Constitution Under Attack: Senate Panel OK’s Stripping States Of Constitutional Power

Constitution Under Attack: Senate Panel OK’s Stripping States Of Constitutional Power

August 21st, 2009 Posted By Greywolfe.


From CNS News.

An amendment to remove the constitutional right of governors to appoint individuals to U.S. Senate seats that become vacant in between elections was recently approved by a 5-to-3 vote in the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution.

The resolution, which favors direct elections rather than gubernatorial appointments to unoccupied Senate seats as the Constitution requires, was introduced Jan. 29, following news of a pay-to-play scheme involving then-Illinois Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who is accused of scheming to sell President Barack Obama’s former U.S. Senate seat.

Before introducing the amendment, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, released a statement advocating an end to the constitutional right of Blagojevich-type appointments to Senate seats.

Read the full story here.

Court Expected to Send Runaway Teen Home Despite Muslim Honor Killing Fears

Court Expected to Send Runaway Teen Home Despite Muslim Honor Killing Fears

Friday , August 21, 2009

By Joshua Rhett Miller


A 17-year-old girl who fled to Florida after converting from Islam to Christianity will almost certainly be forced to return home to Ohio, experts say, despite her fears that she will become the victim of an honor killing for abandoning her parents’ faith.

Rifqa Bary, who hitchhiked to an Ohio bus station earlier this month and took a charter bus to Orlando, remains in protective custody with Florida’s Department of Children and Families. A judge is expected to rule Friday on the jurisdiction of the case, but several legal experts contacted by say the girl is bound to be sent back to Ohio.

“She’ll be returned to the original jurisdiction,” said Katherine Hunt Federle, professor of law and director of the Justice for Children Project at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law.

“She probably doesn’t have a lot of options other than to return home.”

Bary, a native of Sri Lanka who turned 17 earlier this month, is neither a U.S. citizen nor a resident of Florida, so if her parents want her returned to their home in New Albany, Ohio, that likely will occur, experts said.

“She’s living and residing in Ohio,” Federle said. “Typically, what happens is, if a child runs away and goes to another jurisdiction, she’ll be returned to the original jurisdiction.”

If she is sent back to Ohio, Bary will not be allowed to live on her own, since the state does not have an emancipation statute.

Florida has such a statute, but it requires parental consent, according to Fred Silberberg, a family law expert based in California who is familiar with the case.

Given that legal hurdle, Bary likely will be returned to Ohio, where authorities could intervene if they believe there is a threat or a basis to act, Silberberg said.

Rifqa fled to Florida after her parents, Mohamed and Aysha Bary, learned that she was baptized earlier this year without their knowledge. The parents reported her missing to Columbus Police on July 19. Weeks later, using cell phone and computer records, police tracked the girl to the Rev. Blake Lorenz, pastor of the Orlando-based Global Revolution Church.’s calls to Lorenz were not returned.

In an emotional six-minute interview with WFTV in Florida, Rifqa, who met Lorenz through an online Facebook group, said she expects to be killed if she is forced to return to Ohio.

“If I had stayed in Ohio, I wouldn’t be alive,” she said. “In 150 generations in family, no one has known Jesus. I am the first — imagine the honor in killing me.

“There is great honor in that, because if they love Allah more than me, they have to do it. It’s in the Koran,” said in the interview, which has been posted on YouTube.

Rifqa, who is seen wearing a large diamond cross during the interview, said she had to hide her Bible “for years,” and she repeatedly “snuck out” to attend Christian prayer meetings. She referred to previous victims of so-called honor killings, in which young Muslim women were murdered for bringing dishonor to their families.

“They love God more than me, they have to do this,” Bary told WFTV. “I’m fighting for my life. You guys don’t understand. … I want to worship Jesus freely, that’s what I want. I don’t want to die.”

Contacted by, Mohamed Bary said he has no intentions of harming his daughter.

“I love my daughter and I want her to come back to the family,” he said, declining further comment.

The Barys reportedly emigrated from Sri Lanka in 2000 to seek medical treatment for Rifqa, who lost the sight in her right eye following an accident at home.

Barbra Joyner, Mohamed Bary’s lawyer, declined to comment on Rifqa’s interview with WFTV but said transferring the case back to Ohio will be in the “best interest” of the girl.

Craig McCarthy, an attorney for Aysha Bary, agreed that the case should be moved back to Ohio and added that the girl’s mother is afraid for her safety.

“[Aysha Bary] has shifted to downright frightened, scared of what might confront her publicly on Friday,” McCarthy told “She is scared for her family, of losing her daughter, of never knowing the truth of what happened and for her own safety.”

McCarthy said Rifqa’s account of how she traveled to Florida has “holes in it,” but declined to elaborate. He also declined to respond to allegations that Bary’s father abused the girl when he learned of her conversion to Christianity.

Dr. Phyllis Chesler, an author and professor of psychology at the Richmond College of the City University of New York, said she believes Bary will be in danger if she is sent back to her parents.

“Anyone who converts from Islam is considered an apostate, and apostasy is a capital crime,” Chesler wrote “If she is returned to her family, if she is lucky, they will isolate her, beat her, threaten her, and if she is not ‘persuaded’ to return to Islam, they will kill her. They have no choice.”

Chesler, who wrote “Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence?” for Middle East Quarterly, said the tradition of such slayings is not fully understood by most Americans, including those in law enforcement.

“She escaped from her family’s brutal tyranny and shamed her family further through public exposure,” Chesler said. “Muslim girls and women are killed for far less.”

Ordering a Pizza in 2012!

Ordering a Pizza in 2012!

This is absolutely hilarious, but the scary part about it is that it’s probably not too far away from being reality, providing Obama has his way with socialized medicine, and digitizing medical records.

Want to know how to order a pizza in 2012? Click the link and see.

Turn up the volume, listen closely and watch the pointer!

Obamacare to be 1 big ‘death panel’

Obamacare to be 1 big ‘death panel’
By Richard Poe, WorldnetDaily
President Obama has promised huge cuts in medical spending. In fact, he has warned that, if America fails to make such cuts, it will face financial Armageddon. “Make no mistake: the cost of our health care is a threat to our economy…,” Obama told the American Medical Association in Chicago June 15. “It is a ticking time bomb for the federal budget. And it is unsustainable for the United States of America… If we fail to act, one out of every five dollars we earn will be spent on health care within a decade. And if we fail to act, federal spending on Medicaid and Medicare… will eventually grow larger than what our government spends on anything else today.” To avoid this catastrophe, America must make drastic cuts in health spending, says Obama. The size of his proposed cuts varies from speech to speech, but the figure cited most often by Obama’s advisers is 30 percent per year–up to $700 billion annually. A 30-percent annual cut is going to take a big bite out of somebody’s health care. The only question is whose. The numbers make clear that most of these cuts will have to come at the expense of those who need health care the most — the elderly, the disabled and the gravely ill.
Read the Rest of the Story:

Sarah and the Death Panels

Sarah and the Death Panels

Posted 08/21/2009 ET
Updated 08/21/2009 ET


“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.”

Of Sarah Palin it may be said: The lady knows how to frame an issue.

And while she has been fairly criticized for hyperbole about the end-of-life counselors in the House bill, she drew such attention to the provision that Democrats chose to dump it rather than debate it

And understandably so. For if Congress enacts universal health care coverage, we are undeniably headed for a medical system of rationed care that must inevitably deny care to some terminally ill and elderly, which will shorten their lives, perhaps by years. Consider:

Democrats call Medicare the model of government-run universal health care. But Medicare is a system whereby 140 million working Americans pay 2.9 percent of all wages and salaries into a fund to pay for health care for 42 million mostly older Americans. And Medicare is already going bust.

If Obamacare is passed, the cost of health care for today’s 47 million uninsured will also land on those 140 million. And if Obama puts 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens on a “path to citizenship,” as he promises, they, too, will have their health care provided by taxpayers.

Here is the crusher. The Census Bureau projects that, by 2050, the U.S. population will explode to 435 million. As most of these folks will be immigrants, their children and grandchildren, the cost of their heath care would also have to be largely born by middle-class and wealthy taxpayers.

Now factor this in.

In 2000, the average American male in a population of 300 million lived to 74; the average female to 80. But in 2050, the average male in a population of 435 million Americans will live to 80 and the average female to 86. And, according to U.N. figures, 21 percent of the U.S. population in 2050, some 91 million Americans, will be over 65, and 7.6 percent, or 33 million Americans, will be over 80 — and consuming health care in ever-increasing measures.

Now if a primary purpose of Obamacare is to “bend the curve” of soaring health care costs, and half of those costs are incurred in the last six months of life, and the number of seniors will grow by scores of millions, how do you cut costs without rationing care?

And how do you ration care without denying millions of elderly and aged the prescriptions, procedures and operations they need to stay alive?

Consider two beloved Americans: Ted Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

Since he was diagnosed with brain cancer more than a year ago, Sen. Kennedy has had excellent care, including surgery and chemotherapy, which have kept him alive and, until very recently, active.

For a decade, President Reagan, because of round-the-clock care, lived with an Alzheimer’s that had robbed him of his memory and left him unable to recognize his own family and close friends.

In the future, will a man of Kennedy’s age, with brain cancer but without the means of offsetting his own health care costs, be kept alive, operated on, given chemotherapy — by a government obsessed with cutting health care costs?

Will a bureaucracy desperate to cut costs keep alive for years the tens of thousands of destitute 80- and 90-year-old patients with Alzheimer’s, as was done with Ronald Reagan?

What if, in 2050, Palin and her husband are not here. And 42-year-old Trig, with Down syndrome, has been in an institution for years, and the cost of his care and that of hundreds of thousands like him with Down syndrome is draining the resources of the health care system?

Will there not be voices softly suggesting a quiet and merciful end?

In Oregon, the law permits doctors to assist in the suicide of terminal patients who wish to end their lives. Let us assume numerous patients have Alzheimer’s and, so, cannot be part of the decision to end their lives. Who then makes the decision to continue or end life? Would it be unfair to call the decision-makers in those cases a death panel?

Almost a third of all unborn babies in America have their lives terminated each year with the consent of their mothers. Fifty million since Roe v. Wade have never seen the light of day. For many, the quality of life now supersedes in value the sanctity of life. That is who we are.

Between 2012 and 2030, 74 million baby boomers will retire, cease to be the major contributors to Medicare and become the major drain on Medicare. How long will an overtaxed labor force in a de-Christianized America be wiling to pay the bill to keep all those aging boomers alive?

Rationed care is coming, and the death panels will not be far behind.


Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, “The Death of the West,”, “The Great Betrayal,” “A Republic, Not an Empire” and “Where the Right Went Wrong.”

Obama Has a ‘Pony’ for You

Obama Has a ‘Pony’ for You

By Jan LaRue

Even little kids know when they’ve been had.

Like the little girl in the bank commercial who gets a tiny plastic pony while the other little girl gets a real pony, and the little boy who gets the cardboard truck, most Americans think President Barack Obama is hiding behind the fine print in his incomprehensible health care plan.


It’s why Obama’s poll numbers are dropping faster than the faces of the kids in the commercials.


Obama’s presidential approval index is now at minus 6; 32 percent strongly approve of him and 38 percent strongly disapprove. Since his inauguration, his job approval rating has sunk from 65 percent to 51 percent. Only 27 percent trust him with the economic crisis, according to Rasmussen daily tracking polls.


Like the guy in the commercials, if you don’t ask, Obama won’t tell. If you sign up for his government-run health care plan because he promises you a pony, I wouldn’t load up on hay.


Recall that Obama assured Americans during the presidential campaign that he wouldn’t “take away folks’ guns.” Despite his record of voting for every gun control bill that was introduced in the Illinois Senate, the majority voted for him.


He said the Second Amendment is a personal constitutional right. At the same time, he said that a District of Columbia law banning private possession of a handgun in the home was “constitutional.” His first Supreme Court appointment, Sonia Sotomayor, ruled against Second Amendment rights every chance she got.


At the “Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency” last August, candidate Obama said, “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.” Obama also said he didn’t support a constitutional amendment “with that definition” because marriage has “been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition.”


Spoken like a true believer in plastic federalism.


The media continue to recite Obama’s marriage mantra without question, even though he wants the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for purposes of federal law and protects the right of the states to do so, repealed.


He opposed California’s Prop 8, which Californians enacted after homosexuals persuaded four members of the state supreme court to declare its statutory marriage law “unconstitutional.” Speaking on MTV, Obama said “I would vote no on the proposition.”


So much for “our tradition” of defining marriage under “state law.”


Just as he promised the homosexual lobby when he was running for the U.S. Senate, Obama’s Department of Justice is working to repeal DOMA at the same time that its “defending” it. Obama commented on brief: “This brief makes clear, however, that my administration believes that the act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress. I have long held that DOMA prevents (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual) couples from being granted equal rights and benefits.”


It’s more Obama overload. Instead of opposing just the benefits section of DOMA, he wants the section defining marriage repealed as well. And that’s from the man who says marriage is a “sacred union” with “God in the mix.”


Unless you’re okay with defending your life and home with a toy gun, and marriage means no more than a plastic ornament atop the cake, trusting Obama with your health care could be fatal.


When Obama says health care — you’re probably thinking life-saving surgery — Obama is thinking pain killers. Think of it as health care based on the Jack Kevorkian model.


Obama said he was for a “single-payer universal health care plan” before he was against it:


I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we’ve got to take back the White House, we’ve got to take back the Senate, and we’ve got to take back the House.


Even after the video clip from June 28, 2008, was exposed, Obama denied on Aug. 11, 2009, that he ever said he was “for a single-payer system.” He made a “distinction between a universal plan versus a single-payer plan, because those are two different things.”


Watch the clip again: “A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That’s what I’d like to see.”


He made no distinction. Who are you going to believe, Obama or your lying eyes and ears?


It’s why Obama can’t sell Americans on his signature issue despite all of his fear-mongering and demonizing of insurance companies. According to Rasmussen daily tracking polls:


  • 54 percent say that passing no healthcare reform is better than passing a congressional plan.
  • 51 percent fear government more than insurance companies.
  • 57 percent are opposed to a single-payer system (government provides coverage for all), while 32 percent favor it.


Obama says “Over 45 million Americans-including over 8 million children-lack health insurance.” His source, according to footnote five of “Barack Obama And Joe Biden’s Plan To Lower Health Care Costs And Ensure Affordable, Accessible Health Coverage For All,” is an August 2008 report by the Census Bureau. Obama has repeated the bogus figure at least four times.


Obama toys with truth because he’s not used to anybody checking his sources.


The report states on page 19 that 45.7 million people in the United States do not have health insurance. According to page one, “The population represented (the population universe) is the civilian noninstitutionalized population living in the United States.”


Obama counts people as Americans even if they came into the United States over a fence or through a tunnel. Inflating the numbers enhances the empathy-factor and paves the way for Obama to include illegal aliens in government healthcare.


Obama says private insurance companies can compete with a government-run insurance system. To bolster our confidence, he pointed to how well FedEx and UPS compete with the U.S. Postal Service. He said, “It’s the Post Office that’s always having the problems.”


He probably thinks of it as postal workers acting stupidly.


Maybe he’s found the perfect slogan for his government-run health care option: “When you absolutely, positively want to live overnight, trust the ones always having the problems.”


Obama on the Second Amendment, marriage, and health care-it all makes sense if you’re into plastic ponies and cardboard trucks.


Jan LaRue is Senior Legal Analyst with the American Civil Rights Union; former Chief Counsel at Concerned Women for Women; former Legal Studies Director at Family Research Council; and former Senior Counsel for the National Law Center for Children and Families.

Page Printed from: at August 21, 2009 – 11:29:53 AM EDT

Charlie Cook: Dem situation has ‘slipped completely out of control’

Charlie Cook: Dem situation has ‘slipped completely

 out of control’


Charlie Cook, one of the best political handicappers in the business, sent out a special update to Cook Political Report subscribers Thursday that should send shivers down Democratic spines.

Reviewing recent polling and the 2010 election landscape, Cook can envision a scenario in which Democratic House losses could exceed 20 seats.

“These data confirm anecdotal evidence, and our own view, that the situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Today, The Cook Political Report’s Congressional election model, based on individual races, is pointing toward a net Democratic loss of between six and 12 seats, but our sense, factoring in macro-political dynamics is that this is far too low,” he wrote.

“Many veteran Congressional election watchers, including Democratic ones, report an eerie sense of déjà vu, with a consensus forming that the chances of Democratic losses going higher than 20 seats is just as good as the chances of Democratic losses going lower than 20 seats.”

Cook scrupulously avoided any mention that Democratic control of the House is in jeopardy but, noting a new Gallup poll showing Congress’ job disapproval at 70 percent among independents, concluded that the post-recess environment could feel considerably different than when Congress left in August.

“We believe it would be a mistake to underestimate the impact that this mood will have on Members of Congress of both parties when they return to Washington in September, if it persists through the end of the Congressional recess.”

ObamaCare and the Sorcerer’s Apprentice Barack Obama is unleashing forces he only dimly understands, hopelessly out of his depth

ObamaCare and the Sorcerer’s Apprentice

Timothy Birdnow
Barack Obama is unleashing forces he only dimly understands, hopelessly out of his depth.

Barack Obama has stated, and quite publicly, that the debate over climate change is over, and that the Earth`s climate is shifting as a result of human emissions of carbon dioxide. We simply must act, and one of his signiature issues is Cap-and-Trade (I hear Quaker is adding that to their breakfast cereal line).  Obama, the man whose entire presidential campaign could be summed up in a one-word slogan “change” is firmly in favor of maintaining the climatological status quo.

But when it comes to his scheme to nationalize health care, Obama has stated vociferously “the status quo is not an option”. Obama wants change, any change, in the way America does health care.


While these may seem to be a case of apples and oranges, they are not in a fundamental way; both are about very complex systems, systems that in many ways we do not fully understand and cannot predict. We do not understand the interplay of the innumerable variables, and the models we have made to aid us are very limited and inflexible in a number of important ways. Climate is changing – and has always been changing since the Earth coalesced from the leftovers of the sun. Climate isn`t stable because it has never been stable. Obama and his friends think that we can predict what will happen as a result of rising CO2, and can act by reducing our carbon emissions to stop those changes, essentially keeping the environment in stasis.


The health care industry in the United States is approximately 1/7 of the U.S. economy, and it is not a straightforward proposition, since health care is about more than selling standardized parts. How many diseases can the human body develop? How many injuries? How long does it take for a doctor, or a team of doctors, to recognize and diagnose a problem properly? How does the individual respond to the treatment proscribed? How is technology influencing diagnosis and treatment?


Essentially, both systems are too complex to understand and standardize. It is impossible to make strong predictions about either, yet Obama is confident that he and his anointed brain-trust can easily grasp the outcome of both, and can impose legal mechanisms to act as controls. It should come as no surprise that an arrogant man and his arrogant advisors believe they can move both the heavens and the Earth.


But Obama wants to stop climate change and at the same time advance any change possible in health care. If there is danger in the climate changing, isn`t it equally dangerous to tinker with a health care system that is nearly as complex? Oh, and Cap-N-Trade will profoundly effect the nation’s economy as a whole, something that is beyond the understanding of even the most learned of men. Obama is a child playing with matches.


Remember the Sorcerer’s Apprentice; he could make the brooms move, but didn’t have the foggiest idea of how to control them.

Page Printed from: at August 21, 2009 – 10:09:22 AM EDT

The Incredibly Shrinking War on Terror

The Incredibly Shrinking War on Terror
By: FrontPage Magazine
Friday, August 21, 2009


Barack Obama and James Zogby agree: we need not concern ourselves with most of the world’s America-hating jihadists.

It is fitting that any president, especially the first (real) black president, celebrate the 45th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as the Obama Justice Department did last month. The selection of an Arab as a prime speaker seems curious for many reasons, not least because Arabs are classified as “white.”  Eric Holder’s choice of James Zogby, a longtime apologist for Palestinian terrorism and dedicated foe of effective homeland security measures, to address the gathering seems to signal a deeper reality at the core of the Obama administration: its ever-shrinking conception of the War on Terror.


Jim Zogby, the brother of pollster John Zogby, co-founder of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, and founder of the  Arab American Institute (AAI),  is the most visible spokesman of the Arab-American community. Zogby is “white,” not black; Christian, not Muslim; Lebanese, not Palestinian; and, like all who get invited to address such gatherings, elite, not dispossessed. Yet he spoke as though the suffering of 200 years of slavery had been bred into his DNA. He talked of Arab-Americans marching and staging sit-ins for civil rights, being denied a separate ethnic identity in white America, and balkanizing after viewing “the TV series ‘Roots,’” which “crystallized this broader cultural change.”


Big Brother and the Holder Company


He soon got to the heart of his speech: casting himself and his ethnicity as victims of a repressive, right-wing intelligence establishment. Beginning in the 1970s, “law enforcement agencies not only did not help; they were a problem…From FOIA discoveries, we have learned the extent of harassment—from Operation Boulder in the Nixon era, and the broad surveillance of Palestinian student organizations in the 70’s and 80’s.”


Operation Boulder imposed the grand burden of a five-day waiting period for Arab immigrants seeking to obtain a visa while the FBI and other federal agencies ran a background check – the same waiting period President Clinton instituted for law-abiding American citizens before purchasing a handgun. As one anti-Nixon coordinator recorded, “In the two months following the Palestinian assault against Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic games in September 1972, 78 Arabs were deported from the United States. Hundreds, perhaps thousands more, were interrogated, photographed, and finger-printed by FBI and INS agents.” Although the FBI surveilled some Arab organizations during this time, particularly those with close ties to foreign activists, this was not a part of Operation Boulder, which ended with a whimper in 1975.


Yet stories of persecution need a narrative of redemption. Zogby extended that hosanna to the Democratic Party, and to Eric Holder, in particular. “I say Jesse Jackson helped us knock on the door, Ron Brown opened it, and Bill Clinton welcomed us in and sat us at the table,” he said. “When, in the 1990’s, we experienced problems with widespread subjective airport profiling…it was Al Gore, Janet Reno, Eric Holder and Bill Lan Lee who brought us in for a series of meetings that helped us work through and resolve many of these critical issues.” He added, “If it had not been for the advances we made during the 1990’s…I do not think we would have been able to withstand the challenges we faced in the aftermath of 9/11.”


Mr. Zogby is being modest; without the access he gained to Eric Holder and others in the Clinton administration, it is conceivable there may have been no 9/11. In the mid-90s, Vice President Al Gore drew up a series of recommendations for airline safety, which, though too modest to prevent the hijackings, were never implemented. The 9/11 Commission explained Clinton and Gore no longer required airlines to screen passengers’ carry-on luggage, as they had before 1997, “[p]rimarily because of concern regarding potential discrimination.” Zogby, the AADC, and CAIR stoked those fears during the Clinton administration and, with others, made Governor Bush concerned over “secret evidence” in 2000. Post-9/11, Zogby became a founding member of the FBI’s Arab American Advisory Committee. Presumably, this continues to be part of his repartee with Holder and co.


…As candidate Obama promised it would be nearly two years ago. In December 2007, the then-freshman senator told AAI he opposed “racial profiling,” adding, “when I’m president, the rights of every American will be fully respected and protected.” September 10th, here we come.


Mr. Zogby and his organizations continue to clamor against “spying” on Muslim groups, despite the large number of Muslim Student Association members implicated in terrorism. But then both he and his representatives have a long history of whitewashing terrorists. He stated that Abdurrahman Alamoudi – who attended a conference with al-Qaeda, professed his support of Hamas and Hezbollah, and was convicted of illegally accepting Libyan funds – was a victim of “McCarthyism.” Similarly, then-ADC President Hussein Ibish dismissed the charges against Sami al-Arian (who also was eventually found guilty) as a “very, very ugly post-9/11 McCarthyism.” Perhaps the most astounding obfuscation came from of Zogby’s AADC co-founder, former U.S. Senator James Abourezk, D-SD, who told Al-Manar TV, “the Arabs who were involved in 9/11 cooperated with the Zionists, actually. It was a cooperation.”


Neither Abourezk nor Zogby have any trouble with Americans who seek to cooperate with Palestinian terrorists. Zogby has written against “criminalizing attempts to send money to Hezbollah or support it.” Defending Hezbollah and Hamas is an ongoing effort of AADC. As DiscoverTheNetworks notes:


In 1994, then-ADC President Hamzi Moghrabi said, “I will not call [Hamas] a terrorist organization. I mean, I know many people in Hamas. They are very respectable…I don’t believe Hamas, as an organization, is a violent organization.” Two years later, his successor, Hala Maksoud, defended Hamas’ partner in Mideastern terrorism, Hezbollah. “I find it shocking,” Maksoud said, “that [one] would include Hezbollah in…[an] inventory of Middle East ‘terrorist’ groups.” In 2000, new ADC President Hussein Ibish characterized Hezbollah as “a disciplined and responsible liberation force.”


The Incredibly Shrinking War on Terror


Zogby’s invitation seems emblematic of Obama’s narrowing focus in the War on Terror: it seems to include only those elements of the jihadist movement that will not pretend to negotiate with him. The president’s real zeal is expressed in zinging Israel. Obama also foreshadowed this in his 2007 AAI speech, where he stated, “we also have to do more to bring a measure of stability in the broader Middle East. Our neglect of the Middle East peace process has fueled despair and extremism.”


Thus, the president has strong-armed Benjamin Netanyahu into accepting, in principle, a Palestinian state, although Bibi has voiced concerns about increasing violence, and a more prominent role for Fatah (the “peaceful” Palestinians) in it. Obama State Department appointee Rosa Brooks has likewise excused Hamas, writing in the L.A. Times this January that the terrorist army “is weak, and its weapons – terrorism, homemade rockets – are the weapons of the weak.” These weapons “have killed only a handful of Israelis.” She contrasted this with Palestinian casualties, adding, “Arab and Islamic anger over Palestine continues to fuel anti-Western and anti-U.S. terrorism around the globe.” But Brooks came up with a solution: “Only the U.S. – Israel’s primary supporter and main financial sponsor – can push it to make the hard choices necessary for its own long-term security, as well as the region’s.” Brooks is right that the future of the United States and Israel are intertwined, but for the wrong reason. David Horowitz has rightly stated, “Israel is the canary in the mine. What happens to this small, vulnerable nation will eventually happen to America itself.” But for the Obama administration, Israel is the aggressor, not the victim.


As we know, Obama’s War on Terror does not encompass the war in Iraq, which he assures the nation we will exit Iraq in August 2011, come hajj or high water. Tehran, too, gets a pass for attacking our troops across the border. Obama offered muted criticism as Iranian secret police brutalized and arrested 2,500 democratic protesters of the nation’s rigged election and has had nothing to say about their show trials late last month. In fact, he still wants to meet with Iran’s leaders, and hand them a “civilian” nuclear reactor. He has intensified negotiations with Syria’s Basher al-Assad, though he extended sanctions for one more year. Damascus all but escorted foreign jihadists to the Iraqi battlefield. Syria is a consumer of North Korean technology, believed to have received weapons technology and aid in constructing the now-decimated al-Kibar nuclear reactor from the DPRK. (There are also the small matters of its support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and its continual undermining of the Cedar Revolution.)


The Obama administration’s battle horizon does not even include all elements of the Taliban, whose foot soldiers are currently killing U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. The president has expressed interest in negotiating with the “moderate” Taliban – an entreaty Taliban spokesman Qari Mohammad Yousuf logically dismissed as “illogical.”


Even al-Qaeda agents caught on-the-ground in certain nations may be in a legal gray area. Obama personally told the New York Times in March, “There could be situation…where, let’s say that we have a well-known al-Qaeda operative that doesn’t surface very often, appears in a third country with whom we don’t have an extradition relationship or would not be willing to prosecute, but we think is a very dangerous person.” Obama’s rock hard decision? “I think we still have to think about how do we deal with that kind of scenario.” In the War on Terror, he’s still voting “present.”


A Kinder, Gentler John Kerry


In the NYT interview, Obama even voiced concerns about the hypothetical al-Qaeda operative’s “habeas corpus” rights – although officials later rushed to clarify he intended to extend these only to Guantanamo Bay detainees. Americans voted last November for a candidate who would track down al-Qaeda operatives into the farthest reaches of “Pawk-ee-stawn” and bomb their bases with or without Islamabad’s permission. They got a warmed over version of John Kerry, who viewed the war as “primarily a law enforcement and intelligence operation.” By contrast, Obama eschews law enforcement and coercion. He has faith his boundless personal warmth and innate goodness can charm and pacify the heads of terrorist states. If he could find any.

There’s a real question at stake now. Is President Obama creating a civil war in our own country

Inside the Beltway


A Hollywood conservative has headed East. It’s “Freedom Concert” time for Jon Voight. The Academy Award winner will join Sean Hannity in Cincinnati and Atlanta this weekend to honor fallen soldiers and present college scholarships to surviving children. Mr. Voight — a warrior himself in many ways — has been cogitating about the state of America, meanwhile.

“There’s a real question at stake now. Is President Obama creating a civil war in our own country?” Mr. Voight tells Inside the Beltway.

“We are witnessing a slow, steady takeover of our true freedoms. We are becoming a socialist nation, and whoever can’t see this is probably hoping it isn’t true. If we permit Mr. Obama to take over all our industries, if we permit him to raise our taxes to support unconstitutional causes, then we will be in default. This great America will become a paralyzed nation.”

Be outraged, Mr. Voight advises.

“Do not let the Obama administration fool you with all their cunning Alinsky methods. And if you don’t know what that method is, I implore you to get the book ‘Rules for Radicals,’ by Saul Alinsky . Mr. Obama is very well trained in these methods,” he continues, citing a television campaign critical of the Republican Party and contentious town-hall meetings about health care reform.

“The real truth is that the Obama administration is professional at bullying, as we have witnessed with ACORN at work during the presidential campaign. It seems to me they are sending down their bullies to create fist fights among average American citizens who don’t want a government-run health care plan forced upon them,” Mr. Voight says. “So I ask again. Is President Obama creating a civil war in our own country?”


She’s blonde. She’s the bomb. And she’s got important relatives. Meghan McCain, the woman who brought va-va-voom to the Republican discourse in recent months, will rock ABC’s “The View” Sept. 9 as the first guest co-host for Elisabeth Hasselbeck, now on maternity leave.

Ah, Meghan. She was the one (as ABC reminds everybody) who told Karl Rove, “You had your eight years. Now go away.”

Commentary is running amok online: You go, girl, they say. You’re just a dumb blonde. Take on Joy Behar. Oh, and say “hi” to your dad. Which is, of course, Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, onetime presidential hopeful, war hero.

And what does he say?

“He’s very, very proud of his daughter,” a McCain spokeswoman tells Beltway.


With cool fanfare, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced Thursday that a whopper, 3.3-inch hailstone fell July 16 in Vermont — deemed an official state record and adding, perhaps, another wrinkle to the global warming argument.

The hailstone conveniently fell in the backyard of one Chuck McGill, a NOAA meteorologist, who whisked it to the office for measurement and photographs. But now what? The hailstone sat for weeks in the NOAA freezer. Is it a has-been?

Not to worry. NOAA’s got it covered.

“Chuck’s taken it home again and put it in his own freezer,” chief meteorologist Andy Nash tells Beltway. “These things can just sublimate to nothing. You know, evaporate. Chuck’s determined to keep that hailstone alive.”


The Second Amendment Foundation has accused MSNBC of “demonizing” gunowners, says Alan Gottlieb, the Bellevue, Wash.-based group’s founder. The segment shows a figure toting an AR-15 rifle outside the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, where President Obama spoke earlier this week.

“There are Second Amendment rights, for sure, but also there are questions about whether this has a racial overtone. I mean, here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waist,” anchor Contessa Brewer says in the report.

“What MSNBC purposely did not reveal with the deliberately doctored video is that the man carrying that sport-utility rifle was an African-American,” says Mr. Gottlieb. “Yet all they showed in a brief film clip was a close-up of the rifle against the man’s neatly-pressed dress shirt. It was impossible to tell the man’s race. This is a detestable attempt to manipulate public sentiment.”


• 30 percent of Americans overall say health care reform will create “death panels.”

• 47 percent of Republicans and 45 percent of Fox News viewers agree.

• 20 percent of Democrats and 27 percent of MSNBC viewers agree.

• 28 percent of Americans overall say the press is not critical enough of President Obama.

• 52 percent of Republicans and 8 percent of Democrats agree.

Source: A Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism survey of 1,003 adults conducted Aug. 14-17.

Whispers, noise, hailstones to or 202/636-3085. Follow her at