School lessons on terrorism rubbished

from the Weston Mercury Newspaper

GOVERNMENT plans for teachers to educate children about terrorism have been rubbished by a senior North Somerset councilor.

Teachers now have access to new guidance on how to spot children who are 'vulnerable' to extremism.

Secretary of state for Children, Schools and Families, Ed Balls, says that schools have a 'key role' to play in getting youngsters to reject unsavoury views.

He introduced the Learning Together to be Safe booklet to encourage teachers to:

*Raise awareness of the threat from violent extremist groups.

*Provide information about its causes.

*Protect the wellbeing of particular pupils or groups who may be vulnerable to being drawn into violent extremist activity.

However, the unitary authority's member for children and young people, Cllr Jeremy Blatchford, says that counter extremism should be left to the experts.

Cllr Blatchford said: "It is a very dangerous thing for a people who are not members of the security and intelligence services to deal with.

"I think that it should be left to the professionals."

But the guidance has received backing from the National Union of Teachers.

Acting general secretary, Chritine Blowers, said: "Tiny, violent political groups can present a significant threat to large numbers of people.

"Terrorist threats have to be tackled. It's worth remembering that groups such as those from the far right can pose intimidatory threats to their communities, as serious as those from al-Qaeda.

"There is a very strong argument for providing the time and space in schools to enable teachers to work through the issues posed by determined individuals who are committed to recruiting young people to violent causes.

"No teacher will ignore obvious information about a specific, real threat, but it is vital that teachers are able to discuss with and listen to pupils, without feeling that they have to report every word."

Muslim's film warns about radical Islam

By Ari Cohn

MESA — "We all know about terrorism. This is the war you don't know about," Dr. Zuhdi Jasser intones from the movie screen over images of radical followers of Islam burning the American flag after Sept. 11.

Jasser, who lives in Scottsdale and practices medicine in Phoenix, is the narrator of the documentary "The Third Jihad: Radical Islam's Vision for America," which opened in selected cities across the country Thursday. The film contends that there is more to jihad than acts of violence.

There's also "cultural jihad," in which radical groups use laws and rights given to them by free societies in a duplicitous way to try to overthrow those societies, Jasser said. The vehicles for cultural jihad in the U.S. include Saudi government funding of Middle Eastern studies departments at universities, radical teachings in mosques and prisons, and hate-filled textbooks in Islamic schools, he said.

This is the "third jihad," according to the film. The first was when Muslim armies spread from Arabia throughout the Middle East, North Africa and Spain. The second jihad happened later, when Islamic armies toppled Constantinople and spread into Europe, India, and further into Africa.

Jasser, a regular worshipper at the Islamic Center of the Northeast Valley in Scottsdale, an ex-lieutenant commander in the U.S. Navy and former physician to the U.S. Congress, urged viewers not to confuse the religion of Islam with political Islamism — a movement that he said seeks to establish governments ruled by Islamic law called Shariah. Countries that enforce Shariah are "human-rights disasters," he said.

The silent majority of Muslims are not radical and love the U.S., Jasser said.

"I'm also a Muslim and I've dedicated my life to fighting the threat of radical Islam," he said. Jasser and six other Scottsdale Muslims formed the nonprofit American Islamic Forum for Democracy in 2003 to foster an alternative school of thought to Islamism.

Jasser is not without his detractors. In 2005, the Arizona Muslim Voice newspaper published an editorial cartoon depicting Jasser as a dog dismembering and devouring another Muslim. His views have been criticized by members of his own mosque.

The Scottsdale film premiere at a Harkins theater attracted about 300 people, including Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., who serves on the Armed Forces and Judiciary committees. Franks said he believes Jasser is dedicated to the cause of human freedom and peace. "I have just the highest affection for (Jasser)," he said. "If there were just a few more of him, we'd have a chance of defeating this sooner."

The film opens with scenes from the 2004 massacre of schoolchildren in Beslan, Russia, by Chechen terrorists. Franks said he visited Beslan soon after the massacre.

"This film was, in my judgment, very accurate," he said. "Terrorism and the murder of innocents does not serve anyone on Earth and it does not serve any God that is real."

Brent Lowder, a partner in Frontline Strategies LLC, represented the non-profit Clarion Fund, which produced the film. He said the turnout for the free Scottsdale screening was heavy.

"We had to move to a larger theater," Lowder said.

The Clarion Fund describes itself as a non-partisan organization aimed at educating Americans about national security issues, particularly about the threat of radical Islam. Lowder said the U.S. should start translating the books that established the foundation for American democracy by thinkers like Thomas Jefferson into Middle Eastern languages and putting them into the region, just as the Saudi government attempts to influence thought in the U.S.

Cleric in Iran issues fatwa against US-Iraqi pact

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI

An influential Iraqi cleric living in Iran on Wednesday issued a fatwa condemning a U.S.-Iraqi security pact that would keep American troops in Iraq for three more years and warned Iraqi leaders not to back the deal.

The Iranian-born Ayatollah Kazim al-Hosseini al-Haeri called the proposed agreement "haram" _ which in Arabic means forbidden by Islam _ and said that approving the deal would be "a sin God won't forgive."

Al-Haeri, based in the Iranian holy city of Qom, has Iraqi nationality and is believed to be a mentor of anti-U.S. Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose followers oppose the deal. The fatwa, or religious decree, was posted on al-Haeri's Web site. ...

Islamic Radicals Shut Down Al Qaeda

from Strategy Page

October 23, 2008: Shia and Sunni radicals are attacking each other's web sites for the past six weeks. It began with a Shia attack on the two main web sites for Sunni radical religious propaganda (including al Qaeda) on September 11, 2008. Sunni hackers retaliated shortly thereafter by defacing 300 web sites belonging to Shia clergy and religious organizations. Shia hackers then came back with more attacks on Sunni clergy, media and religious sites. The two main Sunni radical propaganda sites, Al-Ekhlaas.net and Alhesbah.net, have been down most of the time since September 11.

Arab media and religious leaders have been pleading for the hackers to stop. Some have chastised the hackers for fighting fellow Moslems, rather than going after infidels (particularly Israel.) Moslem hackers don't like tangling with the Israelis, who have a much deeper bench in the hacking department.

This particular Cyber War seems to have attracted Arab and Iranian hackers who do not normally get involved in Islamic radicalism. The animosity between the Shia and Sunni sects goes back nearly a thousand years, and has led to much bloodshed in that time. While Sunni and Shia leaders try to play down this feud (over who should have inherited the leadership of Islam over a thousand years ago), grass roots hatred is tolerated. Thus lower ranking religious leaders in Iran and the Arab world spew hatred for each other's religious beliefs. This has little to do with the current plague of Sunni terrorism (al Qaeda and so on), but is more of a deep seated cultural dispute.

Western counter-terrorism organizations are sitting this one out.

European takes closer look at Islamic financing

PARIS: With commercial bank financing tight, Europeans have been taking a closer look at Islamic banking.

"The potential is there," Ahmad Jachi, the first deputy governor of the Central Bank of Lebanon, said at a conference this past week in Paris. "It's a matter of really enabling and creating the market."

Islamic banking has already been integrated into the British and German banking systems, and banking executives at the conference said efforts were under way to allow Muslims in France to bank and invest under regulations that conform to Shariah, the legal code of Islam.

Estimates of the Islamic banking market's current size vary from $500 billion to $1 trillion. It has only about 5 percent of the overall banking market, but attendees at the conference, which was sponsored by The Economist, said Islamic banking has a huge potential for growth, since one-sixth of the world's population is Muslim.

The International Monetary Fund estimates that the Islamic banking sector has grown 10 percent to 15 percent a year over the past decade.

There is no specific code to govern Islamic financing. Businesses that are trying to be compliant usually set up a board of Islamic scholars who study the investment structures and products and reassure investors or customers that their money is being held under Shariah guidelines. Mufti Abdul Kadir Barkatullah, an imam in Britain and a Shariah scholar who is regularly consulted by corporations, said Islamic banking regulations generally require investors to be "very prudent and careful with your money, and you only put your money to very good uses."

One general principle that has proved useful of late is that banks are not allowed to be heavily leveraged or to take too many risks.

The lender and the borrower share the risks and the rewards of a loan - which means loans can have no interest rates attached. Investments are also not allowed to profit from an enterprise involved with conventional finance, weapons, tobacco, gambling, pornography or alcohol.

But Haider Ala Hamoudi, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Law School, said the differences between Islamic and Western-style banking were "more rhetoric than reality."

"It really is effectively the same thing economically," he said by telephone. "I think it's going to grow for some time," he added.

One company to benefit from Islamic banking is Velcan Energy, which has 200 employees, is based in Paris and develops hydropower plants in Brazil and India. Antoine Decitre, managing director at Velcan, said he was contacted by an Islamic bank, which he was not authorized to identify, that said it was interested in the company because it was environmentally friendly and its projects helped poor people in developing countries.

Velcan was able to get capital to execute its projects without having to wait for credit markets in the West to unfreeze, Decitre said. But the process has taken some time because the practices were new to Velcan. "There are many conflicting views about what you and cannot do," he said. "So take your time well in advance."

U.S. to target Taliban drug traffic

WASHINGTON — A stepped-up anti-drug-trafficking effort is emerging as a key part of a broad Bush administration revision in strategy for the war in Afghanistan, U.S. officials say.

The strategy review comes as U.S. forces face increased violence in Afghanistan and reflects a growing consensus that drug trafficking has become essential to a Taliban resurgence. ....

Starving cattle amid high prices for feed in Neb.

By NATE JENKINS

BUTTE, Neb. (AP) - The dead were stacked in two piles, 70 cows in one, 30 in another, hidden away in the crevices of this scenic, hilly ranch country where cattle outnumber people.

Carl Schuman, a former county prosecutor who owned the cattle with his two brothers, says he knows what happened: They died "mostly of old age, and some younger ones got pneumonia."

But state investigators have another theory about what happened earlier this year on the Schuman ranch, where pastures this summer were nearly stripped bare from overgrazing while grass in adjoining pastures was about a foot high.

They think the animals might have starved to death.

Investigators haven't had to go out of their way to find dead cattle in Nebraska, where 6.5 million head roam. Since early this year, three cases of alleged starvation deaths involving a total of about 240 cattle have been reported in Nebraska - more than some officials can recall.

The state Attorney General has been investigating the Schuman ranch deaths since shortly after the piles were found March 15. No charges have been filed.

The latest case of alleged neglect surfaced earlier this month in southeastern Nebraska near Fairbury. Officials said they found many of the cows in a herd of about 80 near death at a defunct dairy farm.

The third case came in late April, when 25 cattle carcasses were found in a Merrick County pasture just outside of Grand Island. Ted Robb and Dustin Dugan pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of improper disposal of carcasses after felony animal neglect charges were dropped. They now face fines instead of jail time.

And in January, 111 cattle were found starved to death and another 140 emaciated in Red Willow County. Charges were never filed against the owner.

"Neglect cases are on the rise, and what's causing it, I'm not sure," said Steven Stanec, executive director of the Nebraska Brand Committee, a state agency that helps police the cattle industry. "We're having whole herds of hundreds of cattle being neglected."

Stanec and others say the cases from early this year don't share a clear-cut cause. But, he said, "I would say the higher price of feed has something to do with it."

In recent months the per-ton cost of hay has risen by about 80 percent, adding to the already high costs of other feed caused by lofty corn prices, which have slipped recently.

High commodity and fuel prices have encouraged farmers to stop raising hay, which is mostly used to feed cattle in the winter and early spring, said Neil Tietz, editor of Hay & Forage magazine. Tietz said hay prices are "certainly the highest I've ever seen."

And even with the recent drops in oil and commodity prices, Tietz expects hay prices to creep higher this coming winter, which could cause even more cases of starvation.

Livestock experts and those who track animal abuse cases nationally, including the Humane Society of the United States, say they don't know whether livestock neglect cases are on the rise across the country.

But they predict high hay prices will lead to more cattle herds slowly wasting away from starvation in remote pastures.

"We are going to have more cases of this," said Temple Grandin, professor of animal science at Colorado State University. She said starvation that can often take months to cause death is the worst type of animal abuse.

"There's no excuse for livestock starving to death," Grandin said angrily when told of the Nebraska cases. "You can always sell them. They might not be at a good price, but you can always sell them."

The cattle industry is already nursing a black eye following widespread circulation of videos recorded by undercover investigators for the Humane Society of the United States. They showed alleged abuse of livestock in slaughterhouses and sale barns, including a video from early this year of crippled and sick cows at a California slaughterhouse being shoved with forklifts.

In the Red Willow County case where 111 cattle were found starved to death, an investigator who went to the ranch described a grim, surreal scene. Some of the carcasses were frozen in a pond. The cattle had broken through the ice trying to get water.

An investigator who went to the ranch described a grim, surreal scene. Some of the carcasses were frozen in a pond. The cattle had broken through the ice trying to get water.

The owner had gone through a divorce, his tractor had broken down and "hay was too high and he couldn't afford to buy it," said David Horton, an inspector with the Nebraska Brand Committee.

"He just kinda gave up on life," Horton said.

The man wasn't charged with any crimes. Red Willow County Attorney Paul Wood said doing so would have cost too much because the county would have had to take custody of the remaining live cattle during court proceedings.

"We were going to have to take care of 140 head of cattle - feed, water and get vet care for them for a long time," Wood said. He estimated the cost at around $80,000.

"It was an unfortunate decision, but we made the best decision with the best interests of the live cattle," which the man sold, Wood said.

Similar decisions aren't uncommon in close-knit rural areas where it's "harder to throw the book" at offenders, said Dale Bartlett of the Humane Society of the United States.

Prosecution is also bypassed because livestock abuse doesn't cause the same level of public uproar as abuse to pets such as dogs, said Bartlett.

Obama Would Fail Security Clearance

by Daniel Pipes

With Colin Powell now repeating the lie that Barack Obama has "always been a Christian," despite new information further confirming Obama's Muslim childhood (such as the Indonesian school registration listing him as Muslim), one watches with dismay as the Democratic candidate manages to hide the truth on this issue.

Instead, then, let us review a related subject – Obama's connections and even indebtedness, throughout his career, to extremist Islam. Specifically, he has longstanding, if indirect ties to two institutions, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), listed by the U.S. government in 2007 as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding trial; and the Nation of Islam (NoI), condemned by the Anti-Defamation League for its "consistent record of racism and anti-Semitism."

First, Obama's ties to Islamists:

• The cover of one of Khalid al-Mansour's books, "The Mind and the Mindless - Will the West Rule Forever."

  The Khalid al-Mansour connection: According to former Manhattan Borough president Percy Sutton, Al-Mansour "was raising money for" Obama's expenses at Harvard Law School. Al-Mansour, a black American (né Don Warden), became advisor to Saudi prince Al-Walid bin Talal, CAIR's largest individual donor. Al-Mansour holds standard Islamist views: he absolves the Islamist government in Sudan of sponsoring slavery, he denies a Jewish tie to Jerusalem, and he wrote a booklet titled "Americans Beware! The Zionist Plot Against S. Arabia." (Both Obama and al-Mansour deny Sutton's account.)

• The Kenny Gamble (also known as Luqman Abdul-Haqq) connection: Gamble, a once-prominent pop music producer, cut the ribbon to the Obama campaign headquarters housed in a south Philadelphia building he owns. Gamble is an Islamist who buys large swaths of real estate in Philadelphia to create a Muslim-only residential area. Also, as the self-styled "amir" of the United Muslim Movement, he has many links to Islamist organizations, including CAIR and the Muslim Alliance in North America. (MANA's "amir" is Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.)

• Kenny Gamble

  The Mazen Asbahi connection: The Obama campaign's first Muslim outreach coordinator resigned after it came to light that he had served on the board of a subsidiary of the Saudi-sponsored North American Islamic Trust, with Jamal Said, another unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007 Hamas funding trial. Asbahi has ties to CAIR's Chicago and Detroit offices, to the Islamic Society of North America, yet another unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas funding trial, and to other Islamist organizations.

• The Minha Husaini connection: The campaign's second Muslim outreach coordinator has an Islamist background, having served as an intern in the Muslim Public Service Network. Immediately upon her appointment by Obama, she met with a group of about thirty Muslims including such notorious figures as CAIR's Nihad Awad; the Muslim American Society's Mahdi Bray, who has publicly supported the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist groups; and Johari Abdul Malik of the Dar Al-Hijrah Mosque in Falls Church, Va., who has advised American Muslims: "You can blow up bridges, but you cannot kill people who are innocent on their way to work."

Second, Obama's ties to the Nation of Islam:

Louis Farrakhan, who calls Obama "the Messiah."

Obama's long-time donor and ally Antoin "Tony" Rezko partnered for nearly three decades with Jabir Herbert Muhammad, a son of NoI leader Elijah Muhammad, and says he gave Jabir and his family "millions of dollars over the years." Rezko also served as executive director of the Muhammad Ali Foundation, a rogue organization that, without Ali's permission, exploited the name of this CAIR awardee.

Jeremiah Wright, Obama's esteemed pastor for twenty years, came out of a Nation background, recently he accepted protection from an NoI security detail, and has praised Louis Farrakhan, the NoI's leader, as one of the "giants of the African American religious experience." Wright's church celebrated Farrakhan for his having "truly epitomized greatness."

Farrakhan himself endorsed Obama, calling him "the hope of the entire world," "one who can lift America from her fall," and even "the Messiah."

That Obama's biography touches so frequently on such unsavory organizations as CAIR and the Nation of Islam should give pause. How many of politicians have a single tie to either group, much less seven of them? John McCain charitably calls Obama "a person you do not have to be scared [of] as president of the United States," but Obama's multiple links to anti-Americans and subversives mean he would fail the standard security clearance process for Federal employees.

Islamic aggression represents America's strategic enemy; Obama's many insalubrious connections raise grave doubts about his fitness to serve as America's commander-in-chief.

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

Oct. 23, 2008 update: A reader points out that Sutton has apparently retracted his statement about Obama and Al-Mansour: On Sep. 6, shortly after Sutton's statement attracted attention, Kevin Wardally, a " a spokesman for Sutton's family," e-mailed to Ben Smith of Politco a statement:

The information Mr. Percy Sutton imparted on March 25 in a NY1 News interview regarding his connection to Barack Obama is inaccurate. As best as our family and the Chairman's closest friends can tell, Mr. Sutton, now 86 years of age, misspoke in describing certain details and events in that television interview. We regret this unfortunate incident and we ask good conscientious people to extend compassion and grace to Percy Sutton.

But then Kenneth R. Timmerman of NewsMax.com contacted the Sutton family, which in turn denied that Wardally spoke for them:

Newsmax contacted the Sutton family and they categorically denied Wardally's claims to Smith and the Politico.com. So there was no retraction of Sutton's original interview, during which he revealed that Khalid Al-Mansour was "raising money" for Obama and had asked Sutton to write a letter of recommendation for Obama to help him get accepted at Harvard Law School.

Sutton's personal assistant told Newsmax that neither Mr. Sutton or his family had ever heard of Kevin Wardally. "Who is this person?" asked Sutton's assistant, Karen Malone. When told that he portrayed himself as a "spokesman" for the family, Malone told Newsmax, "Well, he's not."

According to a 2006 New York magazine profile, Wardally is part of a "New New Guard" in Harlem politics that has been challenging the "lions" of the old guard, Charles Rangel and Percy Sutton. That makes him an unlikely candidate to speak on behalf of Sutton. Sutton maintains an office at the Manhattan headquarters of the firm he founded, Inner City Broadcasting Corporation. ICBC owns New York radio stations WBLS and WLIB.

Sutton's son Pierre ("Pepe") runs ICBC along with his daughter, Keisha Sutton-James. Malone told Newsmax that she had consulted with Sutton's family members at the station and confirmed that no one knew Kevin Wardally or had authorized him to speak on behalf of the family.

For someone claiming to be a "spokesman" for the Sutton family, who was authorized to call Percy Sutton a liar, Wardally even got Percy Sutton's age wrong. Sutton is not 86, as Wardally said, but close to 88. He was born on Nov. 24, 1920.

Wardally responded to a several Newsmax phone messages and emails with a terse one-line comment, maintaining his statement that Percy Sutton "misspoke" in the television interview. "I believe the statement speaks for itself and the Sutton Family and I have nothing further to say on the topic," he wrote in an email. Asked to explain why it was that no one at Inner City Broadcasting Corp. knew of him or accepted him as a family spokesman, Wardally responded later that he had been retained by a nephew of the elder Sutton.

Comment: (1) It appears that Sutton is standing by his statement. In any case, it would be hard to credit Wardally's statement that Sutton's recollections were pure fantasy. (2) Timmerman also points out that Al-Mansour did not fully deny the Sutton statement, but that he was determined to keep a low profile so as to avoid embarrassing Obama.

Jihad and Congressional Elections - You Decide

(Compiler's note: This is far more important to our national security than many seem to think and is thus a "must read" article.)

by Jeffrey Imm

On November 4, 2008, the voters of America will have the opportunity to elect all 435 seats of the United States House of Representatives, who will serve in the 111th United States Congress from January 3, 2009 until January 3, 2011.

What will the priority of Congressional representatives' position on Jihad be when they make such decisions?

For those Americans who oppose Jihad and the ideology of Islamic supremacism, this provides a unique opportunity for their voice to be heard and for them to be able to personally impact future legislation on this issue. This is their chance to make a significant difference in how America will act on the war of ideas against Jihad and Islamic supremacism.

On July 16, 2008, an amendment to House Resolution 5959 was presented to the full Congress to vote on whether or not Congress was willing to honestly confront Jihad and its Islamic supremacist ideology in the war of ideas. There is a documented voting record on H.R. 5959 (see Section 507 "Jihadists") showing which Congressional representatives were willing to stand up and confront Jihad, and which Congressional representatives were afraid to confront Jihad.

The amendment to H.R. 5959 called for Congress to modify the 2009 intelligence funding bill to stop the efforts by some government agencies who have been creating a "terror lexicon" to instruct government employees not to discuss Jihad or ideologies such as Islamic supremacism (aka "Islamism"), when identifying the enemy. This Congressional effort passed by the margin of 249-180. (See my July 22, 2008 article for more details on H.R. 5959.)

There were 180 Congressional representatives who voted against this amendment to H.R. 5959 to confront Jihad, and there were 10 who "abstained" from taking a vote and a stand against Jihad. The Congressional representatives who voted against or abstained on this measure claim to be representing Americans in: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, DC, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, American Samoa, Vermont, Virgin Islands, Virginia, Washington state, West Virginia , and Wisconsin.

Do they truly represent the views of Americans in these states? Do they represent you?

Their voting record is public information.

On November 4, 2008, you decide.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Jeffrey Imm, formerly of the FBI, has his own counterterrorism research web site at UnitedStatesAction.com and is a part of the Anti-Jihad League of America.

[Postscript - see also Sources documents for additional reading and background information.]

House of Representatives Members Voting against H.R. 5959, Section 507 "Jihadists"
Voting Record - July 16, 2008 (List by State / Alphabetical List by Last Name)
These U.S. Congressional Representatives voted against H.R. 5959 Section 507 that sought to confront Jihad by stopping efforts at a "terror lexicon" which told government officials that they should not use the words "Jihad," "Islamism," when referencing Islamic supremacist terrorism

List by State

Alabama
Rep. Robert Cramer [D, AL-5]

Arkansas
Rep. Robert Berry [D, AR-1]
Rep. Victor Snyder [D, AR-2]
Rep. Mike Ross [D, AR-4]

Arizona
Rep. Edward Pastor [D, AZ-4]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D, AZ-7]

California
Rep. C. Michael Thompson [D, CA-1]
Rep. Doris Matsui [D, CA-5]
Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D, CA-6]
Rep. George Miller [D, CA-7]
Rep. Barbara Lee [D, CA-9]
Rep. Ellen Tauscher [D, CA-10]
Rep. Jackie Speier [D, CA-12]
Rep. Fortney Stark [D, CA-13]
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D, CA-14]
Rep. Michael Honda [D, CA-15]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D, CA-16]
Rep. Sam Farr [D, CA-17]
Rep. Lois Capps [D, CA-23]
Rep. Adam Schiff [D, CA-29]
Rep. Henry Waxman [D, CA-30]
Rep. Xavier Becerra [D, CA-31]
Rep. Hilda Solis [D, CA-32]
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard [D, CA-34]
Rep. Maxine Waters [D, CA-35]
Rep. Jane Harman [D, CA-36]
Rep. Laura Richardson [D, CA-37]
Rep. Grace Napolitano [D, CA-38]
Rep. Linda Sanchez [D, CA-39]
Rep. Joe Baca [D, CA-43]
Rep. Loretta Sanchez [D, CA-47]
Rep. Bob Filner [D, CA-51]
Rep. Susan Davis [D, CA-53]

Colorado
Rep. Diana DeGette [D, CO-1]
Rep. John Salazar [D, CO-3]

Connecticut
Rep. John Larson [D, CT-1]
Rep. Joe Courtney [D, CT-2]
Rep. Rosa DeLauro [D, CT-3]
Rep. Christopher Murphy [D, CT-5]

District of Columbia Congressional Representatives Who Abstained
Rep. Eleanor Norton [D, DC-0] - abstained from voting on H.R. 5959 Amendment to confront "Jihadists"

America at the Tipping Point in 2008

by Christopher Adamo

It is by no means severe to point out that if Leftists were wise and rational, they would not be Leftists. Vladimir Lenin, the Soviet Union’s first dictator and an icon of the Left, aptly described its devotees as “useful idiots,” owing to their enthusiastic and mindless devotion to causes that invariably would lead to their own destruction. Furthermore, it must be constantly reiterated that such minions only remain “useful” to the leadership as long as they remain, well, idiots.

A century has elapsed since Lenin’s demeaning characterization of his most loyal followers. Yet the consistent applicability of that term has done little to enlighten the ongoing ranks of new applicants for the label. And as Election Day approaches, much of America seems perfectly willing to take its place among that ignominious assembly.

Most appalling of all is that from the current day, back to Lenin’s reign of terror and even before, evidence abounded which should have been sufficient to warn any stumbling ideologue possessing even the tiniest shred of common sense that fawning subjugation to a corrupt leader is no guarantee of personal well being or safety. Unfortunately, then as well as now, common sense has proven to be a rare commodity.

Campaign rhetoric and media concocted “conventional wisdom” aside, it is important to elevate the current presidential debate out of the morasses of “political correctness” and consider the upcoming 2008 elections against the real backdrop of America’s present-day circumstances. To do otherwise is to minimize, perhaps fatally, the inherent strengths and virtues of this nation, thus tearing down the firewall necessarily established in recent years to protect it from the mortal threats it faces.

Pretending all was well during the 1990s did not negate the eventual attacks of confrontational Islamists. Nor would a return to that blissfully ignorant pre-September 11th national mindset accomplish anything but a repeat of its dreadful consequences. And this time around, America would undoubtedly face a far more serious onslaught of that enemy that waits patiently for any sufficient chink in the nation’s armor.

In order to shake present day America from the insipid discussions of gas prices, “global warming,” and even the alarming financial situation that dominates much of the news cycle, it is imperative to revisit the events of seven years ago on September 11. Recall, if you will, those horrific final moments before the planes flew headlong into buildings full of unwary, innocent people. In the pilots’ seats were crazed and hate-consumed Islamists who undertook such actions with inhuman glee, believing that they would shortly be rewarded for the horror, suffering, and death they were causing.

Yet those indescribably awful moments represent only a tiny portion of the larger picture. While America’s allies initially rallied to its comfort and aid, many on the world scene, who only occasionally feign to be supportive of this nation and its interests, offered conditional and tepid condolences, which were immediately followed by not-so-subtle finger wagging, ultimately accusing America for having been the root cause of the attacks. Over time, their simmering hostilities towards this nation, and transparent allegiance to the attackers, have surfaced. This is true not only for those overtly venomous entities abroad, but alarmingly within some domestic circles as well.

President George Bush, for all of his moral and political ambiguities, presented the situation in its stark clarity during his speech to Congress and the nation on September 20, 2001 with the statement “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” And despite the dulling of sensibilities that ensues with the passage of time, and all of the incessant media spin stupidly claiming the contrary, that defining reality has not changed. Nor will it ever do so.

Those who sought to drive back the fearsome and escalating forces of militant Islam, and who recognize its threat as an ongoing one, are on the same team as the good people of the United States who rallied in the wake of the attack and joined its military to wage war against the fiends that were behind it (along with all of their direct and indirect supporters). To this day they stand with real America and refuse to give ground to the diseased ideologies that fueled the attacks.

All of the rest, who either attempted to remain neutral and passive where no room for passivity or neutrality exists, or who actively worked to undermine the Terror War and thus contribute to America’s ultimate defeat, must be counted among the ranks of America’s enemies. And this immovable truth remains, to an absolutely equal degree, whether such enemies are foreign or domestic.

After sorting and digesting every criticism of the McCain/Palin ticket, few can deny that its principals have, or ever had, any intention or interest regarding the Terror War other than a total victory for the United States. Just as surely, it would be impossible to assign such motives of purity to Democrat candidate Barack Obama.

In ugly contrast to John McCain, Barack Obama has frequently made disparaging statements about the possibility or even the necessity of America’s triumph against the Islamists. Perhaps more significantly, he maintained alliances with the likes of “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, and Louis Farrakhan, all of whom voice overt hate for America while lauding the eventual success of its enemies. To such people, the suffering of innocent Americans in the process is perversely characterized as “justice,” perhaps best exemplified in Wright’s assertion of 9/11 as “America’s chickens coming home to roost.”

Barack Obama is perhaps the farthest left of a Leftist political party that has minimized every symbol of U.S. achievement against the Islamists (such as the triumphal Iraqi elections or President Bush’s spectacular landing on the Aircraft Carrier Abraham Lincoln), while magnifying to obscene levels every misstep throughout the process (Abu Ghraib and the phony episodes of flushed Korans immediately come to mind).

In these dangerous times, “ignorance” might only be “bliss” very briefly. America cannot bow out of the Terror War, no matter how “eloquently” a President Obama may think he can do so. America cannot befriend its mortal enemies. It will either defeat them or be ever after subject to their attacks, and ultimately, to their twisted ideology.

The cauldron of Islamic militancy seemed dormant until President Jimmy Carter’s nihilistic stupidity breathed life into it during the 1970s. Now Iran is the center of Islamic terrorism and insurgency. Soon, the world may be facing the terrible presence of a nuclear Iran.

Democrat vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden predicted a horrendous international “test” for Obama, should he be elected. He has since been effectively muzzled by the Obama camp, since such alarming truths pose great risks to the Democrat ticket. But Biden was right, more than he knows.

Boot Murtha: The Change America Deserves

.... seven Marines have been cleared or won case dismissals in the Iraq war incident Murtha recklessly adjudicated in the court of public opinion -- with willing mainstream accomplices at The New York Times, MSNBC and in the world press swinging their nooses to Murtha's beat.

No wonder the news hounds prefer to keep this race out of the headlines.

Republicans face tough odds across the country. A Russell upset over the nation's dirtiest Democrat promises a silver lining. Murtha's constituents are ready to throw the bum out. And not a moment too soon.

Investigators trying to determine whether access was illegal

By Randy Ludlow

"State and local officials are investigating if state and law-enforcement computer systems were illegally accessed when they were tapped for personal information about "Joe the Plumber."

Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher became part of the national political lexicon Oct. 15 when Republican presidential candidate John McCain mentioned him frequently during his final debate with Democrat Barack Obama.

The 34-year-old from the Toledo suburb of Holland is held out by McCain as an example of an American who would be harmed by Obama's tax proposals.

Public records requested by The Dispatch disclose that information on Wurzelbacher's driver's license or his sport-utility vehicle was pulled from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles database three times shortly after the debate.

Information on Wurzelbacher was accessed by accounts assigned to the office of Ohio Attorney General Nancy H. Rogers, the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department.

It has not been determined who checked on Wurzelbacher, or why. Direct access to driver's license and vehicle registration information from BMV computers is restricted to legitimate law enforcement and government business.

Paul Lindsay, Ohio spokesman for the McCain campaign, attempted to portray the inquiries as politically motivated. "It's outrageous to see how quickly Barack Obama's allies would abuse government power in an attempt to smear a private citizen who dared to ask a legitimate question," he said.

Isaac Baker, Obama's Ohio spokesman, denounced Lindsay's statement as charges of desperation from a campaign running out of time. "Invasions of privacy should not be tolerated. If these records were accessed inappropriately, it had nothing to do with our campaign and should be investigated fully," he said.

The attorney general's office is investigating if the access of Wuzelbacher's BMV information through the office's Ohio Law Enforcement Gateway computer system was unauthorized, said spokeswoman Jennifer Brindisi.

"We're trying to pinpoint where it came from," she said. The investigation could become "criminal in nature," she said. Brindisi would not identify the account that pulled the information on Oct. 16.

Records show it was a "test account" assigned to the information technology section of the attorney general's office, said Department of Public Safety spokesman Thomas Hunter.

Brindisi later said investigators have confirmed that Wurzelbacher's information was not accessed within the attorney general's office. She declined to provide details. The office's test accounts are shared with and used by other law enforcement-related agencies, she said.

On Oct. 17, BMV information on Wurzelbacher was obtained through an account used by the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency in Cleveland, records show.

Mary Denihan, spokeswoman for the county agency, said the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services contacted the agency today and requested an investigation of the access to Wurzelbacher's information. Cuyahoga County court records do not show any child-support cases involving Wurzelbacher.

The State Highway Patrol, which administers the Law Enforcement Automated Data System in Ohio, asked Toledo police to explain why it pulled BMV information on Wurzelbacher within 48 hours of the debate, Hunter said.

The LEADS system also can be used to check for warrants and criminal histories, but such checks would not be reflected on the records obtained by The Dispatch.

Sgt. Tim Campbell, a Toledo police spokesman, said he could not provide any information because the department only had learned of the State Highway Patrol inquiry today.

Spy Fears: Twitter Terrorists, Cell Phone Jihadists

Could Twitter become terrorists’ newest killer app? A draft Army intelligence report, making its way through spy circles, thinks the miniature messaging software could be used as an effective tool for coordinating militant attacks.

For years, American analysts have been concerned that militants would take advantage of commercial hardware and software to help plan and carry out their strikes. Everything from online games to remote-controlled toys to social network sites to garage door openers has been fingered as possible tools for mayhem.

This recent presentation — put together on the Army’s 304th Military Intelligence Battalion and found on the Federation of the American Scientists website — focuses on some of the newer applications for mobile phones: digital maps, GPS locators, photo swappers, and Twitter mash-ups of it all.

The report is roughly divided into two halves. The first is based mostly on chatter from Al-Qaeda-affiliated online forums. One Islamic extremist site discusses, for example, the benefits of “using a mobile phone camera to monitor the enemy and its mechanisms.” Another focuses on the benefits of the Nokia 6210 Navigator, and how its GPS utilities could be used for “marksmanship, border crossings, and in concealment of supplies.” Such software could allow jihadists to pick their way across multiple routes, identifying terrain features as they go. A third extremist forum recommends the installation of voice-modification software to conceal one’s identity when making calls.

Then the presentation launches into an even-more theoretical discussion of how militants might pair some of these mobile applications with Twitter, to magnify their impact. After all, “Twitter was recently used as a countersurveillance, command and control, and movement tool by activists at the Republican National Convention,” the report notes.”The activists would Tweet each other and their Twitter pages to add information on what was happening with Law Enforcement near real time.”

Terrorists haven’t done anything similar, the Army report concedes - although it does note that there are “multiple pro and anti Hezbollah Tweets.” Instead, the presentation lays out three possible scenarios in which Twitter could become a militant’s friend:

Scenario 1: Terrorist operative “A” uses Twitter with… a cell phone camera/video function to send back messages, and to receive messages, from the rest of his [group]… Other members of his [group] receive near real time updates (similar to the movement updates that were sent by activists at the RNC) on how, where, and the number of troops that are moving in order to conduct an ambush.

Scenario 2: Terrorist operative “A” has a mobile phone for Tweet messaging and for taking images. Operative “A” also has a separate mobile phone that is actually an explosive device and/or a suicide vest for remote detonation. Terrorist operative “B” has the detonator and a mobile to view “A’s” Tweets and images. This may allow ”B” to select the precise moment of remote detonation based on near real time movement and imagery that is being sent by “A.”

Scenario 3: Cyber Terrorist operative “A” finds U.S. [soldier] Smith’s Twitter account. Operative “A” joins Smith’s Tweets and begins to elicit information from Smith. This information is then used for… identity theft, hacking, and/or physical [attacks]. This scenario… has already been discussed for other social networking sites, such as My Space and/or Face Book.

Steven Aftergood, a veteran intelligence analyst at the Federation of the American Scientists, doesn’t dismiss the Army presentation out of hand. But nor does he think it’s tackling a terribly seriously threat. “Red-teaming exercises to anticipate adversary operations are fundamental. But they need to be informed by a sense of what’s realistic and important and what’s not,” he tells Danger Room. “If we have time to worry about ‘Twitter threats’ then we’re in good shape. I mean, it’s important to keep some sense of proportion.”

Experts Urge Next President to Face BW Dangers

Scientific advances in biotechnology, the global proliferation of practitioners, and an increasing complacency about security risks, have combined to create major concerns that the next U.S. president will have to address, two experts said yesterday in Washington (see GSN, March 13).

Biological weapons are often considered to be the easiest WMD capability for terrorists to acquire, in part because potentially deadly toxins are used for legitimate purposes all over the world, said Brian Finlay of the Henry L. Stimson Center.

He noted the use of Botox, derived from botulinum toxin, for cosmetic uses, as well as similar interest in positive applications of ricin and tetradotoxin, or puffer fish venom.

Maintaining control of these materials as they are used across the globe is challenging, he told a meeting organized by the Center for National Policy.

“The bottom line is, this is a global regulatory nightmare,” Finlay said.

Margaret Hamburg, of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, warned that ongoing life sciences research could identify new lethal technologies to join already identified threats, such as anthrax and smallpox.

“It is a frightening set of scenarios,” she said. “How do we as a society and as a global community deal with these kinds of threats?”

The next U.S. president, the two said, will need to address these questions urgently by streamlining bureaucratic systems, improving cooperation between government and industry, and devoting more resources to prevention and response, they said (Matt Korade, Congressional Quarterly Homeland Security, Oct. 23).

From Beirut to 9/11

(Compiler's note: A must read article)

By ROBERT C. McFARLANE

IN the summer of 1983, I became President Ronald Reagan’s special representative to the Middle East, with the mission of restoring a measure of calm to Israel’s relations with her neighbors, starting with Lebanon. At the time, Lebanon was occupied by Syrian and Israeli forces — Syria since shortly after Lebanon’s civil war began in 1975, and Israel since its invasion in June of the previous year.

Scarcely three months into that assignment, however, I was recalled to Washington and named the president’s national security adviser. Just after midnight on Friday, Oct. 21, I was awakened by a call from Vice President George H. W. Bush, who reported that several East Caribbean states had asked the United States to send forces to the Caribbean island of Grenada to prevent the Soviet Union and Cuba from establishing a base there. I called the president and Secretary of State George Shultz, who were on a golfing trip in Augusta, Ga., and received approval to have our forces prepare to land within 72 hours.

Then, less than 24 hours later I was awakened again, this time by the duty officer at the White House situation room, who reported that United States Marine barracks in Lebanon had been attacked by Iranian-trained Hezbollah terrorists with heavy losses. Again, I called the president, and he prepared for an immediate return to Washington to deal with both crises.

Today is the 25th anniversary of that bombing, which killed 241 Americans who were part of a multinational peacekeeping force (a simultaneous attack on the French base killed 58 paratroopers). The attack was planned over several months at Hezbollah’s training camp in the Bekaa Valley in central Lebanon. Once American intelligence confirmed who was responsible and where the attack had been planned, President Reagan approved a joint French-American air assault on the camp — only to have the mission aborted just before launching by the secretary of defense, Caspar Weinberger. Four months later, all the marines were withdrawn, capping one of the most tragic and costly policy defeats in the brief modern history of American counterterrorism operations.

One could draw several conclusions from this episode. To me the most telling was the one reached by Middle Eastern terrorists, that the United States had neither the will nor the means to respond effectively to a terrorist attack, a conclusion seemingly borne out by our fecklessness toward terrorist attacks in the 1990s: in 1993 on the World Trade Center; on Air Force troops at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996; on our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998; on the destroyer Cole in 2000.

There was no effective response from the United States to any of these. It was not until the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that our country decided to go to war against radical Islam.

A second conclusion concerns the age-old maxim never to deploy a force without giving it a clear military mission. In 1983, the Marine battalion positioned at the Beirut Airport was assigned the mission of “presence”; that is, to lend moral support to the fragile Lebanese government. Secretary of State Shultz and I urged the president to give the marines their traditional role — to deploy, at the invitation of the Lebanese government, into the mountains alongside the newly established Lebanese Army in an effort to secure the evacuation of Syrian and Israeli forces from Lebanon.

Secretary Weinberger disagreed. He felt strongly that American interests in the Middle East lay primarily in the region’s oil, and that to assure access to that oil we ought never to undertake military operations that might result in Muslim casualties and put at risk Muslim goodwill.

Cabinet officers often disagree, and rigorous debate and refinement often lead to better policy. What is intolerable, however, is irresolution. In this case the president allowed the refusal by his secretary of defense to carry out a direct order to go by without comment — an event which could have seemed to Mr. Weinberger only a vindication of his judgment. Faced with the persistent refusal of his secretary of defense to countenance a more active role for the marines, the president withdrew them, sending the terrorists a powerful signal of paralysis within our government and missing an early opportunity to counter the Islamist terrorist threat in its infancy.

Since 9/11 we have learned a lot about the threat from radical Islam and how to defeat it. Our commitment to Iraq is now being vindicated and, if sustained, will enable us to establish an example of pluralism in a Muslim state with a flourishing economy.

First, however, we must win in Afghanistan — truly the decisive battleground in this global struggle. Never has there been a greater need for experience and judgment in the White House. Unless our next president understands the complexity of the challenge as well as what it will take to succeed, and can lead his cabinet and our country in resolute execution of that strategy, we will lose this war.

Robert C. McFarlane was the national security adviser from 1983 to 1985.

Ayers' group foresaw genocide of capitalists

from WorldNetDaily

While many defenders of Weather Underground co-founder William Ayers have sought to minimize his bomb attacks on the U.S. Capitol and other landmarks because they purportedly did not target people, a former FBI informant who penetrated the group claimed he witnessed a meeting in which members discussed a future communist takeover of America in which some 25 million "diehard capitalists" would need to be killed.

Larry Grathwohl recalled his experience in the 1982 documentary "No Place to Hide," noted the weblog Confederate Yankee.

In a session with members of the radical group, founded in 1969, Grathwohl said discussion centered on a future in which the communist nations of Cuba, North Korea, China and the Soviet Union would occupy various parts of the U.S., with "re-education centers" established in the Southwest to prevent counterrevolution.

"I asked, 'Well what is going to happen to those people we can't reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?' And the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated."

Republican John McCain's presidential campaign has made Ayers an issue, charging Obama has had ties to an unrepentant domestic terrorist, including service together on two nonprofit boards. Critics also maintain Obama's political career was launched at the home of Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, also a former Weather Underground leader. Ayers, now a college professor, has said in interviews over the past decade he has no remorse for his 1970s terrorist activities, saying he only wished he could have done more.

Grathwohl, who worked as an operative for law enforcement agencies in Cincinnati, said when he pursued the genocide issue further, the Weather Underground members "estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these re-education centers."

"And when I say 'eliminate,' I mean 'kill,'" he continued. "Twenty-five million people." ....

What Obama and McCain will do about the jihad

by Robert Spencer

At last, someone takes up the issue of the nearly forgotten elephant in the living room. "Candidates On Fighting Islamic Extremism," from CBS, October 23 (thanks to Twostellas):

Obama:

* Says if he gets a shot at bin Laden, he will take it - with or without Pakistani permission.
* Would send in more troops to Afghanistan.
* Wants to give Pakistan $7 million to build schools, roads and health clinics.

McCain:

* Says it’s a mistake to be so explicit about violating another country territory, but leaves little doubt he would go after bin Laden even if that would be necessary.
* Would send in more troops to Afghanistan.
* Supports non-military aid to Pakistan, but has put no price tag on it.

(CBS) To help you make an informed decision in the presidential election, CBS News is devoting a large part of our broadcasts until Nov. 4 to telling you where the candidates stand on major issues - from the war in Iraq to health insurance to education … and a lot more. Each piece will be an in-depth look at the issues facing the 44th president. In this installment, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports on how what Barack Obama and John McCain propose to do about Islamic extremism would affect the world.

The Issue

The driver of an orange-and-white car shown in a video tape is a suicide bomber. He just barely misses an American convoy. The threat of Islamic extremists on the battlefield is so deadly, the only way to win is to shoot first.

But to Greg Mortenson, the real battleground is in the Hindu Kush, where Muslim children have no schools. For him, a classroom is the best weapon against terrorists.

"I think they fear education and literacy much more than they fear a good gun battle," Mortenson said.

Since 1993, Mortenson has been building schools in mountains so dangerous you take your life in your hands just crossing a river.

"Fifteen years later, now we have 78 schools, about 28,000 students and our primary focus is on girls' education," he said.

He is competing against religious schools called madrassas, teaching jihad to young boys who graduate to terrorist training camps. And his 78 schools are badly outgunned.

"Today, there's about 25,000 extremist madrassas with about four million mostly boys going to school, learning about militant ideology," he said.

Why is that? Does anyone know or care? Do they really think that there are 25,000 "extremist madrassas" because people don't have roads or scholarships?

"Doesn't sound like a fair contest," Martin said.

"It's just a drop in the bucket," Mortenson said.

A drop in the bucket against a fanatic ideology that, for a decade now, has spawned monstrous attacks on Americans.

The Candidates

There is no more visceral issue than the battle against Islamic extremism. And from the beginning, both candidates have put it at the center of their appeal to voters.

For both men, it begins with hunting down Osama bin Laden and other top terrorists - wherever they are.

"We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as president, I will not," Sen. Barack Obama said in May. "We must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."

Obama makes no bones about it - if he gets a shot at bin Laden, he will take it - with or without Pakistani permission.

Sen. John McCain says it’s a mistake to be so explicit about violating another country's territory, but leaves little doubt he would do exactly the same.

"There's a guy out there in Afghanistan or Pakistan," McCain said in March. "You know his name: Osama bin Laden. And if I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I'll get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice."

The battle against bin Laden and Islamic extremism began in Afghanistan. Seven years later, the United States has 32,000 troops there, and it is still not clear which side is winning.

"Our commanders on the ground in Afghanistan say that they need at least three additional brigades - and our commanders in Afghanistan must get them," McCain said.

Both candidates say they would send in more troops.

"As Commander in Chief, I will have no greater priority than taking out these terrorists that threaten America, and finishing the job against the Taliban. That's why I've called for at least two additional U.S. combat brigades," Obama said.

The U.S. military is already planning to send four more combat brigades - about 15,000 troops - and both candidates seem likely to approve. Both also recognize that's not enough. It will take what's called "soft power."

Obama wants to give Pakistan $7 million to build schools, roads and health clinics. McCain also supports non-military aid, but has put no price tag on it.

Has either one even been asked about the evidence that the Pakistani government has jihadists in high places, and that much of the money we have given them to fight "extremists" in the past has...gone astray?

In Los Angeles, McCain said: "Our goal must be to win the hearts and minds of the vast majority of moderate Muslims who do not want their future controlled by a minority of violent extremists. In this struggle, scholarships will be far more important than smart bombs."

Does study of the roots of "violent extremism" enter into this struggle against it and attempt to win hearts and minds? Are we too politically correct even to allow ourselves to know what we're dealing with? Does McCain, does Obama have a plan for combating the Islamic supremacist ideology that renders so many of our attempts to win hearts and minds fruitless?

Does anyone even wish to know or care where this problem came from? They continue to assume that it's all about poverty, despite the fact that so many studies have shown that jihadists tend to be wealthier and better educated than their peaceful peers. Scholarships and roads will fix it. But have they even considered the possibility that some Muslims may wish to wage jihad against the West even after they receive scholarships and schools and roads and health clinics?

Is it forbidden even to raise the possibility that some Muslims will consider that an attempt to buy them off, and will hold all the more tenaciously to their ideology of violence and supremacism?

Newspaper shows Obama belonged to socialist party

By Aaron Klein

JERUSALEM – Evidence has emerged that Sen. Barack Obama belonged to a socialist political party that sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda.

Several blogs, including Powerline, previously documented that while running for the Illinois state Senate in 1996 as a Democrat, Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of the socialist-oriented New Party, with some blogs claiming Obama was a member of the controversial party.

The New Party, formed by members of the Democratic Socialists for America and leaders of an offshoot of the Community Party USA, was an electoral alliance that worked alongside the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. The New Party's aim was to help elect politicians to office who espouse its policies.

Among New Party members was linguist and radical activist Noam Chomsky.

Obama's campaign has responded to the allegations, denying the presidential candidate was ever a member of the New Party.

But the New Zeal blog dug up print copies of the New Party News, the party's official newspaper, which show Obama posing with New Party leaders, list him as a New Party member and include quotes from him.

The party's Spring 1996 newspaper boasted: "New Party members won three other primaries this Spring in Chicago: Barack Obama (State Senate), Michael Chandler (Democratic Party Committee) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary). The paper quoted Obama saying "these victories prove that small 'd' democracy can work."

The newspaper lists other politicians it endorsed who were not members but specifies Obama as a New Party member.

Barack Obama pictured in New Party publication (Courtesy New Zeal blog)

New Ground, the newsletter of Chicago's Democratic Socialists for America, reported in its July/August 1996 edition that Obama attended a New Party membership meeting April 11, 1996, in which he expressed his gratitude for the group's support and "encouraged NPers (New Party members) to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration."

Becoming a New Party member requires some effort on behalf of the politician. Candidates must be approved by the party's political committee and, once approved, must sign a contract mandating they will have a "visible and active relationship" with the party.

The New Party, established in 1992, took advantage of what was known as electoral "fusion," which enabled candidates to run on two tickets simultaneously, attracting voters from both parties. But the New Party went defunct in 1998, one year after fusion was halted by the Supreme Court.

Following the initial reports of Obama's purported membership in the New Party, Obama associate and former Chicago New Party activist Carl Davidson posted a statement on several blogs claiming his former party was not socialist, but he admitted it worked with ACORN.

"[The New Party] was a pragmatic party of 'small d democracy' mainly promoting economic reforms like the living wage and testing the fusion tactic, common in many countries but only operational in New York in the U.S. The main trend within it was ACORN, an Alinskyist outfit, which is hardly Marxist," wrote Davidson.

But the socialist goals of the New Party were enumerated on its old website.

Among the New Party's stated objectives were "full employment, a shorter work week, and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal 'social wage' to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time, and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth and like programs to ensure gender equity."

The New Party stated it also sought "the democratization of our banking and financial system – including popular election of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets, community-controlled alternative financial institutions."

Many of the New Party's founding members were Democratic Socialists for America leaders and members of Committees of Correspondence, a breakaway of the Communist Party USA. Obama attended several DSA events and meetings, including a DSA-sponsored town hall meeting Feb. 25, 1996, entitled "Employment and Survival in Urban America." He sought and received an endorsement from the DSA.

According to DSA documents, the New Party worked with ACORN to promote its candidates. ACORN, convicted in massive, nationwide voter fraud cases, has been a point of controversy for Obama over the presidential candidate's ties to the group.

In 1995, the DSA's New Ground newsletter stated, "In Chicago, the New Party's biggest asset and biggest liability is ACORN.

"Like most organizations, ACORN is a mixed bag. On one hand, in Chicago, ACORN is a group that attempts to organize some of the most depressed communities in the city. Chicago organizers for ACORN and organizers for SEIU Local 880 have been given modest monthly recruitment quotas for new New Party members. On the other hand, like most groups that depend on canvassing for fundraising, it's easy enough to find burned out and disgruntled former employees. And ACORN has not had the reputation for being interested in coalition politics – until recently and, happily, not just within the New Party."