Obama’s Revenge

(Compiler's note: Actions still speak louder than words. Now we can see this in action.)

by Joan Swirsky

Grooming the perfect Marxist candidate

Once upon a time, a white teenager from Kansas got pregnant by her black Kenyan boyfriend, Barack Obama Sr., or was it her husband? Whatever. (I say whatever because we’ve never seen either marriage or divorce certificates). Some say the couple was in Kenya visiting relatives when the birth of their son, Barack Obama Jr., occurred. No matter. (I say no matter because we’ve never seen an authentic birth certificate). By the time the baby was two years old his father abandoned him for his other wife and child in Kenya.

I wonder how toddler Barry felt when his father left him, and never reappeared until a single time when the boy was 10. Bewildered? Sad? Lonely? Angry? What do two-year-olds do with those feelings?

It didn’t take long for Barry’s mother to meet and marry an Indonesian native named Lolo Soetoro. They moved to Indonesia, where her child became Barry Soetoro, took on Indonesian citizenship, and was presumably schooled in public, Christian, and Muslim schools. (I say presumably because we’ve never seen those school records). But when Barry was 10 years old, his mother sent him back to the U.S. to be raised by her parents, Madelyn and Stanley Dunham, although she kept her baby daughter Maya Soetoro with her.

I wonder how the by-now fully-sentient young Barry felt when his mother sent him packing. Sad? Jealous of the baby who remained behind with mommy? Confused and dizzy by the disparate cultures – languages, customs, foods, sights, sounds, schooling – he had experienced? Resentful? What did Barry do with those feelings?

By the time he was 10, the boy had been abandoned three times – by his father, stepfather, and mother. And although he was raised by his white grandparents in Hawaii – where “people of color” were not his color – he found out soon enough that his mixed-race background rendered him, in effect, an outsider. Did that make him feel self-conscious, indignant, victimized?

But he wasn’t altogether an outsider. In Hawaii, young Barry met Frank Marshall Davis, his first and perhaps most influential mentor. The infamous Marshall, a Communist activist (and self-confessed pedophile) taught Barry – was it Obama, Soetero, Dunham? – that white people were the devil incarnate and that blacks were the most “victimized” people on earth.

Yet the abandoned and rejected child was lucky. His white-devil grandparents gave him a comfortable life in Hawaii, and an education that apparently qualified him to attend several prestigious schools – Occidental College in CA, Columbia Univ. in NY City, and Harvard Law School in Cambridge, MA.(I say apparently qualified because we’ve never seen any of his college transcripts).

BARRY MORPHS INTO BARACK

After his undergraduate days at Columbia, Obama chose not to go to graduate school, but instead held various jobs in the Big Apple and then moved to Chicago to become a community organizer. Although he had been exposed to American exceptionalism through his life in the United States and his privileged education, it is clear that his experiences in impoverished Kenya and totalitarian Indonesia, as well as his exposure to Marshall and the other radicals he had met during his years in New York – among them the unrepentant domestic terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn of Weather Underground infamy – made the deepest and most lasting impressions.

Their messages of American imperialism and its white-devil culture clearly resonated in the thrice-abandoned boy. In his young-adult and adult years, free to choose his friends and pursuits, he opted exclusively for far-left socialists and Marxists, and activities aimed at relieving the suffering of people he perceived to be as victimized as apparently he felt he had been. He understood their feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, and impotent rage, as well as the pain of fatherlessness. After all, his Harvard-educated father consciously chose to leave him. And his mother gave him away. Was that depressing to Barry? Infuriating?

When given the opportunity to join one of dozens of churches in Chicago, Barry – who had morphed into Barack – opted for the Trinity United Church of Christ, which was led by the fire-breathing Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose decades-long anti-American and anti-Semitic rants apparently resonated in Obama’s rejected and abandoned heart and soul. (I say apparently resonated because in over 20 years of regular attendance, Obama said he heard nothing inflammatory or anti-American, and we’ve never seen the videotapes of any sermon, although each one was unfailingly recorded).

“God damn America,” Wright raged. “The chickens have come home to roost,” he “preached” to his whooping and hollering congregation after 9/11. Obama heard nothing.

But it wasn’t only Wright who Obama was attracted to in Chicago. He was also drawn to another hate-spewing radical, Rev. Louis Farrakhan, as well as to the raving Father Michael Phleger, the radical Islamist Khalid Rashidi, his friends and neighbors the Ayers, and to equally-close friends “Tony” and Rita Rezko – Tony being the notorious “fixer” and now-convicted-and-imprisoned felon for fraud, bribery, and money laundering. What did the seemingly mild-mannered Obama find so irresistible in these angry and/or crooked people and others like them? Was it the same thing that a shy man finds in his attraction to a flamboyant girlfriend – and alter-ego, a person who expresses what he really feels but is unable to give voice to?

In these relationships and in community organizing – which offers inner-city mostly-black residents job training, tutoring, and methods to organize tenants’-rights groups and voter-registration drives, etc. – the twenty-something Obama apparently found his calling, and also a renewed and burning ambition.

WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE

While his community-organizing job paid a paltry $12,000 or so per year, Obama somehow managed to pay his way through one of the priciest graduate schools in the world, Harvard Law School. (I say somehow managed because we have no record of his tuition payments). Even more amazing, he became the first black president of the Harvard Law Review without ever producing a written paper – or at least a paper that the public has ever read.

There is a good deal of evidence that Obama’s acceptance at Harvard Law – and his tuition – were facilitated by friends who had a vested interest in the community organizer. Among them was Percy Sutton, a former Manhattan borough president and ardent leftist, who was also Malcolm X’s lawyer. In an interview last year, the octogenarian Sutton stated: “I was introduced to [Obama] by a friend. The friend’s name was Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, and the introduction took place about 20 years ago.” Sutton described al-Mansour as “the principle adviser to one of the world’s richest men” and suggested that al-Mansour was raising money for Obama. Knowing that Sutton had friends at Harvard, al-Mansour asked him if he would write a letter to Harvard recommending Obama, which Sutton did most agreeably. This took place about 1988 when 27-year-old Obama was applying to Harvard Law.

Journalist Jack Cashill has credibly speculated that Obama’s two memoirs were actually written by his pal Bill Ayers, who was and is a University of Illinois at Chicago English professor, having escaped life in prison on a technicality. Two years [after he was admitted to law school], Cashill writes, “while still a law student, Obama improbably received an advance to write a memoir that would be called `Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance,’ which was published in 1995.” His second memoir, published in 2006, was “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.” (I suspect Cashill said “improbably received an advance” because, as stated earlier, Obama had not produced even one paper or distinguished himself in any way to have inspired a major publishing company to approach him).

Al this begs the question: Who writes two memoirs about himself before the age of 45? My own speculation is that it could be no one but a narcissist. As most people know in this age of pop psychology, the psychiatric disorder of narcissism derives from the Greek myth in which Narcissus, a handsome young man, became obsessed with himself and fell in love with his own image as he gazed into a pool of water. A lot of people have some degree of narcissism, which is characterized by grandiosity, an unquenchable need for admiration, unhealthy self-absorption, dependence on the affirmation of others, and also a lack of empathy, which is hidden by both personal charm and the kind of earnest language that pretends to “feel your pain.”

