To the government of the state of Israel.  We are Anonymous.  For too long we have tolerated your crimes against humanity and allowed your sins to go unpunished.  Through the use of media deception and political bribery, you have amassed the sympathies of many.  You claim to be democratic, yet in reality, this is far from the truth.  In fact, your only goal is to better the lives of a select few while carelessly trampling the liberties of the masses.  We see through the propaganda that you circulate through the mainstream media and lobby through the political establishment.

Your Zionist bigotry has displaced and killed a great many. As the world weeps you laugh while planning your next attack.  All of this is done under the veil of peace, but so long as your regime exists, peace shall be hindered. You label all who refuse to comply with your superstitious demands as anti-Semitic and have taken steps to ensure a nuclear holocaust. You are unworthy to exist in your current form and will therefore face the wrath of Anonymous. Your empire lacks legitimacy and because of this, you must govern behind a curtain of deceit.  We will not allow you to attack a sovereign country based upon a campaign of lies. Your grip over humanity will weaken and man will be closer to freedom. But before this is accomplished, the people of this world will rise against you and renounce you and all your worth.

Our crusade against your reign of terror shall commence in three steps.

Step one will be initiated after the release of this video and will be comprised of systematically removing you from the internet. Step two will be later disclosed and is already in initiation; and, as for step three, well, think of this one as a present from Anonymous to you – we will not stop until the police state becomes a free state. We are Anonymous, we are legion, we do not forgive, we do not forget. Israeli government expect us.

It is not known whether Anonymous will actually follow through on the threat, as the collective has been known to abandon some plans, while misunderstanding others.  Additionally, an operation is sometimes thwarted when it’s been discovered to be the scheming of a rogue Anon.

But there has already been plenty of cyber-warring amongst hackers in the region, if this is any indicator.  Earlier in the week, Israeli hackers identifying themselves as the “IDF Team” attacked several Arab websites, including the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency and the Abu Dhabi Stock Exchange, after Arab hackers launched a distributed denial of service attack on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange and El Al airlines.  One of the lead hackers in Monday’s attack on Israeli targets told the Jerusalem Post that attacks would cease only “if the Israeli government apologized for what he described as a ‘genocide in Palestine.’”

A collective of Saudi hackers also hacked one of Israel’s largest sports sites and published the details of thousands of Israelis’ credit cards online.

According to Agence France Presse, a statement by “anonymous Saudi Arabian hackers” from Group-XP, the “largest Wahhabi hacker group of Saudi Arabia,” appeared on Israeli sports website One.co.il yesterday, announcing that the customer databases of multiple Israeli sites had been hacked.

Visitors were then redirected to another page, where they were invited to download lists of thousands of names, addresses, credit card numbers, expiration dates and security codes. Cards used to make payments to “Judaism” websites or “Israeli Zionist Rabbis” were among those listed, Haaretz reported.

The hackers’ statement described the attack as “a gift to the world for the new year” that they hoped “would hurt the Zionist pocket,” according to Ynet:

“It will be so fun to see 400,000 Israelis stand in line outside banks and offices of credit card companies to complain that their cards had been stolen. To see banks shred 400,000 cards and reissue them. To see that Israeli cards are not accepted around the world, like the Nigerian cards,” the hackers wrote.

Coincidentally, the incidents come at a time when some are speculating that Hamas leaders are pushing for another ‘Arab Spring’ in the region in light of their recent signing of a unity agreement with Fatah, a deal that was denounced by Israel’s prime minister.

I was referring to Hassan Shibly, a representative of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), who spoke at Tampa’s Steinbrenner High School in November. After I broke the story at my website Atlas Shrugs on December 4, giving specifics of where and when the CAIR rep spoke, and then published the article in the Thinker, “Hamas High School in Florida?,” patriots made hundreds of calls and sent hundreds of letters, emails, Tweets and Facebook messages in protest to Steinbrenner school officials.

The main person responsible was Kelly R. Miliziano, a teacher in the Social Studies Department at Steinbrenner. And she announced Wednesday that the school has scheduled additional religious speakers to balance the CAIR operative — a Hindu priest or a Christian pastor.

The problem with that is that Shibly is a political speaker. A Hindu priest or Christian pastor won’t counter the poisonous propaganda that Shibly spews to our impressionable young minds. An informed counter-jihad speaker such as Robert Spencer, Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan or I myself must be given a chance to speak, so as to counter the lies of Hamas-tied CAIR.

Hamas-linked CAIR should not be speaking at all, but if the public school shills insist on presenting jihadi views, they must provide freedom lovers with the same opportunity. Further, political speakers should be off limits on school grounds.

Meanwhile, the email exchanges between CAIR and Steinbrenner High School are revealing. Miliziano wrote this in a November 14 email: “Every year I invite a representative from CAIR to speak to our AP World History Students.” After CAIR-Tampa responded favorably, Miliziano wrote again: “Over the years I have had many speakers from CAIR come to my classes, and it has been such a good learning experience for the students.”

Miliziano said that she “regularly asks” Shibly to speak. This is despite the fact that Shibly has a track record of defending jihad terrorist groups and acting as an apologist for the worldwide jihad and Islamic supremacism. Following the 2006 Israel-Lebanon War, Shibly granted legitimacy to the jihad terrorist group Hezb’allah by characterizing it as a “resistance movement” that provides valued social services to the Lebanese people. “They’re absolutely not a terrorist organization,” Shibly said, and “any war against them is illegitimate.”

Yet Miliziano refused to respond to parents’ requests to vet the notorious Mr. Shibly. Instead, she attacked the parents who complained. She even called parents’ concerns about CAIR “baseless and Islamophobic.” Yet although it presents itself as a civil rights group, CAIR actually has many links to Islamic supremacist and jihad terror groups. CAIR’s cofounders Omar Ahmad and Niwad Awad attended a Hamas planning meeting in Philadelphia in 1993 where they conspired with Hamas operatives to raise funds for Hamas. And several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various jihad-related crimes.

This should be grounds for Miliziano’s immediate dismissal. Freedom lovers should urge Steinbrenner’s principal, Brenda Grasso, to fire Miliziano at once demand equal time for freedom fighters, while calling upon Steinbrenner High cease and desist from inviting Muslim Brotherhood groups to speak to public school students. Call for Ms. Miliziano’s removal. Demand equal time for freedom fighters. Brenda Grasso’s email is brenda.grasso@sdhc.k12.fl.us.

One parent of a Steinbrenner student, whose child went through Shibly’s indoctrination, wrote me that his daughter told him that Shibly said that “only 4% or 6% of Muslims were terrorists,” and that his presentation was so positive toward Islam as to be “borderline proselytizing.”

This parent went to Steinbrenner the morning of December 5 and spoke to Kelly King, the Assistant Principal for Curriculum. King confirmed that the speaker who addressed his daughter’s class was indeed a representative from Hamas-linked CAIR. “I explained to Ms. King,” wrote the parent, “that I strongly objected to CAIR being involved in the school, and recited some of CAIR’s more infamous highlights. She replied that the presentation was part of a history of religion unit in their history class. I told her that I have no problem with students being taught the history of Islam, but if the school was going to have a speaker do that, they should invite an Imam, not a representative from a religious based political organization, particularly one with such a dubious history.”

In response, King equated “a Christian pastor to a PAC” and ultimately referred the parent to Miliziano, who said that she regularly invited Shibly to give presentations, and “that the statements I had made about CAIR were baseless and Islamophobic,” even though the parent had expressly told her that he had no problem with the school bringing in an imam to discuss the history of Islam. When the parent tried to explain to her that “the school was associating itself with a religious-based political organization that propagandizes for Islam & Sharia, and are terrorist apologists,” Miliziano “completely dismissed these concerns.”

And despite Miliziano’s assurances that a Hindu priest and a Christian pastor would address the class, so far only Shibly has done so.

This is unconscionable. Freedom lovers must demand equal time.

Pamela Geller is the publisher of AtlasShrugs.com and the author of the WND Books title “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance” and The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America (Threshold Editions/Simon & Schuster).

Push youngest/oldest to the front lines….This is a battle over images, not just over the park.

- Charles Lenchner, Occupy Wall Street activist, Oct. 13, 2011

If the police overreact (as they are likely to) and we take the blows, and it is recorded, it will go worldwide and further tremendously galvanize the movement.

- Tarak Kauff, Veterans for Peace organizer, Oct. 13, 2011

Woman in a wheelchair, Occupy Oakland riot, Oct. 25. Photo: Bradblog.com

When the activists of Occupy Oakland attacked police en masse on October 25th, throwing paint bombs and provoking volleys of tear gas, the images galvanized the Occupy movement as never before.

“Come see the violence inherent in the system!” they have all but shouted, using wild allegations of police brutality, and fallacious arguments about First Amendment violations, to build solidarity among scattered activists.

The outrage is sincere–but so is the jubilation.

Clashes with the police affirm the activistsʼ fantasy–that they are the leading a revolution, that the truths they speak are so potent that the “1 percent” must use force to suppress them.

The clashes also assuage the jealousy–what Harvard literature professor Philip Fisher once called “nightmare envy”– western radicals feel when watching the Arab Spring, where the struggles are deadly real.

But the Occupy activists have not just yearned for confrontations with police; they have planned them.

In at least two cities, they have sent military veterans–in uniform, thus violating military code–to the front of protest marches in order to provoke police and to be the first targets if and when police do use force.

For example, a video from New York, posted on Oct. 16, shows a former Marine taunting and provoking police officers.

Most recently, Occupy activists have circulated videos that appear to show a Marine veteran, Scott Olsen, being wounded by a tear gas canister fired by police during the Oakland riot.

Occupy Wall Street is calling for a nationwide vigil for Olsen tonight with the theme: “We Are All Scott Olsen.” MoveOn.org–no friend of the military–is also highlighting the incident, as are Think Progress and other left-wing organizations.

Olsen’s injuries appear serious (we hope for his speedy and full recovery), and the Oakland police may indeed have overreacted. Nonetheless, evidence collected by Big Government reveals that Occupy has long sought precisely the sort of spectacle Olsen’s injury provides, in order to win broader public sympathy and to rally Occupy activists around common opposition to the police.

That is clear from an email sent on Oct. 13 by Tarak Kauff to other Occupy Wall Street activists. Kauff organizes “nonviolent direct action” for Veterans for Peace–the group Olsen marched with in Oakland.

In anticipation of a raid by police the next day to clear Zuccotti Park for cleaning (which was called off), Occupy Wall Street activists planned to hold brooms as police arrived, to show they were willing to clean the park themselves.

Kauff advised activists to hold brooms “peacefully,” with the brush side up, so as not to create the impression that the protestors were armed. He then suggested:

If the police overreact (as they are likely to) and we take the blows, and it is recorded, it will go worldwide and further tremendously galvanize the movement…If that can be done, this could be a major turning point. You will put the police and city in a lose/lose situation…

The Occupy activists havenʼt relied on veterans alone. They have also tried to use “weak” people as sympathetic human shields–the old, the young, and disabled. Prior to the anticipated “cleaning” in Zuccotti Park, another activist, Charles Lenchner, wrote via e-mail: “Push youngest/ oldest to the front lines….This is a battle over images, not just over the park.”

(Note the word “push,” suggesting that some might have to be moved to the front lines against their will.)

And at the Oakland riot, Occupy activists brought along a woman in a wheelchair. The mainstream media dutifully broadcast the image of them pushing her through clouds of tear gas.

These tactics are not new. They are the same methods used by terrorist organizations like Hamas to win global sympathy during conflict with Israel.

Thatʼs no surprise, given that leading organizers in recent Occupy protests in Chicago are under investigation for links to Hamas and other terrorist groups.

Source: RebelPundit.com

Increasingly, as winter sets in and internal divisions worsen, the Occupy movement depends on such provocative tactics to maintain cohesion.

The emerging truth is that Occupy has no other grievances. The “tell” is this weekʼs attempt by the mainstream media to elicit comment from Occupy activists about student loans–just as President Obama has unveiled a new (and futile) proposal to cap monthly payments. The amounts cited by some Occupy activists–$20,000, for example–are high but not jaw-dropping (for example, Iʼm paying back roughly $200,000 in student debt.)

Buoyed by extended unemployment benefits, aided by Obamacare provisions that let 26-year-olds stay on their parentsʼ health insurance, living off generous public pensions, and tolerated (barely) by private and public landowners, the activists of Occupy are, at least in part, an apparently comfortable lot who dream of revolution, not reform.

But Occupy can only survive and grow if it can provoke violence from police, and thereby evoke sympathy from the public. Expect more Scott Olsens, soon.

BG: Given that Israel is a “national” issue, why did you get involved in the race in New York’s 9th district, in particular?

Koch: There were only two special congressional elections in the whole country–here and in Nevada. The election in the 9th congressional district was the only election in the City of New York. And I thought, and I expressed myself publicly, that it would be a good place, being the largest Jewish district in America–something like 300,000 Jews lived in that district, and the Jewish vote would be somewhere around 30% or more–it would be a good place to have a referendum on whether the President’s position on Israel, which I have described as hostile to Israel, was one representative of the voters of that district.

And I got a call from Bob Turner, who wanted to see me. I had never met him before. We talked, and I said, “I want to send a message to the President on Israel,” and he agreed, and I also said, “I want to send a message to the Republicans in Washington that you disagree with their effort to privatize Social Security and Medicare.” He said, “I do disagree.” I said, “Let’s put it in writing.” And we did, and I endorsed him, and I framed the issues carefully so people could understand them.

Bob Turner was a marvelous candidate. Without a good candidate, you can’t prevail, even if you’re on the right side. He’s honest, intelligence, courageous, and he’s got a good sense of humor.

So we went out there. I campaigned for him, and the Democratic Party took the district for granted up until the last, probably, ten days, and then they realized from the polls that Turner had turned it all around. He was now six points ahead, a week before the election. So they brought in Bill Clinton, Charles Schumer, and Governor Andrew Cuomo to do robo-calls. And we did robo-calls–myself, and Assemblyman Dov Hikind–and clearly, we prevailed, since Bob won with an eight percent message.

Was that a challenge, to frame that dual message?

No, it was easy.

Weren’t there voters who had problems with one side or the other of that message?

I’m sure there were–there always are! But he prevailed.

Do you think President Obama got the message you were sending?

I hope so. I want you to know that if the Obama administration takes the position, as I believe it does, that there’s a misunderstanding, that they agree with me–that’s what I’ve been told by people close to him within the Democratic Party in Washington–if that is so, and the President makes it clear publicly, that will dissolve of the problem. But as of this moment, I don’t see that that has happened. If it does, I will be happy to join his campaign, and do what I did for him before, which he asked me to do when he ran in 2008, and talk to the Jewish communities on his behalf in Florida and elsewhere.

Do you object to specific policies, or to his stance in general?

There are specific policies–which I referred to in my two letters to the New York Times [published and unpublished]. One of my major complaints was that he put the onus unfairly on Israel with respect to the settlement negotiations by saying you have to go back to the table with the pre-67 lines as the basis from which you talk, with agreed-upon swaps. He said nothing to the Palestinians. And the Palestinians are made up of the Hamas terrorist organization, which has been declared a terrorist group by the United States. And their position is that they will not renounce terror–they are at war with Israel, and if they win the war they will expel every Jew who came to historic Palestine since 1917. And what I have said is that the President should require and demand of them, before Israel has to negotiate with them, that they should renounce terror and the expulsion of Jews, and recognize Israel and its legitimacy as a state, and say that if there is an agreed-upon outcome, after negotiations, on two states that Hamas will recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Are you concerned that President Obama has made too many concessions on Social Security and Medicare?

No. The President’s position is my position–and I know it’s Bob Turner’s position. It is to keep Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid as entitlements, but to deal with the insolvency problems. The looming insolvency of Social Security is easily cured by dealing with the retirement age, moving it upward over an extended period of time. There are different suggestions–another one is removing the wealthy from coverage, so they don’t draw on the Social Security funds of the government. It’s not a difficult job to do. Similarly, internally, you can correct the solvency problems of Medicare. And what you don’t want to do is turn Medicaid into a block grant, because if you do that, no matter how many people become eligible, the amount of funding is the same, so there’s less funding less available for each person needing health care. Those are the positions of President Obama, so we’re not in any different position. The difference is with the Republican leadership, which wants to privatize Social Security and Medicare, and turn Medicaid into a block grant. And Bob Turner stated in the election that he disagrees with the Republican National Committee.

Is there a Republican candidate in the 2012 election who is close to your positions?

No. The only one who avoids the description of “wacko” is Mitt Romney. If the President is unable to change his positions–which, as I view them, are as hostile to Israel–if he’s unable to make those changes I probably will stay home and not vote for president. I hope he will accept the advice I’m giving him. But if he does change, I will make myself available.

Is there anything Mitt Romney could do to win your endorsement?

Sure. It will have to play out. I’m hopeful that President Obama will read the tea leaves and make the appropriate changes. If he does not, I expect to stay home, but there’s always the chance that Romney could convince me.

Some have said that today’s Democratic Party is not the party of their parents and grandparents.

Neither is the Republican party! Everything changes. Let me just say this: I’m proud to be a Democrat. I cross party lines when I think it is appropriate to do so. But on balance, I believe the Democratic Party is preferable because its philosophy is that if you need a helping hand, and you are deserving, we will help you. The Republican philosophy, in my judgement–simplistic, I’m sure–is, “I made it on my own, and you have to as well.”

All Threat to Freedom groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign American Constitutional freedoms and/or lawful initiatives for American self-defense.

My colleague Robert Spencer and I compiled the list from records of Threat to Freedom group statements and activities as they appear in their own publications and websites, as well as from reports from concerned citizens and mainstream media reports.

Threat to Freedom group activities can include misrepresentation of anti-terror and other law enforcement initiatives, attempts to restrict the freedom of speech regarding Islamic jihad or other threats to freedom, defamation of freedom fighters, disinformation campaigns in the mainstream media regarding attempts by the U.S. and Israel to defend themselves, and more.

Listing as a Threat to Freedom group does not in itself imply that a listed group calls for or participates in violence or criminal activities, although it does not rule out their doing so.

Here are the first groups listed on our AFDI Threats to Freedom Index. There is more detail in my book Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.

Al-Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition retails jihadist propaganda against Israel, distorting the facts of the conflict and attempting to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist.

Code Pink: Far-Left organization aligned with Communists and Islamic jihadists, masquerading as a “peace” organization dedicated to stopping what it characterizes as unjust wars.

Cordoba Initiative: Stealth jihad organization aligned with anti-Israel jihad organizations and dedicated to building the triumphal Islamic supremacist mosque at Ground Zero.

Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR): Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas-linked organization spreading disinformation about Islam and terror, opposing anti-terror activity, and defaming freedom fighters. CAIR was one of the many Islamic groups that was named an unindicted coconspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas jihad funding trial.

Friends of Sabeel-North America (FOSNA): Palestinian Christians aiding the jihad against Israel and retailing jihadist propaganda against the Jewish state.

If Americans Knew (IAK) spreads disinformation about the Palestinian jihad against Israel and Israel’s efforts to defend itself.

International ANSWER: a far-Left organization that opposes U.S. attempts to defend itself from jihad aggression.

International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT): Muslim Brotherhood organization with numerous documented links to Saudi Wahhabi organizations and jihad terror activity.

International Solidarity Movement enlists Leftist Americans to aid the Palestinian jihad against Israel and impede the defensive actions of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF).

Islamic Circle of North America: Muslim Brotherhood organization preaching a global Caliphate and Islamic law (Sharia) over the U.S. ISNA was another Islamic group that was named an unindicted coconspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas jihad funding trial.

Islamic Society of North America: Muslim Brotherhood organization named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas jihad terror funding case.

Muslim American Society: chief arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S., which is dedicated in its own words to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.”

Muslim Public Affairs Council: Muslim Brotherhood-linked organization that has spread disinformation about the extent of Muslim cooperation with anti-terror efforts, and has encouraged Muslims not to cooperate with law enforcement.

Muslim Students Association: Muslim Brotherhood organization creating an atmosphere of intimidation for Jewish students on campuses nationwide, and bringing in speakers who preach jihad and hatred.

The New Black Panther Party (NBPP): a black militant group that relentlessly promotes violence against white people, and Jews in particular.

North American Islamic Trust (NAIT): Muslim Brotherhood organization and subsidiary of the ISNA, holder of titles of hundreds of Islamic properties in the U.S. It funds mosques and Islamic schools nationwide, and safeguards and pools the assets of the Muslim community in America. In doing so, NAIT promotes the concept of waqf, the eternal Islamic ownership of land—which is certain to cause trouble in the United States in the future. It also is tied to Saudi Wahhabi groups that are aggressively pushing, all over the world, the most virulent, violent form of Islam on the planet.

Organization of Islamic Cooperation: International organization dedicated to destroying free speech about Islam and jihad in America and Europe. The great historian Bat Ye’or explains that the OIC is “close to the Muslim World League of the Muslim Brotherhood,” and that “it shares the Brotherhood’s strategic and cultural vision: that of a universal religious community, the Ummah, based upon the Koran, the Sunna, and the canonical orthodoxy of shari’a.”

Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding: Saudi-funded center at Georgetown University spreading disinformation about Islam and jihad. It underwrites material by the deceptive pro-Sharia academic John Esposito, such as the 2011 book Islamophobia: The Challenge of Pluralism in the 21^st Century, a book-length barrage of Muslim victimhood propaganda, designed to deflect attention away from Islamic jihad activity and Islamic supremacism.

George Soros: The only individual to make the “Threats to Freedom” list, Soros is, according to Discover the Networks, “one of the most powerful men on earth,” with personal assets of an estimated $13 billion. Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI) donates millions of dollars to far-Left, pro-Sharia, anti-freedom groups.

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) defames and attempts to marginalize conservative, pro-freedom organizations as “hate groups.” It uses its listing of “hate groups” to try to stigmatize, and ultimately criminalize, love of country and patriotism. It works to systematically destroy voices that are speaking out against oppression and persecution.

Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) spreads jihadist propaganda and disinformation about Israeli self-defense on U.S. university campuses.

This explains the Left’s newfound interest in the lie that the Tea Party is comprised of “terrorists.”

Unless you think petitioning the government for lower spending is somehow akin to flying airplanes into buildings, you’ve got to agree with Sarah Palin, whose recent salvos on the topic are dead-on.

As President Obama and his merry band of Marxists continue driving America off a cliff, Palin (and columnist Charles Krauthammer) have been pushing back hard against the liberal talking point that Tea Party supporters are terrorists.

Her comments came after Vice President Joe Biden, Congressman Mike Doyle (D-Pa.), and their socialist buddies at MSNBC recently breathed new life into the “terrorist” smear. Because President Obama, who himself has ties to real, live terrorists, has not upbraided the vice president, we can safely assume he agrees with Biden.

Said Palin on Fox News Channel:

Well, the president’s speech in Arizona as he asked folks to start ratcheting down the rhetoric was all talk. He wasn’t sincere in that. And that’s typical Barack Obama, unfortunately. That is typical of our president where it’s blah, blah, blah. You know, it’s all talk and no real action. Otherwise, he’d be on Biden and tell Biden to tone it down a little bit. Yeah, right. Independent patriotic Americans who desire fiscal sanity in our beloved nation being called terrorists, heck, Sean, if we were real domestic terrorists, shoot, President Obama would be wanting to pal around with us, wouldn’t he? I mean, he didn’t have a problem palling around with a Bill Ayers back in the day when he kicked off his political career in Bill Ayers’ apartment and then, you know, shaking hands with [Venezuelan President Hugo] Chavez and saying, he doesn’t need any preconditions with meeting dictators or wanting to read U.S. Miranda rights to alleged suspected foreign terrorists. No, if we were all domestic terrorists, I think President Obama wouldn’t have a problem with us.

Of course Palin, who has bigger cojones than most Republicans in Congress, is right.

It’s time for a quick refresher course on all the terrorists and terrorism supporters President Obama is buddies with.

As reported in my book, Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers, Obama worked for ACORN, which until recently was America’s largest urban terrorist group. ACORN, along with its thug allies in SEIU who beat up opponents at town hall meetings, routinely uses violence, physical intimidation, and extortion in its long-running war against American businesses. Obama had such a mastery of agitation he taught Saul Alinsky’s subversion techniques at the University of Chicago.

Obama’s political career was launched at a fundraiser held in the Chicago home of unrepentant Weather Underground bombers Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Ayers, who to the present day refuses to renounce the use of violence to achieve political objectives, participated in a plot to bomb a military dance that would have killed hundreds of people if it had succeeded.

As I note in Subversion Inc., informant Larry Grathwohl witnessed Weather Underground leaders planning to slaughter the one-tenth of the U.S. population they expected would turn out to be “diehard capitalists” incapable of reeducation. These are the kind of people the president of the United States calls friends.

Obama and Ayers also sat together on the boards of the Woods Fund of Chicago and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge where they funneled money to ACORN and other anti-American groups.

Obama belonged to the church of Jeremiah Wright whose fiery anti-American sermons make even liberals wince. Wright blamed America for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and accused the U.S. government of inventing the HIV virus “as a means of genocide against people of color.” And under Wright’s leadership, his church’s newsletter reprinted a terrorist political manifesto by Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzook.

Obama accepted as a fundraising “bundler” Jodie Evans, a co-founder of Code Pink, a radical group that specializes in attacking wounded U.S. soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and makes no effort to conceal its ties to America-hating terrorists worldwide. Code Pink is also working with the Muslim Brotherhood which it hopes will succeed into transforming Egypt into an Islamofascist dictatorship.

Obama welcomed Cornel West, an African-American studies professor at Princeton University, to his campaign team in 2008. West denounces his native land as racist and patriarchal. He has described himself as a “progressive socialist,” and has written that “Marxist thought is an indispensable tradition for freedom fighters.” He visited Venezuela in 2006 and praised the brutal government of leftist strongman Hugo Chavez.

Obama also welcomed Robert Malley as a foreign policy advisor on his campaign staff. Malley was forced out after it was revealed that he had been meeting with the terrorist group Hamas, which has called for attacks on the United States.

Obama was a friend and frequent dinner companion of Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian-American and former Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) spokesman. Khalidi is the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University. Khalidi held a fundraiser for Obama’s ill-fated congressional bid in 2000.

All these terrorists and pro-terrorism activists have ties to President Obama and yet the Left and the media insist Tea Party supporters are the real terrorists.

* * * * *

America needs to know that ACORN is restructuring in time to help re-elect President Obama in 2012. Obama used to work for ACORN and represented the group in court as its lawyer. These radical leftists who use the brutal, in-your-face, pressure tactics of Saul Alinsky want to destroy America as we know it and will use any means to do it.

Buy my book Subversion Inc. at Amazon and in Barnes & Noble and Books-A-Million bookstores. Visit the Subversion Inc. Facebook page. Follow me on Twitter.

Recently we filed a lawsuit against the DOJ for failing to respond to our request for public records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The documents relate to a decision by the DOJ not to prosecute the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its co-founder Omar Ahmad, who has been linked by federal investigators to the terrorist group Hamas.

Importantly, the decision not to prosecute reportedly was made over the objections of special agents of the FBI and prosecutors at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Dallas, Texas.

On May 9, 2011, we sent a FOIA request to the DOJ’s Office of Information Policy (OIP) and here’s what we’re after:

• “The March 31, 2010 memorandum entitled ‘Declination of Prosecution of Omar Ahmad’ from Attorney General David Kris to Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler.”
• “Any and all communications, contacts, or correspondence between the Office of the Attorney General (AG), the Office of Deputy Attorney General (DAG), or the Office of the Associate Attorney General (Assoc. AG) and the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) or any CAIR groups concerning, regarding, or relating to the prosecution or declination of prosecution of Omar Ahmad.”
• “Any all communications, contacts, or correspondence between the Office of the AG, the Office of the DAG, or the Office of the Assoc. AG and the U.S. Congress concerning, regarding, or relating to the prosecution or declination of prosecution of Omar Ahmad”
• “Any and all communications, contacts, or correspondence between the office of the AG, the office of the DAG, or the office of the Assoc. AG and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas concerning, regarding, or relating to the prosecution or declination of prosecution of Omar Ahmad.”

On May 9, 2011, Judicial Watch also filed a similar request with the DOJ’s National Security Division (NSD) seeking access to contacts and correspondence between the NSD and CAIR, Congress, and the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Northern District of Texas regarding the decision not to prosecute. (The time frame for these requests is January 20, 2009 to May 1, 2011.)

Both DOJ divisions have acknowledged receipt of Judicial Watch’s request and were required to respond by June 14 and June 13, 2011, respectively. However, to date, both have failed to produce responsive documents or indicate when a response is forthcoming.

And who is Omar Ahmad?

Ahmad served as senior executive on the Palestine Committee, an umbrella organization of U.S.-based Hamas support groups. Moreover, according to sworn testimony by an FBI agent during the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which was convicted in 2008 of funneling millions of dollars to Hamas, Ahmad moderated a conference in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in October 1993, during which participants discussed ways to support Hamas.

A ruling by U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis in the Holy Land Foundation lawsuit referenced the specific purpose of the Philadelphia meeting:

The Philadelphia conference essentially laid out the path that the Palestine Committee would take to accomplish its goal of supporting Hamas in the future. Wiretaps from the Philadelphia conference reflect that Ahmad participated…in a number of meetings related to the goals, strategies, and American perception of the Muslim Brotherhood. Topics discussed included redefining the perception of the suborganizations due to their work for the Palestinian cause, and the legal hurdles…faced when raising funds for Hamas and other Palestinian causes or when taking orders from overseas leaders.

Judge Solis also declined an attempt by CAIR to remove the organization’s designation as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the Holy Land Foundation lawsuit, ruling that the government “has produced ample evidence to establish the associations” of CAIR with Hamas.

The American people have a right to know why the Obama DOJ decided against prosecuting a terrorist-connected Muslim extremist over the objections of federal investigators

The case against Ahmad and CAIR is substantial and it certainly appears they were let off the hook in order to appease radical Muslims. Given the politicization of the DOJ under Eric Holder, should we expect anything different?

The Obama DOJ is ignoring illegal immigration laws to curry favor with the illegal immigration lobby. The Obama DOJ dropped its substantial voter intimidation case against the New Black Panthers to curry favor with the NAACP and its constituents. The Obama DOJ announced it will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act to curry favor with the gay lobby (as Politico recently pointed out). All are considered key voter demographics for the Obama campaign in 2012.

So why not ignore the connections of a terrorist sympathizer if it’ll earn support from Muslim voters (and appease our enemies abroad, such as the Muslim Brotherhood)?

Regarding our fight for documents, the pattern of this DOJ is to stonewall even the most basic requests for information under the law. The cover-up and secrecy in this administration is, frankly, like nothing we’ve ever seen.

For more information on CAIR and other Islamic terrorist-front groups, click here to read a Judicial Watch special report entitled Muslim Charities: Moderate Non-Profits or Elaborate Deceptions? You’ll see that Ahmad is referenced, along with CAIR.