
  • “Without mass struggle there can be no revolution.
    Without armed struggle there can be no victory.”
  • “We need a revolutionary communist party in order to lead the struggle, give coherence and direction to the fight, seize power and build the new society.”
  • “Our job is to tap the discontent seething in many sectors of the population, to find allies everywhere people are hungry or angry, to mobilize poor and working people against imperialism.”
  • “Socialism is the total opposite of capitalism/imperialism. It is the rejection of empire and white supremacy. Socialism is the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the eradication of the social system based on profit.”

Dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan [assassin of Robert F. Kennedy] (among others)

Complete Story:

Obama’s Fall

The Weekly Standard

How the mighty have fallen! Only seven or eight months ago, President Obama and congressional Democrats were on their way to remaking America along liberal lines and positioning themselves for decades of political dominance. Their lopsided majorities in the House and Senate, plus the White House, gave them unassailable command of Washington.

Today, they still have those majorities and the presidency, but they’re no longer in command. Their hopes of enacting the most ambitious agenda of liberal legislation since the days of FDR and the Depression are over. Now they’re reduced to stunts, tricks, and gambits usually associated with embattled presidents and minority parties.

Obama’s invitation to Republicans to join him at a bipartisan health care summit next week has been dubbed the “Blair House stunt” by political analyst Jay Cost. (They’ll meet at the Blair House across the street from the White House.) It’s supposed to give Democrats and Republicans a chance to compromise on health care reform–on ObamaCare, as it’s been nicknamed.

Fat chance. The invitation makes it clear that Republicans would be props in the televised summit as Obama and Democrats tout their own bill. Both houses of Congress have passed “comprehensive health care legislation,” it says.  “…The Blair House meeting is the next step in the process.”

If that isn’t plain enough about what Democrats are up to, the strategy that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is currently pursuing on ObamaCare should remove any doubts. She has concocted a three-step process to pass the Democratic bill without any input from Republicans (as usual).

It’s a tricky process, as even some Democrats concede. And it’s both complicated and a last ditch ploy, a legislative hail mary. First, the House must pass the Senate version of ObamaCare, which won Senate approval on Christmas Eve. Then, in a second bill, the House would enact changes in the legislation to make it more amenable to wary Democrats in the House. The third step would have Democrats use “reconciliation” in the Senate to pass the changes with 51 votes, not the 60 normally needed to overcome a filibuster.  This tactic would touch off a firestorm of Republican protests.

But it may not work. Putting together a majority in the House may be beyond Pelosi’s skill at cajoling and intimidating reluctant Democratic members.  When the House version of ObamaCare passed in November, it got 220 votes. She’s lost 4 votes since then (one by resignation, one by imminent resignation, one by death, one by switching). That gives Pelosi 216 votes, one short of a majority given the vacancies. Also, a number of Democrats may join Republicans to oppose reconciliation in the Senate.

Complete Story:

Saudi controlled FOX moves against Gubernatorial candidates who question Obama’s Eligibility


The Post & E-Mail

by John Charlton

© 2009/2010

(Feb. 15, 2010) — In a move which openly and shamelessly manifests FOX’s anti-American agenda, the former conservative news agency has launched a propaganda campaign against U.S. Citizens who, having announced their candidacy for State Governor, in their home states, also question the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of U.S. President.

In an unsigned report published at their website, on Friday, Feb. 12, 2010, Fox News takes aim at Georgia Gubernatorial Candidate, Nathan Deal, and Texas Gubernatorial Candidate Debra Medina.

In its title, “Gubernatorial Candidates Echo Theories of Birthers, 9/11Truthers” the report echoes the terminology and strategy adopted by Eric Erickson of Redstate.com; lump a legitimate constitutional, pro-American issue, with an illegitimate anti-American issue, so as to confuse viewers and suborn their loyalty to the nation.

Medina, does not support the notion that the U.S. Government plotted 9-11, but she is open to consideration of the possibility.  Nathan Deal simply wrote a letter to Obama, asking for reliable information about his birth story.

