Iran Poses New Threat to Region and World

(Compiler's note: Must read and understand what is being said here with the potential impact.)

by Riki Ellison

Earlier this week, Iran launched a two stage solid fuel ballistic missile with a range of 1,200 miles making U.S. troops, bases, and allies in the Middle East most notably Israel vulnerable to threats, intimidation and influence from Iran and its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This display of provocation intended to engage the new administration under President-elect Obama follows the similar tactics of the President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev who set a precedent less than a week ago by threatening the deployment of ballistic missiles on its border if the new U.S. administration does not withdrawal from the agreements that would deploy missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic.

The Iranian ballistic missile proliferation, demonstration and development – coupled with their quest for nuclear weapons – create an extremely unstable region that extends beyond the Middle East and into Europe.

Countries within the region will be forced to react to equalize the status quo and maintain stability. Their limited options are, to rely upon and request American security, match and deter the ballistic missile inventory of Iran, launch pre-emptive military action, or become nuclear.

Iran's technical development of two stage and solid fuel boosters with its ballistic missiles extends their range and technology today and in the future to influence, deter and threaten Europe and critical U.S. bases stationed in Europe.

It is clearly apparent for President-elect Obama and his new administration to have flexibility, tools and options to deal with Iran to maintain peace and stability in the Middle East. The current investment in missile defense capabilities must continue to be developed, tested and deployed from the European third site to the U.S. and regional missile defense assets to ensure security and stability for the Middle East.

Missile defense will supplement current and future diplomatic and threat reduction efforts as well as give insurance for protection and stability in case of failure of these efforts.

"The power holders in the new American government are trying to regain their lost influence with a tactical change in their foreign diplomacy. They are shifting from hard conflict to a soft attack," Hossein Taeb said, Deputy Commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps.

To be effective with soft power you need hard power assets in place.

Missile defense is a hard power asset.

Middle East Tops List of Joint Chiefs’ Concerns, Mullen Says

....The United States has between 70 and 80 percent of the military forces available focused on that area, Mullen told the group.....

Dallas ISD faulted for using fake Social Security numbers

Years after being advised by a state agency to stop, the Dallas Independent School District continued to provide foreign citizens with fake Social Security numbers to get them on the payroll quickly.

Some of the numbers were real Social Security numbers already assigned to people elsewhere. And in some cases, the state's educator certification office unknowingly used the bogus numbers to run criminal background checks on the new hires, most of whom were brought in to teach bilingual classes. ....

'Constitutional crisis' looming over Obama's birth location

By Bob Unruh

The California secretary of state should refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until President-elect Barack Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office, alleges a California court petition filed on behalf of former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others.

The legal action today is just the latest is a series of challenges, some of which have gone as high as the U.S. Supreme Court, over the issue of Obama's status as a "natural-born citizen," a requirement set by the U.S. Constitution.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi even traveled to Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The biggest question is why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists, simply hasn't ordered it made available to settle the rumors.

The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born, while a video posted on YouTube features Obama's Kenyan grandmother Sarah claiming to have witnessed Obama's birth in Kenya.

The California action was filed by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation on behalf of Alan Keyes, the presidential candidate of the American Independent Party, along with Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson, both California electors.

"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States

, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal," the action challenges.

The petition is a request for the Superior Court of California in Sacramento County to issue a peremptory writ barring Secretary of State Debra Bowen "from both certifying to the governor the names of the California Electors, and from transmitting to each presidential Elector a Certificate of Election, until such documentary proof is produced and verified showing that Senator Obama is a 'natural born' citizen of the United States and does not hold citizenship of Indonesia, Kenya or Great Britain."

It continues with a request for a writ barring California's electors from signing the Certificate of Vote until documentary proof is produced.

An Obama spokesperson interviewed by WND described such lawsuits as "garbage."

The popular vote Nov. 4 favored Obama over Sen. John McCain by several percentage points. But because of the distribution of the votes, Obama is projected to take the Electoral College vote, when it is held in December, by a 2-to-1 margin.

Named as defendants in the action are Bowen, Obama, vice president elect Joe Biden and the long list of California party electors.

Citing the constitutional requirement that a president be a "natural born" citizen, the case discusses other state and federal court cases regarding "aspects of lost or dual citizenship concerning Senator Obama. Those challenges, in and of themselves, demonstrate Petitioners' argument that reasonable doubt exists as to the eligibility of the Democratic Party’s nominee for President," the case said.

Get Brad O'Leary's blockbuster book detailing the agenda for the upcoming Obama White House, "The Audacity of Deceit."

"There is a reasonable and common expectation by the voters that to qualify for the ballot, the individuals running for office must meet minimum qualifications as outlined in the federal and state Constitutions and statutes, and that compliance with those minimum qualifications has been confirmed by the officials overseeing the election process," the complaint said, when in fact the only documentation currently required is a signed statement from the candidate attesting to those qualifications.

"Since [the Secretary of State] has, as its core, the mission of certifying and establishing the validity of the election process, this writ seeks a Court Order barring SOS from certifying the California Electors until documentary proof that Senator Obama is a 'natural born' citizen of the United States of America is received by her," the document said.

"This proof could include items such as his original birth certificate, showing the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor, all of his passports with immigration stamps, and verification from the governments where the candidate has resided, verifying that he did not, and does not, hold citizenship of these countries, and any other documents that certify an individual’s citizenship and/or qualification for office.

"To this date, in this regard, SOS has not carried out that fundamental duty."

