Jerome R. Corsi's Blog, page 338

D'Souza: 'I will not be stopped by Barack Obama'

NEW YORK – Dinesh D’Souza, the conservative author and filmmaker whose stunning “2016″ grabbed the nation’s attention during the last presidential campaign with its criticism of Barack Obama, is vowing a strong defense to charges filed against him by the Obama Justice Department.

“I will not be stopped by Barack Obama,” D’Souza told WND in an exclusive interview. He also affirmed his plan to proceed with the planned July 4 release of his new film, “America,” despite being prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice on campaign-finance charges.

“So, I’m releasing a new film this year and what I am making clear is that whatever these guys are trying, it’s not going to stop me from making the film or releasing the film or being able to put my message out there,” he said.

He said he’s planning an aggressive defense of the criminal charges.

“Normally, when you charge somebody with a serious crime, in this case two counts of a felony with a maximum of seven years in prison, there has to be malevolent intent, you have to be trying to do something bad,” D’Souza explained.

“In this particular case, they are saying I transcended the campaign limit by $20,000, but even they admit that the motive of doing this is to help a long-time friend, a college classmate of mine, Wendy Long, who is running an uphill campaign for the Senate in New York. But they’re not alleging that I did this with a view to getting an appointment, or quid-pro-quo. I’m not a professional bundler in any way. This was, even if what they say was true, not normally the kind of thing for which you engage in this type of heavy-handed prosecution. It is unusual.”

D’Souza explained that the effort to prosecute him is part of a pattern in which the Obama administration is systematically attempting to suppress the First Amendment rights of conservative Americans.

“I think we see with Obama there is a broader pattern here going on. It’s not as if this were a single isolated case. You’ve got the IRS scandal, selective targeting going on there,” D’Souza said.

“So, Obama said recently that all of this is ‘boneheaded,’ it’s as if [these are] accidental, goofball mistakes. But it seems the mistakes have a trajectory and a certain pattern to them,” he said.

WND previously reported that Gerald Molen, the producer of D’Souza’s two full-length feature film documentaries, “2016: Obama’s America,” released in 2012, and the about-to-be-released “America,” had characterized D’Souza’s criminal indictment as a Soviet-style “political prosecution.”

“When Dinesh D’Souza can be prosecuted for making a movie, every American should ask themselves one question: ‘What will I do to preserve the First Amendment?’”  he said.

See “2016,” the film that Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow Helle Dale said reveals an “aloof” and hard-to-understand president.

D’Souza told WND that Molen, too, was harassed by the Obama administration for his role producing D’Souza’s full-length feature film documentaries.

“Right after ’2016′ came out, Molen got a call from the IRS,” D’Souza said.

“I just think it’s interesting the searchlight fell on him so randomly, so to speak, and so quickly right after. Molen has been around for a long time. He’s made ‘Minority Report’ and ‘Jurassic Park’ and for all this time he escaped scrutiny from the IRS, but then suddenly in a sense, the moment he comes out of the closet as a conservative, boom – ‘Hello, this is your friendly IRS agent calling,’” he said.

D’Souza argued he was prosecuted because his first feature film offended Obama personally, not just because the film represented a political challenge to Obama’s presidential re-election hopes in 2012.

“When ’2016′ came out, I was carefully monitoring what kind of effect if any this would have on Obama, and I don’t just mean on the Obama campaign, I mean on the president himself,” he said. “And for a while, there was dead silence from the Obama campaign. They said nothing about the film. And, in fact, the major media networks followed and acted as if the film didn’t even exist, even though the film was in just about every major theater chain in America.”

In fact, it ranks as among the most popular documentaries ever.

Then D’Souza noticed “2016″ was attacked on the Obama campaign website, BarackObama.com.

“You can see it is a very intemperate and almost demented attack on the film. Some of the things that it charges about the film aren’t even in the film, although they do appear in my published works. You can see that the film ’2016′ did kind of unhinge Obama. And I think part of the reason for that is that the film wasn’t just a critique of his policies, it delved into his psyche. It kind of got in a way under his skin, I don’t mean by just annoying him, I mean by getting into what are the underlying traumatic factors that have driven him into becoming the kind of man that he is.”

D’Souza told WND the harassment from the Obama administration began when he was filming “2016″ in Africa.

“When we were down in Kenya and we were in the grandmother’s compound and we were observing the homestead and the grave, Obama’s sister got wind – she’s in Nairobi – and she got wind that we were there,” he said. “And she immediately called the cops and she called the local chieftains to basically run us out of town. And we had to literally grab our stuff and flee. And we were worried at that time that we would either be apprehended or equally significant that they would confiscate our film.”

D’Souza disclosed the film crew established emergency measures to make sure their film footage got out of Kenya should D’Souza and the film crew be detained in the country, or in case the Kenyan government made an attempt to otherwise confiscate the film footage.

“So my point is, it’s very clear with the Obama family that these people take this stuff very seriously and they try to run interception where they can,” he stressed. “Now, they did not succeed in blocking ’2016,’ and the film in fact made a big stir in 2012 after being released.”

D’Souza told WND his lawyers have a hearing with the federal court in New York to determine when his case will be tried, but he expects the case will go to trial with a 12-member jury, possibly beginning before the scheduled July 4 opening of “America” across the nation.

“Launching a defense in the federal criminal indictment has been every expensive,” D’Souza admitted.

“I won’t deny that it is traumatic. You have to take it seriously because they are looking to lock you up. So you can’t be frivolous about. At the same time, I want to be clear this is not something that has knocked me out for the count. I’m not someone to give in easily on this kind of a thing. I’m determined to continue to speak my mind and do my work.”

He explained that “America” was written in part to answer the question, “What is unique about America?”

Answering that question took D’Souza on a historical examination of America’s key conflicts, leading back to the challenges that faced our Founding Fathers.

He explained: “I think that the remarkable thing about our debate today is that the left and the right agree there is something unique about America, but the conservatives believe that America in some ways is uniquely good and the progressives led by Obama think that America is uniquely bad – in other words, that American history has been characterized by a unique set of crimes and offenses, that American capitalism is uniquely materialistic and selfish, that American foreign policy is uniquely devoted to plunder. So, we wanted to take on this argument head-on in the film and answer it at the root level.”

D’Souza told WND the debate with Bill Ayers at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H., on Jan. 30, 2014, will provide footage to be used in “America.”

“The way that debate came about is that I actually had approached Bill Ayers to interview him for the film,” D’Souza said.

“And he goes, ‘Well, I’m a little nervous. I don’t want you to present me like a clown.’ So, I said, ‘Well, I won’t present you as a clown if you in fact are not a clown.’ So, he said, ‘Maybe we should do a public debate and it will be on the public record and it can’t be disputed.’ So the debate came about initially as a way to talk to him about the film, but as it turned out we got some good footage from the debate that we could use for the film.”

D’Souza explained why he considered the contrast between Ayers and himself to be important to the themes developed in “America.”

“I think in some ways the debate was bigger than the two of us,” he said.

“I’m an immigrant, I chose America, I love America, I try in my various books to look at America from different angles and give my case in a sense for what’s so great about America. Bill Ayers is a child of privilege. His father was CEO, I believe, of Con Edison. He’s a creature of the sixties. He came in a way to detest America because of its involvement in Vietnam, and like many people in his generation he used that single episode to generalize and develop a whole ideology about the terribleness of America – you know, America the indefensible is kind of his theme, that’s what turned him into a guerrilla revolutionary in the seventies and it’s what makes him a left-wing activist today.”

D’Souza objected to any attempt to characterize “America” as a partisan film, insisting instead that it was an “ideological film” based on debates about what makes America great.

“I think this film is going to cause a big stir, just like ’2016′ did,” he said. “The production quality is far superior. ‘America’ will be film with a mighty, ideological punch to it that will plunge into political issues head on.”

Based on the success of ’2016,’ D’Souza is able to plan a more aggressive roll-out of “America” into movie theaters across the United States following the planned July 4 opening.

“We’re not political operatives, and we’re not representing the Republican National Committee. We’re trying to get all Americans to see this film, and our goal is pretty much to have it in every major theater chain in the country. We managed to achieve that with ’2016.’ That peaked in about 2,200 theaters, so it was running neck-to-neck with some of the big films in Hollywood. We’re trying to make sure that in every multiplex and Cineplex where there is a collection of films, one of the theaters is showing our film.”

Ayers dishes details on relationship with Obama

Editor’s note: This is third part of a three-part series based on an interview with former Weather Underground founder Bill Ayers after his debate with Dinesh D’Souza. In the first part, Ayers suggest Dinesh D’Souza would take a plea bargain on his indictment for alleged violations of election laws. In the second part, Ayers affirmed he wrote Obama’s “Dreams from My Father” before denying it.

HANOVER, N.H. – In a wide-ranging, exclusive interview with WND, former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers insisted Barack Obama is a moderate politician whom he barely knew as a resident of his Chicago neighborhood

At the conclusion of his debate with Dinesh D’Souza at Dartmouth College Jan. 30, Ayers repeatedly criticized Obama.

“I wish Barack Obama had listened to me and followed my advice, but it didn’t happen and it’s not going to happen,” Ayers told WND.

Ayers said he has “a lot of criticisms of President Obama,” providing hints as to why Obama, in his second term, may be losing the support of the far left.

“I am a militant, anti-war activist. I would pull out of these Middle East wars,” Ayers explained. “Also, I believe in single-payer health care, and I believe Medicare should be extended to everybody.”

Some observers of Ayers, who note his many documented ties to Obama, interpret his public distancing as a strategy to promote the president. Ayers and Obama both studied the tactics of the guru of 1960s radicalism, Saul Alinsky, who believed the most effective way to transform America into a socialist state was through infiltrating the system and bringing about incremental change.

When Obama ran for the presidency in 2008, Ayers claimed even then that the candidate was a “moderate,” and Ayers minimized his direct role in funding, coaching and otherwise assisting Obama in his meteoric rise from obscurity in Chicago in the 1990s to the White House.

See for yourself the left’s blueprint for “fundamentally transforming America” in Saul Alinksy’s “Rules for Radicals”

Ayers insisted he has “no impact on President Obama or his policies.”

“If I did, we would be stopping the drone strikes, we would be closing Guantanamo, we be shutting down the Pentagon and the NSA. That is what I would do,” he said.

Ayers rejected suggestions Obama cleverly played to the political left as a campaign strategy to win the presidency in 2008 and 2012.

“People on the left thought Obama was winking on them, signaling, ‘I’m going to do what you want me to do.’ But, no, he wasn’t winking. You can see his record. Obama said he was a moderate, look at his record.”

Ayers argued that because the political left’s interpretation that Obama was “one of them” was incorrect, the political right also was wrong to demonize him.

“People like you say, ‘Uh, I don’t know … a secret socialist … a pal of terrorists … some sort of a black nationalist thing going on,” Ayers said. “Just like Obama wasn’t winking to the left, he also isn’t a secret socialist.”

Ayers characterized the view of Obama as a “secret socialist” as “paranoid schizophrenic.”

Asked to explain how, in his estimation, the right could have such a distorted view of Obama, Ayers answered, laughing: “I have no idea. I think that once you go down a rabbit hole, the logic of the world kinds of bends itself to you, rather than you opening your eyes to the world as it is. Obama said he is a moderate. What could be truer or clearer?”

WND pointed out that in his famous encounter with Joe the Plumber in the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama also said he wanted to redistribute income in America.

Ayers again deflected the question.

“Oh, come on, we redistribute income all the time in this country. We redistribute it up. The fact is, Eisenhower was a guy who knew how to redistribute income, I mean, 90 percent,” Ayers said, referring to the top marginal tax rate at the time.

“I mean those guys really knew how to tax and redistribute income, only upward. What was Truman, a socialist? And FDR, a communist?”

Ayers insisted his interpretation that Obama is in reality a political moderate is the only correct understanding of the president’s political views.

“I thought that Barack Obama was exactly as he advertised himself in the 2008 presidential campaign – a moderate, compromising, pragmatic, middle-of-the-road politician – very ambitious, and so ambitious that I used to say to my wife that, ‘I think he wants to be mayor of Chicago.’ That was the limit of my imagination.”

Ayers didn’t answer directly whether or not he supported Obama’s presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2012.

“I’ve only ever voted for Democrats twice in my life, and both times without any illusions,” he said.

Ayers maintained he’s “not an electoral politics guy.”

“I don’t think elections are the way we solve the problems of our country. What was it in 2004? Kerry and Bush? I mean really? Is that it? Is that who was running? I can’t remember. We should be involved in elections but only as it promotes and builds a larger strategy for social change.”

‘A guy in the neighborhood’

Ayers claimed throughout the interview that he barely knew Obama in Chicago.

“Before he was president, I knew Barack Obama just like thousands of other people know him. In Chicago, just like the campaign said, as ‘some guy around the neighborhood,’” Ayers said. “I never had any policy discussions with Obama when we were together.”

Ayers did not discuss the role he and his Weather Underground wife, Bernardine Dohrn, played in launching Obama’s public career. In 1995, Ayers and Dohrn held in the living room of their Hyde Park home the first fundraiser for Obama in his effort to win a seat in the Illinois state Senate.

In 1985, the Woods Foundation gave a $25,000 grant to the Developing Communities Project in Chicago that allowed the DCP to hire Obama, then 24 years old.

It was the job offer that allowed Obama to move from New York City to Chicago.

Ayers was a director of the Woods Foundation for nine years, from December 1999 to December 2008, overlapping with Obama for three years, with Obama serving on the board from December 1999 to December 2002.

From 1995 to 1999, Obama led an educational foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, CAC, and remained on the board until 2001,” Stanley Kurtz noted in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece in September 2008. “The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists. The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s.”

Kurtz concluded that Ayers’ criticism of Obama as a moderate politician is designed as disinformation to deflect attention from the importance Ayers truly played in the rise of Obama to prominence, not only in Chicago radical politics but also on the national scene.

Ayers’ claim that he wasn’t really “into” Obama because of the future president’s “moderation” is simply “unconvincing,” Kurtz said.

In his 2010 book, “Radical-In-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism,” Kurtz noted Obama biographer David Remnick made almost no mention of Obama’s foundation work.

After all, it was at Ayers’ behest that Obama was put in charge of dispensing money to Chicago’s most radical activists. Obama’s conduct at CAC reveals him to have been a reliable supporter of Ayers’ most troubling projects and actions. It’s extraordinary, moreover, that Remnick’s biography has virtually nothing to say about Obama’s foundation work. Maybe that’s because it is impossible to tell the story of Obama’s foundation experience without facing up to the reality of the future president’s extensive partnership with Ayers.

Kurtz left no doubt he regarded the attempt to distance Ayers and Obama in Chicago is not supported by the evidence.

“The truth about the extended political partnership between Ayers and Obama stands in sharp contrast to the president’s famous April 2008 campaign claim that Ayers was ‘just a guy who lives in my neighborhood,’” Kurtz wrote.

He said Ayers’ “notoriety turned him into a particularly noticeable tear in the carefully woven fabric of Obama’s moderate image.”

“A few more tugs and the cloak itself would unravel, revealing the socialist secret beneath. That is why the Ayers story had to be suppressed,” Kurtz said.

Still, in the WND interview, Ayers insisted twice the Obama campaign’s claim in 2008 that Obama knew Ayers only because Ayers was “a guy in the neighborhood” was true.

“That’s all he was to me,” Ayers said. “Just a guy in the neighborhood.”

‘But Dad was a Republican’

WND asked Ayers if it was true that his father, Tom Ayers, helped fund Obama’s education.

The senior Ayers was a prominent Chicago businessman who was president of Chicago’s electric company, Consolidated Edison, from 1964-1980 and chairman from 1973-1980.

WND reported in 2012 Allen Hulton, a retired U.S. Postal Service carrier who delivered mail to the home of Tom and Mary Ayers in the late 1980s and early 1990s, claims to have been told by Mary Ayers that she and her husband were funding the Harvard Law School education of “foreign student” Barack Obama.

Hulton claims he later met Obama in front of the Ayers’ home.

Ayers laughed in response to the question.

“Not true, my dad was a Republican. Why would he fund Obama?” Ayers countered. “He never funded Obama.”

Then, distancing himself from his father, Ayers added: “I never had any policy discussions with Obama, and I never had any policy discussions with my father either, who lived with me for the last three years of his life. I mean, a great guy, but somebody I didn’t agree with politically.”

In “Radical-In-Chief,” Kurtz notes that John Ayers, brother of Bill Ayers, a leftist also involved in the Chicago movement for radical school reform, benefited from his father’s status in Chicago’s business community.

Bill Ayers, Kurtz noted, did not arrive back in Chicago until the spring of 1987, after going underground to avoid prosecution in his Weather Underground days. Ayers surfaced, only to have the criminal case against him dismissed because government prosecutors relied on Fourth Amendment-tainted wiretap evidence.

“Bill wouldn’t arrive in Chicago until the following fall,” Kurtz wrote. “Yet already, by the spring of 1987, Obama had made contact with Bill Ayers’ brother.”

Reports: Sarin gas used by U.N.-backed Libyans

NEW YORK – Libyan hospital reports obtained by WND appear to support a claim by a tribal leader from near Tripoli that the provisional government, backed by the Obama administration, launched sarin gas attacks on its citizens just weeks ago to stamp down a popular tribal uprising gaining momentum under the Libyan Green Flag of Resistance.

Sheikh Hassan Ajeely, a leader of the Wershevana tribe, told WND in an exclusive Skype interview that the government, which is supported by the United Nations, the United States and NATO, has paid a bounty to recruit al-Qaida militia and related Islamic militants to launch the alleged gas attacks.

“Last month, the United Nations-backed al-Qaida-related Islamic militia have begun killing civilian members of our tribe with sarin gas attacks,” Hassan charged.

“The gas attacks killed many people in the Wershevana tribe and many others were taken to the Al Zahra Hospital in Tripoli. The international press are reporting nothing even though all the Libyan militia are armed with sarin gas missiles.”

To support the claim of sarin gas attacks, tribal sources in Libya forwarded to WND copies of two reports written in Arabic from Al Zahra Hospital in Tripoli.

They appear to document two different patients treated at the hospital as victims of a chemical gas attack of an unspecified nature. Dated “Thursday, Jan. 23, 2014, 9 p.m.,” the reports indicate “the reason for the fainting and difficult breathing is due to inhaling unknown gas.”

Zaraha Hospital, Tripoli, Libya, Jan. 23, 2014, Report #1, alleged sarin gas attack

Zaraha Hospital, Tripoli, Libya, Jan. 23, 2014, Report #2, alleged sarin gas attack

The documents were translated for WND by an Arabic-speaking linguist.

Hassan charged that Dr. Tarek Mitri, the head of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya, or UNSMIL has turned a blind eye to the provisional government’s decision to pay a bounty recruiting Islamic radical militia from Tunisia, Qatar and the Sudan to come to Libya to attack the Libyan tribes opposing the United States and NATO.

WND previously has been able to document claims made by various Libyan tribal leaders in exclusive interviews given from Libya via Skype.

On Jan. 21, 2014, WND published photographic evidence, substantiating reports Libyan tribal leaders had provided WND in recorded Skype interviews, claiming the provisional government had begun using Sudanese military aircraft piloted by Tunisian militants to bomb tribal strongholds in southern Libya.

Sources in Libya also provided WND with a photograph of a police car in Tripoli painted to resemble the black flag under which al-Qaida operates openly in Libya.

Government police car in Tripoli, Libya, painted with al-Qaida colors

Recently, WND also received video evidence that Libyan tribal militia operating in a military caravan captured war equipment in southern Libya, where armed Libyan tribal forces have taken control in Sabha, the major city in the south of Libya.

According to Hassan, tribal forces in Libya are organizing under the green flag of resistance to oppose the provisional government headed by prime minister Ali Zeidan, despite evidence the government is increasingly under the control of al-Qaida and other related radical Islamic groups operating in Libya.

Previously, WND reported that a state of anarchy is beginning to exist in Libya as al-Qaida militia groups and various radical Islamic factions assemble with the continued support of the Obama administration and NATO.

On Oct. 30, 2011, Fox News reported that Libya interim Prime Minister Mahmoud Jabil confirmed the presence of chemical weapons in Libya and acknowledged that some sarin gas was missing from chemical weapons stockpiles in the country.

The recent history of sarin gas attacks in Syria also appears to trace back to Iraq and Libya.

In a report made public on Sept. 16, 2103, the United Nations documented that sarin gas was used in attacks on civilians in Syria, although the U.N. could not establish with certainty whether the sarin attacks were launched by the Assad government or by the radical Islamic groups fighting Assad.

Reports have circulated in the international press that the source of the sarin used in Syria originated with sarin sold by the Reagan administration to Saddam Hussein in Iraq, with the gas, after the fall of Saddam, ending up mysteriously stockpiled in Libya under the control of Moammar Gadhafi.

On Sept. 9, 2012, the Sunday Times in London reported the Obama administration had launched a covert operation to send weapons stockpiled by Gadhafi from Libya to Syria to arm the rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

A New York Times blog reported on July 26, 2011, that the Gadhafi weapons stockpiles were known to hold surface-to-air Russian-built SA-7 missiles, an early generation heat-seeking missile of the same class as the better known American-made Stinger missile.

Among many international reports documenting the flood of Libyan terrorists into Syria after the fall of Gadhafi, a report published by the Guardian on Nov. 4, 2011, raised concerns that chemical weapons from Gadhafi’s stockpiles may have been the source of the sarin gas WND reported rebel forces were using in Syria.

On Sept. 11, 2013, WND reported that a classified U.S. intelligence document confirmed that the al-Qaida-linked Syrian rebels of the Jabhat al-Nusra Front, the most influential of the rebel Islamists fighting against Syria’s Assad regime, had obtained sarin gas transferred from Iraq via Turkey.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention describes sarin as a human-made chemical warfare agent classified as a nerve agent. Though clear, colorless and tasteless, it can cause severe symptoms – including inability to breathe – within seconds of exposure.

Developed in the 1930s in Germany, it is also is known as GB.

 

Ayers 'explains' how he wrote Obama's 'Dreams'

Editor’s note: This is the second of a three-part series based on an interview with former Weather Underground founder Bill Ayers after his debate with Dinesh D’Souza. In the first part, Ayers suggest D’Souza would take a plea bargain on his indictment for alleged violations of election laws.

HANOVER, N.H. – Bill Ayers, the unrepentant former leader of the radical 1960s Weather Underground group, has often toyed with reporters who ask him whether claims that he wrote Barack Obama’s autobiographical “Dreams from My Father” are true.

Ayers repeated the claim even after WND tried to cut through his irony in a brief conversation before his Dartmouth College debate with Dinesh D’Souza Jan. 30, pointing out he typically adds to the admission a quip that obscures his true intent.

In a wide-ranging 35-minute exclusive interview following the debate, WND returned to quizzing Ayers about the true authorship of “Dreams.”

In the course of the interview, Ayers first affirmed he wrote “Dreams” before denying it, only to end up berating WND for daring even to ask the question.

WND asked: “This whole question of ‘Dreams,’ could you please put it to bed once and for all?”

“I wrote ‘Dreams from my Father,’” Ayers answered without hesitation. “Every word of it. I sat with Obama twice. We figured it out. I wrote the whole thing. I made most of it up. And, if you can help me prove it, I’ll split the royalties with you.”

Read the book that helped put Barack Obama in the White House, “Dreams from My Father.”

Again, WND objected: “But you always say that. It sounds like you don’t mean it. It sounds conditional.”

“I do mean it,” Ayers admitted.

“But it sounds like you are taking it back,” WND responded.

“I’m not taking it back,” Ayers insisted.

“Just tell me the truth about whether you wrote dreams,” WND countered. “Just tell me straight out.”

“I mean, I’ve said it so many times,” he said.

“I know, but people think you are fooling with it.”

At that point, he shifted gears completely, without explanation. “I obviously did not write ‘Dreams,’” he now insisted.

“I have a lot of criticism of President Obama, criticisms of the administration … the policies of the war, of many, many things. But the thing that strikes me as preposterous is the idea there should be a ‘birther’ controversy, or a controversy over who his parents were, or a controversy over who wrote his books. [Obama] wrote the book. He was born in Hawaii. He’s six years into the presidency. Can’t you think of something else to fall back on?”

“But you keep toying on this,” WND said.

“Well, I toy upon it because I think the people who ask me are knuckleheads,” Ayers replied.

“So you’re just toying with them because …”

“Because you’re being a knucklehead,” said Ayers.

“I’m just asking the question.”

“It’s an insane question,” Ayers responded.

WND asked Ayers if he had refuted the arguments Jack Cashill made in his 2011 book, “Deconstructing Obama.” Cashill presented an analysis of literary references, common themes, identical phrasing between “Dreams” and books that Ayers has authored as evidence Ayers was the true author of “Dreams,” not Obama.

“I haven’t read Cashill,” Ayers asserted, “at least not deeply. But no. No merit. But you want to know why? Because it just strikes me as so preposterous.”

Ayers said the primary reason it’s preposterous is that “whatever else you think of his politics, he’s a very smart, intelligent guy. He writes. He wrote that book. He writes a lot of his speeches.”

Cashill’s literary analysis was confirmed in a 2009 book by celebrity biographer Christopher Anderson, “Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage,” which recounted in some detail how a desperate Obama in the mid-1990s, facing a second canceled book contract, sought the help of Ayers.

Cashill, who makes his case in his book, “Deconstructing Obama,” said in a 2011 interview with WND he believed Ayers’ irony was not aimed at critics like him but at the White House.

Cashill said Ayers is “letting Obama know that he could blow Obama out of the water, if he gets serious about it.”

“All Ayers would have to do is give a press conference in which he demonstrated he was the principle craftsman behind ‘Dreams’ and the whole myth of Obama’s literary genius would come crashing down,” Cashill said.

Bill Ayers dances around D'Souza indictment

Editor’s note: This is the first of a three-part series based on interviews with former Weather Underground founder Bill Ayers after his debate with Dinesh D’Souza Jan. 30.

HANOVER, N.H. – In response to direct questions in a WND interview immediately after his debate last week with Dinesh D’Souza at Dartmouth College, unrepentant Weather Underground bomber Bill Ayers declined comment on D’Souza’s indictment for alleged violations of federal elections law.

Yet, at a book signing after the debate, Ayers explained to a Dartmouth student that he expected D’Souza would accept a plea settlement, pleading guilty to a lesser charge to avoid a prison sentence.

Ayers’ answer seemed to indicate he believed D’Souza was guilty and that he didn’t view the prosecution as political.

In contrast, however, the Department of Justice brought only misdemeanor charges against a supporter of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards in the 2004 campaign for very similar alleged violations.

D’Souza has pleaded not-guilty to making an illegal $20,000 donation by reimbursing friends who contributed to the 2012 U.S. Senate campaign in New York of his longtime friend, Republican Wendy Long, who lost to Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand.

Ayers predicts D’Souza will cop plea

“Mr. D’Souza has had some federal charges brought against him for elections violations,” a student asked, approaching Ayers in the book-signing segment of the program after the debate. “What does it feel like to watch this man have accusations like that filed against him?”

Rather than answer the question directly, Ayers said, “I have no knowledge about what the facts are, but if it’s an example of money and politics and more corruption in politics, that’s a very bad thing.

“And I think that, you know, aren’t corporate contributions in politics and Citizens United enough? Do we also have to sneak around for $20,000? That seems so petty. But I don’t know the facts, so I can’t really say. My guess is they will negotiate some sort of a plea deal.”

Still, Ayers said, if D’Souza is convicted, he should not be imprisoned.

“I’m a prison abolitionist,” he said. “I think he should be asked to do community service. And I think he should be asked to work for the enfranchisement of the disenfranchised.”

Approached by WND at the conclusion of the debate, Ayers deflected comment on the D’Souza indictment, as have many on the left.

“What do you think about Dinesh D’Souza being indicted?” WND asked Ayers. “What’s your reaction?”

“What should my reaction be?” Ayers asked back.

“We don’t know,” WND responded. “Why don’t you tell us?”

“He was indicted,” Ayers said. “I don’t know anything about the facts. I don’t know anything about the case. I’m not a lawyer and I’m not an investigator.”

WND asked: “So, you have no opinion on it at all?

“Tell me what happened,” Ayers replied.

“He was indicted …” WND started to explain.

“He was indicted and arrested,” Ayers interrupted. “He’ll have his day in court. Who knows?”

Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, were communist revolutionary terrorists who bombed the Capitol, the Pentagon, police stations and banks in the 1970s. They went underground after Dohrn was charged with instigating riots at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968. Several of of their Weather Underground associates were killed when bombs they were building blew up in a Greenwich Village townhouse. The group was planning to bomb Fort Dix Army Base in New Jersey. Ayers participated in more than 30 bombings in 11 years. In a New York Times op-ed published Sept. 11, 2001, he wrote: “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Ayers and Dohrn surfaced in 1980 and turned themselves in to face the Chicago riot charges. But the federal charges were dropped because the FBI used illegal wiretaps to learn of their crimes.

‘A pattern of giving’

In the Edwards case, the DOJ filed a civil misdemeanor complaint against Arkansas trial lawyer Tab Turner when he was accused of reimbursing four staff members of his law firm some $8,000 for contributions to Edwards. Additionally, Turner was accused of charging more than $2,000 in hotel and rental car expenses to the law firm for Edwards campaign staff travel.

WND reported that in 2011, prominent Hollywood lawyer Pierce O’Donnell – a Democrat who contributed to Edwards’ 2004 presidential bid – admitted to asking 10 people, including a relative and employees of his law firm, to each donate $2,000. O’Donnell reimbursed the donors.

O’Donnell was indicted on three felony charges in 2008. In 2011, Politico reported the judge struck two of those charges in his ruling and later dismissed one at the request of prosecutors.

The misdemeanors allowed O’Donnell to regain his law license, which was suspended after the charges were filed. He was sentenced to only 60 days in prison, 500 hours of community service and a $20,000 fine.

The Hill reported in 2003 Edwards’ presidential campaign finance documents showed a “pattern of giving by low-level employees at law firms, a number of whom appear to have limited financial resources and no prior record of political donations.”

In many instances, the Hill reported, all the checks from a given firm arrived on the same day. Each person gave the maximum contribution of $2,000, including spouses and relatives of staffers, some of whom had been in financial distress and even filed bankruptcy previously.

Ex-terrorist Ayers dances around D'Souza indictment

Editor’s note: This is the first of a three-part series based on interviews with former Weather Underground founder Bill Ayers after his debate with Dinesh D’Souza Jan. 30.

HANOVER, N.H. – In response to direct questions in a WND interview immediately after his debate last week with Dinesh D’Souza at Dartmouth College, unrepentant Weather Underground bomber Bill Ayers declined comment on D’Souza’s indictment for alleged violations of federal elections law.

Yet, at a book signing after the debate, Ayers explained to a Dartmouth student that he expected D’Souza would accept a plea settlement, pleading guilty to a lesser charge to avoid a prison sentence.

Ayers’ answer seemed to indicate he believed D’Souza was guilty and that he didn’t view the prosecution as political.

In contrast, however, the Department of Justice brought only misdemeanor charges against a supporter of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards in the 2004 campaign for very similar alleged violations.

D’Souza has pleaded not-guilty to making an illegal $20,000 donation by reimbursing friends who contributed to the 2012 U.S. Senate campaign in New York of his longtime friend, Republican Wendy Long, who lost to Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand.

Ayers predicts D’Souza will cop plea

“Mr. D’Souza has had some federal charges brought against him for elections violations,” a student asked, approaching Ayers in the book-signing segment of the program after the debate. “What does it feel like to watch this man have accusations like that filed against him?”

Rather than answer the question directly, Ayers said, “I have no knowledge about what the facts are, but if it’s an example of money and politics and more corruption in politics, that’s a very bad thing.

“And I think that, you know, aren’t corporate contributions in politics and Citizens United enough? Do we also have to sneak around for $20,000? That seems so petty. But I don’t know the facts, so I can’t really say. My guess is they will negotiate some sort of a plea deal.”

Still, Ayers said, if D’Souza is convicted, he should not be imprisoned.

“I’m a prison abolitionist,” he said. “I think he should be asked to do community service. And I think he should be asked to work for the enfranchisement of the disenfranchised.”

Approached by WND at the conclusion of the debate, Ayers deflected comment on the D’Souza indictment, as have many on the left.

“What do you think about Dinesh D’Souza being indicted?” WND asked Ayers. “What’s your reaction?”

“What should my reaction be?” Ayers asked back.

“We don’t know,” WND responded. “Why don’t you tell us?”

“He was indicted,” Ayers said. “I don’t know anything about the facts. I don’t know anything about the case. I’m not a lawyer and I’m not an investigator.”

WND asked: “So, you have no opinion on it at all?

“Tell me what happened,” Ayers replied.

“He was indicted …” WND started to explain.

“He was indicted and arrested,” Ayers interrupted. “He’ll have his day in court. Who knows?”

Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, were communist revolutionary terrorists who bombed the Capitol, the Pentagon, police stations and banks in the 1970s. They went underground after Dohrn was charged with instigating riots at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968. Several of of their Weather Underground associates were killed when bombs they were building blew up in a Greenwich Village townhouse. The group was planning to bomb Fort Dix Army Base in New Jersey. Ayers participated in more than 30 bombings in 11 years. In a New York Times op-ed published Sept. 11, 2001, he wrote: “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Ayers and Dohrn surfaced in 1980 and turned themselves in to face the Chicago riot charges. But the federal charges were dropped because the FBI used illegal wiretaps to learn of their crimes.

‘A pattern of giving’

In the Edwards case, the DOJ filed a civil misdemeanor complaint against Arkansas trial lawyer Tab Turner when he was accused of reimbursing four staff members of his law firm some $8,000 for contributions to Edwards. Additionally, Turner was accused of charging more than $2,000 in hotel and rental car expenses to the law firm for Edwards campaign staff travel.

WND reported that in 2011, prominent Hollywood lawyer Pierce O’Donnell – a Democrat who contributed to Edwards’ 2004 presidential bid – admitted to asking 10 people, including a relative and employees of his law firm, to each donate $2,000. O’Donnell reimbursed the donors.

O’Donnell was indicted on three felony charges in 2008. In 2011, Politico reported the judge struck two of those charges in his ruling and later dismissed one at the request of prosecutors.

The misdemeanors allowed O’Donnell to regain his law license, which was suspended after the charges were filed. He was sentenced to only 60 days in prison, 500 hours of community service and a $20,000 fine.

The Hill reported in 2003 Edwards’ presidential campaign finance documents showed a “pattern of giving by low-level employees at law firms, a number of whom appear to have limited financial resources and no prior record of political donations.”

In many instances, the Hill reported, all the checks from a given firm arrived on the same day. Each person gave the maximum contribution of $2,000, including spouses and relatives of staffers, some of whom had been in financial distress and even filed bankruptcy previously.

As predicted: 'Tapering' prompts market dive

NEW YORK – WND reported earlier this month that if the Federal Reserve decided to taper its purchase of federal debt by another $10 billon a month at the Federal Open Market Committee meeting, the bond market would experience an increase in yields reflecting rising interest rates and the stock market would take a nosedive.

As anticipated, the FOMC stayed on course, announcing the Federal Reserve in February would purchase $10 billion a month less in federal debt for the second month in a row. The move brings the level of Quantitative Easing under the former Fed chairman from $85 billion a month to $65 billion in February.

On Friday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 15,698.85, losing 149.76 points. It marked a 5 percent loss for the month in the value of the Dow, making January 2014 the worst start to a year since 2009 and the second worse since 1990.

It was the second worse January in 24 years.

If the Fed continues to reduce QE by $10 billion a month until it no longer buys large amounts of U.S. debt monthly, the stock market likely will experience a major downward correction that will punish retirement savers with IRA and 401(k) investments in stocks.

Time for retirement savers to take stock gains

Whether a person saving for retirement invests in the stock market directly or in the stock market via mutual funds, the risk is the same. When the stock marked corrects downward, the retirement investor most likely will take losses in accumulated retirement savings.

Depending upon the severity of the downward correction, it may take years for the retirement investor to recover the losses, such as that experienced in 2009. IRA and 401(k) investors lost principal from their retirement savings accounts when the Dow fell from a closing high of 14,164.53 on Oct. 9, 2007, to a closing low of 6,547.05 on March 9, 2009, as the housing market bubble burst.

Fidelity Investments estimated, for instance, the average 401(k) fund balances on the approximately 11 million accounts Fidelity manages dropped 31 percent to $47,500 at the end of March 2009, from $69,200 at the end of 2007.

With the Dow going over 16,000 in the extended rally since 2009, most IRA and 401(k) investors have registered substantial gains, but that situation could change for the worse in the next few months.

The solution for cautious retirement investors is simple.

Investors can contact a financial adviser and direct that any mutual fund money in stock market mutual funds be moved to an investment alternative within the same family of funds that invests in bonds or money market funds.

Typically, the move from one investment option to another within a mutual fund family of funds can be made without paying a fee or penalty.

There is no need to close IRAs or mutual funds. Investors just need to be sure none of their IRA or 401(k) retirement funds are invested in the stock market.

With retirement money out of the stock market, the worst outcome is a loss of some additional upward gains if the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve find a way to increase the level of buying U.S. debt to the $85 billion a month that the Fed was “pumping” into the economy while Ben Bernanke was in charge.

For many, the peace of mind retirement investors and savers can get by taking stock market gains now outweighs the constant worry experienced in a market that loses 5 percent in a month.

Watch interest rates carefully

If interest rates begin to rise, especially on the benchmark 10-year Treasury bill, a second trigger could cause a downward stock market adjustment.

WND has reported higher interest rates will increase the federal government’s cost of debt service on the now over $17 trillion in accumulated U.S. national debt.

For instance, if interest rates were to rise, as many economic experts anticipate, such that yields on the three-month treasury rise to approximately 4 percent by 2018 and 10-year Treasuries to approximately 5.2 percent, interest payments on the federal debt will rise to $505 billion in 2018 from the current level of $255 billion in 2013.

With the expectation on Wall Street that interest rates soon will rise, a speech by Federal Reserve Bank of Boston President Eric Rosengren is drawing widespread attention.

Rosengren, who just finished a year’s service on the FOMC, was a vocal supporter of the Fed’s QE policy, designed to keep interest rates at or near zero. He was the sole dissenter in his last vote as a member of the FOMC in December 2013, opposing the decision recommended by outgoing Fed chairman Ben Bernanke to begin reducing its purchases of U.S. government-issued debt.

Worried that QE tapering was almost certain to give momentum to rising interest rates, Rosengren’s carefully worded speech still managed to convey his concern that ending QE too rapidly could cause an interest-rate spike. In a chain reaction, the consequent increase in interest expense could tank the economy.

Ayers: Constitution needs to be replaced

HANOVER, N.H. – President Obama’s longtime buddy, unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, Thursday night told debate opponent Dinesh D’Souza and an audience at Dartmouth College that the Constitution is an outmoded document and it ought to be changed.

Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, were the main founders of the domestic terror group the Weather Underground, which was assigned responsibility for dozens of bombings aimed at destroying the defense and security infrastructure of the U.S.

D’Souza is the maker of the movie “2016: Obama’s America,” which is the second-highest grossing political documentary of all time.

It blasts Obama’s policies and actions, and warns America about what the nation would be under Obama’s vision for the United States.

See Dinesh D’Souza’s “2016: Obama’s America” and his books in the WNS Superstore.

The topic of the debate was “What’s so Great About America?”

Ayers previously called the Weather Underground “an American Red Army” and said the ideology was to: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents.”

In his memoir, he wrote, “Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon. The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them.”

In a 2001 interview with the New York Times, Ayers said, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Accompanying the article was a photograph of him stepping on an American flag.

Ayers also questioned ramifications for behavior Americans long have considered expected.

“If you are a felon, why do you get disqualified as a citizen and get denied your right to vote? Just because you’ve committed a crime?” he asked D’Souza.

D’Souza focused on another subject.

“What is happening to the American dream?” he asked.

“We [in the U.S.] are losing the secret of the American dream, but it is coming alive in countries like China, India and Brazil where the people have learned the secrets of wealth creation – making stuff other people really want to buy, and in the process [they are] taking over the global market. Global capitalism has been the greatest gift of America to the world. Social agitation has failed to deliver the goods,” he said.

D’Souza said, “What America has shown the world is the importance of wealth creation, not conquest. Our foreign policy can be summed up, ‘Trade with us, don’t bomb us.’”

Ayers asked the audience if members opposed slavery.

Getting an anticipated, “Yes,” Ayers argued a Howard Zinn theory of U.S. history insisting the Dartmouth audience would have been forced to oppose the Founding Fathers on the question of slavery – ignoring the history of the United States righting racial injustice since Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation.

D’Souza countered Ayers on slavery by referring to Lincoln and arguing that starting with the Civil War, the history of the United States is a history of fighting to end slavery and establish racial equality.

In the cross-examination section of the loosely formatted debate, D’Souza asked, “You started your career in the bin Laden mode, but now you sound like a professor. What happened to the revolutionary? Did you lose your revolutionary zeal?”

The two then argued over the Holocaust, the question of the Gulf War and why no weapons of mass destruction were found when George H.W. Bush invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein.

“The U.S. always lies us into war,” Ayers insisted. “We fight wars in the Middle East for democracy, but we’re an empire, grabbing for resources, and the wars in the Middle East were about oil.”

On the subject of that Constitution, D’Souza said, “We act like there is a presumption in favor of the First Amendment and a heavy burden to be met defending the Second Amendment. I’m just saying, we should give the same respect to the Second Amendment as we give to the First Amendment.”

In questions and answers, Ayers pressed D’Souza to give a “full-throated support for queer rights.”

“I believe in the United States we are all a minority of one and we are each entitled to the full rights made available to us in the Bill of Rights,” D’Souza said.

Then he asked Ayers if he would support fully the rights of evangelical Christians to be recognized, to be protected from “derogatory comments from other citizens.”

D’Souza got strong applause countering Ayers.

“I submit that if you were a professor here before the tenure committee, the defender of queer theory would have every reason to expect to be promoted, while the evangelical Christian would have to hide his true views,” D’Souza challenged.

The focus on religion was one of the points that had staying power.

“I’m allowed to have my religious beliefs in private, but I’m not allowed to have them in the public square?” D’Souza asked.

“My point is that you can’t put a statue of Moses or Jesus in the public arena, that would be the government endorsing [religion],” Ayers said.

“But you have no problem with government removing all religious symbols from the public square and you don’t see that as government endorsing atheism or secularism?” D’Souza said. “I want the public square open to both Moses and the 10 Commandments and to Voltaire.”

“I think libertarians get it right in that they oppose government,” Ayers said.

D’Souza agreed. “I think whatever the government does, it does badly. But libertarians are inconsistent on the issue of foreign policy. Jefferson asked why should we be the only people who are free? I don’t believe in fighting wars to free other people, but I celebrated the fall of the Berlin Wall.”

Ayers attacked Obamacare not because of the lies that have surrounded it, its cancellation of coverage for millions, its high prices, deductibles and co-pays, or the fact consumers no longer will have their policies, their doctors, their medicines or their hospitals.

He called it “a very poor law” that amounts to corporate welfare, “giving hundreds of millions of dollars to the insurance industry.”

D’Souza supports Israel as a “little outpost of Western civilization,” and said that Iran is the legacy of Jimmy Carter who trashed U.S. support of the shah and left the world with the radical revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini and Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

“We didn’t take Nelson Mandela off the terrorist list until 2006,” Ayers argued. “We didn’t support Nelson Mandela in the years when he was a freedom fighter.”

Ayers went from supporting Mandela as a radical terrorist in his early years to attacking Israel.

“Israel is an apartheid state and it is ridiculous the United States gives Israel the money the United States gives,” Ayers said. “Israel is a colonial power that has systematically pushed out the indigenous people.”

“American exceptionalism leaves us with a sense that we are the best and everybody should be like us?,” Ayers asked in his concluding statement. “Why would we argue we are the most important and that everybody else should fall down? It’s an arrogance that is not only foolish but also dangerous. We are rich with beauty and vicious in human denial – having championed slavery, supporting Israel, fighting wars in Iraq and the Middle East where we don’t belong. We should fight to stretch our imaginations to include all that there is. The situation where we are with education is catastrophic because we have constructed education like we are now constructing health care – as a market. Education is a right and education in a democracy is based on the incalculable value of everyone.”

In his concluding remarks, D’Souza argued, “America is the great defender of wealth creation. America created the great sense of possibility. All I’m saying is that we should realize we have a good formula and we should fight to widen the pie for everybody, not just to redistribute the pie.”

D’Souza’s film, “2016: Obama’s America,” is to be followed soon by a new project, called “America.”

His appearance has been overshadowed by the recent accusation from authorities that he donated more than the legal requirement to the 2006 campaign of Republican Wendy Long, who lost the race for the U.S. Senate seat in New York that had been vacated by Hillary Clinton.

The indictment charges D’Souza donated $20,000 to Long’s campaign by aggregating the money from various people and falsely reporting the source of the funds.

As WND reported, many of D’Souza’s defenders see the indictment as the administration exacting revenge over D’Souza’s film.

His new “America” is scheduled for release July 4, and it is predicted to become a thorn in Obama’s side because of the prosecution against D’Souza.

See a trailer for the upcoming “America:”

Obama brother tied to Hamas-funding accounts

Malik Obama, second from right, expressing support for Hamas at 2010 conference in Yemen

NEW YORK – While operating a nonprofit in the U.S. that was granted tax-exempt status by the official dismissed in the IRS scandal, President Obama’s half-brother, Malik Obama, has been supporting the terrorist organization Hamas as a fundraiser for the Muslim Brotherhood, according to bank-account information.

Malik’s work with the Sudan-based Islamic Dawa Organization has prompted criminal charges in Egypt of aiding and abetting terrorism.

“If you think Malik Obama, President Obama’s brother, dons a Hamas scarf for sentimental reasons, think again,” writes former PLO-member and native Arabic-speaking researcher Walid Shoebat on his blog.

Shoebat was referring to a report earlier this week of a photograph posted on the website of Malik Obama’s nonprofit, the Barack H. Obama Foundation. It showed him wearing a Hamas scarf that bears the well-known Palestinian slogan “Jerusalem is ours – We are coming!”

Now, Shoebat reports, evidence has surfaced confirming Malik Obama, as the executive secretary of the Islamic Dawa Organization, has operated bank accounts in the Middle East with known ties to al-Qaida that are being widely utilized to raise money for terrorist activities conducted by Hamas in Gaza.

Shoebat ties Bank Account No. 1782, set up in the Al Shamal Bank – an al-Qaida bank founded in Sudan by Osama bin Laden in 1983 to fund terrorist activities – with the bank account serving IDO.

To substantiate the allegations, Shoebat points to advertising on the IDO website that promotes the accounts at the Al Shamal bank, published in Arabic here and here, referencing the Muslim Brotherhood “Aiding our Brothers in Gaza.”

“Though small, the Al Shamal Islamic Bank enabled bin Laden to move money quickly from one country to another through its correspondent relationships with some of the world’s major banks, several of which have been suspended since Sept. 11,” noted University of California, Berkeley, professor Peter Dale Scott, writing on GlobalResearch.org in 2013. “The Al Shamal bank was identified as one of bin Laden’s principal financial entities during the trial earlier this year of four Al Qaeda operatives convicted in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.”

A U.S. State Department Report in 1996 on bin Laden’s finances identified the Al Shamal bank as follows: “Bin Laden and wealthy National Islamic Front members capitalized Al-Shamal Islamic Bank in Khartoum. Bin Laden invested $50 million in the bank.”

Malik Obama’s IDO, Shoebat noted, is part of the Coalition of Islamic Organizations, which includes the Islamic Society in Gaza, a Hamas front organization founded by Hamas terror leader Sheikh Yassin. The society is headed by Hamas prime minister and terror leader Ismail Haniyeh.

Along with Malik’s Islamic Dawa Organization, Shoebat said, other members of the Coalition of Islamic Organizations are involved in the funding, including the World Assembly of Muslim Youth and the Commission for Humanitarian Relief and Medical Support.

Other websites throughout the years have advertised the call to aid, here and here.

In 2011, two years before the IRS targeting of conservative groups became a national scandal, WND reported Malik Obama’s Barack H. Obama Foundation apparently received IRS approval just one month after application. An IRS determination letter dated June 11, 2011, granted a highly irregular, retroactive tax-exempt status only after the group came under fire for having operated as a 501(c)3 foundation since 2008 without applying to the IRS.

WND reported complaints had been filed with Egypt’s prosecutor-general calling for Malik Obama to be put on Egypt’s terror watch list and brought to Egypt to be questioned by state criminal investigators for allegedly financing terrorism, according to Shoebat.

WND reported in August that the vice president of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt gave a speech and participated in an interview on Egyptian television identifying Malik Obama as “a major architect” managing investments for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

In September, as WND reported, a criminal complaint cited Malik for managing funds for both the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Islamic Dawa Organization in Sudan, a country designated by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist state.

In November, WND reported Egyptian lawyers filed criminal terrorism charges in the International Criminal Court against President Obama, in addition to the criminal terrorism charges previously filed in Egyptian courts against Malik.

WND reported last week two leaked classified documents show Egyptian security forces have been monitoring Malik Obama’s activities and implicate President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton in the aiding and abetting of terrorists.

The documents were entered as evidence in the criminal trials of former Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi and other top Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

Want to see Hillary in White House for 8 years?

WASHINGTON – A nationwide, bipartisan survey released Wednesday measuring voters’ attitudes about the “fast-`track” authority the Obama administration is seeking to push the Trans-Pacific Partnership free-trade agreement through Congress indicates Republican lawmakers who vote for the measure are risking their careers and could help put Hillary Clinton in the White House.

The survey results are especially bad news for House Speaker John Boehner and leading Republican House members such as Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan. Republican voters in general and conservatives in particular have concluded the GOP House leaders are capitulating to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the big business interests attempting to rush the bill though Congress.

Fully 68 percent of Republican respondents nationwide and an overwhelming 74 percent of GOP conservatives said they were “less likely” to vote for a member of Congress who supported giving President Obama fast-track negotiating authority.

The White House wants a simple yea or nay vote on the TPP that would limit debate and prevent congressional opponents from proposing even a single amendment.

“Republican members of Congress and their political advisers ignore at their peril the massive opposition of Republican and independent voters to congressional passage of fast track trade authority,” said Kevin L. Kearns, president of the U.S. Business and Industry Council, in releasing the survey results Wednesday in Washington.

“Republican and independent voters are also gravely concerned about the negative impact the proposed TPP will have on jobs in this anemic recovery.

Kearns said these voters “know firsthand what the Republican leadership studiously ignores: Since the U.S. runs persistently high trade deficits under current outmoded trade policies – a cumulative deficit of $10 trillion in goods since NAFTA – trade displaces many more jobs than it creates and small businesses and their employees suffer disproportionately.”

Kearns explained to WND that the Republican establishment leadership in Washington was running the same risk today that the GOP ran in the 2012 presidential election.

“It was a major reason why Mitt Romney lost,” Kearns said. “Many middle class voters in the Republican Party simply stayed home because the concluded Romney was a big-business guy who was clueless about whether they had jobs or not.”

Kearns said the poll has implications not only for the mid-term congressional elections in 2014 but, perhaps even more importantly, the 2016 presidential election.

“The GOP is now sitting through eight years of an Obama presidency,” he said. “If the GOP wants to sit through eight more years of a Hillary presidency, then all the party needs to do is to support John Boehner and vote fast-track authority for the TPP, a free-trade agreement the Republican voter base does not want to see passed into law.”

Republicans overwhelmingly opposed giving fast track authority to the president (8 percent in favor, 87 percent opposed), as do independents (20 percent to 66 percent). A narrow majority of Democrats are in favor (52 percent in favor, 35 percent opposed).

Demographically, opposition is very broad, with no more than one-third of voters in any region of the country or in any age cohort favoring fast track.

Sixty percent of voters with household income under $50,000 oppose fast track, as do 65 percent of those with incomes over $100,000.

The argument against approving fast track for the TPP deal that proves most convincing to voters focuses on the fast-track process itself: “Fast track gives the president too much power. Congress should meet its constitutional responsibility to review trade agreements carefully and make sure they are in the best interests of American workers and consumers.”

Fully 69 percent of voters say this is a convincing reason to oppose fast-track authorization.

The survey was conducted Jan. 14-18, 2014, by Hart Research Associates, a Democratic pollster, and Chesapeake Beach Consulting, a Republican polling firm. It was jointly sponsored by the Sierra Club, the U.S. Business and Industry Council and the Communications Workers of America.

Earlier this month, WND first reported Republicans in the House were preparing to follow the lead of the White House and Reid to rubber-stamp the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, the most sweeping free-trade agreement since NAFTA.

On Jan. 9, in a little-noticed statement, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont, together with ranking member Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., announced they were introducing “fast-track” trade promotion authority.

The last line of congressional resistance to TPP appears to be coming from House Democrats concerned that more U.S. union jobs will be lost.

Last year, 151 House Democrats opposed to TPP, led by Reps. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and George Miller, D-Calif., wrote a letter to President Obama stating their opposition to using “outdated ‘Fast Track’ procedures that usurp Congress’s authority over trade matters.”

This week, as WND reported, political analysts with an impressive group of 564 labor, environmental, family farm and community organizations in the Democratic Party’s voting base sent Obama a strongly worded letter charging that pushing TPP undermines the president’s message on income inequality.

“President Obama can’t have it both ways,” Arthur Stamoulis, the spokesman for Citizens Trade Campaign, the group organizing the letter, told WND. “Either the president is for reducing income eligibility as we expect he will say in the State of the Union address, or he can push for Fast Track legislation on the job-destroying TPP free-trade agreement. He can’t have it both ways.”

WND has also reported Secretary of State John Kerry has signaled the advance of a plan originating with the George W. Bush administration to evolve NAFTA into a European Union-style confederation in North America between the U.S., Mexico and Canada, by putting into overdrive the Obama administration’s effort to rush the Trans-Pacific Partnership through Congress through fast-track authority.