Or he could be a malignant narcissist., which psychiatrist Dr. Otto Kernberg, a legendary leader in thought disorders, compares to a narcissist on steroids. This variety involves paranoid traits (think of Obama’s thin-skinned, quasi-hysterical reactions to Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin), and ego-syntonic aggression, which means the person is perfectly in-sync with people who have the courage he lacks to lash out.

But consider the source! Obama’s father was a self-aggrandizing narcissist who thought nothing of throwing his son away to fulfill his own ambitions and his mother also threw him away for the same reason. Talk about DNA, which Obama perfectly exhibited when, during his campaign, he unflinchingly dispensed with both his white grandmother and his black “mentor” Rev. Wright for his personal ambition.

GROOMING THE PERFECT MARXIST CANDIDATE

This leads me to only one conclusion, which I wrote about in a former article: “Obama: The Trojan Horse.” My theory is that President Obama’s narcissistic charm, even temperament, skill with words (teleprompter included), hunger to please, radical agenda, and subterranean rage at the “unfair” American system have been brilliantly exploited by powerful leftist radicals and Marxists in the United States, who for decades have plotted America’s path to socialism. He is their pawn, totally dispensable but handy while the “aura” lasts.

These “handlers” saw in Obama the ideal blank slate on which to actualize their agenda, and they made sure the slate remained blank by concealing (or destroying) any evidence of his past, including his birth certificate, Selective Service record, visa(s), school transcripts, and other vital documents. All of which is costing his moneyed backers – including America-loathing billionaire George Soros – multimillions in lawyers’ fees to fight the proliferating lawsuits that seek the truth about this stealth president.

In fact, former ambassador Alan Keyes, one of the many plaintiffs seeking proof of Obama’s American citizenship, has reported that Obama’s lawyers have now filed a motion “to quash our effort to obtain the relevant documents…[which] confirms Obama’s ruthless determination to destroy anyone who continues to seek the information the Constitution requires. Obama thus signals his intent to bring financial ruin on those who won’t accept his cover-up of the circumstances of his birth is a tactical escalation. It confirms the common sense suspicion that he won’t act forthrightly in this matter because he has something to hide.”

It is clear that Obama and his fellow radicals are restive. In the less-than four weeks of his presidency, the new president has taken volumes from the Marxian handbook, which dictates that the stupid masses be blitzed with an overload of information, hollow press conferences, appointments, dismantling of formerly effective national-security programs, et al., in order to set the stage for a massive, Soviet-style takeover of our government, including a civilian national security force that Obama has said should be “just as powerful, strong and well-funded as the U.S. military.” Echoes of Nazi Germany in 1938, anyone?

According to writer Kyle-Anne Shrive, in Obama’s ascendance:

“We have yet to see a more perfect collision of Murphy’s Law with the Peter Principle. In only three weeks’ time, [he] has signaled to every terrorist on the planet that we are a sorry, groveling, ashamed nation ready to come to the diplomatic confessional. He is closing Gitmo within one year, has suspended trials there, and dismissed the charges against the U.S.S. Cole plotter. [He] has just put our money where his mouth is and is using $20.3 million to bring in Palestinian refugees from Gaza…[he] had the gall to pronounce the so-called economic stimulus bill absolutely free of `earmarks’ and `make-do work’…but according to the Congressional Budget Office [this bill] will do worse to our overall economy than no government action whatsoever.”

And Obama has done all this with the predictable double-speak that characterizes malevolent intention, i.e., touting transparency while concealing everything, speaking of integrity while appointing crooks and incompetents riddled with conflicts-of-interest, supporting energy independence while killing off-shore and domestic oil-drilling and nuclear power, and feigning optimism while he speaks of impending “catastrophe” in order to push through a pork-laden, trillion-dollar-plus Stimulus plan that rewards the corrupt voter-fraud organization Acorn with billions and unions with discriminatory union-only labor agreements, paves the way for socialized medicine, and threatens to take away the most cherished rights of We The People.

As blogger Eric Gurr has said: “We still talk about the health care crisis, the environmental crisis, the oil crisis, the banking crisis. Let me tell you my friends you are about to learn the meaning of the only crisis that matters, the survival crisis.”

You can be sure that the sad-lonely-angry two-year-old, the jealous-confused-resentful 10-year-old, the self-conscious- cheated-victimized adolescent, and the man who found solace in and identified with his hate-America mentors is now determined to redeem all of his demons.

Unfortunately, he is acting out his rage on free-market capitalism, a free press, property and gun rights, a limited constitutional government, protection of the unborn, and everything else that is good and great about our country.

This is Obama’s revenge!

Peace through weakness?

by Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Fresh from reworking the domestic economic order via the "stimulus" bill in favor of vastly expanded U.S. government influence and power, President Barack Obama proposes a set of changes with respect to American security policies and programs that will have the opposite effect. If equally successful, he stands to transform the "world's only superpower" into a nuclear impotent, with possibly catastrophic consequences.

Such a transformation would be the more extraordinary for it coming against the backdrop of others' buildups of their nuclear arsenals. Every other declared nuclear weapon state is modernizing its stockpile and the most dangerous wannabees - North Korea and Iran - are building up their offensive missile capabilities and acquiring as quickly as possible the arms to go atop them.

The American people are largely clueless about this state of affairs. Doubtless, they would be horrified by the affront to common sense and hard experience entailed, especially under these circumstances, by the sort of U.S. disarmament Mr. Obama has underway.

In fairness, this president inherited what amounts to a 17-year-long unilateral U.S. nuclear freeze. Since 1992, there has been no underground nuclear testing in the United States and no modernization of the arsenal. We have allowed a steady decline in investment in the science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program that promised to assure the safety, effectiveness and reliability of our nuclear weapons in the absence of below-ground tests.

Meeting that rigorous standard has been made more all the more challenging by the concomitant exodus of the skilled workforce and the increasing obsolescence and unsustainability of the industrial complex it mans. Not surprisingly, the nuclear laboratory directors' certifications about the status of our weapons are increasingly qualified by warnings of uncertainties about how long the present situation can be sustained.

What is more, since the Cold War's end, the United States has reduced by roughly three-quarters the numbers of nuclear weapons it deployed at that time. Today, we have fewer than the 2,200 fielded nuclear arms we are permitted to have under the U.S.-Russian Treaty of Moscow signed by Presidents Bush and Putin in 2002.

Now, President Obama wants to cut that number down to roughly 500 deployed weapons. His Office of Management and Budget contemplates no modernization of these forces and no upgrading of the capability to produce or refurbish them. The Obama administration seeks the swift ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty - which was rejected by a majority of the Senate in 1997 and which would permanently preclude in the future tests that may be essential to the maintenance of our deterrent.

As part of a concerted effort at rapprochement with the Kremlin, Mr. Obama is not only signaling a willingness to scrap the missile defense deployment previously agreed upon by NATO and the basing countries, Poland and the Czech Republic. He not only is hinting at acquiescence to Russian domination of its "near-abroad" (including Georgia and Ukraine). His representatives indicate that they wants an arms control deal that effects these draconian cuts while extending and applying terms of the outdated START II Treaty.

