The Long Arm of the Lawless

(Compiler's note: Must read)

By Fred Burton and Scott Stewart

Last week we discussed the impact that crime, and specifically kidnapping, has been having on Mexican citizens and foreigners visiting or living in Mexico. We pointed out that there is almost no area of Mexico immune from the crime and violence. As if on cue, on the night of Feb. 21 a group of heavily armed men threw two grenades at a police building in Zihuatanejo, Guerrero state, wounding at least five people. Zihuatanejo is a normally quiet beach resort just north of Acapulco; the attack has caused the town’s entire police force to go on strike. (Police strikes, or threats of strikes, are not uncommon in Mexico.)

Mexican police have regularly been targeted by drug cartels, with police officials even having been forced to seek safety in the United States, but such incidents have occurred most frequently in areas of high cartel activity like Veracruz state or Palomas. The Zihuatanejo incident is proof of the pervasiveness of violence in Mexico, and demonstrates the impact that such violence quickly can have on an area generally considered safe.

Significantly, the impact of violent Mexican criminals stretches far beyond Mexico itself. In recent weeks, Mexican criminals have been involved in killings in Argentina, Peru and Guatemala, and Mexican criminals have been arrested as far away as Italy and Spain. Their impact — and the extreme violence they embrace — is therefore not limited to Mexico or even just to Latin America. For some years now, STRATFOR has discussed the threat that Mexican cartel violence could spread to the United States, and we have chronicled the spread of such violence to the U.S.-Mexican border and beyond.

Traditionally, Mexican drug-trafficking organizations had focused largely on the transfer of narcotics through Mexico. Once the South American cartels encountered serious problems bringing narcotics directly into the United States, they began to focus more on transporting the narcotics to Mexico. From that point, the Mexican cartels transported them north and then handed them off to U.S. street gangs and other organizations, which handled much of the narcotics distribution inside the United States. In recent years, however, these Mexican groups have grown in power and have begun to take greater control of the entire narcotics-trafficking supply chain.

With greater control comes greater profitability as the percentages demanded by middlemen are cut out. The Mexican cartels have worked to have a greater presence in Central and South America, and now import from South America into Mexico an increasing percentage of the products they sell. They are also diversifying their routes and have gone global; they now even traffic their wares to Europe. At the same time, Mexican drug-trafficking organizations also have increased their distribution operations inside the United States to expand their profits even further. As these Mexican organizations continue to spread beyond the border areas, their profits and power will extend even further — and they will bring their culture of violence to new areas.

Burned in Phoenix

The spillover of violence from Mexico began some time ago in border towns like Laredo and El Paso in Texas, where merchants and wealthy families face extortion and kidnapping threats from Mexican gangs, and where drug dealers who refuse to pay “taxes” to Mexican cartel bosses are gunned down. But now, the threat posed by Mexican criminals is beginning to spread north from the U.S.-Mexican border. One location that has felt this expanding threat most acutely is Phoenix, some 185 miles north of the border. Some sensational cases have highlighted the increased threat in Phoenix, such as a June 2008 armed assault in which a group of heavily armed cartel gunmen dressed like a Phoenix Police Department tactical team fired more than 100 rounds into a residence during the targeted killing of a Jamaican drug dealer who had double-crossed a Mexican cartel. We have also observed cartel-related violence in places like Dallas and Austin, Texas. But Phoenix has been the hardest hit.

Narcotics smuggling and drug-related assassinations are not the only thing the Mexican criminals have brought to Phoenix. Other criminal gangs have been heavily involved in human smuggling, arms smuggling, money laundering and other crimes. Due to the confluence of these Mexican criminal gangs, Phoenix has now become the kidnapping-for-ransom capital of the United States. According to a Phoenix Police Department source, the department received 368 kidnapping reports last year. As we discussed last week, kidnapping is a highly underreported crime in places such as Mexico, making it very difficult to measure accurately. Based upon experience with kidnapping statistics in other parts of the world — specifically Latin America — it would not be unreasonable to assume that there were at least as many unreported kidnappings in Phoenix as there are reported kidnappings.

At present, the kidnapping environment in the United States is very different from that of Mexico, Guatemala or Colombia. In those countries, kidnapping runs rampant and has become a well-developed industry with a substantial established infrastructure. Police corruption and incompetence ensures that kidnappers are rarely caught or successfully prosecuted.

A variety of motives can lie behind kidnappings. In the United States, crime statistics demonstrate that motives such as sexual exploitation, custody disputes and short-term kidnapping for robbery have far surpassed the number of reported kidnappings conducted for ransom. In places like Mexico, kidnapping for ransom is much more common.

The FBI handles kidnapping investigations in the United States. It has developed highly sophisticated teams of agents and resources to devote to investigating this type of crime. Local police departments are also far more proficient and professional in the United States than in Mexico. Because of the advanced capabilities of law enforcement in the United States, the overwhelming majority of criminals involved in kidnapping-for-ransom cases reported to police — between 95 percent and 98 percent — are caught and convicted. There are also stiff federal penalties for kidnapping. Because of this, kidnapping for ransom has become a relatively rare crime in the United States.

Most kidnapping for ransom that does happen in the United States occurs within immigrant communities. In these cases, the perpetrators and victims belong to the same immigrant group (e.g., Chinese Triad gangs kidnapping the families of Chinese businesspeople, or Haitian criminals kidnapping Haitian immigrants) — which is what is happening in Phoenix. The vast majority of the 368 known kidnapping victims in Phoenix are Mexican and Central American immigrants who are being victimized by Mexican or Mexican-American criminals.

The problem in Phoenix involves two main types of kidnapping. One is the abduction of drug dealers or their children, the other is the abduction of illegal aliens.

Drug-related kidnappings often are not strict kidnappings for ransom per se. Instead, they are intended to force the drug dealer to repay a debt to the drug trafficking organization that ordered the kidnapping.

