Alan Keyes: Stop Obama or U.S. will cease to exist

By Drew Zahn

Alan Keyes, a 2008 presidential candidate who is also a plaintiff in one of the many lawsuits challenging Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, charged at a pro-life rally that unless Obama's social and economic policies are stopped, the United States as we know it is over.

Keyes' comments were part of an interview with a reporter from KHAS-TV at a fundraiser for the AAA Crisis Pregnancy Center in Hastings, Neb.

"Obama is a radical communist, and I think it is becoming clear. That is what I told people in Illinois and now everybody realizes it's true," said Keyes, who ran unsuccessfully against Obama for the state's open Senate seat in 2004. "He is going to destroy this country, and we are either going to stop him or the United States of America is going to cease to exist."

Keyes also reasserted his belief that unless the question of Obama's eligibility to serve as president is answered definitively, America may face the startling crisis of an executive branch run by a "usurper."

"Is he president of the United States?" Keyes asked the reporter of Obama. "According to the Constitution, in order to be eligible for president you have to be a natural born citizen. He has refused to provide proof."

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 240,000 others and sign up now!

"I'm not sure he's even president of the United States," Keyes continued, "neither are many of our military people now who are now going to court to ask the question, 'Do we have to obey a man who is not qualified under the constitution?' We are in the midst of the greatest crisis this nation has ever seen, and if we don't stop laughing about it and deal with it, we're going to find ourselves in the midst of chaos, confusion and civil war."

Keyes, who stated he refuses even to refer to Obama as president, labeled the man in the Oval Office as "somebody who is kind of an alleged usurper, who is alleged to be someone who is occupying that office without constitutional warrant to do so."

Video of the interview can be seen below:

Keyes' comments included harsh criticism of Obama's policies on immigration, abortion, and the mortgage crisis. He concluded the interview by railing against the president's push for hundreds of billions of dollars in government economic stimulus spending.

"We are claiming that a bankrupt government can save a bankrupt banking system," Keyes said. "The fact that we have just elected an individual – who may or may not be qualified – and he presents silly ideas like this and says, 'Let's move forward now,' and we're all acting like the laws of economics have been repealed and we can actually afford to foot the bill with money nobody's got, this is insane.

"It's got to lead to the collapse of our economy," Keys declared, "and it's going to."

WND has reported on multiple legal challenges, including Keyes' case, that have alleged Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which 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."

Some claim he was not born in Hawaii, as he insists, but in Kenya. Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

The Keyes case is being handled largely by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, but others playing a key role in the legal actions include Orly Taitz of California as well as Philip Berg, both of whom already have had their arguments rejected as not worthy of hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:

• New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.


• Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama's original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Berg's latest appeal, requesting an injunction to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president, was denied.
  
  
• Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.


• Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.


• Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.


• Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
  
  
• Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
  
  
• In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
  
  
• In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
  
  
• In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.


• California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:

• In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
  
  
• In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
  
  
• In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
  
  
• In Washington, L. Charles vs. Obama.
  
  
• In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

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

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, which the state's procedures allowed at the time?

---

Related offers:

Sign the petition

Get "The Audacity of Deceit," and learn about the looming hostile attack on Judeo-Christian values and freedoms Americans hold dear

Will Obama bring the end of prosperity? How higher taxes will doom the economy – if we let it happen

Look who's seething over anti-Nazi warning! Comparisons between Nazi leader, Obama draws strong reaction

Whistleblower magazine's "THE SECRET LIFE OF BARACK OBAMA"

---

Previous stories:

Keyes: President 'has something to hide' about eligibility

'Sanctions' sought in eligibility case

State lawmakers: Prove you're president, Mr. Obama

Congress sued to remove prez from White House

More challenges fail in Supreme Court

Supreme Court refuses 2nd challenge to eligibility

Status report: The eligibility issue

Supremes turn down request to stop Electoral vote

Join exploding demand for citizenship documentation

Electors challenged to investigate birth dispute

Last few hours to FedEx Electoral College voters

Supremes turn down request to stop Electoral vote

Eligibility question? FedEx Electoral College members

Not even Supreme Court can kill citizenship dispute

Supreme Court denies citizenship challenge

More than 60,000 letters sent to U.S. Supreme Court

Petition to see the birth certificate

Will Supremes review citizenship arguments?

Imaging guru: 'Certification' of birth time, location is fake

Chasm dividing Americans over birth certificate widens

WND launches new forum on Obama's eligibility

Supremes to review citizenship arguments

'Constitutional crisis' looming over Obama's birth location

Obama camp: Lawsuits by citizens are 'garbage'

Will Supreme Court have say in presidency?

Obama’s Sleight of Mouth

by Bill Siegel

On February 4, 2009, President Barack Obama delivered an eloquent speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington. Attempting to persuade the world that he wishes to be the great uniter, his speech focused on, among other things, what peoples throughout the world seem to have in common.

Yet, when viewed from a different perspective, Obama seems to have engaged in a little three card monty with his treatment of Islam. Specifically, Obama said:

“But no matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent being. This much we know.”

The problem here is that, to many Muslims, the Koran certainly does promote hate. Without entering into the distracting question as to whether “Islam is a religion of peace” as many prefer to believe, there is no doubt that many Muslims now and throughout history – not simply a few crazy extremists – are taught to hate the infidel and to treat the non-Muslim according to such hatred.

More significantly, in Islam, “innocent being” carries a different meaning than it does for those brought up in Judeo-Christian cultures. The ultimate judge of innocence is Allah. Under Sharia, anyone who is not a Muslim is by definition guilty. And while it is certainly true that Islam does not condone the killing of innocent Muslims (except where it does), the question of who is “innocent” has various answers depending upon which Muslim is asked.

Obama followed this ruse with another hidden distortion. He stated:

“We know too that whatever our differences, there is one law that binds all great religions together. Jesus told us to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” The Torah commands, “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.” In Islam, there is a Hadith that reads “None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.” And the same is true for Buddhists and Hindus; for followers of Confucius and for humanists. It is, of course, the Golden Rule- the call to love one another; to understand one another; to treat with dignity and respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this Earth.”

This is a wonderful concept – to Westerners and others. And it is an unambiguously correct read of Christianity and Judaism at their cores. Unfortunately, his inserted interpretation of Islam is not shared by many Muslims, especially those who have been schooled in their religion. Specifically, this Hadith- Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 12: Narrated Anas: is often stated (as with the University of Southern California-Muslim Students Association compendium) as: The Prophet said, "None of you will have faith till he wishes for his (Muslim) brother what he likes for himself." This is because to most Muslims, “brother” means a fellow Muslim.

This notion is replete throughout Islamic teaching as with another Hadith: Bukhari Volume 3, Book 43, Number 622: Narrated 'Abdullah bin Umar: Allah's Apostle said, "A Muslim is a brother of another Muslim, so he should not oppress him, nor should he hand him over to an oppressor. Whoever fulfilled the needs of his brother, Allah will fulfill his needs; whoever brought his (Muslim) brother out of a discomfort, Allah will bring him out of the discomforts of the Day of Resurrection, and whoever screened a Muslim, Allah will screen him on the Day of Resurrection."

Clearly, this intrinsically Islamic concept of distinguishing fellow Muslims from all others is in direct contradiction of the very notion Obama tried to sell at the Breakfast. Many Muslim rulers have learned how to talk to two audiences, simultaneously satisfying what each wants to hear. Sadat spoke of “peace with justice” which meant one thing to Muslims (the ultimate elimination of the Jewish state [see www.FarewellIsrael.com]) and another to the Israelis who welcomed his gesture so thoroughly. Yasser Arafat was notorious for telling the West one thing while fueling hatred of the West with his own people.

Perhaps Obama, as one who claims to have given up the Muslim faith into which he was born, is simply unfamiliar with the reality of Islam and Sharia. Or is it possible that Obama, who seems to have not turned Christian until well into his twenties, knows full well the age old Muslim art of how to simultaneously send one message to the Muslim world while sounding fully politically correct to the non-Muslim world? Either case presents a true danger.

P.S. In 1899, Winston Churchill wrote the following about Islam in his book The River War:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property‹either as a child, a wife, or a concubine‹must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam

has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science‹the science against which it had vainly struggled‹the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

Perhaps this is why Obama, unprovoked, has returned the bust of Churchill that U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair gave George W. Bush after 9/11. Is there another message here to Muslims?

How much will you pay for Wall Street bailout?

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

By Chelsea Schilling

A grassroots online community dedicated to driving home the costs of the government's Wall Street bailout has created a calculator showing exactly how much each and every American family will pay for the spending spree. "Here's the deal," Right.org states. "A bunch of jet-set corporate executives made bad bets for their companies and lost, big time. Normally, these companies would go bankrupt. This time, our government is taking money from our families to prop up these insolvent companies."

Right.org describes itself as "a community of Americans who are intensely concerned about the bailout culture in Washington." One of those Americans, Evan Baehr, told WND the website grew out of conversations on an e-mail list of friends who work in journalism, finance, law and the non-profit sector.

"As the bailouts began in earnest last fall, two things dismayed us: First, how non-transparent they were; and second, how they contravened common sense and what we think as sound economics," he said.

Baehr said the government is forcing taxpayers to invest in assets the private sector won't touch and dodging inquiries into details about acquisition of the assets.

"Something had to be done, and we felt like there wasn't any voice out there gathering the opposition to these bailouts and bringing pressure to bear on Congress and the president," he said. "Americans deserve a better sense of what started the economic crisis, the types and sizes of bailout packages and what some possible ways out might be."

The website offers a calculator so every family may see how much they must pay in taxes to finance the Wall Street bailouts.

"TARP and the bailouts of Bear Stearns and Citigroup are just the tip of the iceberg," the website states. "So far, our government committed more than $8 trillion to funding failed companies (that's over $60,000 per family in America!). ..."

According to the calculator, with a total bailout of nearly $8.5 trillion divided among 300 million Americans, every man, woman and child in the U.S. would have a tax burden of $27,599. (The IRS reports there were only 138 million taxpayers in 2007, putting the load at $61,153.04 per taxpayer.)

The U.S. Census Bureau's 2005-2007 American Community Survey reports the median family income is approximately $60,374, and the average U.S. family is made up of three people. If every person were to pay for the Wall treet bailout, the calculator reveals that a family of three making $60,374 with a current income tax of $12,712 would face an additional tax of $5,333 each year to cover its costs – equal to a 42 percent tax increase.

In a period of 30 years at 5 percent interest, the calculator estimates the average family would pay $160,009 – or the cost of 12 Chevy Aveos

, six college tuitions, 123 iMacs and 40 vacations.

The website also offers an interactive bailout chart illustrating the government's cash commitments.

"What's worse? It's not making a difference," Right.org states. "The line for bailouts is growing, and includes the telecom industry, airlines, as well as city and state governments."

Calculations do not include costs to taxpayers associated with the Obama administration's newly approved $787 billion stimulus plan.

The website is circulating a petition to lawmakers demanding that they do force taxpayers to pay for corporate failures and asking them to sign the following oath:

I pledge to oppose all future bailout requests that would make my constituents pay for business or government failures that are not my constituents' fault. This pledge applies to bailouts in all forms, including loans or other financings, equity infusions or other investments, asset purchases, guarantees, and any other type of bailout transaction.

"This isn't so complicated: bailouts keep bad businesses afloat and prevent capital from flowing to productive areas of the economy," the petition states. "That puts jobs at risk and jeopardizes our competitive edge against foreign countries."

The group accuses President Obama of talking a "tough game about bailouts" but not following through on his promises.

"[H]is own stimulus package and his bank bailout proposal hand billions more of our dollars to failed companies," it says. "Urge the government to do what's right: Stop the bailouts!"

On Monday, Right.org will launch a video contest with a grand prize of $27,599 – the estimated tax burden for one American. Each contestant must submit a 30-second film explaining why they oppose the bailout.

"Spreading the word about the true size and impact of bailouts is the major push for us now," Baehr said. "Opposing bailouts isn't partisan. It's everyone's issue because it's everyone's dollar."

Obama backs Bush: No rights for Bagram prisoners

By NEDRA PICKLER and MATT APUZZO

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration, siding with the Bush White House, contended Friday that detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights.

In a two-sentence court filing, the Justice Department said it agreed that detainees at Bagram Airfield cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their detention. The filing shocked human rights attorneys.

"The hope we all had in President Obama to lead us on a different path has not turned out as we'd hoped," said Tina Monshipour Foster, a human rights attorney representing a detainee at the Bagram Airfield. "We all expected better."

The Supreme Court last summer gave al-Qaida and Taliban suspects held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the right to challenge their detention. With about 600 detainees at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan and thousands more held in Iraq, courts are grappling with whether they, too, can sue to be released.

Three months after the Supreme Court's ruling on Guantanamo Bay, four Afghan citizens being detained at Bagram tried to challenge their detentions in U.S. District Court in Washington. Court filings alleged that the U.S. military had held them without charges, repeatedly interrogating them without any means to contact an attorney. Their petition was filed by relatives on their behalf since they had no way of getting access to the legal system.

The military has determined that all the detainees at Bagram are "enemy combatants." The Bush administration said in a response to the petition last year that the enemy combatant status of the Bagram detainees is reviewed every six months, taking into consideration classified intelligence and testimony from those involved in their capture and interrogation.

After Barack Obama took office, a federal judge in Washington gave the new administration a month to decide whether it wanted to stand by Bush's legal argument. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd says the filing speaks for itself.

"They've now embraced the Bush policy that you can create prisons outside the law," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who has represented several detainees.

The Justice Department argues that Bagram is different from Guantanamo Bay because it is in an overseas war zone and the prisoners there are being held as part of a military action. The government argues that releasing enemy combatants into the Afghan war zone, or even diverting U.S. personnel there to consider their legal cases, could threaten security.

The government also said if the Bagram detainees got access to the courts, it would allow all foreigners captured by the United States in conflicts worldwide to do the same.

It's not the first time that the Obama administration has used a Bush administration legal argument after promising to review it. Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced a review of every court case in which the Bush administration invoked the state secrets privilege, a separate legal tool it used to have lawsuits thrown out rather than reveal secrets.

The same day, however, Justice Department attorney Douglas Letter cited that privilege in asking an appeals court to uphold dismissal of a suit accusing a Boeing Co. subsidiary of illegally helping the CIA fly suspected terrorists to allied foreign nations that tortured them.

Letter said that Obama officials approved his argument.

AP Interview: Transportation secretary says taxing how much we drive may replace gasoline tax

By JOAN LOWY

WASHINGTON (AP) — Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says he wants to consider taxing motorists based on how many miles they drive rather than how much gasoline they burn — an idea that has angered drivers in some states where it has been proposed.

Gasoline taxes that for nearly half a century have paid for the federal share of highway and bridge construction can no longer be counted on to raise enough money to keep the nation's transportation system moving, LaHood said in an interview with The Associated Press.....

Obama tells Spanish radio: Immigration reform coming

NEW YORK – President Obama affirmed in an interview with a Spanish-language radio show that his administration is preparing to push for a new round of "comprehensive immigration reform."

The White House confirmed to WND Obama was a guest on the Univision show "Piolin por la Manana," or "Piolin for the morning," hosted by Eddie "Piolin" Sotelo. A transcript of the interview, however, was not posted on the White House website. ....

Barricaded NYU Protesters Demand Aid For Gaza Jihadis

from FoundingBlogger

Drudge is running the headline, “NYU Students Barricaded Up To Protest Budget…“

Yeah, it is true that they are demanding to know where their $50,000 per year tuition money goes, but you have to read all the way to the very bottom of the article to find this little gem:

There are also other demands that don’t concern the budget. The group wants 13 scholarships a year provided for students of the Gaza Strip, and to give surplus supplies to the Islamic university in Gaza.

Hopefully they all find out exactly where their money is going, and hopefully they are all thrown out of school.

Is Twitter useful afterall?

Announcing $35M in new funding last Friday Twitter was one of the few bright spots in a collapsing economy. The micro-blogging service has been attracting increasing attention within the mainstream, as the political classes adopt the service – most notably, congressman Pete Hokestra (R-Mich.)who produced a stream of tweets detailing his location as he traveled from Andrew’s Air Force base to Baghdad and back. Besides the disbelieving head shaking this particular series of political tweets attracted, it does highlight the amorphous nature of Twitter -- it isn’t clear what it really is.

Certainly, the revenue model remains unclear, as does its true utility or even what the unintended consequences of using the service may be. In a National Security sense Twitter emerged as a powerful networked communications platform during the Mumbai terrorist attacks, when a stream of tweets marked #Mumbai (# being the global tagging system Twitter employs) gave a seemingly real-time commentary on events as they unfolded in Mumbai. Similarly, Twitter has been used to communicate the message and activity surrounding the riots in Greece using the #Griot tag. These are examples of the network effect working with a rapid communications platform and developing a powerful narrative from many different observation points. The style is anarchic but increasingly compelling.

Therefore, one argument regarding the long-term use of Twitter, in the National Security space at least, is that Twitter in conjunction with other tools, continues the trend of making ordinary citizens active producers of potentially actionable intelligence. This equally applies to Microsoft Photosynth and the meshing of user created digital platforms is a future trend, which doesn’t seem too far away. One of Twitter’s more recent high profile moments was the picture of the USAirways plane in the Hudson taken by an ordinary citizen who happened to be on a ferry, which went to the scene. This picture quickly and succinctly explained the situation to any emergency service in the area. This same principal can clearly be globally extended in terms of data and geographic reach. In fact it is the increasing penetration of mobile devices, which would seem to offer a bright future for the Twitter platform.

An area, which the Twitter platform excels in are the tools that can be used to manipulate the information within Twitter. This is where the open feel of the service suggests it somehow has more potential than the well designed social networking platforms such as Facebook. Information is messy and Twitter fits around this principle.

In order to examine Twitter we established a Twitter feed at www.twitter/In_Terrain. The idea behind this was to use the RSS feed Twitter tool TwitterFeed to push content of interest (such as the CT Blog) to a Twitter account and then examine ways in which this could be consumed. The results so far have been impressive. Twitterrific available for Apple products displays the security information feed in a very useful way. Tweetr for windows does a similar thing for Microsoft based systems. If users join Twitter they can chose to ‘follow’ the In_Terrain feed and receive the same information and potentially reply to specific tweets they find interesting – thus creating the ‘conversation’ Twitter, desires. Similarly, if other security and intelligence focused twitter feeds become apparent the In_Terrain twitter feed can ‘follow’ those conversations – thus beginning the network effect.

Clearly, this is still experimental and there are other avenues to explore with regard to GPS Twitter applications. The aim with the In_Terrain Twitter account is to generate tweets from mainstream information sources as well as the 'lower frequencies'. Starting a National Security focused tweet seems like an interesting idea right now – so I welcome CTBlog readers to ‘join the conversation’ – and please make suggestions for improvements or content additions. Maybe it will even become useful.

Skype Users Beware: Big Brother May Be Listening

by Annie Jacobsen

How do terrorists who know they’re being monitored by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) communicate with one another? Whenever I get the opportunity to interview people in the intelligence community, I always ask this question. One of the more interesting ways, I once learned, was that some terrorists were using the blogging software WordPress.

There’s a feature on WordPress that allows one blogger to write a draft of something which he/she then “saves as draft” but doesn’t publish. Along comes a second blogger, with proprietary access to the WordPress account, who then reads the draft written by the first blogger (in this case, terrorist), erases those words, and types his/her own message, which is then also saved as a draft. At first, the NSA had a hard time accessing the WordPress system. But then they did. For obvious reasons, I was not told how.

As for me, I talk to my sources on Skype, a software program that allows users to make telephone calls over the Internet for free. The headset you need costs about $59. It is common knowledge that the NSA can’t hack into Skype, which is why it’s a popular tool for anyone who worries, with good reason, that the NSA might be listening in on them — journalists, whistleblowers, and terrorists alike.

Apparently not for long. Internet technology reporter Lewis Page writes in The Register that a source at the Counter Terror Expo in London says, “America’s super secret National Security Agency (NSA) is offering ‘billions’ to any firm which can offer reliable eavesdropping on Skype IM and voice traffic.”

But maybe, just maybe, the NSA and Skype are already in bed together, and the billion-dollar offer being made is just another way to keep the journalists, whistleblowers, and terrorists talking. What better place for the spreading of disinformation than the Counter Terror Expo — in London, no less. Dr. Moshe Yudkowsky believes this may in fact be the case. A physicist and speech technology expert who writes for emerging technology giant O’Reilly.com, Yudkowsky cites a bizarre case in Hungary in March 2007 to make his point.

That’s when a then-Hillary Clinton presidential campaign staffer, who recently left a job at the NSA, was arrested on espionage charges. Hungarian police had examined the staffer’s briefcase and found a transcript between the head of the Hungarian police, a man named Laszlo Bene, and the head of the police in Brussels, Belgium, a man named Stefan Feller. The Clinton staffer confessed to eavesdropping, which in turn produced the transcript of the conversation between the two police chiefs.

But the eavesdropping process, Yudkowsky explains, was far from what you might expect. There was no “bug” hidden in a vase under a mantelpiece or stuck to a lamp. Instead, the “bug” was in the form of the already existing microphone on the Hungarian police chief’s computer. The police chief — like journalists, whistleblowers, and terrorists — also used Skype to communicate. Yudkowsky explains:

Sources in the Hungarian police department revealed that the background traffic associated with running Skype on a personal computer provides an ideal method to hide the transfer of data from an individual’s computer without the owner’s knowledge or consent. Skype can “turn on a computer’s microphone on command,” said a highly placed source, “and no one will be the wiser.” The data are routed to servers that use speech recognition to look for suspicious phrases. Furthermore, algorithms can use the sound of keyclicks to guess at which keys are being struck, which allows anyone listening to determine not only what is being said but what is being typed.

Immediately after the bust, the European Commission opened an investigation. Alain Brun, the head of data protection at the Commission, told reporters, “The suspect [i.e., Clinton staffer] worked at the U.S. National Security Agency, where he learned of an agreement between Skype and Echelon to enable a ’spy’ mode on all Skype products.” What has yet to be explained is: What did Hillary Clinton’s staffer need this information for? And where has this former Clinton staffer gone?

Dr. Yudkowsky found a source at Dean Witter who believes the Skype-NSA-as-bedfellows idea could explain how Skype has been making money. After all, its users are able to use it for free. “Outside payments by government agencies would explain how Skype can hope to make a profit,” the source told Dr. Yudkowsky. “Otherwise the purchase of Skype by eBay [in 2005] still doesn’t make sense.”

Maybe the NSA has spent its “billions” already, after all.

Magic Madrassa Bus comes to San Fran

The Bay Area Chapter of the Islamic Circle of North America will launch a bus ad campaign in San Francisco on today to encourage people to break stereotypes about Muslims.

People can expect to see the hot line (877) WHY-ISLAM and the Web site www.whyislam.org on the sides of more than 140 buses because the ICNA wants to make a point. ....

ACORN and Obama - together again

Michelle Malkin - Syndicated Columnist

Fresh off the trillion-dollar porkulus bill signing in Denver, President Obama immediately launched into his next New Raw Deal expansion: a massive mortgage entitlement program forcing lenders to refinance at an initial cost of $50 billion to $100 billion. That's in addition to the bipartisan-supported $50 billion in the "stimulus" bill to bail out homeowners underwater on their mortgages and the $2 billion in "neighborhood stabilization" funds to alleviate the foreclosure crisis.

In tandem with the White House Bad Borrowers Bailout, Obama's old friends at the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) are launching a new campaign of their own: the "Home Savers" campaign. What a coinky-dinky, huh? As with most of the bully tactics of the radical left-wing group, it ain't gonna be pretty. They are the shock troops on the streets doing the dirty work while the Community Organizer-in-Chief keeps his delicate hands clean.

Trumpets ACORN: l"On Feb. 19, ACORN members will launch a new tactic in fighting forclosures : civil disobedience. Participants in the ACORN Home Savers campaign nationwide will simply refuse to move out of foreclosed homes, or in some cases, will move back in. ACORN homesteaders intend to squat in their homes until a comprehensive, federal solution for people facing foreclosure is put in place."

ACORN's foot soldiers, funded with your tax dollars, will scream, pound their fists, chain themselves to buildings, padlock the doors and engage in illegal behavior until they get what they want. It's a recipe for anarchy. Threatens Baltimore ACORN's Louis Beverly, who calls himself a "Foreclosure Fighter":

"After you've used all your legal options, your last resort is civil disobedience. We're talking about families who have been in their homes 20 or 30 years. People who are assets in the community, who look out for the elderly, who have community associations, and these are the people being kicked out of the community."

We can all sympathize with good folks who can't pay their bills. But as I've said repeatedly in my criticism of the mortgage entitlement mentality embraced by both parties in Washington, home ownership is not a civil right -- and neither is home retention. Artificially propping up the housing market will only result in more of the same costly borrow-spend-panic-repeat cycles that got us into this mess in the first place. Failing corporations need to fail. So do failing home borrowers. This is borrowing from frugal renter Peter to pay profligate Paul's home loan.

Now that's the kind of theft that should be the subject of civil disobedience.

Instead, ACORN offices, funded with your tax dollars, are training teams of "Home Savers" -- described as "people ready and willing to mobilize on short notice to defend the homesteaders against attempts to evict them." Ready, willing and able to mobilize on short notice because they are either unemployed or employed full-time as ACORN shakedown artists.

Guess who's encouraging them to defy the law. Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, who told them: "Stay in your homes. If the American people, anybody out there is being foreclosed, don't leave." The housing bullies will be assisted by left-wing propaganda documentarians at the Brave New Foundation, headed up by Hollywood lib Robert Greenwald, who will disseminate sob stories to crank up pressure while Obama pushes his housing entitlement plan.

ACORN is targeting the following cities: Tucson, Ariz.; Oakland, Calif.; Los Angeles, Calif.; Contra Costa County, Calif.; Orlando, Fla.; Baltimore, Md.; New York, N.Y.; Houston, Texas; San Mateo County, Calif.; Denver, Colo.; Bridgeport, Conn.; Wilmington, Del.; Broward County, Fla.; Boston, Mass.; Flint, Mich.; Detroit, Mich.; Minneapolis, Minn.; Raleigh, N.C.; Durham, N.C.; Albany, N.Y.; Cincinnati, Ohio; Cleveland, Ohio; Pittsburgh, Pa.; and Dallas, Texas.

ACORN has waited three decades for this moment in the sun. And as Obama promised ACORN members at a forum in December 2007, "We're going to be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda. We're gonna be having meetings all across the country...so that you have input into the agenda." The moment is nigh. Prepare for lawlessness.

Bush Lied, People Died – But Did President Bush Really Lie?

(Compiler's note: Must read.)

by Herbert London

For at least five years there has been one consistent cri de coeur in the liberal community: “Bush lied.” Presumably he justified the invasion of Iraq by suggesting Saddam Hussein was attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. Never mind the fact that the Clinton administration agreed with this Bush assertion; IAEA inspectors concurred and the subsequent Dulfer report indicated Hussein was intent on acquisition of these weapons. But enriched uranium was not found; hence Bush lied.

Conventional wisdom has it as failed intelligence and Bush, willy nilly, is held culpable. Yet on July 5, 2008 the Associated Press (AP) released a story, almost completely unnoticed, that “a secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq.”

The opening paragraph in the story notes: “The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program, a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing the oceans.” Included in this “haul” was 550 metric tons of yellowcake used for nuclear weapons enrichment, a staggering sum that could have been used to produce dozens of nuclear weapons.

According to recent accounts the uranium was discovered in 2003, but the administration did not reveal the discovery fearing that terrorists would attempt to steal it. It was guarded in a 23,000 acre site with sand beams surrounding the area.

It would seem that this story would vindicate the Bush administration once the AP details were released. In fact, I waited and waited for precisely this result, but it hasn’t happened. Could it be that media leaders would be obliged to admit they were wrong about Bush? Might the entire Move On campaign against the Bush presidency be called into question if these facts were revealed to the public? One might well ask at this point, who did the lying?

Since yellowcake did exist in Iraq, it might appear that Valerie Plame and her husband Joseph Wilson, who have become darlings of the left by arguing Bush did not tell the truth about Hussein’s nuclear ambitions, were lying. Wilson wrote a piece in the New York Times slamming Bush, despite the fact President Mayaki of Niger said Hussein did try to buy yellowcake. Now we know the yellowcake did exist and it was held in Iraq, notwithstanding Wilson’s claim to the contrary.

It is often argued the truth will set you free. However, this episode suggests that may not be true. Interpretations of recent history by the president’s detractors would have to be rewritten. Clearly the Iraq war could still be opposed, but the argument that the president engaged in dissimulation won’t fly. That conclusion simply does not sit well with anti-war activists. In the case of these government detractors the bromide silence is golden applies.

In most respects this is a remarkable news story that very few want to touch. It is a demonstration that for many ideology trumps facts. It is evidence that the hatred for President Bush defies rational judgment. And this story indicates that for a segment of the population evidence will not, cannot, change a fixed opinion. Unfortunately the casualty in this tale is not merely George W. Bush and the Republican Party, but American history and those students who are obliged to study it.

The past is prologue to the present. And in the present context the issue of nuclear material and the Iraq war was a significant feature of the last presidential campaign

. Had the truth been known, had the media exposed the facts, the election might have turned out differently. Yes, there is something to be said for complete transparency, even in politics.

Israel’s Farewell Dossier? If They’re Not Doing It, They Should Be

by Nicholas Guariglia

Reuters recently reported that Israel has been involved in a “covert war of sabotage inside Iran” to thwart the mullahs’ efforts to acquire a nuclear bomb. The report cited a British newspaper, which itself referenced quotes from a “former CIA agent” and those unnamed but oh-so ubiquitous “intelligence experts.” Well, I initially thought, if the CIA says it’s true, it’s probably not — when was the last time they were spot on the money? — but there may be, after all, more than a morsel of truth to the reports.

Followers of Iran might recall the mysterious death of Ardashir Hosseinpour, a former nuclear scientist for the Islamic Republic. Dr. Hosseinpour, an expert on electromagnetism, was working on enriching uranium at Iran’s Isfahan nuclear facility before he was killed from “radioactive poising.” Throughout the years, other various high-ranking Iranian military and intelligence officials have “disappeared” from the world stage — or, less secretively, sought asylum in the West.

One excerpt from the Reuters report caught my eye, however:

Meir Javendafar, an Iran expert at Meepas, a Middle East analysis group, told Reuters there were also reports Iran was being sold faulty equipment for its nuclear program, and that there were attempts to disrupt the electricity supply to Natanz, a uranium enrichment facility in central Iran.

“I think there is sabotage going on. It’s a logical move and it makes sense in the game that is part of the overall struggle to disrupt Iran’s nuclear ambitions,” he said.

I do not know Mr. Javendafar personally, but he is a fellow writer at Pajamas Media whose journalism we all should take seriously. What he refers to is reminiscent of an often overlooked Cold War-era program called the “Farewell Dossier.” Are the Israelis conducting such sabotage against the Iranian nuclear program? Are they pursuing their own version of the Farewell Dossier? One thing is for sure: if they aren’t, they probably should be.

The Farewell Dossier was a secret Reagan initiative, at the time known to only a few men, and run by a single individual: Gus Weiss. According to Paul Kengor, in his marvelous book The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, Weiss was a force to be reckoned with: “Weiss was a behind-the-scenes foot soldier in the Reagan economic war… apolitical and nonideological, Weiss, who tinkered with game theory as a hobby, was married to public service and dedicated his life to it.”

The U.S. had long suspected Moscow of having an efficient and highly secretive program designed to steal Western technology, scientific and otherwise. In 1981, these suspicions were justified when Soviet defector Colonel Vladimir I. Vetrov fled the motherland for France. Vetrov was known as “Farewell,” and it was Vetrov who photographed more than 4,000 KGB documents proving the existence of stealth Soviet espionage.

French President Mitterand told a thankful Reagan of the Russian program, and the Reagan administration — CIA director Bill Casey and Gus Weiss, most notably — set out to implement a broad and audacious counter-intelligence effort. Weiss discovered that the Soviets had tasked two KGB units — code-named Directorate T and Line X — to literally steal Western technical know-how and American high-tech products. Kengor quotes Weiss: “the Soviet military and civil sectors were in large measure running their research on that of the West, particularly the United States. Our science was supporting their national defense.”

What did this mean? According to Kengor, “Radar, computers, machine tools, semiconductors — everything was an open book for them.” It was as if the Defense Department had been in an arms race with itself, to paraphrase a Pentagon official at the time. Thanks to Vetrov’s defection, 200 Line X officers were captured and more than 100 Line X initiatives were discovered.

What happened then is the stuff of Cold War legend, where a “mild-mannered economist named Gus Weiss,” to quote William Safire, “helped us win the Cold War.” Kengor explains:

In response to this wealth of information, Weiss planned an ingenious response, which he presented to Casey in December 1981: Because of Farewell, noted Weiss, Reagan’s NSC was suddenly in possession of a Line X shopping list of still-needed technology by the Soviets. Weiss offered a suggestion: U.S. counter-intelligence could intervene and supply some of these technologies, and even add enticing new technologies to the shelf, but with a fatal catch: these technologies would appear genuine but would later prove defective and destructive. Using the Soviet need for new technology as a weakness, the United States could sabotage the Soviet program (emphasis added).

The Reagan-Weiss-Casey plan was an unequivocal success, resulting in unknown victories that have only now become declassified. One such triumph occurred when “hidden malfunctions, including software… triggered a huge explosion in a Siberian natural gas pipeline” — what former Air Force secretary Thomas Reed described as a prime example of “cold-eyed economic warfare” against the Soviets.

Fidel Castro himself has recalled how furious Mikhail Gorbachev was as Western countries continued to arrest Soviet spies. Unaware of the Farewell Dossier, the Soviets operated in the total dark, completely unaware of what was occurring in American laboratories and industries. Unknowingly, they lusted what they claimed to loathe; finding themselves dependent on the very same people Khrushchev promised he would bury.

No doubt the mullahs find themselves in a comparable position. With global oil prices plummeting, they are financially strapped. Their allies in Iraq were humiliated militarily in 2007-08, and then politically in last month’s Iraqi elections. Their proxies in Gaza and Beirut are nursing their wounds. And their people, whom they incalculably fear, continue to detest their unquestioned theocratic rule.

The one thing the mullahs have going for them is the dual-dilemma of their atomic pursuits and the West’s own proclivity towards passivity. While the Israelis should be conducting their own Farewell Dossier program against Iran’s nuclear capabilities, this measure can only go so far. Sure, it might bankrupt the clerical regime — as it did the Politburo — but the mullahs, like vicious raccoons caught in a trash bin, will hang on to their country’s financial resources until the very last drop… all to cling to power.

As with the fall of the Soviet Union, support for democratic political opposition in Iran is essential. The United States has precious little time to act. If nothing of serious consequence occurs within the year, the Israelis themselves will be forced to handle the situation on their own.

And when that time comes, it won’t be so covert.

Iran holds enough uranium for bomb

Iran has built up a stockpile of enough enriched uranium for one nuclear bomb, United Nations officials acknowledged on Thursday.

In a development that comes as the Obama administration is drawing up its policy on negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear programme, UN officials said Iran had produced more nuclear material than previously thought. ....

Media/Gov't Mum—Frightening Documentary on Muslim Terrorist Camps in America

(Compiler's note: Hard to believe, but here is the proof -- must read, must see. And the government is doing nothing to stop them. Yes they have prepared HR45 to take guns away from American Citizens but nothing to stop JIHAD Guerilla Training Camps in America. There are 35 locations functioning today. Watch the Hanity video.)

Jihad Camps in America http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcJ_hhe1ip4

Hannity had this on last night.

Currently 35 terrorist training camps spread across the USA and run by Sheikh Gilani from Pakistan.

They are called “Soldiers of Allah” or “Jamaat ul-Fuqra” and are training in your own backyard

Some of their most active camps are:

- Trout Creek Pass, Colorado (over 100 acres)
- Red House Virginia (over 120 Acres)
- Mecca Circle, Wayne County, GA
- Islamber, NY (considered their headquarters)
- Holy Islamville, SC (another huge compound and extremely active)
- Baladullah, CA (Huge and also extremely active)
- A new one PA (Wayne County)
- Fairfax, VA
- York, SC
- Hancock, NY
- Deposit, NY
- Springfield, MA
- Philadelphia, PA
- Hyattsville, MD
- Bethany, WV
- Meherrin, VA
- Dover, TN
- Commerce, GA
- Jessup, GA
- Marion, AL
- Talhina, OK
- Houston, TX
- Coldwater, MI
- Buena Vista, CO
- Oak Hill, CA
- Onalska, WA
- ETC ETC ETC

Sheikh Gilani was the one who Daniel Pearl was going to meet, but is allegeded that he sent his operatives to capture him instead. Now this Sheikh, who is a known international terrorist, funds and runs this camps across the US

Here’s the website for ordering the documentary from the people that Hannity had on last night. It’s very slow and I suspect being bombarded for orders right now.

http://www.christianaction.org/homegrownjihad.aspx

Source: Strains, threats hurt military readiness

(Compiler's note: Seems to me that we can see where a real "stimulus" is needed -- military hardware. I'm confident that would also increase the number of jobs!!)

By LOLITA C. BALDOR

WASHINGTON (AP) - For the third consecutive year, a classified Pentagon assessment has concluded there's a significant risk that the U.S. military could not respond quickly and fully to any new crisis, The Associated Press has learned. The latest risk assessment, drawn up by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, comes despite recent security gains in Iraq and plans for troop cuts there.

The assessment finds that the U.S. continues to face persistent terrorist threats, and the military is still stretched and strained from long and repeated tours to the warfront.

Senior military officials spoke about the report on condition of anonymity because it is a classified document.

Prepared every year, and routinely delivered to Congress with the budget, the risk assessment paints a broad picture of the security threats and hotspots around the world and the U.S. military's ability to deal with them. Mullen has delivered it to Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Because the threat is rated as significant, Gates will send an accompanying report to Congress outlining what the military is doing to address the risks. That report has not yet been finished.

This year's assessment finds many of the same global security issues as previous years - ranging from terrorist organizations and unstable governments to the potential for high-tech cyber attacks. It also reflects the Pentagon's ongoing struggle to maintain a military that can respond to threats from other countries, while honing newer counterinsurgency techniques to battle more unconventional dangers, such as suicide bombers and lethal roadside bombs.

Daniel Goure, vice president of the Lexington Institute, a military policy research group in Arlington, Va., said the assessment would take into account the strains on the force, the wear and tear on aircraft and other military equipment, and a whole host of global flashpoints.

"This is a chairman who looks around the world and sees - right now, today - immediate, near-term problems like North Korea, the larger questions of Pakistan and its future, Iran and what is going on there, Russia and Georgia, Venezuela, which has a close relationship with Russia and is buying arms all over the place, and Cuba," Goure said.

While officials are preparing to reduce troop levels in Iraq, they are increasing their forces in Afghanistan - giving troops little break from their battlefield tours. The Pentagon has repeatedly stressed ongoing efforts to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps, but that growth is only now starting to have an impact.

There are 146,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and 38,000 in Afghanistan - 19,000 in the NATO-led force and 19,000 fighting insurgents and training Afghan forces.

One senior military official said that while there have been security gains in Iraq, military units leaving there have been sapped by repeated war tours that have also battered their equipment and vehicles. It will take time to restore the force and repair or replace the equipment. In other cases, equipment has been left in Iraq for use by the steadily growing Iraqi security forces.

Two years ago, then-Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace raised the risk level from moderate to significant, pointing to an overall decline in military readiness that he said would take several years to correct. A year later, Mullen maintained that risk level, saying that strains on the military, persistent terrorist activity and other threats had prevented the Pentagon from improving its ability to respond to any new crises.

Last year, Gates listed increased intelligence gathering as a key need to address military shortfalls. Since then, the Pentagon has steadily increased its inventory of unmanned aircraft, boosting the number of 24-hour unmanned air patrols over the Iraq and Afghanistan battlefront from 24 to 33.