Combining START counting rules and the proposed Obama force reductions would have the practical effect of attributing weapons to various platforms in a way that would effectively preclude the maintenance of the "Triad" of strategic forces that has served us so well, for so long. One and possibly two of the "legs" of this deterrent posture would have to be dismantled.

In addition, the Obama administration apparently believes that the remaining strategic weapons - presumably on submarines - would have to be taken off what it wrongly claims is "hair-trigger" alert status. As with bans on nuclear testing and at least some of the proposed Obama nuclear reductions initiatives, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to verify the compliance of secretive governments with such "de-alerting" arrangements. Only ours would be rendered incapable of prompt use should the need arise.

The cumulative effect of these actions would be to render the U.S. nuclear arsenal, to quote President Reagan, "impotent and obsolete." That was, of course, not something he ever contemplated having the United States do unilaterally. In fact, even though our 40th president is increasingly invoked by the anti-nuclear crowd (whose latest campaign is called "Global Zero" and seeks the hopelessly unrealistic goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons) because of his avowed antipathy towards such arms, arguably no one did more than he to build up America's deterrent. Indeed, were it not for the capabilities Mr. Reagan put in place in the 1980s as part of his refurbishing of our nuclear Triad, we might well have been substantially disarmed already.

The tragic irony is that the Obama administration's goal of global denuclearization is likely to be made more remote, not less, as America's deterrent becomes ever less certain. Our adversaries stand to benefit geostrategically from building up their nuclear arsenals as ours vanishes. Long-time allies will surely feel constrained to acquire their own nuclear forces if our "umbrella" ceases to assure them protection. In short, more proliferation, not less, is in prospect.

In these ways, Barack Obama risks standing the time-tested Reagan philosophy of "peace through strength" on its head in favor of a posture shown to be a formula for war - sometimes on a global, cataclysmic scale: the failed pursuit of peace through U.S. weakness.

Scary Court Cases Have Grave Implications for Freedom and Security

by Tom McLaughlin

Two recent court cases on two continents make me very nervous. That they’re even being tried is outrageous. That either may succeed is ominous, and few people know anything about either one.

First is the case of Roger Barnett, an Arizona rancher who has been under siege by illegal immigrants and drug dealers. In the Washington Times, Barnett claims illegals “tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home.” Now, 16 illegals are suing him in federal court for $32 million, accusing him of “conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch next to the US-Mexico border.” The 16 illegals claim Barnett caused them emotional distress by holding them at gunpoint and they want $2 million each. [A jury decided Tuesday that Barnett did not violate the illegals’ rights, but awarded six of them $78,000 in actual and punitive damages. Barnett’s lawyer said he will appeal. – ed.]

Chief among our federal government’s responsibilities is to protect American citizens from foreign invasion, but it’s done little or nothing to help Barnett. Rather than protecting him, our government instead enables foreign invaders to sue him. That’s how bad it’s gotten.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security acknowledges virtual anarchy on the border and warns that Mexico itself is on the verge of collapse. That would come as no surprise to Barnett, who must wonder about his own country as well if it cannot, or will not control its borders. The DHS report states: “[Mexico’s] government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and press by criminal gangs and drug cartels. . . . Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone.”

Drug cartel power depends on moving drugs across our border. We are their market. I’d say an American response is overdue already, wouldn’t you? USA Today reported in 2005 that: “First [New Mexico Governor] Richardson, then [Arizona Governor] Napolitano, declared a state of emergency this month in portions of their states along the border with Mexico.”

The second case is that of Geert Wilders in Holland: A Member of Parliament, Wilders has been charged with hurting Muslim immigrant feelings in Holland by “inciting racial hatred.” He made a film called Fitna, comparing the Koran to Hitler’s Mein Kampf. As Dr. Sami Alrabaa reports: “Wilders’ comparison of the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf and describing it as a fascist book is not inappropriate. Hitler referred to the Jews as ‘rats and vermin’ and the Koran and fascist Muslims call the Jews ‘the descendants of apes and pigs.’”

When radical Muslims incite racial hatred in Holland, it’s okay. When a member of Holland’s government points it out, it’s a crime.

Dr. Alrabaa also writes that “Muhammad Sayyid Al Tantawi, president of Al Azhar University [established 975 AD in Cairo] also approves of killing and maiming Christians, Jews, and other infidels. He added, ‘This is not my personal view. This is what the Shari’a Law says, the law of Allah, the only valid law on the earth.’”

There. I’ve pointed it out. I’m a criminal too.

Geert Wilders was invited by a member of the British House of Lords to show his film there. When he landed in London last Friday, he was promptly deported. The London Daily Telegraph reported: “Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary refused Mr. Wilders entry because his opinions ‘would threaten community security and therefore public security’ in the UK.”

So, when Muslim clerics in the UK preach hatred and violent jihad against the British government, it’s all right. But when Wilders expresses a negative opinion about that preaching, he’s the threat, not them.

This is what Europe, seat of Western civilization and democracy, has come to.

Back here, groups like MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund) use the U.S. Constitution to bring suit against Americans like Roger Barnett when he tries to defend his property. MALDEF doesn’t recognize the U.S. border. Similar radical Mexican groups like MEChA deny the legitimacy of state governments all across the southwestern United States, calling the area “Aztlan” and claiming themselves as indigenous people not subject to U.S. law. MEChA has chapters in most colleges across the American southwest. If you check out their web site here, you’ll see their symbol: an eagle gripping an Aztec war club in one talon and a stick of dynamite with its fuse lit in the other. Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and California Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante are former members.

MEChA receives funding from La Raza (“The Race”). Politicians across America go out of their way to pay homage to “The Race.” President Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain addressed the organization during the 2008 campaign, where both virtually promised amnesty for illegals. Two out of three Hispanics voted for Obama.

Barnett and Wilders are brave men defending Western civilization on the front lines. If they go down, watch out.

Accused Financier Under Federal Drug Investigation

Authorities: Stanford May Have Laundered Drug Money for Mexican Cartel

Could 'Fairness Doctrine' Be Used to Police the Internet?

A report in The American Spectator says Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., is looking into ways to exert more oversight on the Internet. His office denies the report.

In addition to clicking on the title above, click here for additional information.

Google Earth reveals secret history of US base in Pakistan

(Compiler's note: Must read. Obviously our technology is being shared with our enemies. Why ....?)

by Jeremy Page - TimesOnline

The Shamsi airbase in 2006 with three drones apparently visible

Image :1 of 2

The US was secretly flying unmanned drones from the Shamsi airbase in Pakistan's southwestern province of Baluchistan as early as 2006, according to an image of the base from Google Earth.

The image — that is no longer on the site but which was obtained by The News, Pakistan's English language daily newspaper — shows what appear to be three Predator drones outside a hangar at the end of the runway. The Times also obtained a copy of the image, whose co-ordinates confirm that it is the Shamsi airfield, also known as Bandari, about 200 miles southwest of the Pakistani city of Quetta.

An investigation by The Times yesterday revealed that the CIA was secretly using Shamsi to launch the Predator drones that observe and attack al-Qaeda and Taleban militants around Pakistan's border with Afghanistan.

US special forces used the airbase during the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, but the Pakistani Government said in 2006 that the Americans had left and both sides have since denied repeatedly that Washington was using Pakistani bases. Pakistan has also demanded that the US cease drone attacks on its tribal area, which have increased over the last year, allegedly killing several “high-value” targets as well as many civilians.

The Google Earth image now suggests that the US began launching Predators from Shamsi — built by Arab sheiks for falconry trips — at least three years ago.

The advantage of Shamsi is that it provides a discreet launchpad within minutes of Quetta — a known Taleban staging post — as well as Taleban infiltration routes into Afghanistan and potential militant targets farther afield.

Google Earth's current image of Shamsi — about 100 miles south of the Afghan border and 100 miles east of the Iranian one — undoubtedly shows the same airstrip as the image from 2006.

There are no visible drones, but it does show that several new buildings and other structures have been erected since 2006, including what appears to be a hangar large enough to fit three drones. Perimeter defences — apparently made from the same blast-proof barriers used at US and Nato bases in Afghanistan — have also been set up around the hangar.

A compound on the other side of the runway appears to have sufficient housing for several dozen people, as well as neatly tended lawns. Three military aviation experts shown the image said that the aircraft appeared to be MQ1 Predator unmanned aerial vehicles — the model used by the CIA to observe and strike militants on the Afghan border.

The MQ1 Predator carries two laser-guided Hellfire missiles, and can fly for up to 454 miles, at speed of up to 135mph, and at altitudes of up to 25,000ft, according to the US Air Force website www.af.mil

The News reported that the drones were Global Hawks — which are generally used only for reconnaissance, flying for up to 36 hours, at more than 400mph and an altitude of up to 60,000ft. Damian Kemp, an aviation editor with Jane's Defence Weekly, said that the three drones in the image appeared to have wingspans of 48-50ft.

“The wingspan of an MQ1 Predator A model is 55ft. On this basis it is possible that these are Predator-As,” he said. “They are certainly not RQ-4A Global Hawks (which have a wingspan of 116ft 2in).”

Pakistan's only drones are Italian Galileo Falcos, which were delivered in 2007, according to a report in last month's Jane's World Air Forces.

A military spokesman at the US Embassy in Islamabad declined to comment on the images — or the revelations in The Times yesterday.

Major-General Athar Abbas, Pakistan's chief military spokesman, was not immediately available for comment. He admitted on Tuesday that US forces were using Shamsi, but only for logistics.

He also said that the Americans were using another air base in the city of Jacobabad for logistics and military operations. Pakistan gave the US permission to use Shamsi, Jacobabad and two other bases — Pasni and Dalbadin — for the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001.

The image of the US drones at Shamsi highlights the extraordinary power — and potential security risks — of Google Earth.

Several governments have asked it to remove or blur images of sensitive locations such as military bases, nuclear reactors and government buildings. Some have also accused the company of helping terrorists, as in 2007, when its images of British military bases were found in the homes of Iraqi insurgents.

Last year India said that the militants who attacked Mumbai in November had used Google Earth to familiarise themselves with their targets. Google Street View, which offers ground-level, 360-degree views, also ran into controversy last year when the Pentagon asked it to remove some online images of military bases in America.

3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate—

(Compiler's note: This is a must read. The source of this news and these comments is from a friend:

The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April ('08) that only scientists and
oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since '95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota ; western South

Dakota ; and extreme eastern Montana ..... check THIS out:

The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3
trillion.

'When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.' says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.

'This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years.' reports, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' And it stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago.

However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves... and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!

That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 41 years straight.

2. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from TWO YEARS AGO! U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World! Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006

Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil
reserve in the world is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction.

They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:

- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia

- 18-times as much oil as Iraq

- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait

- 22-times as much oil as Iran

- 500-times as much oil as Yemen

- and it's all right here in the Western United States .

HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil!

James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.

Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find? Think again!

It's all about the competitive marketplace, - it has to.

Got your attention/ire up yet? Hope so! Now, while you're thinking about it .... and hopefully P.O'd, do this:

3. Pass this along. If you don't take a little time to do this, then you should stifle
yourself the next time you want to complain about gas prices .. because by doing NOTHING, you've forfeited your right to complain.
----------------------------------------------
Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this URL to every one in your address book. )



from U.S. Geological Survey Newsroom -- Released: 4/10/2008

Reston, VA - North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation.

A U.S. Geological Survey assessment, released April 10, 2008 shows a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered compared to the agency's 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil.

Technically recoverable oil resources are those producible using currently available technology and industry practices. USGS is the only provider of publicly available estimates of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources.

New geologic models applied to the Bakken Formation, advances in drilling and production technologies, and recent oil discoveries have resulted in these substantially larger technically recoverable oil volumes. About 105 million barrels of oil were produced from the Bakken Formation by the end of 2007.

The USGS Bakken study was undertaken as part of a nationwide project assessing domestic petroleum basins using standardized methodology and protocol as required by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000.

The Bakken Formation estimate is larger than all other current USGS oil assessments of the lower 48 states and is the largest "continuous" oil accumulation ever assessed by the USGS. A "continuous" oil accumulation means that the oil resource is dispersed throughout a geologic formation rather than existing as discrete, localized occurrences. The next largest "continuous" oil accumulation in the U.S. is in the Austin Chalk of Texas and Louisiana, with an undiscovered estimate of 1.0 billions of barrels of technically recoverable oil.

"It is clear that the Bakken formation contains a significant amount of oil - the question is how much of that oil is recoverable using today's technology?" said Senator Byron Dorgan, of North Dakota. "To get an answer to this important question, I requested that the U.S. Geological Survey complete this study, which will provide an up-to-date estimate on the amount of technically recoverable oil resources in the Bakken Shale formation."

The USGS estimate of 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil has a mean value of 3.65 billion barrels. Scientists conducted detailed studies in stratigraphy and structural geology and the modeling of petroleum geochemistry. They also combined their findings with historical exploration and production analyses to determine the undiscovered, technically recoverable oil estimates.

USGS worked with the North Dakota Geological Survey, a number of petroleum industry companies and independents, universities and other experts to develop a geological understanding of the Bakken Formation. These groups provided critical information and feedback on geological and engineering concepts important to building the geologic and production models used in the assessment.

Five continuous assessment units (AU) were identified and assessed in the Bakken Formation of North Dakota and Montana - the Elm Coulee-Billings Nose AU, the Central Basin-Poplar Dome AU, the Nesson-Little Knife Structural AU, the Eastern Expulsion Threshold AU, and the Northwest Expulsion Threshold AU.

At the time of the assessment, a limited number of wells have produced oil from three of the assessments units in Central Basin-Poplar Dome, Eastern Expulsion Threshold, and Northwest Expulsion Threshold. The Elm Coulee oil field in Montana, discovered in 2000, has produced about 65 million barrels of the 105 million barrels of oil recovered from the Bakken Formation.

Results of the assessment can be found at http://energy.usgs.gov.

For a podcast interview with scientists about the Bakken Formation, listen to episode 38 of CoreCast at http://www.usgs.gov/corecast/.

Obama Secretly Backed "Shariah Law For Peace" Deal With Taliban

by Gateway Pundit

The Telegraph, via ROP, is reporting the Team O actually backed the "sharia law for peace" deal announced in Pakistan this week.

American officials have privately backed Pakistan's "Sharia law for peace" deal with Taliban militants in the Swat Valley despite publicly criticising it as a "negative development".

The deal, under which Sharia law will be introduced in the Malakhand and Kohistan districts of Pakistan's North West Frontier Province if Taliban militants end their armed campaign in the Swat Valley, has been met with alarm by Nato chiefs and British and American officials.

Nato fears the deal would create a new "safe haven" for extremists, said a spokesman on Tuesday night, while a statement from Britain's High Commission in Islamabad said: "Previous peace deals have not provided a comprehensive and long-term solution to Swat's problems. We need to be confident that they will end violence, not create space for further violence."

President Barack Obama's special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan voiced the greatest concern about the strength of Taliban militants in Swat as he ended his first visit to the region since taking up his post.

"I talked to people from Swat and they were, frankly, quite terrified. Swat has really deeply affected the people of Pakistan, not just in Peshawar but in Lahore and Islamabad," he said, while a Defence Department official described the deal as a "negative development".

On Tuesday night however, US officials in Islamabad privately backed the deal as an attempt to drive a wedge between Swat's Taliban, which is focused on its demand for Sharia law, and the al-Qaeda-linked Taliban led by Baitullah Mehsud, the notorious commander who controls much of North and South Waziristan and other tribal areas along the Afghan border.

While they expressed fears that the deal might yet be sabotaged by some Swat Taliban militants who support al-Qaeda, they said that if successful, the deal would break up the alliance between the two groups, which has caused alarm throughout Pakistan and in Washington.

Of the two Taliban groups, Mehsud's is the most feared – he has been accused of masterminding the assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto and trained Osama bin Laden's son as one of his commanders – but it is the alliance with Swat Taliban leader Maulana Fazlullah which alarmed Pakistanis in the country's main metropolitan centres.

Fazlullah, who is known as "Maulana Radio" for the illegal FM stations he uses to broadcast his latest fatwas and justify recent Taliban murders, is the son-in-law of Maulana Sufi Muhammad, the leader of Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi (TNSM), who once led thousands of militants to fight US forces in Afghanistan. Mr Muhammad has negotiated the Sharia law deal with local government officials and was on Tuesday night meeting Maulana Fazlullah to finalise their ceasefire.

Some senior Pakistan People's Party leaders have privately condemned the deal as "surrender", but government sources last night said it needed to bring peace to the valley, so that girls could return to school and business return to normal.

So how well is this sharia for peace deal working in Pakistan?

Under Obama's watch Pakistan took steps for Sharia Law in 7 states this week.
It's not enough...

The chief of the outlawed outfit Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi(TNSM) Maulana Sufi Muhammad left for Swat to hold talks with Taliban in February 2008 after the Pakistani government released him from prison. He was able to convince the government to set up sharia law in the region this week.

But, the Islamists are already saying they want to spread their shariah law to the whole world.

Is this what Team Obama calls a success?

Ruling stops transfer of 17 from Gitmo to U.S.

WASHINGTON - A U.S. appeals court reversed a ruling Wednesday that would have transferred 17 Guantanamo Bay detainees, none of whom are labeled enemy combatants, to the United States. ....

Tax troubles for president's chief of staff

There could be tax troubles on the horizon for White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who reportedly has lived rent-free in Washington for five years but hasn't paid taxes on the imputed income from that, according to reports. ....

Obama approves aerospace system for Syria

... Government sources said Obama directed the Commerce Department to approve the export of U.S. components for Syria's fleet of Boeing

747 aircraft. The sources said a Saudi defense company would supply and install the components in the aging Syrian dual-use aircraft.

The Commerce Department has not confirmed the approval. Boeing, however, acknowledged that Commerce approved an export license for Syria on Feb. 2. ....

Cold, Premeditated, Ritual Murder. The Honor Killing of Aasiya Z. Hassan. Part Two

Was Aasiya Z. Hassan the victim of an honor murder or was this simply a form of domestic violence? Did her husband kill her in an act of spontaneous passion or was her death carefully premeditated?

Yesterday, I published my study: “Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence?” in Middle East Quarterly. To the best of my knowledge, it is the first such study of its kind. You may read it in full HERE. It will be out in hardcopy at the beginning of March. ....

Is Iran seeking the capacity to destroy western civilization?

(Compiler's note: An absolutely must read item.)

by Israel Matzav

Caroline Glick's column in today's JPost deals mostly with the ballistic missile threat to Israel from Syria, Iran and Hezbullah. I recommend that you read the whole thing. I could have made at least two more posts out of it (on on Hezbullah's capacity and one on Iron Dome), but I'd like to focus a different item that she discusses, because it doesn't only threaten Israel. It threatens civilization as we know it.

AFTER YEARS OF denial, today even US intelligence agencies acknowledge that Iran's ballistic missile program is part and parcel of its nuclear program. While most Israeli observers have devoted their energies to assessing the destructive capacity of a direct nuclear attack against the tiny country, and to the various delivery mechanisms - from the Shihab-3 missiles to Syrian Scuds to Hizbullah or Hamas death squads - that Iran could field against it in the event of a nuclear attack, the fact of the matter is that Iran has an indirect option for using nuclear weapons to attack Israel that would likely be more destructive than a direct nuclear attack. And it is an option that Iran can wield not only against Israel, but against every country in the world.

An electromagnetic pulse or EMP attack is an indirect nuclear attack. It has the capacity to destroy a target country's electricity grids and so revert a post-industrial, technology-based country such as Israel or the US to a pre-industrial condition [There is video below that explains this. It's apparently not as far-fetched as it sounds. CiJ]. If an aggressor launches a nuclear device of whatever size and detonates it above the atmosphere and in the line of site of its target country, the x-rays and gamma rays emitted by the blast will cause an electromagnetic pulse, or wave a million times stronger than the strongest radio wave. That wave, which comes in three successive stages, will destroy a country's electrical grids and through them, its ability to function.

In 2000, concern about the EMP threat in the US caused Congress to mandate the formation of a commission comprised of the leading US experts on the issue to study it. The EMP Threat Commission's 2004 report warned that the effect an EMP attack would have on the US's national infrastructures "could be sufficient to qualify as catastrophic to the nation."

As Frank Gaffney, President of the Washington-based Center for Security Policy, explained in his 2006 book War Footing, by destroying a country's electrical power systems, an EMP will destroy its economy since it will wipe out its banking system. All vehicles that operate with electronic systems - that is all vehicles made since the mid-1970s - would be rendered inoperable. Telecommunications would end. A country's ability to store food through refrigeration would end. Its ability to transport water and pump gasoline would also end.

Since almost no one would be killed in the immediate aftermath of an EMP attack, a threat of retaliation against the aggressor country would lack credibility because such an option would be politically unpalatable. But while an EMP attack would not kill many people directly, it would kill millions of people indirectly. As Gaffney notes, by wiping out a country's ability to support itself, an EMP attack would cause mass starvation and disease.

The threat of an EMP attack was not taken seriously by US military planners during the Cold War because they were concerned with the primary Soviet threat to annihilate the US and its allies by launching several thousand nuclear warheads against them. But as nuclear and missile technology has proliferated in the post-Cold War period, and more technologically primitive countries get their hands on missiles and limited nuclear capabilities, the threat of an EMP attack has become far more acute.

In Iran's case, the mullahs have signaled clearly through both word and deed that they find the option of attacking their enemies with an EMP attack attractive. An article published in Iran's security journal Nashriyeh-e Siasi Nezami in 1999 identified an EMP attack as a way to defeat the US as a military power and as a state. Then too, as William Graham, who headed the US's EMP commission explained in an interview with World Net Daily last year, Iran is openly building the capacity to carry out such an attack. Last year, Iran described a ship-launched test of its Shihab-3 missile in the Caspian Sea as "successful" in spite of the fact that like an EMP, the missile detonated in mid-launch. [This test is described further below. CiJ].

More disturbingly, Iran's successful satellite launch earlier this month makes clear that the mullahs now have the technological capacity to effectively wipe out Western civilization. Three to five nuclear bombs of any size, launched into space on satellites and detonated above the US, Europe and Asia would send Western civilization back to the 19th century. Last week Iran announced it is building seven more satellites. Yet rather than recognize that once its nuclear arsenal is online Iran will represents a threat to all nations, the West ignored the significance of the satellite launch.

The US's EMP commission's report explained that to defend against such an attack, it is necessary to build redundant electrical systems and have difficult-to-build replacement parts like turbines on hand to replace ones destroyed by such an attack. Since the report was published, the US has made some modest progress in that direction.

Caroline goes on to point out that Israel has not made any progress on the issue, but that's not what I want to discuss. I want to show you that the EMP threat is credible and that Iran is apparently pursuing it. And it won't just threaten Big Satan and Little Satan. Islam is stuck in the 8th century. It can catch up - or it can pull the rest of the world back to its level.

In a Washington Times article in 2006, Frank Gaffney described Iran's interest in pursuing an EMP threat.

In fact, there is reason to believe the Iranian regime is working toward a capability that could destroy America as we know it. A blue-ribbon commission's report to the Congress last year (http://empcreport.ida.org/) found a single nuclear weapon detonated in space high above the United States could unleash an immensely powerful electromagnetic pulse (EMP). An EMP wave a million times stronger than the most powerful radio transmitter would damage or destroy the electrical grid and unshielded electronic devices upon which our society utterly depends. The effect (visualized in a short video available at www.WarFooting.com [this link no longer works, but I have video below. CiJ) could be "catastrophic" -- possibly reducing America from a 21st century superpower to a pre-industrial society in the blink of an eye.

Iranian missile tests -- including firing a Scud missile off a ship and flying the new Shahab 3 missile in a profile apparently designed to deliver a weapon into space -- suggest the mullahs seek an EMP capability. The sort of death and destruction such an attack might precipitate seem consistent with the apocalyptic vision of Shi'ite extremists, who believe such conditions the prerequisite for a messianic age ushered in by the arrival of the "12th imam."

Here are a short video and a slightly longer one that explain the EMP threat. Let's go to the videotape.



Here's the second video. Note that this video was made in 2007, so the maker was obviously wrong about there being a nuclear war that year. I'm not an expert on the science, but it certainly sounds plausible to me. Let's go to the videotape.



If you think it far-fetched to say that Iran is after such a bomb, please consider this post from Pastorius.

In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and in remarks to a private conference on missile defense over the weekend hosted by the Claremont Institute, Dr. William Graham warned that the U.S. intelligence community “doesn’t have a story” to explain the recent Iranian tests.

One group of tests that troubled Graham, the former White House science adviser under President Ronald Reagan, were successful efforts to launch a Scud missile from a platform in the Caspian Sea.

“They’ve got [test] ranges in Iran which are more than long enough to handle Scud launches and even Shahab-3 launches,” Dr. Graham said. “Why would they be launching from the surface of the Caspian Sea? They obviously have not explained that to us.”

Another troubling group of tests involved Shahab-3 launches where the Iranians "detonated the warhead near apogee, not over the target area where the thing would eventually land, but at altitude,” Graham said. “Why would they do that?”

Graham chairs the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, a blue-ribbon panel established by Congress in 2001.

The commission examined the Iranian tests “and without too much effort connected the dots,” even though the U.S. intelligence community previously had failed to do so, Graham said.

“The only plausible explanation we can find is that the Iranians are figuring out how to launch a missile from a ship and get it up to altitude and then detonate it,” he said. “And that’s exactly what you would do if you had a nuclear weapon on a Scud or a Shahab-3 or other missile, and you wanted to explode it over the United States.”

Does Iran want to destroy western civilization? Probably. Is it seeking the means to do so? Judge for yourself. An awful lot of credible people apparently think so.

This is a far greater crisis than 'global warming.' And unfortunately, it's not one that the Hopenchange administration in Washington is going to be eager to face.

Former FBI special agent: Every major Muslim organization in the U.S. is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood

by Jihad Watch

Man of courage

A former FBI special agent sounds the alarm about the stealth jihad. The Muslim Brotherhood is dedicated in its own words to "a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

"Islamic subversion alleged by speaker," by Brian Mosely for the Shelbyville Times-Gazette, February 17 (thanks to Weasel Zippers):

A former FBI special agent told law enforcement and Homeland Security personnel that a network of Islamic organizations are working to incrementally implement Islamic law in the United States.

During a presentation at the Bedford County Emergency Management Agency, former FBI agent John Guandolo briefed members about groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, which he claims is working with other Islamic groups to slowly implement Shariah, also known as Islamic law, which encompasses all areas of life.

Guandolo worked in the FBI since 1996, including nine years as a member of its SWAT team. After 9/11, he worked in the Bureau's Washington Field Office's Counterterrorism Division, developing expertise concerning Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood organizations and the Islamic movement in the U.S.

He now works with Stephen Coughlin, former Islamic Expert for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to advise leaders at the federal level and also brief local law enforcement about the Islamic threat at home.

Coughlin was fired from his position with the Joint Chiefs following a report revealing opposition to his work by officials within the office of Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, according to a Washington Times report dated Jan. 4, 2008.

Coughlin had run afoul of a key aide to England, Hasham Islam, who accused him of being a Christian zealot or extremist "with a pen," according to defense officials, the report states.

Muslim Brotherhood

Every major Muslim organization is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, the former FBI agent said, which he said was formed to overthrow America and establish Islamic law.

"They're having great success of implementing Shariah law, I could give you a thousand examples," Guandolo said.

He said small concessions like installing foot baths, and colleges forced to have separate swimming times for Islamic men and women so not to offend Muslims, are other parts of the strategy.

But Guandolo said that federal leadership is reluctant to act against these Islamic organizations due to political correctness and the threats of lawsuits.

He said that Muslim groups will demand concessions on matters by saying, "You have to do this; you have to do this or I will be offended."

"The solution to this is you," Guandolo said. "If you are looking to DHS, the FBI and Congress to solve this ... you're going to be woefully disappointed."

Indeed. Read it all.

Putin Warns American Democrats Against Socialism (Video)

by Gateway Pundit

"We must not revert to isolationism and unrestrained economic egotism... Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence is another possible mistake. True, the state's increased role in times of crisis is a natural reaction to market setbacks. Instead of streamlining market mechanisms, some are tempted to expand state economic intervention to the greatest possible extent... In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated."

Russian Prime Minister Vladamir Putin
Opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland
January 28, 2009

This is really pathetic.
Even Russian President Vlad Putin is warning the US against socialism:


You know things are out of control when Communist China is lecturing democrats on protectionism and now the former head of the KGB is lecturing US democrats against socialism.
The Right Perspective and Pat Dollard reported:

Russian Prime Minister Vladamir Putin has said the US should take a lesson from the pages of Russian history and not exercise “excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence”.

“In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute,” Putin said during a speech at the opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.”

Sounding more like Barry Goldwater than the former head of the KGB, Putin said, “Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors, and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state.”

Putin also cautioned the US against using military Keynesianism to lift its economy out of recession, saying, “in the longer run, militarization won’t solve the problem but will rather quell it temporarily. What it will do is squeeze huge financial and other resources from the economy instead of finding better and wiser uses for them.” Putin’s comments come in sharp contrast to Russia’s own military buildup and expansion.

Unfortunately, the Democrats did not listen.

KYC COMPLIANCE OVERVIEW

from World-Check

Know Your Customer (KYC) compliance regulation has proved to be one of the biggest operational challenges banks, accountants, lawyers and similar financial service providers worldwide have had to overcome.

World-Check, the industry standard KYC compliance solution, provides an overview of KYC compliance and its origins, and outlines the compliance mandate as applicable to banks, accounting firms, lawyers and other regulated financial service providers – not just in the UK, Europe and the USA, but all around the world. Relied upon by more than 3,000 institutions worldwide, this KYC database solution provides effective legal and reputational risk reduction.

Why “Know Your Customer?”

The 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre revealed that there were sinister forces at work around the world, and that terrorists activities were being funded with laundered money, the proceeds of illicit activities such as narcotics and human trafficking, fraud and organised crime. Overnight, the combating of terrorist financing became a priority on the international agenda.

For the financial services provider of the 21st century, “knowing your customers” was no longer a suggested course of action. Based on the requirements of legislative landmarks such as the USA PATRIOT Act 2002, modern Know Your Customer (KYC) compliance mandates were created to simultaneously combat money laundering and the funding of terrorist activities.

What is Know Your Customer (KYC)?

Know Your Customer, or KYC, refers to the regulatory compliance mandate imposed on financial service providers to implement a Customer Identification Programme and perform due diligence checks before doing business with a person or entity.

KYC fulfils a risk mitigation function, and one its key requirements is checking that a prospective customer is not listed on any government lists for wanted money launders, known fraudsters or terrorists.

If preliminary KYC checks reveal that the person is a Politically Exposed Person (PEP), for example, Advanced Due Diligence must be done in order to ensure that the person’s source of wealth is transparent, and that he or she does not pose a reputational or financial risk in terms of their finances, public positions or associations. Beyond customer identification checks, the ongoing monitoring of transfers and financial transactions against a range of risk variables forms an integral part of the KYC compliance mandate.

But to understand the importance of KYC compliance for financial service providers better, its origins need to be examined.

Origins of Know Your Customer (KYC) compliance

The arrival of the new millennium was marred by a spate of terrorist attacks and corporate scandals that unmasked the darker features of globalisation. These events highlighted the role of money laundering in cross-border crime and terrorism, and underlined the need to clamp down on the exploitation of financial systems worldwide.

Know Your Customer (KYC) legislation was principally not absent prior to 9/11. Regulated financial service providers for a long time have been required to conduct due diligence and customer identification checks in order to mitigate their own operation risks, and to ensure a consistent and acceptable level of service.

In essence, the USA PATRIOT Act was not so much a radical departure from prior legislation as it was a firmer and more extensive articulation of existing laws. The Act would lead to the more rigorous regulation of a greater range of financial services providers, and expanded the authority of American law enforcement agencies in the fighting of terrorism, both in the USA and abroad.

In October 2001, President George W. Bush signed off the USA PATRIOT Act, effectively providing federal regulators with a new range of tools and powers for fighting terror financing and money laundering. During July 2002, the US Treasury proceeded to introduce Section 326 of the PATRIOT Act, a clause that removed some key burdens for regulators and added significant enforcement muscle to the Act.

What 9/11 changed, in essence, was the extent to which existing legislation was being implemented. Using the provisions of the earlier anti-terrorism USA Act as a foundation, it included the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act, which allowed for federal jurisdiction over foreign money launders and money laundered through foreign banks. Significantly, it is this anti-terror law that would make the creation of an Anti Money Laundering (AML) programme compulsory for all financial institutions and service providers.

Section 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act dealt specifically with the identification of new customers (“CIP regulation”), and made extensive provisions in terms of KYC and the methods employed to verify client identities.

In accordance with this piece of updated KYC legislation, federal regulators would hold financial institutions accountable for the effectiveness of their initial customer identification and ongoing KYC screening. Institutions are required to keep detailed records of the steps that were taken to verify prospective clients’ identities.

Although current KYC legislation does not yet demand the exclusion of specific types of foreign-issued identification, it recommends the usage of machine-verifiable identity documents. The ability to notify financial institutions if concerns regarding specific types of identification were to arise, combined with a risk-based approach to KYC, proved to provide a robust mechanism for addressing security concerns.

Effectively, the risk-based approach to customer due diligence grants regulated institutions a certain degree of flexibility to determine the forms of identification they will accept, and under which conditions.

KYC compliance: Implications for banks, lawyers and accounting firms

The KYC compliance mandate, for all its positive outcomes, has burdened companies and organisations with a substantial administrative obligation. Additionally, KYC compliance increasingly entails the creation of auditable proof of due diligence activities, in addition to the need for customer identification.

In order to meet KYC compliance requirements, financial institutions must:

• Verify that customers are not or have not been involved in illegal activities such as fraud, money laundering or organised crime
• Verify a prospective client’s identity
• Maintain proof of the steps taken to identify their identity
• Establish whether a prospective customer is listed on any sanctions lists in connection with suspected terrorist activities, money laundering, fraud or other crimes.

World-Check: A one-stop risk intelligence solution for KYC compliance

World-Check, as the world’s leading provider of highly structured risk intelligence, offers financial services providers a comprehensive solution for meeting their KYC compliance requirements.

Featuring a downloadable Data-File for the automated batch screening of entire client bases, and Online Service, the web-based equivalent that allows for the individual screening of persons or entities from any PC or laptop worldwide, it is the KYC and AML intelligence solution of choice for more than 2,500 institutions worldwide. Boasting 47 of the world’s 50 largest banks as clients, with an annual client renewal rate of more than 97% for the last 7 years, the facts speak for themselves.

World-Check allows for the creation of electronically verifiable proof of due diligence, and also enables institutions to check machine-readable passports for authenticity using Passport-Check.

UNDERSTANDING MONEY LAUNDERING

from World-Check

Defining money laundering and identifying the full scope of money laundering practices is the critical first step in creating an effective anti money laundering framework within a financial organisation.

As the leading global provider of risk intelligence solutions for Anti Money Laundering (AML) compliance purposes, World-Check supplies 47 of the 50 largest banks in the world with a highly structured database of heightened-risk entities and individuals. Collated from hundreds of thousands of credible data sources in the public domain, the database coverage includes a range of risk categories from money laundering and fraud to terrorism and corruption.

Read on for an overview of money laundering and the processes involved in the laundering of illicit funds, or find out more about how the World-Check AML intelligence solution can help your organisation meet its regulatory obligations.

What Is Money Laundering?

Essentially, money laundering refers to all actions and procedures intended to change the identity of money made from criminal activities in order to create the impression that the money has a legitimate source.

Money laundering, loosely defined, is the transactional processing or moving of illicitly gained funds (such as currency, cheques, electronic transfers or similar equivalents) towards disguising its source, nature, ownership or intended destination and/or beneficiaries. The desired outcome of this process is “clean” money that can be legally accessed or distributed via legitimate financial channels and credible institutions.

Money laundering scams abound, yet they all have a single goal in common: to create the illusion that illicitly generated funds have a legal source. As such, the challenge for Anti Money Laundering (AML) legislation is to cover loopholes as quickly and effectively as possible.

What drives money laundering?

Money laundering, as a rule of thumb, is driven by a criminal imperative aimed at generating profits in an illegal fashion. Such proceeds of organised crime, fraud or embezzlement exists “outside” a country’s legitimate financial system.

The money laundering process aims to camouflage such funds or financial assets by passing it through multiple accounts and shell companies (an illicit process referred to as “money laundering”) towards either totally obscuring the original source, or towards associating the funds or assets with a source that looks legal. If the laundering process is successful, the launderer gains access easily accessible funds that looks legitimate, and can be moved around with ease.

Why exactly is money laundering a problem?

The socio-economic effects of money laundering are crippling: Illicit funds generated from criminal activities such as gun running, drug and human trafficking and other forms of organised crime is laundered into clean currency, and in turn used to fund new criminal operations or expand existing ones. This translates into more drug trafficking and dealing, more illegal firearms, more violent crimes, and – most disconcertingly – more international terrorism.

Left unchecked, money laundering can undermine the integrity of entire financial systems, and embroil individual financial institutions in share-crippling financial scandals.

Moreover, the amounts of money generated from criminal activities and laundered throughout the world amount several billions of dollars – up to as much as 5% of the global GDP. This gives the beneficiaries of money laundering a lot of muscle, and certainly enough means to threaten political stability worldwide.

In essence, regulatory compliance seeks to curb this criminal proliferation by holding financial systems providers and banking institutions accountable for the financial activities of the clients they deal with. Money laundering poses a very real threat to the reputation and financial well-being of banks, law firms, accountants and asset management houses around the world, as these institutions are often unwitting accomplices in the laundering of dirty money.

Anti Money Laundering (AML) compliance post-9/11

Since the 9/11 attacks in the United States, AML and Anti Financing of Terrorism (ATF) compliance requirements for banks, law firms, accounting firms, asset management houses and similar financial service providers have been expanded significantly. The USA Patriot Act, BASEL II Act and Wolfberg principles, for example, serve as a framework for standardising Anti Money Laundering (AML) compliance and Know Your Customer (KYC) due diligence mandates.

Find out more about Anti Money Laundering (AML) laws and their implications for regulated service providers.

Entities such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), Wolfsberg Group and Basel Committee are key drivers of the regulatory policy-making process, and are closely involved in the standardisation and enforcement of related compliance mandates.

How does money laundering work?

There exists a plethora of ways in which illicit funds can be laundered, yet the following example provides a good basic illustration of the thinking underlying the process:

A drug dealer may own a restaurant or bar, or be in cahoots with a partner that does. Proceeds from their drug dealing then gets paid into this reputable business, along with other regular trading income.

The launderers then open up additional service businesses or supply companies to serve the business or enterprise where money is initially placed. These service entities then issue invoices, which the restaurant settles by means of cheque payments. By increasing the amount of businesses interacting by means of such transactions, and by moving the money around internationally, the criminal origins of the money is effectively obscured, if not fully concealed. The successful laundering enriches the directors and/or the shadowy interests they represent.

Forensic auditors would need to spend months – if not years – retracing each step, hence such investigations are generally not undertaken unless the amount of money being laundered is substantial, or the nature of the crimes being funded is heinous.

The beneficiaries of such money laundering scams and syndicates are often high net-worth individuals and entities, and in turn they become highly sought after as private banking clients. They then tend to gain access to legitimate investment opportunities and privileged high-end investment funds, making apprehending them even harder.

To this end, Anti Money Laundering (AML) legislation and the regulatory bodies enforcing compliance endeavour to close money laundering loopholes on an ongoing basis. This is achieved by expanding the existing money laundering definition and AML compliance requirements, and by holding banks, law firms, asset managers and accounting houses accountable for their compliance performance.

For banks, AML compliance is by no means a new challenge, yet recent world events have prompted the critical reassessment and expansion of existing compliance regulations. The number of industries being regulated in terms of AML compliance, KYC regulation and AFT compliance has also increased substantially.

The 3 stages of money laundering

Essentially, there are three primary (though often overlapping) stages in the money laundering “spin cycle”:

• The placement stage
• The layering stage
• The integration stage

Money Laundering: The Placement Stage

During the placement stage, the hard currency generated by the sale of drugs illegal firearms, prostitution or human trafficking, etc. needs to be disposed of, and is deposited in an institution or business. Expensive property or assets may also be bought.

Money Laundering: The Layering Stage

During the layering stage, money launderers endeavour to separate illegally obtained assets or funds from their original source. This is achieve by creating layer upon layer of transactions, by moving the illicit funds between accounts, between businesses, and by buying and selling assets on a local and international basis until the original source of the money is virtually untraceable.

The more transactional layers are created, the more difficult it becomes for an auditor to trace the original source of illicit funds, and thus anonymity is achieved.

Money Laundering: The Integration Stage

Upon successful completion of the financial layering process, illicit funds are reintroduced into the financial system, as payment for services rendered, for example. By this stage, illegally obtained funds closely resemble legally generated wealth.

Depending on the money laundering mechanisms available to the launder, these three steps may overlap. Whether the money laundering process starts with a deposit or a purchase, the methods will invariable entail layers of shape-shifting transaction aimed at distancing the funds or assets from their source origins. The further this transactional distance becomes, the “cleaner” the laundered money appears.

World-Check, the global leader in risk intelligence, offers financial service providers a comprehensive risk intelligence solution aimed at meeting Anti Money Laundering (AML) compliance and Know Your Customer (KYC) regulatory requirements.