The Democratic Party has hired a group named Voting is Power (VIP) to register voters for the upcoming Presidential election. Voting is Power is under investigation by the Louisiana Secretary of State Jay Dardenne for voter fraud. So who is Voting is Power and why does that mean anything?

VIP is actually a Muslim American Society (MAS) organization. So who is the Muslim American Society?

The Muslim American Society is a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood whose militant credo states: "God is our objective, the Koran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, struggle is our way, and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations"

In May 2005, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross reported in The Weekly Standard that [the Muslim American Society] MAS is a U.S. front group for the Muslim Brotherhood -- a claim supported by a September 19, 2004 Chicago Tribune story -- and, as such, wishes to see the United States governed by sharia, or Islamic law. "The message that all countries should be ruled by Islamic law," writes Gartenstein-Ross, "is echoed throughout MAS's membership curriculum. For example, MAS requires all its adjunct members to read Fathi Yakun's book To Be a Muslim. In that volume, Yakun spells out his expansive agenda: 'Until the nations of the world have functionally Islamic governments, every individual who is careless or lazy in working for Islam is sinful.'"

Closely linked to MAS is the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, whose Executive Director is Mahdi Bray, a former Students for a Democratic Society activist now affiliated with International ANSWER, an anti-war front group for the Communist World Workers Party. "Our mission," Bray has written, "is to build an integrated empowerment process for the American Muslim community." Toward this end, Bray and MAS have been involved in a voter-registration drive and an effort to train 1,000 "activists" in the "skills necessary for effective activism."

MAS also has close ties to Islamic American University, an unaccredited university in the Detroit suburb of Southfield, which teaches Islamic law and other subjects. (One IAU faculty member is Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, who until at least June 2003 was also the Chairman -- in abstentia -- of the university's Board of Trustees. )

In addition, MAS operates programs for educating the young, providing fellowship for Muslim youth, creating its own network of Islamic schools, and sustaining a nationwide Council of Imams.

MAS was a signatory to a February 20, 2002 document, composed by the radical group Refuse & Resist, condemning military tribunals and the detention of immigrants apprehended in connection with post-9/11 terrorism investigations.

MAS strongly opposes the Patriot Act, which it says “strips away the fundamental checks and balances that safeguard many of our basic civil liberties,” and has “drastically infringed upon every American's rights by giving the government expanded powers to invade privacy, imprison and deport people without due process, and punish political dissent.”

As of early June 2007, the Minnesota chapter of MAS featured the following anti-Semitic, pro-jihad quotes on its website, www.masmn.org:

• “The Holy Prophet (and through him the Muslims) has been reassured that he should not mind the enmity, the evil designs and the machinations of the Jews ...”
  
  
• “In view of the degenerate moral condition of the Jews and the Christians, the Believers have been warned not to make them their friends and confidants.”
  
  
• “If you gain victory over the men of Jews, kill them.”
  
  
• “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.'”
  
  
• “May Allah destroy the Jews, because they used the graves of their prophets as places of worship.”
  
  
• “A Muslim must always worship Allah and wage jihad until death in order to reach his ultimate goal … Regularly make the intention to go on jihad with the ambition to die as a martyr.”

MAS's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood were confirmed on August 14, 2007, as The Investigative Project on Terrorism reported:

"As the terror-support trial of the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) continued today, FBI agent Lara Burns testified that a phonebook found at the home of Ismail Elbarrasse -- un-indicted co-conspirator and former assistant to HAMAS leader Musa Abu Marzook -- listed the names and numbers of the Muslim Brotherhood leadership in the United States. On the first page of the phonebook under the title ‘Members of the Board of Directors’ were fifteen names. Among those names are Ahmad Elkadi, Jamal Badawi, and Omar Soubani: the founding incorporators of the Muslim American Society (MAS)."

I am outraged by the editorial in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune titled, "American justice confirmed".

As Justice Antonin Scalia states, "The nation will live to regret what the court has done today." Five unelected members of the Supreme Court of the United States overnight gave legal status to radical Islamists that have and are trying to kill us. Abraham Lincoln said that the constitution is not a suicide pact. Five members of the Supreme Court made it just that.

According to Justice Scalia,"Today the Court warps our Constitution in a way that goes beyond the narrow issue of the reach of the Suspen­sion [of habeas corpus] Clause, invoking judicially brainstormed separation­-of-powers principles to establish a manipulable 'func­tional' test for the extraterritorial reach of habeas corpus (and, no doubt, for the extraterritorial reach of other constitutional protections as well). It blatantly misde­scribes important precedents, most conspicuously Justice Jackson’s opinion for the Court in Johnson v. Eisentrager. It breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens abroad absent statutory authorization. And, most tragi­cally, it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner."

What does this mean in plain language? Ronald Kessler of NewsMax.com explains, "By this reasoning, illegal aliens should be given access to the federal civilian courts to contest their expulsion from the country. Nazi soldiers taken prisoner during World War II and held on American soil should have been allowed to argue their cases in federal court. Instead of shooting terrorists on the battlefield, American soldiers should read them their rights and ship them off to American jails."

"The level of due process they [the federal courts] require," said David B. Rivkin, a lawyer who served in the Justice Department in the Reagan administration, "will be impossible to meet and therefore will result in the release of a substantial number of enemy combatants." Kessler points out, "In fact, under the majority opinion in Boumediene v. Bush, suspected terrorists are given more rights than our own soldiers are afforded when charged with crimes. Their cases are restricted to the military courts."

So where do our two Presidential candidates stand on this critical issue?

According to Boston.com, Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, said in a statement that the ruling validating detainees' rights "ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values."

The Boston Globe points out, "Obama has long advocated ending the justice system specially created for Guantanamo Bay. He said the detainees should be brought to trial in US courts or in military courts-martial, a proposal the Supreme Court ruling does not affect."

"The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country," said Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, at a town hall meeting near McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey.

As PowerLine Blog points out, "[what] the Court's majority overturned was not a decree by the Bush administration, it was a statute that was passed by large majorities in both the House and the Senate in 2006. The Military Commissions Act passed the Senate on a 65-34 vote, with Democratic Senators Carper, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Menendez, Nelson (Neb.), Nelson (Fla.), Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar and Stabenow voting with the Republicans. Likewise, in the House 34 Democrats joined with 219 Republicans to pass the statute."

As former Senator Fred Thomson said in his article "A Supreme Error", "Upon reading the opinion in Boumediene v Bush, one must conclude that the majority knew where they wanted to go and simply had to figure out how to get there. The trip was not a pretty one. How could it be when the justices seemingly wrote a map based on ideas cherry picked from over 400 years of established law and backfilled with justifications to create a new right for alien combatants that Americans themselves do not enjoy?

They could have saved us all a lot of time if they’d told us what was clearly on their minds.

They don’t trust military tribunals to deal with those accused of being enemy combatants, even if the tribunals are following guidelines established by Congress.

That the government has probably detained some prisoners at Guantanamo for longer than they should have.

And that Guantanamo should just be closed.

Though they are willing to give it lip service, they don’t really believe we are at war … at least not a “real” war.

Therefore, they should create a new right for our nation’s enemies commiserate with the displeasure that they and the rest of the “enlightened” people have with this “war,” Guantanamo and the Bush Administration."

What may be the reality of this decision? If you are a soldier in Iraq, Afghanistan or any of the over 100 countries we have our troops and you capture an enemy combatant what do you do? Do you have the evidence needed to convict this radical Islamist killer in a U.S. Court? Are you as a soldier prepared to be called as a witness in a public trial, like our police officers, and testify that yes this enemy combatant tried to or did kill your fellow soldiers? Can you prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt? What do you do?

Putting our troops in this situation is both repulsive and outrageous. More importantly it is deadly. For you see our enemy understands what the Supreme Court just did and they will take full advantage of it.

"Detainees will be able to call witnesses and demand to see classified information, putting a tremendous strain on the court system and the Justice Department. They will shop for liberal jurisdictions to bring their cases. When capturing terrorists, our own soldiers will be burdened with accumulating the amount of evidence required by law enforcement." according to Kessler.

Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Quds Forces, the Mahdi Army, and the 20 other radical Islamist terror organizations world wide now have a friend in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune and Senator Obama.

They have an enemy in Senator McCain. You decide who is right and who is wrong. While you are our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan will be paying the price in blood as they decide "What to do".

This article consists of excerpts from a recently declassified intelligence assessment from Canada's Integrated Threat Assessment Center written on June 29, 2007.

A "lone wolf" is an individual who is inspired by a terrorist ideology or organization to conduct attacks, but acts independently, without established ties or accountability. Lone wolves do not associate with fellow-conspirators.

The Internet has become an important catalyst for inspiring homegrown extremists, including "lone wolves", by providing ideological motivation, encouragement, justification, target information, and instruction on techniques, all in an anonymous environment. Lone wolves motivated by Islamist extremism are a new concern. Several incidents carried out or planned by these extremist-inspired individual attackers have occurred in the US.

For the purpose of this assessment, a "lone wolf" is an individual who is inspired by a terrorist ideology or organization to conduct independent attacks. They may receive support from friends, but plan and conduct the attack alone. Lone wolves in North America have traditionally taken their inspiration from right-wing groups, single-issue causes, or national liberation movements. Lone wolves motivated by Islamic extremism are a recent development. Islamist terrorist strategists are now advocating that Muslims take action at a grassroots level, without waiting for instructions. Non-ideological factors, such as personal revenge, greed or coercion, do not appear to be motivators.

Lone-wolf attacks stem from the strategy of Leaderless Resistance (LR). LR emphasizes having no organizational structure and no formalized leadership. Small cells, or individuals, are self-sustaining, driven by ideology and capable of independent judgement and action. Fictionalized scenarios of LR, written by right-wing theorist William Pierce in his books, The Turner Diaries and Hunter, inspired lone wolves. Scenarios described in Hunter were later acted out by individuals such as:

Timothy McVeigh (1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City - 168 killed, hundreds injured)

Eric Robert Rudolph (1996 Atlanta Olympic bomber, also targeted abortion providers and gay bars, killing two and injuring over 100)

James Kopp (targeted abortion providers, killing one doctor in Amherst, New York)

Bufford Furrow (targeted a Jewish community centre in Los Angeles, killing one and injuring five)

Right-wing "lone wolves" have also attempted to obtain and use chemical and biological agents in their attacks. In April 2006, white supremacist Demetrius "Van" Crocker was convicted of trying to obtain Sarin nerve gas and C-4 explosives, which he intended to use against black residents in Jackson, Tennessee.

Extremists motivated by single issues such as the environment or the animal rights movement have also adopted the lone-wolf strategy. Radicals within these two movements have claimed responsibility for more than $100 million in damage in North America during the past two decades. Activists can become part of the eco-terror movement simply by carrying out an illegal action on its behalf. David Barbarash, a supporter of the Canadian Animal Liberation Front (ALF), claimed that the ALF "is not a group or a club that you can join, but a concept which is only realized when an action takes place under that name". Modeled after ALF, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) consists of people described on its website as "anonymous not only to the public but also to one another".

Growing Regard for Lone-wolf Tactics among Islamist Extremists

Similar to the shift that occurred in right-wing groups to lone wolves and small cells, the success of counterterrorism security forces against AQ and its affiliates may be bringing about another evolution in Islamist extremist strategy. Islamist extremists now promote a model that encourages independent, grassroots extremists to conduct their own attacks.

One of the most important advocates of acts of terrorism carried out by small, autonomous cells or individuals is Abu Musab al-Suni (Mustafa bin Abd al-Qadir Setmariam Nasar), a prominent terrorist lecturer, trainer and military instructor. In his book The Call for an International Islamic Resistance, al-Suni outlined a strategy for a global conflict on as many fronts as possible and taking the form of resistance by small cells or individuals, rather than traditional guerrilla warfare. To avoid penetration and defeat by security forces, he advised that organizational links be kept to an absolute minimum.

Other more anonymous calls for spontaneous Islamist extremist action (which may include lone-wolf attacks) appear on the Internet. For instance, in a 2003 article on a extremist Internet forum, Sada al Jihad (Echoes of Jihad), Usama bin Laden sympathizers were encouraged to take action without waiting for instructions.

As a subset of homegrown Islamist terrorism in North America, lone-wolf attacks or planned attacks seem to be on the increase. Several such cases have been recorded since 9/11:

Extremists and terrorists worldwide use the Internet for a variety of purposes. For the lone wolf, it provides instruction and provides inspiration and motivation, all within an anonymous environment.

Islamist extremist web sites offer not only theoretical and religious instruction but also practical on-line training courses that urge visitors to take action on their own. For example, the comprehensive Encyclopedia of Preparation for Jihad is available online. Professional, video-formatted instructional materials detailing various explosive manufacturing recipes have also begun to circulate widely on the web in the past two years, along with at least 22 other separate audio-visual terrorist manuals.

Lone-wolf Attacks in Canada

So far there have been no Islamist-inspired lone-wolf attacks in Canada. However, a number of lone-wolf and small-cell attacks motivated by other causes have occurred since the 1970s. Ideologies motivating attacks in Canada are primarily: race-based hate; eco-terrorism; animal rights; and the anti-abortion movement. Political and religiously motivated issues in the Sikh, Armenian and Sri Lankan communities, stemming from their countries of origin, have also inspired lone-wolf attacks. The religiously motivated "Sons of Freedom" Doukhobors have inspired uniquely Canadian lone wolves. Canada has been named on at least four occasions, by AQ or its affiliates, as a legitimate target. Further, in June 2006, Canadian police and security forces disrupted an AQ-inspired homegrown cell (the Toronto 17).

ITAC Assessment

Lone wolves act without established ties or accountability to leadership. As they are self initiating and carry out their attacks individually,

The Internet is helpful to an individual who may be preparing to conduct a lone-wolf attack, providing ideological motivation, encouragement, justification, all within an anonymous environment.

The editorial in today's Sarasota Herald-Tribune titled, "Bush's shot misses the mark", should be retitled "We endorse Barack for President".

It reads straight from the Obama play book. I wonder if they just cut and pasted the editorial from an e-mail from the Obama campaign. Or maybe from Howard Dean.

The Herald-Tribune uses the two pronged Obama attack plan. The first prong is to talk about and denigrate President Bush. The hypocrisy of this position is Obama said he was a new type of politician who would reach across the aisle and work with others. He would bring hope and change. There is no hope, change or reaching across the aisle in what Senator Obama says or does. His words speak louder than his actions.

Obama uses the same old attack politics of 2000. Talk down President Bush, talk down Republicans, and attack the administration using the same worn out phrases and sound bites.

Obama is not an agent of change. The only change he wants is him in the oval office. Nothing else.

Using this Obama tactic, the editorial board says President Bush's speech before the Knesset, "came across as clumsy and self-serving."

I don't think the editorial board took the time to watch the speech. For those who would like to see a video of the entire speech please go here.

In the speech the members of the Knesset and audience gave numerous standing ovations to President Bush. It was a historical speech because it addressed the strong alliance and historic bonds between Israel and the United States.

The President properly pointed out that, "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along....We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

The second Obama tactic is to say what is wrong with talking to our enemies.

The Herald-Tribune uses this Obama tactic by saying, "Just because the United States engages in talks with a hostile foreign power does not mean that America will give in to its demands."

Well we agree.

The Herald-Tribune then quotes Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saying that, if Iran would give up its uranium enrichment program, she would meet with Iranian officials "any place, any time, anywhere to talk about anything."

Well we agree. Giving up its uranium enrichment program is a "precondition" to any talks. However, talks between the Secretary of State and Iran. Not the President. Get it?

Senator Obama when asked if he would meet unconditionally and without preconditions in the first year of his Presidency in Washington, D.C. or anywhere else with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela he said, "I would."

Sound like Neville Chamberlain?

Since this CNN debate Senator Obama's campaign said he would not meet with Iran's President until they give up their nuclear weapons program. “Let’s not confuse precondition with preparation,” said [Obama Communications Director Robert] Gibbs of any talks with Iran. “Obviously these meetings would be full of preparation. But we’re not going to sit down and engage Iran, unless or until they give up their nuclear weapons program."

If Obama now says he won’t meet with Iran until they surrender their nuclear-weapons program, how exactly does that differ from President Bush? And how does that fit with his previous statements about having talks “without preconditions”?

What the Herald-Tribune fails to tell you is that the Bush administration has been engaged in talks with Iran. There are frequent direct talks between Ambassador Crocker and Iranian officials in Iraq about their support of the terrorist Mahdi militias. There are ongoing talks between Iran, the EU with U.S. involvement. The U.S. has also engaged the U.N. Security Council in toughening sanctions against Iran to stop their nuclear weapons program.

If Iran gave up its nuclear weapons program today, President Bush would open diplomatic contacts with Iran and might even consider a summit. He’s made that very clear over the last few years, holding out WTO sponsorship and normalized relations in exchange for just that concession.

So does Senator Obama agree with these efforts to engage in talks with Iran or not? Apparently not because he dismisses anything Bush.

However, Senator Obama recently said, "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us . . . . Iran, they spend 1/100th of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

Senator Obama is clearly sending a signal to Iran, Cuba and Venezuela that he does not consider them a "serious threat". He uses the simplistic standard of size of a countries defense budget to determine who in the world is worthy of being considered a threat. Al Qaeda spent a total of $500,000 to conduct the attack on 9/11. This simplistic vision of Iran's capabilities is dangerous.

So, meeting with Iran unconditionally, without preconditions and Iran does not pose a "serious threat".

There you have the Obama foreign policy on Iran and other enemies of the U.S. in a nut shell.

We also get a feel from Senator Obama on how he would deal with terrorism and terrorists at home. In his memoir Audacity of Hope is the following quote on page 261: "In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the [Democratic President Roosevelt's] Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

"That I will stand with them [Muslims] should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

Clearly Senator Obama and the Sarasota Herald-Tribune are standing with "them". Who is standing with U.S.?

Senator Obama has a new global test on American behavior. Here is his unbelievable statement at a campaign rally in Roseburg, Oregon on May 17th.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."

So, Senator Obama, what countries are we going to give control of our cars, dinner table and homes to? Do you plan to allow the UN to determine how we will enjoy the "pursuit of happiness" outlined in our Constitution?

Perhaps you are signaling that your administration will be telling us what we can drive, eat and control the temperature in our homes for the good of the state. Sounds a lot like the old USSR.

The man's arrogance knows no boundaries.

Here are Senator Obama's own words and words do matter.

"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us . . . . Iran, they spend 1/100th of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

He is clearly sending a signal to Iran, Cuba and Venezuela that he does not consider them a problem. He has stated he will meet with the leaders of these countries without preconditions. He uses the simplistic standard of size of a countries defense budget to determine who in the world is worthy of being considered a threat. Al Qaeda spent a total of $500,000 to conduct the attack on 9/11.

Senator Obama has just signaled to Israel that their neighbor Iran, which has called for their destruction, is not to be worried about by the United States. Amazing.

Cuba and Venezuela are spreading Communism throughout South America and Senator Obama does not think they pose a "serious threat". I am sure Columbia and our allies in South America do not agree with him. Senator Obama is signaling that FARC terrorists supported by Venezuela need no longer fear American intervention.

Senator Obama is the greatest threat to the national security of the United States. His own words say so.

First we learned about the strong Marxist background of Senator Barack Obama from his memoirs. We learned that among his friends he included "the more politically active black students, foreign students, Chicanos, Marxist professors, feminists, and punk rock performance poets.".

Then we learned about his "mentors" and "heroes" Saul Alinsky and Frank Marshall Davis both card carrying members of the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA). We also learned that his father was a communist. We know about his good friend and close adviser Larry Lessig who is also know as the "digital communist".

Now we learn from the Sam Webb, National Chair of CPUSA himself, his parties support for Democrats in general and Barack Obama in particular.

Joel Wendland of the CPUSA writes in his article Landslide: Sweep Republicans from Power in November, "At its quarterly national committee meeting this past weekend, the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) called for a landslide in the November 4th elections to defeat John McCain and strengthening the Democratic Party majorities in Congress."

Wendland says, "Obama's candidacy is unique in all of this excitement. It is transformational and new. It has brought new forces into the process and built new organizational forms."

"What makes it different is that it [Obama's campaign] has the feel of a movement," Sam Webb, CPUSA National Chair said. Obama speaks to people's desires and inspires them. "He is a fresh voice on the political scene. His courage and astuteness are obvious," Webb said.

According to Webb, "His desire to overcome racial and religious and national and other divisions "strikes a deeply responsive chord far and wide."

"To say that Clinton has garnered the vast majority of the working-class vote is simply wrong", Webb said.

"Black voters are overwhelming working class. The working class has divided its vote between the two. Trade union voters have given a slight edge to Clinton, but Obama has polled well and has won important union endorsements", says Webb.

Well it looks like Senator Barack Obama has now garnered the loving embrace of the Communist Party of the United States of America.

My guess is that Senator McCain will not carry the CPUSA vote. Of course he spent thirty years in the Navy fighting communists. It is understandable they would not support him.

That is why we support Senator John McCain over Senator Obama. One will fight our enemies. The other will join our enemies to destroy all that we value as Americans.

According to Columnist Paul R. Hollrah, "After arriving at Occidental [College in Los Angeles], Obama chose his friends carefully. He tells us [in his memoir] that, among his friends he included "the more politically active black students, foreign students, Chicanos, Marxist professors, feminists, and punk rock performance poets."

"Then, after transferring to Columbia University two years later, he found that "political discussions, the kind that at Occidental had once seemed so intense and purposeful," took on the flavor of the "socialist conferences" he sometimes attended at New York's Coopers Union." "As Obama was preparing to graduate from Columbia he wasn't sure what he wanted to do with the rest of his life. Finally, in 1983, he decided to follow in the footsteps of one of his heroes, radical leftist and communist fellow traveler, Saul Alinsky. He concluded, "That's what I'll do… I'll organize black folks at the grass roots… for change."

"There wasn't much detail to the idea," he says. "I didn't know anyone making a living that way. When classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn't answer them directly. Instead, I'd pronounce on the need for change. Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds. Change in the Congress, compliant and corrupt. Change in the mood of the country, manic and self-absorbed. 'Change won't come from the top,' I would say. 'Change will come from a mobilized grass roots.' "

Barack Obama moved to Chicago, Alinsky's hometown, and established himself as a community organizer.

So who is Saul Alinsky?

According to Wikipedia, "Alinsky was a critic of a passive and ineffective mainstream liberalism. In Rules for Radicals, he argued that the most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired ends, and that an intermediate end for radicals should be democracy because of its relative ease to work within to achieve other ends of social justice."

In Rules for Radicals Alinsky writes, "There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution."

This is where Senator Barack Obama's campaign about "Change" comes from. He is not talking about positive change but rather the change outlined by his mentor Saul Alinsky. Revolutionary change. Socialist change.

In order to reach his goal Senator Obama, with the help of the radical left, the media and the Democratic party, is setting the stage for this radical leftist change agenda. He and his supporters are demonizing President Bush, Republicans, conservatives, Christians and those who believe in America.

As his mentor Saul Alinsky said, "They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future." Obama believes, "the most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired ends", even if that means lying, cheating and stealing. Obama will change the future.

Yes, change the future for the worst.

NOTE: Oddly enough, another of Alinsky's most ardent admirers turned out to be the woman who is now his principal opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Her 1969 senior thesis at Wellesley College was titled, There Is Only The Fight: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune has a excellent editorial titled, "NATO at a crossroads".

We fully agree with the editorial board when is says that, "NATO should not compromise its commitment to accomplishing the crucial mission in Afghanistan."

Historically, there have been many issues facing the West and by definition NATO, which as pointed out by the editorial board, "has outlasted the Soviet Union, helped quell genocide in southern Europe and successfully expanded beyond the imagination of its creators."

NATO has morphed from an initially regional self-defense alliance into a proactive Western military force involved in a global war against radical Islamists.

As we have said many times, the West is not fighting a War on Terror. Terror is a military tactic. Nations do not fight wars against military tactics. Nations fight wars over ideologies.

What we are fighting is a global War against radical Islamists. Radical Islam includes nations such as Iran and Syria. Radical Islam includes groups like the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda. Diverse entities tied together by a single ideology.

The Global War against Radical Islamists is like all other wars. There are hot fronts and cold fronts in the war. The hot fronts are currently in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The cold fronts are in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Australia, and North America.

The hot fronts are characterized primarly by the engagement of military forces in direct contact with the radical Islamists, supplemented by economic, political, and diplomatic initiatives.

The cold fronts are characterized by aggressive intelligence/counter intelligence operations, economic, diplomatic, political and law enforcement actions to prevent the infiltration of radical Islamists who would do harm to the national security or launch attacks against sovereign nations and their people.

We disagree with the report by the Atlantic Council of the United States. The West and NATO can only lose the Afghanistan front if the United States and Europe lose the will to win.

None of the major radical Islamist military and para-military organizations, taken together, can defeat the West and NATO. We can only defeat ourselves by either pulling back from the fight or abandoning the battlefield altogether.

There are many working toward just such a scenario including radical Islamists, anti-war activists and some in both liberal and conservative parties in Europe and North America.

We must maintain our resolve and win on all fronts and thereby win the global War Against Radical Islamists.

We hope our Presidential candidates and the West in general enter into an open discussion of this threat and work together with Muslims around the world to help them solve their problem of radicals who have taken over Islam and preach violence and death.

This is a blog report on a press conference at the National Press Club reporting dangerous terrorist acts by anti-war leftist groups like Code Pink and A.N.S.W.E.R (part of the World Workers Party, a communist organization) perpetrated against military recruiters. These people are getting dangerous.

Anti-war protests are scheduled for March 19th, the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, in Tampa, Florida by the following anti-war/Socialist/Communist/radical Islamic groups.

Some of these groups have terrorist connections such as the Muslim American Society, which is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood:

A.N.S.W.E.R. Florida
Florida Peace Action Network
St. Pete for Peace
Progressive Democrats of America-FL
Tampa Bay Veterans for Peace
Nature Coast Coalition for Peace and Justice
The Refuge Ministries
Code Pink Tampa Bay
Peace Now Citrus County
Military Families Speak Out - Florida
Muslim American Society - Tampa Chapter
Friends of Human Rights
Green Bridge Patriots
Code Pink Sarasota
Tampa 9/11 Truth
Code Pink Florida
Socialist Party of Tampa Bay
Immigrants United for Freedom
First United Church of Tampa Social Action Committee
Green Party of Florida
The Buddhist Peace Fellowship of Tampa Bay
Islamic Community of Tampa (ICT)
Pinellas County Democratic Party
Project Vote Count

You guys won’t believe the scene at the National Press Club today.

We at Move America Forward were releasing our investigative report on the nationwide plague of attacks against military recruiting centers. (The Sedition Report)

Congressman John Carter (co-sponsor of the Semper Fi Act) was there speaking. So too was Debbie Lee, mother of the 1st Navy Seal killed in Iraq.

Then, midway through the news conference, members of Code Pink, International ANSWER and Global Exchange start heckling, screaming, yelling.

They said our claims of improper actions by anti-war radicals were all lies, that the anti-military activists have been nothing but peaceful.

They tried to shout down our speakers, and when we asked for security to remove them they refused to go, resulting in the forced eviction by security - despite their efforts to physically resist being removed.

Congressman Carter was whisked out for his safety and then the anti-war radicals chased down Congressman Carter’s staff. Soon thereafter as I was walking to another appointment I found myself stalked by the radicals who pulled up in a car yelling obscenities at me for daring to report on their disgusting conduct.

These people proved our point today! They did exactly what we’ve accused them of doing at military recruiting centers when they storm in, occupy the office, halt the work of recruiters and refuse to leave.

What angers me most is that these people don’t stop there. They’ve planted bombs at recruiting centers (not just Times Square but St. Louis too!). They pumped eight rounds of gunfire into the Denver military recruiting center. They’ve set fire to recruiting centers in San Jose, CA and Asheville, NC.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The complete report - including citations where their supporters cheer on the acts of violence - and our new national ad campaign focusing on this issue are at the Move America Forward website.

I’m attaching a photo of one of the anti-war radicals who stood up, stripped off his clothes to reveal a pink jacket, and began screaming down our speakers at the news conference.

Folks - we struck a nerve. These people DO NOT want their seditious behavior exposed. Well, that makes me even MORE determined to do just that, and I know it will have the same effect on you as well!

For more on the Winter Soldier II conference go to Michele Malkin's blog.

We attended a series of National Security panel discussions and briefings, culminating in a showing of the award winning documentary Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West in Naples, Florida this weekend.

We met many men and women representing a cross section of America who came together to learn about the threat posed by radical Islam to the world. Around three hundred concerned citizens came to the presentations, showing of the documentary Obsession and the panel discussion.

The event was conducted by the Florida Security Council's founders Tom Trento, Mike Tranchina and Elaine Roy. The Florida Security Council has put on similar briefings for the Florida legislature, hosted by House majority leader Representative Adam Hasner, civic groups, law enforcement, business leaders, religious groups, and concerned citizens.

The Naples expert presenters were noted Naples community leader and event host Jack Tymann, former President of Westinghouse International, Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, physician, former U.S. Navy Commander and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and Sam Kharoba, noted law enforcement trainer, software consultant and founder of the Counter Terrorism Operations Center.

What I learned at the National Security Briefing was the following:

1. We are not fighting a War on Terror. Terror is simply a tactic used by our enemies.

2. We are in fact fighting a global war against Radical Islam or Islamism. The fundamental difference between Islamism and democracy is the relationship between government and religion. The Koran for Islamists is not a guide for laws but rather the guide for laws.

3. We need to know and understand the enemy. We need to recognize that they are fighting a total war against the West. The unconditional surrender of the West is their goal. They look at Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other hot beds of radical Islamic activity as battles in the great war against the West.

4. We need to understand ourselves. We must be prepared to fight a long total war against radical Islam. We must commit to bringing to bear all our social, economic, political and military power against this enemy. We must win regardless of the cost.

5. We must unite as Americans and stand strong together. We must understand that we are fighting for our lives and the lives of our children and grandchildren. How we fight Isalmism today will determine the political, religious and social world our grand children inherit.

6. We are in a critical clash between American ideas and Islamist ideas. However, we have not engaged in a real discussion of these ideas. Our media, universities, businesses leaders, religious leaders and politicians have all abdicated their responsibility to confront radical Islam because of political correctness and a fear of offending Muslims.

7. Only a grass roots effort by concerned citizens will turn the tide.

After the briefings many asked what can we do. The answer is clear.

First we must all be personally engaged in learning about radical Islam. Next, and this is critical, we must each do whatever we can to get the word out. The most important asset we bring to the table is what we used to call our "Rolodex" file, now we call it our e-mail list. This is the list of all contacts we have made over the years. People who know us and we know them. Most importantly we listen to and trust one another. Finally, we want our friends to join with us and take action to confront radical Islam.

Last, what do we want as an outcome. Here are some thoughts on that. Perhaps you can add to this list.

1. Our Presidential candidates must discuss the War against radical Islam in detail. We all need to know what is their action plan for defeating radical Islam. No plan is not an answer.

2. Our media, universities, businesses, churches, synagogues, and mosques must engage in a meaningful public debate on radical Islamic ideas versus democratic ideas.

3. We want a "surge" of action that will lead to an "awakening" in America as it has in Iraq's Anbar province.

4. Just as in Iraq we need groups like the Sons of Iraq, the alliance of Sheiks and neighborhood groups like Concerned Local Citizens in the global Muslim community to denounce and if needed to fight terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

5. We need a anti-jihad jihad. We need Imams to declare publicly a jihad against radical Islam.

6. We need Muslims to embrace the idea of the separation of church and state. That there is a difference between one nation under God and a nation ruled by Allah.

7. We need to embrace the ideals, values and religious beliefs passed down to us by our fore fathers. We must not forget that we are Americans first and foremost. All other ethnic, religious and race differences are secondary to being an American.

8. Finally, we cannot become complacent. We cannot say it is somebody else's problem. It is too far away to worry about.

We have taken the first step and joined the Florida Security Council. We encourage you to get involved. If you want to know how just e-mail me at rswier@comcast.net.