Kenyan Ambassador To The US, Peter Ogego – Acknowledges Barack Was Born In Kenya

According to Debbie Schlussel, during an interview between WRIF and Kenyan Ambassador to the US, Peter Ogego, he admitted that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Schlussel provides a link to another video speech to compare voices… Why won’t the Supreme Court and Congress address this issue? This is our Constitution that is in danger here. First his own grandmother says she was at his birth in a Kenyan hospital and now this. The Supreme Court and Congress as well as President Bush need to investigate this issue as is their duty to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States. If the allegations are false, fine, but they should not be ignored.

To listen to the audio clip click the first link below and click the Play Now link – Go to 12 minutes 30 seconds and listen carefully.

Change You Can Believe In!

My friends Mark Fellhauer, Mike Wolters, and Mike Clark of Detroit’s “Mike in the Morning” show on WRIF-FM spoke with the Kenyan Ambassador to the U.S. Peter Ogego and got him to admit, matter-of-factly, that Barack Hussein Obama was, indeed, born in Kenya. He also says they plan to mark his birthplace there. This is not a fake call. These guys don’t do those. (The interview is almost 20 minutes, but the admission starts at 12:30 into the interview.) You can compare Ogego’s voice with this video of a speech he made to verify that it is, indeed, him.

peterogego.jpgbarackobama.jpgKenyan Ambassador to U.S. Peter Ogego: Yup, Obama Was Born in KenyaAlthough I listen to their show most mornings, thanks to KFAQ Tulsa morning radio host Pat Campbell (on whose show I frequently appear, including this morning) for the alert. Thanks also to Bob McCarty, who also sent the tip and wrote about it.

Advertisements

We The People – Open Letter To Barack Obama

It seems the controversy around Barack Obama’s “Natural Born Citizen” status is not over yet. The folks over at We The People Foundation are planning on taking out a full page ad around the country in USA Today


An Open Letter to Barack Obama:


Are you a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.?

Are you legally qualified to hold the Office of President?

 


Dear Mr. Obama:

On October 24, 2008, a federal judge granted your request to dismiss a lawsuit by Citizen Philip Berg, who challenged your qualifications under the “Natural Born Citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution to legally hold the office of President of the United States of America.

Mr. Berg presented factual evidence to the Court in support of his claim that you are either a citizen of your father’s native Kenya by birth, or that you became a citizen of Indonesia, relinquishing your prior citizenship when you moved there with your mother in 1967.

In your response to the lawsuit, you neither denied Mr. Berg’s claims nor submitted any evidence which would refute his assertions. Instead, you argued that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to determine the question of your legal eligibility because Mr. Berg lacked “standing.”

Astonishingly, the judge agreed, simply saying, “[Mr. Berg] would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory.”

Unfortunately, your response to the legal claim was clearly evasive and strikingly out of character, suggesting you may, in fact, lack a critical Constitutional qualification necessary to assume the Office of President: i.e., that you are not a “natural born” citizen of the United States or one who has relinquished his American citizenship.

Before you can exercise any of the powers of the United States, you must prove that you have fully satisfied each and every eligibility requirement that the Constitution mandates for any individual’s exercise of those powers.  

Regardless of the tactics chosen in defending yourself against the Berg lawsuit, significant questions regarding your legal capacity to hold this nation’s highest office have been put forth publicly, and you have failed to directly refute them with documentary evidence that is routinely available to any bona fide, natural born U.S. Citizen.

As one who has ventured into the fray of public service of his own volition, seeking to possess the vast powers of the Office of President, it is not unreasonable to demand that you produce evidence of your citizenship to answer the questions and allay the concerns of the People. Indeed, as the one seeking the office, you are under a moral, legal, and fiduciary duty to proffer such evidence to establish your qualifications as explicitly mandated by Article II of the Constitution.  

Should you proceed to assume the office of the President of the United States as anything but a bona fide natural born citizen of the United States that has not relinquished that citizenship, you would be inviting a national disaster, placing our Republic at great risk from untold consequences.  For example:

·         Neither the Electoral College on December 15, nor the House of Representatives on January 6 would be able to elect you, except as a poseur – a usurper;

·         As a usurper, you would be unable to take the required “Oath or Affirmation” of office on January 20 without committing the crime of perjury or false swearing, for being ineligible for the Office of the President you cannot faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States;

·         Your every act in the usurped Office of the President would be a criminal offense as an act under color of law that would subject the People to the deprivation of their constitutional rights, and entitling you tono obedience whatsoever from the People;

·         as a usurper acting in the guise of the President you could not function as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and of the militia of the several states, as such forces would be under no legal obligation to remain obedient to you;

·         No one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch would be required to obey any of your proclamations, executive orders or directives, as such orders would be legally VOID;

·         Your appointment of Ambassadors and Judges to the Supreme Court would be VOID ab initio (i.e., from the beginning), no matter what subsequent actions the Senate might take as well as rendering any such acts by such appointed officials void as well;

·         Congress would not be able to pass any new laws because they would not be able to acquire the signature of a bona fide President, rendering all such legislation legally VOID;

·         As a usurper, Congress would be unable to remove you from the Office of the President on Impeachment, inviting certain political chaos including a potential for armed conflicts within the General Government or among the States and the People to effect the removal of such ausurper.

As an attorney and sitting U.S. Senator, I’m sure you agree that our Constitution is the cornerstone of our system of governance.  It is the very foundation of our system of Law and Order – indeed, it is the supreme law of the land. I’m sure you also agree that its precise language was no accident and cannot be ignored if Individual, unalienable, natural Rights, Freedoms and Liberties are to be protected and preserved.

As our next potential President, you have a high-order obligation to the Constitution (and to those who have fought and died for our Freedom) that extends far beyond that of securing a majority of the votes of the Electoral College.  No matter your promises of change and prosperity, your heartfelt intent or the widespread support you have garnered in seeking the highest Office of the Land, the integrity of the Republic and Rule of Law cannot, — must not — be put at risk, by allowing a constitutionally unqualified person to sit, as ausurper, in the Office of the President.  

No matter the level of practical difficulty, embarrassment or disruption of the nation’s business, we must — above all — honor and protect the Constitution and the divine, unalienable, Individual Rights it guarantees, including the Right to a President who is a natural born citizen of the United States of America that has not relinquished his American citizenship. Our nation has endured similar disruptions in the past, and will weather this crisis as well. Indeed, it is both yours and the People’s mutual respect for, and commitment to, the Constitution and Rule of Law that insures the perpetuation of Liberty. 

As a long time defender of my state and federal Constitutions, and in consideration of the lack of sufficient evidence needed to establish your credentials as President, I am compelled to lodge this Petition for Redress of Grievances and public challenge to you.

Make no mistake: This issue IS a Constitutional crisis. Although it will not be easy for you, your family or our Republic, you have it within your ability to halt this escalating crisis by either producing the certified documents establishing beyond question your qualifications to hold the Office of President, or by immediately withdrawing yourself from the Electoral College process.

With due respect, I hereby request that you deliver the following documents to Mr. Berg and myself at the National Press Club in Washington, DC at noon on Monday, November 17, 2008:

(a) a certified copy of your “vault” (original long version) birth certificate;
(b) certified copies of all reissued and sealed birth certificates in the names 
      Barack  Hussein Obama
, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama,  Barack Dunham 
      and 
Barry Dunham; 
(c) a certified copy of your Certification of Citizenship; 
(d) a certified copy of your Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of maturity; 
(e) certified copies of your admission forms for Occidental College, Columbia 
     University and Harvard Law School; and 
(f) certified copies of any court orders or legal documents changing your name 
     from Barry Soetoro.

In the alternative, in defense of the Constitution, and in honor of the Republic and that for which it stands, please announce before such time your withdrawal from the 2008 Presidential election process.

In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously.  Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher.   For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.  Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”
 Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 469-471.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,  
 

Robert L. Schulz, 
Founder and Chairman, We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc.

The Joyce Foundation’s Attempt To Abolish The Second Amendment With The Help Of Barack Obama

Obama worked for 5 years trying to stop Americans from having the right to bear arms. His running mate Joe Biden stumped about how he has a gun and that Obama is not trying to take it away… Well Joe you may want to read up on what Obama thinks about guns. This is more of Obama saying whatever he has to to get elected.

Now when others wanted to speak out against out against this “Joyce’s staffers “objected strenuously” to their being allowed to speak”. So both  the First and Second Amendment mean nothing to Obama. Remember this is the guy who has a degree in and has taught Constitutional Law. Whose Constitution I am not sure of, but it must not be ours.

The implications of Barack being president are staggering especially if there is a Democratic Congress and if he gets the oppotunity to nominate a single Liberal Supreme Court Justice. All three eggs will be liberal and the outcome could be catastrophic for the citizens of the US. With no check and balance in all three branches of the federal goverment, Barack can push through whatever agenda he chooses.

More Change You Can Believe In.

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama must demonstrate executive experience, but he remains strangely silent about his eight years (1994-2002) as a director of the Joyce Foundation, a billion dollar tax-exempt organization. He has one obvious reason: during his time as director,Joyce Foundation spent millions creating and supporting anti-gun organizations.

There is another, less known, reason.

During Obama’s tenure, the Joyce Foundation board planned and implemented a program targeting the Supreme Court. The work began five years into Obama’s directorship, when the Foundation had experience in turning its millions into anti-gun “grassroots” organizations, but none at converting cash into legal scholarship.

The plan’s objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.

Joyce’s directors found a vulnerable point. When judges cannot rely upon past decisions, they sometimes turn to law review articles. Law reviews are impartial, and famed for meticulous cite-checking. They are also produced on a shoestring. Authors of articles receive no compensation; editors are law students who work for a tiny stipend.

In 1999, midway through Obama’s tenure, the Joyce board voted to grant the Chicago-Kent Law Review $84,000, a staggering sum by law review standards. The Review promptly published an issue in which all articles attacked the individual right view of the Second Amendment.

In a breach of law review custom, Chicago-Kent let an “outsider” serve as editor; he was Carl Bogus, a faculty member of a different law school. Bogus had a unique distinction: he had been a director of Handgun Control Inc. (today’s Brady Campaign), and was on the advisory board of the Joyce-funded Violence Policy Center.

Bogus solicited only articles hostile to the individual right view of the Second Amendment, offering authors $5,000 each. But word leaked out, and Prof. Randy Barnett of Boston University volunteered to write in defense of the individual right to arms. Bogus refused to allow him to write for the review, later explaining that “sometimes a more balanced debate is best served by an unbalanced symposium.” Prof. James Lindgren, a former Chicago-Kent faculty member, remembers that when Barnett sought an explanation he “was given conflicting reasons, but the opposition of the Joyce Foundation was one that surfaced at some time.” Joyce had bought a veto power over the review’s content.

Joyce Foundation apparently believed it held this power over the entire university. Glenn Reynolds later recalled that when he and two other professors were scheduled to discuss the Second Amendment on campus, Joyce’s staffers “objected strenuously” to their being allowed to speak, protesting that Joyce Foundation was being cheated by an “‘agenda of balance’ that was inconsistent with the Symposium’s purpose.” Joyce nextbought up an issue of Fordham Law Review.

The plan worked smoothly. One court, in the course of ruling that there was no individual right to arms, cited the Chicago-Kent articles eight times. Then, in 2001, a federal Court of Appeals in Texasdetermined that the Second Amendment was an individual right.

The Joyce Foundation board (which still included Obama) responded by expanding its attack on the Second Amendment. Its next move came when Ohio State University announced it was establishing the “Second Amendment Research Center” as a thinktank headed by anti-individual-right historian Saul Cornell. Joyce put up no less than $400,000 to bankroll its creation. The grant was awarded at the board’s December 2002 meeting, Obama’s last function as a Joyce director. In reporting the grant, the OSU magazine Making History made clear that the purpose was to influence a future Supreme Court case:

“The effort is timely: a series of test cases – based on a new wave of scholarship, a recent decision by a federal Court of Appeals in Texas, and a revised Justice Department policy-are working their way through the courts. The litigants challenge the courts’ traditional reading of the Second Amendment as a protection of the states’ right to organize militia, asserting that the Amendment confers a much broader right for individuals to own guns. The United States Supreme Court is likely to resolve the debate within the next three to five years.”

(45:17-18; online link; slow).

The Center proceeded to generate articles denying the individual right to arms. The OSU connection also gave Joyce an academic money laundry. When it decided to buy an issue of the Stanford Law and Policy Review, it had a cover. Joyce handed OSU$125,000 for that purpose; all the law review editors knew was that OSU’s Foundation granted them that breathtaking sum, and a helpful Prof. Cornell volunteered to organize the issue. (The review was later sufficiently embarassed to publish an open letter on the affair).

The Joyce directorate’s plan almost succeeded. The individual rights view won out in the Heller Supreme Court appeal, but only by 5-4. The four dissenters were persuaded in part by Joyce-funded writings, down to relying on an article which misled them on critical historical documents.

Having lost that fight, Obama now claims he always held the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, and that he “respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms.” But as a Joyce director, Obama was involved in a wealthy foundation’s attempt to manipulate the Supreme Court, buy legal scholarship, and obliterate the individual right to arms.

Voters who value the Constitution should ask whether someone who was party to that plan should be nominating future Supreme Court justices.

Obama A Terrorists Best Friend

Good for this kid

Obama A Terrorists Best Friend

An 11-year-old boy in Colorado was suspended from school after he refused to take off a shirt that read, “Obama is a terrorist’s best friend.” His father says that the school is violating his son’s First Amendment rights.

Daxx Dalton, a fifth grader at Aurora Frontier K-8 School in Aurora, Colo., wore the homemade shirt on a day when students were asked to show their patriotism by wearing red, white and blue, according to MyFOXColorado.com.

When he was given the choice of turning the shirt inside out or being suspended, Dalton chose suspension.

“They’re taking away my right of freedom of speech,” he said. “If I have the right to wear this shirt I’m going to use it. And if the only way to use it is get suspended, then I’m going to get suspended.”

Dann Dalton, the boy’s father — a “proud conservative” who has taken part in anti-abortion protests — told MyFOXColorado.com that the school is making a mistake by suspending his son.

“It’s the public school system,” he said. “Let’s be honest, it’s full of liberal loons.”

He later told FOX News, “I didn’t expect (my son) to get what he got, that was ridiculously uncalled for.”

His son also told FOX News he was “encouraged” to wear the shirt by his father.

“I felt like I should wear it, because I have a right to,” he added.

The school district would not discuss the case, but said the district “respects a student’s right to free speech, such as the right to wear specific clothing,” but they reserve the right to review any situation that interrupts the learning environment, MyFOXColorado.com reported.

Dalton’s suspension was for willful disobedience and defiance, not for wearing the shirt. His father said he intends to sue the district.

Click here for more from MyFOXColorado.com.

All Rhodes Lead Away From The Center Of The Democratic Party

Randi Rhodes has left Air America after station officials demand her to apologize for anti Clinton Rant. Good for Randi. I must say that the comparison to Imus’ comments is faulty, in one was perceived as being racist. They cannot even claim this was sexist in nature. It was Randi saying what a lot of Americas are thinking…

Randi Rhodes, the radio talk show host who was suspended last week from Air America after going on an obscenity-laced tirade against Hillary Clinton and one of her prominent supporters, has resigned.

Mark Green, president of Air America Media, told FOXNews.com that Rhodes terminated her contract Wednesday after she refused to apologize on air for her remarks.

“We sought an apology, because of what she had said…like Imus, like David Shuster,” Green said. “She refused and instead last night informed us she was terminating her contract with Air America, which she has the option to do.”

He said she was not forced out — “She exercised her option.”

Rhodes has apparently already been picked up by Nova M Radio, which released a statement saying Rhodes would be nationally syndicated on the station starting Monday.

Rhodes’ lawyer Robert Gaulin told FOXNews.com the host would return home to Florida, and broadcast from there.

But he disputed Green’s account of her resignation. He said Rhodes was willing to apologize, but that Air America wanted her to waive a provision in her contract that said she could leave any time over the next year, before they would let her back on air. She refused.

“It had nothing to do with the brouhaha from last week. It had nothing to do with an apology,” Gaulin said.

Rhodes used the obscene language during a March 22 event sponsored by an affiliate station in San Francisco. During what was an apparent stand-up routine, Rhodes attacked Geraldine Ferraro, the former vice presidential candidate, for saying that Clinton rival Barack Obama has benefited in the Democratic presidential race because he is black.

“Geraldine Ferraro turned out to be the David Duke in drag. Who knew?” Rhodes said to laughter. “What a whore Geraldine Ferraro is, she’s such a f*****g whore.”

A few minutes later, Rhodes said, “Hillary is a big f*****g whore too.”

She then suggested Clinton was trying to force her way into the Democratic nomination by manipulating pledged delegates. “Oh, f**k you, okay, f**k you,” she said.

Air America condemned the remarks and Ferraro said at the time Rhodes should be fired.

“It was an abusive obscene thing she said, whether one likes or doesn’t like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John McCain,” Green said Thursday.

The termination was effective Wednesday, and Green does not know who will replace her.

John Scott, program director at Green 960 AM, KKGN, the San Francisco station that sponsored the March 22 event, said they would carry Rhodes’ new program.

“Because this incident happened at our station, we felt that we should kind of lead the way to get her back on,” he told FOXNews.com. “She’s going to be on a bunch of markets.”

Air America Media Chairman Charlie Kireker and Green said in a joint statement on the Air America Web site Thursday that “We wish her well and thank her for past services to Air America.”

Green said Air America will announce within a day who will temporarily replace her during her daily 3-to-6 p.m. show.

Green said Rhodes had been there four years, and “she could have worked another year.”

FOXNews.com’s Judson Berger contributed to this report.

Live Leak Folds To Muslim Threats And Takes Down Fitna

Due to threats from Muslim Terrorists, Liveleaks has removed Dutch Lawmaker Geert Wilders film Fitna. For your viewing pleasure and a protest against the Islamification of the Internet I have posted the YouTube video below.

The Dutch lawmaker who made a controversial film that criticizes Islam and the Koran, defended his work after protestors in Pakistan and Europe condemned the movie.

The 17-minute movie, posted on the Internet, shows terrorist attacks and quotes lines from the Koran, Islam’s holiest book. Among the quotes from the Koran used in the film are: “When ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks” and “Fight them until there is no dissension.”

“The Koran is not an old book somewhere on the shelves that no one is looking at,” the film’s maker, Geert Wilders, told ABC News. “But this is indeed the base of a lot of terrible things happening throughout the world.”

Wilders is the leader of a Dutch anti-immigration party that holds nine seats in the national parliament. He wants the Netherlands to ban all Muslim immigrants and more than that, he wants Muslims to change their ideology, which he likens to Nazism.

adsonar_placementId=1280600;adsonar_pid=59749;adsonar_ps=-1;adsonar_zw=165;adsonar_zh=220;adsonar_jv=’ads.adsonar.com’;

“I believe that our culture is far better than the Islamic culture,” Wilders said. When pressed on what he meant by “better,” Wilders replied, “Well, we have a separation of church and state, we treat women equally.”

Friday night, the Web site hosting Wilders’ movie, “Fitna,” an Arabic word that means discord, said said it had decided to take down the film “following serious threats to our staff.”

In the Netherlands and across Europe there is anger. Many Muslims say they feel insulted, but there has been no violence so far.

There have been demonstrations in Pakistan and elsewhere. Anticipating trouble, Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende condemned the movie.

“We believe it serves no purpose other than to cause offence,” Balkenende said.

In 2005 violent protests broke out around the world and more than 100 people were killed after a Danish newspaper printed cartoons portraying the Prophet Mohammed.

“I think his message is even worse than those cartoons,” said Abdou Bouzerda, who heads the Dutch chapter of the Arab European League. “His political message is that Muslims do not belong here.”

For now Dutch Muslim leaders are urging debate and restraint.

Wilders says his film is about freedom of speech and says if it fans the flames of violence, it’s not his fault.

“If it unfortunately would happen, of course the people who use this violence, use these non-democratic means, can be the only ones held responsible,” he said.

Muslim Hate Site In The US Run By Former Jew

Another POS website hosted and run in the US  by a terrorist supportor who uses his Freedom of Speech to spread hatred, bigotry and support for Terrorists. What is sad is this is a Jew turned Muslim. Someone needs to take him out and beat him for a few days, maybe send him to some terrorist training camp and see what they do to him there. Maybe he can get the Daniel Pearl treatment too… 

I have an idea Yousef, if you hate America so much, GET THE FUCK OUT.

NEW YORK, N.Y. —  On any given day, log on to RevolutionMuslim.com and a host of startling images appear:

— The Statue of Liberty, with an ax blade cutting through her side;

— Video mocking the beheading of American journalist Daniel Pearl, entitled “Daniel Pearl I am Happy Your Dead 🙂 “;

— Video of a puppet show lampooning U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq;

— The latest speech from Sheikh Abdullah Faisal, an extremist Muslim cleric convicted in the UK and later deported for soliciting the murder of non-Muslims.

Even more surprising is that RevolutionMuslim.com isn’t being maintained in some remote safe house in Pakistan. Instead, Yousef al-Khattab, the Web site creator, runs it from his home in the New York City Borough of Queens.

Click here to view photos.

Click here to view video mocking the beheading of American journalist Daniel Pearl.

And, because al-Khattab enjoys the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, all the authorities can do is watch.

Formerly known as Joseph Cohen, al-Khattab is an American-born Jew who converted to Islam after attending an Orthodox Rabbinical school, which he later described as a “racist cult.”

The 39-year-old New York taxi driver launched RevolutionMuslim.com with the mission of “preserving Islamic culture,” “calling people to the oneness of God” and asking them to “support the beloved Sheik Abdullah Faisal, who’s preaching the religion of Islam and serving as a spiritual guide.”

In 2003 Faisal was convicted in the U.K. for spreading messages of racial hatred and urging his followers to kill Jews, Hindus and Westerners. In sermon recordings played at his trial, Faisal called on young, impressionable Muslims to use chemical weapons to “exterminate unbelievers” and “cut the throat of the Kaffars [nonbelievers] with [a] machete.”

Authorities believe Faisal’s sermons have influenced 2005 London transport bomber Germaine Lindsay and “shoe bomber” Richard Reid, who attended mosques where Faisal preached.

At times, al-Khattab’s postings are farcical, such as a picture of him holding the book “Nuclear Jihad” with a wry smile on his face. Other messages call for radical Muslim rule worldwide.

Al-Khattab claims the Sept. 11 terror attacks were an “inside job,” and he blames U.S. foreign policy for spawning the terrorism that carried out the attacks.

He calls Daniel Pearl, who was kidnapped and beheaded in 2002 by Islamic extremists in Pakistan, “a convicted spy.”

“I could care less about Daniel Pearl,” al-Khattab said in an interview with FOXNews.com. “I’m happy to see that he’s gone.”

Click here to view RevolutionMuslim.com.

The content changes constantly. One reason is that the fast flow of information allows messages to spread through cyberspace quickly. Another, terrorism analysts say, is to make it difficult for law enforcement to monitor the site.

Despite his radical anti-Western views, al-Khattab says he does not support terrorism of any kind.

Yet, RevolutionMuslim.com claims to be the official site of “North American representatives” for Sheikh Faisal, and it appears dedicated to spreading his radical doctrine.

He says Faisal “never said to kill innocent people” and was unjustly imprisoned. He says the real terror organizations are the U.S. Army, the CIA, and the FBI — and the National Coast Guard, “to a lesser extent.”

According to RevolutionMuslim, Faisal — who was deported to his native Jamaica in 2007 — is now receiving donations solicited on the site, including money for a new laptop and DVD burner to spread his message.

It’s not illegal to post these messages or collect money for Faisal, but it would be if Faisal were designated a terrorist by the U.S. government. He currently is not listed on any government terror list; a Department of Justice spokesman could not confirm or deny if Faisal is being investigated for any terror related activity.

RevolutionMuslim may look amateurish when compared with other extremist Web sites, but it is no less of a threat, says Mia Bloom, political science professor at the University of Georgia’s School of Public and International Affairs.

“It may lead people who become radicalized by it to turn to other, more dangerous Web sites,” such as those run by terrorist organizations, she said.

Bloom characterized al-Khattab’s message as “narrow” and “misinformed” and said he is attempting to “proselytize or radicalize people who share some of these same ideas.”

“[He] has obviously been duped or is duping others because that’s not what Islam preaches,” she said.

On his site al-Khattab appears to condemn the very democracy that guarantees him the freedom to express himself — a freedom he cites in a disclaimer on his homepage:

“We hereby declare and make absolute public declaration that revolutionmuslim.com operates under the first amendment right to freedom of religion and expression and that in no way, shape, or form do we call for war against the U.S. government or adhere to the enemies of the United States elsewhere.”

Under the law FBI spokesman Richard Kolko said it is difficult to bring criminal charges against the operators of Web sites like RevolutionMuslim.com unless specific threats are made against an individual or individuals.

Kolko while not speaking directly about RevolutionMuslim said radical sites like these are not often prosecuted.

“It’s usually a First Amendment right if they don’t cross the threshold of making any threats,” said Kolko. “There’s nothing we should or could do.”

“Until the rhetoric reaches the point in which it’s no longer protected speech under the first amendment, it’s hard to stop it,” said security expert, Harvey Kushner.