Grapevine Reports on LA Times Obama-Khalidi Tape

by Gateway Pundit

Brit Hume reported on the Obama-Khalidi tape that the LA Times is concealing from the American public on The Grapevine tonight.

The LA Times is holding a video that shows Barack Obama celebrating with a group of Palestinians who are openly hostile towards Israel. Barack Obama even gives a toast to a former PLO operative at this celebration. If the American public saw this radical side of Barack Obama it is unlikely he would ever be elected president.
But, the media refuses to release this video.

This outrageous controversy was reported on The Grapevine tonight:

Hat Tip Gregg
The Grapevine reported on the controversy and mentioned this blog:

The McCain camp has now joined those demanding The Los Angeles Times release a 2003 video that shows Barack Obama celebrating with a group of Palestinians hostile to Israel.

Peter Wallsten wrote in April about Obama's association with former Palestinian operative Rashid Khalidi. The celebration was a farewell for Khalidi as he left Chicago for a job in New York. Wallsten called Khalidi a, "critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights."

He says, "A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young State Senator Barack Obama... Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife... and conversations that had challenged his thinking."

Wallsten writes that a young Palestinian read a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism. Another speaker likened Israeli settlers on the West Bank to Usama bin Laden.

Wallsten confirmed he has the tape, but told the political blog Gateway Pundit he does not plan on releasing it. The newspaper declines to comment.

The LA Times endorsed Democrat Barack Obama.

Previously:
** Obama's Fancied the Chicago Terror Gang-- Partied With Bombers & Former PLO Operative
** Jewish Voters Confront Barack Obama On His Close Association with Former PLO Operative Rashid Khalidi
** LA Times Won't Release Video of Obama Publicly Praising Former PLO Operative & Jew Hater
** Media Refuses to Release Video of Obama Toasting & Praising Close Friend Rashid Khalidi--
** Confirmed: MSM Holds Video Of Barack Obama Attending Jew-Bash & Toasting a Former PLO Operative
** Update On The Obama-Khalidi Tape-- Contact
** O'Reilly Factor Reports on the Obama-Khalidi Tape (Video)
** FOX News Reports on LA Times Withholding Tape of Obama Toasting Former PLO Operative at Jew-Bash

Interesting (and Scary) speech from a Dutch Representative

Source a friend

(Compiler's note: Must read -- this, my friends, is what we are in for if we are not very very careful in the United States of America. Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, a Dutch Parliamentarian and chairman of the Party for Freedom, the Netherlands, at the Four Seasons, New York, introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem. The speech was sponsored by the Hudson Institute on September 25.)

Dear friends,

Thank you very much for inviting me. Great to be at the Four Seasons. I come from a country that has one season only: a rainy season that starts January 1st and ends December 31st. When we have three sunny days in a row, the government declares a national emergency. So Four Seasons, that's new to me.

It's great to be in New York. When I see the skyscrapers and office buildings, I think of what Ayn Rand said: "The sky over New York and the will of man- made visible." Of course. Without the Dutch you would have been nowhere, still figuring out how to buy this island from the Indians. But we are glad we did it for you. And, frankly, you did a far better job than we possibly could have done.

I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The danger I see looming is the scenario of America as the last man standing. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe. In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe? Patriots from around Europe risk their lives every day to prevent precisely this scenario form becoming a reality.

My short lecture consists of 4 parts.

First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. Thirdly, if you are still here, I will talk a little bit abou the movie you just saw. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.

The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks. The Eiffel Tower and Trafalgar Square and Rome's ancient buildings and maybe the canals of Amsterdam. They are still there. And they still look very much the same as they did a hundred years ago.

But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world, a world very few visitors see - and one that does not appear in your tourist guidebook. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration. All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corner. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities. In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear "whore, whore". Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can in many cases no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity. In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this . Stories about Islamization.

A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favour of a worldwide caliphate. A Dutch study reported that half of Dutch Muslims admit they "understand" the 9/11 attacks.

Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. Our elites are willing to give in. To give up. In my own country we have gone from calls by one cabinet member to turn Muslim holidays into official state holidays, to statements by another cabinet member, that Islam is part of Dutch culture, to an affirmation by the Christian-Democratic attorney general that he is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.

Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. Some prefer to see these as isolated incidents, but I call it a Muslim intifada. I call the perpetrators "settlers".

Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies, they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.

Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries. Politicians shy away from taking a stand against this creeping sharia. They believe in the equality of all cultures. Moreover, on a mundane level, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

Our many problems with Islam cannot be explained by poverty, repression or the European colonial past, as the Left claims. Nor does it have anything to do with Palestinians or American troops in Iraq. The problem is Islam itself.

Allow me to give you a brief Islam 101. The first thing you need to know about Islam is the importance of the book of the Quran. The Quran is Allah's personal word, revealed by an angel to Mohammed, the prophet. This is where the trouble starts. Every word in the Quran is Allah's word and therefore not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no such a thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims. But a moderate Islam is non-existent.

The Quran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and terrorism. The Quran calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, to terrorize non-Muslims and to fulfil their duty to wage war: violent jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Muslim, Islam is to rule the world - by the sword. The Quran is clearly anti-Semitic, describing Jews as monkeys and pigs.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages - at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. He advised on matters of slavery, but never advised to liberate slaves. Islam has no other morality than the advancement of Islam. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad. There is no gray area or other side.

Quran as Allah's own word and Mohammed as the perfect man are the two most important facets of Islam. Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of eve ry person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

This is what you need to know about Islam, in order to understand what is going on in Europe. For millions of Muslims the Quran and the live of Mohammed are not 14 centuries old, but are an everyday reality, an ideal, that guide every aspect of their lives. Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam "the most retrograde force in the world", and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran.

Which brings me to my movie, Fitna.

I am a lawmaker, and not a movie maker. But I felt I had the moral duty to educate about Islam. The duty to make clear that the Quran stands at the heart of what some people call terrorism but is in reality jihad. I wanted to show that the problems of Islam are at the core of Islam, and do not belong to its fringes.

Now, from the day the plan for my movie was made public, it caused quite a stir, in the Netherlands and throughout Europe. First, there was a political storm, with government leaders, across the continent in sheer panic. The Netherlands was put under a heightened terror alert, because of possible attacks or a revolt by our Muslim population. The Dutch branch of the Islamic organization Hizb ut-Tahrir declared that the Netherlands was due for an attack. Internationally, there was a series of incidents. The Taliban threatened to organize additional attacks against Dutch troops in Afghanistan, and a website linked to Al Qaeda published the message that I ought to be killed, while various muftis in the Middle East stated that I would be responsible for all the bloodshed after the screening of the movie. In Afghanistan and Pakistan the Dutch flag was burned on several occasions. Dolls representing me were also burned. The Indonesian President announced that I will never be admitted into Indonesia again, while the UN Secretary General and the European Union issued cowardly statements in the same vein as those made by the Dutch Government. I could go on and on. It was an absolute disgrace, a sell-out.

A plethora of legal troubles also followed, and have not ended yet. Currently the state of Jordan is litigating against me. Only last week there were renewed security agency reports about a heightened terror alert for the Netherlands because of Fitna.

Now, I would like to say a few things about Israel. Because, very soon, we will get together in its capitol. The best way for a politician in Europe to lose votes is to say something positive about Israel. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: "Islam has bloody borders". Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to relea se its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. Therefore, it is not that the West has a stake in Israel. It is Israel.

It is very difficult to be an optimist in the face of the growing Islamization of Europe. All the tides are against us. On all fronts we are losing. Demographically the momentum is with Islam. Muslim immigration is even a source of pride within ruling liberal parties. Academia, the arts, the media, trade unions, the churches, the business world, the entire political establishment have all converted to the suicidal theory of multiculturalism. So-called journal ists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization20as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. The entire establishment has sided with our enemy. Leftists, liberals and Christian-Democrats are now all in bed with Islam.

This is the most painful thing to see: the betrayal by our elites. At this moment in Europe's history, our elites are supposed to lead us. To stand up for centuries of civilization. To defend our heritage. To honour our eternal Judeo-Christian values that made Europe what it is today. But there are very few signs of hope to be seen at the govern mental level. Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi; in private, they probably know how grave the situation is. But when the little red light goes on, they stare into the camera and tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, and we should all try to get along nicely and sing Kumbaya. They willingly participate in, what President Reagan so aptly called: "the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom."

If there is hope in Europe, it comes from the people, not from the elites. Change can only come from a grass-roots level. It has to come from the citizens themselves. Yet these patriots will have to take on the entire political, legal and media establishment.

Over the past years there have been some small, but encouraging, signs of a rebirth of the original European spirit. Maybe the elites turn their backs on freedom, the public does not. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity. I don't think the public opinion in Holland is very different from other European countries.

Patriotic parties that oppose jihad are growing, against all odds. My own party debuted two years ago, with five percent of the vote. Now it stands at ten percent in the polls. The same is true of all similarly-minded parties in Europe. They are fighting the liberal establishment, and are gaining footholds on the political arena, one voter at the time.

Now, for the first time, these patriotic parties will come together and exchange experiences. It may be the start of something big. Something that might change the map of Europe for decades to come. It might also be Europe's last chance.

This December a conference will take place in Jerusalem. Thanks to Professor Aryeh Eldad, a member of Knesset, we will be able to watch Fitna in the Knesset building and discuss the jihad. We are organizing this event in Israel to emphasize the fact that we are all in the same boat together, and that Israel is part of our common heritage. Those attending will be a select audience. No racist organizations will be allowed. And we will only admit parties that are solidly democratic.

This conference will be the start of an Alliance of European patriots. This Alliance will se rve as the backbone for all organizations and political parties that oppose jihad and Islamization. For this Alliance I seek your support.

This endeavor may be crucial to America and to the West. America may hold fast to the dream that, thanks to its location, it is safe from jihad and shaira. But seven years ago to the day, there was still smoke rising from ground zero, following the attacks that forever shattered that dream. Yet there is a danger even greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.

This is not the first time our civilization is under threat. We have seen dangers before. We have been betrayed by our elites before. They have sided with our enemies before. And yet, then, freedom prevailed.

These are not times in which to take lessons from appeasement, capitulation, giving away, giving up or giving in. These are not times in which to draw lessons from Mr. Chamberlain. These are times calling us to draw lessons from Mr. Churchill and the words he spoke in 1942: "Never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy".

Big Brother spy plan sparks revolt

Government wants every telephone registered

LONDON

-- British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, the political master of the MI5 intelligence agency, Scotland

Yard's Anti-Terrorism Command and GCHQ, the government's eavesdropping center, is facing an unprecedented clash with her own senior officials over plans to boost the level of spying on British citizens ....

Sharia Finance UK: We Know It Doesn’t Work But Let’s Have It Anyway…

(Compiler's note: Will our nation be next to try this as a "fix" to our current financial crisis brought on by continuing gov't intervention?)

from Winds of Jihad

* as long as it pleases Muslims…

New sharia row over Chancellor’s plans for ‘Islamic bonds’

By SIMON WALTERS/Mail Online

Approval: Chancellor Alistair Darling is ready to give the go-ahead to sharia-compliant bonds

A new sharia law controversy erupted last night over Government plans to issue special “Islamic bonds” to pay for Gordon Brown’s public-spending programme by raising money from the Middle East.

Britain is to become the first Western nation to issue bonds approved by Muslim clerics in line with sharia law, which bans conventional loans involving interest payments as “sinful”.

Looks like Gordon Brownnose has already sold ... to his Muhammedan friends, but it is highly unlikely that it will save him or his pathetic, pandering government…

The scheme would mark one of the most significant economic advances of sharia law in the non-Muslim world.

It will lead to the ownership of Government buildings and other assets currently belonging to British taxpayers being switched wholesale to wealthy Middle-Eastern businessmen and banks.

The Government sees sharia-compliant bonds as a way of tapping Middle-East money and building bridges with the Muslim community.

But critics say the scheme would waste money and could undermine Britain’s financial and legal systems.

Senior Conservative MP Edward Leigh, chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, said: “I am concerned about the signal this would send ? it could be the thin end of the wedge.

“British Common Law must be supreme and should apply to everyone.”

A spokesman for the National Secular Society said: “There are lots of different ways to arrange financing.

“Constructing financial instruments to be sharia-compliant seems to me to involve a lot of unnecessary complication, which will serve only to make a lot of lawyers very rich.”

The attempt to embrace Islamic financing would also appear to be at odds with Mr Brown’s promise to promote Britishness and British values and institutions.

The Treasury has already faced heavy criticism for removing Britannia from 50p coins.

Other Western nations have been reluctant to issue Islamic bonds.

In the United States the bonds are banned partly as a result of claims that the money could be linked to terrorism.

Uproar: The new row comes hot on the heels of Archbishop Rowan Williams’s claim that the spread of sharia law to Britain was ‘inevitable’

The Treasury proposal follows the heated debate over the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams’s claim that the spread of elements of sharia law in parts of Britain was “inevitable”.

Downing Street distanced Gordon Brown from Dr Williams’s comments.

A spokesman said: “The Prime Minister is very clear that British laws must be based on British values and that religious law, while respecting other cultures, should be subservient to British criminal and civil law.”

However, The Mail on Sunday has established that Chancellor Alistair Darling is ready to give the go-ahead to sharia-compliant bonds ? known as “sukuk”, an early Arabic form of cheque.

Treasury officials have been working behind the scenes for months on the plan.

The deadline for responses to Mr Darling’s consultation document setting out how the bonds will work expires on Thursday.

The Islamic bonds proposal was devised by Mr Brown’s former Treasury adviser Ed Balls, now Schools Secretary and the Premier’s most powerful Cabinet ally.

He claims it is a vital way of improving relations with Muslims in Britain as well as helping the UK to obtain vast sums from Middle-East banks in oil-rich nations such as Dubai and Qatar.

Sharia-compliant bonds have been issued by the governments of Pakistan and Malaysia and private banks but never by a Western government.

Architect: former Treasury adviser Ed Balls, the Premier’s most powerful Cabinet ally, devised the Islamic bonds proposal

Treasury officials say the aim is to attract big investors as well as making it easier for British Muslims to invest in National Savings products at banks and post offices.

The Government has already backed Islamic car loans and mortgages.

Sharia-compliant bonds were designed to get round the ban on paying interest ? “riba” in Islamic law.

The Koran says it is sinful to make money from money.

Unlike a conventional bond which is debt-based, a “sukuk” is asset-based. Instead of receiving interest, bond holders receive “rent” on the asset, thereby complying with sharia law.

The Treasury consultation document says Government assets such as “buildings or a piece of infrastructure” would be switched to a “special-purpose vehicle” set up to administer the bond.

This would be carried out by a contract known as an “ijara”.

The asset would then be leased back by the Government, generating rental payments for the Islamic bond holders.

When the “sukuk” matured, the Government would guarantee to buy back the asset, allowing the bond-holders to get their redemption payments.

“Sukuk are akin to Islamic investment certificates,” the document says.

“They are designed to be in compliance with sharia law, the divine law in Islam which is based on the Quran.”

Concerned: Senior Tory MP Edward Leigh warned today, ‘This could be the thin end of the wedge’

Islamic bonds are slightly more expensive than Western-style bonds, mainly because they require extensive legal and religious advice.

The Treasury initiative has been given added impetus by the worldwide credit squeeze, which is making it harder for all governments to raise money.

The Government says the bonds will also help London retain its position ahead of New York and Frankfurt as the world’s leading financial centre.

Global Islamic finance assets, including private equity and bonds, are now said to be worth up to £150 billion. Sukuk volumes have soared from almost nothing to £35 billion in the past ten years.

Maurice Fitzpatrick, a senior tax partner at accountants Grant Thornton, said: “The Treasury wants to borrow money from as wide a range of sources as possible.

“Sharia bonds might well prove to be more expensive, but we would not know for sure until it was put into practice.”

Special rules for Islamic finances have been challenged by Mahmoud El-Gamal, chairman of Islamic economics at Rice University, Houston.

“The main beneficiaries are lawyers, multi-national banks and self-styled religious scholars retained as consultants to certify the Islamicity of re-engineered financial products,” he said.

Muslim Labour peer Lord Ahmed said: “This is a positive step for Muslims in Britain but the main reason for doing it is to attract money to the UK from Middle-East investors. Claims that it is connected to terrorist funds are absurd.

* the usual drivel from the Muzz/ed

Obama rips U.S. Constitution

(Compiler's note: Absolutely a must read article. The implications here are significant to our continued economic and national security.)

Faults Supreme Court for not mandating 'redistribution of wealth'

Seven years before Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plumber became a GOP campaign theme, the Democratic presidential candidate said in a radio interview the U.S. has suffered from a fundamentally flawed Constitution that does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.

In a newly unearthed tape, Obama is heard telling Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.

The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.

In the 2001 interview, Obama said:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

The video is available here:

In his top-rated national radio show today, Rush Limbaugh reacted to the tape.

The Constitution, he said, "most certainly does spell out things it must do on your behalf. He understands it. He just doesn't like it."

"He's talking about giving things to people," Limbaugh said. "This is perverted. Some people call this radical. I call it perverted.

"To me, ladies and gentlemen, the Constitution is a gift from God. It's not a disappointment; it's a blessing," he said.

Limbaugh cited unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, with whom Obama has had a relationship for many years, as well as Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor under whose teaching Obama attended church for two decades. Ayers has stated his Weather Underground didn't accomplish enough in the bombings on the U.S. Capitol and other locations, and Wright has called on God to d*** America.

"I'm beginning to wonder just who taught whom," Limbaugh said. "How much did Obama teach Ayers, Jeremiah Wright. Obama didn't have to hear what Jeremiah Wright was saying, Obama may have half written those sermons."

The change sought by Obama, however, simply couldn't be accomplished through court action, the Democrat said in the 2001 interview.

"The court's not very good at it," he said. "I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way."

"You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, the court … engaging in a process that essentially is administrative," he said.

A commentator on the website American Thinker said Obama "wishes to scrap the limits placed on government powers because they get in the way of his redistributive schemes."

"What powers are we talking about? Private property rights for one. Since property is distributed 'unequally' in Obama's world, policies must be shaped and laws passed to deal with that situation."

GOP presidential candidate John McCain's campaign stated the tape proves Obama is too liberal for the White House.

"Now we know that the slogans 'change you can believe in' and 'change we need' are code words for Barack Obama's ultimate goal: 'redistributive change,'" said McCain-Palin senior policy adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin.

But the Obama campaign called the statements just another distraction.

"In this interview back in 2001, Obama was talking about the civil rights movement – and the kind of work that has to be done on the ground to make sure that everyone can live out the promise of equality. Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with Obama's economic plan or his plan to give the middle class a tax cut. It's just another distraction from an increasingly desperate McCain campaign," spokesman Bill Burton said.

However, reaction to Obama's comments reached around the globe. In the Telegraph newspaper of London, Toby Harnden said the 2001 remarks are consistent with Obama's recent statement to the now iconic Joe the Plumber in Ohio, that "when you spread the wealth around it's a good thing for everybody."

"Although his remarks were heavily analytical and academic," Harndon said of the 2001 interview, Obama "spoke warmly of the notion of redistributing wealth, suggesting that there were other vehicles that the courts to achieve it."

Limbaugh commented, "We know Joe (the Plumber) got Obama to reveal himself."

But what would be next?

"Would he quote Marx? Would he demand change in the spirit of the Soviet Union? Would he ask us to have Constitution-burning parties?" Limbaugh said.

Limbaugh contended, however, that the "redistribution" was just a distraction.

"It's part of a process where the government confiscates private property and uses it to secure their own power. It's not about fairness," Limbaugh said. "They buy votes with the money they confiscate."

He continued, "Redistribution is the least frightening part of socialism. What comes after and before is what shocks like a Taser."

The weblog Right Pundits.com said, "In other words, he sees our money as belonging to the government. He wants to take our money and he will decide how to spend it."

Democrats Consider Eliminating 401 (k) Tax Breaks

(Compiler's note: Must read -- if we go down this road, it will impact about 60% of our working people. This is yet another form of economic terrorism. Now some elements of the U.S. Gov't want our 401K. rca)

from News Cycle Blog

Want a glimpse into what an Obama administration and Democratic-controlled Congress will look at in the area of tax policy? House Democrats are already considering an overhaul of the nation's $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.

Republicans are throwing around the "socialist" tag all over the campaign trail when referring to Sen. Barack Obama. But if the Democrats are even considering such a radical plan as to seize private pension accounts, it's hard not to look at Democrats in any other way.

James Pethokoukis of U.S. News & World Report wrote on a congressional hearing in the 401(k) matter:

House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker. The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3 percent return. Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, said that since "the savings rate isn't going up for the investment of $80 billion [in 401(k) tax breaks], we have to start to think about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not generating what we now say it should."

The director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, also testified at the hearing and said that about $2 trillion in retirement savings has been lost over the past 15 months.

Workforce.com explains the rational in the move:

“I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ghilarducci said in an interview. “401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won’t have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.”

Under the current 401(k) system, investors are charged relatively high retail fees, Ghilarducci said.

“I want to spend our nation’s dollar for retirement security better. Everybody would now be covered” if the plan were adopted, Ghilarducci said.

She has been in contact with Miller and McDermott about her plan, and they are interested in pursuing it, she said.

“This [plan] certainly is intriguing,” said Mike DeCesare, press secretary for McDermott.

Blogger Ed Morrissey of Hot Air notes "that means your employer can no longer write off their contributions to your 401(k), and your capital gains would be taxable year to year. In other words, it becomes just another investment or savings account, with no tax benefit at all, and no employer contribution. Instead, Uncle Sam would give you your “matching” funds — up to a whopping $600 per year! Whoopee!"

This huge disruption of Americans' retirement plans may be only one element of an Obama Administration's tax hike on workers. The Wall Street Journal notes that "the prospect of these tax increases is now hanging over the economy like a pall, as investors and businesses wonder where and how heavily an Obama Administration and Congress would strike."

Here's what the Journal reported Rep. Barney Frank as commenting recently on tax increases:

"I think at this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat. ... I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of the money."

The Journal then concludes:

Federal budget deficits are not something we obsess about, but eventually this new spending has to be paid for, and Barney Frank's comments only underscore that big tax increases are coming. The prospect of these tax increases is now hanging over the economy like a pall, as investors and businesses wonder where and how heavily an Obama Administration and Congress would strike. The pall is likely to continue well into 2009, as millions of Americans delay their investment decisions until they know how much their after-tax returns are likely to fall.

Trail of Odd Anthrax Cells Led FBI to Army Scientist

By Joby Warrick

In late October 2001, lab technician Terry Abshire placed a tray of anthrax cells under a microscope and spotted something so peculiar she had to look twice. It was two weeks after the country's worst bioterrorism attack, and Abshire, like others at the Army's Fort Detrick biodefense lab, was caught up in a frenzied search for clues that could help lead to the culprit. Down the hall, Bruce E. Ivins, the respected vaccine specialist, was looking, too.

Abshire focused her lens on a moldlike clump. Anthrax bacteria were growing here, but some of the cells were odd: strange shapes, strange textures, strange colors. These were mutants, or "morphs," genetic deviants scattered among the ordinary anthrax cells like chocolate chips in a cookie batter.

Unknowingly, Abshire had discovered a key to solving the anthrax case. But it would take nearly six years to develop the technology to allow FBI investigators to use it. ....

Who Wants to Be President?

(Compiler's note: Must read and consider .... rca)

It would be fitting symbolism for the next President to wear a crash helmet on Inauguration Day.

He will inherit an economy that will be stuck in either a depression or a slow grinding recession that no economic gimmick or "redistribution" will help.

And he will likely be thrown into a Middle East war between Israel, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and the United States.

Americans aren't weak and passive fatalists who go quietly to the slaughter. We fight to solve our national problems and overcome obstacles, no matter how great. But the die has been cast on this Wall Street meltdown, and now the brightest minds on the economy see long-term devastation ahead. Arthur Laffer, the father of the Reagan recovery writes in today's Wall Street Journal that "The Age of Prosperity is Over." He writes, "Financial panics, if left alone, rarely cause much damage to the real economy, output, employment or production." But government intervention does real damage. It was the case after the 1929 crash, and Laffer thinks it will be the case now, with the Bush-Pelosi-Paulson bailout attempt.

How bad could things get? Many younger Americans can't remember bad economic times, because they have never experienced them. Laffer reminds us that during the period of recession and stagflation between the Kennedy and Reagan booms, a period which constituted most of my childhood, "The average annual real return for U.S. assets compounded annually was -6% per year for 16 years." Between 1929 and 1932, the New York Times Index of stocks, the equivalent of today's Dow, contracted some 89%. Unemployment grew to 25% or more, and didn't fall below 10 percent until 1941, with the beginning of World War Two.

Ouch.

Economics guru Nouriel Roubini, the NYU professor dubbed "Dr. Doom" for precisely predicting the current Wall Street meltdown, now predicts "hundreds of hedge funds will go bust and stock markets may soon have to shut - perhaps for as long as a week - in order to stem the panic selling now sweeping the world." Roubani told the London Times that "the world economy was 'at a breaking point'. He believes the stock markets are now 'essentially in free fall' and 'we are reaching the point of sheer panic'."

Add to this carnival of gloom, a Middle East war. This one is easier to explain. An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear installations in the months ahead is a military and geopolitical certainty, with or without a "green light" from an American president. If Iran's nuclear program is not stopped by diplomatic means, Israel will hit it, and not just with a few bunker busters. Commando teams will have to be dropped because the installations are so far underground. It will be a big operation, and will trigger an Iranian and Hezbollah offensive against Israel, probably sucking in Syria, especially if Damascus senses that Israel can be delivered a knockout blow.

Neither McCain nor Obama will be able to stop any of this. The next President will have to wear it.

An Open Letter to the Beneficiaries of America's Military Prowess

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

by Maj. W. Thomas Smith, Jr.

Dear reader,

I’m writing this in direct-address fashion because – as we near the 233^rd birthday of our Marine Corps (born in a Philadelphia alehouse on Nov. 10, 1775) and Veterans Day (born of the armistice ending World War I, Nov. 11, 1918, exactly 90 years ago) – this is as much an appeal as it is an opinion piece.

I’ve often said, far too many Americans – through no fault of their own – take our military for granted.

Those who have never served in uniform – particularly those who have never slogged through the mud with a rifle nor known what it feels like to be awakened by ‘incoming’ – just sort of assume that America dominates all comers militarily because America has money (yeah, well, at least we used to) and superior technology. And we can be sure that money and technology do count in the successful prosecution of war.

But it’s much more.

America has been winning all of its wars since the colonial era, including Vietnam, which we clearly won militarily, but lost in Washington and on the broader homefront (we’ll save that for another discussion). But we have been winning – often against great odds – primarily for one reason: AMERICAN MILITARY TRADITION.

Unfortunately, too many of us take military tradition for granted because we incorrectly assume that tradition is “nice,” but largely insignificant.

I don’t condemn those who believe such. Most people simply have no frame of reference to appreciate just how amazingly efficient the American military is despite its being an arm of the far-too-often inefficient federal government.

But trust me, our military prowess – that prowess of the individual soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, and Coast Guardsman who has never failed to keep the wolf away from the door — is a direct result of our military tradition.

U.S. Marines, for instance, crushed the insurgents during the bloody battle of Fallujah (Nov.–Dec. 2004) and they did so in close-quarters fighting — often tooth-to-eyeball — where much of our technological wizardry was unable to be fully brought to bear.

Those young men were able to win against the enemy because they were Marines. They knew they were holding an unmatched reputation in trust. They had to fight and fight well. After all, they were standing on the shoulders of those giants of men who had successfully battled the enemy in places with names like Hue City, Khe Sanh, Chosin, Iwo Jima, Tarawa, Guadalcanal, Belleau Wood, Harper’s Ferry, Chapultepec (the halls of Montezuma), Quallah Batto, the stronghold and shores of Tripoli, and in nearly every other “clime and place” stretching back to the seaborne slugfests of Captain John Paul Jones’ leathernecks during the American Revolution.

So why all this talk of military tradition?

Because the greatest pillars of our military tradition are our Medal of Honor recipients – those combatants from all services who have received our nation’s highest award for bravery in action – and our greatest living pillars are our living recipients of that award. Their average age is now 75 years, and there are now less than 100 of them still with us. Most recipients are killed during the actions for which they receive the award. In fact, all who have received the award for actions since the end of the Vietnam War have died in those actions.

Now to my personal appeal to you, the reader:

The Medal of Honor Society will hold its annual convention – hosted by the S.C. State Guard Foundation and the Citadel – in Charleston, S.C., Sept. 2010, and I urge your support of this convention now as it will serve to promote public awareness of the Medal of Honor, our living recipients, and at-the-same-time infuse our military tradition with the lifeblood so necessary to future battlefield success.

We Americans are the most generous people on earth. We’re also frugal and savvy: We expect a return on investment, which is one of the reasons I know many of you may not yet be sold on the idea of the value of investing in something like military tradition. But I can assure you – as one who has served his country in-and-out of uniform for years – America’s military tradition is not only a priceless commodity and one that appreciates in value; I am convinced it is critical to the continued security of this nation.

That’s why I’m asking you to support our military and our American military tradition through this noble endeavor. Please visit medalofhonorconvention.com for more information and sponsorship opportunities available. You are not only going to be supporting the very foundation of our military prowess, but you will be furthering an awareness of America’s greatest heroes in the purest sense of the word.

Semper Fidelis,

W. Thomas Smith Jr.

Obama Advisor Praises Iran

by Ed Lasky

Well, is it that hard to believe in this day and age that a major American newspaper offers up an op-ed filled with praise for Iran? This would be Friday's Boston Globe in an op-ed written by Lawrence Korb and Laura Conley, both of whom work for the liberal minded Center for American Progress.

By the way, the fact that Korb has been identified as a key foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama is completely unmentioned – a major journalistic lapse but not a surprising one by the New York Times-owned Boston Globe.

Korb and Conley look upon Iranian efforts to help topple the Taliban as proof of the potential for Iran to work with America in bringing about some sort of Pax Persia in the region. This is a fallacy. Iran opposed the Taliban because the Taliban – a Sunni extremist group - hated the Shiite Persians that were on its border and hated the Shiites within Afghanistan. The Taliban murdered Iranian regime officials. The downfall of the Taliban was in the interest of the regime and their help when America sought to oust the Taliban was based strictly on self-interest. In the diplomatic realm, nations don't have permanent friends, they have permanent interests. The interests of the Iranian regime is regional hegemony and the acquisition of nuclear bombs.

Korb and Conley blame Bush for failure to reach out to the Iranians. This argument falls flat. In fact, various Bush officials have sought to reach out to the regime (as even the op-ed mentions in passing) but have been rebuffed – as have a long line of other Presidents who have tried to establish relations with the Iranians. This is a fact that the op-ed ignores.

The op-ed also seems to blame Bush for the progress of the Iranian nuclear program. This is absurd. The program did not start under Bush (and was actually temporarily put on hold in the wake of our invasion of Iraq) but had its origins going back to the 1980s. The program has progressed apace – under Democrat and Republican Presidents. We have sought, along with the United Nations and our European allies, to work with the Iranians to curb their nuclear program in return for various "carrots" offered to them. The result? Rebuff after rebuff, as the centrifuges spin away.

What is especially striking in this op-ed is the complete silence regarding the nature of the Iranian regime. One would hope that a foreign policy expert close to Barack Obama would at least recognize how important it is to consider the nature of a regime when advocating diplomatic outreach. Where is the recognition that the regime is – and has long been – designated as the number one terror-sponsoring nation in the world (as Bill Clinton so designated Iran)? Where is the recognition that Iran has been helping kill Americans in Iraq and has done so in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, or the awareness that Iranian proxies have killed innocent Argentineans, Lebanese, Israelis and for that matter Iranians (a regime that hangs children and gays and brutalizes women wins praise from Korb and Conley?).

That little matter of denying the Holocaust while openly boasting of plans to bring about another one? The theological and apocalyptic musings of its leaders (not just President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), the talk of halos and apocalypse spoken by Ahmadinejad from the podium of the United Nations to bring about the return of the missing Imam? Sheer piffle, not worth mentioning.

We will see more of these efforts to burnish Iran in the days ahead. The Iran lobby is stepping up efforts in Washington. The Persian red carpet is being rolled out.

Welcome to the future of our foreign relations under Barack Obama. Much like his campaign, it involves dreams and fantasy.

Petition Requests Presidential Candidate Prove Eligibility for Presidency

(Compiler's note: A must read. Please do your patriotic duty and send an e-mail. rca)

We urge all of you to contact your elected officials via email, U.S. Mail and/or by phone to deliver a like-minded message. This is not a partisan matter; rather, it is an effort to protect our Constitution. Qualifications to serve as the U.S. president must be met, requirements must be satisfied, and unless we insist on this, we are not doing our civic duty to defend our sacred U.S. Constitution.

You can sign a petition, generate a letter and add a closing statement by clicking here.

The letter addresses this Constitutional concern by covering these issues.

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads: "No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

We would ask that both presidential candidates submit proof of their natural-born American citizenship. John McCain has addressed this issue, demonstrating that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone while his father was serving in the U.S. military. The Canal Zone was a U.S. territory at the time of his birth. Case closed.

On the other hand, on the web and in the media, there are numerous allegations surrounding Barack Obama's claim of natural birth in the U.S., all raising suspicion and doubt as to Obama's actual place of birth and thus qualification to run for the American presidency. So far, these allegations have not been addressed. Some of the assertions to which Philip Berg, an attorney who has filed suit in the Pennsylvania courts to request that Obama prove his eligibility, claims Obama "admitted" (due to no response within the allotted time period) and which one can find in Philip Berg’s suit are: Barack Obama was born in Mombassa, Kenya in 1961 while his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was married to Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan; when his mother, divorced from Obama Sr., moved to Indonesia and married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian, Obama was adopted by Soetoro and became an Indonesian citizen; while in Indonesia, Obama had his name changed to Barry Soetoro; Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981 under an Indonesian passport when Pakistan was a no travel zone for Americans. Additionally, there is an allegation that Obama's Kenyan grandmother claims that Obama was born in Kenya; Muammar Gadhafi, leader of Libya, has publicly claimed that Obama was born in Kenya and studied in Muslim schools in Indonesia.

A lawsuit in Honolulu in the First District Court is seeking a court order to open Obama's birth records. Obama has thus far neglected a Freedom of Information request for the records at two hospitals in Hawaii.

It’s reported that lawsuits in Washington, Georgia, California, Florida, New York and Connecticut are seeking state Superior Courts to force the states' Secretary of State, as the chief state elections officer, to perform their state constitutional duties to require original certifying birth records from Mr. Obama that would verify his birth in Hawaii.

Philip Berg's months-long lawsuit in Federal Court in Philadelphia reached a dramatic plateau as Mr. Obama and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) failed to respond to the court that Mr. Obama is not a natural born U.S. Citizen and therefore not qualified to run for office of President of the U.S. Berg believes they “admitted” to Obama's non-qualification by their failure to respond to a 30-day court ordered discovery in which Obama and the DNC were ordered to answer a petition by Berg. Mr. Berg has stated that if the Federal court chooses to dismiss he will appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. This has now come to pass.

These allegations will not go away until Mr. Obama produces proof to State and federal authorities. If he will not do so voluntarily he must be compelled by every means available.

If our elected representatives exercise their obligations as servants of the People and it turns out Mr. Obama is qualified, then there is no harm done. If they choose not to act on behalf of the people and it is proven that Mr. Obama is unqualified, they should carefully consider the personal political implications they may suffer due to their inaction.

Please go to the petition and do your civic duty today.

Brought to you by the editors and research staff of FamilySecurityMatters.org.

Obama's birth certificate sealed by Hawaii governor

(Compiler's note: If true that he is NOT a natural citizen, even if elected, Obama can NOT serve per the U.S. Constitution.)

By Jerome R. Corsi

Gov. Linda Lingle, R-Hawaii

HONOLULU, Hawaii – Although the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama's birth certificate has become a focus of intense speculation – and even several lawsuits – WND has learned that Hawaii's Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the candidate's birth certificate under seal and instructed the state's Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original document under any circumstances.

The governor's office officially declined a request made in writing by WND in Hawaii to obtain a copy of the hospital-generated original birth certificate of Barack Obama.

"It does not appear that Dr. Corsi is within any of these categories of persons with a direct and tangible interest in the birth certificate he seeks," wrote Roz Makuala, manager of constituent services in the governor's office, in an e-mailed response to a WND request seeking the information.

Those listed as entitled to obtain a copy of an original birth certificate include the person born, or "registrant" according to the legal description from the governor's office, the spouse or parent of the registrant, a descendant of the registrant, a person having a common ancestor with the registrant, a legal guardian of the registrant, or a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant.

WND was told the official reason for denial of access to Obama's birth certificate would be authority granted pursuant to Section 338-18 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, a provision the anonymous source claimed was designed to prevent identity theft.

Still, the source told WND confidentially the motivation for withholding the original birth certificate was political, although the source refused to disclose whether there was any information on the original birth certificate that would prove politically embarrassing to Obama.

Get the book that started it all, Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation," autographed by the author, exclusively from WND's online store for the amazing low price of just $4.95.

The source also refused to answer WND's question whether the original document on file with the Department of Health was a hospital-generated birth certificate or a registration of birth that may have been filed subsequent to the birth.

The anonymous source made clear the Hawaii Department of Health would immediately release Obama's original birth certificate, provided Obama requested the document be released, but the Department of Heath has received no such request from the senator or from anyone acting officially on his behalf.

WND also found on microfilm in the Honolulu downtown public library a notice published under the "Births, Marriages, Deaths" section of the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser for August 13, 1961, on page B-6, noting: "Mr. and Mrs. Barack II Obama. 6085 Kalanianaole-Hwy, son, Aug. 4."

In searching through the birth notices of the Honolulu Advertiser for 1961, WND found many birth notices were published between one and two weeks after the date of birth listed.

The notice in the Honolulu Advertiser does not list the hospital where the Obama son was born or the doctor who delivered the baby.

In a startling development, Obama's Kenyan grandmother has reportedly alleged she witnessed Obama's birth at the Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.

Friday, U.S. Federal judge Richard Barclay Surrick, a Clinton appointee, dismissed a lawsuit brought by Pennsylvania attorney Phillip J. Berg who alleged Obama was not a U.S. "natural born" citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency under the specifications of the U.S. Constitution, under Article II, Section 1.

Berg told WND last week he does not have a copy of a Kenyan birth certificate for Obama that he alleges exists.

In Kenya, WND was told by government authorities that all documents concerning Obama were under seal until after the U.S. presidential election on November 4.

The Obama campaign website entitled "Fight the Smears" posts a state of Hawaii "Certificate of Live Birth" which is obviously not the original birth certificate generated by the hospital where Obama reportedly was born.

"Fight the Smears" declares, "The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America."

Although the Obama campaign could immediately put an end to all the challenges by simply producing the candidate's original birth certificate, it has not done so. And the "Fight the Smears" website offers no explanation as to why Obama has refused to request, and make public, an original hospital-generated birth certificate which the Hawaii Department of Health may possess.

Quietly, quietly Australia conducts one Islamic terrorist trial after another…

from Winds of Jihad

Jihad by arson the next big thing?

* But remember: Islam is a “Religion of Peace”, Jihad is “inner struggle”,- its only a “tiny minority of extremists”- we cannot paint all Muslims with one brush and Islam is not a monolith and….

AAP

SIX Sydney men accused of conspiring to commit a terrorist act were strong adherents of the Islamic faith, driven by religion and ideology to carry out violent jihad against the Australian public, potential jurors have been told.

* Terror accused ‘planned fiery jihad’

* Nation at risk from ‘dirty bomb

Crown Prosecutor Richard Maidment SC today addressed the first 220 potential jurors for the NSW Supreme Court trial at the Parramatta court complex.

Bradley Umar Sariff Baladjam, 31, Khaled Cheikho, 35, Moustafa Cheikho, 31, Mohamed Ali Elomar, 43, Abdul Rakib Hasan, 39, and Mohammed Omar Jamal, 24, are accused of conspiring to commit acts in preparation for a terrorist act.

Mr Maidment said the men were conspiring to carry out acts of violence, including the detonation of explosives and use of firearms, between July 2004 and November 2005.

“The crown alleges that each of these men were apparently strong adherents to the Islamic faith and were each motivated by a particular religious, political or ideological cause - being the pursuit of violent jihad - which each of the accused apparently believed was founded in the teachings of the Islamic faith,” he told the jury pool.

“In essence, that meant that the accused were motivated to carry out violent activities against members of the Australian community as a whole, in pursuit of their ideals.”

Mr Maidment said the kind of terrorist acts contemplated by the men included the detonation of an explosive device, or devices, or the use of weapons.

The preparatory acts alleged included obtaining or seeking to obtain large quantities of firearms and ammunition, and significant quantities of chemicals which Mr Maidment said were for the purpose of making explosives “capable of causing substantial damage and loss of life.”

The judge, Anthony Whealy, urged the potential jurors not to offer themselves for service unless they were certain they could bring an unbiased mind to the trial.

“Each of the accused is entitled, and emphatically entitled, to the presumption of innocence,” Justice Whealy told jurors in the assembly room via videolink from the court.

“The fact that each is an adherent to the Muslim faith cannot be something that is allowed to raise any aspect of bias.

“It is important to repeat and stress that those who wish to serve on the jury should offer themselves for service only if they are able to bring an unbiased approach to persons of the Muslim faith.

“Similarly, if you are of the Muslim faith and harbour resentment to non-Muslims, you should not offer yourself for service.”

The jury selection process is expected to last the remainder of the week, with Justice Whealy telling the potential jurors the trial could take up to a year and involve 700 witnesses.

Feds Break Up Skin Heads Plot To Assassinate Obama

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Two white supremacists allegedly plotted to go on a national killing spree, shooting and decapitating black people and ultimately targeting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, federal authorities said Monday.

In all, the two men whom officials describe as neo-Nazi skinheads planned to kill 88 people - 14 by beheading, according to documents unsealed in U.S. District Court in Jackson, Tenn. The numbers 88 and 14 are symbolic in the white supremacist community.

The spree, which initially targeted an unidentified predominantly African-American school, was to end with the two men driving toward Obama, "shooting at him from the windows," the court documents show[....]

Sheriffs' deputies in Crockett County, Tenn., arrested the two suspects - Daniel Cowart, 20, of Bells, Tenn., and Paul Schlesselman 18, of Helena-West Helena, Ark. - Oct. 22 on unspecified charges. "Once we arrested the defendants and suspected they had violated federal law, we immediately contacted federal authorities," said Crockett County Sheriff Troy Klyce.

Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered

Another Obama special -- Must read -- listen!!

Companies start competing for bailout money

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER

WASHINGTON (AP) - The bailout is now the hottest lobbying game in town.

Insurers, automakers and American subsidiaries of foreign banks all want the Treasury Department to cut them a piece of the largest government rescue in U.S. history.

The betting is that many with their hands out will be successful, especially with financial markets in a stomach-churning dive and predictions the economy is about to tumble into a deep recession.

These groups argue that the credit squeeze is so severe and the risks to the economy so dire that their industries need financial support as well.

The Treasury is considering requests from a variety of industries, but has not decided whether to expand the program, officials said Saturday.

Lobbying efforts are intensifying.

The Financial Services Roundtable wrote Treasury officials on Friday requesting that the initiative to buy $250 billion in bank stock grow to cover insurers, auto companies, securities dealers and U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies, including banks. The Treasury's plan is intended to bolster banks' tattered balance sheets and get them to resume making loans.

As the Treasury now interprets it, these additional groups would not participate in the bank stock program. They could receive help from a separate part of the $700 billion rescue that will buy bad assets from financial institutions.

Steve Bartlett, the president of the Roundtable, urged the Treasury to broaden the definition of those eligible for the stock purchase program.

"The institutions that are excluded play a vital role in the U.S. economy by providing liquidity to the market," Bartlett wrote Neel Kashkari, the Treasury Department official running the bailout program.

Referring to U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies, Bartlett said, "This is a global crisis and to not recognize the U.S. firms controlled by foreign banks or companies would create further impediment to the market's recovery."

A financial industry official said Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson met over the past week with various groups, including hedge fund managers, that were petitioning for assistance. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the Treasury has not made a decision.

Some insurers technically would be eligible for stock purchases now if they own subsidiaries that are savings and loan institutions regulated by the Office of Thrift Supervision.

Last month, American International Group, the country's largest insurance company, received an $85 billion loan from the Federal Reserve. Since then, it has gotten further support in an effort to withstand the biggest upheavals on Wall Street since the Great Depression.

Complicating the government's decision-making is that the Bush administration will not be in charge after Jan. 20. Paulson, who has said he has no intention of staying on the job, has pledged to consult with both campaigns on his bailout actions.

Democrat Barack Obama's presidential campaign said Friday it supported the effort by the auto industry to get money from the $250 billion made available for stock purchases. That would be in addition to $25 billion recently approved by Congress for low-interest loans to help the struggling industry retool and build fuel efficient vehicles.

The debate over expanding the bailout comes as the Treasury is rushing to get money out the door to the primary recipients: banks that sharply curtailed lending after suffering billions of dollars of losses on mortgage-related assets as home foreclosures soared in the housing slump.

Lawmakers are pressuring the Treasury to do more in the foreclosure area, as well.

Sheila Bair, head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., told Congress about efforts to provide government-backed loan guarantees for mortgages that are reworked to help homeowners in danger of default. That would give banks an incentive to speed up refinancing efforts because the government would back part of the reworked loan.

The Treasury also is moving ahead to get bank stock purchases approved. It announced on Oct. 14 that it was spending $125 billion to buy stock in nine of the largest financial institutions. An announcement was expected Friday about a second round involving 20 to 22 other banks.

But it was decided each bank would announce its own agreements with the Treasury, out of concern that excluded banks could suffer a stock sell-off from disappointed investors.

PNC Financial Services Group Inc. (PNC) announced Friday it was acquiring National City Corp. (NCC) for $5.58 billion, in what was the first instance of a bank using fresh investments from the bailout program to make an acquisition. PNC said it had received $7.7 billion in cash through selling stock to the government under the program.