Pak’s really hate missile strikes!

Rock’n the Casbah…

Pakistan tells Petraeus to stop missile strikes

(Because it worx!)

Muzi.com

ISLAMABAD - The U.S. commander running the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, held talks on Monday with Pakistani leaders who told him to stop U.S. strikes on militants in Pakistani territory.

US missile strike kills 3 in Pakistan

MIRAN SHAH, Pakistan – Pakistani intelligence officials say a suspected U.S. missile strike has killed three people in a militant stronghold near the Afghan border.

More

Whole lotta roasted Muzz!

* But as long as they’re doing it to themselves…?!

(AKI) - A powerful blast in Peshawar, in northwest Pakistan has killed least 20 people and injured over 80!

LAHORE: Pakistani officials are urging the incoming Obama administration to stop air attacks on Pakistani territory and are even hinting that they might shoot down US drones in its airspace, according to a report published in the Washington Times (WT).

Petraeus arrived in Pakistan on Sunday, at the beginning of his first foreign tour since taking charge of U.S. Central Command, highlighting U.S. concern about a country seen as crucial to stability in Afghanistan and to defeating al Qaeda.

U.S. analysts say Pakistan is facing a major threat from Islamist militants at a time when the nuclear-armed nation and its new civilian government are engulfed in extraordinarily difficult economic problems.

Petraeus has been hailed as an outstanding military leader for helping pull Iraq back from the brink of civil war with a strategy that brought a “surge” of 30,000 extra U.S. troops.

Both U.S. presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, have said they would put more focus on defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan and eradicating al Qaeda from Pakistan’s borderlands.

Both candidates have said they would boost U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan from the 33,000 there now.

Petraeus was being accompanied in Pakistan by Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Richard Boucher.

Their visit comes as relations between the United States and Pakistan have been strained by a series of cross-border U.S. strikes, most by missile-firing pilotless drone aircraft, on militant targets in Pakistan.

President Asif Ali Zardari told Petraeus the attacks should stop, Pakistan’s state news agency reported.

“Continuing drone attacks on our territory, which result in loss of precious lives and property, are counter-productive and difficult to explain by a democratically elected government,” Zardari was quoted as saying.

“It is creating a credibility gap,” he said.

“MORE ACTION”

The most pressing problems for Petraeus include rising violence in Afghanistan and Taliban and al Qaeda sanctuaries across the border in Pakistan’s ethnic Pashtun tribal lands.

The United States and NATO are losing ground against an escalating Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan, despite the presence of 64,000 Western troops, while al Qaeda has regained strength in Pakistan’s tribal region.

Apparently, frustration over deteriorating Afghan security has led to more aggressive U.S. action against the sanctuaries in Pakistan with about 15 missile strikes and one ground assault since the beginning of last month.

Pakistan says the strikes are a violation of its sovereignty and undermine efforts to isolate the militants and rally public opinion behind the unpopular campaign against militancy, which many people see as America’s war.

The United States has shrugged off Pakistan’s complaints saying the attacks are needed to protect U.S. troops in Afghanistan and kill militants who threaten them.

About 20 people, including militants, were killed in the latest U.S. missile strikes on two violence-plagued border regions, North and South Waziristan, on Friday.

Despite the anger over the cross-border strikes, analysts say Zardari is a staunch U.S. ally who wants good ties.

Earlier, Defence Minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar said Petraeus had been appreciative of Pakistan’s efforts in battling militants along the Afghan border.

“They believe in our government because previously there was more rhetoric than action but now there is more action than rhetoric,” Mukhtar told Reuters.

“They appreciate that we take it as war against Pakistan. It’s our war … we are fighting for our survival.”

Those Who Forget The Past Are Destined To Repeat It

(Compiler's note: This is a must read article. Also do a search here for "federal reserve bank". One can only conclude that here they go again.)

from Salisbury News

Thomas Jefferson (Letter to James Monroe, January 1, 1815)

“If the American People ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied. The issuing power of money should be taken from the bankers and restored to Congress and the people to whom it belongs. I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies.

We are completely saddled and bridled, and the bank is so firmly mounted on us that we must go where they ill guide.

The dominion which the banking institutions have obtained over the minds of our citizens...must be broken, or it will break us.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bankers Manifesto of 1892

We (the bankers) must proceed with caution and guard every move made, for the lower order of people are already showing signs of restless commotion. Prudence will therefore show a policy of apparently yielding to the popular will until our plans are so far consummated that we can declare our designs without fear of any organized resistance.

Organizations in the United States should be carefully watched by our trusted men, and we must take immediate steps to control these organizations in our interest or disrupt them.

At the coming Omaha convention to be held July 4, 1892, our men must attend and direct its movement or else there will be set on foot such antagonism to our designs as may require force to overcome.

This at the present time would be premature. We are not yet ready for such a crisis. Capital must protect itself in every possible manner through combination (conspiracy) and legislation.

The courts must be called to our aid, debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible.

When, through the process of law, the common people have lost their homes,
they will be more tractable and easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of the government applied to a central power of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers.

People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known among our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a state of political antagonism.

The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party.

By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to the common herd. Thus, by discrete actions, we can secure all that has been so generously planned and successfully accomplished.

AIG Defies U.S. Taxpayers by Promoting Sharia in America

by Jeffrey Imm
For a company struggling with its financial survival, it remains astounding that AIG would want to incite its American taxpayer owners by promoting products that are based on an Islamic supremacist political ideology. In October 2008, I wrote how the U.S. government gave an $85 billion loan to AIG, without demanding divestment of its business ventures reselling Sharia mutual trusts and its AIG Takaful division selling Sharia-based insurance. In November 2008, I wrote about how the U.S. government purchased $40 billion in AIG stock, making you as a taxpayer, an owner of a company promoting Sharia through such businesses.

For two months, I have warned that AIG's Takaful division was planning to expand to offer such AIG-specific Sharia products here in the United States. Now AIG has announced that it has Sharia-based insurance products for the United States, and AIG is promoting them.

On December 1, 2008, AIG announced that it was "introducing a Takaful Homeowners Policy, the first installment in Lexington Takaful Solutions, a series of Shari'ah-compliant (Takaful) product offerings in the U.S. The newly announced Takaful products are compliant with key Islamic finance tenets and based on the concept of mutual insurance." Note that AIG indicates that such Sharia insurance products are the "first installment" in a series of Sharia products. In the AIG press release, AIG Takaful's Abdallah Kubursi expresses his pride in AIG's ability to promote Sharia within the United States, stating "This is truly a global effort on the part of AIG."

This is our company, using our taxpayer dollars, to promote Islamic supremacist Sharia-based products in our country. As we are $40 billion owners in AIG, this is our problem as Americans. What is our government and AIG going to do about this?

First, let's remember what Sharia is and is not.

Sharia is a legal codification of the political ideology of Islamic supremacism. This Sharia legal codification is intended to enforce discriminatory and segregationist practices against women and non-Muslims and to suppress the liberties of those living in Islamic theocracies. As a legal codification of a supremacist ideology, Sharia is incompatible with democratic values and the inalienable human right that "all men are created equal." In 2001, nearly two months before the 9/11 attacks, the European Court of Human Rights determined that Sharia law was incompatible with democracy and human rights. The President of the European Court of Human Rights stated that "the Court found that sharia was incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy as set forth in the Convention... Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it. According to the Court, it was difficult to declare one's respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia...". Even British courts have ruled that Sharia is "discriminatory."

In a nation such as the United States, based on the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty, why would American taxpayers seek to fund a business selling products that promote a discriminatory, segregationist, and supremacist ideology that is "incompatible with democracy and human rights"?

Sharia is not merely "cultural beliefs," "religious beliefs," or "social preference." In the AIG press release, AIG's Abdallah Kubursi would have Americans believe that the goal of promoting such Sharia products is to expand "social preference." But America has rejected those who would label supremacist values as "social preference," just as they rejected white supremacists who once called for racial segregation and discrimination. America's society, businesses, government, and law rejects supremacist ideologies. Just ask President-Elect Barack Obama.

This is the same Sharia ideology that has been used by the Islamic supremacist Taliban to murder those who they believe have committed moral crimes, the same Sharia ideology that was used to murder a 13 year old girl last month who was raped in Somalia, and the same Sharia ideology supported by the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Islamic supremacists around the world. It is the same Sharia ideology whose zakat charities have been used to fund jihadist terrorist organizations. On September 18, 2008, Congressman Tom Tancredo's office introduced "Jihad Prevention Act" (H.R. 6975). According to the press release from his office on this bill, "the legislation would make the advocacy of Sharia law by radical Muslims already in the United States a deportable offense."

But now American taxpayer dollars are being used to promote products based on Sharia?

In fairness to AIG, there are many who do not understand the political Islamic supremacist nature of Sharia.

Stop Sharia Now (FAQ item 17) provides a quote regarding an "Islamic Finance conference" in New York City where an attendee asked the meaning of Sharia. One of AIG's Sharia advisors, Sheik Nizam Yaquby, ambiguously responded by stating that "Shariah is the path on which we walk, the water which we drink." Those of us who are aware that Sharia is a legal codification for all aspects of Islamic supremacist life grasp what Yaquby was trying to communicate; certainly none of the supremacist aspects of Sharia was communicated by Yaquby. It is then reported that "Not one person in the room followed up with a question. The group went back to looking at flowcharts and graphs." So it should be little surprise that few people involved with Sharia finance products actually understand the ramifications of promoting Islamic supremacist Sharia.

To give AIG an opportunity to respond to this, I called the individual listed on AIG's press release for its Sharia Takaful Homeowners Policy, Jim Crain, and talked to him about the AIG product. My impression is that AIG's Jim Crain is a businessman, and I got the distinct feeling that he was uncomfortable with being named as the AIG point of contact on a product with political connotations. I told AIG's Jim Crain about the online petition signed by over 100 individuals calling for the Federal Reserve Board and the Department of Treasury to call for AIG to divest itself of its Sharia businesses. I also told AIG's Jim Crain about how the Islamic supremacist Taliban and other groups are seeking to promote Sharia.

AIG's Jim Crain told me that he had no comment on AIG's Sharia product linkage to the Islamic supremacist Sharia ideology, but stated that with "this business venture" it was not AIG's intent "to enter into the political arena at all." Jim Crain stated that he did understand that Sharia is viewed as a political ideology, and commented "that is becoming more apparent as the days go on." (I would conclude from this that I was not the first person who has called Jim Crain about this.) He stated that "it is entirely possible" that the public is going to think that AIG is taking a political position that is pro-Sharia. Jim Crain concluded our discussion by stating "I am going to pass your concerns on to our senior management and legal."

Now it is your turn. American taxpayers own $40 billion worth of AIG stock. This is your company and your responsibility to contact AIG about both its Sharia finance businesses and its efforts now to promote Sharia-based insurance in the United States.

Let AIG's Jim Crain know that the calls he has gotten thus far complaining about AIG's Sharia based business is the tip of the iceberg. Jim Crain's phone number and email address are provided on the AIG press release to discuss AIG's Sharia-based Takaful Homeowners Policy. Let him know precisely what you think of it as a shareholder in AIG, and ask Jim Crain to make certain that his senior management also is aware of your concerns as well.

Sign our online petition demanding that the Federal Reserve, Securities Exchange Commission, and Department of Treasury carry out their fiduciary responsibilities under H.R. 1424 to act as the Financial Stability Oversight Board in America's interest - and demand that AIG divest itself now of its Sharia businesses. This is an opportunity to make American commitment to human rights a part of how companies do business in America. It is our responsibility to let AIG know our concerns.

Let's make our voices heard on this outrage, just as we would if AIG was offering a white supremacist financial products, black supremacist financial products, or any other products or services linked to a supremacist ideology. We need to make our voices heard because supremacism is fundamentally against the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty, as defined in America's Declaration of Independence... and declaration of our identity as well. By the very definition of America, we are responsible for equality and liberty, and we are responsible for confronting Islamic supremacism.

Fear No Evil.

The Federal Reserve Bank – It’s Not What You Think (Part Two – Who Owns the Bank)

(Compiler's note: Ever wonder where your money is going? .... A must read)

Vincent Gioia

In Part One of this series, I promised to tell you who owns the Federal Reserve Bank and that you would be surprised. As I said, the Federal Reserve is a private company of bankers with twelve branch banks that confiscate our money and they have been doing this for almost a hundred years. They are not part of the United States government, but they collect hundreds of billions of dollars from the American taxpayers every year, trillions in total, and they have never been audited and they do not pay taxes on profits.

Representative Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency for 12 years is quoted in the Congressional Record as saying:

“The Federal Reserve Board...has cheated the Government of the United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. Our people's money - to the extent of $1,200,000,000 - has within the last few months been shipped abroad to redeem Federal Reserve Notes and to pay other gambling debts of the traitorous Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks.… “

So who are the masters of the Federal Reserve Bank who receive these huge profits? They include an impressive list of not only foreign-owned banks and investment houses, but domestic banks as well. If you don’t believe The Federal Reserve (FED) is a privately owned, organization; check the ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA.

The owners of the 12 Central Federal Reserve Banks are:

- Rothschild Bank of London
- Rothschild Bank of Berlin
- Lazard Brothers of Paris
- Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy
- Warburg Bank of Amsterdam
- Warburg Bank of Hamburg
- Lehman Brothers of New York
- Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
- Goldman, Sachs of New York
- Chase Manhattan Bank of New York

All in all, there are about 300 very powerful foreign individuals who own the FED through ownership of the above-listed banks and investment houses.

Theoretically, the FED is required to give back most of its profits to the Treasury Department but there is no organization that has the power to audit the FED (not even the Congress or the IRS). Therefore, there is a huge opportunity for "creative accounting" to hide and deny the profit to which the U.S. taxpayers are entitled, which amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

A few Republican congressmen annually introduce legislation to audit the FED and, every year, the legislation is defeated. The owners of the FED are an extremely powerful, invisible lobbying power.

Of course it helps the FED owners that they exert major control of media outlets so that the public is kept uninformed about the FED owners’ shenanigans. The owners of the FED own the controlling interests in ALL major media in the United States: Rockefeller, through Chase Manhattan bank, controls CBS and ABC and 28 other broadcasting firms, and each of the other owners of the FED also has controlling interest in the US media. This perhaps explains why the media have been silent about the FED scam. The FED fraud is the biggest and longest cover-up in United States history.

As pointed out in Part One, according to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the US Congress has the power to print money (“the Congress shall have the power...to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin ..”). According to the Supreme Court, the Congress cannot transfer its power to other organizations like the FED, but they have done it anyway.

Here is how the owners of the FED profit at the expense of the American people.

The US Government runs deficits annually in the billions of dollars, and lately in the trillions of dollars. Congress covers this by issuing government bonds which are bought by the FED. Since the FED has the power to print money, it can buy any amount of the US Government bonds at almost no cost, except for the small fee paid to the Treasury to print money (about 3 cents/$100).

This amounts to a profit to the FED owners of about $99.97 for every 3 cents they invested to print the money. Basically, they exchange something that costs almost nothing to them for the US Government Bonds, which have value.

Since the FED can not be audited by the IRS (or even by Congress), much of this profit can go anywhere the FED owners want it to go; and it is tax free.

After buying the bonds, the owner of the FED can either keep the bonds, and collect the interest the US Government now owes them, or sell the bonds to the U.S. taxpayers or foreigners. In either case, the FED owners have received $99.97 profit for every 3 cents it invested to print the money. Since the FED is a privately owned corporation, the profit of the FED goes to the FED owners.

The US Government now owes the FED owners the interest on those bonds. Remember the FED owners do not earn the bonds, they simply arrange for printing the money to buy the bonds. In other words, the FED creates money out of thin air, and exchanges it for the interest-bearing bonds.

In order to pay for the bonds' interest, the US Government taxes the US population.

When a US citizen holding US Government bonds receives his/her return of investment on the bonds, essentially the money he/she receives is the tax money he/she has been paying to the Government.

When the owners of the FED receive the interest on the bonds they're holding, they are receiving that money essentially for free, without outlaying any upfront risk capital of their own and without the need to pay taxes on the profit!

In reality every year the FED profits by hundreds of billions of dollars by buying US Government bonds. Yet it only returns about $20 billion to the US Treasury. The rest of the profit has been spent as "Operational Expenses". The FED expects us to believe that the FED’s operational expenses are hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

In actuality, those profits are given as "DIVIDENDS TO SHAREHOLDERS.”

Is there any doubt this scam will eventually not only increase the national debt but lead to bankrupting the US government and taxpayers as well?

THE FED SHOULD BE ABOLISHED

The US Congress has the option to buy back the FED at $450 million (per Congressional records). If the Congress does this, it will own the billions of US Government Bonds held by the FED. The US Government will actually profit by buying back the FED; and the U.S. government would no longer have to pay interests to the FED owners on those bonds.

This will give the owners of the FED what they deserve after all the years of milking the public. Through their ownership in the FED, hugely powerful foreign and domestic banks have raked in trillions of dollars in tax free dividends, ripped off the backs of the American taxpayer; isn’t it about time we do something about it?

Let’s remember what Henry Ford once said “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

Weatherman terrorists: Obama's centrism a 'smokescreen'

President-elect Barack Obama is "feigning" a centrist position on some issues so he can ultimately push through a radical agenda, including universal healthcare and trimming the military

, according to analysis by a founder of the Weathermen terror group, Mark Rudd, who has ties to Obama mentors.

Another top former Weathermen terrorist with ties to Obama mentors, Jeff Jones, concurred the president-elect will attempt major change, including "redistributing financial resources downward." He called Obama's "centrist" appointments a "smokescreen" to "co-opt the moderate center," declaring, "even Lenin would be impressed!"....

GOP-killing juggernaut puts bull's-eye on states

By Bob Unruh

Millionaires, billionaires donating to takeover plan

A Democratic juggernaut of local and regional organizations that blast Republicans and promote Democrats using money donated by hundreds of millionaires and even billionaires was a key to President-elect Barack Obama's win over GOP candidate Sen. John McCain last month. And a new report warns the same attack strategy now is being installed in states, targeting especially the offices of secretary of state, where elections are managed.

"The Democracy Alliance helped Democrats give Republicans a shellacking in November. Now it's organizing state-level chapters in at least 19 states, and once-conservative Colorado, which hosts the Democracy Alliance's most successful state affiliate, has turned Democrat blue," the report from Matthew Vadum and James Dellinger of Capital Research Center concludes.

The report from the center, which studies non-profit organizations, is titled "The Democracy Alliance Does America: The Soros-Founded Plutocrats' Club Forms State Chapters," and is accessible online.

It concludes the 2008 victory for Obama was a result of the outraged millionaire donors to the Democrats who watched another failure for their cause in 2004, after opening their checkbooks for tens of millions of dollars.

"It was born out the frustration of wealthy liberals who gave generously to liberal candidates and 527 political committees, but received no electoral payoff in 2004," the report said.

George Soros and others "were angry and discouraged after contributing to the Media Fund which spent $57 million on TV ads attacking President Bush in swing states and to American Coming Together which spent $78 million on get out the vote efforts," the report said.

The result was a victory for President George W. Bush. So assembling in 2005, 70 millionaires and billionaires met in Phoenix "for a secret long-term strategy session." Their principal point of agreement was "the conservative movement was 'a fundamental threat to the American way of life.'"

They studied the success of conservatives, their network of organizations, funders and activists, including think tanks, legal advocacy organizations and leadership schools.

Former Clinton administration official Rob Stein explained Democrats, meanwhile, had become a top-down organization run by professional politicians. Result? The birth of the Democracy Alliance, "a loose collection of super-rich donors committed to building organizations that would propel American to the left," the report said.

Colorado was one of the first regions targeted. According to the CRC documentation, Colorado went for Bush by 9 percent in 2000, and by 5 percent in 2004. In 1998, the state had two GOP senators and four of the six members of the House were GOP, as well as the governor and both houses in the state legislature.

As the money began flowing, the results began changing, and now both Senate seats are Democrat as are five of the state's seven House members as well as the governor's office and both houses of the state legislature.

Defeating GOP U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, a vocal opponent of homosexual marriage, for example, cost an estimated $2.6 million and included such "juvenile harassment" stunts as an "interviewer" asking Musgrave to choose between stopping a "gay" marriage and saving a life, the report said.

Taking over the state legislature cost $2 million, and the governor's office was $7.5 million, the report said, funded by well-known Democrats Pat Stryker, Tim Gill and Rutt Bridges, among others.

The report explains the work focuses on seven components: the capacity to generate intellectual ammunition, ability to pursue investigations, to mobilize for elections, to combat negative media, to sue strategically, to train new leaders and maintain a new media presence.

Journalist Fred Barnes, according to the report, said, "If copied in other states, [this] has the potential to produce sweeping Democratic gains nationwide."

The concept depends on wealthy liberals' spending tons of money to "create a vast infrastructure of liberal organizations that produces an anti-Republican, anti-conservative echo chamber in politics and the media."

Now, the CRC warned, the same organizing is going on "in at least 19 states," and even more to the point, a special campaign has been set up to target the offices of Secretary of State around the nation.

"As the murderously astute Joseph Stalin once remarked, 'The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything,'" the report said.

"Since 2006, Democracy Alliance partners have quietly funded the Secretary of State Project, a below-the-radar non-federal '527' political group. It can accept unlimited contributions that are not immediately publicly disclosed. Its website claims, 'A modest political investment in electing clean candidates to critical Secretary of State offices is an efficient way to protect the election,'" the report said.

"SoS endorses secretary of state candidates who take the position that voter fraud is largely a myth; that vote suppression is widely and solely used by Republicans; that it's a waste of time to remove obviously fraudulent names from voter rolls; and that legal requirements that voters show photo identification discriminate against racial minorities," the report said.

Among its victories so far is Mark Ritchie in Minnesota in 2006, the state official currently presiding over the Senate recount in that state, the report said.

Also, in Ohio, Jennifer Brunner "trounced" her opponent.

"It October the SoS investment paid off when Brunner defied federal law by refusing to take steps to verify 200,000 questionable voter registrations," the report said.

While the report said group members deliberately are low-profile, among those whose membership has been cited in various reports are Quark creator Tim Gill, RealNetworks chief Rob Glaser, investment banker Steven M. Gluckstern, Hyatt heiress Rachel Peritzker Hunter, former Oracle executive John Luongo, television producer Norman Lear, Taco Bell heir Robert McKay, actor Rob Reiner and dozens more.

The leaders met on Nov. 12, following Obama's victory, in Washington, the report said. The goal? Apparently power, since the president alone, according to one Democratic official, appoints 5,000 officials to run agencies employing two million voters that hire another 10 million outside contractors.

"It's safe to say they are planning their next moves," the report said.

Gulf Oil CEO says gas could hit $1 next year

Gulf Oil CEO Joe Petrowski said on Wednesday that the price of oil could sink to $20 per barrel, and there is a chance gasoline prices could drop as low as $1 per gallon by early next year. ....

Gates Will Lead New Obama Team at Defense Department

U.S. Stocks Drop, Led by GM; Exxon Falls on $25 Crude Forecast

By Elizabeth Stanton and Jeff Kearns

Dec. 4 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. stocks fell for the first time in three days, pushed down by concern General Motors Corp. may file for bankruptcy and a plunge in energy shares following Merrill Lynch & Co.’s prediction that oil will hit $25 a barrel.

GM lost 16 percent after a person familiar with the matter said the largest U.S. automaker is exploring a reorganization with workers, creditors and lenders. Southwestern Energy Co., EOG Resources Inc. and Exxon Mobil Corp. slumped, sending the Standard & Poor’s 500 Energy Index to a 6.2 percent decline. Apple Inc. slipped 4.7 percent as Nokia Oyj said the global mobile-phone market will shrink 5 percent or more next year.

The S&P 500 lost 2.9 percent to 845.22. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 215.45 points, or 2.5 percent, to 8,376.24. Indexes also dropped after the Labor Department said more Americans are collecting jobless benefits than at any time since 1982. Economists estimate a report tomorrow will show the unemployment rate increased to 6.8 percent, a 15-year high.

“As bad as you think it is, it’s worse,” said Diane Garnick, who helps oversee about $500 billion as an investment strategist at Invesco Ltd. in New York. “The chances of the economy turning around in the first half of 2009 are declining rapidly because unemployed people can’t spur economic growth.”

The S&P 500 has fallen 42 percent in 2008 as writedowns and losses at financial firms approach $1 trillion and more economists forecast that the U.S. recession will be one of the most severe in the post-World War II era. Today’s decline pared its rebound from an 11-year low on Nov. 20 to 12 percent.

New Lows

Sixteen companies in the S&P 500 fell to 52-week lows today. They included Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc., the largest publicly traded copper producer, and Campbell Soup Co. None reached new highs.

The Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index added 4.8 percent to 63.64. The so-called VIX, which reached a record high of 80.86 on Nov. 20, measures the cost of using options as insurance against S&P 500 declines. The MSCI World Index of 23 developed markets retreated 1.8 percent to 844.58. The Russell 2000 Index of small U.S. companies fell 3.1 percent to 439.53.

“There’s a concern out there that this isn’t a recession, it’s the Great Depression II, or the Great Recession I,” said Kenneth Schapiro, president of Condor Capital Management, which oversees $500 million in Martinsville, New Jersey. “People have seen their retirement funds affected by what’s happened and are concerned about putting more capital in.”

GM fell 16 percent to $4.11. Chrysler LLC executives are also considering a pre-arranged bankruptcy filing, a person familiar with the companies’ internal discussions said.

‘Immediate’ Need

GM, Chrysler and Ford Motor Co. today renewed their plea for a combined $34 billion in federal aid as a deadlocked Congress showed no progress in deciding how to aid them. GM Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner said his company needs an “immediate” $4 billion, and $4 billion more next month.

Ronald Gettelfinger, president of the United Auto Workers union, told a Senate panel today that GM may fail this month without a cash infusion.

Southwestern Energy, an oil and natural gas producer, fell 15 percent to $26.34 as all 40 energy companies in the S&P 500 retreated. EOG Resources, the former oil and gas unit of Enron Corp., slid 14 percent to $68.79. Exxon, the world’s largest oil company, lost 3.4 percent to $76.27.

Crude oil tumbled 6.8 percent to $43.59 a barrel in New York, the lowest price since January 2005. It has plunged 70 percent since the closing record of $145.29 set in July and may fall below $25 next year if the recession that’s slashing fuel demand around the world spreads to China, Francisco Blanch, commodity strategist at Merrill Lynch, wrote in a report today.

First Drop Since 2001

Apple, maker of the iPhone mobile device as well as iPod music players and Macintosh computers, fell 4.7 percent to $91.41. Finland-based Nokia, the largest maker of mobile phones, forecast the first drop in industry sales since 2001 and lowered its estimate for industry revenue in the current quarter.

Global smartphone sales growth slowed to 11.5 percent in the third quarter from a year earlier as consumers postponed replacement purchases, research firm Gartner Inc. said today. Research In Motion Ltd., the maker of the BlackBerry, said this week that quarterly subscriber gains fell short of its forecast.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. gained 1.3 percent to $55.11. The world’s largest retailer said November sales exceeded its projection, spurred by discounts on groceries, consumer electronics and Christmas decorations.

‘Good Sign’

“Consumers are still responsive to price; that’s a good sign,” said Julie Van Cleave, who oversees $3 billion, including Wal-Mart shares, at Deutsche Bank AG unit DWS Investments in Milwaukee. “They’re going to fewer stores but making larger purchases.”