The case said a simple attestation from the candidate or his party isn't sufficient.

"Historically, California Secretaries of State have exercised their due diligence by reviewing necessary background documents, verifying that the candidates that were submitted by the respective political parties as eligible for the ballot were indeed eligible. In 1968, the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for President of the United States. The then SOS, Mr. Frank Jordan, found that, according to Mr. Cleaver's birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a candidate for President. Using his administrative powers, Mr. Jordan removed Mr. Cleaver from the ballot. Mr. Cleaver unsuccessfully challenged this decision to the Supreme Court of the State of California, and, later, to the Supreme Court of the United States."

Similarly, in 1984, the Peace and Freedom Party candidate Larry Holmes was removed from the ballot.

The "certificate of live birth" posted by the Obama campaign cannot be viewed as authoritative, the case alleges.

"Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence," the document said. "The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama's original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him."

The case also raises the circumstances of Obama's time during his youth in Indonesia, where he was listed as having Indonesian citizenship. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, raising the possibility of Obama's mother having given up his U.S. citizenship.

Any subsequent U.S. citizenship then, the case claims, would be "naturalized," not "natural-born."

"Based on all of the above, it is the duty of the SOS to obtain proper documentation of Senator Obama's citizenship to confirm his eligibility for the office or the President of the United States," the case said.

Just this week, WND has reported on more than half a dozen other legal challenges have been filed in federal and state courts demanding Obama's decertification from ballots or seeking to halt elector meetings, claiming he has failed to prove his U.S. citizenship status.

Among the states where cases are being tracked are Ohio, Connecticut, Washington, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Hawaii, and there were reports of other cases being developed in Utah, Wyoming, Florida, New York, North Carolina, Texas, California and Virginia.

Click here for additional information.

Liberals clinically mad, concludes top psychiatrist

from WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder

.

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy."

For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.

Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by both Barack Obama and his Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

• creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
• satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
  
• augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
  
• rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."

Say Goodbye to BlackBerry? Yes He Can, Maybe

By JEFF ZELENY

WASHINGTON — Sorry, Mr. President. Please surrender your BlackBerry.

Those are seven words President-elect Barack Obama is dreading but expecting to hear, friends and advisers say, when he takes office in 65 days.

For years, like legions of other professionals, Mr. Obama has been all but addicted to his BlackBerry. The device has rarely been far from his side — on most days, it was fastened to his belt — to provide a singular conduit to the outside world as the bubble around him grew tighter and tighter throughout his campaign.

“How about that?” Mr. Obama replied to a friend’s congratulatory e-mail message on the night of his victory.

But before he arrives at the White House, he will probably be forced to sign off. In addition to concerns about e-mail security, he faces the Presidential Records Act, which puts his correspondence in the official record and ultimately up for public review, and the threat of subpoenas. A decision has not been made on whether he could become the first e-mailing president, but aides said that seemed doubtful.

For all the perquisites and power afforded the president, the chief executive of the United States is essentially deprived by law and by culture of some of the very tools that other chief executives depend on to survive and to thrive. Mr. Obama, however, seems intent on pulling the office at least partly into the 21st century on that score; aides said he hopes to have a laptop computer on his desk in the Oval Office, making him the first American president to do so.

Mr. Obama has not sent a farewell dispatch from the personal e-mail account he uses — he has not changed his address in years — but friends say the frequency of correspondence has diminished. In recent days, though, he has been seen typing his thoughts on transition matters and other items on his BlackBerry, bypassing, at least temporarily, the bureaucracy that is quickly encircling him.

A year ago, when many Democratic contributors and other observers were worried about his prospects against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, they reached out to him directly. Mr. Obama had changed his cellphone number, so e-mail remained the most reliable way of communicating directly with him.

“His BlackBerry was constantly crackling with e-mails,” said David Axelrod, the campaign’s chief strategist. “People were generous with their advice — much of it conflicting.”

Mr. Obama is the second president to grapple with the idea of this self-imposed isolation. Three days before his first inauguration, George W. Bush sent a message to 42 friends and relatives that explained his predicament.

“Since I do not want my private conversations looked at by those out to embarrass, the only course of action is not to correspond in cyberspace,” Mr. Bush wrote from his old address, G94B@aol.com. “This saddens me. I have enjoyed conversing with each of you.”

But in the interceding eight years, as BlackBerrys have become ubiquitous — and often less intrusive than a telephone, the volume of e-mail has multiplied and the role of technology has matured. Mr. Obama used e-mail to stay in constant touch with friends from the lonely confines of the road, often sending messages like “Sox!” when the Chicago White Sox won a game. He also relied on e-mail to keep abreast of the rapid whirl of events on a given campaign day.

Mr. Obama’s memorandums and briefing books were seldom printed out and delivered to his house or hotel room, aides said. They were simply sent to his BlackBerry for his review. If a document was too long, he would read and respond from his laptop computer, often putting his editing changes in red type.

His messages to advisers and friends, they say, are generally crisp, properly spelled and free of symbols or emoticons. The time stamps provided a window into how much he was sleeping on a given night, with messages often being sent to staff members at 1 a.m. or as late as 3 a.m. if he was working on an important speech.

He received a scaled-down list of news clippings, with his advisers wanting to keep him from reading blogs and news updates all day long, yet aides said he still seemed to hear about nearly everything in real time. A network of friends — some from college, others from Chicago and various chapters in his life — promised to keep him plugged in.

