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.

Religious Texts Taken Down After Complaints

Muslim students are crying foul after the University of Southern California’s provost took down historical documents that call for Muslims to kill Jewish people from a student group’s site, the Daily Trojan reports. The documents come from a collection of scriptures known as hadiths, the words of Muhammad not included in the Quran. These hadiths, which include thousands of noninflammatory principles, were posted in their entirety on the school’s server as part of the defunct Muslim Student Association’s website.

The provost said that “the passage cited is truly despicable…. We did some investigations and have ordered the passage to be removed.” But the Muslim Student Union, the dominant Muslim student group at USC, accused the university of censorship, calling the take-down “unprecedented and unconscionable.”

“We are outraged at the censorship of a complete religious and classic text without consulting us or any religious authority first,” the group said in the statement. “The ‘compendium’ is now incomplete. There are verses in many religious texts (be it the Torah or the New Testament) that when taken out of context can be taken as offensive.”

Supporters of the move defend the provost’s actions. “It may be part of the religious canon, but that doesn’t make them less hateful,” said David Horowitz, who has lobbied a number of schools to remove the “hadiths of hate,” as he calls them, from their websites. Horowitz says this is the first he’s heard of a university taking down documents after community members complained. ....

Mainstream US Islamic Websites -- and Terror

By Patrick Poole

In counterterrorism circles there is significant buzz about “Al-Qaeda 2.0”, warning of highly decentralized jihadist networks operating independently and driven by a highly toxic internet-inspired Islamic ideology. The sad reality is, however, that an increasing number of jihadist websites, especially those in the English language, are finding safe haven in the US – and the US government seems powerless, or unwilling, to stop them.

Other commentators have explored at length the “Al-Qaeda 2.0” phenomenon, but what has thus far gone unreported is how mainstream Islamic websites associated with some of the most visible Islamic organizations in the US are openly promoting extremist ideology and terrorism.

....

More recently, the media has focused on the case of Charlotte, North Carolina resident, Samir Khan. Fox News recently reported that Khan’s website, inshallahshahid, features videos of terrorists bombing US military vehicles, provides links to the writings of Al-Qaeda chiefs Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, and praises “martyrdom bombers” who sacrifice their lives “for the sake of Islam”. Last October, the New York Times reported on Khan’s online efforts, observing that he is just one of many new faces of what Al-Qaeda calls the “Islamic jihadi media”. While Samir Khan lost his job last month after a 3-part investigative report was aired by Charlotte CBS affiliate WBTV, Khan continues to operate his website with impunity.

The same is true for the popular Islamic website, Islamicity.com, which operates an entire video channel dedicated to Yemeni Al-Qaeda cleric and bin Laden mentor, Abd al-Majid Al-Zindani, who was listed by the US government as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist back in February 2004. In several of Zindani’s videos – videos which bear the embedded Islamicity logo – he is seen guarded by a man wielding an AK-47 (for more background on Zindani, see John Devon’s article, “Yemeni Shiekh of Hate”). The website states that Islamicity is run by Human Assistance and Development International (HUDI), a tax-exempt not-for-profit organization based in Culver City, California.

But Islamicity is not your small mom-and-pop jihadist website. According to Alexa, Islamicity has revenues of $10-50 million each year and is among the top 25,000 websites in the world. And it is backed by some heavy-hitters in the North American Islamic community, most notably Jamal Badawi and Abdullah Idris Ali, both on the board of directors of the Islamic Society of North America, which claims to be largest Islamic organization in North America. Badawi has a regular radio show hosted by Islamicity with hundreds of programs archived on their site, and Idris Ali has done promotional videos for the website encouraging viewers to subscribe. Another major supporter is Dr. Ahmed Sakr, one of the original founders and former president of the Muslim Student Association of the US and Canada. ....

Red flag rising

From 1813 to 1907, the U.S. dollar appreciated in value. What cost one dollar in 1813 cost only 48 cents in 1907. In 1913, the Federal Reserve was formed, ostensibly to provide financial stability and "fight inflation." Since then, the value of a dollar has all but vanished, as what cost one dollar in 1913 cost $20.73 in 2007; the dollar has lost 95.2 percent of its value under management of the Fed.

