A Marriage of Convenience: Obama, the Left and Radical Islam

Alex Alexiev

As we enter the home stretch of the 2008 presidential election, new revelations about Barack Obama’s harshly critical views of the U.S. Constitution for not providing for wealth distribution have again raised concerns as to whether the American people may be about to elect the first radical Leftist if not outright socialist president in the republic’s history. This hugely troubling possibility, were it to happen, would mark yet another historical watershed that’s mentioned less often – the de facto alliance between the Left and radical Islam in American politics.

The discussion of Islam, to the extent that is mentioned at all in the campaign, has mostly been limited to a rather inconclusive debate in the blogosphere as to whether Obama is a Muslim or not, and a more substantive, if suppressed by the mainstream media, discussion of Senator Obama’s questionable ties to radical Islamists and anti-Semites. The latter has provided more than enough empirical evidence to at least give a pause to a dispassionate observer as to Obama’s pious assertions of his dedication to the struggle against Islamic extremism and friendship for Israel. Without going into too much detail, these connections include well-documented close ties with Black Panther mentor-turned-radical Muslim and Wahhabi stooge, Khalid al-Mansour (nee Don Warden); Nation of Islam hate-spewing, anti-white racist, Louis Farakhan; Columbia professor and apologist of Palestinian terrorism, Rashid Khalidi; and last, but not least, Salam Ibrahim, an alleged Taliban sympathizer and chairman of the defunct Chicago Shariah-finance company Sunrise Equities, who appears to have absconded with $80 million of his clients’ funds.

What all of these unsavory men have in common, apart from friendship with and admiration for Barack Obama, is their passionate dislike for the United States and their virulent anti-Semitism. This may not prove that Obama himself is an Islamist, an anti-Semite or an anti-American, it but it does show that, throughout his career, he has willingly associated with, and been mentored by, people who are. ....

Port of L.A. buys Chinese X-ray scanning system with U.S. taxpayer money

or the first time, a major U.S. port has purchased a sophisticated high-energy X-ray scanning system from a Chinese manufacturer, and it is paying for it with a $1.7 million port security grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The Port of Los Angeles, the nation’s largest, has procured a mobile X-ray scanning system, mounted on a Mack truck chassis, which was manufactured by a Chinese company called Nuctech Company Limited, headquartered in Beijing, whose president happens to be the son of the President of the People’s Republic of China. The Nuctech equipment will be used by the port police to inspect trucks delivering food, groceries and other supplies to cruise ships that are scheduled to depart from the busy West Coast port. ....

Erica Jong Tells Italians Obama Loss 'Will Spark thQaeda wants Republicans, Bush "humiliated": Web video

DUBAI (Reuters) - An al Qaeda leader has called for President George W. Bush and the Republicans to be "humiliated," without endorsing a party in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, according to an Internet video posting.

"O God, humiliate Bush and his party, O Lord of the Worlds, degrade and defy him," Abu Yahya al-Libi said at the end of sermon marking the Muslim feast of Eid al-Fitr, in a video posted on the Internet. ....

Voter machine erratically switches selection

By Chelsea Schilling

A new video showing a W. Va. voting machine erratically switching votes is getting international attention – with nearly 400,000 hits on YouTube.

A Berkeley, Calif., organization, Video The Vote, recently recorded Jackson County Clerk Jeff Waybright attempting to illustrate the reliability of voting machines, saying he was unable to reproduce a reported vote-switching problem.

"We are totally transparent around here," he said. "We welcome anyone who would like to see how the machines operate and how the machines function."

The organization was attempting to prove Democratic Party votes automatically switch to Republican candidates, but the video showed something entirely different.

Waybright began with an uncalibrated machine to prove his point. When he selected Barack Obama, the machine jumped to Chuck Baldwin. He tried again, and it took him to a screen for voters to write in a candidate. The same selection took him to Chuck Baldwin again.

When he selected a straight Democratic Party ticket, the machine chose John McCain. He selected a straight Republican ticket, and it voted for John McCain.

Such problems were to be expected on uncalibrated equipment. ....

Supremes asked to halt Tuesday's vote

(Compiler's note: This is a must read if there ever was one!! rca)

from WorldNetDaily

The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to help the nation avoid a constitutional crisis by halting Tuesday's election until Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama documents his eligibility to run for the top office in the nation.

Democratic attorney Philip Berg had filed a lawsuit alleging Obama is ineligible to be president because of possible birth in Kenya, but as WND reported, a federal judge dismissed the complaint claiming Berg lacks standing to bring the action.

Philip J. Berg

The 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order from Judge R. Barclay Surrick concluded ordinary citizens can't sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.

Instead, Surrick said Congress could determine "that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency," but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.

"Until that time," Surrick says, "voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring."

Berg has maintained that uncertainty about how the U.S. does enforce the requirements of presidency may result in a constitutional crisis should an ineligible candidate win the office.

In a statement today, Berg said he is applying to Justice David Souter for an "Immediate Injunction to Stay the Presidential Election of November 4, 2008."

"I am hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court will grant the injunction pending a review of this case to avoid a Constitutional crisis by insisting that Obama produce certified documentation that he is or is not a "natural born" citizen and if he cannot produce documentation that Obama be removed from the ballot for president," Berg said.

"We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the office of the presidency of the United States," Berg said.

The issue of Obama's eligibility first got traction among Internet bloggers and later was heightened when several campaigns were launched to determine whether a "certificate of live birth" posted on the Internet by the Obama campaign was valid.

The issue gained more attention when Berg told radio talk show icon Michael Savage he had an admission from Obama's grandmather that she was at his birth – in Kenya.

"This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution," Berg told Jeff Schreiber of America's Right blog. "If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States

– the most powerful man in the entire world – is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?"

As WND reported, Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court in August, alleging Obama is not a natural-born citizen and is thus ineligible to serve as president of the United States. Berg demanded that Obama provide documentation to the court to verify that the candidate was born in Hawaii, as Obama contends, and not in Kenya, as Berg believes.

Nouriel Roubini to Congress: Pass Stimulus ASAP

by Luke Mullins

New York University Prof. Nouriel Roubini—Dr. Doom himself—was slated to testify at a congressional hearing Thursday about the economic outlook and the need for a second stimulus package.

Here's what he told lawmakers in his written testimony:

The U.S. is currently in a severe recession that will be deeper, longer and more protracted than previous U.S. recessions. The last two economic recessions—in 1990-91 and 2001—lasted each 8 months and the cumulative fall in GDP from peak through the through was only 1.3% in the 1990-91 contraction and 0.4% in the 2001 contraction. In a typical U.S. recession in the post-WWII period GDP falls by an average of 2% and the recession lasts 10 months. The current economic contraction—that my analysis dates as having started in the first quarter of 2008 will last through the fourth quarter of 2009 with a cumulative fall in GDP of the order of about 4% that is even larger than the worst post-WWII recession (the one in 1957-68 when the GDP fall was 3.7%).

Since most components of private aggregate demand are sharply falling right now (private consumption, residential investment, non-residential investment in structures, capex spending by the corporate sector on software and machinery) a major additional fiscal stimulus is necessary to reduces the depth and length of the current economic contraction. And since direct tax incentives have not been effective in boosting consumption and capex spending (as worried households and firm are retrenching their spending) the new round of fiscal stimulus will have to take the form of direct government spending on goods and services (preferably productive investment in infrastructures) and provision to income to those agents in the economy more likely to spend it (block grants to state and local governments, increased unemployment benefits to unemployed workers, etc.).

Given the size of the expected contraction in private aggregate demand (likely to be about $450 billion in 2009 relative to 2008) a fiscal stimulus of the order of $300 billion minimum (and possibly as large as $400 billion) will be necessary to partially compensate for the sharp fall in private aggregate demand.

This fiscal stimulus should be voted on and spent as soon as possible as delay will make the economic contraction even more severe. A stimulus package legislated only February or March of next year when the new Congress comes back will be too late as the contraction of private aggregate demand will be extremely sharp in the next few months. Such policy action should be legislated right away—in a "lame duck" session right after the election—to ensure that the actual spending is undertaken rapidly in the next few months.

Ex-CIA Expert: Obama Took Millions in Illegal Foreign Donations

(Compiler's note: We see here a "global community organizer" at work. rca)

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman

A Newsmax investigation of Obama/Biden campaign contributors, undertaken in conjunction with a private investigative firm headed by a former CIA operations officer, has identified 118 donors who appear to lack U.S. citizenship.

Some of these “red flag” donors work for foreign governments; others have made public statements declaring that they are citizens of Cameroun, Nigeria, Pakistan, Canada, and other countries.

A Newsmax sampling of about 3,400 donors also found hundreds more who showed “yellow flags” such as not having used a Social Security number or a known U.S. address. Most U.S.-born citizens are issued Social Security numbers at birth or by the time they enter kindergarten.

Under federal law, only U.S. citizens or permanent residents may donate to federal political campaigns. It is illegal for the campaigns to accept money knowingly from foreign donors.

The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill of 2002 placed new restrictions on political fundraising after the scandals of 1996, when the Clinton-Gore re-election campaign was exposed for having taken millions of dollars of unregulated soft money from donors with ties to Chinese military intelligence.

But even with the new laws, it remains very difficult to identify with any precision foreign money if a campaign itself does not cooperate with the Federal Election Commission and perform its own due diligence.

Until very recently, the Obama campaign had no safeguards in its online fundraising Web site designed to weed out foreign donors. Instead, its operations appeared to be designed specifically to enhance the flow of illegal money.

The Newsmax investigation focused only on donors whose names the Obama campaign disclosed, which are available to public scrutiny through the Federal Election Commission Web site.

In addition to the donations the campaign has disclosed, however, it has taken an unprecedented $218 million from donors whose names it is keeping secret, according to FEC spokesman Robert Biersack.

That money came from individuals who in theory never passed the threshold of $200, the limit the FEC set for public disclosure of a donor’s name and place of residence, so there is no way of knowing how much foreign money could be included in that amount.

For example, hidden away amidst the unprecedented $150 million Obama claims to have raised from individual donors in September was more than $42 million raised from secret donors. These donations appear in the records as a single entry under the heading, “Donors, Unitemized.”

Newsmax retained the services of former CIA operations officer Frederick W. Rustmann Jr. and a team of international forensic accounting experts to comb through Obama’s donor list to identify those who apparently aren’t U.S. citizens or residents. Rustmann, a 24 year veteran field officer, operates CTC International Group Ltd., a West Palm Beach, Fla., firm that provides business intelligence services and analysis.

Using sophisticated Internet search tools, fee-based data bases, and other public records, CTC attempted to identify Social Security numbers and U.S. addresses connected to the Obama donors. Most of these donors gave obvious overseas addresses when they made their donations, but the Obama campaign had no security screen to detect them.

“Hillary and McCain demanded proof of citizenship of all their donors,” Rustmann said. “Obama did not, so he benefitted by receiving an enormous amount of money from foreign donors who wanted to influence the U.S. election process.”

Rustmann and his investigative team expressed “high suspicions” that 118 donors flagged as “red” were not U.S. citizens.

“That’s all we can say for certain, because it’s difficult to prove citizenship with no database that lists citizens,” Rustmann said.

Typical is Victor A. of Lagos, Nigeria, who gave $500 to the campaign in May. In the FEC database, his address is listed as Ikoyi, NA. But a closer look at the actual itemized receipts filed by the campaign shows that he declared his address as 9e Awori Street Dolphin Estate, Lagos, Nigeria.

That apparently slipped by the eagle eyes of the Obama campaign’s finance team.

A survey of the Obama donor base returns 8,794 donations from individuals who gave their state as “NA.” They included donors from Bangalore, India; London; Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Lagos, Nigeria; and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Thousands more gave state abbreviations that, combined with the city addresses they listed, clearly referred to foreign countries. Examples include IT (Italy), FR (France), GR (Greece), NZ (New Zealand), JP (Japan), GA (Gaza).

Another 2,372 donors gave their state of residence as “ZZ,” with cities including Moscow, Barcelona, Beirut, London, Lausanne, Singapore, Hagatna, Gunma-Ken, Buelach, Shanghai, Geneva, Prague, Aichi-Gun, Kiev, Hong Kong, and others.

The Obama campaign claims that these donors with overseas addresses are Americans living abroad, but there is no way of knowing that for certain because the campaign has not systematically required proof of citizenship from overseas donors.

The pace of foreign donations and other questionable fundraising practices has increased during the past few weeks, even as Obama campaign spokesmen say they have closed loopholes on their Web site and changed the credit-card authorization procedures that have allowed such donations. The Federal Election Commission had flagged 16,639 potential foreign donations as of Oct. 21 that brought in $5,249,263.96 to the campaign.

Take the case of Jo Jacquet, who gave $23,065 to Obama in 23 separate contributions last month. CTC found three people with variations of the name “Jo Anna Jacquet” who had U.S. addresses and Social Security numbers. It is not clear whether this specific Obama donor is a U.S. citizen.

“Jo Jacquet” made all of her contributions on two days, alternating between $5 and $2,300 charges to a credit card.

On all of the donations, she gave her employer as “DFDFGDFG,” and her profession as “DFGDFGDFGHFGH.” None of this attracted the suspicions of the Obama campaign or of Chase Paymentech, the company that processes the Obama campaign’s credit card donations.

The FEC requested that the Obama campaign re-attribute or re-designate all of the money from “Jo Jacquet” that went beyond the $4,600 limit but did not require that it be refunded. Under campaign finance rules, the campaign can shift this money into the “Obama Victory” account, a joint fundraising committee with much higher individual limits that it operates with the Democratic National Committee.

One apparent reason for the unusual number of foreign donors who may not hold U.S. citizenship is the fact the Obama campaign turned off the security features most merchants demand for customers when doing online transactions, such as verifying the card number against the cardholder’s name and billing address.

Another major loophole is the apparent widespread use of gift cards, which notoriously have been used for money-laundering purposes, especially in places such as Russia and Ukraine, industry security analysts tell Newsmax.

Newsmax asked James Wester, a spokesman for Chase Paymentech, who was responsible for taking the unusual step of deactivating the Address Verification Service recommended by VISA USA on the Obama Web site. Such security features can be deactivated by the processing company, or at the request of the merchant, in this case, Obama for America.

Wester said that Paymentech was “not going to be issuing a statement at this time.”

VISA USA has a series of verification tools it recommends to online merchants to prevent online credit card fraud and to guarantee the security of personal credit-card information.

“Fraudsters have been known to test credit card numbers by making online donations to charitable organizations,” a credit-card industry insider told Newsmax, on condition of anonymity.

In fact, by operating as a “high-risk merchant,” the Obama campaign could put both its donors and Chase Paymentech at risk, he said.

“A legitimate online merchant or charity would call in the Secret Service or the FBI” if it saw the high fraud rates that have appeared on the Obama campaign Web site.

“If they are not taking basic security safeguards to prevent such obvious online fraud as you have found, then how can any donor have confidence that they will protect credit card information? But if cash flow is the name of the game, it doesn’t matter as long as they get the money up-front and get the job done. They can pay the fines later,” he added.

Following are a few of the individuals the Newsmax/CTC International investigation found of overseas donors. To demonstrate its compliance with FEC regulations, the Obama campaign should request proof that these individuals are, indeed, U.S. citizens;

Nasser Z. of 187 Blvd Bineau in Paris-France, “NA,” made seven donations totaling $785. CTC found no record indicating U.S. citizenship. But on Nasser’s personal blog, he states that he is of Algerian origin and lives between Paris and Dubai. He also notes that he is not registered to vote in the United States and hints that he may be an adviser to the Obama campaign on Arab relations. Salem H. gave $200 to the campaign in March 2008, listing a London address. He said he worked as a salesman for “Anaka,” No information was found either on Haffar or his company indicating U.S. citizenship. Essomba H. made 11 donations totaling $265. Essomba gave an address in Lyon, “NA,” and said he was unemployed but working for “Association,” the French equivalent of a community organizer. CTC found that Essomba actually worked for PDT Associates Afrikespace et Oyenga, which showed him as living in Lyon, France. His personal blog states, "I'm a Cameroonian living in France” and notes that he is not registered to vote. Gedewon (or Gideon) G. made 32 donations totaling $1,095. Although he lists his employer as “Filtom Design Services” and his residence as Toronto, Canada, CTC could find no company with that name. Gedewon frequently posts blogs to a Web site for expatriate Eritreans, where he often promotes Obama. Mahamane M. gave $500 to the campaign and listed his address as Niamey, the capitol of the central African state of Niger. He listed his occupation as managing director of C.N.U.T. Niger. The Public Transport Users Council, CNUT is affiliated with the prime minister’s office. In an interview, Mahamane said he is particularly interested in developing transportation resources that will help bring Niger’s extensive uranium resources to market. Gilles M. lives in Zurich and claims to be “founder and senior consultant” of 4?ME (sic) Image Consulting. Gilles made three donations to the campaign for a total of $240.39. The campaign found him suspicious enough to return one of them in July, but kept the rest. Under FEC rules, that will bring Gilles back into the shadows, since his aggregate contributions now total less than $200. Stamen S. of Sofia, Bulgaria, lists his profession as “Mployer” and his employer as "Employer." He has made ten donations totaling $170. CTC found no record indicating U.S. citizenship. Francis B. . of La Creche, France, made three donations totaling $200. He is reported as being a medicine physician at Hospital-Niort and is listed. CTC found no verifiable record of U.S. citizenship. Pedro M.,. who said he was a salesman for Intermundo in Prague, made two donations for a total of $900. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship. Sandeep M., . an investment manager at Clariden Leu, Kuesnacht, in Zurich, Switzerland, gave the maximum $2,300 allowed per election. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship. Marissa M., . a nurse living in Guatemala City, gave eight $25 donations. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship. Somine L. . declared that she worked at the French Ministry of Culture in Paris, and donated $100. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship. Although CTC had no way of accurately evaluating the real amount of foreign donations based on the survey they did for Newsmax, Rustmann said he believe that the anecdotal evidence was clear. “In my opinion, from what I have seen here, millions of dollars came from illegal donations, because the Obama campaign did little to vet the donors,” Rustmann said. An earlier Newsmax estimate, based on the unusual occurrence of unrounded contributions, which fundraising experts attributed to foreign currency donations, concluded that as much as $63 million could have come from foreign sources. A veteran investigator with the Criminal Investigative Division of the U.S. Secret Service told Newsmax on Monday that most of the donor fraud Newsmax has identified could fly under the radar of federal investigators, unless the feds received a complaint from a victim of identify fraud. Identify fraud certainly appeared to be the case when it came to the $174,800 donated in September in the name of Manchester, Mo., resident, Mary T. Biskup. A retired insurance manager, Biksup told The Washington Post that she never gave the money to the Obama campaign, and had checked her credit-card statements and couldn’t find any trace of a charge to her account. “We're not out a penny," Biskup said. "I gather that someone has hacked into something using other people's credit cards and putting my name on it." The credit-card industry often covers up identify fraud, such as apparently occurred with Biskup. Credit-card companies would rather swallow losses and chargebacks than admit to consumers that criminals have cracked their security systems, insiders tell Newsmax.

McCain Wants `Can-Do' Spies; Obama to Separate Agency, Politics

By Jeff Bliss

Oct. 30 (Bloomberg) -- John McCain and Barack Obama agree that the next president needs to shake up U.S. spy operations. That's where the similarity ends.

McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, has called the Central Intelligence Agency ``dysfunctional'' and wants to create a ``small, nimble, can-do'' espionage organization for bolder clandestine missions, modeled on World War II's Office of Strategic Services.

``What he's looking at is something that doesn't have the internal bureaucracy'' of the current spy network, says Kori Schake, a McCain adviser and former National Security Council aide to President George W. Bush.

Obama, the Democratic candidate, proposes to make the current system more effective, and free from political interference, by consolidating operations from different agencies and giving the director of national intelligence a fixed term of office, like the Federal Reserve chairman.

The top U.S. intelligence official ``really shouldn't be involved in the political process,'' says John Brennan, former acting director of the National Counterterrorism Center and an Obama adviser. A fixed term also would ``ensure there is going to be continuity through presidents,'' he says.

Whoever wins Nov. 4, the next president must overhaul a $47.5 billion intelligence effort, spread through 16 agencies, that's still struggling seven years after failing to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks and six years after wrongly concluding that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Layers of Bureaucracy

The latest challenge involves revamping a 2004 law that was supposed to repair flaws exposed by 9/11 and Iraq, national security analysts say. The law established a new office led by a director of national intelligence, or DNI, to oversee the CIA and other intelligence operations. So far, the law has added a layer of bureaucracy without giving the director -- currently former National Security Agency Director Mike McConnell -- enough authority over agencies' budgets, national security analysts say.

``The DNI is still very much a work in progress, and a lot people are thinking it's not working,'' says Mark Lowenthal, former CIA assistant director for analysis and production. The next president must get it right, because U.S. spies face an array of threats besides terrorists and hostile countries like Iran and North Korea, advisers from both campaigns say.

Intelligence agencies, for example, will have to help future administrations respond if global warming creates famines or water shortages that, in turn, generate civil unrest and terrorism, Brennan says.

Energy Security

The U.S. reliance on foreign oil will need to be factored into military and intelligence planning even more than it has in the past because of shrinking supplies, says McCain adviser James Woolsey, a former CIA director. ``Energy policy has a lot to do with national security,'' he says.

McCain, 72, wants to use the OSS, the CIA's predecessor, as the model for a modern-day agency for covert action, psychological warfare, and paramilitary operations. He has said he wants a group that will ``take risks that our bureaucracies today are afraid to take,'' such as sending agents to infiltrate terrorist groups.

Under the Republican's proposal, the organization would recruit college professors, business executives and first- generation immigrants who could work quickly and aggressively, advisers say.

Agents would be placed without diplomatic cover in enemy countries and militant organizations, a change from CIA undercover operatives who mostly work out of U.S. embassies and have diplomatic immunity if caught, McCain says.

`Rogue' Agency

The Arizona senator has been a critic of the CIA, even calling it a ``rogue'' agency and charging that intelligence officials leaked information detrimental to Bush's 2004 re- election campaign.

Some intelligence professionals think McCain's plan would only add to the intelligence bureaucracy and duplicate current efforts, Lowenthal says. ``If you start creating a parallel structure, you might create more confusion,'' he says.

McCain seeks to expand parts of the CIA, increasing the espionage and covert-operation division by 50 percent and doubling the staff for research and development. Those steps were recommended by the Robb-Silberman Commission, a panel McCain served on that was established after botched intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs.

McCain also wants to beef up the Federal Bureau of Investigation as an intelligence-gathering organization. ``The FBI hasn't fully become part of the intelligence community,'' Schake says.

Playing Politics

Obama, 47, aims to keep U.S. spies from playing politics, after some intelligence officials were charged with telling Bush administration policy makers what they wanted to hear during the run-up to the Iraq War.

A Defense Department intelligence unit run by former Undersecretary for Policy Douglas Feith undercut other intelligence agencies in arguing for a link between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, according to a Pentagon inspector general's report last year.

Appointing the national intelligence director for a specific period, like the Federal Reserve chairman's four-year term, would help promote unvarnished analysis by removing a president's ability to fire the spy chief at will, Obama says.

To improve the quality of intelligence analysis, Obama proposes hiring more spies and analysts who know the local cultures and languages of world hotspots, and having spy agencies develop competing assessments of those regions.

Obama's plan includes a $5 billion, three-year program to foster cooperation between U.S. and foreign intelligence and law- enforcement agencies on sharing tips, guarding borders and uncovering terrorist financing.

Overlapping Operations

Obama also will look for ways to consolidate overlapping intelligence operations, Brennan says. One target may be the director of national intelligence's 1,500-person staff, which lawmakers have criticized as duplicating work at other agencies.

Democrats also would consider merging FBI and Department of Homeland Security intelligence offices across the U.S. that share information with state and local law enforcement officials, Brennan says. Too often, the ``cop on the beat in New York City,'' border agents and others don't get vital intelligence because the information-sharing effort isn't better coordinated, he says.

Whatever changes come under Obama or McCain, the next administration needs to be careful not to diminish the U.S. spying network's capabilities, says Loch Johnson, a political science professor at the University of Georgia in Athens who has written extensively about intelligence.

``The intel community does need to be small and more nimble,'' he says. ``But the U.S. is a world power'' and needs a massive spying effort.

A Disturbing Look at a Very Near Future: Tax Cuts vs More Spending at the Special Session

(Compiler's note: Must read. rca)

by Newt Gingrich

We have a choice between two futures.

For the first, fast forward 23 days. It’s November 17. Congress convenes for a special session with a veto-proof Democratic majority Senate, an expanded Democrat majority in the House and a Democrat in the White House.

The sole item on their agenda is to pass the $300 billion government spending package promised by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi back in October.

There is no mistaking what is coming. Even before Democrats won sweeping, one-party control of Washington, they had made their intentions to increase taxes and spending clear.

Originally pegged at $150 billion, Pelosi’s spending package ballooned as time went on.

With 11 days to go before the election, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) fleshed out some details of the massive spending package. Frank called for a 25 percent cut in defense spending and conceded that Democrats will raise taxes to pay for new government spending. If they couldn’t get the votes in November, Frank was confident that they would have them in January.

And long before the election, President-elect Barack Obama had expressed his preference for wealth redistribution over wealth creation both on the campaign trail and in a startling radio interview in 2001, in which he claims the Warren Court was not radical enough. (Bill Whittle does an excellent job of dissecting this interview at National Review Online )

“You Can’t Say We Weren’t Warned”

The newly empowered Democratic majority passes the massive spending bill, confident that even a veto by President Bush can and will be overridden by their new Senate majority in January.

Before President-elect Barack Obama even takes office, government spending increases by $300 billion, bringing the grand total for the last six months of 2008 to $1.45 trillion.

And all center-right Americans can do is shake their heads and think, “You can’t say we weren’t warned.”

There is a Different Future: Make the Election About Big Spending Vs Big Economic Growth

For candidates, campaign managers, and consultants who are disturbed at this look at the very near future, there is another way.

But that way begins now. Today.

To avoid defeat on November 4 and avoid an out-of-control spending spree in the new Congress, the voters have to be given a real choice on Election Day.

• A choice between robust government spending and robust economic growth;

• A choice between higher spending and lower taxes;

• A choice between spreading the wealth around and increasing it through rapid economic recovery.

Because when Americans are asked to make these choices, our answers are clear and unequivocal.

We trust the private sector to grow the economy more than government. We favor keeping our money over giving it to Washington. We favor creating more wealth over redistributing the wealth we’ve worked for and saved.

We just have to be given the choice.

Three Times More Americans Believe In Tax Cuts Over More Government Spending

Newly released polling data show just how out of touch with Americans the REPO Team (Reid-Pelosi-Obama) pre-Christmas spending spree is.

By 60%-20%, Americans believe lower taxes, not higher government spending, will best ensure economic recovery, according to a new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll.

By 86%-9%, Americans believe government should focus on jobs and economic growth over income redistribution, according to a New Models/Winston Group survey.

By 71%-25%, Americans believe that if you cut taxes on small business it will create new jobs, according to the New Models/Winston Group poll.

So What Are We Waiting For?

So what are we waiting for? To counter the Reid-Pelosi-Obama massive $300 billion government spending spree, Republicans should offer a $300 billion tax cut package.

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has proposed a rapid economic recovery program that should be the centerpiece of the campaign going forward. Instead of marrying new deficit spending with liberal special interests like the Reid-Pelosi-Obama plan does, the Boehner plan marries sound economics with the small government, free market values of the American people.

Here are some of the reforms in the Boehner rapid economic recovery plan:

• Energy Independence: Creating jobs and reducing energy and food costs by enacting an “all of the above” energy plan. For more information, watch my new movie “We Have the Power” (watch the new trailer here and buy the movie here ) and read my new book Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less .

• Creating Jobs: Bringing American jobs back home by lowering the tax rate on profits that companies bring back to the United States.

• Restoring Home Values: Encouraging home purchases by easing capital gains rules for homes purchased in the next 18 months and held for at least five years.

• Spurring Economic Growth: Immediately suspend the capital gains tax on individuals and businesses for equities purchased during the next two years.

• Encouraging American Companies to Assist in Recovery: Lower the tax rate on business income so American companies have an incentive to invest in distressed assets.

• Protecting Retirement: Suspend rules that require individuals at age 70½ to begin withdrawing from their Individual Retirement Accounts. This would spare investors from being forced to sell their stocks at just the time when the market is hurting the most.

I will have more to say about what we can do now to avert this impending massive government spending spree at an event this Friday at the American Enterprise Institute entitled “Energy, the Economy, and the Special Session of Congress.” For more details, go to www.aei.org.

In the meantime, there is no time to waste. Republicans and center-right independents and Democrats can give the voters a real choice in the election, or we can lose our choice in the congressional special session to come.

Either way, you can’t say we weren’t warned.

Laura Hollis :: Townhall.com Columnist

(Compiler's note: An absolutely stunning article -- must read. rca)

by Laura Hollis

Well, now we know why Barack Obama’s been so reluctant to have symbols of this country associated with his campaign. No flags on his airplane. Nix to pins on his lapel. Not inclined to put his hand over his heart during the national anthem.

After all, it turns out he has a problem with that other slightly more significant representation of our nation, the United States Constitution.

Just as he tried to prove to everyone that his patriotism was demonstrated by the lack of symbols of the United States, so he is now arguing that his passion for the Constitution is demonstrated by his commitment to shredding it.

The Drudge Report and other legitimate investigative sources like the National Review, have exposed the most damning evidence yet of Barack Obama’s utter disregard for the core principles of the United States government. In a radio interview given in 2001, Obama reveals yet again about what he means by ‘equality,’ when he says, “…the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.”

Bad? Sure. Because now it’s not just “spread the wealth” a little bit (antithetical as that already is to American notions of hard work and prosperity). It’s that “redistribution of wealth” is part and parcel of Obama’s vision of what is “political and economic justice” in this society.

But it is much worse. Because this Harvard-educated lawyer then announces that the United States Supreme Court when headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, was “not radical enough,” in its pursuit of civil liberties, because “[i]t didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”

If this has not stopped you dead in your tracks, either you don’t understand, or you’re already dead. What Obama is doing here is expressing his opinion that the Court would have better effectuated his definition of “political and economic justice” if it had been willing to ignore the limits placed upon it by the Constitution.

I have written elsewhere of Obama’s potential designs on the country, and his inclinations should he obtain the power he seeks. Many of the hypotheticals I posited then were pooh-poohed by readers, who said, in essence, “He’d never do that; the Constitution prevents it.”

At this point, any belief in Obama’s respect for constitutional limits is delusional. If he is so cavalier about the Constitution’s limits upon the power of the judiciary, why on earth would he respect the limits on the power of the Presidency? Or on Congress? Clamor for the reinstatement of the insidiously named “Fairness Doctrine” has already put the First Amendment in Obama’s sights. What would be sacrosanct about the Second? Or the Fourth? Or Fifth? Or Eighth? Why would Obama let any constitutional limit stand in the way of what he views as “political and economic justice”?

These views are why Obama’s acquaintances, associates and allies matter. Why his Alinskyite “by any means necessary” philosophy matters. Why we should care that he funds and takes money from people who say they hate or wish to undermine America. Why we should be concerned when he took spiritual sustenance from a man who spends much of his time condemning white people. This is what drives Barack Obama. And this is why he wants the Presidency.

The rest of Obama’s observations during this interview are just as asinine, and just as threatening. He says, “generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”

This is deception. As an initial matter, few listening to him would understand the gobbledygook, “negative liberties.” But more importantly, he never explains that the United States Constitution is the oldest constitution in effect in the world. And that is no accident. It is the oldest, because it is the only constitution I am aware of that is drafted the way it is. Specifically, other constitutions list certain rights that the government conveys upon the people. Or, to put it as Obama did, the things “government must do on your behalf.”

Our Constitution, by contrast, has precisely the opposite construction. We, the people, are presumed to have all the rights, not just those written down in the Constitution. (And the Declaration of Independence states that these rights are “endowed by our Creator;” not by any government.)

Lest this be unclear, the drafters of the Constitution put it in writing. The Ninth Amendment says, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

And the Tenth Amendment goes further, stating explicitly that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”

Obama is engaging in dangerous demagoguery when he suggests that we the people of the United States need him – or the government he wants in place – to give us rights we don’t already have.

This deceitful view was echoed when he was introduced by Democratic Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur in Ohio earlier this week, who said that Americans “needed a Second Bill of Rights guaranteeing all Americans a job, health care, homes, an education, and a fair playing field for business and farmers.” This is no “bill of rights,” it is a bill of attainder (look it up). Those found “guilty” would be anyone wealthier, more successful, or more prosperous than any other. And the punishment? The very things Obama and the Democrats are already pushing for: high taxes, and even seizure and redistribution of all American’s private property.

I am stunned beyond belief that these blunt admissions do not give otherwise patriotic Obama supporters (and this describes the vast majority of them) serious pause. But those voting for him seem to fall into two groups. The first group says, “Oh well, Bush has trashed the Constitution, too.” Even assuming that this were true, it is hardly a ringing endorsement for your candidate. Worse, it displays a surprising ignorance that the procedural protections Obama is determined to dismantle won’t be there to protect you against the next right-wing fascist you guys are always running in terror from. What – you think Obama will give those rights back right before (if) he leaves office?

The second group consists of disgruntled so-called “conservatives” like Kathleen Parker, Colin Powell, Peggy Noonan, and Christopher Buckley, who hear what Obama is saying, but choose not to believe him. I’m not sure what to say to these people, except that their refusal to learn from history suggests that there may be something to those claims that there’s no such thing as evolution.

Those who drafted the Constitution knew that persuasive orators who promised beneficence in exchange for liberty would come along. This is why George Washington admonished that “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.” And it is why Thomas Jefferson said, "In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

Every President, upon taking office, takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." A President should be willing to die to defend our Constitution. Obama is dying to destroy it.

-------------------------------------- Read

Smoking Audio and Also read Halloween Fright Night: Obama's Words Should Scare Americans of All Ages!

Dr Doom - Global Stag-Deflation Coming?

from S.M.A.R.T. Investing with TSK

The Coming Global Stag-Deflation?

"In London last Thursday, Dr Doom predicted that hundreds of hedge funds will go bust and stock markets may soon have to shut – perhaps for as long as a week – in order to stem the panic selling now sweeping the world. What happened? The next day trading was briefly stopped in New York and Moscow."

Dr Doom (Nouriel Roubini), a New York University economics professor who predicted the financial crisis in 2006, talked to Bloomberg on October 27, 2008.

What does Dr Doom think is going to happen next?

1. I fear the worst is yet to come ;
2. 2 years of severe recession, not priced into market yet ;
3. Significant downside risk for equities in US and Globally ;
4. Stocks will fall sharply and go sideways ;
5. Downside risk for commodities of 20% ;
6. Risk of global stag-deflation (stagnation/recession plus deflation) .

Seems he is very accurate in his predictions, other than timing.

So be patient hor, dun catch the falling knives, dun try to call bottom. Dun be brave like Warren Buffet hor, he got deep pockets, can afford to lose, can afford to wait.

Let Mr Market call the bottom, then we take the ride up.

Economy's 'Dr. Doom' Makes Heroic Call