Archive for January 21st, 2010

FBI Gets CAIR Terror Ties Documents

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

Awesome…

Responding to a federal subpoena served by the FBI, lawyers for a former Air Force special agent who conducted a private undercover probe of the Council on American-Islamic Relations have turned over thousands of pages of internal documents that allegedly confirm the D.C.-based Muslim group’s role as a front for terrorist groups that seek Islam’s domination over the U.S.

As WND reported, FBI agents entered the capital law offices of Cozen O’Connor in the nation’s capital Nov. 24 with a warrant to obtain 12,000 pages of documents gathered by P. David Gaubatz and his son Chris in a daring six-month undercover penetration of CAIR. The younger Gaubatz served as an unpaid intern for the group that was designated an unindicted terrorist co-conspirator in the trial of the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation, the largest terrorist-finance case in U.S. history. Chris Gaubatz says he was able to collect the documents after CAIR leaders asked interns to shred them.

The FBI’s move suggests the federal government wants to see the papers as part of its interest in CAIR, its founders and their Hamas terrorist links.

Among the documents, which are cited in “Muslim Mafia” by WND Books, is evidence CAIR works behind the scenes to mislead and deceive the FBI on behalf of terrorism suspects and has cultivated Muslim moles inside law enforcement who have tipped off FBI terror targets.

The book, co-authored by David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry, asserts CAIR is acting as a front for a conspiracy of the Muslim Brotherhood – the parent of al-Qaida and Hamas – to infiltrate the U.S. and help pave the way for Saudi-style Islamic law to rule the nation.

David Gaubatz told WND he is happy to see the material finally is in the hands of the FBI, which “has the resources to review the thousands of names, organizations and data in the documents.”

A link analysis of the information by the agency, he said, will show, among other things, CAIR’s support for Islamic terrorist groups, its funding from foreign Muslim sources; its involvement with the Saudi government, the Saudis’ influence on elected U.S. officials, the Muslim Brotherhood’s intimidation of American media and how CAIR plotted the “flying imams” case to have a chilling effect on law enforcement and security at the nation’s airports.

Gaubatz said there are documents that reveal prominent Muslims under investigation by the FBI went to CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad and others for consultation. The documents show CAIR was aware that the Muslim leaders lied to the FBI about trips to Saudi Arabia.

Among the documents is a letter to Awad from a Muslim leader who told CAIR he had the right under Islam to commit violence against federal authorities. CAIR did not disclose the threat to the FBI, Gaubatz said.

The FBI subpoena came after a federal judge in Washington issued a restraining order, Nov. 3, requiring that the documents be returned to CAIR’s lawyers along with audio and video recordings made by Chris Gaubatz. Lawyers for the Gaubatzes say they complied with both orders by returning the original documents to CAIR and sending copies to federal authorities.

The order by U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly was issued in CAIR’s lawsuit against the Gaubatzes in which the group claims Chris Gaubatz removed its papers and made recordings of employees “without any consent or authorization and in violation of his contractual fiduciary and other legal obligations.” Gaubatz lawyer Daniel Horowitz filed a motion last month in response, arguing CAIR is unable to demonstrate it suffered harm and, furthermore, has no claim because the group does not legally exist. Horowitz explains that just two weeks after CAIR was named by the Justice Department in May 2007 as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Texas case, the organization changed its name to the Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Network.

CAIR’s lawsuit does not contest the book’s claims.

Original Link.

Dems ‘Hysterical’ as Obama Retreats on Health

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

The election of Scott Brown, in Massachusetts the late Ted Kennedy’s senate seat, has thrown the Democrats into disarray. As Ann Coulter pointed out, “To be sure, the fact that 52 percent of Massachusetts voters are racist, sexist tea-baggers — i.e., voted for a Republican — means only that the Democrats just went from having the largest congressional majority in a generation to the second largest. But this was “Teddy Kennedy’s seat.” And it was in Massachusetts. Now, no Democrat is safe.”
It will be interesting to see where this goes.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama suggested he’s open to Congress passing a scaled-back health-care bill, potentially sacrificing much of his signature policy initiative as chaos engulfed Capitol Hill Wednesday.

Top Democrats said they would press ahead despite growing doubts among rank-and-file members that they can pass a bill they’ve been laboring over for nearly a year. A host of ideas offered in recent days have lost favor.

One day after losing their filibuster-proof Senate majority in a Massachusetts special election, exhausted Senate Democrats looked downtrodden as they filed into their weekly lunch in a second-floor room at the Capitol. “People are hysterical right now,” said one Senate aide.

Party members clashed openly over what to do next. Sen. Max Baucus, a top Senate Democrat, appeared to throw cold water on a bill that would focus only on stiffer insurance regulations. Rep. Charles Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, scotched another idea, a complicated parliamentary maneuver to usher a bill quickly to the president’s desk.

In an interview with ABC News, President Obama said he would be open to scaling back the legislation in order to salvage it. “I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements in the package that people agree on,” Obama said. White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said later the president would prefer Congress to pass the comprehensive package, and hasn’t given up on that option.

A pared-down bill could still restrict insurance companies from denying care and overcharging customers, but would likely jettison a mandate requiring everyone buy insurance. That provision opened Democrats to charges that they were unreasonably expanding the scope of government.

Original Link.

“That Old Obama Magic Is Back” by Ann Coulter

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

Once again, the people have spoken, and this time they quoted what Dick Cheney said to Pat Leahy.

Less than two weeks ago, The New York Times said that so much as a “tighter-than-expected” victory for Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley would incite “soul-searching among Democrats nationally,” which sent Times readers scurrying to their dictionaries to look up this strange new word, “soul.”

A close win for Coakley, the Times said, would constitute “the first real barometer of whether problems facing the party” will affect the 2010 elections.

But when Coakley actually lost the election by an astounding 5 points, the Chicago boys in the White House decided it was the chick’s fault.

Democratic candidate Martha Coakley may be a moral monster, but it’s ridiculous to blame her for losing the election. She lost because of the Democrats’ obsession with forcing national health care down the nation’s throat.

Coakley campaigned exactly the way she should have.

As a Democrat running in a special election for a seat that had been held by a Democratic icon (and another moral monster) for the past 46 years in a state with only 12 percent registered Republicans, Coakley’s objective was to have voters reading the paper on Friday, saying: “Hey, honey, did you know there was a special election four days ago? Yeah, apparently Coakley won, though it was a pretty low turnout.”

Ideally, no one except members of government unions and Coakley’s immediate family would have even been aware of the election.

And until Matt Drudge began covering it like a presidential election a week ago, it might have turned out that way.

Coakley had already won two statewide elections, while her Republican opponent, Scott Brown, had only won elections in his district. She had endorsements from the Kennedy family and the current appointed Democratic senator, Paul Kirk — as well as endless glowing profiles in The Boston Globe.

And by the way, as of Jan. 1, Brown had spent $642,000 on the race, while Coakley had spent $2 million.

On Jan. 8, just 11 days before the election, The New York Times reported: “A Brown win remains improbable, given that Democrats outnumber Republicans by 3 to 1 in the state and that Ms. Coakley, the state’s attorney general, has far more name recognition, money and organizational support.”

It was in that article that the Times said a narrow Coakley win would be an augury for the entire Democratic Party. But now she’s being hung out to dry so that Democrats don’t have to face the possibility that Obama’s left-wing policies are to blame.

Alternatively, Democrats are trying to write off Brown’s colossal victory as the standard seesawing of public sentiment that hits both Republicans and Democrats from time to time. As MSNBC’s Chris Matthews explained, it was just the voters saying “no” generally, but not to anything in particular.

Read the rest of the article here.

Obama to Seek New Power to Limit Bank Risks

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

Obama is still going after the banks. By demonizing them, he hopes to add them to his list of government take overs, in line with the auto industry and health care. There is nothing this man does not want to control.

WASHINGTON — Stepping up pressure on Wall Street, President Barack Obama on Thursday plans to call for giving the government new powers to limit the size and complexity of large financial institutions and to limit their ability to engage in high-risk trades.

Obama will make the announcement Thursday, a senior administration official said, in a bipartisan display aimed at capitalizing on the one issue in his agenda still standing after a devastating Democratic electoral loss in Massachusetts.

The restrictions expand on previous administration positions and would strengthen measures already approved by the House of Representatives. The Senate is in the midst of writing new banking regulations.

Obama is placing a new emphasis on Wall Street regulations, with a goal of limiting the financial sector to smaller, less interconnected firms. The complexity of the financial industry forced the government in 2008 to approve massive bailouts to prevent a systemwide economic collapse.

Original Link.