In that report, FOX openly lied about an important fact in the history of the eligibility question:

In Georgia, Deal, who sent his letter in December, says he is not questioning Obama’s legitimacy, but he believes the president would like a chance to put the issue to rest — even though the Hawaiian government confirmed during the 2008 campaign that a copy of Obama’s birth certificate, which his campaign posted on his Web site, was authentic.

No such claim was ever made.  In fact, Janice S. Okubo was merely quoted by the St. Petersburg Times saying that the electronic image appeared to be like of an actual Hawaiian Certification.  She later made it quite clear that she never saw Obama’s original form, and that electronic images are not issued by her department.  It is obvious as Communication Director, that she is also not qualified to authenticate electronic images.

But FOX showed its true colors, when in the same report, it immediately gave credence to the Democratic agenda, by citing an opponent of Nathan Deal:

In a gubernatorial debate this month, Deal was criticized by one of his GOP opponents for pressing the president to release his birth certificate

“The ability to work with the president … is hindered when you have people who are running for governor that are calling for childish things like the president to show his birth certificate,” said Georgia state lawmaker Austin Scott. “I promise you I’ll always be a gentleman when working with the federal government.”

By this statement, FOX has made it absolutely clear to America, that they will not tolerate anyone who will not work with Obama and be respectful to him.

This move by FOX comes less than a month after a member of the Saudi Royalty, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a nephew of the King of Saudi Arabia, announced his desire to forge closer ties with Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, the parent of FOX.

Tarek El-tablawy, AP Business Writer, in a report published by Yahoo News, on Sunday, Jan 17, 2010, wrote:

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a nephew of the Saudi king and who was listed last year by Forbes as the world’s 22nd richest person, met with News Corp.’s chief executive Rupert Murdoch on Jan. 14 in a meeting that “touched upon future potential alliances with News Corp.,” according to a statement released by his Kingdom Holding Co. late Saturday.

Media reports have indicated that News Corp, parent to Fox News and Dow Jones & Co., among others, may be thinking of buying a stake in Alwaleed’s Rotana Media Group, which includes a number of satellite channels that air in the Middle East.

Neither company has commented publicly on the possible deal, but the talks offer an indication yet that such an agreement may yet be in the offing.

Kingdom Holding’s statement said Alwaleed is already the second largest stakeholder in News Corp., with 5.7 percent of the shares of the media company. The stake is held through Kingdom Holding, in which Alwaleed holds a 95 percent stake.

The investment company has a diverse portfolio, ranging from hotels to shares in Apple, eBay and Citigroup.

According to Discover The Networks, Khalid Al-Mansour, a wealthy Muslim Businessman, is the one who reportedly helped Barack Hussein Obama II, transfer from Columbia University to Harvard in the 80’s, remaining an important supporter of the mulatto candidate, who openly claims as his own Arab/Muslim roots in Kenya.

Al-Mansour is a Afro-American, from San Francisco, who converted to Islam, made friends with Prince Alwaleed and was eventually hired by the latter to promote fundamentalist Islam in America.

Thus, it can be rightly said, that a foreign power is the power behind the policy decisions both at FOX News and in the Obama Campaign.

American patriots need to start asking themselves what other so-called “conservative” sources of information have been bought out by the same forces, which want to keep Obama in power, for the sake of Islam.

© 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified.


Obamacare vs. the United States Constitution

I must have missed something, it happens, but when did Barry get his medical degree and become an expert on health care? I understand that a lot of people think Barry is the smartest man ever to be Resident in Chief. Lets face it, you guys were douped from the start. A guy comes along, tells you he’s for Change, doesn’t tell you what kind of Change, brags about how smart he is and where he went to school, gets elected into office, and on DAY 1 he seals all of his files so no one can find out where he went to school, what his grades were, how he could have paid for his education and to this day no hospital in Hawaii will admit that he was born there. So is this the type of man you want telling you what kind of health care you should have?            1Dragon
Human Events



Public support for ObamaCare legislation is dismal. According to a February 2 – 3 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, among 900 registered voters surveyed, only 23 percent want it enacted. Fully 70 percent disagree. Among them, 47 percent would start over, and 23 percent would do nothing. (Margin of error: +/- 3 percent.)