Nondrug-related kidnappings are very different from traditional kidnappings in Mexico or the United States, in which a high-value target is abducted and held for a large ransom. Instead, some of the gangs operating in Phoenix are basing their business model on volume, and are willing to hold a large number of victims for a much smaller individual pay out. Reports have emerged of kidnapping gangs in Phoenix carjacking entire vans full of illegal immigrants away from the coyote smuggling them into the United States. The kidnappers then transport the illegal immigrants to a safe house, where they are held captive in squalid conditions — and often tortured or sexually assaulted with a family member listening in on the phone — to coerce the victims’ family members in the United States or Mexico to pay the ransom for their release. There are also reports of the gangs picking up vehicles full of victims at day labor sites and then transporting them to the kidnapping safe house rather than to the purported work site.

Drug-related kidnappings are less frequent than the nondrug-related abduction of illegal immigrants, but in both types of abductions, the victims are not likely to seek police assistance due to their immigration status or their involvement in illegal activity. This strongly suggests the kidnapping problem greatly exceeds the number of cases reported to police.

Implications for the United States

The kidnapping gangs in Phoenix that target illegal immigrants have found their chosen crime to be lucrative and relatively risk-free. If the flow of illegal immigrants had continued at high levels, there is very little doubt the kidnappers’ operations would have continued as they have for the past few years. The current economic downturn, however, means the flow of illegal immigrants has begun to slow — and by some accounts has even begun to reverse. (Reports suggest many Mexicans are returning home after being unable to find jobs in the United States.)

This reduction in the pool of targets means that we might be fast approaching a point where these groups, which have become accustomed to kidnapping as a source of easy money — and their primary source of income — might be forced to change their method of operating to make a living. While some might pursue other types of criminal activity, some might well decide to diversify their pool of victims. Watching for this shift in targeting is of critical importance. Were some of these gangs to begin targeting U.S. citizens rather than just criminals or illegal immigrants, a tremendous panic would ensue, along with demands to catch the perpetrators.

Such a shift would bring a huge amount of law enforcement pressure onto the kidnapping gangs, to include the FBI. While the FBI is fairly hard-pressed for resources given its heavy counterterrorism, foreign counterintelligence and white-collar crime caseload, it almost certainly would be able to reassign the resources needed to respond to such kidnappings in the face of publicity and a public outcry. Such a law enforcement effort could neutralize these gangs fairly quickly, but probably not quickly enough to prevent any victims from being abducted or harmed.

Since criminal groups are not comprised of fools alone, at least some of these groups will realize that targeting soccer moms will bring an avalanche of law enforcement attention upon them. Therefore, it is very likely that if kidnapping targets become harder to find in Phoenix — or if the law enforcement environment becomes too hostile due to the growing realization of this problem — then the groups may shift geography rather than targeting criteria. In such a scenario, professional kidnapping gangs from Phoenix might migrate to other locations with large communities of Latin American illegal immigrants to victimize. Some of these locations could be relatively close to the Mexican border like Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, San Diego or Los Angeles, though they could also include locations farther inland like Chicago, Atlanta, New York, or even the communities around meat and poultry packing plants in the Midwest and mid-Atlantic states. Such a migration of ethnic criminals would not be unprecedented: Chinese Triad groups from New York for some time have traveled elsewhere on the East Coast, like Atlanta, to engage in extortion and kidnapping against Chinese businessmen there.

The issue of Mexican drug-traffic organizations kidnapping in the United States merits careful attention, especially since criminal gangs in other areas of the country could start imitating the tactics of the Phoenix gangs.

No terror talk: Homeland Security head's new tone

By EILEEN SULLIVAN and MATT APUZZO

WASHINGTON (AP) — Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano avoids mention of terrorism or 9/11 in remarks prepared for her first congressional testimony since taking office, signaling a sharp change in tone from her predecessors.

Napolitano is the first homeland security secretary to drop the term "terror" and "vulnerability" from remarks prepared for delivery to the House Homeland Security Committee, according to a copy obtained by The Associated Press.

Tom Ridge, who headed the agency when it was launched in 2003, mentioned terrorism 11 times in his prepared statement at his debut before the oversight committee in 2003. And in 2005 Michael Chertoff, the second secretary, mentioned terrorism seven times, according to an AP analysis of the prepared testimonies.

Napolitano, a former Arizona governor, instead charts a course in very different terms than Chertoff, who used law enforcement and military jargon — "intelligence," "analysis," "mission" — to describe the agency's objectives.

The department's top priorities are spelled out in legislation that created it in 2001: preventing a terrorist attack in the United States; reducing the vulnerability for such an attack; and helping with the recovery if the U.S. is attacked.

Napolitano's prepared remarks also show her using the word "attacks" less than her predecessors. She is the first secretary to use a Capitol Hill debut to talk about hurricanes and disasters, a sign of the department's evolving mission following Hurricane Katrina.

Napolitano is not alone in her departure from terror talk.

The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee doesn't mention terrorism or 9/11 in his prepared remarks for Wednesday's hearing either. Securing the borders, responding to natural disasters, ensuring transportation safety, protecting critical infrastructure and administering grants are the priorities, Mississippi Democrat Bennie Thompson says.

The United States hasn't been attacked since 2001, and the color-coded threat alert system hasn't changed since 2006 when a U.S.-bound terrorist plot was thwarted in the United Kingdom. But intelligence officials still consider the potential for terrorist attack on the U.S. a serious concern and send messages of "not if, but when."

The committee's top Republican said he was struck that Napolitano's prepared remarks did not include terrorism, Sept. 11, new threats or a formula for distributing counterterrorism grants to states and cities — a topic near and dear to the New Yorker.

"This can't be the evil we don't speak about," Peter King said. "Any testimony on homeland security should be centered around the threat of terrorism and what we're doing to combat it."

Napolitano has talked about unifying a 218,000-strong department that includes agencies charged with protecting the country's borders, enforcing immigration laws, protecting the president, responding to disasters, keeping terrorists off of airplanes and preventing computer attacks.

Because the department is so large and has many missions that overlap other agencies', Napolitano wants to make the Homeland Security Department's role unique. She wants to focus on transportation security, guarding chemical plants and detecting weapons of mass destruction.

Security expert James Carafano calls this "a debate without a difference." All the department's missions deal with terrorism in one way or another, said Carafano, a fellow with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

The department is six years old, and the secretary does not need to tell her employees to look for terrorists, he said. Employees know that and have been doing it.

When reporters asked last month why she doesn't talk about terrorism specifically, Napolitano said terrorism fits into what she calls "action directives" that she's issued over the past month.

In those directives, she mentions terrorism only once, and that is about a law that contains the word in its title. Her directives include reviewing the Gulf Coast recovery from Hurricane Katrina, information sharing, and immigration and border security programs.

Pressed further on the absence of terror vernacular, she said she has been working with members of President Barack Obama's national security team since the November election, and she's regularly briefed on "incidents around the world." She doesn't single out terrorism "because it's almost become part and parcel of what we do everyday."

The department's mission is straightforward, she says in her prepared testimony: "To protect the American people from threats both foreign and domestic, both natural and manmade — to do all that we can to prevent threats from materializing, respond to them if they do and recover with resiliency."

Heritage experts unpack President Obama’s speech

By Nathaniel Ward

The Heritage Foundation's policy experts covered President Obama's address to the Congress live on the Foundry blog last night. They responded in real time to the points the President raised on issues such as foreign policy, energy, taxes, spending and education.

» Follow all the action on the Foundry.

Should D.C. be represented in Congress?

Lawmakers seem determined to grant the District of Columbia representation in the House of Representatives — in spite of the oath they took to defend the Constitution.

Writing in The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, legal expert Lee Casey explains that the Constitution is explicit: representation is limited to the states. And Heritage experts Joesph Postell and Nathaniel Ward take on activists for representation, explaining that "those who value the true interests of the District should defend the existing arrangement, which promotes the collective responsibility of Congress to preserve the welfare of the federal city."

» Read the rest of the article at MyHeritage.org

— David Talbot

Measuring the 'fiscal responsibility summit'

President Obama hosted a "fiscal responsibility summit" at the White House on Monday. On the campaign trail and as President, he has several times called for reducing the budget deficit and tackling runaway spending on entitlement programs.

These are important goals that The Heritage Foundation shares. Reforming out-of-control spending on entitlement programs will be "one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century," Heritage experts Brian Riedl and Alison Fraser said in a memo to President Obama. Current spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is unsustainable, they explain:

In the coming decades, the cost of these three programs will leap from 8.4 percent to 18.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)--an increase of 10.2 percent. Without reform, this increased cost would require either raising taxes by the current equiva­lent of $12,072 per household or eliminating every other government program. Funding all of the prom­ised benefits with income taxes would require rais­ing the 35 percent income tax bracket to at least 77 percent and raising the 25 percent tax bracket to at least 55 percent.

» Read the rest of the article at MyHeritage.org

— David Talbot

Heritage's response to the 'stimulus'

Over the last several weeks, Heritage Foundation experts worked tirelessly to highlight the flaws in the so-called 'stimulus.' Here are just a few of our successes.

• Heritage experts had over 42 meetings with members of Congress and their staff.
• Heritage experts were cited on the stimulus in more than 750 newspaper clips.
• Heritage analysts completed over 255 radio and TV interviews regarding the stimulus bill.

» Read about the rest of Heritage's impact on the 'stimulus' debate at MyHeritage.org

> Other Heritage work of note

• European Union legitimacy is disintegrating, writes foreign policy analyst Sally McNamara on Heritage's Foundry blog. President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic, Polish President Lech Kaczynski, and the Irish people continue to resist the Lisbon Treaty, which McNamara says would "transfer vast powers from member states to the European Union." President Klaus compared attempts to silence opposition to the Soviet oppression of Eastern Europe: "With no opposition, there is no freedom."
  
• The automakers who recently received a massive government bailout are already asking for more — $22 billion of taxpayer dollars. (Only in an age of trillion-dollar debt plans does $22 billion seem like small beans.) Here is an update on the first round of bailouts from The Foundry blog.
  
• This chart from Heritage's Center for Data Analysis, which demonstrates how high corporate taxes are hurting America in the global market, appeared in today's Washington Examiner:
  
  

> In other news

• The Associated Press has the scoop on the cost to taxpayers of big-government health-care "reform": $634 billion.

• The House of Representatives has passed a massive $410 billion domestic spending bill for fiscal 2009. The AP reports that "the legislation would provide increases of roughly 8 percent for the federal agencies it covered"—a massive boost for government at a time when individual Americans are tightening their belts.

• President Obama nominated former Washington governor Gary Locke to be his Secretary of Commerce. Is the third time the charm?

• Al Gore pulled a dramatic slide from his famous and infamous global warming presentation after is was sharply criticized as misleading.

• Negotiations between the Treasury and Citigroup, the nation's third largest bank, are looking more and more like nationalization.

> Coming up at Heritage

To attend these or any other events at Heritage please RSVP at Heritage's website. Or you can view these events live online. All times are Eastern.

• On Thursday, February 26 at noon, author Indur Goklany will debunk myths popularized by global warming propagandists.

• On Friday, February 27 at noon, a panel of experts will discuss why bankruptcy is still better than a bailout for automakers.

Nathaniel Ward is the Editor of MyHeritage.org—a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation. David Talbot contributed to this report.

Major General Commanding General Carroll D. Childers Joins Military Suit

(Compiler's note: Maybe in time the General will tell us what he really thinks.)

by Defend Our Freedoms Foundation

CONSENT FORM
DATE: 24 Feb 2009

Attn. Orly Taitz, Esq.
26302 La Paz, Ste. 211
Mission Viejo, CA 92691

I agree to be a plaintiff in the legal action to be filed by Orly Taitz, Esq. in a PETITION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT THAT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT of the U.S., nor TO BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the U.S. ARMED FORCES, in that I am or was a sworn member of the U.S. military (subject to recall), and therefore when serving as an active member of the military, I would be unable to follow any orders given by a Constitutionally unqualified Commander In Chief, since by doing so I would be subject to charges of aiding and abetting fraud and committing acts of treason.

TYPED NAME or Signature: Carroll D. Childers
FULL NAME: Carroll Dean Childers

POSITION IN THE MILITARY/RANK/DATES SERVED/STATUS: Retired as Major General Commanding General 29TH Infantry Division VA ARNG 1999, 44 years service

OCCUPATION: Consultant Registered Professional Engineer

ACHIEVEMENTS: Retired 38 Yrs DON Civil Service, RDT&E, several patents, 14 months in combat zones as science advisor (Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Operation Desert Storm), Oldest DHG of a Ranger Course (42), retired MG, married 50+ years, still ticking and kicking

I can present a long list of reasons, taken individually, which convinced me NOT to vote for Barack Hussein Obama; his crime associates in the USA, his lack of experience, the mystery of his citizenship, his promise to make coal power industry bankrupt through excessive regulations, his constant adjustment of position on issues, his tax plan, his spread the wealth admission, his obvious socialistic goals, his associations with foreign leaders unfriendly to the USA, the lies he tells about a range of subjects including perhaps who his biological father really is, his most recent revelation of having a "National Security Force" (whatever that is)...............all of these says he is a person of mystery, of no integrity, and in fact paints him with the same narcissist paint of Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, and Kim Jong Ill.

But then, there is a simple more direct, easier to understand reason that I did not vote for him and that is his lack of respect for the country that is giving him the opportunity to run for the highest office in the land........even though I personally think he is not constitutionally eligible.

But more than 50% of America voted for this charlatan and he now has the helm of the ship of state. Even so, he is not MY President. I will not refer to him as such. I will call him Resident Obama, and an illegal resident of the white house at that. I resent him for what he is not. He has not given proof that he is a natural born citizen of these United States. He has spent millions of dollars protecting the truth of his birth from public knowledge; therefore, it is obvious he has something to hide. He is an interloper, a usurper, a fake, a scam artist, a Chicago crook, a recipient of bribes and gratuitous income for which he paid no tax, a socialist (perhaps only a communist or Marxist), and a grave danger to the future of the America that I love and have protected since I was 17 years old.

I have told my two senators and my member of the House of Representatives. I have written 9 justices of the Supreme Court as well as President Bush before he left office. NONE have responded, therefore, they are all complicit and should all be severely punished for having failed in their sworn oath to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The instant Obamb was sworn in, he violated the oath he took because he took the office knowing he is ineligible and there stood Judge Roberts who should have immediately had Obama arrested and deported.

Other than this, my key short-term complaint is that he has not had a heart attack in office. But most important, what I really want is the truth; is Obama a natural born citizen of the United States. If not a natural born citizen, America has been defrauded and then we would be stuck with Joe Biden whose only redeeming attribute is that he is probably not a communist.

Carroll D. Childers P.E.
Major General (Retired)

Home mortgage relief for millions of illegals

By Jerome R. Corsi

Illegal aliens can apply for mortgage relief under the Obama administration's $275 billion plan, according to immigration experts and a group the government will use to help homeowners modify loans.

Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C., told WND approximately 1 million households headed by illegal immigrants acquired mortgages through the beginning of 2007, before the housing bubble burst.

"There is no legal prohibition against illegal immigrants owning homes," he said, "and in most cases mortgage lenders

will accept a taxpayer ID or a Matricula Consular card issued by a Mexican Consulate office as identification to illegal immigrants from Mexico."

Chad Buchanan, a manager at SaveMyHomeUSA – a group cooperating with the Obama administration that assists homeowners facing foreclosure – told WND illegal immigrants who own a home "could certainly apply under our program."

"We don't target or go after illegal immigrant customers," he said. "But if an illegal immigrant owns a home legally, we could try to help them under our program.

SaveMyHomeUSA is seeking job applications for loan modification processors to work in the Obama administration mortgage modification program.

"A lot of mortgage modifiers out there never ask about the legal immigration status of the homeowner, and we do not ask either," Buchanan said. "This is the first time I've had that question asked. All we are looking to do is to modify the current note, regardless what the legal immigration status of the client is."....

Growing Instability in Mexico Threatens U.S. Economy and Border Security

A study by The Heritage Foundation

U.K: Analysts find new culprit for "radicalization": Old people

from Jihad Watch

Don't trust any imam over 30. That'll fix it, right?

Once again, a theory that attempts to explain away the obvious nexus between Islamic teachings and violence in the name of Islam simply puts a spotlight on the elephant in the room: The matter of where all these "extremists" keep coming from, and how resilient their "misunderstanding" of the Religion of Peace continues to be. "Young Muslims at the mercy of extremists because of out-of-touch Imams," by Duncan Gardham for the Telegraph, February 24:

Mosques dominated by elderly foreign clerics are leaving young Muslims at the mercy of extremists, a study has found.

The Quilliam Foundation, an Islamic think tank, has found that 97 per cent of imams in Britain's mosques are from overseas, although the majority of Muslims in Britain were born in the UK.

The study also found that forty-four per cent of mosques do not hold their sermons at the main Friday prayers in English.

Nearly half of Britain's mosques do not have facilities for women, "depriving half the community of access to public spaces," the study said.

It added: "Foreign imams, poorly paid and with limited proficiency in English, are ill-equipped to navigate Britain's complex, liberal and multi-faith society.

And from that, we're to infer that the social ills of Muslim communities can all be attributed to "cultural" issues, and not anything contained in Islamic teachings.

"They have neither the freedom, being at the mercy of mosque management committees dominated by first generation elders, nor the capacity to promote a British Islam informed by British values.

"By failing to reach out to young British Muslims, radical Islamists have the upper-hand. Britain's young Muslims, without a voice in mosques, are looking elsewhere for religious guidance and will continue to be drawn in by young, articulate extremists who offer an alternative narrative, cause and social space."

Quilliam's director, Maajid Nawaz said: "These findings are deeply disturbing. Our first line of defence against terrorism is the ability, commitment, and confidence of mosques and Muslim communities to root out extremism. Currently, we are failing.

"With foreign imams who are physically in Britain, but psychologically in Pakistan or Bangladesh, mosques lack the requisite resilience to challenge Islamist extremists. We cannot continue to ignore the malaise in our mosques."

The report's author, Anya Hart Dyke, a senior research fellow at Quilliam, said mosques needed to include women and young people in running mosques, make use of government support from funds aimed at preventing violent extremism, and take advantage of training opportunities as well as sharing their space with community organisations and schools, and opening their doors to non-Muslims.

She said the mosques could learn from some local initiatives introduced in some mosques as well as the way churches and synagogues operate.

Why, exactly! That must be why you don't see their youth carrying menacing placards and calling for the overthrow of governments. Not to mention the dearth of bombings.

"There are signs of hope. I have found some locally-led initiatives in mosques across the country, but this needs to become the norm amongst our mosques," she added.

Quilliam attempted to contact over 1,000 mosques by using researchers who spoke Urdu or Bengali during Ramadan in late 2008, a busy period in mosques.

Due to lack of resources at most mosques and after repeated phone calls they successfully polled 512 mosques, although not all mosques responded to every question posed.

As usual, there's not really a problem, except when there kind of is, even though there really isn't. It's complicated:

Seyyed Ferjani, chairman of the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board, admitted there was a problem in mosques but said it was not on the scale suggested in the report.

"The imam in the mosque only leads prayers," he said. "We have a problem in our mosques that most, the bulk of our youth, they don't seek advice from imams, they seek advice elsewhere."

Referring to the July 7 bombers, he added: "The problem that we've got, like the people who are in Leeds and elsewhere, they are outside of mosques, who are grooming them."

An increasing trend. Where jihadists organize doesn't answer questions about their ideology.

We're Losing Our Country – But What Can We Do?

(Compiler's note: A must read article.)

by Joan Swirsky

From the moment Barack Obama was inaugurated on January 20th, the leftists who control Congress have – at his behest – gone on a drunken binge of runaway spending vis-à-vis an $850-bilion faux "stimulus" program that rewards failure and punishes success. It is already clear that The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act should be renamed The American Relapse-And-Needs-Resuscitation Act, as is evidenced by both the simultaneous plunge of the Dow and the president's polling numbers, as well as an epidemic case of buyer's remorse.

As Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn has written, "the stimulus is a step toward a Soviet America."

Or, as Lenin said, "The way to crush the bourgeoisie [the middle class] is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation."

Or, as Winston Churchill so presciently pronounced: "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Writer Randall Hoven has elaboratedupon what the president has "accomplished" in his first weeks in office. This is the short list:

• Rewarded abortionists by freeing federal funds to pay for abortions both here and overseas.
• Rewarded terrorists by not interrogating them too roughly.
• Rewarded terrorists by closing Gitmo.
• Punished the U.S. military by halting commissions until Gitmo is "reviewed."
• Rewarded the domestically-held terrorist Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri by "reviewing" his case.
• Rewarded Gitmo detainee Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, an al Qaeda suspect in USS Cole in 200, that killed 17 US sailors, by dropping charges against him.
• Rewarded terrorists from Hamas by granting them up to $20.3 million for the "conflict victims in Gaza."
• Rewarded terrorists by establishing a redress process if those suspected of wrongdoing are delayed or prohibited from boarding a flight.
• Rewarded female career "victims" by signing the "Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act" so women can wage equal-pay lawsuits, not for up to 180 days but for decades in the past.
• Rewarded the American-hating president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, by "reaching out" to him – to which the madman demanded that the U.S. apologize to Iran for its actions for" the past 60 years" and remove all U.S. forces from the Middle East.
• Rewarded labor unions by revoking a former executive order that forced employers to notify employees of their rights.
• Punished faith-based organizations by equating them with "neighborhood partnerships" like Planned Parenthood and ACORN – treating them "like a house of God, in the eyes of the federal government."
• Punished fair-hiring employers by requiring federal executives to hire union-only members.
• Punished the American people by issuing numerous draconian environmental dictates that insure zero energy independence for decades to come, if ever.

In other words, Hoven says, it was all "pay back Democratic special interests…spend really, really huge amounts of other people's money, [and] make terrorism a law-enforcement issue instead of a national-defense issue and watch terrorists and nuclear proliferators be released, from Pakistan to Yemen to Gitmo."

I haven't even mentioned how much Obama has also:

• Punished Americans by appointing chronic tax cheats and craven lobbyists to his cabinet and as advisors.
• Punished Americans by reversing every promise he made about transparency, bipartisanship, and having an economic-growth bill with no pork.
• Rewarded terrorists by authorizing $20.3 million to aid Palestinian refugees from Gaza – read Hamas – to "migrate." But as journalist Judi McLeod and intelligence analyst Michael Travis have asked, "Is Obama opening the floodgates to Hamas" and "What security measures are in place to keep Hamas terrorists from gaining free access into the U.S.?"
• Punished Americans by not firing – or even sanctioning – Attorney General Eric Holder, who called America a "nation of cowards."
• Punished Americans by moving the once-objective census process into the White House's to be overseen by the Chicago-machine flunkie, Rahm Emanuel.
• And then there was the cringe-producing embarrassment he caused by granting his first interview to the Arab media, Dubai-based al Arabiya TV, where he proceeded to apologize for America's "mistakes."

VOX CLAMATO EN DESERTO

On the eve of the "stimulus" bill vote, which took place on February 14th, Fox News' Greta Van Susteren asked Alaska's Gov. Sarah Palin what the president should do.

"He should veto it!" Palin exclaimed. "He should send it back to the lawmakers so they have time to actually read it and understand its impact." Hers was a lonely voice of opposition, but it resonated with millions of Americans who also wondered how their (overwhelmingly Democrat) elected officials had the gall to vote for a 1,100-page bill they hadn't read when recent spending packages of significantly less heft had failed so thunderously:

• $180 billion stimulus program in the spring of 2008: Failed.
• $345 billion housing bailout from the summer of 2008: Failed.
• $700 billion Wall Street bailout from the fall of 2008: Failed.
• Grand total: $1.2 trillion in spending: Failed.

Just a few days later, on February 17th, Louisiana's Governor Bobby Jindal suggested that he might not be interested in taking the $4 billion allotted to his state in the "stimulus" package before reviewing each program and determining "what are the strings" attached to it were. And on February 18th, according to the Associated Press, a number of other Republican governors said they were considering turning down at least some of the money, questioning if it would help the economy at all.

Of course, it was a Democrat, South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, who sneaked tucked into the package a proviso that allows state legislatures to override a governor's decision. It was also Clyburn who said that the refusal of governors to accept the funds was "a slap in the face of African-Americans." To which Kevin Martin, a member of Project 21 – a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992 – replied: "Liberals such as Congressman Clyburn have always employed tactics such as the race card to shame critics into accepting their heavy-handed demands…to use race as a means of cramming it down these governors' throats is reprehensible, and people should take notice as to how far these people are willing to go to get their way."

Indeed. Americans should be celebrating those governors who have questioned the ability of the bloated, pork-laden, special-interest-favoring bill to create jobs or "save" the economy At this point, their numbers may be small, but their potential for influence is huge.

Let them know what you think of their efforts.

Gov. Mark Sanford (SC): Tel: 1-803-734-2100; Fax: 1-803-734-5167; E-mail.

Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA): E-mail.

Governor Haley Barbour (MISS): Tel: 1-877-405-0733 or1- 601-359-3150.

Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter (ID): Tel: 1-208-334-2100.

Governor Sarah Palin (AK): Tel: 1-907- 465-3500; Fax: 1-907- 465-3532; E-mail.

Governor Mitch Daniels (IN): Tel: 1-317-232-4567; E-mail.

Keep this Contact Your Governor Guide handy.

DON'T TREAD ON ME

Afraid that the Obama agenda includes trampling on states' rights, 22 states are declaring sovereignty or planning to. Sovereignty is not the same as secession, in which a state or states threaten to leave the union. Sovereignty is granted under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights. In short, it says that: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right…"

The states now seeking sovereignty are expressing the fear that a new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted to the government and that states will lose their autonomy. In stark contrast are those who believe that Congress can enact – at the will or whim of the president – just about anything that strikes their socialist fancies.

The states seeking sovereignty believe that if enough states get on board, they could press their claims together and prevail. The federal government, they say, has no physical existence, except for the machinery that runs it, but that the states are the country!

As one blogger stated, "Whether they're using a stick or a club, the states are drawing a line in the sand and placing the Federal Government on notice."

To date, the states that are already sovereign, having passed 10th Amendment resolutions in their legislatures, include:

California (CA): Click here for more info.
Texas (TX): Click here.

States claiming sovereignty include:

Arizona (AZ): Click here.
Georgia (GA): Click here.
Michigan (MI): Click here.
Missouri (MO): Click here and Click here.
Montana (MT): Click here.
New Hampshire (NH): Click here.
Oklahoma (OK): Click here.
South Carolina (SC): Click here.
Washington (WA): Click here.

Hawaii (HI) is actually aiming for total sovereignty, as it claims the state was never really a state of the U.S.A. Click HERE and HERE.

States that are planning motions toward claiming sovereignty include the following:

Alabama (AL), Alaska (AK), Arkansas (AR), Colorado (CO, Idaho (ID), Indiana (IN), Kansas (KS), Maine (ME), Nevada (NV), Pennsylvania (PA), and Tennessee (TN).

Click here for Source # 1 for the "pending / planning" states and Source # 2 for the "pending / planning" states.

That is almost half our country, as you can see by this map:

And more states are joining the Don't Tread On Me juggernaut, including Georgia, Oklahoma, and Ohio.

But there is a rub here. A Resolution carries no weight and only sends a "sense of the state legislature" to the federal government. But a Bill can become a Law. So when you're contacting your state officials, let them know what you think.

According to writer Dave Nalle, it now looks "like at least 22 states have Bills in some stage of development. About half are in the process of being drafted, several are in committee or out for debate, and the pack is being led by Arizona, Oklahoma, and New Hampshire, where the bills have strong support and will likely be voted on within a matter of weeks. As yet, none have passed into law, but we may see that happen in some of the most active states fairly quickly."

Most of the Resolutions, Nalle says, "are originating from inside legislatures and from established state politicians, specifically in response to concerns about unfunded mandates and excessive burdens placed on the states by the federal government. The expense and partisan character of many of the elements of the stimulus bill is of increasing concern and helping to motivate legislators to pass these state resolutions…while the 10th Amendment is central to their argument, legislators are more concerned about retaining power they see being gradually eroded by the federal government…"

YES, YOUR HONOR!

It is not only governors and state legislatures waking up to the shock of dealing with a far-left-cum-socialist-cum-Marxist president and a far-left Congress that echoes his contempt for free-market capitalism and the U.S. Constitution. It is also organizations like Patriots for America as well as individual activists.

A minister, Christ Otto, started the Red Envelope Project that has already resulted in over 100,000 red envelopes being sent to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (zip: 20500), which are marked on the back with the simple sentence: "This envelope represents one child who died in abortion…it is empty because that child was unable to offer anything to the world."

Stephen Pidgeon, a lawyer who has waged one of more than a dozen Supreme Court lawsuits (Broe v. Reed) in an attempt to prove that President Obama is Constitutionally ineligible to hold his office, has launched an effort to empanel a National Grand Jury "to serve as ombudsmen for the citizens of the country in respect to constitutional rights and privileges…and to conduct criminal investigations of members of the federal government, and, if the evidence is sufficient, issue criminal indictments."

The National Grand Jury, Pidgeon says, "is an entirely independent body. Judges of the Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeal, and the District Courts of the United States, United States Attorneys, and Congress of the United States may act only as advisors. They cannot prevent National Grand Jury action unless that action violates the duly enacted laws as originally created in the United States."

He says that a National Grand Jury is empowered to:

• Inquire into the condition and management of branches of the federal government and its agencies.
• Investigate and report on the operations, accounts and records of federal officers, departments, and functions.
• Inquire into the willful or corrupt misconduct in office of public officers.
• Submit a final report of its findings and recommendations, no later than the end of its term, to the Presiding Juror of the National Grand Jury.

To become a Grand Juror, go to this website: www.DecaLogosIntl.org.

So to all people who wonder "What can I do?" to reclaim the America they knew and loved before Obama, I suggest that you join these efforts and also start protests of your own, be they e-mail campaigns, signatures on petitions, letters-to-editors, street demonstrations, and endless petitions to your elected representatives. If they don't respond to your liking, kick the bums out of office in 2010!

Obama eyes intel pick tied to bin Laden

By Aaron Klein

Business dealing, close contacts with family of terrorist mastermind

JERUSALEM – The Obama administration's reported pick for a top intelligence post has financial ties to the infamous bin Laden family – including dealings after Sept. 11, 2001.

Charles "Chas" Freeman, the U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, is slated to head the National Intelligence Council, according to multiple reports. Freeman has come under fire in the Israeli media and on some pro-Israel blogs for his sharp criticism of the Jewish state. He also reportedly heavily criticized American anti-terrorism policy.

Now Ashley Rinsdberg, a Jerusalem-based researcher and blogger for the Daily Beast website has dug up another issue that may cause even bigger worry for the likely Obama appointee – he had business ties to Osama bin Laden's family and strongly defended the connections after 9/11.

Rindsberg documented how as chairman of Projects International, Inc., a company that develops worldwide business deals, Freeman declared in an Associated Press interview just after the 9/11 attacks he was still "discussing proposals with the Bin Laden Group – and that won't change."

The Bin Laden Group is a multinational construction conglomerate and holding company for the assets owned by the bin Laden family. It was founded in 1950 by Sheik Mohammed bin Laden, father of the terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden.

Freeman told the AP companies that have "had very long and profitable relationships are now running for public relations cover."

He said bin Laden remains "a very honored name" in the Saudi kingdom.

In a separate interview Sept. 28, 2001, Freeman told the Wall Street Journal he spoke at the time to two of Osama bin Laden's brothers following the mega terrorist attacks. He said they told him the FBI had been "remarkably sensitive, tactful and protective" of the family during the current crisis.

The Journal noted Freeman's ties to the bin Laden family went beyond admiration and business. He served as president of the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington-based Saudi backed nonprofit that at time was receiving tens of thousands of dollars a year from the bin Laden family.

Freeman maintained to the Journal that the bin Laden family company was closely aligned with American interests and that the group was part of the "establishment that Osama's trying to overthrow."

Osama bin Laden worked briefly in his family business and is reported to have inherited as much as $50 million from his father in cash and stock. The Saudi Bin Laden Group has invested in the Carlyle Group, a global private equity investment firm to which former President George H. W. Bush served as adviser. Former President George W. Bush sat on the board.

Rindsberg noted several investigations by U.S. intelligence agencies and journalists of the bin Laden family's ties to al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden, raising questions about the authenticity of the family's claim of distance from the terrorist chieftain.

Vincent Cannistro, a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist, for example, asserts that some bin Laden factions have not disowned Osama.

Also, Carmen bin Laden, a sister-in-law of Osama, told the German magazine Der Spiegel that the "Bin Ladens never disowned Osama; in this family, a brother remains a brother, no matter what he has done."

Freeman heavily critical of U.S., Israel

Meanwhile, Freeman's likely appointment has sparked concern among the pro-Israel community.

Blogs and Israeli news media websites have been highlighting recent comments Freeman made that are perceived as heavily critical of Israel.

He told the Washington Institute of Foreign Affairs in 2007 that Israeli policy is generating anti-American sentiment while the Jewish state "no longer even pretends to seek peace with the Palestinians; it strives instead to pacify them."

"American identification with Israeli policy has also become total. Those in the region and beyond it who detest Israeli behavior, which is to say almost everyone, now naturally extend their loathing to Americans," he claimed.

Freeman lauded Hamas as "is the only democratically-elected government in the Arab world and claimed the terrorist group "is showing that if we offer it nothing but unreasoning hostility and condemnation, it will only stiffen its position and seek allies among our enemies. In both cases, we forfeit our influence for no gain."

An investigative article by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in 2005 exposed how Freeman's Middle East Policy Council was peddling to American schools a wildly inaccurate, anti-Israel, Saudi-funded textbook.

His council joined with California-based Arab World and Islamic Resources in selling to U.S. schools the "Arab World Studies Notebook." The JTA found the book described Jerusalem as unequivocally "Arab," characterized Jewish residence in the holy city as "settlement"; labeled the "question of Jewish lobbying" against "the whole question of defining American interests and concerns"; and suggested the Quran "synthesizes and perfects earlier revelations."

"Freeman is a strident critic of Israel and a textbook case of the old-line Arabism that afflicted American diplomacy at the time the state of Israel was born," Steve Rosen, a former top official of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, wrote on his "Obama Mideast Monitor" blog hosted by the Middle East Forum.

Rindsberg notes Freeman also heavily criticized Bush's policy after 9/11. In 2006, in a speech to the U.S. Information Agency Alumni Association, Freeman compared Bush to Caligula and slammed America as a country that "stifles debate at home, that picks and chooses which laws it will ignore or respect, and whose opposition party whines but does not oppose."

MURDOCH WARNS: NATIONS WILL BE REDEFINED, FUTURES ALTERED

Media baron Rupert Murdoch issued an urgent internal communication late Monday, warning his staff: "We are in the midst of a phase of history in which nations will be redefined and their futures fundamentally altered."

MORE

The dramatic call comes as markets continue their plunge and the future of media becomes increasingly muddled.

"Many people will be under extreme pressure and many companies mortally wounded," Murdoch declared.

"Our competitors will be sorely tempted to take the easy beat, to reduce quality in the search for immediate dividends."

He continued: "Let me be very clear about our company: where others might step back from their commitment to their viewers, their users, readers and customers – we will renew ours.

"The direction of the business now and over the next few years will define the character of our company for decades."

Developing...

Lawmakers Cite Economic Crisis in Effort to Ban Death Penalty

By Cristina Corbin

...."We're looking at any way we can to save money moving forward in the state of Kansas," McGinn told FOXNews.com. "This will save significant money -- money that could be used toward education programs and toward community corrections programs," she said.

Colorado, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, Nebraska and New Mexico are among those states actively considering abolishing executions as a way to cut costs. But in other states, including Texas and California, the debate has gained little ground. ....

Official: U.S. to Provide Substantial Aid for Gaza Reconstruction

FOX News' Nina Donaghy and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

U.S. aid for Gaza reconstruction will be "substantial," a State Department official told FOX News Tuesday after reports that the Obama administration plans to designate at least $900 million to rebuild the war-ravaged strip controlled by the U.S.-designated terror group Hamas

The official could not confirm reports about the size of the package intended to be administered through the Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas. The PA, which is headquartered in the West Bank, does not have control on the ground in Gaza, and the U.S. has no formal contacts with Hamas.

"Our pledge will be substantial, that it will contain new funding and funding we had planned for 2009," the official said. "As the secretary said, it is not all finished yet, so can't confirm a $900 million package."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday -- as she prepared to make her first Mideast trip as America's top diplomat.-- that details on the package are still being worked out.

"We have made no decisions, and we are working across the government to determine what our approach will be," she said, adding that she's looking forward to attending the international donors conference for Gaza on March 2 in Egypt.

"But you know, there's still a lot of work to do," she said.

Israeli and Palestinian officials said Monday that Clinton will visit Israel and the West Bank during the first week of March. Clinton said during her Asia trip last week that she would attend an international donors conference in Egypt on March 2 to discuss reconstruction in Gaza, which last month was battered in fighting with Israeli Defense Forces responding to rockets fired from the strip

The Israeli officials, meanwhile, said Clinton will arrive in Israel on March 2 for meetings with the country's top leaders. Israel is currently ruled by a caretaker government as Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu cobbles together a new coalition.

The Israeli officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the visit had not been announced by the State Department, which has not released Clinton's schedule for next week.

Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said Clinton also would visit the West Bank during her stay.

History Unfolding

(Compiler's note: A must read and consider what this lady is pointing out. This is clearly an important read.)

by Pat Dollard

I am a student of history. Professionally, I have written 15 books in six languages, and have studied it all my life. I think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes these exist, but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus.

Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten to fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.

We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back? Why?

We learn just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has "loaned" two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine. And that is three times the $700B we all argued about so strenuously just this past September. Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of "we the people," who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. Apparently not.

We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy. Why?

We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?

We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (now violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?) We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?

Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is medicare and our entire government, our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and know precisely what I am talking about) - the list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x ten. And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.

And now we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla , Alaska . All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe is more important.)

Mr. Obama's winning platform can be boiled down to one word: Change.

Why?

I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now.

This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.

And that is only the beginning.

And I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the savior was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they did know was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory. Conservative "losers" read it right now.

And promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his "brown shirts" would bully them into submission. And then, he was duly elected to office, a full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression]. Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power, department by department, person by person, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name, where they were taught what to think. How did he get the people on his side? He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and goodies for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe , and across the world. He did it with a compliant media-did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and . . . change. And the people surely got what they voted for.

(Look it up if you think I am exaggerating.)

Read your history books. Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though.

Don't forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in Europe. It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And in less than six years-a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency-it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors. All with the best of intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with them.

As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another latte, and ignoring what is transpiring around me.

Some people scoff at me, others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive, or both. Perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe-and why I believe it. I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am.

Tea Party revolution brewing

by Andrea Shea King

The kettle's whistling. Tea Parties are popping up all over the country. People are flocking to these sites which have cropped up practically overnight in search of information about rallies, demonstrations and Tea Parties in their cities. The revolution is brewing!

....Mark the date: February 19, 2009 when Santelli might have unwittingly fired a shot signaling the beginning of The Great Revolution, spawning dozens of citizen Tea Party Protests across the country. Responding to Santelli's passionate comments, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs suggested Santelli drink a cup of decaf coffee. We prefer tea....

"Somebody in our government needs to finally pay attention. It is what I've been talking about that was coming for a very long time and that is disenfranchisement which will turn into anger and then turn into God knows what," Glenn Beck said Friday on his radio program about CNBC'S Rick Santelli's passionate comments made Thursday from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange

....

TCOP (Top Conservatives on Twitter) are coordinating simultaneous nationwide rallies and demonstrations for this Friday at noon ET in Chicago, Washington D.C., Fayetteville, N.C., Pittsburgh, Penn., San Diego, Calif., Fort Worth, Texas, Tulsa, Okla., Oklahoma City, Orlando, Fla., Omaha, Neb., Atlanta, Ga., and elsewhere in Missouri. More cities are joining in every day.

Soldier doubts eligibility, defies president's orders

By Bob Unruh

'As an officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this'

A U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq has called President Obama an "impostor" in a statement in which he affirmed plans to join as plaintiff in a challenge to Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief.

The statement was publicized by California attorney Orly Taitz who, along with her Defend Our Freedom Foundation, is working on a series of legal cases seeking to uncover Obama's birth records and other documents that would reveal whether he meets the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

"As an active-duty officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president of the United States," wrote Scott Easterling in a "to-whom-it-may-concern" letter.

Obama "has absolutely refused to provide to the American public his original birth certificate, as well as other documents which may prove or disprove his eligibility," Easterling wrote. "In fact, he has fought every attempt made by concerned citizens in their effort to force him to do so."

Taitz told WND she had advised Easterling to obtain legal counsel before making any statements regarding the commander-in-chief, but he insisted on moving forward. His contention is that as an active member of the U.S. military, he is required to follow orders from a sitting president, and he needs – on pain of court-martial – to know that Obama is eligible.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 250,000 others and sign up now!

Taitz said other legal cases questioning Obama's eligibility filed by members of the military mostly have included retired officers, and courts several times have ruled they don't have standing to issue their challenge.

Easterling, however, is subject to enemy fire and certainly would have a reason to need to know the legitimacy of his orders, she argued.

"Until Mr. Obama releases a 'vault copy' of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office – an impostor," his statement said.

Easterling said he joined the Army at age 40 after working in Iraq as a contractor.

"I chose to work … to support my troops and then left that lucrative position when the Army raised its maximum enlistment age to 40. Upon completion of basic training, I entered Officer Candidate School and commissioned as a 2LT in August 2007. After completing the subsequent basic officer leadership courses, I was assigned to Ft. Knox and shortly thereafter deployed to Balad, Iraq," he wrote.

"I implore all service-members and citizens to contact their senators and representatives and demand that they require Mr. Obama prove his eligibility. Our Constitution and our great nation must not be allowed to be disgraced," he wrote.....