Other chain stores rallied on November sales that beat estimates. Nordstrom Inc., the U.S. department store operator with more than 100 namesake locations, jumped 10 percent to $12.01. Office Depot Inc. added 15 percent to $2.17. Macy’s Inc., the second-biggest department store, climbed 6 percent to $7.83 after affirming its fourth-quarter sales forecast.

Homebuilders gained amid reports the Treasury Department is considering stepping up purchases of mortgage-backed securities to drive rates on some loans down to 4.5 percent. The average rate on 30-year fixed-rate loans dropped to 5.47 percent last week, the lowest level since 2005, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.

D.R. Horton Inc., the largest U.S. homebuilder, advanced 8 percent to $7.82. Lennar Corp. added 10 percent to $8.50. Centex Corp. climbed 9 percent to $11.10. An index of homebuilders in the S&P 500 rose 6.6 percent to the highest level in a month.

Falling Sales

Merck & Co. dropped 5.5 percent to $25. The company said 2009 profit may decline amid falling sales of its Zetia and Vytorin cholesterol pills and weak international revenue.

Adobe Systems Inc. lost 9.3 percent to $20.44. The world’s largest maker of graphics and Web-design software forecast sales that missed analysts’ estimates, saying the economy has crimped spending. Adobe also plans to cut 600 jobs, amounting to about 8 percent of its staff.

The Labor Department said today that 4.09 million fired workers received government unemployment checks in the week ended Nov. 22, the most since December 1982 and more than economists estimated in a Bloomberg survey. Data to be released tomorrow are forecast to show U.S. payrolls shrank in November for the 10th straight month, sending the unemployment rate to 6.8 percent, the highest since 1993.

AT&T, DuPont Cuts

AT&T Inc., the largest U.S. phone company, and DuPont Co., the third-biggest U.S. chemical maker, said they will cut jobs to lower costs as the recession erodes profit.

AT&T lost 3.1 percent to $28.17. The company plans to cut 12,000 jobs, or about 4 percent of its workforce. DuPont rose 0.3 percent to $23.69 after saying it will cut about 2,500 jobs because the global recession is cutting demand for products such as auto paint and Tyvek weather wrap.

“Businesses are battening down the hatches,” Stuart Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group Inc. in Pittsburgh, said in Bloomberg Television interview. “Job losses are going to continue to accelerate.”

Law of Sea Saves Pirates

from EagleSpeak

Seven lucky pirates were rescued by a Danish warship after the pirates spent several days adrift in the Gulf of Aden because the Danes complied with international law. As reported here:

“Under international law, ships are obligated to help people who are distressed at sea,” the navy said. “Because the people on board couldn’t be directly connected with a criminal act, they were treated only as distressed.”
***
“Because of the weather in the area, it wasn’t possible to tow the distressed vessel,” the navy said. “For the safety of sea transport in the area, the vessel was therefore destroyed.”

The alleged pirate vessel had been adrift in Yemen waters, and the crew has now been turned over to Yemeni authorities, the navy said. The Absalon’s crew confiscated the weapons found on board.

The weapons included anti-tank rockets and machine guns, according to broadcaster TV2. The pirates had been adrift at sea for seven days, the last three days without food or water, TV2 said.

Jihad Recruiting Effort May Explain Missing Somalis in Minneapolis Area

AP

Young Somali men in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area are disappearing, stirring fears they may be returning to Somalia to join terrorist groups like Shabaab, seen above at a training camp.

Young Somali men in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area are disappearing, stirring fears they may be returning to Somalia to join terrorist groups like Shabaab, seen above at a training camp.

• 
• 
• 

Dozens of young Somali men in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area have disappeared in recent months, causing community members and U.S. intelligence officials to fear that they are joining jihadist groups in Somalia.

Officials are especially concerned that some of the men may be destined to return to the U.S. after they have received terrorist training. ....

Behind The Terror: The Role Of Organized Crime

Listen Now [39 min 18 sec] add to playlist

Fresh Air from WHYY, December 4, 2008 · Investigative journalist David Kaplan says that terrorists often use organized crime tactics — and profits — to execute their activities. He discusses the link between terrorism and criminal syndicates, and how that relationship may have played out in the recent attacks on Mumbai.

Kaplan is the editorial director for the Center for Public Integrity. Throughout his 30-year career, he has investigated various criminal groups, including terrorists, corporate polluters, corrupt law enforcement officials and neo-Nazis.

Scientists ask: Is technology rewiring our brains?

NEW YORK – What does a teenage brain on Google look like? Do all those hours spent online rewire the circuitry? Could these kids even relate better to emoticons than to real people? These sound like concerns from worried parents. But they're coming from brain scientists. ....

Iran Confronts an 'Economic Evolution'

Gasoline? It's 36 cents a gallon. Laundry detergent? Fifty cents for a standard-size box. Milk? About 20 cents a quart. These prices are so low because Iran's government spends half its national budget to subsidize many of life's necessities. Not for long. ....

....In October, when oil was selling for $70 a barrel, Central Bank governor Mahmoud Bahmani warned of a huge budget deficit if the price did not rise. "If this rate continues until the end of the year, $54 billion of expected oil income won't materialize," he told the official Islamic Republic News Agency. On Wednesday, Iranian oil was selling for $42.....

Suit contesting Barack Obama's citizenship heads to U.S. Supreme Court Friday

By James Janega

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's election.

The meeting of justices will coincide with a vigil by the filer's supporters in Washington on the steps of the nation's highest court.

The suit originally sought to stay the election, and was filed on behalf of Leo Donofrio against New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells.

Legal experts say the appeal has little chance of succeeding, despite appearing on the court's schedule. Legal records show it is only the tip of an iceberg of nationwide efforts seeking to derail Obama's election over accusations that he either wasn't born a U.S. citizen or that he later renounced his citizenship in Indonesia.

The Obama campaign has maintained that he was born in Hawaii, has an authentic birth certificate, and is a "natural-born" U.S. citizen. Hawaiian officials agree.

Among those filing lawsuits is Alan Keyes, who lost to Obama in the 2004 Illinois Senate race. Keyes' suit seeks to halt certification of votes in California. Another suit by a Kentucky man seeks to have a federal judge review Obama's original birth certificate, which Hawaiian officials say is locked in a state vault.

by a person who is currently suing the "Peoples Association of Human, Animals COther suits have been filed by Andy Martin, whose case was dismissed in Hawaii, and by an Ohio man whose case also was dismissed. Five more suits, all later dismissed, were filed in Hawaii onceived God/s and Religions, John McCain [and] USA Govt." The plaintiff previously sought to sue Wikipedia and "All News Media."

The most famous case questioning Obama's citizenship was filed in Pennsylvania in August on behalf of Philip J. Berg and sought to enjoin the Democratic National Committee from nominating Obama. The U.S. Supreme Court denied an application for an injunction and hasn't scheduled a conference on other aspects of the case. Earlier, a federal judge rejected it for "lack of standing"—ruling that Berg had no legal right to sue. In cases like this, judges sometimes believe the matter is best left to political institutions, such as the Electoral College or Congress, said legal scholar Eugene Volokh of the University of California at Los Angeles.

The remaining case with the highest profile is Donofrio vs. Wells. Because it was referred by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to other justices for conference, it gained undue importance for people unschooled in how the court works, Volokh said.

Many petitioners seeking stays of pending events have their cases distributed to the full court, he said. Of those, Volokh found that 782 were denied in the last eight years while just 60 were heard—and not all of those ultimately were successful.

'Natural-born' requirement called 'stupidest provision'

By Bob Unruh

An associate lawyer in a Chicago-based firm whose partner served on a finance committee for then-Sen. Barack Obama has advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen, calling the requirement "stupid" and asserting it discriminates, is outdated and undemocratic.

Barack Obama and Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga

The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cites his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin on the corporate website.

The article by Herlihy is available online under law review articles from Kent University.

The issue is the subject of nearly two dozen court cases in recent weeks, including at least two that have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court.

There have been accusations that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as his campaign has stated. His paternal grandmother has stated she was in attendance at his birth in Mombasa. While Hawaii officials say they have seen his birth certificate, they have declined to release information from it.

Join more than 150,000 others in signing WND's online petition calling for release of Barack Obama's birth certificate and verifying beyond any shadow of a doubt his constitutional eligibility for office. This offer ends Thursday at noon Eastern Time to ensure all letters are delivered by Friday morning to the Supreme Court.

The Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii that the Obama campaign posted on the Internet isn't considered by critics to resolve the issue, since during the 1960s when Obama was born, the new state issued the document to infants not necessarily born in Hawaii.

There also remain unanswered questions about his youth, when he lived and attended school in Indonesia and later when he traveled to Pakistan. The questions include whether he gave up a U.S. citizenship to attend school or traveled on another nation's passport to Pakistan at a time when U.S. passports were unwelcome there.

Answers to those issues could determine whether Obama meets the Constitution's demand for a "natural-born" citizen.

Herlihy's published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.

"The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the 'stupidest provision' in the Constitution, "undecidedly un-American," "blatantly discriminatory," and the "Constitution's worst provision," Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled, "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle."

She concludes that the "emotional" reasons to oppose changing the Constitution will prevail over the "rational" reasons demanding a change.

"The current American perceptions about the effects of globalization and the misunderstanding about what globalization actually is will result in Americans deciding that naturalized citizens should not be president because this would, in effect, be promoting globalization, Herlihy wrote.

"Although this argument is admittedly circular, because globalization is the thing that makes the need to abolish the requirement more and more persuasive, Americans' subsequent perceptions about globalization are the very things that will prevent Americans from embracing the idea of eliminating the natural born requirement.

"Logical Americans are looking for a reason to ignore the rational reasons promoted by globalization so that they may vote based on their own emotions and instincts," she wrote.

Read all the evidence about Obama's birthplace in Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation."

She blamed support for the constitutional provision on "fear, racism, religious intolerance, or blind faith in the decisions of the Founding Fathers."

WND called Herlihy's number listed on the law firm website, and a woman answered with, "Sarah Herlihy." But when WND identified itself as a news agency, the woman said she didn't think "Sarah Herlihy" was in, but would take a message. There was no return call.

In the body of her argument, Herlihy said the constitutional provision simply is outdated.

"Considering that the Founding Fathers presumably included the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution partly out of fear of foreign subversion, the current stability of the American government and the intense media scrutiny of presidential candidates virtually eliminates the possibility of a 'foreigner' coming to America, becoming a naturalized citizen, generating enough public support to become president, and somehow using the presidency to directly benefit his homeland," she wrote.

"The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is outdated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty," she wrote.

Many of the reasons for keeping the limit, she wrote, "are based primarily on emotion."

A web blogger suggested, "So it sure looks like Obama's people have looked into the matter of 'natural born' as far back as early 2006. What is even more disturbing is that it would appear that they are following the thought of: 'If the facts do not support the theory, Destroy the facts!"

Clinton's Confirmation May Spark Constitutional Battle

By Stephen Clark

The biggest obstacle facing Hillary Clinton's Senate confirmation as President-elect Barack Obama's top diplomat may not be her husband's wheeling and dealing abroad for his foundation, as many suspected.

Instead, it could be the U.S. Constitution.

