Mexico funds Spanish classes for illiterate emigrants to U.S.

By Laura Wides-Munoz, Associated Press

MIAMI — For more than a decade, as the immigration debate has swelled on both sides of the border, the Mexican government has been quietly providing money, materials and even teachers to American schools, colleges and nonprofit organizations.

The programs aren't substitutes for U.S. curricula, but educators familiar with them say they provide a lifeline for adult students with little formal education by helping them become literate in Spanish — and by extension, English.

Yet many educators are wary of even talking about the programs, fearing they might stoke an anti-immigrant backlash.

The Mexican government, which spends more than $1 million annually on the programs, has many reasons to provide the aid to the immigrants and their children. The programs allow it to give back to the growing number of Mexicans living legally and illegally in the U.S. Behind oil, remittances from these individuals are the second-largest source of foreign income for the Mexican economy — almost $24 billion last year. ....

NEXT PLAN WON'T BE MADE IN USA

(Compiler's note: This scary story may just help explain why some very high ranking politicians are bent on ignoring the loud demands of the American people. What else are we NOT being told. rca)

NOW what? Congress and the White House did their best - I guess - to come up with a way to rescue the teetering banking system and Wall Street reacted with a big, wet Bronx cheer.

In case you aren't from The Bronx, that means the financial markets didn't approve - either when the bailout looked like a sure thing in the morning (Dow down 350) or when the plan later seemed dead (Dow down more than 700).

So what's going wrong with the $700 billion experiment in bailout capitalism?

Well, Wall Street is running the show, which automatically engenders suspicion and skepticism.

To me, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, a former chairman of Goldman Sachs, seems more interested in taking toxic securities off the books of Wall Street firms than in providing the banking system with the lifeblood it needs - capital.

Here's the problem.

Even if Paulson manages to use the $700 billion to acquire billions in bad mortgage securities from banks, it doesn't mean the banks are going to be willing to increase loans.

In fact, banks might be so scared - and grateful that Paulson got them off the hook - that they might just sit back and watch the disaster unfold.

Lost in the panic of a nearly 800-point drop in the Dow is a scary back story. And it's the reason why Washington yesterday had to pump $330 billion in liquidity into the frozen financial system - not only to the US banking system but also to Europe.

Put simply, it's that we are no longer in control of our own financial markets.

Japanese and Chinese investors, including the governments of both countries, are said to have pressed for our government's takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac several weeks ago.

The threat, it has been reported, was that foreign government money from so-called sovereign wealth funds would no longer buy Fannie and Freddie's bonds if the feds didn't stand firmly behind them.

Foreign investments have enabled the US to expand its economy over the years, even though Americans have been saving and investing less.

These sovereign funds came to the aid of several US institutions early this year, but not lately.

Given the number of emergency bank deals that have just been accomplished through private transactions, it raises a question that was likely brought up by congressional members: Why did Washington need to kick in another $700 billion when private sources of finance seem to be stepping forward?

Are that many more banks in trouble? Was the Treasury secretary merely looking for an insurance policy if these private deals fail? Or was it, as I suspect, that the White House was being strong-armed by foreign interests?

Sharia Law: Coming to a Western Nation Near You?

By Cinnamon Stillwell

Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU) will be hosting a conference on October 23 that asks the loaded question: “Is There a Role for Shari'ah in Modern States?”

The Saudi-funded ACMCU and its founding director, John Esposito, one of the foremost apologists for radical Islam in the academic field of Middle East studies, have certainly been doing their bit to make the idea more palatable.

The Saudi prince for whom ACMCU was named has been pumping millions of dollars into Middle East studies at Georgetown, Harvard, UC Berkeley, and beyond, and as the case of Esposito demonstrates, it magnifies the voices of scholars with a decidedly uncritical bent. As a result, ACMCU analysis regarding Sharia (or Islamic) law tends to focus not on its injustices (amputation, stoning, hanging, honor killing, punishment for blasphemy, execution of apostates, persecution of non-Muslims, sanctioned wife-beating, female genital mutilation, and so on), but rather on repackaging it in ways that will appeal to Western sensibilities. The concept of a more “moderate” version of Sharia law that is compatible with democracy is at the forefront of this effort.

While it’s difficult to predict exactly what will take place at the upcoming ACMCU conference, the fact that Esposito will present the opening remarks provides considerable insight into the politics of the event.

Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, a book co-authored by Esposito and executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies Dalia Mogahed, has been widely criticized for its blatant inaccuracies and attempts to whitewash anti-Western and extremist sentiment in the Muslim world. Accordingly, Sharia law is framed in a non-threatening fashion. As Robert Satloff put it in the Weekly Standard:

…Amazing as it sounds, according to Esposito and Mogahed, the proper term for a Muslim who hates America, wants to impose Sharia law, supports suicide bombing, and opposes equal rights for women but does not “completely” justify 9/11 is . . . “moderate.”

At the Newsweek/Washington Post “On Faith” blog earlier this year, Esposito referenced his book as a means of downplaying concerns over support for Sharia law in the Muslim world:

…for many any mention of Shariah is often equated facilely with Taliban-like laws. In fact, as the Gallup World Poll shows, majorities of mainstream Muslims (women as well as men) want some form of Shariah, religious values, as a source of law. This sentiment is not all that different from a majority of Americans who want to see the Bible as a source of legislation. (See Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think)

But comparing Sharia law under a dictatorial or clerical regime to biblical inspiration in a secular, democratic nation is like comparing apples and oranges. Yet this is precisely the kind of moral equivalency one expects from Esposito at the ACMCU conference.

Providing further cause for concern, keynote speaker and Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman is a notorious champion of Sharia law. In a March, 2008 New York Times Magazine article on the subject, Feldman claimed:

In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation.

…At its core, Shariah represents the idea that all human beings — and all human governments — are subject to justice under the law.

Reviewing Feldman’s latest book, The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State, Jonathan Schanzer elaborates on this disturbing thesis:

Feldman’s central premise is that the scholars of early and medieval Islam were guardians of justice. These independent scholars, he argues, kept the all-powerful caliph in line by judiciously ensuring that his decrees were in accordance with Shari'a law. The proper application of Shari'a ensured fair governance. Thus, Feldman claims, resurrecting the scholarly class is needed today.

Yet Feldman’s book, Schanzer concludes, “fails to convince the informed reader that Islamic law and democracy are destined for marriage.”

In an aptly titled piece on Feldman’s scholarship, “Shilling for Sharia at Harvard,” Hillel Stavis warns that “it can only be a matter of time before the professor, having asserted that Sharia law is desirable, will assure us that its introduction in the United States is inevitable.”

Considering recent developments in Britain, the inevitability of Sharia law may not just be an abstraction. As reported last week by The Times Online:

Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Melanie Phillips, writing for National Review Online, notes the role of Saudi funding and Middle East studies in furthering this process:

Even thought itself is being Islamized, with academic objectivity in the teaching of Islam and Middle East studies set aside in favour of indoctrination and propaganda. An as-yet-unpublished report by Prof. Anthony Glees says that extremist ideas are being spread by Islamic study centers linked to British universities and backed by multi-million-pound donations from Saudi Arabia and Muslim organizations. Professor Glees says, ‘Britain’s universities will have to generate two national cultures: one non-Muslim and largely secular, the other Muslim. We will have two identities, two sets of allegiance and two legal and political systems.

Britain can serve as a cautionary tale for the West. Scholars who downplay the threats to democratic societies posed by the encroachments of Sharia law, and push a sanitized, idealized version thereof, may one day help usher in our worst nightmare.

Now there’s a subject that would make for a truly groundbreaking Middle East studies conference.

Pakistan's Taliban warlord: A profile of Baitullah Mehsud

By Manzar Zaidi

Pakistani Taliban commander Baitullah Mehsud is considered in some intelligence circles as a threat as big as, or bigger than, even Osama bin Laden. His rise from a relatively little known entity in South Waziristan to the head of a full-fledged Taliban movement in Pakistan has not only grave repercussions for local security, but also for the Global War on Terror. The rise of this movement in Pakistan is not just a local disturbance, but the phenomenon of Taliban resurgence after their post-2001 setback in Afghanistan, and with Baitullah as a protégé of Mullah Omar taking charge, has international implications as well.

At the conclusion of the Soviet-Afghan War, the militant Taliban was forced to flee from Afghanistan and found a safe haven in the Federally Administered Tribal Area, particularly in the Waziristan and Bajaur regions. It was here that the Taliban engrossed themselves in the process of reorganization and undertaking fresh recruitment directly or through madrassas (religious seminaries), which flourished after the collapse of educational system provided by the state. Emotionally charged locals, the Pashtuns, had been living well-below subsistence level for a long time under successive governments in Pakistan. A combination of abject poverty, an ultraorthodox religious zeal, and hatred for the Western powers provided a fertile nursery for this new class of militants.

The Pakistani tribal areas already had significant number of Taliban fighters present due to infiltration from adjacent Afghanistan. These bands of Taliban needed legitimacy in the form of local warlords, who shared the same ideological and militant roots as the Taliban, This has given rise to a new Pakistani-bred variant of the Taliban.

This new generation of Taliban is under the influence of al Qaeda, and is supplemented by militants of different localities like Chechens, Bosnians, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Arabs, and Egyptians. These ethnic groups have started dictating terms based on the conservative interpretation of Islam as per the beliefs and practices of a distorted version of Deobandi school of thought. The foremost leader to emerge from this movement has been Baitullah Mehsud.

Baitullah combines in his personality all the essential requirements of a warlord capable of taking over this new militant movement: Afghan jihadi experience, coupled with a great reverence for Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar, and local legitimacy due to belonging to a reputed clan. He has led a charmed militant life, being a favored disciple of a legendary local jihadi leader, Nek Muhammad Wazir and reputed to be a well respected Afghan trained warrior. Luck has favored him in the form of opportunities being given to him due to being at the right place at the right time. Yet, his enormous infamy cannot just be explained away due to a stroke of luck; he is an enormously capable commander and a strategist of the highest order, as his negotiation history with the Pakistan government has tended to demonstrate.

This paper will examine the little that is known about Baitullah’s personal background, his rise to power, and his place in Pakistan.

Click to read Pakistan's Taliban warlord: A profile of Baitullah Mehsud.

Manzar Zaidi is a Senior Associate Editor with The Long War Journal, dealing primarily with the analysis of the phenomenon of radicalisation in Pakistan, and the surrounding region. Manzar directs the The Long War Journal's project on Global Jihadist Movements - The Pakistani Taliban.

Youth Canada's first convicted terrorist

Landmark decision under new law finds teenager was immature but culpable in plot

Canada's first convicted terrorist was a naive 17-year-old Muslim convert who was easily manipulated as well as lacking education and street smarts. But in a landmark decision yesterday a judge ruled there was overwhelming evidence he belonged to a homegrown terrorist group.

The young man, accused of attending two terrorist training camps and stealing items for the so-called Toronto 18, displayed no emotion when the verdict was read in a Brampton court.

"(The youth) clearly understood that the camps were training for a terrorist purpose," said Justice John Sproat as he read from his 94-page decision. "He also understood that contributing materials to be used at the camp enhanced the ability of the group to conduct the training."....

More torture charges against Charles Taylor's son filed in US

The son of imprisoned former Liberian leader Charles Taylor was indicted this week on four new counts of torture, and other ancillary crimes. "Chuckie" Taylor, who commanded his father's palace guard, named the Dragon Forces, is presently serving time in a US prison for a passport violation, and was already facing torture and other criminal charges for his role in torturing civilians whilst his father ruled Liberia. His case is the first known prosecution under a recent US law which prohibits US citizens from committing torture overseas. The Defendant was born in the United States whilst his father was a student in Boston.

Charles Taylor Jr. [UID 32829], who is also known as Charles M. Emmanuel and Roy M. Belfast, Jr., is charged* with:

• Four counts of Torture.
• Conspiracy to commit Torture.
• Use of a firearm in a violent crime or conspiracy.
• Conspiracy to use a firearm in a violent crime.

Taylor is alleged to have personally committed, or ordered these acts;

• Stabbing and cutting prisoners.
• Applying electrical shocks.
• Burning subjects with molten plastic, lit cigarettes and an iron.

The crimes occurred between 1999 and 2003. Trial is scheduled for January 2008. Whether the new indictment will result in a delay is possible.

Dave Ramsey: The Common Sense Fix

(Compiler's note: Dave Ramsey has compiled this set of fixes to today's Wall Street financial crisis from a large group of associates. This represent fixes that they collectively believe should be considered instead of the bailout path currently being followed by our politicians -- the same politicians who are writing themselves a one-way ticket out of office if they continue on their current path. It is time to really "fix" the Congressional attempts at "social re-engineering.")

By Dave Ramsey

The Common Sense Fix

Years of bad decisions and stupid mistakes have created an economic nightmare in this country,
but $700 billion in new debt is not the answer. As a tax-paying American citizen, I will not support any congressperson who votes to implement such a policy. Instead, I submit the following threestep

Common Sense Plan.

I. INSURANCE
a. Insure the subprime bonds/mortgages with an underlying FHA-type insurance. Government-insured and backed loans would have an instant market all over the
world, creating immediate and needed liquidity.

b. In order for a company to accept the government-backed insurance, they must do two
things:

1. Rewrite any mortgage that is more than three months delinquent to a 6% fixed-rate mortgage.

a. Roll all back payments with no late fees or legal costs into the balance. This brings homeowners current and allows them a chance to keep their homes.

b. Cancel all prepayment penalties to encourage refinancing or the sale of the property to pay off the bad loan. In the event of foreclosure or short sale, the borrower will not be held liable for any deficit balance. FHA does this now, and that encourages mortgage companies to go the extra mile while working with the borrower—again limiting foreclosures and ruined lives.

2. Cancel ALL golden parachutes of EXISTING and FUTURE CEOs and executive team members as long as the company holds these government-insured bonds/mortgages. This keeps underperforming executives from being paid when they don’t do their jobs.

c. This backstop will cost less than $50 billion—a small fraction of the current proposal.


II. MARK TO MARKET
a. Remove mark to market accounting rules for two years on only subprime Tier III
bonds/mortgages. This keeps companies from being forced to artificially mark down
bonds/mortgages below the value of the underlying mortgages and real estate.

b. This move creates patience in the market and has an immediate stabilizing effect on
failing and ailing banks—and it costs the taxpayer nothing.


III. CAPITAL GAINS TAX
a. Remove the capital gains tax completely. Investors will flood the real estate and stock
market in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendous—and immediate—liquidity in
the markets. Again, this costs the taxpayer nothing.

b. This move will be seen as a lightning rod politically because many will say it is helping
the rich. The truth is the rich will benefit, but it will be their money that stimulates the economy. This will enable all Americans to have more stable jobs and retirement investments that go up instead of down.

This is not a time for envy, and it’s not a time for politics. It’s time for all of us, as Americans, to stand up, speak out, and fix this mess.

Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign

(Compiler's note: Must read. rca)

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman

More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose.

And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate.

Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign, according to new campaign finance report.

But because of Obama’s high expenses during the hotly contested Democratic primary season and an early decision to forgo public campaign money and the spending limits it imposes, all that cash has not translated into a financial advantage — at least, not yet.

The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee began September with $95 million in cash, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

The McCain camp and the Republican National Committee had $94 million, because of an influx of $84 million in public money.

But Obama easily could outpace McCain by $50 million to $100 million or more in new donations before Election Day, thanks to a legion of small contributors whose names and addresses have been kept secret.

Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).

Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark.

Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.

“Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. “They don’t appear anywhere, so there’s no way of knowing who they are.”

The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.

It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.

Biersack would not comment on whether the FEC was investigating the huge amount of cash that has come into Obama’s coffers with no public reporting.

But Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for CRP, a campaign-finance watchdog group, dismissed the scale of the unreported money.

“We feel comfortable that it isn’t the $20 donations that are corrupting a campaign,” he told Newsmax.

But those small donations have added up to more than $200 million, all of it from unknown and unreported donors.

Ritsch acknowledges that there is skepticism about all the unreported money, especially in the Obama campaign coffers.

“We and seven other watchdog groups asked both campaigns for more information on small donors,” he said. “The Obama campaign never responded,” whereas the McCain campaign “makes all its donor information, including the small donors, available online.”

The rise of the Internet as a campaign funding tool raises new questions about the adequacy of FEC requirements on disclosure. In pre-Internet fundraising, almost all political donations, even small ones, were made by bank check, leaving a paper trail and limiting the amount of fraud.

But credit cards used to make donations on the Internet have allowed for far more abuse.

“While FEC practice is to do a post-election review of all presidential campaigns, given their sluggish metabolism, results can take three or four years,” said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center.

Already, the FEC has noted unusual patterns in Obama campaign donations among donors who have been disclosed because they have gone beyond the $200 minimum.

FEC and Mr. Doodad Pro

When FEC auditors have questions about contributions, they send letters to the campaign’s finance committee requesting additional information, such as the complete address or employment status of the donor.

Many of the FEC letters that Newsmax reviewed instructed the Obama campaign to “redesignate” contributions in excess of the finance limits.

Under campaign finance laws, an individual can donate $2,300 to a candidate for federal office in both the primary and general election, for a total of $4,600. If a donor has topped the limit in the primary, the campaign can “redesignate” the contribution to the general election on its books.

In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas.

Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”

A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.

In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.

Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 — still well over the $4,600 limit.

There can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed these contributions, since Obama’s Sept. 20 report specified that Good Will’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $9,375.

In an e-mailed response to a query from Newsmax, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt pledged that the campaign would return the donations. But given the slowness with which the campaign has responded to earlier FEC queries, there’s no guarantee that the money will be returned before the Nov. 4 election.

Similarly, a donor identified as “Pro, Doodad,” from “Nando, NY,” gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You,” just as Good Will had done.

But in some of them, he didn’t even go this far, apparently picking letters at random to fill in the blanks on the credit card donation form. In these cases, he said he was employed by “VCX” and that his profession was “VCVC.”

Following FEC requests, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro in February 2008. In all, about $8,425 was charged back to a credit card. But that still left a net total of $11,165 as of Sept. 20, way over the individual limit of $4,600.

Here again, LaBolt pledged that the contributions would be returned but gave no date.

In February, after just 93 donations, Doodad Pro had already gone over the $2,300 limit for the primary. He was over the $4,600 limit for the general election one month later.

In response to FEC complaints, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro even before he reached these limits. But his credit card was the gift that kept on giving. His most recent un-refunded contributions were on July 7, when he made 14 separate donations, apparently by credit card, of $25 each.

Just as with Mr. Good Will, there can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed the contributions, since its Sept. 20 report specified that Doodad’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $10,965.

Foreign Donations

And then there are the overseas donations — at least, the ones that we know about.

The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million. More than 520 listed their “state” as “IR,” often an abbreviation for Iran. Another 63 listed it as “UK,” the United Kingdom.

More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats or military personnel, who gave an APO address overseas. Their total contributions came to just $201,680.

But others came from places as far afield as Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence, Italy, and a wide selection of towns and cities in France.

Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted.

With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners.

In July and August, the head of the Nigeria’s stock market held a series of pro-Obama fundraisers in Lagos, Nigeria’s largest city. The events attracted local Nigerian business owners.

At one event, a table for eight at one fundraising dinner went for $16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an estimated $900,000.

The sponsors said the fundraisers were held to help Nigerians attend the Democratic convention in Denver. But the Nigerian press expressed skepticism of that claim, and the Nigerian public anti-fraud commission is now investigating the matter.

Concerns about foreign fundraising have been raised by other anecdotal accounts of illegal activities.

In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech praising Obama, claiming foreign nationals were donating to his campaign.

“All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man,” the Libyan leader said. “They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency..."

Though Gadhafi asserted that fundraising from Arab and African nations were “legitimate,” the fact is that U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign.

The rise of the Internet and use of credit cards have made it easier for foreign nationals to donate to American campaigns, especially if they claim their donation is less than $200.

Campaign spokesman LaBolt cited several measures that the campaign has adopted to “root out fraud,” including a requirement that anyone attending an Obama fundraising event overseas present a valid U.S. passport, and a new requirement that overseas contributors must provide a passport number when donating online.

One new measure that might not appear obvious at first could be frustrating to foreigners wanting to buy campaign paraphernalia such as T-shirts or bumper stickers through the online store.

In response to an investigation conducted by blogger Pamela Geller, who runs the blog Atlas Shrugs, the Obama campaign has locked down the store.

Geller first revealed on July 31 that donors from the Gaza strip had contributed $33,000 to the Obama campaign through bulk purchases of T-shirts they had shipped to Gaza.

The online campaign store allows buyers to complete their purchases by making an additional donation to the Obama campaign.

A pair of Palestinian brothers named Hosam and Monir Edwan contributed more than $31,300 to the Obama campaign in October and November 2007, FEC records show.

Their largesse attracted the attention of the FEC almost immediately. In an April 15, 2008, report that examined the Obama campaign’s year-end figures for 2007, the FEC asked that some of these contributions be reassigned.

The Obama camp complied sluggishly, prompting a more detailed admonishment form the FEC on July 30.

The Edwan brothers listed their address as “GA,” as in Georgia, although they entered “Gaza” or “Rafah Refugee camp” as their city of residence on most of the online contribution forms.

According to the Obama campaign, they wrongly identified themselves as U.S. citizens, via a voluntary check-off box at the time the donations were made.

Many of the Edwan brothers’ contributions have been purged from the FEC database, but they still can be found in archived versions available for CRP and other watchdog groups.

The latest Obama campaign filing shows that $891.11 still has not been refunded to the Edwan brothers, despite repeated FEC warnings and campaign claims that all the money was refunded in December.

A Newsmax review of the Obama campaign finance filings found that the FEC had asked for the redesignation or refund of 53,828 donations, totaling just under $30 million.

But none involves the donors who never appear in the Obama campaign reports, which the CRP estimates at nearly half the $426.8 million the Obama campaign has raised to date.

Many of the small donors participated in online “matching” programs, which allows them to hook up with other Obama supporters and eventually share e-mail addresses and blogs.

The Obama Web site described the matching contribution program as similar to a public radio fundraising drive.

“Our goal is to bring 50,000 new donors into our movement by Friday at midnight,” campaign manager David Plouffe e-mailed supporters on Sept. 15. “And if you make your first online donation today, your gift will go twice as far. A previous donor has promised to match every dollar you donate.”

FEC spokesman Biersack said he was unfamiliar with the matching donation drive. But he said that if donations from another donor were going to be reassigned to a new donor, as the campaign suggested, “the two people must agree” to do so.

This type of matching drive probably would be legal as long as the matching donor had not exceeded the $2,300 per-election limit, he said.

Obama campaign spokesman LaBolt said, “We have more than 2.5 million donors overall, hundreds of thousands of which have participated in this program.”

Until now, the names of those donors and where they live have remained anonymous — and the federal watchdog agency in charge of ensuring that the presidential campaigns play by the same rules has no tools to find out.

CDC Awards $24 Million for Innovative Pandemic Preparedness

Addresses preparedness areas of concern raised by public health authorities

As fears continue to grow over the emergence of a pandemic strain of influenza in the near future—mutations of several strains other than H5N1 have given rise to increased worry—a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) program has awarded $24 million to 29 state and local public health departments to fund 55 projects to come up with innovative approaches for influenza pandemic preparedness, including several preparedness areas of concern that have been raised by numerous public health officials and planners.....

The ACORN Obama knows

By Michelle Malkin

My syndicated column today spotlights the whistleblower report on ACORN, which I’ve been blogging about (here) and which deserves more attention in the media and in Washington–especially in light of the radical activist group’s embrace of Barack Obama. The Consumer Rights League e-mailed to let me know that three GOP congressmen (Hensarling, Feeney, and Royce) have called on Barney Frank (D-Housing Boondoggle) to investigate ACORN’s taxpayer abuses. Snowball’s chance, I know, but conservatives ought to be turning up the heat and using every ounce of energy they have to, well, act like conservatives and push to de-fund the Left.

For excellent background on Obama and ACORN, see Stanley Kurtz’s NR piece here, plus City Journal pieces here and here. Also here and here.

***

The ACORN Obama knows
by Michelle Malkin

If you don’t know what ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is all about, you better bone up. This left-wing group takes in 40 percent of its revenues from American taxpayers — you and me — and has leveraged nearly four decades of government subsidies to fund affiliates that promote the welfare state and undermine capitalism and self-reliance, some of which have been implicated in perpetuating illegal immigration and encouraging voter fraud. A new whistleblower report from the Consumer Rights League documents how Chicago-based ACORN has commingled public tax dollars with political projects.

Who in Washington will fight to ensure that your money isn’t being spent on these radical activities?

Don’t bother asking Barack Obama. He cut his ideological teeth working with ACORN as a “community organizer” and legal representative. Naturally, ACORN’s political action committee has warmly endorsed his presidential candidacy. According to ACORN, Obama trained its Chicago members in leadership seminars; in turn, ACORN volunteers worked on his campaigns. Obama also sat on the boards of the Woods Fund and Joyce Foundation, both of which poured money into ACORN’s coffers. ACORN head Maude Hurd gushes that Obama is the candidate who “best understands and can affect change on the issues ACORN cares about” — like ensuring their massive pipeline to your hard-earned money.

Let’s take a closer look at the ACORN Obama knows.

Last July, ACORN settled the largest case of voter fraud in the history of Washington State. Seven ACORN workers had submitted nearly 2,000 bogus voter registration forms. According to case records, they flipped through phone books for names to use on the forms, including “Leon Spinks,” “Frekkie Magoal” and “Fruto Boy Crispila.” Three ACORN election hoaxers pleaded guilty in October. A King County prosecutor called ACORN’s criminal sabotage “an act of vandalism upon the voter rolls.”

The group’s vandalism on electoral integrity is systemic. ACORN has been implicated in similar voter fraud schemes in Missouri, Ohio and at least 12 other states. The Wall Street Journal noted: “In Ohio in 2004, a worker for one affiliate was given crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent registrations that included underage voters, dead voters and pillars of the community named Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Jive Turkey. During a congressional hearing in Ohio in the aftermath of the 2004 election, officials from several counties in the state explained ACORN’s practice of dumping thousands of registration forms in their lap on the submission deadline, even though the forms had been collected months earlier.”

In March, Philadelphia elections officials accused the nonprofit advocacy group of filing fraudulent voter registrations in advance of the April 22nd Pennsylvania primary. The charges have been forwarded to the city district attorney’s office.

Under the guise of “consumer advocacy,” ACORN has lined its pockets. The Department of Housing and Urban Development funds hundreds, if not thousands, of left-wing “anti-poverty” groups across the country led by ACORN. Last October, HUD announced more than $44 million in new housing counseling grants to over 400 state and local efforts. The White House has increased funding for housing counseling by 150 percent since taking office in 2001, despite the role most of these recipients play as activist satellites of the Democratic Party. The AARP scored nearly $400,000 for training; the National Council of La Raza (”The Race”) scooped up more than $1.3 million; the National Urban League raked in nearly $1 million; and the ACORN Housing Corporation received more than $1.6 million.

As the Consumer Rights League points out in its new expose, the ACORN Housing Corporation has worked to obtain mortgages for illegal aliens in partnership with Citibank. It relies on undocumented income, “under the table” money, which may not be reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Moreover, the group’s “financial justice” operations attack lenders for “exotic” loans, while recommending 10-year interest-only loans (which deny equity to the buyer) and risky reverse mortgages. Whistleblower documents reveal internal discussions among the group that blur the lines between its tax-exempt housing work and its aggressive electioneering activities. The group appears to shake down corporate interests with relentless PR attacks, and then enters “no lobby” agreements with targeted corporations after receiving payment.

Republicans have largely looked the other way as ACORN has expanded its government-funded empire. But finally, a few conservative voices in Congress have called for investigation of the group’s apparent extortion schemes. This week, GOP Reps. Tom Feeney, Jeb Hensarling and Ed Royce called on Democrat Barney Frank, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, to convene a hearing to probe potential illegalities and abuse of taxpayer funds by ACORN’s management and minions alike.

Where does the candidate of Hope and Change — the candidate of Reform and New Politics — stand on the issue? Barack Obama, ACORN’s senator, is for more of the same old, same old subsidizing of far-left politics in the name of fighting for the poor while enriching ideological cronies. It’s the Chicago way.

HOUSE OF CARDS

By STAN LIEBOWITZ

HOW did America wind up in its worst financial crisis in decades? Sen. Barack Obama explained it this way last week: "When sub-prime-mortgage lending took a reckless and unsustainable turn, a patchwork of regulators systematically and deliberately eliminated the regulations protecting the American people."

That's exactly backward. Mortgage lending took that "reckless and unsustainable turn" because of regulation - regulation driven by liberals and progressives, not free-market "deregulators." bailout

Pushed hard by politicians and community activists, the regulators systematically and deliberately altered financially sound lending practices.

The mortgage market was humming along just fine when, in the late 1980s, progressives decided that it needed to be "fixed." Their complaint: Some ethnic groups got approved for mortgages at lower rates than others.

In reality, mortgage lenders were simply being prudent - taking care to provide mortgages to those who could best afford to make the payments.

The shift began in 1989, when Congress amended the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants. By 1991, critics were using that data to paint lenders as racist by showing that minority applicants were approved at far lower rates. Banks were "Shamed By Publicity," as one 1993 New York Times headline put it.

In fact, they found a racial disparity only by ignoring relevant data on applicants' ability to make mortgage payments - such as their assets and credit history.

But the political pressure was intense - with few in politics or media eager to speak the truth. And then, in 1992, came a study from four researchers at the Boston Fed, which seemed to bear out the critics' contentions.

That study was, in fact, based on quite flawed data - but the authors' political, media and academic protectors stifled most serious criticism, smearing the reputation of one whistleblower and allowing the Boston authors to avoid answering serious academic challenges (mine included) to their work. Other studies with different conclusions were ignored.

The very next year, the Boston Fed announced new requirements for banks - rules that have now turned out to be monumentally catastrophic: Adopt "relaxed lending standards" or risk being labeled as racists, and face serious penalties under the federal Community Reinvestment Act.

Gone (as "arbitrary" and "outdated") were traditional lending requirements such as requiring a down payment or limiting mortgage payments to 28 percent of income. (Of course, the loosened lending standards weren't limited to poor and minority applicants - that would be discriminatory.)

The new standards performed as intended: Home- ownership rates, stagnant for 25 years, began a rapid 10-year ascent in 1995, with many new homeowners being lower-income and/or minority families.

The large rise in demand for houses, however, fed a run-up in prices starting in 1997 - the infamous housing bubble. And rising prices hid the great vulnerability of these loans to defaults and foreclosures, because refinancing or selling at a profit was the easy alternative.

Soon, these loans began to be sold in the secondary market. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were enthusiastic proponents of relaxed lending standards and purchased large swaths of these loans.

Time after time, Fannie and Freddie trumped criticism by pointing to how they were helping broaden homeownership. Because of the subject's racial overtones, they beat back calls for reform even after financial irregularities were found.

Rating agencies such as Standard & Poor's had no experience with such loans - and imprudently used the misleading bubble-induced performance to incorrectly judge the likely performance of financial instruments based on such loans.

In 2002, the "reformers" declared victory. In a Fannie report, four academic supporters of relaxed standards crowed how these changes were "fundamentally altering the terms upon which mortgage credit had been offered in the United States from the 1960s through the 1980s . . . These changes in lending herald what we refer to as mortgage innovation."

Lucky us.

Now that the popped bubble has left us swimming in foreclosures, the supporters of loosened credit standards seem shy about taking credit for their "mortgage innovations." Instead, they blame subprime lenders for becoming "predatory" - when they were simply taking the Boston Fed rules to their logical conclusion while broadening the mortgage market.

Investors holding mortgage-based assets now want out. Perhaps they deserve a $700 billion refund - since they were sold a bill of goods by "progressive" politicians, academics and government officials who, in the hope of remaking society, insisted that loans based on relaxed underwriting standards were sound.

Stan Liebowitz is the Ashbel Smith professor of economics at the Business School at the University of Texas at Dallas.

New al-Qaida threat: Thermobaric bombs

Packs power like a nuke, but easier to build, blow up

Investigators now believe the bombing on Sep. 21 that killed dozens and left massive damage at the Islamabad Marriott, including a gaping hole in the ground in front of the building, was a crude form of a device that intensifies and enhances an explosive – a thermobaric bomb, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

The bomb was delivered in a truck that contained what investigators believe was aluminum powder in addition to grenades and artillery shells. The aluminum power is believed to have been responsible for the acceleration and expansion of the impact of the bomb.

While barriers around the hotel kept the truck bomb at some distance from the structure, the devastation indicated that there had to be something capable of raising the devastation level considerably.

The blast was thought to be targeting Americans, since the hotel is a central location for U.S. personnel including intelligence agents to meet outside the U.S. embassy. The hotel also is a temporary residence for U.S. personnel staying in the country.

Some five dozen people, including U.S. government employees, were killed by the truck bomb which was said to include more than a ton of explosives.

If this analysis of the presence of aluminum powder is confirmed, it means that terrorists with the capability can make such bombs without detection, since all ingredients are off-the-shelf.

Al-Qaida and related terrorist groups such as the Tehrik-e-Taliban of Pakistan are thought to have made the attack on the Islamabad Marriott hotel. If that is accurate, then by extension al-Qaida has developed an ability to fashion thermobaric bombs of huge potential.

"Thermobaric bombs … may be emerging as a weapon of choice for terrorists," declared Tom Burky, an explosives expert at the Ohio-based Battelle defense research institute.

Burky pointed out that thermobaric bombs are meant to take out big buildings and cave complexes where metal fragmentations from traditional bombs don't work well. He added that thermobaric blasts can push around corners and down corridors or deep inside caves.

When an explosion occurs in a bomb using aluminum powder as in the Islamabad Marriott hotel blast, metal powder creates a fireball as it contacts the air.

Agency founded to shore up nuclear security

VIENNA (Reuters) - U.S. non-proliferation campaigners launched an agency on Monday aimed at sharing information to improve security at the world's nuclear sites.

"Global nuclear security is only as strong as the weakest link in the chain. We can't afford to wait for a security Chernobyl before we act," said Charles Curtis, president of the Washington-based Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), referring to the 1986 Soviet nuclear reactor meltdown.

A World Institute for Nuclear Security (WINS) is to be set up with $3 million in funding from the NTI, a matching $3 million from the U.S. Energy Department and $100,000 from Norway and have a full-time staff of 5-10 experts.

"Through WINS, professionals responsible for on the ground security will collect the world's best security practices for dealing with nuclear facilities and materials and share that information with peers worldwide," an NTI statement said.

The agency will be based in Vienna, headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and is to complement IAEA work in nuclear security. The IAEA praised the undertaking at a joint news conference with NTI and U.S. officials.

"We have come to realize we have to become more intelligent and act in a preventative way" against terrorist groups keen on stealing nuclear technology and materials, IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei said.

"There is still a lot of vulnerability and lacunas," said ElBaradei, with more than 200 reports of radioactive material gone astray annually. Cases only rarely involve bomb ingredients but lax security and policing is a problem in many regions.

Concern persists for the security of materials used in atomic bomb-making at installations particularly in former Soviet republics and other non-Western countries.

"We're doing a better job controlling nuclear materials than 10 years ago but this is not something we can ever declare victory over as long as the atom is with us," said NTI founder Sam Nunn, a former senior U.S. senator.

(Reporting by Mark Heinrich; Editing by Janet Lawrence)

Who caused “the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression?”

From PajamasMedia

Powerline links to a video that answers this question with admirable clarity. I’ll link to the video below. First, here are a few data points from the video and other sources:

The Root Cause

* According to Senator Chris Dodd (D. CT) the “root cause” of the problem is “the housing foreclosure crisis.”

Not 100% accurate, perhaps–it’s really a credit crisis–but close enough for government work, especially from someone who has just happens to chair the Senate Banking Committee and who, completely coincidentally, has been such a conspicuous beneficiary of preferential mortgages and who, also coincidentally, leads the list of those who have received campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Guess who comes in 2nd and 3rd?)

* But what caused the housing crisis to which Senator Dodd alludes? The housing “bubble.”

* And what caused the housing bubble? “Sub-prime,” i.e., risky, mortgages; that is, mortgages made to people who, in the normal course of things would have to pay a premium in order to obtain a mortgage (if they could obtain one at all) because

a) they had bad or non-existent credit

b) their income was insufficient or

c) both.

Packaging the American Dream

A home of your own. It’s part of the American dream. Work hard, save up for a down payment, pay your bills on time and, presto, you, too, can buy a home.

For decades the government has done things to help Americans to realize the dream, e.g., graciously allowing citizens to keep some of their own money to help pay for the interest on a mortgage (the official term for this is a “tax deduction,” but I prefer my locution since it emphasizes the fact that it is YOUR MONEY we are talking about).

But what about people who do not work hard (if they work at all)? What about people who have not saved up for a down payment? What about people who do not pay their bills on time (if they pay them at all)? Why shouldn’t they get to live the American dream?

That was the question that led to

”The Community Reinvestment Act” (see here for more).

* The original Community Reinvestment Act was signed into law in 1977 by Jimmy Carter. Its purpose, in a nutshell, was to require banks to provide credit to “under-served populations,” i.e., those with poor credit.

The buzz word was “affordable mortgages,” e.g., mortgages with low teaser-rates, which required the borrower to put no money down, which required the borrower to pay only the interest for a set number of years, etc.

* In 1995, Bill Clinton’s administration made various changes to the CRA, increasing “access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities,” i.e., it provided for the securitization, i.e. public underwriting, of what everyone now calls “sub-prime mortgages.”

Bottom line? It forced banks to issue $1 trillion in sub-prime mortgages.

$1 trillion, i.e., a thousand billion dollars in sub-prime,i.e., risky, mortgages, in order to push this latest example of social engineering.

But wait: how did it force banks to do this? Easy. Introduce a federal requirement that banks make the loans or face penalties. As Howard Husock, writing in City Journal way back in 2000 observed: “Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance. There would be no more A’s for effort. Only results—specific loans, specific levels of service—would count.” Way back in 1994, for example, Barack Obama sued Citibank on behalf of a client who charged that the bank “systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods.”

* In 1997, Bear Stearns–O firm of blessed memory–was the first to get onto the sub-prime gravy train.

* Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac–were there near the beginning, too.

Anatomy of a bubble

Step 1. The intoxication: “My house is worth millions!” From 1995 - 2005, the number of sub-prime mortgages skyrocket. So did the house prices.

Step 2. The hangover: “Oh my God, my house isn’t selling. What went wrong?”

Why didn’t someone try to stop it?

Someone did: “The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago,” The New York Times, September 11, 2003.

But someone intervened to stymie the Bush administration. Who? The New York Times reports:

Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. . . . “These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Why didn’t someone else ring the alarm?

Someone else did. In 2005, John McCain co-sponsored the “Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act,” which among other things provided for more oversight of Freddie & Fannie. The bill didn’t pass. Guess who blocked it?

The bill was reintroduced in 2007. But again, no luck. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had friends in the Senate:

* Chris Dodd, a recipient of “sweetheart” loans from a Freddie and Fannie backed company.

* The junior senator from Illinois, i.e., Barack Obama, who turned to Jim Johnson, former head (1991-1998) of Fannie Mae, to help advise him on whom to pick for the vice-presidential slot on his ticket. From 1985 to 1990, incidentally, Johnson was managing director of Lehman Brothers. Remember them?

* You might also want to check out one of Barack Obama’s other advisors: Franklin Raines, former CEO of Freddie Mac: see here , for example, or here , or here.

Towards the end of the video, we read this salutary observation: “Everyone deserves a home, not a house of cards.”

Who gave us the house of cards? Watch the whole thing here (original link was here). And then pass it along to everyone you know.

Pelosi Attacks Bush, Praises Clinton Surplus Prior to Vote on Bailout

If you've been watching this site (e.g. do a search on "bailout"), you simply have to hear this to believe it ..... click on the title above.

When Watchdogs Snore: How ABC, CBS &

The two mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -- seized by the government September 7 before they went completely bankrupt, at a potential cost to taxpayers of more than $25 billion -- have been in obvious trouble for much of the past five years -- with criminal investigations, accounting scandals, firings, resignations, huge losses and warnings from the Federal Reserve that their huge portfolio of mortgage securities posed a risk to the overall financial system.

But prior to this year, the watchdogs at ABC, CBS and NBC found time for only 10 stories on the financial health and management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. A review of the three networks' morning and evening news programs from January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2007 found nine anchor-read items or brief references to the companies troubles, plus one in-depth report by CBS's Anthony Mason on the May 23, 2006 Evening News, after Fannie Mae was fined $400 million for accounting fraud.

[This item, by the MRC's Rich Noyes, was posted Thursday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]

It's not that the networks eschew business news. A 2005 report from the MRC's Business and Media Institute found heavy coverage of the scandal surrounding Enron, but no interest in the growing scandal surrounding Fannie Mae: "A LexisNexis search of ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN on the term 'Enron' from the nine months around when the story first broke -- Oct. 1, 2001, to July 1, 2002, produced 3,017 hits....A similar LexisNexis search was performed for the term 'Fannie Mae' for those same media, from June 1, 2004, to March 1, 2005, again during the time the story was breaking. This search discovered a paltry 37 matches." See: www.businessandmedia.org

But the networks should (presumably) be more interested in monitoring these mortgage behemoths, since they're not normal private companies but rather Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs) chartered by Congress to promote the specific cause of promoting home ownership. This special status, along with the presumption that taxpayers would bail out the firms if they got into trouble, amounts to an implicit federal subsidy that the Federal Reserve in 2003 calculated was worth between $119 and $164 billion a year.

Writing in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, Charles Calomiris and Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute explained how these two GSEs -- plus members of Congress who refused to hold them accountable -- are "largely to blame for our current mess." An excerpt:

Many monumental errors and misjudgments contributed to the acute financial turmoil in which we now find ourselves. Nevertheless, the vast accumulation of toxic mortgage debt that poisoned the global financial system was driven by the aggressive buying of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, and mortgage-backed securities, by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The poor choices of these two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) -- and their sponsors in Washington -- are largely to blame for our current mess.

How did we get here? Let's review: In order to curry congressional support after their accounting scandals in 2003 and 2004, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac committed to increased financing of "affordable housing." They became the largest buyers of subprime and Alt-A mortgages between 2004 and 2007, with total GSE exposure eventually exceeding $1 trillion. In doing so, they stimulated the growth of the subpar mortgage market and substantially magnified the costs of its collapse....

In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, adopted a strong reform bill, introduced by Republican Sens. Elizabeth Dole, John Sununu and Chuck Hagel, and supported by then chairman Richard Shelby. The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator. In light of the current financial crisis, this bill was probably the most important piece of financial regulation before Congress in 2005 and 2006. All the Republicans on the Committee supported the bill, and all the Democrats voted against it. Mr. McCain endorsed the legislation in a speech on the Senate floor. Mr. Obama, like all other Democrats, remained silent.

Now the Democrats are blaming the financial crisis on "deregulation." This is a canard. There has indeed been deregulation in our economy -- in long-distance telephone rates, airline fares, securities brokerage and trucking, to name just a few -- and this has produced much innovation and lower consumer prices....

If the Democrats had let the 2005 legislation come to a vote, the huge growth in the subprime and Alt-A loan portfolios of Fannie and Freddie could not have occurred, and the scale of the financial meltdown would have been substantially less. The same politicians who today decry the lack of intervention to stop excess risk taking in 2005-2006 were the ones who blocked the only legislative effort that could have stopped it.

US general says Afghan challenges unlike Iraq

PARIS: U.S. Gen. David Petraeus said Thursday that a "comprehensive approach" is needed to quell the war in Afghanistan, including reconciliation within the population and "absolute engagement" with neighboring Pakistan.

Extremists — be they al-Qaida, the Taliban or others with bases in tribal areas of Pakistan — have all contributed to Afghanistan's problems, Petraeus said.

Neighboring Pakistan "faces a threat that certainly seems to be an existential threat," Petraeus said, noting the weekend attack that killed 53 at the Marriott Hotel in Pakistan's capital, Islamabad.

"It is hugely important to have absolute engagement with the new Pakistan government, with, of course, the Pakistan military," Petraeus told reporters in Paris before he takes over the U.S. Central Command next month.

The general, credited with saving Iraq from near civil war, will steer strategy in Afghanistan and the region in his new job.

Petraeus did not comment on a report by the U.S. Central Command that Pakistani troops fired at two American helicopters patrolling the border Thursday. Nor did he say whether he would opt to continue attacks from Afghanistan into Pakistan's tribal areas — attacks that have enraged Pakistani authorities.

He said Afghanistan, which he visited recently, holds vast challenges that were not found in Iraq, which is rich in natural resources, has a tradition of central government and a considerable infrastructure.

"In Iraq, you are rebuilding. In Afghanistan, you are building," he said.

A comprehensive approach is needed, like that applied in Iraq, he said.

Reconciliation must be a "component of the overall strategy," he said, as people are "the decisive terrain."

In addition, an entire infrastructure is needed to support the increase in troop numbers that NATO wants.

Petraeus said calls for Iraq-bound troops to instead be transferred to Afghanistan were being partially met, and noted U.S. plans to send more soldiers, as an 8,000-troop reduction in Iraq has been approved.

The level of violence in Iraq is at its lowest level in 4 1/2 years and there have been economic and other gains.

But "there is certainly a residual lethal and dangerous al-Qaida in Iraq," Petraeus said, adding that progress "remains reversible and is fragile."

New terrorism risk review released Friday

By EILEEN SULLIVAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Homeland Security Department paid $450,000 for an independent organization to make recommendations on a classified terrorism program, but the review — which took two years to complete — is practically outdated as it's released Friday.

In 2006, the department asked the National Academies to review its Bioterrorism Risk Assessment tool — a presidential mandated program that assesses millions of potential bioterrorist attack scenarios, such as anthrax that is widely dispersed in a major city. For each scenario, it defines the likelihood of the attack happening and what the consequences would be.

The review took two years to complete because it took one year to hold five meetings on it, six months to do an internal review process with 10 separate reviewers, and six months for the Homeland Security Department to review it, said Greg Parnell, chair of the National Academies committee that wrote the report.

Parnell said the department knew the review would take well over a year to complete.

The National Academies recommended that the department simplify the formula, create a standard lexicon, and think of terrorists as "intelligent adversaries" who know about U.S. defenses. The formula should also be used to help make decisions and not just to rank risk, Parnell said.

The Homeland Security Department has thus far used the academic formula to prioritize department research goals and detection investments, said department spokeswoman Amy Kudwa. It's been used by several federal agencies to help decide which drugs to buy for the strategic national stockpile based on what threats are considered the most serious and most likely.

But the department has already updated its program to include several of these points, Kudwa said. And in other instances, the Academies' recommendations are contrary to what the department and other leading academics consider the best methods.

The $450,000 used for the commissioned review came out of the program's 2006 budget, which was $4.9 million. The department is required to review and make necessary changes to the program every two years.

Residents frustrated by slow FEMA help

By TJ Aulds

SAN LEON — To gaze out onto Galveston Bay from Bayshore Park in San Leon, it would be hard to tell that a hurricane devastated this community two weeks ago.

Turn to your right, though, and the lines of people waiting to meet with FEMA representatives or to get a hot meal from the Red Cross bring you quickly back to reality.

It is estimated that 1,500 of San Leon’s 1,815 households sustained severe damage from Hurricane Ike. Many of those would be better classified as catastrophic.

Joe Manchaca, president of the San Leon Municipal Utility District board of directors, said the district estimates that almost 40 percent of its residential customers are “totally lost.”

By those estimates, 726 of the homes in the unincorporated community along the shores of Galveston Bay are no longer standing, meaning that as many as 1,746 residents might be displaced or homeless because of the hurricane.

“There’s really no telling now what those numbers really are, they could go up, we just don’t know,” Manchaca said.

“There are just so many people who haven’t come home yet, so we just don’t know for sure.”

Kathy Brandon is among those 1,746 displaced residents and was among the hundreds waiting in line at a mobile FEMA disaster recovery center in Bayshore Park seeking help. Help that was slow in coming.

“I don’t have money. I feel like I am begging for help,” a tearful Brandon said as she waited for her name to be called at the recovery center. “They helped out the Katrina victims. Why aren’t they here helping us?”

Despite the devastation in San Leon and neighboring Bacliff, the mobile FEMA center did not arrive until Thursday. That was only after some arm-twisting from the area’s county constable, Pam Matranga.

“(Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff) said on TV that as soon as the storm passed, he would be here. Where is he?” Brandon said. “I’ve seen him in Houston. I’ve seen him in Galveston. He hasn’t been here. No one has been in San Leon. The TV stations ain’t here.

“We are getting left out. People need to see what’s happened here. We got wiped out.”

Brandon lived in a trailer in the Sea Breeze RV Park in San Leon. Not only is the place she called home gone, so is her job.

“I hate begging. I’ve always made my (own) way. We don’t have much money, but it’s mine,” said Brandon.

Steve Hoyland knows all too well the hurt Brandon and others in the community are feeling. The longtime community activist is rallying locals to help others in San Leon, even as his own house and boat were destroyed by the hurricane.

Hoyland assembled 50 residents in front of what is left of the San Leon Fire Department to lay out a plan to help the community recover. Much of that focus will be to help the elderly and sick make repairs or rebuild their homes.

The effort might include collecting money and then using those funds to hire locals who have lost their jobs because of the storm to rebuild San Leon. Details of the plan are to be worked out, said Hoyland.

A registration process though for those needing the assistance is under way. San Leon residents who need the help or know someone who is elderly or disabled can put their name on a list at Sullivan Pharmacy on FM 646.

A relief fund has also been set up with donations being accepted at Bacliff Lumber are online at www.sanleontexas.com.

The hurt in San Leon extends beyond the residents. Hurricane Ike also devastated the San Leon Volunteer Fire Department.

The firehouse on 12th Street was wrecked and one of the department’s pumper trucks was destroyed. For now, the fire department is working out of the front yard of Fire Chief Jeff Pittman’s home.

The department got a bit of good news, though. A community in Mississippi that was devastated by Hurricane Katrina three years ago is offering its assistance, including the donation of a fire truck that was donated to that town from the New York City Fire Department.

The MUD also faces some serious financial hardships, Manchaca said. The loss of residential units also means a loss of income to the district that supplies the water, sewer and streetlights for San Leon.

The San Leon MUD also provides the bulk of the funding for the fire department.

“We are looking at a severe loss of revenue and our ability to provide the services we do,” Manchaca said.

Despite the uncertain future, the MUD has instituted a no cutoff order for customers as they try to recover from Ike.

+++

To Help

Donations to San Leon relief fund can be made at Bacliff Lumber and Hardware, 607 Grand Ave., or online at www.sanleontexas.com.

To register elderly or disabled residents in need of help rebuilding or fixing up their homes, stop by Sullivan Pharmacy, 1140 Grand Ave., in Baclif

Professor has plan for security at small airports

Homeland Security In The Background For Candidates

As 2008 presidential election season has quickly become a circus of sorts, some voters have been left wondering just where the candidates stand on the issues, and how those stances may possibly affect them. ....

The Senate DHS Authorization Bill

Sens. Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins have introduced the Senate's first ever authorization bill for the US Department of Homeland Security. The bill would increase authority for several key DHS positions and expand the ranks of several of its agencies.

Click on the title above to see the video.

Democracy vs. Terrorism: A Reality Check

Study shows democratic reforms not a panacea in stopping terrorism.

As the world’s foremost secular progressive society the United States has great faith in the power of democracy to mitigate if not cure most of the world’s ills, terrorism among them. Though short-term tactics for counterterrorism include a mix of law enforcement, military, intelligence, and diplomacy, the long-term goal of eliminating terrorism ultimately comes down strategically, most of us implicitly seem to believe, to draining the “swamp” of failed, dictatorial states from which terrorist networks grow.

A new study by the Rand Corporation entitled More Freedom, Less Terror? Liberalization and Political Violence in the Arab World attempts to examine that philosophical premise empirically, addressing the question of precisely what impact the establishment of democratic forms of governance has had on terrorist activity in six Arab states- Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and Morocco. Click here to see full report. ....

Democrats: There Is No Crisis at Fannie...Freddie (Pt. III in a series)

I just want to be serious for a second, friends. This is a DEVASTATING video. It is absolutely unacceptable that this video is not being played on every news station and at every Democrat interview around the country over and over again.

More Democrats denying there was an impending crisis at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - this time, outright denied by Maxine Waters (D), the moron who threatened to socialize...er, nationalize the oil industry. And Barney Frank (D).

And more. So much more. Watch the whole thing, and send it to everyone you know. Link to it everywhere. Do it. Now. Point and laugh derisively.

Praising Franklin Raines. More Barney Frank. Democrats mad at the GOP for calling out these two corrupt companies...while denying there is a problem. Republicans calling for more regulations, oversight and accountability with Democrats blocking them, etc. All meat and potatoes here.

Nothing those who have been paying attention to people other than Barack Obama haven't seen, but note just how explicitly and exactly perfectly these clips crystallize the argument that this was a GOVERNMENT failure - and one party in particular's fault. Jackasses.

By Good Lt.

The Secret War on the Dollar

Washington — On Wednesday night, President Bush addressed the nation in an effort to convince Congress to pass a bill to "reduce the risk to major financial institutions" and "safeguard American families and businesses." On Thursday he met with Senators John McCain and Barack Obama and other congressional leaders to build a consensus plan for bailing out our financial system. The potentates on the Potomac are now pondering the price-tag for saving Wall Street. Unfortunately, corrupt officials in other capitals are also hard at work undermining what’s left of the U.S. dollar – by printing and distributing their own versions of American currency.

Counterfeiting another nation’s legal tender is not only a crime – it is also an act of aggression. ....

....Last week the Chinese conspirator who brought the counterfeit bills into the U.S. was found guilty and now faces up to 25 years in federal prison. ... if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shows up in your restaurant for dinner, don’t let him pay in cash.