Not having such a ready line to that network, staff members who spent countless hours with him say, is likely to be a challenge.

“Given how important it is for him to get unfiltered information from as many sources as possible, I can imagine he will miss that freedom,” said Linda Douglass, a senior adviser who traveled with the campaign.

Mr. Obama has, for at least brief moments, been forced offline. As he sat down with a small circle of advisers to prepare for debates with Senator John McCain, one rule was quickly established: No BlackBerrys. Mr. Axelrod ordered everyone to put their devices in the center of a table during work sessions. Mr. Obama, who was known to sneak a peek at his, was no exception.

In the closing stages of the campaign, as exhaustion set in and the workload increased, aides said Mr. Obama spent more time reading than responding to messages. As his team prepares a final judgment on whether he can keep using e-mail, perhaps even in a read-only fashion, several authorities in presidential communication said they believed it was highly unlikely that he would be able to do so.

Diana Owen, who leads the American Studies program at Georgetown University, said presidents were not advised to use e-mail because of security risks and fear that messages could be intercepted.

“They could come up with some bulletproof way of protecting his e-mail and digital correspondence, but anything can be hacked,” said Ms. Owen, who has studied how presidents communicate in the Internet era. “The nature of the president’s job is that others can use e-mail for him.”

She added: “It’s a time burner. It might be easier for him to say, ‘I can’t be on e-mail.’ ”

Should Mr. Obama want to break ground and become the first president to fire off e-mail messages from the West Wing and wherever he travels, he could turn to Al Gore as a model. In the later years of his vice presidency, Democrats said, Mr. Gore used a government e-mail address and a campaign address in his race against Mr. Bush.

The president, though, faces far greater public scrutiny. And even if he does not wear a BlackBerry on his belt or carry a cellphone in his pocket, he almost certainly will not lack from a variety of new communication.

On Saturday, as Mr. Obama broadcast the weekly Democratic radio address, it came with a twist. For the first time, it was also videotaped and will be archived on YouTube.

Faster, Please!

from PajamaMedia

Now he’s had his first real intelligence briefing, and it was probably an eye-opener, because it’s quite a scene out there. I hope he’s got someone close to him with the wit and the nerve to tell the president-elect that the intelligence community is also a mess, and that he can be morally certain the real world is even worse than the one he’s just been briefed about.

The real world is so frightening that I can’t imagine Hillary Clinton will be foolish enough to accept the job of secretary of state; anyone who takes that job is almost certain to fail. How can anyone believe that he or she has a good chance of dealing with:

–the expanding anti-American alliance, now including Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Ecuador, China, North Korea and Syria (remember that the “Axis of Evil” had only three charter members);

–the global financial/economic crisis, which is almost surely in a relatively early stage;

–allies wimping out all over. No one seems to have the stomach (and none has the wherewithal) to mount a more aggressive campaign in Afghanistan, which Obama has promised to do.

And that’s only the top of the list. The Iranian nuclear project is still there, simmering away, as the mullahs almost daily threaten the destruction of Israel and the United States. Iran claims to have tested yet another (long-range) missile, and shown us photographs. The State Department, as always, clicked its tongue, but since so many of these proclamations have proven false in the past, there’s no reason I know of to take this one any more seriously than the earlier hoaxes.

What IS clear about Iran could and should be good news for Obama and his team (whoever they are): the regime shows every sign of being in a paranoid panic over the hatred the Iranian people feel for the mullahs. Hence we have recently seen a huge drill in the major cities, wherein tens of thousands of security forces rehearse their actions in the event of an insurrection; new repression against major non-Persian ethnic groups, including a ban against the use of the Azeri language; and a mounting tempo of executions.

Yet so far as I can tell, neither Bush nor Obama has the slightest intention of supporting democratic revolution in Iran, which is the key ingredient to any successful American policy in the region. Both Bush and Obama insist on seeing Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan as separate policy matters, a failure of strategic vision that lies at the heart of our failed war plan for Iraq in the first place, and which deflected our attention from Afghanistan long enough to permit the Taliban and its Iranian supporters to rebuild their forces.

Until our policy makers finally come to terms with the hard truth that we are in a regional war, and that it has to be waged on a regional scale, we will fail to win the overall struggle. Yes, Iraq looks good today, and although there is still a curious unwillingness to say it in Washington, we defeated al Qaeda in Iraq. But it can all come apart quite quickly if we “declare victory and go home,” because the Iranians and the Syrians will step up the terror war in Iraq.

It will be interesting to see who Obama picks to “manage” the Iranian time bomb. My guess is that he will take people who have been wrong from the beginning. I’m betting that he will find people from the Carter years, the ones who favored the fall of the shah and rather liked the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Any takers?

Obama Warned Of Huge al Qeada Threat

Barack Obama is being given ominous advice from leaders on both sides of the Atlantic to brace himself for an early assault from terrorists.

General Michael Hayden, director of the CIA, this week acknowledged that there were dangers during a presidential transition when new officials were coming in and getting accustomed to the challenges. But he added that no “real or artificial spike” in intercepted transmissions from terror suspects had been detected.

President Bush has repeatedly described the acute vulnerability of the US during a transition. The Bush Administration has been defined largely by the 9/11 attacks, which came within a year of his taking office.