Nonetheless, ObamaCare is like a quietly rumbling volcano — dormant, but not yet dead. President Obama and Washington Democrats oscillate between tears over their stalled pet project and cheers that “We’re moving forward,” as Obama recently chirped. The White House’s February 25 bipartisan healthcare summit is a sulfurous puff of smoke that should worry ObamaCare opponents.

Consequently, those who want to stop this ruinous measure should keep highlighting its shortcomings until this initiative is extinct.

Consider, then, that ObamaCare flunks the first test of any potential federal law: It is not constitutional. ObamaCare critics deem the individual mandate unconstitutional, since Congress lacks the power to force Americans to buy anything, especially health insurance they wisely or foolishly may not want.

Congress’ legitimate power to regulate interstate commerce has been stretched like saltwater taffy. “It is one thing, however, for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage; it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity,” Senator Orrin Hatch (R – Utah), former Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, and the American Civil Rights Union’s Kenneth Klukowski observed in the January 2 Wall Street Journal. “That is not a difference in degree, but instead a difference in kind.”

Beyond this lies another problem. The individual mandate would be enforced by penalizing Americans $495 or 0.5 percent of Adjusted Gross Income, whichever is higher, if they do not acquire health insurance by 2014. Two years later, that fine would rise to 2 percent of AGI, equal to $640 today. Anticipated fines total some $15 billion.

The IRS would collect these payments and require Americans to certify on their tax returns that they carry health coverage. This represents a “direct” tax on U.S. citizens, based solely on the status of living in America. This is not a tax on income. It is not an excise tax either, since there is no tax on any transaction; if one refuses to purchase insurance, there is no transaction on which to slap an excise tax.

As Senator John Ensign (R – Nevada) told his colleagues on the Senate floor: “Anything we have ever done, somebody actually had to have an action before we could tax or regulate it.”

“Without precedent, Congress is attempting to punish the non-purchase of a private product,” says Robert Levy, senior fellow for constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, which he chairs. “That would be an intolerable affront to the Constitution and personal autonomy.”

Nonetheless, the individual mandate’s IRS enforcement scheme operates, in essence, as a tax. The hitch is that Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” Section 9 adds that “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

A penalty collected via the IRS would be a direct tax on individuals, independent of anything reflected in the Census or tied to enumeration of citizens among the states. As such, the individual mandate’s enforcement mechanism would fail Constitutional scrutiny. And a mandate without enforcement is just a suggestion.

If ObamaCare somehow re-erupts into active status, it likely would rely on this ultimately toothless individual suggestion, which many Americans gladly would ignore. Without Washington’s capacity to pressure Americans into submission, the number of participants in ObamaCare likely would fall well below projections, and this entire, glorious experiment would implode.

One of the most compelling arguments against ObamaCare is that it is self-defeatingly unconstitutional. That is yet another reason why this menacing monster must be silenced.

100 lawmakers reject Big Brother health-care takeover

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.

Nearly 100 lawmakers have signed a formal Declaration of Health Care Independence to reject an unconstitutional Washington takeover of American health care – and now one representative is challenging Americans to deliver

it to Congress and the White House to hold them accountable to the people.

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., drafted and formally unveiled the Declaration of Health Care Independence Jan. 27. The declaration is a commitment to protect the rights of the American people to make their own health decisions, reduce bureaucratic red-tape, decrease intergenerational debt and implement 10 common-sense principles for future health-care reform.

“We’ve come to somewhat of an impasse,” Bachmann told WND. “Now with Sen. Scott Brown’s election, that seems to have been able to stop the ball from rolling in the Senate. But we know the president still plans to base his plans on the health-care bill.”

She noted President Obama has extended an invitation to Republicans to join Democrats for a live, televised meeting on health-care reform on Feb. 25.

“For us to go forward, it’s important for those of us who are constitutional conservatives that we lay out what our vision is – our roadmap, so to speak, for any future health-care discussion,” Bachmann explained. “The people have thoroughly rejected what the Democrats came up with in the Senate and the House.”

Complete Story: