Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Libyans: Al-Qaida handled 'security' at Tripoli embassy

Documents show assignment ran through at least spring of 2012

According to a report published today by Shoebat, the confirmation comes from a letter dated Aug. 30, 2011, that informs the al-Qaida member that he now has responsibility for security in Tripoli, “to include all international embassies.”

The letter was to Abdel Hakim al-Khowailidi Belhaj and it was signed by Mustafa Muhammad Abdul Jalil on behalf of the National Transitional Council, with which the U.S. was working at the time after Moammar Gadhafi fell from power in Libya.

Belhaj previously has been described by al-Qaida kingpin Ayman al-Zawahiri as “the amir of the mujahideen, the patient and steadfast [Belhaj].”

Shoebat, who was joined by Ben Barrack in the investigation of the document, said the letter was from “a treasure trove of secret documents” that was obtained by a Libyan source.

“It shows that in supporting the removal of Gadhafi, the Obama administration seemed to sign on to an arrangement that left forces loyal to al-Qaida in charge of security at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli from 2011 through at least the spring of 2012,” they wrote.

Shoebat’s translation of the letter reveals it said, “We would like to inform you that you have been commissioned to the duties and responsibilities of the military committee of the city of Tripoli. These include taking all necessary procedures to secure the safety of the Capital and its citizens, its public and private property, and institutions, to include all international embassies. To coordinate with the local community of the city of Tripoli and the security assembly and defense on a national level.”

Shoebat explained that al-Zawahiri’s endorsement of Belhaj came in a 2007 interview that was replayed by ABC.

The report also said that Belhaj had been identified as “a Libyan rebel and a moderate person who commands wide respect,” but Shoebat noted the source of that statement was “a leader with the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood” – Ali Sulaiman Aujali.

Aujali appeared at a convention for the Islamic Society of North America, considered by many to be a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood in America, just a few weeks before vouching for Belhaj, Shoebat reported.

And the Libyan ambassador to the U.S. reported at one point that “[Belhaj] should be accept[ed] for the person that he is today and we should deal with him on that basis.”

The Benghazi controversy has been developing since Sept. 11 when on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in an organized terror attack there.

While evidence now reveals that the White House knew almost immediately that terror was suspected, for weeks after officials were blaming the deaths on Muslims being upset over a trailer of an online movie that purportedly criticized Muhammad.

There also now are reports that there were orders for the military to stand down and not respond to the calls for help from Benghazi, and also reports that there was video being streamed back to the U.S. of the attack.

The report from Shoebat said the documents from Libya suggest secularists there increasingly want to see Mitt Romney defeat Obama – despite Muslim Brotherhood losses in Libyan elections last year.

Shoebat is the grandson of the Muslim Mukhtar of Beit Sahour-Bethlehem, who was a friend of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj-Ameen al-Husseni, who was a friend of Adolf Hitler.

After serving as a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and participating in acts of terror against Israel, Shoebat studied the Tanach, the Jewish Bible, in a challenge to convert his wife to Islam.

He reports himself, six month later, he realized “that everything he had been taught about Jews was a lie.”

He said he was convinced he had been on the side of evil, so became an advocate for his former enemy.

More ballots for Romney come up Obama

'You want to vote for who you want to vote for'

by Joe Kovacs ? WND

Are voting machines not properly recording the intended votes of American citizens this election cycle?

With early voting underway already, more examples are being found across the nation of problems at polling places.

The latest comes from Marion County in the battleground state of Ohio, where Joan Stevens tried to vote for Mitt Romney Monday on an electronic touch screen, but Barack Obama’s name kept lighting up.

According to the Marion Star, it took her three tries for her choice to be accurately recorded.

“You want to vote for who you want to vote for, and when you can’t it’s irritating,” Stevens said.

Stevens says she alerted Jackie Smith, a Board of Elections member, who reportedly told her the machine had been having problems all day.

Stevens also reported her concern to Sophia Rogers, the director of the Board of Elections for Marion County.

The Star says Rogers indicated the machine had worked fine when she and others tried using it, and suggested the problem may have been improper use, such as not hitting the button directly or tapping with more than one finger.

“I know how to do the voting,” Stevens said, affirming she was aware of how to use the device.

Rogers contacted the machine’s vendor to inspect the device.

“Because of her issue, we had that machine recalibrated,” Rogers said. “I am certain the equipment works properly.”

Meanwhile, this is not the only case of voting-machine problems.

Just last week, there were similar cases documented at several polling places in North Carolina, in Guilford County, Jamestown and Pleasant Garden.

Sher Coromalis says she cast her ballot for Romney, but the machine defaulted to President Obama each time.

“I was so upset that this could happen,” Coromalis told WGHP-TV. “I should have just mailed it in.”

Marie Haydock, who also voted at the Bur-Mil Park polling location, had the same problem.

“The frustration is, every vote counts,” said Haydock.

Faurest Stum voted at the Pleasant Garden Town Hall location, and says her vote was for Romney, but the machine cast the vote for Obama.

“I thought this might be a one-time glitch in the machine. I had no idea that it might be happening somewhere else. This is when I called in and said this needs to stop,” she told WGHP.

George Gilbert, director of the Guilford County Board of Elections, indicated the machines had to be recalibrated.

“If you have calibration issues, it’s not systematically one way or another. It can go either way – and it has,” said Gilbert.

He says the voting machines are checked daily, and the problem is not unusual, as they popped up during the 2008 presidential election as well.

Voters who complained were able to get their vote corrected.

“To all those people that haven’t voted yet, encourage them to review their ballot before they cast their vote,” said Gilbert.

WGHP notes Guilford County switched to touchscreen voting in 1994, and the electronic machines were purchased in 2006 from Electronic Systems Software.

The problems are apparently not just limited to presidential voting.

“We here in Southern Maryland (solid GOP territory) are experiencing similar dirty tricks with respect to polling machines,” says WND reader Gary Knight.

“During early voting, several Republican voters in Calvert County cast their ballots for the Republican candidate for Congress, but when the ballot was summarized prior to locking it in, the incumbent Democrat’s name came up.”

The True the Vote website has created a National Election Integrity Hotline, saying, “If you see something at the polls that just doesn’t seem right, let us know.”

Its phone number is 855-444-6100 and email address is

The voting-machine glitches are just one of numerous concerns about potential voter fraud issues this cycle.

One issue is foreign involvement in the election process.

WND has reported that SCYTL, an international firm headquartered in Spain, has been contracted by a handful of states to provide secure online ballot delivery for overseas military and civilian voters for the presidential election. The states are New York, Arkansas, Alabama, West Virginia, Alaska, Mississippi, plus the federal territory of Puerto Rico.

There is also a staggering decline in absentee vote requests.

Florida had 37,953 requested ballots as of last month as opposed to 86,926 in 2008 – a difference of 48,973. North Carolina only has 1,859 requests listed compared to 13,508 in 2008.

A report released in February by the Pew Center on the States said America’s voter registration rolls are in disarray.

The report found one in eight active registrations is invalid or inaccurate, and one out of every four people eligible to vote, some 51 million voters, are not even registered.

The New York Times noted: “The report found that there are about 1.8 million dead people listed as active voters. Some 2.8 million people have active registrations in more than one state. And 12 million registrations have errors serious enough to make it unlikely that mailings based on them will reach voters.”

“These problems waste taxpayer dollars, undermine voter confidence and fuel partisan disputes over the integrity of our elections,” David Becker, director of election initiatives at the center, told the Times.

The Benghazi Terror Attack: Hard Facts and Fair Questions  

By: Austin Bay  / Townhall Columnist

The Benghazi Terror Attack: Hard Facts and Fair Questions
The relentless drip, drip, drip dominating the final days of the presidential campaign isn't a rainsquall spawned by Hurricane Sandy, it's the slow release of disturbing information about the al-Qaida-inspired 9-11-2012 terror attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

The slow release of solid information about the attack is politically and institutionally corrosive. Speculations and rumors magnify the corrosive effects, but the rumors are spurred by the Obama administration's troubling reluctance to answer legitimate questions still unanswered 50 days after the attack.

The administration's reluctance compounds the damaging effects of its insistence that an anti-Muslim Internet video, the product of a California crank, incited anti-American violence in Egypt and Libya. In what political opponents characterize as a guilty echo of Richard Nixon's pliable accounts of Watergate, the Obama administration's video-did-it narrative has become "non-operative" regarding Benghazi. President Barack Obama himself now claims he called the incident a terror attack on Sept. 12, but his claim relies on a very generous parsing of his Rose Garden statement. The Washington Post's media blog concluded, "... reporting that the president referred to an 'act of terrorism' (on Sept. 12) appears to overstep the factual terrain."

Obama hedged on Sept. 12. For another week, senior administration officials continued to condemn the video, leaving the public with the definite impression that the Benghazi assault was spontaneous and the video, protected by America's fundamental commitment to free expression, incited explicable anger. On Sept. 18, White House press secretary Jay Carney asserted that the video "precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi." If the video played a role, then America was somehow at fault.

Why would the administration insinuate a video directly, and America indirectly, were to blame for Benghazi? In 2009, Obama intimated that his presidency would dramatically change Arab Muslim perceptions of America. His sympathetic political appeals to Muslims were "smart diplomacy" that would dampen militant hostility. His America no longer waged a War on Terror, but conducted an "overseas contingency operation."

Though he has never equated killing Osama bin Laden with defeating al-Qaida, Obama has insistently touted that raid and his administration's aggressive Predator drone attacks on al-Qaida as evidence that he has weakened al-Qaida.

The Benghazi attack, if it proved to be a planned attack rather than a spontaneous response to a video created without Obama's approval, would call into question at a politically inconvenient moment the fundamental assumptions that guide his administration's Middle Eastern diplomacy -- in particular, the history-changing impact of his own personality and his insistence that his diplomacy is smart. A planned attack would also demonstrate that the Terrorists War on America continues, no matter what George W. Bush and Barack Obama call the conflict, and that al-Qaida remains capable of orchestrating terror attacks that have strategically deleterious effects on U.S. policy.

The video-did-it narrative gave Obama a political shield to deflect criticism of personally dear policies and achievements. It also gave the old community organizer a rhetorical cudgel to wield against intolerant, Muslim-despising bigots in America. Partisan Democrats connect those code words to bitter clingers -- Republican rubes who cling to their guns and religion while waging war on women. Obama went with, then stayed with, the video narrative because he and his campaign advisers believed it was a foreign policy shield and domestic political sword.

Truth will out. Hard facts have emerged -- facts that explain the assault far better than the video-did-it tripe. Administration sources acknowledge that the attack lasted seven hours. I did not know this when I wrote a column on Sept. 18 that questioned the now-debunked "spontaneous" narrative. I contended that everyone who made it through basic training knows that organizing several hundred fighters with support weapons "does not happen spontaneously. Their commanders needed time to ... plan the attack and then make sure the fighters had rifle ammo."

A seven-hour firefight in a city is sustained combat engagement. It indicates the attackers had plenty of ammo. I've also learned that two of our dead were former SEALs, two Americans with the will and military skill to take on several hundred militiamen. The seven hours they fought is plenty of time to dispatch reinforcements -- at the minimum an air strike. Did they request support, as one news report claims? If so, were their requests denied? Who denied them? Was military support denied because it might violate Libyan sovereignty? These are reasonable questions that demand honest answers. The president should answer them before Nov. 6.

Funny, huh: Gasoline Prices Down in Battleground States

Six months ago, we used Google's Fusion Tables to create interactive heat maps to visualize the actual price of a gallon of gasoline across the United States. We're updating that exercise today:


Average Price of a Gallon of Gasoline at the Pump

Our first chart visualizes the average price that consumers are paying per gallon of gasoline at the pump when they fill up their vehicle's gas tanks, as of when we sampled it on 21 October 2012 as recorded by GasBuddy:


Average Combined Federal, State and Local Gasoline Taxes

Of course, the price people pay at the pump is jacked up by the combined total of federal, state and local gasoline excise taxes that are imposed by federal state and local governments. Our next chart shows how much gasoline prices are increased by these taxes on average by state, using data recorded by the American Petroleum Institute:

By contrast, oil companies make about 7 cents in profit for each gallon of gasoline they sell. The U.S. federal government by itself collects 18.4 cents for each gallon of gasoline sold in the United States - about two and a half times the take of what the people who actually work to produce and distribute gasoline across the nation earn.


Actual Price of a Gallon of Gasoline by State

By subtracting out these combined taxes, we can find the actual price of a gallon of gasoline in each state:

Looking at the map, gasoline prices have fallen the most per gallon in Illinois (-$0.58), Michigan (-$0.49), Indiana (-$0.46), Ohio (-$0.42), Wisconsin (-$0.42) and Missouri (-$0.41) since March 2012. Meanwhile, 12 states saw price drops between $0.20 and $0.31 per gallon, another 9 states saw price drops between $0.11 and $0.19 per gallon, 10 states saw single digit price per gallon drops and the actual price of gasoline is now higher than it was in March 2012 in 13 states.

The Associated Press notes that much of that price drop in the upper midwest is a very recent development:
The average price at the pump fell 22 cents in Ohio and 16 cents in Wisconsin in the past week. Those are two key battleground states in the presidential election, with 18 and 10 electoral votes, respectively.
Here's the electoral vote count for the states that saw the biggest gasoline price drops:
  • Illinois (21 votes)
  • Michigan (17 votes)
  • Indiana (11 votes)
  • Ohio (20 votes)
  • Wisconsin (10 votes)
  • Missouri (10 votes)
In 2008, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Missouri were all considered to be battleground states in the presidential election. Three of these states, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin are considered to be toss ups for the 2012 election.

Funny how the biggest gasoline price drops by state in 2012 match up so well with that list....

"We leave nobody behind"...oh really
By: Diane Sori

Boy am I mad...seething in fact! 

Yesterday, Barack HUSSEIN Obama had the audacity to issue this statement, “This is a tough time for a lot of people; millions of folks all across the Eastern Seaboard, but America's tougher. And we're tougher because we pull together, we leave nobody behind, we make sure we respond as a nation and remind ourselves that whenever an American is in need, all of stand together to make sure we're providing the help that's necessary.  

Oh really...what about the 4 Americans deliberately and with malice left behind to be brutally slaughtered in Benghazi...what about them...was it a tough time for them...

Telling ‘We the People’ something he didn’t believe during the seven-hour attack on our consulate in Benghazi that when an American is in need…'we leave nobody behind,' this miserable excuse of a president is using the suffering of those currently hurting from the storm while playing to the media for attention in the waning days of his faltering campaign.   

These four words ‘we leave nobody behind’ are especially vile for the question as to why this was done still looms large and still goes unanswered.

And while both Obama and Mitt Romney have toned down the campaign rhetoric during this time of crisis, one is out there rolling up his sleeves and actually doing something of substance while the other makes speeches and visits a Red Cross shelter for a photo-op.  

As Obama heads off today to survey devastated New Jersey with camera and media crews right by his side, the difference between him and Mitt Romney becomes even more apparent.  Mitt Romney is NOT issuing perfunctory statements or making a token appearance but instead is organizing caravans of food, water, and needed supplies to send to the devastated areas.  And he's doing the roll up your sleeves hands-on work of boxing and loading said goods.  

The storm called al-Qaeda brewed and simmered for months in Benghazi and Obama did nothing yet covered-up everything...but when a storm named Sandy blows through in a day he’s on it as fast as you can say ‘photo-op.’   While as president it is his duty to help Americans after a natural disaster it is also his duty as Commander-in Chief to help Americans in need in foreign lands especially when those Americans are there in service to our country.  

Obama failed Ambassador Stevens and the others, now we’ll see if he fails and leaves behind those hurt by the storm.  He’ll say the right words so needed for his campaign fodder but will he follow-up on those words with much needed actions...I think we all know the answer to that.

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

What the Election Won't Settle 

By: John Andrews  / Townhall Columnist

What the Election Won't Settle
I'm reminding all my friends here in Denver not to believe their vote is worthless. Our swing state’s nine electoral votes could hand the presidency to Romney or Obama -- and the Colorado outcome in 2012 could turn on a few hundred ballots, much like the Florida outcome in 2000.
Historians point out that within months of achieving statehood in 1876, Colorado with its measly three electoral tipped the presidential election for Rutherford B. Hayes. Yet the dominant issue of that era, equal rights for former black slaves, wasn’t settled by the election. It troubled the American conscience for almost another century.
So in battling over the high stakes to be decided between the candidates next week, we need to recognize how much this election will NOT settle. It’s folly to assume that the Nov. 6 verdict ties a ribbon around everything. “Keeping the republic,” our task as free citizens in Benjamin Franklin’s words, is a marathon not a sprint.
Whether your ticket wins or loses, we’ll all wake up in the same America as before. It’s an America where neither Republicans nor Democrats have yet shown the backbone to keep our deficits and debt from worsening to the level of Greece -- with broke California, no longer the Golden State, leading the way. Think that will suddenly change in 2013?
An AP profile on Xi Jingping, soon to be president of China, says he will assume power confident in “Beijing’s belief that its chief rival Washington is in decline.” Osama bin Laden’s taunt that America is a “weak horse” echoes from beyond the grave, emboldening al Qaeda in Libya, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the mullahs in Tehran.
Much as I favor the GOP, one party’s victory won’t instantly dispel those doubts. For they arise from what a smart investor or a winning coach calls the fundamentals. Those who are short-selling the USA take note of the actuarial tables for the rise and fall of great nations – which predict a lifespan of about 250 years – and the indicators of slackness in our national character.
They look at what has been called the Tytler cycle, whereby a people climbs up from bondage through faith and courage to liberty and abundance, but then slides down through complacency and apathy into dependency and finally into bondage again. Detractors see America in the late afternoon of our greatness, with darkness coming on. Can we prove them wrong? Absolutely, but it will take more than campaign slogans.
The worst deficit our country faces, looking beyond election 2012, isn’t in jobs, budgets, pensions, or infrastructure. It’s not in energy, health, education, or national security. It is the deficit of personal responsibility. In our enjoyment of liberty and abundance, we’re in danger of forgetting that the price of both is responsibility and self-discipline. Our experiment in freedom on the cheap is running out of time.
 A president who constantly ducks responsibility and blames others is but a symptom of this. We elected him with our eyes wide open. Voters took a chance – in hindsight, an irresponsible gamble – on the hip young community organizer over the crusty old war hero. The Obama phenomenon merely shows how far the celebrity culture has gone in swamping principled self-government.

Media elites didn’t care when Obama flew to Vegas for a fundraiser the day Ambassador Stevens was assassinated in an act of war. They shrugged when the former drug dealer Jay-Z threw a party for him. But few noticed either when Kid Rock, whose songs were too dirty for radio, opened for Romney in Denver the other day. Chill out, man.
I hope Mitt wins. He’ll do our country proud. But the rebirth of responsibility that America needs, if we’re to survive, isn’t up to him or any politician. It’s up to the person in the mirror: you and me.

Romney, Not Obama, Shows Concern For Nation's Poor 

By: Byron York  / Townhall Columnist

He's done it for a long time. Go back to Romney's March 30 speech in Appleton, Wis., in which he introduced the charge that President Obama is creating a "government-centered society." "Over 46 million Americans are now living in poverty, more than ever before in our nation's history," Romney said. "In households with single moms, over 39 percent are living in poverty."

In speech after speech since then, Romney has included the nation's poverty rate in his case against Obama.

"Today, more Americans wake up in poverty than ever before," he said in his address to the Republican convention in Tampa, Fla., on Aug. 30. "Look around you. These are not strangers. These are our brothers and sisters, our fellow Americans." Romney also brought up poverty at both presidential debates that covered domestic policy.

In contrast, President Obama rarely utters the word, and usually not in a campaign context. For example, he mentioned poverty at the dedication of the Cesar Chavez National Monument in Keene, Calif., on Oct. 8, but mostly to discuss the conditions Chavez addressed in the 1960s and '70s. Obama spoke the word again in his Sept. 25 address to the United Nations -- also not a campaign speech -- but only in the context of discussing religious tolerance around the world.

In his speech to the Democratic convention in Charlotte, N.C., Obama said "poverty" twice, once when discussing a hypothetical "little girl who's offered an escape from poverty by a great teacher or a grant for college," and later when declaring, "We know that churches and charities can often make more of a difference than a poverty program alone." Neither reference suggested there is a particularly acute poverty problem right now.

In short, even though the fight against poverty has long been associated with Democrats, and even though he is in a tight re-election race, and even though poverty is a particularly compelling problem at the moment, Barack Obama ignores the issue when it comes time to campaign. A sky-high poverty rate doesn't fit his theme that things are getting better. So he doesn't talk about it.

But the problem is still there. According to the Census Bureau, the poverty rate has gone from 12.5 percent in 2007 to 13.2 percent in 2008 to 14.3 percent in 2009 to 15.1 percent in 2010 to 15.0 percent in 2011. The last time it was higher than 15.1 percent was in 1965, when the nation's anti-poverty programs were just taking effect.

According to aides, Romney has thought about, and been concerned about, poverty his entire life. They point to a biographical video the Romney campaign produced for the Republican convention and now plays before campaign events around the country. The video features old film of George Romney, Mitt's father, saying, "I've been poor. I've worked from the time I was 12. I know what poverty is, I've been up through it."

Indeed, on the stump, Mitt Romney often talks about his father's modest beginnings. "There were times in my dad's life when he lived in poverty," Romney said in a speech to a Hispanic group in June. "My dad didn't finish college ... He held odd jobs -- lath and plaster and selling paint. He was lucky enough to live in America, where hard work can turn aspirations into realities." The elder Romney went on to become CEO of American Motors and, later, governor of Michigan.

Of course, Mitt Romney never lived in poverty and is today fabulously wealthy. But he heard his father every day growing up, and it's probably fair to say that he hears him still today. And so Romney thinks about poverty and what to do about it. He believes his proposals to spur economic growth will lift large numbers of Americans out of poverty. And he's willing to talk about it.

The irony is that, after the leak of the "47 percent" video on Sept. 17, Romney has fought the charge that he doesn't care about the poor. But the fact is, if you listen to both Romney and Obama on the stump, you will hear concern about the nation's poor from one candidate and virtually nothing from the other.

NYU terrorism class asks students to plot terrorist attack

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

Given the fact that American college campuses are generally places where counter-jihadists cannot venture without bodyguards, and where they are routinely libeled with no opportunity given for rebuttal, and where they are shouted down and physically threatened when they do speak, this is no surprise: jihad terror is chic these days. It's multicultural. It's Leftist. It's cool. Marie-Helen Maras is meanwhile probably deeply concerned about "Islamophobia."

"NYU terrorism class asks students to plot terrorist attack," by Doug Auer and Kevin Sheehan for the New York Post, October 29:
It’s Terrorism 101. 
A New York University class on transnational terrorism is requiring students to “hypothetically plan a terrorist attack” — and shocked cops say the outrageous lesson plan is an insult to the officers killed on Sept. 11.
The controversial course, taught by former Navy criminal investigator Marie-Helen Maras, asks the pupils to “step into [a terrorist’s] shoes” and write a 10- to 15-page paper on their battle plan.
“Some of the most notorious terrorists, including Anwar al-Awlaki, got their start on American campuses. It looks like after the CIA killed al-Awlaki, NYU is helping to produce successors,” said an outraged law-enforcement expert on terrorism....
For the assignment, Maras — who has a Ph.D. from Oxford and is also an associate professor at SUNY Farmingdale — instructs her pupils to consider all aspects of the attack.
“In your paper, you must describe your hypothetical attack and what will happen in the aftermath of the attack,” Maras wrote in the syllabus obtained by The Post.
They must factor in the methods of execution, sources of funding, number of operatives needed and the target government’s reaction, according to the paper’s outline.
At the same time, students must realistically stay within their chosen terror group’s “goals, capabilities, tactical profile, targeting pattern and operational area,” the syllabus states.
Given the detail required — and possibly concerned that the how-to terror manuals could land in the wrong hands — Maras warns that each page of a student’s paper must bear the disclaimer: “This is a hypothetical scenario for a university course on transnational terrorism.”
When told of the term paper, one ranking police officer who lost coworkers on 9/11 called it “the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.”...
“I’m disgusted,” said the source. “What is this, we have our students do the work for the terrorists?”
Another source worried that the assignment could become a primer in plotting attacks rather than counter-terrorism.
“This flies in the face of the 11 years of hard work the NYPD has done in tracking down terrorists to the far reaches of the globe to make sure they never strike again,” said the source.
Other terrorists who studied in the US include 9/11 architect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad and most recently Quazi Ahsan Nafis, the Bangladeshi student accused of plotting to bomb the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
The professor defended the course assignment.
“The exercise is meant to prepare students for the field, to prepare them for careers in intelligence, policing, counterterrorism. This is a grad-level assignment for a grad-level course,” Maras told The Post.
“Why didn’t the police call me if they have concerns? I have NYPD officers in my class,” she said.
The students are also supposed to imagine the counter-terrorism measures implemented in the attack’s aftermath, she added....

Monday, October 29, 2012

Obama accepts 'Osama bin Laden' donations

WASHINGTON – Using a Pakistani Internet Protocol, or IP address, a disposable credit card and a fake address, “Osama bin Laden” has successfully donated twice to Barack Obama’s presidential re-election campaign.
The “Bin Laden” donations, actually made by WND staff, included a listed occupation of “deceased terror chief” and a stated employer of “al-Qaida.”

“Bin Laden” is currently set up on the official campaign website to contribute more to Obama’s campaign. The name is also registered as a volunteer.

Since the “foreign” contribution was sent, “Bin Laden’s” email address has received several solicitations from Obama’s campaign asking for more donations.

The “Bin Laden” donations, actually made by WND staff, included a listed occupation of “deceased terror chief” and a stated employer of “al-Qaida.”

“Bin Laden” is currently set up on the official campaign website to contribute more to Obama’s campaign.

The name is also registered as a volunteer.

Since the “foreign” contribution was sent, “Bin Laden’s” email address has received several solicitations from Obama’s campaign asking for more donations.

The apparently foreign-based contributions were conducted as a test after a flurry of media reports described the ability of foreigners to donate to the Obama campaign but not to Mitt Romney’s site, which has placed safeguards against such efforts.

The acceptance of foreign contributions is strictly illegal under U.S. campaign finance law.

One $15 donation was made at using a confirmed Pakistani IP address. In other words, as far as the campaign website was concerned, the donation was openly identified electronically as coming from Pakistan.

Upon clicking the “donate” button, WND staff selected the $15 amount and were taken to a page on the campaign website asking for a first and last name, city, state, zip code, email address and phone number.

The information submitted was: “Osama bin Laden, 911 Jihad Way, Abbottabad, CA 91101.”

While the website only has options for U.S. states and zip codes, there is no mechanism in place on Obama’s website to verify the individual is actually located in that state or zip code, or even in the U.S.

The Obama campaign refuses to release the identification of donors who give less than $200

In the case of this donation, the 91101 zip code is real but corresponds to Pasadena, Calif., and not Abbottabad, the Pakistani city in which bin Laden was found holed up in a compound.

For a requested phone number, WND inputted the White House information line of (202) 456-2121.

The email address used to set up the donation account was

After clicking “next,” the website asked for an employer, occupation and a password to set up future donations. WND staff entered the occupation as “deceased terror chief” and the employer as “al-Qaida.”

The transaction was made last Friday with the use of a disposable credit card. The website did not require the card’s security code.
Gallup Explains Why Other Polls Are Wrong
Published on

In a large sample, very important survey, Gallup reported on Friday that the likely 2012 electorate will be among the most Republican in history.

In 2008, 12 percent more self-described Democrats voted than Republicans (54-42).  In 2004, the electorate was 48-48 evenly split between the parties.  In Gallup's poll, they found that in 2012 it will be 46-49 for the Republicans -- a fifteen point swing from 2008!

The reason most other polls are wrong is that, seeing this Republican surge, they discount it as sampling error in their polls and re-weight the data to make it conform to the traditional partisan divisions, thus obliterating the real trend and obscuring what is actually going on.

The fact is that the country has moved sharply in the direction of the Republican Party since 2008 and even since 2010.

Want to know how much Romney will win by?

Obama won by 7 points in 2008.  But the electorate has become 15 points more Republican since then.  Do the math -- an 8 point Romney victory!  OK, maybe 5 or 6 or 7, but no cliffhanger.

Gallup: Massive swing to GOP since 2008

Obama destroys number of Democrats in 4 years

In the four years since Barack Obama has been president, American voters have been fleeing the Democratic Party in large numbers to become Republicans, according to brand-new figures released by the Gallup polling agency.

“The largest changes in the composition of the electorate compared with the last presidential election concern the partisan affiliation of voters,” says Gallup.

Based on surveys from Oct. 1 through 24, the pollster finds 36 percent of likely voters call themselves Republicans, compared to 35 percent who are Democrats.

If those who are leaning toward a certain party are included, the GOP lead increases to 3 percent, standing at 49 to 46 percent.

But it was a much different story for Democrats in 2008, when they had 54 percent of people who identified themselves as Democrats or leaned Democratic.

“In 2008, Democrats enjoyed a wide 12-point advantage in party affiliation among national adults, the largest Gallup had seen in at least two decades,” Gallup said.

“More recently, Americans have been about as likely to identify as or lean Republican as to identify as or lean Democratic. Consequently, the electorate has also become less Democratic and more Republican in its political orientation than in 2008. In fact, the party composition of the electorate this year looks more similar to the electorate in 2004 than 2008.”

The agency says in 2004, when Republican George W. Bush was running against Democrat John Kerry for president, Republicans enjoyed a 2-point advantage over Democrats in party affiliation, 39 to 37 percent.

The new data for 2012 is being hailed by some on the political right who have complained about skewed polls that give more weight to Democrats than Republicans.

John Hinderaker at the PowerLine blog says: “If the data released today correctly reflect the voting population this year, you can throw away all of those polls that are D +9, D +7 – or, for that matter, D +1.

Substantially all polls show Mitt Romney with a wide lead over Barack Obama among independents. So if today’s party ID data are correct, not only will the presidential election not be close, but the Republicans will do better than currently expected in the Senate and House, too.”

Can you believe the arrogance of this man...

Obama Camp Asks People To Do Election Phone Banks While Hurricane Sandy Hits

The Obama campaign expects people under the threat of a hurricane to be concerned about his campaign.

His camp sent out emails Sunday encouraging its volunteers to “phonebank” from Annapolis, Maryland on Monday at 5:30 PM.

The worst part of Hurricane Sandy is supposed to be hitting the region around that time.

From the email a tipster sent in:

From: Jeremy Bird, [] 
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 4:00 PM
To: Jennifer 
Subject: Hey Jennifer, pitch in for Virginia this Monday

Jennifer – 

This past week, President Obama visited eight states in two days on his America Forward! tour.

He hardly slept, he talked himself hoarse, and he was constantly on the move. 

He knows, just like you and I do, that what matters most in the last days of this election is what we do on the ground: The voters we talk to. The issues we discuss. Every step we take to help get people to the polls for President Obama and other Democrats.

Folks in Annapolis are getting together on Monday to make some phone calls into Virginia.

Can you make it?

What: Phone bank in Annapolis

Where: 47 Spa Road
Annapolis, MD 21401

When: Monday, October 29th
Shifts start at 5:30 pm

Or check out all of the phone banks near you.

With this election as close as it is, every voter we talk to could make the difference between winning and losing.

Let’s make sure we wake up on November 7th without any regrets.

Sign up for the phone bank now:

Let’s get it done,


Jeremy Bird
National Field Director
Obama for America.

Can’t make this event but still want to pitch in? Make a donation today to help build this campaign and our party’s grassroots organization.
“Better to die the death of a hero then live the life of a coward”
By: Diane Sori

Powerful words from a grieving father to a president who watched his son die and did NOTHING...NOTHING except
blame everybody else but himself.

Obama could care less about the Americans lost in Benghazi...his muslim brethren are more important...Obama...a man whose re-election is more important than having performed his duties as Commander-in-Chief.  And all this while grieving father Charles Woods (father of slain State Department Security Officer and former US Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods) puts a face on the atrocities of why his son’s calls for help went unanswered and worse...DENIED...directly leading to not only his death but to three other American deaths as well.

The voters MUST know about this, just as the coward and traitor knows he has no chance of being re-elected if they do.

So how does the mainstream media drag Obama’s sorry-ass superficial and petty campaign to victory as the truth about Benghazi leaks out...

How...simply by ignoring it. 

But ‘We the People’ are learning and disseminating the truth thanks to FOX News, conservative bloggers, and anti-Obama FB sites.  Benghazi is a scandal of the highest order...making Watergate and ‘Fast & Furious’ look like a walk in the park as acts of TREASON have been committed by this administration, and we MUST make sure America knows this...and knows it BEFORE Election Day.
Just look at the facts...Ambassador Stevens begged for additional security after a series of terrorist threats and attacks, but didn’t get it...Obama not only knew that four Americans had been MURDERED in a terrorist attack by an al-Qaeda sub-group but lied about it for weeks to try to minimize possible political fallout...Two brave American heroes fought an hours long gun battle against well-armed organized terrorists before being killed, killed because those who could help were told to ‘stand down’ all while Obama and his minions did nothing but watch the massacre on TV.

Chomping on popcorn perhaps...NOTHING would surprise me where Barack HUSSEIN Obama is concerned.

And when our dead took their last journey home Barack HUSSEIN Obama and his partner in crime, Hillary Clinton, used this most solemn occasion to spew politically expedient lies NOT only to ‘We the People’ but deliberately to cause further pain for the spit on the memories of their loved ones.  

And above all else we know for sure...our military, including an American aircraft carrier stationed right off the coast and Navy SEAL swat teams close by were told to ‘stand down’ and NOT assist those at the consulate.

Dereliction of duty, gross incompetence and negligence...all of these and yet none of these says it as well as aiding and abetting the enemy at the cost of American lives equating to TREASON.  Charges of TREASON must be leveled against Barack HUSSEIN Obama and ALL who were in the situation room watching this massacre take place right before their eyes...all those who did NOTHING but try to shift blame onto our military’s shoulders.

And they can NO longer deny it.

In fact, Jennifer Griffin, National Security Correspondent said on FOX last night that when the first call for help went out, the rescue team was told to ‘stand down,’ and told to ‘stand down’ a second time, and that’s when Tyrone and the others chose to willingly disobey orders.  These brave heroes recused 30 consulate personnel but unfortunately could NOT save Ambassador Stevens and Scott Smith. 

Continuing, Griffin said this was an intentional pre-calculated hit unfolding on White House TV screens.  We had drones in the air for God’s sake recording it all...drones monitoring the consulate for 7  hours and yet this White House did NOTHING but work to concoct a story about a video being the cause of these deaths.

The bottom line remains that the assault at Benghazi is deliberately and with malice being covered up by this entire administration, because they did NOT want word getting out that the White House had sent Ambassador Stevens to Benghazi, including having him being there on 9/11, when they knew violence would be happening...sent him there to negotiate an arms deal with the Turkish Ambassador concerning movement of weapons to al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria.

Did Ambassador Stevens know this...NO he did NOT for he assumed we were arming the rebels fighting against a brutal dictator NOT arming our enemy.  It’s my opinion that Ambassador Stevens was a disposable fall guy for a ‘Fast & Furious’ operation on a global level, as this administration, I believe, has been running guns and other weapons to the Muslim Brotherhood...the Muslim Brotherhood who has taken over the Middle East and who has infiltrated our government with the approval and open-arm welcome of our Traitor-in-Chief Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

Their wipe Israel off the islamisize the West including the Unites States...and to set-up an islamic caliphate, with sharia as law, for total world domination.  And I believe Barack HUSSERIN Obamas knew this, believes in this goal, and is aiding its fulfillment, because simply...he is one of them.

The truth must get out...must get out BEFORE Election Day, because if a man who is president of the United States can cause this much damage in a first term imagine what will happen if he has a second.

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Obama Calls Mitt Romney a BSer? Now That’s Funny! 

By: Doug Giles  / Townhall Columnist

You know what’s funny? In a recent Rolling Stone interview, Obama called Mitt Romney a “bullsh*tter” … that’s what’s funny.

Now, it’s not funny in a ha-ha sense but funny in a you-gotta-be-kidding-me sense of the word. Obama accusing Romney of bunkum? Talk about the putz calling the kettle black.

Obama’s entire life and rise to power have been nothing more than a Texas-sized stockyard of ripe and foul compost. This man makes Machiavelli look lame. Hussein trades so heavily in BS that the Oxford Dictionary has now included his last name as a synonym for bollocks. I also hear OJ take notes when Obama speaks.

In addition, I’ve learned from reliable sources that a Las Vegas-based energy company is at work now trying to convert Obama’s gaseous rhetoric, his scat-laced hollow promises and his abysmal jobs record into an alternative fuel source to light up the Strip.

So exactly what is this thing called “bullsh*t” of which Obama is a ninja? Well, you can call it BS, bull crap, or the nicer sounding Latin term “stercore tauri,” or simply bull, bull roar, bull-pucky, bovine scat, horse feathers, horse hockey, poppycock, cow dung, Chris Matthews, bollocks, gobbledygook, gibberish, humbug, fisk, nonsense, evening news, tall tale, pseudo-intellectualism, propaganda, fiction, lie, bunkum, spin, or truthiness.

Whatever you want to call it, BS can be defined as communications in which reality and truthfulness aren’t nearly as vital as the ability to manipulate the audience to get it to do whatever one wants done. And here’s where Obama rocks with the tofu-brained masses.

BS is essentially all skewed, spun, knowingly dubious, carefully framed, pretentious, misleading or vacuous statements. Now, “BS” does not necessarily have to be a complete fabrication; with only basic knowledge about a topic, BS is often used to make the audience believe that one knows far more about the topic by feigning total certainty or making probable predictions. It may also merely be “filler” or nonsense that, by virtue of its style or wording, gives the impression that it actually means something:
In popular explanations of philosophy, the word “bullsh*t” is used to denote utterances and speech acts which do not add to the meaning of the set of sentences uttered, but which are added purely to persuade goobers of the validity or importance of other utterances.
The accuracy of the information is irrelevant whilst “bullsh*tting.” Whether true or false, BS is the intention to distort the information or to otherwise achieve a desirable outcome, making BS a close cousin to rhetoric as Plato conceived it (paraphrased from Harry Frankfurt’s book, On Bullsh*t).
Do you need a few examples of how Obama has piled it high, wide and deep on Americans’ noggins? You do? Check out these smelly bullet points from our innovative BSer-In-Chief from a recent email I received …
Obama’s the first President to:
- Apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.
- Have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.
- Go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayer.
- Preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.
- Have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
- Keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
- Repeat the Holy Quran and tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.
- Violate the War Powers Act.
- Be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
- Defy a Federal Judge’s court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law.
- Require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
- Spend a trillion dollars on “shovel-ready” jobs when there was no such thing as “shovel-ready” jobs.
- Abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
- Bypass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
- Order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.
- Demand a company hand over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
- Terminate America’s ability to put a man in space.
- Arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
- Threaten insurance companies if they publicly speak out on the reasons for their rate increases.
- Tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.
- File lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).
- Withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
- Fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
- Appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.
- Golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office (100+ to date).
- Hide his medical, educational and travel records.
- Win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
- Go on multiple global “apology tours.”
- Take a 17-day vacation.
And Romney’s a bullsh*tter? Please. Go sell crazy somewhere else. Even Letterman called him on it this week.

A juicy whopper missing from that list is how Obama loves the woman voter and yet strangely voted “present” (read against) in ‘99 for a bill that would protect sexual assault victims from having the details of their cases revealed publicly.

And lastly—and most ghastly—regarding how Obama has lied what’s left of his backside off to we the people comes the Benghazi massacre, which keeps growing grosser, more malevolent and insidious with each passing day.

For Barack to say Romney is a bullsh*tter in light of Obama’s own weapons-grade bullsh*t is, well … bullsh*t.

Is the foe religious or political?

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

Recently the Wall Street Journal published an analysis of Obama's foreign policy failures that, aside from a few nods in the direction of the reigning politically correct fictions about the relationship of the jihad doctrine to Islam itself, was surprisingly clear-sighted: "Feith and Cropsey: A Foreign Policy Failure to Acknowledge the Obvious," by Douglas J. Feith and Seth Cropsey in the Wall Street Journal, October 18:
...But there's a bigger problem here than cynicism. It is that the administration's first response—to blame an American video, not Islamist terrorists—reflected strategic misjudgments. First is the refusal to accept that the terrorism threat is part of a larger problem of Islamist extremism. And second is the belief that terrorism is spawned not by religious fanaticism but by grievances about social, economic and other problems for which America bears fault. 
When Mr. Obama became president, he was intent on repudiating the previous administration's war on terrorism, which saw al Qaeda as part of a diverse international movement of Islamist extremists hostile to the United States, to liberal democratic principles (in particular the rights of women), and to most governments of predominantly Muslim countries.
Mr. Obama chose to define America's enemy not ideologically but organizationally, as al Qaeda and its affiliates. White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan, in his speeches over the past few years, has insisted that terrorists should never be described as Muslim because their extremism is not consistent with Islam. Mr. Brennan discourses on Islam as if he were an imam.
The Obama administration, he said in 2010, does not "describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself or one's community." He failed to mention that jihad also means holy war.
It is clear that not all Muslims embrace extremist Islamist ideology—perhaps only a small minority do. But the extremists claim to speak for the true Islam. Their pretensions are disputable, but it is false and presumptuous for Mr. Brennan, an American and non-Muslim, to assert that the extremists cannot be Islamic or religious leaders.
The problem with ignoring ideology is made clear—unintentionally—in President Obama's National Counter-Terrorism Strategy, released in June 2011. In it he writes: "We are at war with a specific organization—al-Qa'ida." But America also has to work aggressively against Hezbollah, he notes a few pages later—and against a number of terrorist groups in South Asia, he further adds, "even if we achieve the ultimate defeat of al-Qa'ida in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater."
So our problem is substantially broader than al Qaeda—and even broader than al Qaeda and its affiliates. What all these groups have in common is Islamist ideology—yet Mr. Obama ignores that.
And what, according to the Obama administration, stokes the fires of extremism? It isn't the supremacist exhortations of Islamist ideology. Rather, it is longstanding political and economic "grievances," according to Mr. Brennan, such as "when young people have no hope for a job," "when governments fail to provide for the basic needs of the people," and when the Palestinian-Israeli conflict remains unresolved. President Obama, Mr. Brennan has said, thinks America should be "addressing the political, economic and social forces that can make people fall victim to the cancer of violent extremism." Mr. Brennan has also noted that the president is "concerned with how the United States was viewed in the world and how these attitudes were fueling the flames of hatred and violence."
Thus the way to defeat the terrorists, according to President Obama, isn't to counter extremist Islamist ideology but to focus on how the United States, through its actions and delinquencies—its supposed excessive support for Israel, for example, and failure to provide more economic aid—is to blame for the hatred that spawns terrorism.
White House senior director for the National Security Council Samantha Power wrote some years ago, while a Harvard University lecturer, that America should adopt a foreign-policy "doctrine of mea culpa." This is the frame of mind that President Obama brought to his famous June 2009 Cairo speech in which he suggested that tensions between America and the world's Muslims are largely America's fault. It was in that speech that President Obama asserted: "Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism."...
This was generally a fine analysis, and good to see in the normally dhimmi WSJ, but my friend and colleague Andy McCarthy sees a problem with it in "The Real Foreign-Policy Failure: A response to Doug Feith and Seth Cropsey" in National Review, October 27:
Let’s start with the authors’ intimation that “religious fanaticism” causes terrorism. To be sure, that’s a better explanation than the Left’s “blame America first” approach. Yet, it still misses the mark. The real cause is ideology, not religion. The distinction is worth drawing because, for the most part, Islamist terror is not fueled by Muslim zealousness for Islam’s religious tenets — for instance, “the oneness of Allah.” We Westerners recognize such beliefs as belonging to the realm of religion or spirituality. To the contrary, Islamist terror is driven by the supremacism and totalitarianism of Middle Eastern Islam — i.e., by the perception of believers that they are under a divine injunction to impose all of Islam’s tenets
Most of those tenets do not concern religion or spirituality, at least not as Westerners interpret those concepts. Instead, sharia is largely concerned with controlling what we see as secular affairs — political, social, military, financial, jurisprudential, penal, even hygienic matters. Of course, the fact that we separate church and state in the West does not mean our moral sense is without influence — indeed, profound influence — over how we conduct secular affairs. But in the West, we reject the notion that any religious belief system’s tenets should control those affairs. In the United States, we reject the establishment of a state religion — such official primacy would suffocate freedom of conscience, a bedrock of liberty.
By contrast, the foundation of Middle Eastern Islam is submission to Allah’s law, not individual liberty. This interpretation of Islam thus rejects a division between the secular and the spiritual. Its sharia system contemplates totalitarian control. That makes Islamist ideology (i.e., Islamic supremacism, or what is sometimes more elliptically called “political Islam”) just another totalitarian ideology, albeit one that happens to have a religious veneer.
Some of my friends make the error of claiming that “Islam is not a religion.” I understand what they mean — it is a clumsy way of making the point that mainstream Islam aspires to control much more than spiritual life. Still, the clumsy rhetoric is a bad mistake, driving a wedge between what should be natural allies: those fearful of Islamic supremacism and religious believers. The latter — for example, American Christians, Jews, and non-Islamist Muslims — today find their core liberties under siege by government overreach and atheist hostility. How convenient for these aggressor forces if, by the hocus-pocus of denying an established creed the status of religion, its adherents may be stripped of their constitutional protections.
No, Islam clearly is a religion, and its theological tenets are every bit as deserving of the First Amendment’s guarantees as any other. But Muslims must accept that, in America and the West, it is not Islam but our traditions — especially the separation of church and state — that set the parameters of religious liberty. This way, Islam, the religion, is protected, but Islamic supremacism, the totalitarian ideology, is not. The latter undeniably draws on Islamic scripture, but it is categorically akin to Communism or National Socialism, not to religious creeds.
This is true as far as it goes: a distinction does indeed need to be made in American law between Islam as a religion and Islam as a political system that is authoritarian, supremacist, and at variance with our Constitutional principles and freedoms in numerous ways. But it is off the mark to say that "the real cause is ideology, not religion," and that "Islamist terror is not fueled by Muslim zealousness for Islam’s religious tenets — for instance, 'the oneness of Allah.'" A moment's glance at the names of jihad terror groups around the world shows that it is precisely zealousness for Islam's religious tenets that fuels jihad terrorism.

Take, for example, the Supporters of Tawheed, a banned jihad group in Wales. What's "Tawheed"? The oneness of Allah. Then there is the Tawheed and Jihad group in Gaza that recently murdered an Italian peace activist.

And exactly the same name, Tawheed wal-Jihad, was used for his group by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the jihad leader in Iraq.

Aside from Tawheed itself, the names of jihad groups are invariably religious: Hamas is an acronym for the Islamic Resistance Movement. Hizballah is the Party of Allah. The group that murdered Ambassador Stevens and the others in Libya was Ansar al-Sharia -- supporters of Islamic law. And on and on.

The key that McCarthy misses here is that the distinction between the religious and political realms is a Western realm that has no foundation in traditional Islam. These groups are fighting for political and religious goals simultaneously, and see no difference, much less opposition, between the two. In fact, Islamic apologists have frequently criticized the Judeo-Christian West precisely for drawing such a distinction. This doesn't mean that he is wrong in saying that we have to combat the political and supremacist aspects of Islam as such, but one principal reason why the problem of identifying our foe properly has proven to be so intractable is that the religious and the political in Islam are completely intertwined and not separable in any organic way found within Islam itself. This, too, has to recognized before there can be any real progress made in public policy on this issue.
Obama will lose...
By: Diane Sori

Anyone who knows me knows that I've been saying since day one that Barack HUSSEIN Obama will LOSE this election, and with about a week to go, that's seems the most probable scenario as all the recent polls show Obama is continuing his descent into becoming a one-term president.All the major nationwide polls have Romney at 50% or more for over a week now, and for a sitting president NOT to be able to get above 46% bodes very poorly for his re-election hopes.
Remember when Obama once had Florida and Virginia all locked up...NOT any more as those states have turned RED, and all pollsters agree that Romney will win those states. Colorado now is turning RED also.

Even the one solid BLUE state of Wisconsin looks like it will go to Romney as Rasmussen's newest poll has Obama and Romney tied in Wisconsin, 49% to 49%. This means Romney will most likely win Wisconsin because every legitimate pollster knows that if an undecided voter hasn't decided for Obama yet, history shows that this voter will most probably vote for the challenger.

Even once solid BLUE states like Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania will most likely follow Wisconsin in the end as Obama's job approval ratings just dropped 7 points in the past few days alone.

Obama's people continue to say this will be a close race and that Obama will win in the end, but I stand by my original gut feeling that Mitt Romney will win in a landslide as did Reagan in 1980...after all Benghazi is proving to be Obama's Jimmy Carter moment.

But we know Obama will do every and anything to stop Mitt Romney from winning, and as the time for an October surprise runs out, Obama could be planning a November surprise for Romney next week. I put NOTHING past that snake...NOTHING.

And that's why it's imperative that we all work to get out the vote!

This is the last chance we have to save our beloved America...please guys help in anyway you can to get that vote out, and work as hard as you can like our country's survival depended on it...because IT DOES!

Experts: Iran sanctions just won't work 

Other nations targeting currency and creating crisis for nation's money

WASHINGTON – Experts say they don’t believe the latest round of sanctions against Iran – imposed with the goal of convincing Iranian officials to halt their nuclear program and hitting hard at the nation’s currency, the rial – will work, according to a report in Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

The recent currency decline due to sanctions was just the latest punch from Western interests, but even that isn’t assessed to be a knockout punch.
The West, led by the United States, has sought sanctions through the United Nations and implemented unilateral restrictions against Iran over its nuclear development program. The West is concerned Iran’s efforts are intended to make nuclear weapons, something which Tehran vehemently denies.

The intent is for sanctions to dissuade Tehran from pursuing its nuclear program altogether, even though the Islamic republic has a right as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium.

However, Iran has offered to restrict uranium enrichment with guarantees of outside supply for its nuclear reactors and medical research, in exchange for lifting of the Western sanctions. But the lifting of those sanctions must occur prior to Iran fulfilling its end of the bargain.

Nothing has come of that proposal, either.

In recent days, however, there have been reports that Iran and the U.S. would hold bilateral discussions on the future of Iran’s nuclear program before the military option is put forward.

However, Iran and even the White House denied that such discussions would take place, although Tehran later said that it would continue discussions with the so-called P5+1 countries after the U.S. elections.

The P5+1 countries are the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China, plus Germany.

In denying published reports that Washington and Tehran had agreed to hold direct meetings in November, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi clarified by saying that the meeting would be with the P5+1 countries.

“Yet, if by negotiations you mean the talks between Iran and the Group five plus one, these negotiations are under way now and according to the latest talks, these negotiations will be held in November or late in November,” Salehi said.

Israel, meantime, is losing patience, and has threatened military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities if diplomacy and sanctions fail, something which the Israeli leadership already has determined to be the case.

At the same time, Tel Aviv has indicated that it is willing to give the sanctions more time to work, but a military attack on the nuclear facilities is quickly beginning to appear to be increasingly difficult due. It’s because Israeli officials say Iran is fast approaching a “zone of immunity” in which a conventional military attack may not be effective.

The latest sanctions have devalued Iran’s currency by 75 percent, spurring some demonstrations in Tehran.

However, the leadership appears to remain in firm control, despite claims that the government has mismanaged Iran’s oil revenues.

Because the rial has a limited official and unofficial value, the unofficial value allowed for black market purchases until the most recent fall to its actual value. Now, the devaluation of the rial is affecting Iranians’ ability to purchase even the bare necessities of food and is wiping out any savings. Iran remains plagued by high unemployment, estimated to be more than a third of the working population.

Analysts believe that Iran has no intention of halting its program and don’t see the Iranian leadership being serious about making a deal to end the sanctions, despite the currency devaluation.

Instead, they said, Iran will seek to find loopholes in bypassing sanctions, reflagging its oil tankers to hide their true ownership and destinations and relying on China to continue buying Iranian oil.

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Lets flood the msm with calls...

It works! Computers fried by EMP-like blast

Iran already boasting of capability to use technology against U.S.

The U.S. Air Force and its contractor Boeing have created the High-powered Microwave Advanced Missile Project, or CHAMP, which was just tested over a Utah desert.

It’s a project of Boeing’s Phantom Works team and the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory Directed Energy Directorate, along with Raytheon Ktech, which supplied the high power microwave, or HPM.

The action of the high power microwave has the same effect as an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, from either a high-altitude exploded nuclear weapon or a massive solar storm, but not with their intensity.

The cruise missile, which was launched from a U.S. bomber, was pre-programmed to fly over a target and shoot a burst of high power microwaves at a two-story building. It knocked out rows of personal computers and electrical systems which were shown in a video taken of the test.

Following the first target, the cruise missile then was guided to six other targets, resulting in knocking out all electronics.

“In the near future, this technology may be used to render an enemy’s electronic and data systems useless even before the first troops or aircraft arrive,” according to Keith Coleman, the CHAMP program manager of Boeing’s Phantom Works.

The cruise missile is equipped with a powerful magnetron that produces a massive pulse of microwave radiation. The magnetron is a high-powered vacuum tube that generates microwaves that uses the interaction of electrons with a magnetic field. It also is used in radars and microwave ovens.

The Air Force test showed that a non-lethal weapon can knock out multiple electronic targets without collateral damage. It has the same effect as a magnetic flux-compression generator, or MFCG, bomb which can produce electrical energy of some tens of Mega Joules in just tens of microseconds in a relatively small package.

In effect, the MFCG is a directed electromagnetic pulse gun that has military application as its primary use.

All of this also is similar to another U.S. Air Force-developed weapon based on a type of radar called the active electronically scanned array, or AESA.

An ASEA acting as normal radar broadcasts microwaves over a wide area. However, all of its energy can be focused on a single point. A beam from an ASEA basically scrambles electronic components of a target, similar to the effects of an EMP from a nuclear detonation when it fries all electronics.

Depending on the ASEA’s strength, it can scramble the electronics of an offensive target at considerable distances without endangering the aircraft equipped with the ASEA radar.

There are large and small ASEAS. While the larger ones fit on ships, the smaller ASEAs fit in the nose of our latest jet fighters, such as the F-22 and the latest F-35 stealth joint strike fighter.

Boeing also has made a Growler, a modified F-18 Super Hornet designated the EA-18G airborne electronic attack aircraft.

The EA-18G is in use by the U.S. Navy and is the cornerstone of the naval Airborne Electronic Attack, or AEA, mission.

It incorporates advanced airborne electronic attack avionics which is capable of suppressing enemy air defenses, or SEAD, and undertaking non-traditional electronic attack operations, or EMP attacks on enemy positions.

Boeing’s CHAMP project is of a design similar to the company’s other cruise missile designs that are also air-launched and have a low-radar signature but is smaller with compressed carriage wings that extend out after launch.

“Any of these systems can be made to be recoverable or otherwise,” Coleman said. “There are many proven methods of recovering vehicles from the lightweights to the heavier designs.”

The training took place at the Utah Test and Training Range at Hill Air Force Base. While the beam was focused to virtually eliminate collateral damage to nearby electronic devices, the software used in the test reportedly was the same to trigger an HPM weapon warhead.

The cruise missile used in the CHAMP test, sources say, is associated with the Air Force’s Long-Range Strike, or LRS, program. Unmanned aircraft, such as cruise missiles used in the CHAMP test would provide directed-energy weapons support and electronic attack to the LRS program.

“Champ is a template for future HPM programs,” Coleman said. “There has never been this type of system with this kind of power out on any vehicle of any sort before.”

He added that there will be no problem putting HPM weapons technology on even smaller or larger airframes.

These developments have not gone unnoticed by other countries that are aware of the effects of EMP weapons and may be developing some of their own.

Iran, for example, has been flying unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, over U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf for some time taking photos. They easily could be equipped with a magnetron to knock out the electronics on board the ships, since their UAVs are virtually stealthy.

Indeed, Iran has even admitted that it had used newly developed microwave technology to trick the electronics onboard the SQ-170 stealth U.S. drone which it claims it downed in November 2011 as it flew a spy mission from Afghanistan.

The SQ-170 was made to land in Iran with minimal damage. The Iranians then claimed to have deciphered the coded software and learned other secrets surrounding the SQ-170.

Esmaeil Kowsari, a member of the Iranian parliament and vice chairman of the parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, contended that the Iranians brought down the drone through sophisticated hacking of satellites that controlled the drone.

“The plane was designed to fly on SAT (satellite) orders from an initiation base,” Kowsari contended. “If for any reason contact with the initiation base – in this case Afghanistan – was lost it should respond to orders given by another base in the U.S. If contact with both of the bases is lost, then it should return immediately to the initial base.

“If it cannot, self-destruction is the ultimate choice,” he added. “Despite this, the Iranian electronic war hackers were not only able to hack the SAT controlling the drone and sever contacts with the Afghanistan base, but they were also able to simulate their base as the U.S. base for the plane and as the higher ranking base forced the plane to land without destroying itself, the artificial intelligent-based software did not even suspect that it is being controlled by the Iranian forces.”

As an indication that Iranian electronic measures may be aimed at U.S. forces in the region in retaliation, Kowsari warned that the Iranians will be undertaking electronic warfare against “all computer-based network systems in the U.S. and Europe.”

“Since the algorithm and logic behind other systems are much simpler, the Iranians may be able to control all radars, satellites, planes, ships, tanks, rockets, cruise missiles of the U.S. and NATO throughout the world,” he added. “They may be able to even control American soldiers, who are driven to fight using satellite controlled infrared systems.”

In suggesting that Iran could enter into such systems, Kowsari said the weapons could be deflected back to the “perpetrators” simply by hacking their systems.

While Kowsari didn’t say just how the hacking had been done, recent efforts on the part of Iranians suggest the hacking included the use of some kind of radio-frequency microwave weapon which isn’t surprising since the Iranians themselves have boasted of undertaking such research.

In fact, such information has been publicly available since 1999 to the Iranians and other countries that want to acquire information on RF weapons to counter stealth and cruise missile technology.