But at least the central bankers are keeping the financial system stable, right? Hardly. Although the Drudge Report is again reporting that the Paulson plan is on go-ahead, this time with some added provisions that are supposed to make the deal more palatable to American politicians, if not American taxpayers, the reality is that whatever is being done almost surely will not avert the coming economic cataclysm for long. This injection of liquidity into the system may alleviate the symptoms temporarily, but since the core problem was caused by excess liquidity in the first place, it cannot possibly be the solution. Still, a crash tomorrow is arguably better than a crash today; it's understandable if the politicians facing re-election in five weeks time would rather not face an electorate more in the mood for pitchforks than polls.

And yet, for all its mind-boggling scope, the Paulson plan appears to be little more than declaring "The system is broke. Long live the system."

Regardless of whether it is necessary, and whether it is likely to work, I don't think the politicians or the media understand how angry many Americans are about this proposed deal. I took a poll of the readers at my blog, about 80 percent of whom are Republicans who voted for George Bush in 2000 and 2004. Furious would be one word to describe them. Jacobin might be a better one. I gave them three options to the question "What is your preferred response to the Paulson plan?" and 1,051 people responded as follows:

1 percent – Give the bankers what they say they need to rescue the economy. (9 votes)

56 percent – Ignore the bankers, and let the crisis solve itself. (587 votes)

43 percent – Guillotine the greedy bastards. (455 votes)

Nor were my readers alone in this regard. John Hawkins of Right Wing News also polled his readers, who are more conventionally conservative than the libertarian-minded readers of Vox Popoli, and they voted against the Paulson Plan by a landslide, 85 percent to 15 percent.

Given these extraordinarily strong feelings, one would think John McCain and the Republican leadership would have to be insane to go against the wishes of their electoral base, and yet they appear inclined to do precisely that. No doubt they will bill this action as bold leadership, in much the same way they attempted to sell the welcome mat for Mexicans to conservatives earlier this year. One wonders, too, if the left-wing base of the Democratic Party is as enthusiastic as their political leadership in selling out their poor and minority constituencies in favor of enriching the very Wall Street fat cats they usually preach against with all the fire-and-brimstone of a Southern Baptist criticizing Satan.

It seems to me that once the slow-witted left realizes what its leaders have done, they will be more than a little inclined to return to their intellectual roots and bring back the tumbrils of yore. And, it must be said, there will surely be more than a few on the right who will feel moved to join them in addressing the burning issue of excess height in bankers.

Atlanta motorists stalk fuel trucks; MARTA sees more riders

In IRS Protest, Pastors Back Candidates

By Associated Press Staff Writer Dinesh Ramde; the AP's Andrew DeMillo in Little Rock and Eric Gorski contributed to this report.

(AP) Pastor Luke Emrich prepared his sermon this week knowing his remarks could invite an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service. But that was the whole point, so Emrich forged ahead with his message: Thou shalt vote according to the Scriptures.

"I'm telling you straight up, I would choose life," Emrich told about 100 worshippers Sunday at New Life Church, a nondenominational evangelical congregation about 40 miles from Milwaukee.

"I would cast a vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin," he said. "But friends, it's your choice to make, it's not my choice. I won't be in the voting booth with you."

All told, 33 pastors in 22 states were to make pointed recommendations about political candidates Sunday, an effort orchestrated by the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund.

The conservative legal group plans to send copies of the pastors' sermons to the IRS with hope of setting off a legal fight and abolishing restrictions on church involvement in politics. Critics call it unnecessary, divisive and unlikely to succeed.

Congress amended the tax code in 1954 to state that certain nonprofit groups, including secular charities and places of worship, can lose their tax-exempt status for intervening in a campaign involving candidates.

Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said hundreds of churches volunteered to take part in "Pulpit Freedom Sunday." Thirty-three were chosen, in part for "strategic criteria related to litigation" Stanley wouldn't discuss.

Pastor Jody Hice of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Bethlehem, Ga., said in an interview Sunday that his sermon compared Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain on abortion and gay marriage and concluded that McCain "holds more to a biblical world view."

He said he urged the Southern Baptist congregation to vote for McCain.

"The basic thrust was this was not a matter of endorsing, it's a First Amendment issue," Hice said. "To say the church can't deal with moral and societal issues if it enters into the political arena is just wrong, it's unconstitutional."

At the independent Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond, Okla., pastor Paul Blair said he told his congregation, "As a Christian and as an American citizen, I will be voting for John McCain."

"It's absolutely vital to proclaim the truth and not be afraid to proclaim the truth from our pulpits," Blair said in an interview.

Because the pastors were speaking in their official capacity as clergy, the sermons are clear violations of IRS rules, said Robert Tuttle, a professor of law and religion at George Washington University. But even if the IRS rises to the bait and a legal fight ensues, Tuttle said there's "virtually no chance" courts will strike down the prohibition.

"The government is allowed, as long as it has a reasonable basis for doing it, to treat political and nonpolitical speech differently, and that's essentially what it's done here," Tuttle said.

Not all the sermons came off as planned. Bishop Robert Smith Sr. of Word of Outreach Center in Little Rock said he had to postpone until next week because of a missed flight. Smith, a delegate to this month's Republican National Convention, declined to say whom he would endorse.

Promotional materials for the initiative said each pastor would prepare the sermon with "legal assistance of the ADF to ensure maximum effectiveness in challenging the IRS."

Stanley said the pastors alone wrote the sermons, with the framework that they be "a biblical evaluation of the candidates for office with a specific recommendation." That could be a flat-out endorsement or opposition to one or both candidates, he said.

The legal group declined to release a list of participants in advance, citing concerns about potential disruptions at services. A list and excerpts from sermons will be made public early this week, with the delay necessary for lawyers to review the material, the group said.

Under the IRS code, places of worship can distribute voter guides, run nonpartisan voter registration drives and hold forums on issues, among other things. However, they cannot endorse a candidate, and their political activity cannot be biased for or against a candidate, directly or indirectly - a sometimes murky line.

The IRS said in a statement it is aware of Sunday's initiative and "will monitor the situation and take action as appropriate."

The agency has stepped up oversight of political activity in churches in recent years after receiving a flurry of complaints from the 2004 campaign. The IRS reported issuing written advisories against 42 churches for improper politically activity in 2004.

The ban on churches intervening in candidate campaigns survived a court challenge when a U.S. appellate court upheld the revocation of tax-exempt status of a New York church that took out a newspaper ad urging Christians to vote against Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential election.

Opposition to Sunday's sermon initiative was widespread. A United Church of Christ minister in Ohio rallied other religious leaders to file a complaint with the IRS. Roman Catholic Archbishop John Favalora of Miami wrote that the archdiocese abides by IRS rules in part because "we can do a lot for our communities with the money we save by being tax-exempt."

Three former IRS officials also asked the agency to investigate the initiative, questioning the ethics of lawyers asking ministers to break the law.

Two-thirds of adults oppose political endorsements from churches and other places of worship and 52 percent want them out of politics altogether, according to a survey last month from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

"It is good public policy that in exchange for the valuable privilege of a tax exemption, you cannot turn your church or charity into a political action committee," said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Church and State, which intends to report the participating churches to the IRS, along with any other churches acting independently.

Click here for additional information

The Big 3 bailout you didn't know about

If you read mainstream media reports, you might conclude the government's bailouts of Freddie, Fannie and AIG are the only ones making headway in Washington, D.C.

You would be wrong.

.... Clearly, among the few in the country who can find a silver lining while the nation's attention has been consumed by the $700 billion bailout, are the auto executives of the Big 3 – General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. They have managed, under the radar, to quietly move ahead their own planned billion dollar bailout. ....

Possible change of heart

Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a convicted influence peddler who was once one of Gov. Rod Blagojevich's most trusted confidants, has met with federal prosecutors and is considering cooperating in the corruption probe of the governor's administration, sources told the Tribune.

Rezko's possible change of heart—after years of steadfast refusal—has sent ripples through a tight circle of prominent defense attorneys who represent dozens of potential witnesses and targets in the wide-ranging probe.

His cooperation would give prosecutors investigating the governor and his wife access to someone they have described as an ultimate political insider at the center of a pervasive pay-to-play scheme.

Rezko's trial this year laid bare a culture of scams, bribes and backroom deals stretching from City Hall to the Statehouse. It even became fodder in the presidential campaign of Democratic nominee Barack Obama, whose fundraising and personal ties to Rezko go back more than a decade. ....

God’s Hand in the Founding of America

(Compiler's note: Even though this was prepared in 1976, finding it has caused me to think about the urgency of all that we the American people face as a great nation. In light of what we see going on today in the world, it will be good to consider the content of this material. rca)

by Elder L. Tom Perry

I look around me and find some very definite signs of the decay that is beginning to occur. Corruption, crime, dishonesty, immorality, pollution, laziness, devotion only to special interests—these are signs that precede the fall of great civilizations. We see so much evidence of these signs before our eyes. Yet I realize the promise that has been given to us in this great land of America. I also remember the prophecies concerning our great responsibilities to preserve that which we have been blessed with by God. The Lord has promised to sustain the truth in this land.

Our commitment to America has been testified to by many, but I will point out to you special witnesses who have indicated our responsibilities to this land. ....

Christian heritage a no-show in new $600M visitors center

American taxpayers have spent more than $600 million on a new visitors' center at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., and it will have acres of marble floors and walls, photographs of Earth Day, information about an AIDS rally and details about the nation's industrial sector. What it will not include is America's Christian heritage, raising objections from members of Congress ...

...."Our concern is not just with the Capitol Visitor Center, but with [an] increasing pattern of attempts to remove references to our religious heritage from our nation's capital," said Forbes. "The Capitol Visitor Center is just one example of efforts to censor God, faith, and religion from our historical buildings, documents, and ceremonies."....

...efforts to make history politically correct, such as calling Europeans' arrival in North America an "invasion," for the 400th anniversary of the Jamestown Settlement, which was recognized throughout last year, even though the first goal of those sent out to America was to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The new Capitol Visitor Center appears to be falling under the influence of that same politically correct agenda, according to the letter from Congress.

....Officials running the Capitol also have tried to strip the mention of God from flag-folding ceremonies at veterans' funerals and previously attempted to edit "God" from Congressional flag certificates, which are those statements issued with flags that have been flown over the Capitol. ....

FBI hunts American citizens trained overseas for terror

by WorldNetDaily

Feds launch dragnet to stop 'October surprise' attack

As Pakistani investigators hunt the terrorists behind the massive Marriott Hotel bombing in Islamabad, FBI agents in the U.S. have begun aggressively hunting for Americans who have recently returned from trips to Pakistan where they may have trained at al-Qaida camps, WND has learned.

A coast-to-coast dragnet has been launched partly in response to leads developed in the arrest of one of al-Qaida's "fixers" in the U.S., say FBI officials. They report the bureau is in a race against time to identify Pakistan-trained sleeper cells and disrupt a possible pre-election "October surprise."

For the first time since 9/11, counterterrorism field agents have been authorized to spy on young Muslim men and women – including American citizens – who have traveled to Pakistan without any specific evidence of wrongdoing.

Controversial new investigative guidelines approved by the Justice Department allow agents to monitor suspects and conduct undercover interviews even before opening formal investigations.

FBI headquarters has ordered its field offices to aggressively pursue anonymous tips and report back any suspicious activities in their Muslim communities. The intelligence will be immediately analyzed and shared in a threat matrix to avoid a repeat of the so-called "Phoenix memo" intelligence failure, officials say.

In the weeks prior to 9/11, an alert agent in the FBI's Phoenix office noted that several radical Middle Eastern men were taking flying lessons. He drafted a memo and sent it to headquarters, which promptly buried it, missing an opportunity to act before the disastrous hijackings of 9/11.

The FBI's new rules and current sense of urgency follow the recent interrogation of al-Qaida operative Aafia Siddiqui, an M.I.T.-educated scientist who fled to Pakistan after 9/11. She was arrested this summer in Afghanistan and brought back to the U.S. after sustaining injuries from a gun battle.

According to a federal indictment, Siddiqui was found with handwritten notes that referred to a "mass casualty attack" and listed various locations in the U.S. including Wall Street, the Empire State Building, the Statue of Liberty, Plum Island and the Brooklyn Bridge. In addition, certain notes referred to the construction of "dirty bombs," chemical and biological weapons and other explosives.

Siddiqui's notes also discussed "mortality rates associated with certain of these weapons and explosives," the indictment says. Other notes referred to various ways to attack "enemies," including destroying reconnaissance drones, using underwater bombs and using gliders.

A computer thumb drive in Siddiqui's possession contained electronic correspondence that referred to specific "cells" and "attacks" by certain "cells," the indictment says. Other documents referred to "enemies," including the U.S., and discussed recruitment and training.

Officials say subsequent interrogations have revealed that possibly hundreds of American Muslims, many of them of Pakistani descent, have traveled to Pakistan in recent years to train at al-Qaida and Taliban madrassas and terror camps and have returned to the U.S. to carry out suicide attacks.

The revelation has shocked the politically sensitive FBI into abandoning its long-held policy of coordinating investigations in the Muslim community with Muslim-rights groups. Officials say it's more important than ever to track down Muslims who have traveled to Pakistan, and gather and disseminate intelligence quickly to disrupt possible terror plots before they can develop to an operational stage.

"There's some worry we may be in another Phoenix moment," one official said, "but this time we're determined to leave no stone unturned."

The formation of al-Qaida training camps inside Pakistan has been a major concern among U.S. security agencies since at least 2004, when Washington issued a rare intelligence directive to border agents to check young Pakistani male travelers –including Americans – for physical signs of military training.

As WND first reported, they were asked to look for "rope burns," "unusual bruises," "scars" and other possible injuries suffered from obstacle courses, firearms or explosives.

"Many of the individuals trained in the Pakistani camps are destined to commit illegal activities in the United States," warned the two-page DHS advisory that launched the special action.

According to another internal DHS document obtained by WND, the department more recently directed customs officers to escort passengers identified by "one-day lookouts" to secondary inspection, where they are subjected to a battery of questions to determine if they have visited terror camps in Pakistan.

American citizens of Pakistani descent also are under increased scrutiny. Over the past few years, U.S. authorities have arrested or investigated several Pakistani-American men who have trained at the camps during trips to Pakistan. One camp used photos of President Bush for target practice.

"The camps are a big concern," said a DHS official, who requested anonymity. "We are questioning U.S. citizens, as well as Pakistani nationals, as they come back to the states if the computer says they might have terrorist ties."

FBI Director Robert Mueller earlier this month cited the threat posed by the Pakistani terror-training camps while briefing Congress about the bureau's expanded investigative powers, which officially go into effect Oct. 1.

"We know that in western Pakistan now that there are camps in which individuals are being trained. The U.K. knows that very well because individuals who were involved in the 2005 attacks and later attacks had traveled to Pakistan for training in the camps and then come back," Mueller testified before the House Judiciary Committee. "I believe the American public would want us to do what is necessary to try to identify persons who had traveled to Pakistan, whatever their heritage, whatever their background, whatever their ethnicity, to determine who has gone to Pakistan to obtain that training and may be coming back to the United States to undertake an attack."

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., complained the new investigative rules would give FBI agents license to racially profile citizens.

FBI officials noted that the Marriott blast, which killed both U.S. Defense and State Department officials, signaled new techniques by al-Qaida-trained suicide terrorists. The dump-truck bomb they used was so massive, leaving a crater 30 feet deep and 60 feet wide, that it managed to severely damage the building even from beyond the concrete barriers protecting the perimeter of the building.

Also, investigators said that the hotel – a high-profile target that was used by Western diplomats as well as the CIA – had been targeted at least twice previously for attack, just as the U.S. embassy in Yemen had been hit in minor operations before this month's full-scale attack.

The repeat attacks indicate the terrorists are testing security, experts say. It also indicates they will keep coming back to the same target until they are successful in destroying it.

In the U.S., the World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993 and then again in 2001. A target the hijackers intended to strike but failed to hit on 9/11 was the U.S. Capitol. Terror analysts believe the Pentagon remains an al-Qaida target as well, since it was only partially damaged in the 9/11 operation.

Our current economic crisis: Could part be a terror attack on U.S. financials?

(Compiler's note: This one is worthy of checking out the details. This "must read" could grow legs. Could this be yet another unpublished aspect of Sharia Financing. rca) bailout

By Doug Hagmann

On this year’s anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, there was a sudden surge in the activity of U.S. hedge funds originating from overseas… like Dubai. There was a sharp rise in “short selling” of stocks, similar to the suspicious trades in the days preceding September 11, 2001. According to one well-known economist, the same institutions attacked on 9/11 are those suffering now. Coincidence?

A week ago, the securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) took the unprecedented step of temporarily banning the fairly common practice of “short selling” securities in response to the widening economic crisis in the U.S. The essence of the ban is that the SEC has placed a hold on “short selling” in 799 financial institutions until October 2, 2008, in tandem with the FSA, which is the British counterpart of the SEC.

In a press release issued September 19, 2008, the SEC made the following announcement (excerpt):

The Securities and Exchange Commission, acting in concert with the U.K. Financial Services Authority, today took temporary emergency action to prohibit short selling in financial companies to protect the integrity and quality of the securities market and strengthen investor confidence. The U.K. FSA took similar action yesterday.

In its most basic definition, short selling (or selling short) is the act of a person or entity selling a security instrument, such as a stock, expecting, for whatever reason, that the price of the security will decline. For example, a person sells the stock today to a buyer at the current price, buying the stock back later at the anticipated reduced price, keeping the difference as profit. Because a person does not actually own the stock they are selling, such transactions are conducted through securities lenders, such as Goldman Sachs, for example.

The concept of short selling is rather simple: the greater the decline of the particular stock, the more money the seller stands to make in pure profit. The inverse is also true: should the value of the stock rise, the seller would then lose money on the transaction. Perhaps the biggest factor that one must keep in mind about selling short is this: the profit is limited but the loss is unlimited. Therefore, the short seller is taking an exceptional risk when engaging in such transactions -an important fact as you read on.

Short selling of stocks: Sound familiar?

At least in part, short selling transactions have been identified as contributing to the demise or imminent demise of a number of longstanding and historically revered investment firms, including but not limited to Lehman Brothers. According to analysts and experts in the financial markets, there has been a very sharp upsurge in market transactions of this type, ultimately causing a portion of the market woes that we are presently experiencing within our financial markets.

Many might recall one of the murkier aspects of 9/11 conspiracy theories involves the speculation of airline stocks in the weeks before the attacks. It has been proven that the options market for United and American Airlines, two of the airlines involved in the attacks, was unusually busy in the days before 9/11 with an extremely heavy volume of "put options," or selling the stocks “short.” The activity was unusual enough that both the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated investigations into the unusual trading activity.

Concurrent with the publication of the 9/11 commission report, the Securities and Exchange Commission stated that they found no evidence of U.S. trading based on inside information related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack that resulted in wide price swings in some options contracts.

It is important to note that investigation conducted by the SEC and their counterparts was narrowly focused. I am making this statement from my professional opinion as an investigator, and with full knowledge that such a statement will undoubtedly come under attack, citing the fact that the investigation encompassed a review of 103 companies, trading in seven markets, and involved numerous other domestic and foreign oversight and law enforcement agencies.

Consider, however, that the primary focus of the investigation was to determine whether this activity could have been the result of advance knowledge of the attacks, with the trades made for the sole purpose of profiting from the attacks. The focus, as a matter of practicality and necessity, appears to have been rather limited in its scope. But what if those suspicious transactions were not done to merely profit from the attacks, but were part of a larger attack on Wall Street - and the U.S. economy - involving more than those trades?

I’m no economist, so I will defer to the recent statements attributed to Joe Besecker of Emerald Asset Management Company. He was the subject of an article titled Terror Attack on US Financials? Details of SEC Short Ban.

The following is excerpted from that article, referencing the musings of Mr. Besecker:

"He [Joe Besecker] raised an intriguing issue: None of the many hedgies he knew were pressing their bets recently. The bear raids on the banks and brokers were NOT a case of piling on by US based hedge funds. And from what he was seeing and hearing about in terms of order flow, the vast majority of the financial short selling the past week or so were being done overseas. It appears that the lion's share of shorting was coming out of overseas bourses such as London and Dubai. It may not be a coincidence that the financial short selling ban is both here and in London.

Then there is another coincidence: The huge increase in shorting of the financials occurred on the anniversary of 9/11. And on top of that, the same institutions attacked on 9/11/01 were the ones suffering in recent days.

Joe asked the question: Is anyone investigating whether this is a case of financial terrorism?

Obviously, I believe that the majority of the blame for our current financial crisis lies with unethical CEOs of various financial organizations, the lack of oversight of government subsidized entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, white collar criminals, and some members of Congress. With the countless threats made before and since 9/11 against the U.S. economy, however, isn't it possible that some aspects of our recent economic woes has been - or is being caused by our enemies? Were the threats posted against Wall Street by Islamic terrorists, some with financial backing from the Saudi's, interpreted too literally?

I'm not entirely convinced that the SEC investigation into the whole aspect of trading activity concurrent with the 9/11 attacks was performed honestly or adequately. Considering we are now being asked to contribute to a bailout of unfathomable proportions, aren't we entitled to get some real answers to legitimate questions?

Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website.

Family Told Obama NOT To Wear Soldier Son's Bracelet... Where is Media?

By Warner Todd Huston

Barack Obama played the "me too" game during the Friday debates on September 26 after Senator John McCain mentioned that he was wearing a bracelet with the name of Cpl. Matthew Stanley, a resident of New Hampshire and a soldier that lost his life in Iraq in 2006. Obama said that he too had a bracelet. After fumbling and straining to remember the name, he revealed that his had the name of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek of Merrill, Wisconsin.

Shockingly, however, Madison resident Brian Jopek, the father of Ryan Jopek, the young soldier who tragically lost his life to a roadside bomb in 2006, recently said on a Wisconsin Public Radio show that his family had asked Barack Obama to stop wearing the bracelet with his son's name on it. Yet Obama continues to do so despite the wishes of the family.

Radio host Glenn Moberg of the show "Route 51" asked Mr. Jopek, a man who believes in the efforts in Iraq and is not in favor of Obama's positions on the war, what he and his ex-wife think of Obama continually using their son's name on the campaign trail. (h/t D. Keith Howington of www.dehavelle.com)

Jopek began by saying that his ex-wife was taken aback, even upset, that Obama has made the death of her son a campaign issue. Jopek says his wife gave Obama the bracelet because "she just wanted Mr. Obama to know Ryan's name." Jopek went on to say that "she wasn't looking to turn it into a big media event" and "just wanted it to be something between Barack Obama and herself." Apparently, they were all shocked it became such a big deal.

But, he also said that his ex-wife has refused further interviews on the matter and that she wanted Obama to stop wearing the reminder of her son's sacrifice that he keeps turning into a campaign soundbyte. This begins at about 10 minutes into the radio program. (Download radio show HERE)

.... Even the snow job that the radio host tried to pull off to cover for Barack's refusing the wishes of the family of the KIA soldier who's bracelet he wears doesn't pass the smell test. After all, now that Obama has made it a big point in the debates, I guess the silent observance of Sgt. Jopek is no longer so silent and Obama is back to exploiting the death of a soldier even when he was asked NOT to do so by that soldier's parents.

To pile insult onto injury here, the Mother doesn't even want to force the issue of telling Obama to stop exploiting her son because she wants to see him win the election. Obama is not only taking advantage of this brave soldier's death, he is taking advantage of the good wishes of the man's Mother who doesn't want to hurt the campaign.

And, why is the media not playing this story? The radio show on which this interview is heard happened all the way back in March. How is it the media missed this? Is it because they are also don't want to hurt Obama's campaign?

Bet on Israel bombing Iran

By Robert Baer

Are we going to have an October surprise, an attack on Iran by either the Bush administration or by Israel to stop the regime from becoming a nuclear power?

It could happen - and alter the dynamics of the presidential race in the blink of an eye - but only if Israel pulls the trigger. Don't expect the United States to drop bombs anytime soon. The reason: Iran has us over a barrel.

According to Britain's Guardian newspaper, Bush earlier this year nixed an Israeli plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Reportedly, the President said no because we couldn't afford Iranian retaliation against our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan or Iran closing down Persian Gulf shipping. Nonetheless, cynical speculation is now swirling in some quarters that with the financial collapse working against McCain - and Bush's legacy coming into focus - the President might reconsider. Could that tail really wag the dog?

Probably not. The fundamental global power dynamics have not changed. Iran has successfully blackmailed us. Iranian Silkworm missiles could close down Gulf oil exports in a matter of minutes, taking about 17 million barrels a day of oil off world markets. Americans could suddenly be looking at the prospect of $10-$12 for a gallon of gas. If the collapse of Wall Street doesn't push us into a depression, that would. And Bush is right: An angered Iran could punish us with thousands of extra casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, as Iranian-trained, armed and funded fighters flow back into the war zones with a vengeance.

So, giving the go ahead to Israel would just not be worth it.

But none of this changes the fact that Israel - on its own, without U.S. complicity - is moving closer to a decision to attack Iran, almost by the day.

What many Americans miss is that Iran is a threat to Israel's very existence, not an imagined danger used by politicians for political advantage. Every Israeli city is within range of Iranian/Hezbollah rockets. To make matters worse, since the July 2006 34-day war, Hezbollah may have as much as trebled the number of rockets it has targeted on Israel.

Meantime, Hezbollah has become the de facto state in Lebanon. And lest we forget, Israel lost that July 2006 war to Hezbollah, pulling its troops out of Lebanon without having obtained a single objective. In other words, Israel no longer has its deterrence credibility, the fear that it can decisively retaliate against its enemies.

Israel knows that international diplomacy against Iran up until now has been a farce. Iran called Bush's bluff, ignored sanctions and continued its nuclear program with impunity. And if the Israelis needed another psychological kick in the pants, last week North Korea announced that it is back to building a bomb, likewise with impunity.

Finally, Israel has to calculate that American influence around the world is on the wane. Americans are tired of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And now, after the war in Georgia, Russia is opening up its flow of weapons to Iran.

Couple all of this with Israel's suspicion that Iran is within only a few short years of having a nuclear bomb, and Israel knows time is not on its side. It is starting to believe that it has no choice but to change its fortunes with arms.

This much is certain. Whether the President is named Bush, McCain or Obama, he will either have to prepare for war in the Gulf or find a way to bring Iran back into the nation-state system. The day of reckoning is near.

I myself think a deal can be cut with Iran. During the last 30 years, Iran has gone from a terrorist, revolutionary power to far more rational, calculating regional hegemon. Its belligerence today has more to do with a weakened United States and Israel than with any plans to start World War III.

The question is what price Iran would exact for a settlement. Or more to the point: Would we prefer to take our chances with an Israeli surprise?

Baer, a former CIA case officer, is author of the just-released "The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower."