Russia: bank cards with zero annual percent now available to Muslims

Dhimmi Watch -- Leave it to the Russians to shrewdly give in to sharia, only to profit. "First Bank Cards for Muslims Issued in Russia," from IC, August 27:

For the first time ever in the banker history in Russia special plastic cards for Muslims are now available for the followers of Islam. The cards are produced by one of the largest banks of the Republic of Dagestan of the RF.

The special feature of the cards is zero annual percent. It is known that Islam prohibits usury and the Muslim religion is against its followers getting profit from keeping money somewhere.

Banks must be devastated by this news.

According to the pushful bank representatives, the cards are already gaining popularity with the Muslim republic citizens who previously to becoming a bank’s client had to write a paper confirming that they refused getting deposit percentage.

Fear grips immigrants after Miss. plant raid

LAUREL, Miss. (AP) - A day after the largest single-workplace immigration raid in U.S. history, Elizabeth Alegria was too scared to send her son to school and worried about when she'd see her husband again.

Nearly 600 immigrants suspected of being in the country illegally were detained, creating panic among dozens of families in this small southern Mississippi town.....

Obama’s Favorite Islamist

by Alex Alexiev

As the Democrat Convention’s carefully-scripted coronation of perhaps the least qualified major party presidential candidate in recent American history builds up to its climax, few have noticed that the convention’s most pregnant political message may have already been delivered before it officially started. It came in the form of a decision by Obama’s campaign to feature the president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Ms. Ingrid Mattson, at an “Interfaith Gathering” of Leftist religious luminaries the day before the convention opened.

In doing that, Obama and the Democrat leadership rather demonstratively bestowed their seal of approval on the largest and most important front organization of the American Muslim Brotherhood, a conspiratorial Islamist revolutionary movement dedicated, in their own words, to “a grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands.” The implications of this political legitimization of a group dedicated to the destruction of our constitutional order are so profoundly disturbing that some background on what exactly ISNA and the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) are is in order.

The Ikhwan beachhead in America was first established by a Saudi-funded group of Muslim Brothers in 1963 at the University of Illinois that became known as the Muslim Students Association of the U.S. and Canada (MSA). This was only a year after the founding in Saudi Arabia of the main instrument for export of the violent Wahhabi/Salafi creed, the Muslim World League (MWL). The MWL, like other similar organizations that followed, were the fruit of the symbiotic nexus between Ikhwan organizational talent and Saudi financial muscle, a key synergy that is the single most important determinant of the vast inroads radical Islamism has made in the West since then.

Acting according to the MB’s principle of a unitary Islamic movement operating through many fronts, the MSA promptly spawned numerous Islamist professional, educational and publishing spinoffs, before founding the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) in 1973, an ingenious Saudi-funded vehicle for control of American Islam through interest-free financing and holding the title of many Muslim institutions. Finally, in 1981, the Brotherhood and its Wahhabi patrons felt the need to set up yet another instrument of control of the proliferating American Islamist networks by incorporating ISNA in Indiana as an umbrella organization of these networks. In the process, numerous front organizations that preceded ISNA by many years, including the MSA itself and NAIT, became ISNA constituent organizations.

What never changed was the unremitting hostility of the organization to fundamental American values like democracy, separation of church and state and human rights and its dedication to the ultimate objective of establishing a world-wide Islamic rule under barbaric shariah law. Under the guidance of well-known Islamist zealots like Muzamil Siddiqui, Jamal Badawi, Abdalla Idris Ali, Iqbal Unus, Ihsan Bagby and many others, ISNA has through the years aided and abetted all manner of extremist and terrorist causes, while mouthing disingenuous calls for interfaith dialog. While it has been able to fool numerous politically correct useful idiots, ISNA has been less successful with U.S. law enforcement authorities who listed it (and its affiliate NAIT) as an unindicted co-conspirator in a recent terrorism funding case. Moreover, attempts to have its name expunged from that list were tersely rejected by the U.S. government citing numerous evidentiary exhibits establishing ISNA’s “intimate relationship” with the Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorist organizations.

ISNA is intimately involved in yet another major Islamist effort to undermine American society that has so far escaped public scrutiny. Through its affiliate NAIT, it owns and runs the IMAN shariah finance mutual fund which is part of the global financial Jihad effort aiming to legitimize a medieval doctrine that mandates violent jihad against non-Muslims and the killing of adulterers and homosexuals. Interestingly, the IMAN fund was known as the Dow Jones Islamic Fund until last March when it was revealed that the chairman of its shariah advisory board, Mufti Taqi Usmani, had long called for violence against infidels and sanctioned suicide terrorism. No less puzzling is the fact that NAIT, which owns most shares of the for-profit multi-million dollar mutual fund and on whose board Ingrid Mattson sits, does not file tax returns since it ostensibly makes less than $25,000 per year.

Perhaps the best evidence of what ISNA really stands for is provided by its own poll of the attitudes of its membership conducted in 2006. By nearly a 3 to 1 margin ISNA members believed that the U.S. government had advance knowledge of the September 11, 2001 attacks and allowed them to happen and a majority did not believe that the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks and the July 7, 2005 bombings in London were Muslim.

Despite such overwhelming evidence of ISNA’s subversive nature, many are willing to give it the benefit of doubt. This is at least partly due to the fact that Ingrid Mattson is the first woman head of a major Islamic organization and is especially skillful in beating the bogus interfaith dialog drums. For the Obama campaign and more than a few others, this has by itself provided the needed proof that ISNA is a picture of moderation.

Indeed, how can all the lurid tales of Islamist misogyny, gay-bashing and hate-spewing against Christians and Jews be true when ISNA now has a leader that is seemingly an emancipated and enlightened woman dedicated to multiculturalism and understanding? A fair question, it seems, until one starts digging behind the headlines. It doesn’t take long to discover that far from being a new emancipated leader, Ms. Mattson is little more than a useful prop serving the Islamist agenda. Shortly after she was elected ISNA president in August 2006, the organization’s secretary –general Sayyid Syeed announced that this does not change the prohibition against women leading mixed-gender prayer and that Mattson will only be allowed to lead “ritual worship for women.” Mattson herself promptly opined that Muslim women are quite content with their segregated prayer space in the mosque.

Nor has she raised even the slightest objection to numerous misogynist statements by her fellow-ISNA executives and Islamist ideologues, Muzammil Siddiqui and Jamal Badawi, who have openly supported shariah restrictions on women traveling by themselves, socialization between men and women, or making friends with non-Muslims and endorsed polygamy and the husband’s right to beat his wife. Or, for that matter, their implicit endorsement of the death penalty for homosexuality. Not to mention ISNA’s vituperative anti-Semitism, rejection of basic American norms such as the separation of church and state and its support for the imposition of shariah law in Muslim communities in the West.

It would be interesting to find out whether key democratic constituencies such as feminists and gay and lesbian groups are aware of the real agenda of this newly anointed partner of the Obama coalition for change. Just as it would be for rank and file Americans to learn that as far as ISNA’s leadership is concerned American Muslims “should not melt in any pot except the Muslim Brotherhood pot.”

In the interest of fairness, the Obama campaign is not the only one to buy uncritically ISNA’s deceitful protestations. The Bush Administration, which has had seven years to figure it out, is even guiltier in failing to understand the deeply subversive nature of the Muslim Brotherhood networks and has often acted as a willing dupe to the Islamists. The number two man at the Pentagon, Gordon England, for instance, followed the advice of a likely Islamist plant in his office - who had lied about his background - in terminating Stephen Coughlin, one of the few genuine experts in the U.S. government on shariah law. Not surprisingly, Mr. England had earlier legitimized through his presence an ISNA convention which teemed with radical Islamist speakers and messages, making himself a useful idiot par excellence in the process.

Not to be overdone, the Administration’s former public diplomacy czar, Karen Hughes, whose impeccable credentials as a close personal friend of President Bush were only exceeded by her impeccable cluelessness about radical Islam, proudly declared ISNA members to be her frontline troops in public diplomacy.

The documented failure of the outgoing administration to come to terms with the existence of a well-organized Islamist fifth column in America does not make the democrats’ new infatuation with a key part of this fifth column any less serious. Especially because, as the party has veered sharply to the left, parts of it have increasingly embraced radical Islam as a new ally. These have ranged from the ACLU, which has openly allied itself with organizations like ISNA and CAIR, to the Greens who have lately been debating whether to engage radical Islam in a joint struggle to destroy capitalism.

These feelings are fully reciprocated on the other side as the Islamists increasingly see the Left as a potential ally in its quest to undermine Western civilization and replace it with shariah rule.

Following the Democrat mid-term election victories in 2006, the Muslim Brotherhood website ikhwanweb argued that the Democrat victory will work in favor of Muslims and the Muslim Brotherhood inside and outside the U.S. and expressed the hope that the democrats will begin dealing directly with “moderate Islamists.”

The Democrat Convention’s legitimization of Ingrid Mattson and ISNA would seem to justify such hopes further. One can only hope that the majority of patriotic Democrat voters would soon start asking questions about Obama’s new Islamist partners.

American Children Being Brainwashed in Taliban Madrassa

(Compiler's note: Here is a letter I just received and now share with you. )

ACTION ALERT !!

Dear Robert,

Recently I was invited to attend a weekend meeting that included elected officials and leaders of organizations concerned about radical Islam.

During that time I had the opportunity to meet with the producers of a documentary entitled “Karachi Kids.” “Karachi Kids” chronicles how children from around the world, including Americans and Canadians, are being sent off to a Pakistani madrassa run by the Taliban, to be brainwashed and sent back to their home countries as jihadists.

The school claims that it has already “graduated” over 100 American children.

Please read the press release below and click on www.karachikids.com to view the trailer.

Then, I urge you to click here to contact your Member of Congress and two U.S. Senators and ask them to support legislation introduced by U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX).

McCaul’s bill, H.Res 1336, calls for an accounting of how many American children are in radical Islamic madrassas in Pakistan. H.Res 1336 encourages "the United States Secretary of State to work with the government of Pakistan to secure the return to the United States of all American children being educated in madrassas in Pakistan."



Brigitte Gabriel

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE	News@KarachiKids.com
Thursday, July 10, 2008	(404) 524-2244

STATEMENT OF IMRAN RAZA
REGARDING RELEASE OF
AMERICAN CHILDREN FROM
PAKISTANI TALIBAN MADRASSA

(Atlanta, GA) - Imran Raza, the director and executive producer of the documentary "Karachi Kids" who discovered up to 80 American children in a Taliban-backed madrassa in Pakistan released the following statement regarding the return of two American children to Atlanta:
I am grateful for the safe return of the two American children from Atlanta from a Taliban- backed madrassa but the mullah claims to have up to 78 more in his institution. The headmaster comes to the United States once a year and personally recruits American children to enroll in his madrassa.
The remaining 78 children must be returned to the United States. This pipeline to jihad must be closed.
Let me be clear - these children do not learn math, or science, or liberal arts. They learn one thing - they memorize over the course of seven years every verse of the Koran coupled with the radical interpretation of their teachers.
This is just the first step in integrating these children back to American society. I am proud we did our part so we could say "Welcome Home."

It is imperative that Members of Congress and the State Department undertake an accounting of just how many Americans are in the other 20,000 madrassas in Pakistan. Hundreds remain behind.

The Karachi Kids is a documentary about American children in the Jamia Binoria madrassa in Karachi Pakistan. A trailer of the film is available at www.karachikids.com.

Facts About the Binoria Madrassa

• Located in Karachi, Pakistan, the Jamia Binoria madrassa was founded by Mufti Muhammed Naeem and espouses Deobandism -- the religion of the Taliban.
• The institution houses over 3,000 students including children from the United States and Canada.
• Selig Harrison, the Director of the Asian Program for the Center for International Policy recently gave a speech reafng the link between the Jamia Binoria and the Taliban: "In Karachi, the Jamia Binoria, withsome 10,000 students enrolled in eight afted madrassas, displays a banner at its main gate urging Muslims to join the Taliban."
• A large number of graduates from the Binoria have become senior es in the Taliban.
• Right before 9/11, Osama bin Laden addressed the students emphasizing the importance of jihad.
• Mufti claims to have graduated over 100 Americans from his institution and asked what they teach the children, Mufti relied, "Islam, not math or anything else, only Islam."

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

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

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

---

HOW CAN I TELL OTHERS ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Send a personalized version of this message to your friends.

---

HOW CAN I SUPPORT YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Click here to give an online donation.

Who Lied About Iraq?

(Compiler's note: This is a "MUST READ" article -- one to be saved as well. The NOT WELL PUBLISHED facts need to be considered by all. rca)

By Randall Hoven

Do not believe that post-invasion intelligence invalidates our justification for using military force against Saddam's Iraq. The truth is the exact opposite. The US was fully justified to use military force against Iraq, even knowing what we know now -- especially knowing what we know now. We should not allow the false story -- almost accepted as fact -- as we head into a Presidential election, to go unchallenged.

The False Story

"The United States invaded Iraq based on false premises. The administration orchestrated a public relations drive to prove that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and connections to the 9/11 terrorists - both proved false." USA Today

While these two sentences came from USA Today, they describe the words behind the music of the "Bush lied, people died" meme echoing throughout the media chambers since at least 2004. The lies in just these two sentences are almost Shakespearian in their layered texture. The statement even lays out a false premise in accusing the Bush administration of using false premises. If lying is an art, our media have mastered it.

The Premise

Our invasion of Iraq was not based on a public relations drive; it was based on Public Law 107-243, otherwise known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, passed by the 107^th Congress in October of 2002 . (Herein referred to as the "Authorization".) It passed the House with a vote of 296 to 133 (by 69%) and the Senate with a vote of 77 to 23 (by 77%), including 58% of Senate Democrats. In short, it was overwhelming; it was bipartisan; and it was law.

Did the Authorization try to "prove that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction"? Was that proved false?

No and no.

The Authorization has 23 "whereas" clauses, or reasons to justify military invasion, only some of which mention WMD. Here is a prime example.

"Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated." [Emphasis added.]

There are several things to notice in that clause. First is the tense of the verb "had." The clause does not claim that Iraq has WMD now (in 2002), but that it at one time had them. Secondly, the only stockpiles mentioned are of chemical weapons. Of biological and nuclear weapons it mentions only programs. At no place does the Authorization say that any WMD are current (post-1991).

Another clause states Iraq continues "to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" (my emphasis). Again, capabilities and potential capabilities are mentioned, but not ready-to-use weapons or even weapon programs, much less large stockpiles of modern WMD.

Feel free to read all 23 clauses. The Authorization never claims that Iraq had large stockpiles of modern WMD in 2002, which later became, for no good reason, the threshold used for validation by the media and administration critics. (The logical fallacy employed by Bush's critics here is the "straw man.")

Am I being hyper-technical in parsing the grammar of the Authorization -- wallowing in what the meaning of "is" is? No.

It is the media that is spinning by demanding that only finding large stockpiles of modern WMD would legitimize the war. I am using the actual law as clearly stated. Such an authorization, passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President, was not just cobbled together willy-nilly. It was the law of the land -- carefully crafted, debated and passed. Words matter.

So what was found post-invasion? The Duelfer Report noted that 53 chemical weapons were found.

"Beginning in May 2004, ISG recovered a series of chemical weapons from Coalition military units and other sources. A total of 53 munitions have been recovered." (Found on page 97 of Annex F of Volume 3.)

That number later grew to over 500 chemical weapons. You can now check the "large stockpiles of chemical weapons" off your checklist (even though the Authorization did not claim they existed in 2002 or later).

What about biological and nuclear programs?

"Initially, Saddam chose to conceal his nuclear program in its entirety, as he did with Iraq's BW [Biological Warfare] program. Aggressive UN inspections after Desert Storm forced Saddam to admit the existence of the program and destroy or surrender components of the program. In the wake of Desert Storm, Iraq took steps to conceal key elements of its program and preserve what it could of the professional capabilities of its nuclear scientific community." [Emphasis added.]

You may now also check the biological and nuclear weapons programs off your checklist. At one time he had them. The only question was how active such programs were in 2002. But we know that he had them at one time and that he also concealed them later. Were these programs still active, but concealed, in 2002 or had he put them on hiatus? For the purpose of the Authorization, the answer doesn't matter, but let's examine it anyway.

As to concealment, note the following Duelferisms.

• The word "conceal" is found 57 times in Volume 1 alone.
• "Many locations associated with previous WMD programs and sites under monitoring by the United Nations have been completely looted... Often there is nothing but a concrete slab at locations where once stood plants or laboratories."
• "We cannot express a firm view on the possibility that WMD elements were relocated out of Iraq prior to the war."
• "ISG technical experts fully evaluated less than one quarter of one percent of the over 10,000 weapons caches throughout Iraq."

You can make what you will of those statements. What I make of them is that Duelfer and his fellow inspectors really have no idea what happened with Saddam's WMD, facilities or programs. They didn't look everywhere. Where they did look was mostly "looted," where "looting" could mean cleaned out to conceal evidence. Saddam consistently concealed what he was up to. And Duelfer cannot make a statement about what might have been transported out of Iraq.

The Duelfer Report is three volumes of "I don't know." Post-invasion intelligence is no more trustworthy than pre-invasion intelligence.

In any case, Duelfer makes clear that Saddam had every intention of restoring the programs as soon as he could get sanctions lifted. His very first finding, echoed often throughout the report, states his fundamental conclusion.

"[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted."

In short, the Authorization did not try to "prove that Iraq had WMD." Inasmuch as the Authorization mentioned WMD, such statements were fully validated by post-war intelligence. And Duelfer went even further than Authorization claims by finding that Saddam had every intention of reconstituting his WMD has soon as he could bribe his way out of sanctions.

Did the Authorization try to "prove that Iraq had connections to the 911 terrorists"? Was that proved false?

Again, no and no.

The Authorization mentions the September 11 attacks in five of the 23 "whereas" clauses. Here is what it says in three such clauses, with the other two being repeats of the same sentiments.

• "Members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for the attacks ... are known to be in Iraq."
• The "attacks... underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of WMD by international terrorist organizations."
• "... necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those ... who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

One clause mentions 9/11 only to provide a background of the gravity of the situation. Another clause explicitly says that all terrorists are to be targeted, noting that the 9/11 terrorists are only a subset of that larger threat.

There is only one statement in all of the Authorization that connects Iraq with al Qaida and the 9/11 attacks, and then only indirectly. All it says is that some al Qaida members were known to be in Iraq.

Note that nowhere in the Authorization is there any claim of even a logistical, training or strategic relationship between al Qaida and Iraq, much less an operational or planning one for the 9/11 attacks in particular. Again for no good reason, this latter claim became the only legitimate threshold for military action per administration critics.

Were any al Qaida members in Iraq at the time of the Authorization? Yes, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his cell. The most recent Senate Intelligence Committee's report on the matter concluded the following .

"[Pre-war administration] statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al-Qa'ida-related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments. Intelligence assessments noted Zarqawi's presence in Iraq and his ability to travel and operate within the country.

"Postwar information supports prewar assessments and statements that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad and that al-Qa'ida was present in northern Iraq."

This report is the product of a Democrat-controlled Senate committee, chaired by John D. Rockefeller (D-WV), in a Democrat-controlled Senate. Moreover, more extensive Iraq-al-Qaida links have also been substantiated. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee's report,

"One of the reported contacts [between Iraq and al-Qa'ida before the war] has been confirmed, and two other meetings have since been identified."

Judge Harold Baer ruled in Federal court that Iraq was indeed partially responsible for the September 11 attacks, enough so that the plaintiffs could be awarded damages against Saddam's Iraq . The judge ruled there was "a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to draw inferences"

"that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda.... Iraq collaborated in or supported bin Laden/al Qaeda's terrorist acts of September 11... Iraq provided materiel support to al Qaeda and that it did so with knowledge and intent to further al Qaeda's criminal acts."

Judge Harold Baer is not some 10-Commandment-Displaying Reaganite; he was appointed by President Clinton. Significant testimony in the case came from James Woolsey, President Clinton's CIA chief from 1993 to 1995.

In short, not only was the language of the Authorization validated, but significantly more involvement between Iraq and al Qaida has been substantiated by a Democrat-controlled Senate, a Clinton-appointed federal judge and a Clinton-appointed former CIA chief.

So what was the terrorist-WMD reason for military action in Iraq?

The September 11 attacks demonstrated to all of us that terrorist threats are not empty. Those of us who doubted the seriousness of such threats (and I was one of them) had our heads cleared on 9/11. Moreover, the attacks demonstrated just how deadly terrorists could be with only box-cutters and other low-tech tools. Between their words and their actions, we knew we could not let terrorists get their hands on WMD.

On the other hand, hostile states could use terrorists as covert or plausibly-deniable WMD delivery devices. The nightmare nexus would be a hostile state with both WMD and terrorist connections.

Iraq had both WMD and terrorist connections. In short, as the Authorization puts it in its sixth "whereas,"

"Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations."

It was also not obvious that Saddam would not use WMD himself, without resorting to terrorists as middlemen. He had already used them "against other nations and [his] own people." He had expressed his hatred of the US in word and deed by, among other things, attempting "to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces."

What are some of those "other things" that made Iraq in "materiel and unacceptable breach of its international obligations"?

• Iraq agreed to a cease-fire when it surrendered in Desert Storm in 1991. It was in "direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire."
• Iraq agreed to eliminate its WMD programs in 1991. It was later caught continuing those programs, concealing them and thwarting weapons inspectors to the point of kicking them out of the country.
• Iraq agreed to "end its support for international terrorism" in 1991. It continued to "aid and harbor" international terrorist organizations, including those "that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens."
• Iraq "engaged in brutal repression of its civilian population."
• Iraq refused "to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman."
• Iraq failed "to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait."
• Iraq attempted "to assassinate former President Bush."
• Iraq fired "on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council."
• Iraq persisted in violating multiple United Nations resolutions. Congress authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 674, and 677."

If Saddam's Iraq was not an "outlaw regime," then there is no such thing.

Regardless of the careful wording of the Authorization, did the Bush administration orchestrate a "public relations drive" that was "proved false"?

Inasmuch as a public relations drive was mounted, it was examined by a Democrat-controlled Senate Committee on Intelligence and largely found to be "substantiated by intelligence." This biased report from Chairman John Rockefeller's committee analyzed various statements by Bush administration officials and compared them to post-war intelligence. Here is what they found (emphasis added).

• "Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor regarding possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community."
• "Statements ... regarding Iraq's possession of biological agents, weapons, production capability, and use of mobile biological laboratories were substantiated by intelligence information."
• "Statements ... regarding Iraq's possession of chemical weapons were substantiated by intelligence information."
• "Statements ... regarding Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction were generally substantiated by intelligence information, though many statements made regarding ongoing production prior to late 2002 reflected a higher level of certainty than the intelligence judgments themselves."
• "Statements ... regarding Iraqi ballistic missiles were generally substantiated by available intelligence."
• "Statements ... that Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles that could be use to deliver chemical or biological weapons were generally substantiated by intelligence information, but did not convey the substantial disagreements or evolving views that existed in the intelligence community."
• "Statements ... regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qa'ida were substantiated by intelligence information."
• "Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al-Qa'ida-related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments."

Substantiated, substantiated, substantiated by the intelligence. And these conclusions from some of the most ardent Bush-bashers in the Senate. About the worst they could come up with was that the Bush administration made claims with more confidence than seemed warranted by the intelligence community.

Tell me, if military action is considered necessary and legal, by both Congress and the Executive branch, is it OK for the President to muster domestic and international support for such action by using rhetorical persuasion? I dare say, he would be negligent if he didn't.

The True Story

The Bush administration did not lie. Saddam's Iraq was a threat to the US that demanded the use of military force. That was not just Bush's "cowboy" opinion; that was the written law, passed by huge and bipartisan margins in both houses of Congress. That opinion was supported by both pre-war intelligence and post-war intelligence.

Moreover, the "legal case" was solid and Iraq was given chance after chance after chance.

• The authorization noted at least 10 UN resolutions, spread out over a decade, to justify the use of US military force.
• The Authorization noted that "the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in ... Public Law 107-40." [Emphasis added.]
• The Authorization noted Public Law 105-235 (passed under President Clinton) that urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations."

The invasion of Iraq was arguably the most justified case of military action the US has ever taken in its history, based on national defense, validated intelligence and legal authority, not to mention morality. Articles of impeachment would have made more sense if Bush had not invaded.

That the exact opposite story is what a majority of Americans appear to believe, and a super-majority of non-Americans, is a scary thought. The truth has been sabotaged, and not by President Bush or his allies.

Russia's Isomer Bomb, Funded by Your Taxes

By David Hambling
The research that could, perhaps, lead to nuclear isomer bombs one day remains contentious in America; the weight of the physics establishment says the science is unproven, even unlikely. But what is the rest of the world doing? In particular, what about the Russians, who carried out some of the earliest work in this area?And what about the Chinese?

Shortly after first writing about the potential for an isomer bomb, I came across an article in the Russian paper Nezavisimaya Gazeta. This was on 12th August 2003; for the 50th anniversary of the first Soviet hydrogen bomb, they interviewed Viktor Mikhailov, scientific director of the Federal Nuclear Center. (The original is in Russian, translation thanks to Babelfish.)

Q: But what still are the possibilities in principle of using the nuclear effects?

A: We have the also very large field of work with the nuclear energy. Besides the isotopes of fissionable elements there are the so-called isomers. Isotopes differ from each other only in terms of number of neutrons in the nucleus. But isomers have the same number of electrons, and protons, and neutrons. The entire difference is in the fact that the isomer is in an excited state, but can convert to stable state. And this also releases nuclear energy. Any transition from one state to another occurs with the release of energy. The fission energy of nuclei exceeds chemical energy 10 million times. But who says that a weapon this powerful is necessary these days? But the transition of isomers gives off thousands of times more energy than chemical reactions.

Q: This is way to the creation of a new generation of nuclear weapons?

A: It is difficult to say, developments are still under way today. I simply want to emphasize that nuclear energy is not only fission energy or fusion, but can be, for example, the transition energy of separate nucleons.

So the Russians also have a theoretical interest, at least, in isomer weapons.

In America, the most controversial research has involved trying to "trigger" -- get energy out of -- a Hafnium isomer. In Russia, there has been plenty of controversy over Hafnium, as well. A 2005 paper on induced decay of the nuclear isomer 178m2Hf and the 'isomeric bomb' written by E. V. Tkalya, is deeply skeptical of the physics involved.

However, I came across a more recent scientific paper, which puts a different light on hafnium triggering. The work was carried out by a team of Russian and Chinese physicists in the area of "resonance conversion" as an efficient triggering technique and was published in the journal Chinese Physics Letters.

Much of the argument about triggering energy release from Hafnium is about the size of the target. Imagine the Hafnium atom is a bomb, which you are trying to detonate by firing bullets at it. One school of thought says the critical area you need to hit is tiny; controversial, Darpa-funded researcher Carl Collins and his colleagues say that (according to his disputed results) it’s a billion times bigger.

The Russian and Chinese paper attempts to bridge the gap between these two, explaining how a resonance effect might make the target area tens of thousands of times larger than you would otherwise expect. It doesn’t fully account for the difference, and it relies on some assumptions which have yet to be proven.

It would be potentially alarming if the Russians and Chinese cracked the secret of isomer triggering and plunged while the scientific community dismissed it as physically impossible. But the paper on resonance conversion had a surprising footnote:

Supported by the DTRA [the US Defense Threat Reduction Agency] under contract No DTRA 01-02-M-0534

DTRA is one of the U.S. military agencies pursuing isomer research. In these international times, it is not so easy telling who is on which side.

Obama’s Ayers problem deepens

By Michelle Malkin

The Chicago bully tactics aren’t going to work. While Obama sics his lawyers and Kossack minions on TV stations that dare to air an independent ad about his close relationship with Weather Underground terrorist-turned-academic Bill Ayers, the truth is seeping out. Thanks to the efforts of NRO’s Stanley Kurtz, blogger Steve Diamond, and intense pressure from Internet readers and talk radio listeners, the University of Illinois - Chicago was forced to release a trove of papers that a former official attempted to shield from public view. There are some 140 boxes and 1,000 files to sift through — and MSM outlets have barely scratched the surface. Kurtz is in Chicago to review the documents and will report tonight on his findings for two hours on Chicago station WGN’s Milt Rosenberg Show. (Good background here, too, in an in-depth discussion on the malign influence of Ayers’ educational philosophy and practice.)

Despite only partial review of the papers, some outlets are pooh-poohing the disclosures. The Chicago Tribune writes: “A partial examination of the documents did not reveal anything startling about the link between Obama, the Democratic presidential contender, and Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground, a Vietnam-era anti-war group that claimed responsibility for several bombings.”

And yet:

The UIC records show that Obama and Ayers attended board meetings, retreats and at least one news conference together as the education program got under way. The two continued to attend meetings together during the 1995-2001 operation of the program, records show.

At a Democratic debate this year when the association between Obama and Ayers was raised, Obama said: “This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood. . . . He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.” Obama called Ayers’ past radical acts detestable.

But critics note that Obama visited Ayers’ home for a meeting at the start of his first state Senate bid in the mid-’90s.

The UIC records showed that Ayers was instrumental in securing the $50 million education grant to reform Chicago Public Schools, part of a national initiative funded by the late Ambassador Walter Annenberg. . After Chicago was awarded the money, Obama served as president of the Challenge’s board of directors, the fiscal arm that disbursed the grants to schools and raised private matching funds. Ayers participated in a second entity known as the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, the operational arm that worked with the grant recipients.

Fox News’s James Rosen uncovered more of Ayers’ unrepentant, radical face while researching his latest book:

William Ayers, who was a founder of the 1960s and 1970s radical group the Weather Underground, told FOX News correspondent James Rosen in a candid 2004 interview that he still believed he was “on the side of justice” years after the group’s wave of attacks.

In the interview, conducted three years after the September 11 attacks, Ayers argued the U.S. government had carried out “many other acts of terror … even recently, that are comparable,” and claimed he and his bomb-planting comrades were “restrained” in their actions.

Ayers, now a professor at the University of Illinois, Chicago, served with Barack Obama on the board of the charitable Woods Fund of Chicago for three years and helped launch Obama’s political career in Illinois by hosting in his Hyde Park home an informal campaign event for the future state senator in 1995.

Ayers claimed the Weathermen were driven by “hope and love,” not despair, and said he did not think the group’s violent acts, targeting federal officials and local law enforcement officers, were “a big deal.”

…Interviewed in May 2004 in connection with Rosen’s book “The Strong Man: John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate,” published recently by Doubleday, Ayers affirmed that 9/11 was “an act of pure terror,” one that had caused him to weep, and that terrorism is “always wrong, always evil.” But Ayers also condemned the Bush administration for using the attacks “to advance a right-wing agenda on every front: every uterus must be examined, every tree chopped down, every oil well dug. I mean, it’s absolute madness.”

“I mean, the only group of people that I know who weren’t weeping for the next several weeks [after 9/11] were the people who were busy typing legislation into their computers,” Ayers continued.

When asked about some Palestinians who had been captured on videotape dancing in the streets after the attacks, Ayers said coverage of those individuals had been “overwrought” in the U.S. media, and added: “[E]verybody in the world knows that Americans are geographically challenged and historically challenged. We don’t have a sense of who we are or where we are. So I think every American that I know was weeping over the next several weeks, and devastated and shocked. Was that an act of pure terror? It absolutely was.

“And there are many other acts of terror carried out by our government, even recently, that, that are comparable.

Ayers is not only a flag-trampling apologist for domestic terror. He’s an inveterate liar. Andy McCarthy refreshes your memory.

Obama can wrap himself in the flag and attempt to gag his critics, but his false portrayal of Ayers as just a guy in the neighborhood is not going to fly. Obama’s friend is America’s enemy.

And America deserves to know.

Another site of interest can also be viewed by clicking here.

Muslim Brotherhood denies links to American Muslim groups -- but its leader says otherwise

Taqiyya Alert: In an editorial on the Brotherhood's own site, Ikhwan web, Khaled Salam claims that "Islamophobes" are responsible for linking the Muslim Brotherhood with American Muslim groups.

"Muslim Brotherhood Hits the Obama Campaign Trail," by Khaled Salam for IkhwanWeb, August 11:

The ongoing controversy in the U.S. surrounding resignation of Mr. Mazen Asbahi, Muslim-outreach advisor to presumptive democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama, is quite intriguing. Mr. Asbahi is an Arab American corporate attorney who resigned last week amidst allegations of old loose ties with individuals associated with organizations thought to be linked to the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). Mr. Asbahi’s crime is that he also appeared as a guest speaker before such organizations allegedly linked to the MB. Islamic organizations in the U.S. described the campaign against Mr. Asbahi as “nationwide efforts by Islamophobes who seek to deny Muslims access to the political process.”

The MB has repeatedly denied it has any representation in the U.S., nor does it maintain any links with any of the Islamic or charitable organizations in the U.S. We have previously clarified that moderate and pragmatic Islamic thought is not exclusive of the MB, however, there are many other Islamic movements and organizations throughout the world that have the same mainstream principles as the MB but not necessarily part of its organizational structure.

In this regard, the MB confirmed that it absolutely has no organizational links, ties, or associations with any of the Islamic organizations in the U.S., including but not limited to: The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), the Muslim Student Association (MSA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).

It isn't "Islamophobes" who have made this connection. Most of these organizations or their parent groups (in CAIR's case) were named as “friends” of the Muslim Brotherhood in the infamous May 1991 Brotherhood memorandum that spoke of Muslim organizations in the U.S. as being engaged in "a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

But wait! There's more!

There are however, ideological similarities between the MB and most of above mentioned Islamic organizations for the fact that these ideologies represent mainstream moderate Islamic thinking. However, some of the founders or members of these organizations were at some point in their lives either members or sympathizers of the MB in their native countries before they migrate to the U.S. or other countries....

And that opens the door again -- the very door that Salam was trying to close. Brotherhood leader Mohammed Habib opened it farther in a recent interview:

SM: Is there a Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S.?

Mohamed Habib: I would say yes. There are Muslim Brotherhood members there.

SM: Then what are they doing there?

Mohamed Habib: No, there are already existing institutions; there are laws and a constitution that they operate under in order to have a role in serving the American society. They are part of the American society and they want to an active positive role in it, and a part of that is to spread a positive image of Islam along with its values, culture, history and teachings.

SM: This is naturally very important. Who represents you in the US?

Mohamed Habib: Well, there are there those who do represent us, who do that role.

SM: But it’s not CAIR, right? The Council for American Islamic Relations? Many people say that they are your front. Other people say that its ISNA. But back to CAIR, some people from the Muslim Brotherhood have denied having a connection with CAIR. Do they really represent you?

Mohamed Habib: Ehh, this is a sensitive subject, and it’s kind of problematic, especially after 9/11 …

SM: For them to say that there is a relationship between you two?

Mohamed Habib: Yes. You can say that.

So the MB, contrary to Salam's claims, is in the U.S., and does have a relationship with CAIR -- at least. And this comes from the leader of the organization.

Sharia law firm represented by porn stars

Just another example of the hypocrisy sharia legalism breeds. On the one hand, the Muslim in this story makes it a point to follow the letter of the law, by wanting all women to wear burqas (to preserve their "modesty"), and by approving that men not shake hands with women. Very conservative indeed. However, to make his law firm appealing, he has no problem having two porn actresses -- i.e., according to the sharia he follows, two prostitutes, deserving of stoning -- represent his business. Why? Because sharia doesn't say anything explicit about that -- though one can argue that having pretty "prostitutes" represent your business in order that, beguiled consumers can find it more appealing, is more immoral than shaking hands with women. Doesn't matter; sharia commands the one and is silent about the other.

"'Sharia' Law Firm Secretaries Unmasked as Porn Actresses," from NISNews, August 27:

Faizel Ali Enait refuses to shake hands with women and prefers them to wear burqas. But on the website of his law firm, two hard-core porn actresses posed as its secretaries.

Faizel Ali Enait claims to be a lawyer. He works for Jairam Advocaten, a law firm for Muslims in the Netherlands. Ali Enait lost a court case last week against Rotterdam municipality, which he accused of discrimination.

The municipality rejected the Muslim for a job as client manager at the Social Services department because he refused to shake hands with women. The judges ruled that Rotterdam had the right to do so.

Ali Enait, who regularly appears on talk shows, also wants women to wear burqas. But on the home page of Jairam Advocaten, two porn stars posed as its secretaries. Although wearing clothes, they were identified by news website Geenstijl.nl as well-known 'adult entertainment' models Anetta Keys and Rahilla.

Based on cache data, Geenstijl.nl established that the pictures had already been on the website since 2005. They therefore seem to have been deliberately picked by the 'sharia lawyers'.

Jairam Advocaten removed the porn actresses' portraits from its website yesterday, replacing them with a picture of what appears to be its office. This time Geenstijl.nl discovered that the picture chosen was a prestigious office building in Rotterdam. In reality, Jairam Advocaten is located in a shabby building in Amsterdam.

Iranian cleric blasts Ahmadinejad

An Iranian cleric accused President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of betraying the people and called on reformers to unite to defeat him in next year's elections, according to an interview in a German newspaper quoted by Reuters, Wednesday.

"Ahmadinejad is not complying with the will of the people," The Financial Times Deutschland quoted Grand Ayatollah Bajat Sanjani as saying. "This is a major threat, a big danger," the cleric added in an unusually direct personal attack.

The newspaper also said Sanjani accused Ahmadinejad's government of breaking the law, seriously violating personal freedom and illegally empowering the Revolutionary Guard. ....

Corruption Casts Shadow Over Obama-Biden

by Bobby Eberle

The Democratic National Convention is underway -- with all the pomp and pageantry we've come to expect from the Obama campaign. But if the true measure of a person is what they do when no one is looking, the real Barack Obama -- and the real Joe Biden, for that matter -- aren't the candidates that Democrats are trying to sell you.

On Monday, while Democrats delivered vague speeches from a stage set that rivaled a rock concert, those outside the convention hall were left asking: Who is the real Barack Obama? The American Issues Project's new ad provides part of the answer.

The ad explores Obama's ties to William Ayers, whom the New York Sun describes as a "founding member of the group that bombed the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon during the 1970s."

• In 2001, Ayers Did Not Express Regret For His Past Conduct And Even Claimed The Weather Underground "Didn't Do Enough" Bombings. "Mr. Ayers wrote a memoir, 'Fugitive Days,' published in 2001, and on the day of the September 11 terrorist attacks, he was quoted by the New York Times as saying: 'I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough.'" (Russell Berman, "Obama's Ties To Left Come Under Scrutiny," The New York Sun, 2/19/08)
• "Obama's relationship with Ayers is an especially vivid milepost on his rise, in record time, from a local official who unabashedly reflected a very liberal district to the leader of national movement based largely on the claim that he can transcend ideological divides." (Ben Smith, "Obama Once Visited 60s Radicals," Politico, 2/22/08)

The fact that Barack Obama chose to launch his political career at the home of an unrepentant terrorist reflects not only a lack of judgment, but also real questions about his views. Obama's response to the ad? A full-throated defense of his long association with a man who says he didn't bomb enough U.S. targets. That tells us more about Barack Obama than any of the speeches we saw Monday night ever could.

To find out more facts about the Obama-Ayers relationship, just click here.

Also, in a AP news story running on GOPUSA, Ayers "compared U.S. government actions to the Sept. 11 attacks."

It is also becoming clear that the Obama-Biden ticket has even deeper ties to corrupt political powerbroker Tony Rezko.

On Monday, we learned that Joe Biden has a 30-year friendship with a key figure in the Tony Rezko trial. When Biden sought the Democratic nomination for president, he turned to his long-time financial contributor and adviser Joseph Cari, Jr. for help. Cari is now awaiting sentencing for his part in an $850,000 kickback scheme overseen by Tony Rezko.

• Shortly Before Cari's Indictment Biden Called Him "An Honorable Guy." "Shortly before Cari's corruption indictment by a federal grand jury in Chicago in 2006, Sen. Biden called him "an honorable guy" and was planning to appoint him to a high-ranking campaign position for the 2008 presidential campaign. However, the Illinois shakedown scheme...derailed Cari's future plans." (Chuck Goudie, "Unlocking Biden's Baggage Reveals Blago Ticket," Daily Herald [Chicago, IL], 8/25/08)
• Biden "Won't Give Obama Much Cover On The Tony Rezko Front." "No matter what help Barack Obama might get from Sen. Joseph Biden, his newly named vice presidential running mate won't give Obama much cover on the Tony Rezko front." (Dave McKinney, "Biden Has Deep Ties To Rezko Accomplice," The Chicago Sun-Times, 8/25/08)

As predicted, this week voters are getting a preview of the choice they will have to make in November ...

Russia threatens military response to US missiles

MOSCOW (AP) - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is warning his country may respond to a U.S. missile shield in Europe through military means.

Medvedev says that the deployment of an anti-missile system close to Russian borders "will of course create additional tensions."

"We will have to react somehow, to react, of course, in a military way," Medvedev was quoted as saying Tuesday by the RIA-Novosti news agency.

Russian officials have already warned of a military response to the U.S. plans, but the statement by the Russian leader was likely to further aggravate already tense relations with the West. The comments come after Medvedev recognized two Georgian regions as independent nations, prompting criticism from the U.S. and Europe.

It's a wonderful life...in Iran: Iranian propaganda tent outside DNC

Looking at the Left (thanks to Pamela) has this one and more pictures of the Iranian exhibit outside the DNC, in the shadow of the Colorado state capital building. Zombie has more at LGF. The exhibit is devoted to showing how wonderful life is inside the Iranian mullahcracy, and comes complete with a pseudo-mosque. Says Zombie:

The purpose of the exhibit was "transparently" to arouse sympathy for the Iranian people and discourage any US military action aimed at stopping the Iranian government from getting a nuclear bomb. Or so it seemed to me.

PREDICTIONS

( Compiler's note: Source a friend -- very interesting, especially the part in red. When reading this try to bear in mind that it is not about people but about platforms. There is a lot of truth in what it says. We have all seen a lot of give away programs that have become millstones on the budget -- some caused by democrats some by republicans. We seem to know how to make the same mistakes over and over again. But this national situation is more dangerous than most. We could blame it on Bush, Congress, Illegal Immigrants, Welfare Programs, Oil Companies, Bad Car Manufacturers, American Workers, Outdated Steel Mills, imbalance of trade, Corruption, etc. But one thing of which I feel certain is that most of us do not want to become a Socialist County. I don't know I don't. rca )

The problem with these predictions is that many Americans don't seem to understand what the consequences will be, and they vote too!

This is an e-mail from BGen James Cash, USAF, who has written some very good articles on the subject. Here he recommends someone else's e-mail that impressed him, and scared him.

General Cash Wrote:
Occasionally, I receive an email that I agree with so totally I want to pass to everyone on my list. This is one of those emails. I have approval from the writer to forward the attached, and feel free to post it on your web sites, or forward to friends.

The election of Obama as President of the United States will mark the apex, and beginning downslide of this Republic. The only question is the rate at which the downfall will occur.

The writer of this essay is Jerry Molen. Jerry is a great friend and an Academy Award winning Hollywood Producer. He did Jurassic Park , Hook, Rainman, and many more class movies. He won he Academy Award for Schindler's List. Jerry is one of the very few clear thinking conservatives that I know from Hollywood .

We need to get this out to as many as possible to include liberal Democrats.

We are about to make the Mother-of-All-Mistakes, because the Republican Party gave us no reliable alternative.

In my opinion, if the conservative movement does not rally behind the only alternative left to us, this country will become a true Socialist State within the next two Presidential terms.

Ladies and Gentleman, this is the most grave situation this nation has faced in my lifetime.

Jim Cash B/G, USAF, Ret.

Jerry Molen wrote:
'Election woes defined by prose.....'

We just experienced an over hyped, positively outrageous primary election season that has left me cold and wondering where the heads of our citizens are hiding out. Must be someplace where the sun doesn't get to very often.

At one time in my life I was a determined, dedicated and ever loyal registered Democrat. Then something happened (Lyndon Baines Johnson) that turned my life around and gave me much pause as to the veracity of a party that dwelt on and fed off of the most unfortunate among us.

Some of those unfortunates were in their positions in life by way of their own choosing and others were there by circumstance. But always, always with a door open to them to reach for new heights, achieve new goals, change their lives for the better. And also, always ever present were the bottom feeders doing everything they could to take advantage of those who had not or have not seen the light of better days and times nor realizing they were in fact the masters of their own destiny. They had come to believe that they were dependent on those in power in Washington and that they would look out for them and take care of their every need. They are still waiting and expecting all those promised freebies.

Most people aren't even aware that the Democrats ruled Washington for over 40 years It wasn't until 1994 when the so called Gingrich Revolution changed that for a short period of time. Nor do people realize that it was the Dem's that created the failed policies of the many entitlement programs that are falling apart right before our eyes.

Please do not think I find the Republicans blameless in all this. They too, suffer from ego inflation and greed motivators built into the system. It's just that the past few months I've listened to the rantings and railings of the left in America calling for more giveaways and better ways to obtain the proverbial 'free lunch'.

I think that to sum up my feelings and why I am so set apart from those within the circles of political power and influence can be illustrated best by a quote by noted basketball legend and talk show co-host Charles Barkley:

'Poor people have been voting for Democrats for the last fifty years....and they are still poor'.

And now with the election results comes the promises of 'change'. 'Change we can believe in.' 'Change for the future'. When in fact if you really, I mean REALLY listen to what the new messiah is asking for is not 'change of policy' or 'change for the better'. He is warning all of us that he wants our change all right, 'loose change', pocket change', social change and political change......So people wake up. For if you don't the change you get may not be the change you were expecting or the change you wanted.

To close my screed, I want to leave you with some JM predictions in the event the junior Senator from Illinois becomes President and especially if the House and Senate are veto proof.

1). Strict new gun laws will be enacted even though he promised he would not.
2). The phrase 'In God We Trust' will be removed from all currency.
3). He will back away from his pledge to Israel and leave them to the wolves of Islam.
4). Hillary Clinton will be named to the Supreme Court.
5). Tax rates will return to their highest levels in 30 years.
6). The capital gains tax will be at least double current levels.
7). Retired Army General Wesley Clark will be named Secretary of Defense.
8). The borders will be 'basically open' to all comers. Especially those from the Middle East and South America
9). Amnesty will be granted to all illegals now in the U.S. regardless of status or even gang members (MS-13). and
10) The war in Iraq will be brought to an abrupt end and the results will be tragic and the consequences to our military will be devastating.

I realize that my predictions may not sit too well with some people
and the best we could all hope for is that I am totally wrong. Any
bets?

Jerry Molen

If you don't want to forward (share) this for fear of offending someone... YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM! It is Time for Americans to speak up!