His aides have pointed to al-Qaeda’s first assault on the World Trade Centre, which occurred little more than a month after Bill Clinton became President in 1993. There was an alleged attempt to bomb Glasgow airport in Gordon Brown’s first days in Downing Street and a London nightclub attack was narrowly thwarted.
Related Links

Lord West of Spithead, the Home Office Security Minister, spoke recently of a “huge threat”, saying: “There is another great plot building up again and we are monitoring this.”

Intelligence chiefs on both sides of the Atlantic have indicated that such warnings refer more to a general sense of foreboding than fear of an imminent or specific plan.

Diseased-traveler threat not eliminated, federal report warns

By Craig Schneider

Some 18 months after authorities repeatedly failed to stop the international travel of an Atlanta man with drug-resistant tuberculosis, problems still exist that could allow an infected person to slip through security, according to a federal report released today.

Atlanta attorney Andrew Speaker spurred an international health scare as he evaded no-fly lists and border control checkpoints aimed at stopping him.

The incident in May 2007 raised questions about why officials hadn’t stopped Speaker from traveling to Greece for his wedding, and why they did not stop him from fleeing Italy back to the United States.

The 59-page report by the federal Government Accountability Office faults the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as its parent agency, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution received an advance copy of the report. It cited inadequate lines of communication among federal agencies that enforce public health laws, as well as flawed practices and delays in action.

U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), whose congressional committee requested the report, said better communication between federal agencies is needed to prevent outbreaks of disease and potential terrorist attacks and improve response to natural disasters.

“Our border security and aviation controls must be stronger if we are to prevent repeats of these types of border breaches,” Lieberman said.

While the report credits the federal agencies with improving their policies and procedures since the Speaker incident, it criticized them for not passing on enough information to state and local health officials regarding these new tools. Such education is especially important since state and local officials are usually the first to become aware of TB cases, the report said.

“Unless state and local health officials are informed and educated about the new tools and procedures, delays in accessing federal assistance, like those encountered … could persist,” the report said.

In addition, the agencies should explore implementing more thorough background checks and better public health alerts at the U.S. border, the report said.

The lack of that, the report said, “may result in missed opportunities to locate persons subject to public health alerts.”

At one point, a border inspector ignored an electronic alert and allowed Speaker to enter the country from Canada.

The agencies reviewed the findings, and their responses were included in the report. Many improvements were noted. For instance, the names of people identified as public health threats are placed on a new “Do Not Board” list sent to airlines. Border officials also have revised their public-alerts system to prevent officers from overriding them.

“There’s no doubt there are many lessons to be learned from that incident,” said CDC spokesman Tom Skinner. “We’re more prepared today.”

Speaker was eventually quarantined and received medical treatment at a Denver specialty hospital. Tests at the Denver center showed he did not have the Extensively Drug Resistant (XDR) form of TB, but a more treatable form of drug-resistant TB.

Tests of more than 250 airline passengers showed that none had caught TB from Speaker.

UK: Muslim man strangles, stabs, and slits throat of "petite" 19 year-old Catholic girl

Robert Spencer Talk

By Aisha Akhtar

Director of jihadwatch.org and author of eight books, Robert Spencer, gave a lecture: "Stealth Jihad: What it Means and Why it Matters." His talk reflected a history of the Muslim Brotherhood, and how their activities have extended to bring destruction to the Western world.

Why invite Spencer to speak? "It should have every American of every stripe trying to understand the causes and motivations for the aggression and animosity directed towards us and our allies," said Alexander Chamessian, President of the Enduring Freedom Alliance and Editor-in-chief of "The Patriot".

"Robert Spencer offers one compelling analysis of the problem, although he does not offer the only one," said Chamessian.

"It is painfully clear that terrorism poses a grave threat to the West and in particular to the United States; with 9-11, the Madrid bombing, and countless other acts that were carried out under the banner for the destruction of the West," he adds.

Spencer has made numerous appearances on campuses all around the nation, stirring much controversy over Islam and its tolerance of the West.

"It's an ongoing puzzle of how any of this is controversial because everything I will tell you tonight, I will give you a source for," said Robert Spencer.

"Mr. Spencer's words may not have been as controversial as it might have seemed, but he sowed the seeds of hatred and paranoia against Muslims across Stony Brook's campus," said sophomore Ibrahim Khwaja.

"Some might find what Mr. Spencer says hard to swallow. This is no reason to discount or disregard what he has to say," said Chamessian. "Attempts to silence him under guides of "hate speech" are almost as frightening as the terrorists are to all of us and the Americans who so greatly cherish our right to the freedom of speech."

Spencer began his lecture by saying, "Probably everyone that is here tonight is because you are interested in justice and protecting the rights of individuals and particularly individuals who are threatened." He continued to give a history of how the Western rights have been, and continue to be, attacked.

In 1928, in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood was founded by "Hassan al-Banna, because he believed an important element of Islam was not being put into practice by Muslims around the world and he was determined to fix that," said Spencer. This non-existent practice is political Islam, where states needed to follow the Sharia, or Islamic law, for political purposes.

Spencer says that the brotherhood formed as a result of the changes in the Turkish government.

Founder of modern secular Turkey, [Mustafa Kemal] Atatürk, wanted to create, in Turkey, after World War I, a state according to western European, "western secular government," said Spencer, "in which religion would play a role in society, but the government would not be organized according to religion but would be separate from the government, which was not seen anywhere in the Islamic world."

"He removed secular Islam in Turkey by above-all removing the caliphate," said Spencer. "So those like Hassan [al-Banna] and others founded the Muslim brotherhood to bring back political Islam, and called upon all Muslims to encompass Islam as a way of life."
Spencer talked about the current plans of the brotherhood. He quotes Muhammad Akram, a sheikh of Islamic Sufism, and a writer/interpreter of sharia; "the Muslim brotherhood must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand plot in eliminating and destroying the western civilization."

Spencer said that there were documents uncovered at the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a charity organization. A trial followed.

"Documents mapped out a general strategy for how the Muslim brotherhood was going to proceed in the United States," said Spencer, "what's interesting about these trials are the larger initiatives that are going on within these organizations and individuals who are active."

Spencer listed organizations that were linked with the Muslim Brotherhood and their cause, one of which is the Muslim Student Association, located on campuses across the country. The MSA was founded by the brotherhood in 1963.

"I find that regardless of whether you're the director of Jihad Watch and an author of over 300 articles and 8 books on Jihad and Islamic Terrorism, or just a typical student or faculty member attending an event hosted in the Student Union building, the best kind of awareness you can offer to anyone interested in discovering what Muslims are really doing on college campuses, is by actually taking the time to attend an event run by Muslims on a college campus- especially at a campus that you're going to lecture at," said Omar Shareef, Vice President of the Muslim Student Association.

"It's interesting that the first outreach event the MSA had was a fast-a-thon, an event uniting Muslims with non-Muslims to experience hunger and help the poor, while this event promotes disunity and paranoia of innocent people," said junior Haseena Sahib.
Islam has laws that cover every aspect of life. "This is the vision of Islamic law, sharia," said Spencer, "Unfortunately this contradicts some human rights that have hithered to prevail, including freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and equality of all rights of people before the law."

"Freedom of conscience, declared by the UN declaration of human rights in Article 18, a person should be able to change his religion or to have no religion at all," said Spencer, "Muslim brotherhood wants to put an end to that."

He only mentions how a specific few Muslims threaten it even though there are many things in today's world that do the same," said freshman Hamna Zafar, "Yet if anything, The Patriot Act threatens our rights more than anything; our right to privacy has been greatly limited since it has been passed by the American government, and yet Spencer claims that Islam or Muslims are trying to limit our rights?"

"Do I say that every Muslim is following the same agenda? No, that would be rather stupid." said Spencer, "Many Muslims don't have the interest to conquest Europe or the West, but the appeal is made to them under the purity of Islam."

Mr. Spencer's thesis really resonated with me, as I feel that extremism in all ways of life (be them religious or not) can be dangerous," said senior Kevin Ankney, "Unfortunately, it is difficult to not seem hypocritical when condemning extremism while condoning moderation, especially in matters of faith, since everyone is "entitled" to believe what he/she wants. It is a constant balancing act we must play."

Spencer believes that fundamental rights can be taken away from people, and they will not even know that it is happening. "I think it is an initiative that is being proceeded with stealth, and not by some covert activity," said Spencer. This brings us to Spencer's point on 'stealth' jihad.

"Things are going on in the ways you would not notice," said Spencer. Spencer gave the example of the cab system that was implemented at the Minneapolis- St. Paul International Airport. At the airport, cabs were color-coded for those that would carry passengers with alcohol, and those that would not.

"The idea that the brotherhood is trying to put forward is that the Islamic law and American law are in collision with one another and it's the American law that has to give way," said Spencer. This is one of the examples Spencer gave to show that stealth jihad is making progress.

Another example is the Swift & Co. meat packing industry in Nebraska and Colorado. During the month of Ramadan, Muslim workers requested to open their fast, at the appropriate time. Therefore, break times were switched and the other workers had to work longer hours to compensate for the alternative break time.

"To offer one group rights the other doesn't have is to go completely against American rights that were earned by the civil rights movement and I'm going to oppose that," said Spencer.

"I was impressed by the conviction with which he asserts that the Stealth Jihad movement is making progress within Western civilization," said Ankney, "However, I would've liked to hear a few more tangible examples to illuminate this assertion. At the very least, Mr. Spencer's fear of this movement has intrigued me to the point where I want to investigate it in more detail."

"In the specific case of taxi drivers trying to follow a detail of their religion that they had previously, and most still, ignore, never, I think, in a million years would this escalate into a larger scale adoption of Sharia law in this country," said senior Zachary Kurtz, "The economics of the thing simply wouldn't allow it."

'Gruesome' evidence emerges in terrorism trial

from ABC.net

The trial of five Sydney men on terrorist-related charges has been told they possessed gruesome material supporting violent jihad.

The court heard the men were preparing for an attack in which the killing of children was considered permissible.

When police arrested the five accused men, who have pleaded not guilty, in November 2005 they seized books, hard drives, video, sound recordings and other documents.

The Crown today described the haul as quite gruesome, while outlining the contents in chilling detail.

"Beheadings and military training are obligatory," the court heard.

According to the Crown, there were constant references to the Koran in some of the documents.

"Martyrdom is the ticket to victory and the entrance into paradise in the hereafter," the documents read.

The five, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, sat quietly and occasionally passed notes to their lawyers.

It was alleged each owned material which preached the virtues of killing non believers to "fight in a manner designed to strike terror in the hearts of the enemy" and "in certain circumstances it is permissible to kill children, especially if they are in the way of the pursuit of violent jihad."

The Crown case says the accused were inspired by Sheikh Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, who is credited with a revival of violent jihad in the 20th century.

It was his teaching that one hour spent fighting for Allah is worth 70 years praying at home.

Jurors in the trial were told that other material encouraged slaying the infidel.

"The greatest medicine we can apply to the brothers of the monkeys and pigs was to perform suicide operations," the court heard.

"There's no other technique which strikes as much terror in their hearts or shatters their spirit as much."

The prosecutions suggested the accused had carefully selected their reading matter and video tapes to prepare themselves for violent jihad in Australia.

Georgetown Academic Unaware of Global Muslim Brotherhood Key Facts

Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report

The Investigative Project has reported on significant gaps in knowledge about the global Muslim Brotherhood on the part of Georgetown academic John Esposito, perhaps the best known U.S. academic supporter of the Brotherhood. According to the report Esposito, testifying in the retrial of the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing case, was unaware of the connections between the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Holy Land Foundations, and Hamas and was unable to recall his last meeting with CAIR even though it was only three months ago:

…on cross examination, Esposito either didn’t remember or didn’t know about documented links between HLF and other groups he has worked with and Hamas. One of those groups is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). When asked by defense attorney Nancy Hollander if he was familiar with CAIR, Esposito described it as a “religious-oriented mainstream group” that worked on issues of discrimination against Muslims. He confirmed he had over a period of time met with senior CAIR officials, including Nihad Awad, Ibrahim Hooper, and “another person based in California in the Bay area.” That person, he later said, turned out to be CAIR co-founder and chairman emeritus Omar Ahmad. CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF case. In his cross examination by federal prosecutor James Jacks, Esposito said that he had attended a handful of CAIR events in the past 15 years. But he struggled to identify the last time he attended a CAIR event. It was three months ago in Dallas, Jacks said. He’s also scheduled to speak at a CAIR fundraiser in Tampa later this month. Although Esposito was a featured speaker at the Dallas event in August, he said he was unaware that the funds raised at the event went to the Muslim Legal Defense Fund, a nonprofit group set up to raise money to pay defense attorney’s fees in the HLF trial. That wasn’t his only appearance at a Dallas CAIR event. A year earlier, Esposito offered his wholehearted support for CAIR and its wishes to see the defendants set free in the HLF case, “Let me begin by saying that CAIR is a phenomenal organization….The main reason I decided to come was because of how I see the situation with regard to both the Holy Land Fund and the way government recently handled the situation and also to show solidarity not only with the Holy Land Fund, but also with CAIR.”

CAIR is an important part of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood that had its origins in the Hamas infrastructure in the U.S.

The report goes on to note that Esposito, despite describing himself as a “Muslim Brotherhood expert” could not identify the Egyptian Brotherhood’s motto and appeared to deny that global Muslim Brotherhood leader Youssef Qaradawi was anti-Semitic. Also, despite Esposito’s position on the board of the publication of the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), he claimed to be unaware of the connection between the UASR director and Hamas even though those connections had been raised by the media since at least August 1995.

The report goes on to note Esposito’s lack of knowledge concerning the recently released memo of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood calling for the destruction of Western civilization.

Jacks showed Esposito an internal Palestine Committee memo from 1991 outlining “the General Strategic Goal for the Group in America” and asked Esposito whether he was familiar with the document. Esposito said he had “read the document but had not done an analysis of it or studied it.” Jacks then read out the section on page 21, describing the Muslim Brotherhood’s role in America as a “Civilization-Jihadist process… eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” Esposito said he didn’t remember reading that section in the document. He then challenged the memo’s authenticity, saying “We do no know the source” but became silent when Jacks pointed out the author’s names appears on it. The author, Mohamed Akram was listed on the document and Akram was a member of UASR, Jacks said

Esposito, the head of Georgetown’s Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, has been a long-time supporter of the global Muslim Brotherhood and has espoused views consistent with Brotherhood doctrine. He has served on the advisory boards of Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas-linked organizations such as the Institute of Islamic Political Thought in the U.K. and the United Association for Studies and Research in the U.S. and has defended global Muslim Brotherhood leaders such as Youssef Qaradawi. Saudi prince Alaweed bin Talal donated $20 million to the Center for Muslim Christian Understanding at Georgetown, headed by Dr. Esposito.

Article printed from The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report: http://globalmbreport.com.

America Must Not Own a Sharia-Based Financial Business

by Jeffrey Imm

As Americans we generally have choices as to what we own, especially when such ownership of financial support is against the values defined by United States as a nation. However, on November 10, 2008, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department decided that they were going to use American taxpayer money to buy ownership in something against America's values of equality and liberty – by purchasing ownership in a company with a Sharia-Compliant Finance (SCF) based business.

As an American taxpayer, you are now a part owner in a business that promotes the Islamic supremacist Sharia ideology – whether you like it or not. Your tax dollars today are now being used for own part of a company with a Sharia-based business. This is the same Sharia ideology that was used by the Taliban in Pakistan today to murder a woman for adultery, the same Sharia ideology that was used to murder a 13-year-old girl last week who was raped in Somalia, and the same Sharia ideology supported by the Taliban, al Qaeda, and Islamic supremacists around the world. It is an ideology that is against the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty. It is an ideology that even the British courts have called "discriminatory."

But on November 10, 2008, the Federal Reserve announced that "it will purchase $40 billion of newly issued AIG preferred shares," which, as AP reports, will give "taxpayers an ownership stake in the company."

The Federal Reserve Board and the Treasury Department apparently believe that American taxpayers owning part of company with a business that promotes an Islamic supremacist ideology that is against equality, against liberty, and in support of discrimination, is a good thing for the American taxpayer.

Do you want to own a Sharia-based financial business promoting Islamic supremacism?

I first wrote about this subject on October 3, 2008 in an article titled "America Must Not Bail Out Sharia Finance." In that article, I pointed out how on September 16, 2008 that the Federal Reserve extended an $85 billion loan to AIG, and that the U.S. government was going to "receive a 79.9% equity interest in AIG." Less than a week after your government's September 16 bailout of AIG, AIG's Sharia-based business announced further expansion.

AIG's Takaful division has been selling Sharia-based insurance for over two years with a stated goal to sell such Sharia financial instruments in the United States. AIG SunAmerica, AIG Financial Services Corp, and other divisions of AIG also are dealers in Sharia mutual trusts.

Now part of this $85 billion loan to AIG (reducing it to $60 billion) has been converted into $40 billion of ownership of AIG stock – your ownership of AIG. AIG's business includes its Takaful Sharia-based insurance business, its divisions promoting Sharia finance and Sharia mutual trusts. You own it. That's where your tax dollars are going today.

The decision to buy this $40 billion of AIG stock was made based on the bailout authorized under the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" (H.R. 1424). According to Section 104 of the legislation, "Financial Stability Oversight Board," it is the responsibility of the U.S. Treasury Secretary, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Chairman of the Securities Exchange Commission, and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to ensure that policies enacted under this legislation are "in the economic interests of the United States."

How is it in the economic interests of the United States to own part of a corporation with a business based on promoting a discriminatory ideology, that is against equality, and that is against liberty? How is it in the economic interests of the United States to own part of business that supports an Islamic supremacist practice that has been used to fund Jihad?

Why wasn't the first priority of considering a bailout to AIG two months ago a prerequisite that AIG must first divest itself of its Sharia-based businesses that promote Islamic supremacism? Why should one dollar (let alone $85 billion) go to any company who owns a business that promotes a supremacist ideology? The federal government was not confronted on this in mid-September 2008. Now, the government has interpreted Americans' silence on issue to be acquiescence. So now, incredibly, today you as a taxpayer own part of an Islamic supremacist Sharia-based financial business. Do you want to? Do you think this is proper for American's tax dollars?

Moreover, this may not be the end of such absurdities by the U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve. On November 6, 2008, the U.S. Treasury Department featured a training class for government employees to learn more about Sharia Finance, entitled "Islamic Finance 101," which a coalition of groups and individuals against Sharia have protested.

Imagine if such "finance" dealings had involved any other identity-based supremacist ideology – white supremacist, black supremacist, Aryan supremacist. Can you imagine the U.S. government funding with your tax dollars a business promoting white supremacism or any other supremacist ideology? More troubling, could you imagine the U.S. federal government owning part of a business that promotes white supremacism or any other supremacist ideology? It would be a front page news story on every one of the major mainstream media outlets. There would be protests in the streets. There would be demands for the immediate resignation of those responsible.

But when your federal government purchases stock to own part of a business promoting Islamic supremacist ideology, it is not even a news story. There are no rallies. There are no demands for resignations. Such disgraceful, undignified silence is a dark day in America.

What type of federal government does America have that does not understand that supremacism is un-American? Fundamentally, absolutely, unequivocally un-American. What type of federal government does not understand that America was founded on and is based on the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty? What type of federal government leaders do we have that drive past the words hammered in marble that "All Men Are Created Equal," and don't understand the concept?

What American leaders and the American people must never forget is that the words "All Men Are Created Equal," does not come with any caveats or disclaimers. It is not "All Men Are Created Equal," except when it is inconvenient, unpopular, might upset supremacists, might raise the price of oil, or if we can just look the other way. The words are uncompromising. There is no Sharia exception, there is Islamic supremacist exception. There are no exceptions to the inalienable human right that "All Men Are Created Equal" - to all men and women. We hold these truths to be self-evident. We declare this as fundamental to the identity of the United States of America.

American human rights groups, American civil rights groups, and patriotic Americans everywhere have to take a stand on this latest disgrace. Our national honor has been besmirched long enough with those calling for "engagement" or "reconciliation" with Islamic supremacists. Now this latest indignity - American taxpayer dollars are funding the ownership of a company with a business in promoting Islamic supremacism.

We need to call for the following:
(a) The American people must call for the immediate freeze of all American taxpayer funds to AIG until it divests of its Sharia financial businesses.
(b) The American federal government must give AIG an ultimatum to divest itself of its Sharia business or the America federal government must divest all ownership in AIG.
(c) Those in the American federal government responsible for the bailout and purchase of AIG stock must resign, including the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board Chairman.
(d) Leaders in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives must lead a national investigation into Sharia-Compliant Finance (SCF) and Sharia financial businesses in America to end their ability to promote the Islamic supremacist ideology in America.

To that end, I ask you to support this petition that calls for the U.S. federal government to "end U.S. ownership" of Sharia-based financial businesses; the Anti-Jihad League of America will ensure that the Federal Reserve Board, the U.S. Department of Treasury, and our elected representatives see your support on this petition.

Fear No Evil.

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

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

The Ultimate Counterterrorism Weapon

by Douglas Farah

In the day-to-day discussions and actions to combat terrorism, particularly radical Islamist terrorism, we generally agree that it will be a long struggle that could last generations. I agree.

But it is useful to step back and realize there is a powerful weapon that we CAN use to great effect. Both presidential candidates agreed on it, and it is long overdue: that is to decrease our consumption of oil so that our money does not flow to those who want to destroy us.

The effects have already been dramatic, as this IHT article describes. Two regimes that pose direct threats to U.S, Latin American and Middle Eastern stability – Iran and Venezuela – are teetering on the edge of severe financial meltdowns because oil prices have dropped.

A third country that is increasingly willing to deal with rogue regimes – Russia – is also hard hit, although not to the degree of Iran and Venezuela. Saudi Arabia’s ability to fund the propagation of Wahhabi extremism and intolerance will also be curtailed if the prices stay down.

Why? Because these regimes conservatively built their budgets, including the expansionary weapons purchases, on oil averaging $80 to $90 a barrel. When it falls below that, particularly to where it has been recently, they are forced to choose between their expansionist and militarist dreams, and feeding their own people.

Both Obama and McCain focused on the fact that we spend billions of dollars buying oil from regimes that hate us and have a radically different view of what the world should look like than most of its neighbors. Both viewed the issue of energy independence as a matter of national security. While differing on the margins over where to drill and the priority given nuclear energy, the campaigns, representing candidates supported by about 96% of the voting population, were in agreement.

The choices are stark. Iran wants a Shiite theocracy, which puts it at odds not only with the West, but with the Sunni regimes. It cannot finance its nuclear program, its massive expansion into Latin America or terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Quds Force, without oil money. It has nothing else.

Venezuela wants a 21st century view of socialism and one party rule. Without oil money, Chávez cannot join Iran in pushing and financing the broad anti-democratic agenda he has established.

Bankrupting the enemy by cutting diminishing it export revenues is not a long-term proposition. It is happening now, with no formal policy in place to do this. And, unless policies are rapidly enacted to keep consumption low, the prices will inevitably rise again.

If the Obama administration can move quickly on this front, he will take a dramatic anti-terrorism action with no military or diplomatic actions needed.

There is a down side, at least in Venezuela. As oil revenues shrink, the Chávez government can replenish its coffers from the drug trade. It can survive, but it won’t because we are legally importing his products.

No mercy for jailed Border Patrol agent

There's no mercy for a former U.S. Border Patrol agent who remains behind bars for shooting a fleeing drug suspect. ....

Ramos and Compean are serving 11- and 12-year prison sentences, respectively, after a jury convicted them of violating federal gun laws and covering up the shooting of a drug smuggler as he fled back to Mexico after driving across the border with 743 pounds of marijuana in February 2005. U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton's office gave the smuggler, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, immunity to serve as the government's star witness and testify against the border agents.

The agents were convicted of assault, discharge of a weapon in the commission of a crime of violence, tampering with an official proceeding and deprivation of civil rights.

The court affirmed all convictions except for tampering with an official proceeding, which it vacated and remanded for resentencing.

The bulk of their sentences, however, stem from a mandatory 10-year minimum sentence imposed by Congress for anyone convicted of discharging a weapon in the commission of a crime. ....

U.S. 'must oppose' Islamic 'anti-defamation' demands

A Heritage Foundation expert warns that the U.S. will need to maintain active opposition to plans for "religious anti-defamation" laws both within its borders and on an international scale, or face consequences.

In a report published on the foundation's website, Steven Groves said the U.S. "must remain wary of continuing efforts by U.N. member states to gain wider acceptance of the 'defamation of religions' concept."

Proponents "will continue to push the 'defamation of religions' agenda at the U.N. Human Rights

Council, the U.N. General Assembly, and at other international forums such as the April 2009 Durban Review Conference," he warned. .... By Bob Unruh

London fundraisers linked to stoning of 13-year-old

LONDON – Britain's MI6 intelligence service has identified a group that raises funds with impunity in London as the organization whose militia members in Somalia imposed a death sentence on a 13-year-old rape victim, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

Known as the Shabaab, the ruthless militia is designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. The group's leadership was targeted by missile strikes earlier this year. ....

Iran test-fires new missile, Israel within reach

By Zahra Hosseinian

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran said it test-fired a new generation of surface-to-surface missile on Wednesday and that the Islamic Republic was ready to defend itself against any attacker.

Iran's latest missile test followed persistent speculation in recent months of possible U.S. or Israeli strikes against its nuclear facilities, which the West suspects form part of a covert weapons program, a charge Tehran denies. ....

SICK SURVEILLANCE: GOOGLE REPORTS FLU SEARCHES, LOCATIONS TO FEDS

GOOGLE will launch a new tool that will help federal officials "track sickness".

"Flu Trends" uses search terms that people put into the web giant to figure out where influenza is heating up, and will notify the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in real time!

GOOGLE, continuing to work closely with government, claims it would keep individual user data confidential: "GOOGLE FLU TRENDS can never be used to identify individual users because we rely on anonymized, aggregated counts of how often certain search queries occur each week."

Engineers will capture keywords and phrases related to the flu, including thermometer, flu symptoms, muscle aches, chest congestion and others.

Dr. Lyn Finelli, chief of influenza surveillance at CDC: "One thing we found last year when we validated this model is it tended to predict surveillance data. The data are really, really timely. They were able to tell us on a day-to-day basis the relative direction of flu activity for a given area. They were about a week ahead of us. They could be used... as early warning signal for flu activity."

Thomas Malone, professor at M.I.T.: "I think we are just scratching the surface of what's possible with collective intelligence."

Eric Schmidt, GOOGLE's chief executive vows: "From a technological perspective, it is the beginning."

Developing...