According to an emolument clause in the Constitution, no lawmaker can be appointed to any civil position that was created or received a wage increase during the lawmaker's time in office.

President Bush ordered Cabinet salaries raised to $191,300 from $186,600 by executive order early this year, while Clinton was senator.

"My understanding is that does prohibit her unless they can find some way around it and I gather that they have in the past," former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger told FOX News.

"This isn't the first time this has come up," he said, referring to appointees of other presidents. "Maybe she has to renounce the salary increase but I'm sure they'll find a way around it."

The Obama transition team did not respond to a request for comment.

Some constitutional lawyers don't foresee the provision derailing Clinton's nomination.

"I don't believe it presents a serious issue because the legislative fix which has been done in the past is perfectly constitutional," said Adam Bonin, an attorney at the Philadelphia law firm of Cozen O'Connor.

The legislation that Bonin referred to is the "Saxbe fix" that allowed President Richard Nixon to name Ohio Sen. William Saxbe his Attorney General.

The attorney general's salary was raised during Saxbe's term in 1969 but Nixon convinced Congress to lower Saxbe's salary to what it was before 1969.

The most recent case involved Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, who was nominated to be President-elect Bill Clinton's treasury secretary in 1993. To avoid conflict, Congress passed legislation lowering the salary of that position to its 1989 level.

Bonin believes Congress should pass similar legislation for Clinton.

"I think that's the safe move to make," he said, adding that he believes Clinton could be confirmed without a legislative fix because Congress didn't vote for Bush's pay raise.

Daniel Dreisdach, a professor of law at American University, said it would be difficult for anyone to use the provision to challenge Clinton's confirmation.

"In this respect, it's a bit analogous to this question of whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen," he said, referring to a lawsuit, dismissed last month, seeking to obtain a copy of Obama's Hawaii birth certificate.

"Then it becomes who has legal standing to challenge his credentials as president or Hillary Clinton's assumption of the office," he said.

Dreisdach said as long as Democrats control the Senate, the Obama transition team won't worry about this provision in the Constitution.

"The Obama team is well aware of it and they have dismissed it," Dreisdach said. "I find it hard to believe that a Democratic majority will take a different view."

Muslim World League calls for "a strategic plan to introduce Islam as a solution to major problems facing humanity"

by Robert Spencer

And, natch, as "a religion that promotes peace, freedom and tolerance."

Among the elements of this strategic plan:

■ “They should also make use of their good relations with Western countries to enact laws preventing the denigration of Islam and Muslim personalities”

■ "Islamic organizations have been asked to monitor school syllabuses in non-Muslim countries to prevent distortion of facts about Islam and Muslims."

"Forum calls for strategic plan to reach out to non-Muslims," by P.K. Abdul Ghafour for Arab News, December 4 (thanks to Paul):

JEDDAH: An international conference organized by the Muslim World League has called for a strategic plan to introduce Islam as a solution to major problems facing humanity and as a religion that promotes peace, freedom and tolerance.

The three-day conference, titled “Introducing Islam to non-Islamic countries: Reality and aspirations,” stressed that non-Muslims living in Islamic countries should enjoy all of the rights enjoyed by Muslims.

Really? All of them? In this they run counter to the provisions of traditional Islamic law regarding the subjugated status of the dhimmis, as mandated by the Qur'anic injunction that they pay the jizya (poll tax) "with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (9:29).

"The subject peoples," [i.e., the dhimmis] according to a manual of Islamic law endorsed by Al-Azhar University in Cairo, must "pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)" and "are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar); are not greeted with ‘as-Salamu ‘alaykum’ [the traditional Muslim greeting, 'Peace be with you']; must keep to the side of the street; may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims’ buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed; are forbidden to openly display wine or pork . . . recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals or feastdays; and are forbidden to build new churches." ('Umdat al-Salik, o11.3, 5).

"All of the rights"? Really? Is this a statement of reform? Somehow I doubt it, in light of their other statements -- particularly about restricting free speech (see below).

It said Muslim countries must introduce Islam to non-Muslim countries as part of efforts to improve foreign relations.

So this is avowedly a political effort, not solely a religious one.

“They should also make use of their good relations with Western countries to enact laws preventing the denigration of Islam and Muslim personalities,” said a final communiqué issued after the conference.

Ten to one they consider "denigration of Islam" to be any honest examination of how jihadists use Islamic texts and teachings to justify violence and supremacism. Why do I say that? Because we have seen it before. Here are four examples (one, two, three, four) of Islamic groups objecting to non-Muslims making accurate statements about Islam or Muhammad -- statements much like ones jihadists make without encountering serious opposition from their fellow Muslims.

The goal, in other words, is to silence non-Muslims regarding Islam, thus rendering us mute in the face of the global jihad. Mute and therefore defenseless.

The conferees stressed the need to produce Islamic TV programs in major world languages to introduce Islam to non-Muslims. They also urged Muslims to behave righteously with non-Muslims and understand their culture. “We should come up with innovative ideas to propagate the message of Islam, using the Internet and satellite channels,” it said.

The conference stressed the need to produce special media programs to address non-Muslims and urged support for their social development programs. Permanent and temporary exhibitions must be held to reach out to people, and specialized centers and academic chairs should be established to defend Islam. [...]

There are already specialized centers and academic chairs established to defend Islam. See, most notoriously, John Esposito's Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.

The conference noted anti-Islam smear campaign was one of the major challenges facing Islamic preachers in non-Muslim countries and urged Muslims to address this problem with unity. Islamic organizations have been asked to monitor school syllabuses in non-Muslim countries to prevent distortion of facts about Islam and Muslims.

That is already happening as well. See the discussion of the Islamization of American public school textbooks in my book Stealth Jihad.