In response to inflammatory editorial, Spencer listens and questions

by Robert Spencer

I haven't even left the Jihad Watch offices in Kalispell, Montana to make my way to St. Louis yet, but the editorial staff of Student Life, the independent paper of Washington University in St. Louis, has already decided that my speech there tomorrow is going to be "inflammatory," and they're taking action -- including calling on students to protest.

The editorial is called "In response to inflammatory speech, listen and question." It's in Student Life, March 23 (thanks to Jeffrey Imm). And in response to this inflammatory editorial, I'm going to listen and question.

Tomorrow evening, author Robert Spencer will speak in Graham Chapel about Islam and the threat of jihad.

Actually, no, I won't be speaking in Graham Chapel after all. I'll be speaking in a room called "Lab Sciences 300," where the event has been moved because of security concerns and indications that plans were afoot to disrupt the event. It's interesting that the paper is calling my talk, which they haven't heard, "inflammatory," while failing (so far) to notice the thuggery that is already coming from the other side.

He is, to say the least, a controversial figure.

We live in a sad age when simply telling the truth and reporting the facts accurately renders one "controversial," but that's the way it is.

To Spencer’s supporters, he is a voice of reason, willing to tell the truth about Islam and call attention to what he argues are the roots and goals of jihad violence as expressed in the source texts of Islam.

The "source texts of Islam" are public. They are open to inspection. What I "argue" about the "roots and goals of jihad violence as expressed in the source texts of Islam" can be easily verified or refuted. But it is easier just to call names:

To his detractors, he is an Islamophobe who incites hate through rhetoric and inaccurate research.

"Inaccurate" in what way? Unspecified, as always. And there's that manipulative neologism "Islamophobe" again. And yet the people who sling this word around never seem to ask themselves why there are no Buddhophobes, or Hindupohobes, or Sikhophobes. Why is it that the bigoted racists always seem to fasten on poor old misunderstood Islam?

Though his views are charged, Spencer—like every lecturer who visits campus—has an inalienable right to speak and express his views. The ultimate way to respect a person’s right to speak is to consider his ideas and their implications, and to engage with the speech by further developing the ideas presented or by criticizing them.

High-minded, this, but contradicted by their call for protests that comes a bit later in the piece. Read on.

Spencer’s arguments, like those of Daniel Pipes, who spoke at Washington University in October, have the potential to stir up hatred and bigotry in others.

This kind of criticism is symptomatic of our age of muddled thinking. The sole criterion for evaluating arguments should be whether or not they are true. For arguments like this, although they're always wielded by Leftists against those whose ideas they dislike, cut both ways: after all, the Student Life editor's arguments in this editorial have the potential to stir up hatred against me. But so what? The only thing that matters is whether or not it is accurate, which of course it is not, not remotely. The emotional effect it may have on those who read it is beyond the control of the author, and irrelevant to its quality.

In a book review posted on the Jihad Watch blog, Spencer writes, “traditional Islam contains violent and supremacist elements, and…its various schools unanimously teach warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers.”

Uh huh. And? Apparently the Student Life author thinks this is an inflammatory or patently inaccurate statement. Unfortunately for him or her, it happens to be perfectly accurate -- and no one can produce a recognized Islamic school of jurisprudence (madhhab) that does not indeed teach warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers. Once again, it's a sad age when simply stating an unpleasant fact gets you labeled an inciter of hatred and bigotry.

And here comes the best part, where the author explains that I don't actually say a number of inflammatory things, but, well, by golly, it's my fault that other people think them:

Though Spencer himself does not claim that the United States should discriminate against Muslims, many who engage with his argument reach that conclusion because of him. And though Spencer does not claim that Muslims uniformly embrace dangerous ideologies, this essentialization of Islam has the effect of essentializing all Muslims. And because this effect can quickly lead to hasty cultural discrimination, it is extremely important to challenge Spencer in this respect.

Righto. Challenge me on what I don't say because other people think things you don't like. And you say you're a university student?

As we said in our staff editorial published prior to Pipes’ appearance on campus, it is important to remember that the most effective challenges to essentialist, reductive arguments like Spencer’s are complex discussion and continuing dialogue.

Yes, and you appear to have mastered these skills beautifully!

Students ought not blindly accept Spencer’s opinions as fact.

Indeed not. I hope that every assertion I will make will be carefully checked by everyone in the audience. Then a few eyes would be opened.

Instead, they should make full use of the question-and-answer period following his speech and, if they deem fit, of any protests of Spencer’s visit, thereby ensuring that Tuesday’s event becomes a spark for a larger conversation about Muslims, the globe and our society.

The student paper here is calling upon students to protest against a talk they haven't heard, based on things I don't say, and they're calling me inflammatory!

Whatever one thinks about Spencer, it is important to weigh the larger context and implications of his remarks. Specifically, we must consider how global conflict—real or imagined—affects us, how our society plans to respond and what that response says about our social character. A gross, simplified dichotomy between Islam and the West is neither an advanced nor a productive framework, and in reality eschews the “Western” values of tolerance and liberty that such a division purports to defend.

Fine. Come on out tomorrow night, and let's talk it over. I'm all for opposing the "gross, simplified dichotomy between Islam and the West" proffered by the likes of Osama bin Laden, Anjem Chaudary, and the like. Are you? Or would doing so be "essentialist"?

As students listen to Spencer’s speech, it important that they remain focused on how his arguments fit into their vision for an ideal society.

Yeah, we all want peace, guys, so let's bury our heads in the sand, ignore this threat, and blame the messenger!

I expect better from the students at Washington University in St. Louis. Is a genuine discussion of the issues too much to ask? We'll see, but based on the intellectual quality of this editorial, I won't be going in expecting much.

Government and medicine: An unfortunate similarity

(Compiler's note: This is a must read editorial.)

BY ROBIN L. QUILLON

“Maggots no wonder cure for festering wounds.”

When I first saw this Reuters headline, I thought I was about to read an article about new Treasury Secretary Timothy “tax cheat” Geithner, or about other tax cheats President Obama seems to be offering up for positions in his administration.

Or I thought it was an article about the president’s ever-expanding and bloated stimulus plan. Or maybe even, I thought, an article about the political finger-pointing going on in both parties regarding the AIG bonuses.

But, no, the article was about how maggots at one time were placed in wounds to help the healing process, and how that really may not have been such a great idea after all.

I did, unfortunately, find some striking similarities between the maggots’ story and what goes on in Washington.

For example, as Reuters reported, maggots do clean wounds more quickly than do normal methods of treatment, but this does not lead to faster healing.

Correspondingly, it looks as if we have nothing more than a new crop of maggots in charge and on the Hill, and they are just not getting the job done.

Some patients, the story continued, also found so-called larval therapy more painful. That according to a study in the British Medical Journal.

My thoughts returned to D.C., where “tax cheat” larva Geithner needs to resign.

He is in way over his head.

Congress should have rejected his nomination. Then again, the president should never have submitted his name in the first place – especially in light of his tax-cheating.

Gruesome as it sounds, maggots have a long history in medicine. Napoleon’s battle surgeon was a maggot enthusiast. They were put to work during the American Civil War, and also in the trenches of World War I.

Our political leaders have a long history of doing the same things year after year while expecting different results. It’s time to clean house in Congress. And as the leader of his party, Obama needs to get his maggots wiggling to the same tune and get the job done for the American people.

More recently, medical experts have been looking again at the creatures’ healing powers, including their potential to prevent dangerous infections such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

Hmmm, the American people have been looking for a long time for our elected leaders to get the job done, only to be disappointed year after year.

Enough is enough!

It’s time the American people rise up and take back their government, and we do that in the voting booth.

But back to the maggots’ story, which said that scientists have determined that “It doesn’t seem to be worth pursuing in this particular group of patients, if what you are aiming for is quicker healing.”

As things are running now, the same can be said of our leaders in Washington.

And the final striking similarity between the maggots in this study and those in Washington: When maggots run out of dead flesh to eat, they eat each other.

Yuk!

Orlando 'Tea Party' rally draws more than 4,000

Conyers suggests probe of ACORN

by S.A. Miller

In an startling partisan shift, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. on Thursday proposed holding hearings on claims the liberal activist group ACORN engaged in a pattern of crimes ranging from voter fraud to a mob-style “protection” racket.

Mr. Conyers, Michigan Democrat and fierce partisan, suggested a congressional probe after scathing testimony about the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) during a hearing on various voting issues related to the 2008 presidential election.

Mr. Conyers called the accusations “a pretty serious matter.”

“I think that it would be something that would be worth our time,” he said during Thursday's hearing. “We've never had one person representing ACORN before the committee. ... I think in all fairness we ought to really examine it.”

The testimony by Pittsburgh lawyer Heather Heidelbaugh accused the nonprofit group of violating tax, campaign-finance and other laws by, among other things, sharing with the Barack Obama campaign a list of the Democrat's maxed-out campaign donors so ACORN could use it to solicit them for a get-out-the-vote drive.

She also testified that the Democrat-allied group provided liberal causes with protest-for-hire services and coerced donations from targets of demonstrations through a shakedown it called the “muscle for the money” program.

Ms. Heidelbaugh, a member of the executive committee of the Republican National Lawyers Association, spearheaded an unsuccessful lawsuit last year seeking a court injunction in Pennsylvania against ACORN's voter-registration drive for the 2008 presidential campaign. She appeared as a witness at the request of Republican committee members.

Mr. Conyers, who is known for his drive to continue investigating the Bush administration, previously defended ACORN. In October, he condemned an FBI voter fraud investigation targeting the group. He questioned whether it was politically motivated to hamper a voter-registration drive targeting groups likely to support Mr. Obama's candidacy.

But Mr. Conyers' shift was met by resistance from fellow Democrats on the committee, and it was unclear whether a hearing would be scheduled.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, New York Democrat and chairman of the Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, civil rights and civil liberties that hosted Thursday's hearing, suggested there was not enough “credible evidence” to warrant a hearing focused exclusively on ACORN.

Rep. Melvin Watt said he would concede that ACORN and some of its members engaged in voter fraud. But he said voter fraud was already covered by existing law and Congress has not further role in the matter.

“I'm not coming to a hearing to have a trial on ACORN. That's not my job,” the North Carolina Democrat said.

Republican committee member Rep. Steve King of Iowa said getting the Democrat-led Congress to take action against ACORN “is going to be difficult but I am encouraged by John Conyers' request.”

The accusations against the group, which were based entirely on sworn court testimony late last year by ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.

No ACORN officials testified at Thursday's hearing, but they have said none of the charges are true and dismiss Ms. MonCrief as a disgruntled, low-level employee who was fired for stealing money from the organization.

Kevin Whelan, ACORN deputy political director, did not return a call for comment Thursday.

Ms. MonCrief worked for years as a clerk at the D.C. office of ACORN-affiliated Project Vote before being fired for charging about $2,000 in personal expenses on an ACORN credit card.

She said the hearing Thursday - she attended but did not testify - was an extremely partisan exercise except for Mr. Conyers' support for further hearings.

“I thought that was really wonderful because he took a stand that I really didn't think was going to come from that side,” Ms. MonCrief, a registered Democrat, said after the hearing.

U.S. missile strikes take heavy toll on Al Qaeda, officials say

By Greg Miller

Predator drone attacks in northwest Pakistan have increased sharply since Bush last year stopped seeking Pakistan's permission. Obama may keep pace as officials speak of confusion in Al Qaeda ranks.

Reporting from Washington -- An intense, six-month campaign of Predator strikes in Pakistan has taken such a toll on Al Qaeda that militants have begun turning violently on one another out of confusion and distrust, U.S. intelligence and counter-terrorism officials say.

The pace of the Predator attacks has accelerated dramatically since August, when the Bush administration made a previously undisclosed decision to abandon the practice of obtaining permission from the Pakistani government before launching missiles from the unmanned aircraft.

Since Aug. 31, the CIA has carried out at least 38 Predator strikes in northwest Pakistan, compared with 10 reported attacks in 2006 and 2007 combined, in what has become the CIA's most expansive targeted killing program since the Vietnam War.

Because of its success, the Obama administration is set to continue the accelerated campaign despite civilian casualties that have fueled anti-U.S. sentiment and prompted protests from the Pakistani government.

"This last year has been a very hard year for them," a senior U.S. counter-terrorism official said of Al Qaeda militants, whose operations he tracks in northwest Pakistan. "They're losing a bunch of their better leaders. But more importantly, at this point they're wondering who's next."

U.S. intelligence officials said they see clear signs that the Predator strikes are sowing distrust within Al Qaeda. "They have started hunting down people who they think are responsible" for security breaches, the senior U.S. counter-terrorism official said, discussing intelligence assessments on condition of anonymity. "People are showing up dead or disappearing."

The counter-terrorism official and others, who also spoke anonymously, said the U.S. assessments were based in part on reports from the region provided by the Pakistani intelligence service.

The stepped-up Predator campaign has killed at least nine senior Al Qaeda leaders and dozens of lower-ranking operatives, in what U.S. officials described as the most serious disruption of the terrorist network since 2001.

Among those killed since August are Rashid Rauf, the suspected mastermind of an alleged 2006 transatlantic airliner plot; Abu Khabab Masri, who was described as the leader of Al Qaeda's chemical and biological weapons efforts; Khalid Habib, an operations chief allegedly involved in plots against the West; and Usama al-Kini, who allegedly helped orchestrate the September bombing of the Marriott Hotel in the capital, Islamabad.

Al Qaeda's founders remain elusive. U.S. spy agencies have not had reliable intelligence on the location of Osama bin Laden since he slipped across the Pakistan border seven years ago, officials said. His deputy, Ayman Zawahiri, remains at large after escaping a missile strike in 2006.

But the Predator campaign has depleted the organization's operational tier. Many of the dead are longtime loyalists who had worked alongside Bin Laden and were part of the network's hasty migration into Pakistan in 2001 after U.S.-led forces invaded neighboring Afghanistan. They are being replaced by less experienced recruits who have had little, if any, history with Bin Laden and Zawahiri.

The offensive has been aided by technological advances and an expansion of the CIA's Predator fleet. The drones take off and land at military airstrips in Pakistan, but are operated by CIA pilots in the United States. Some of the pilots -- who also pull the triggers on missiles -- are contractors hired by the agency, former officials said.

Predators were originally designed as video surveillance aircraft that could hover over a target from high altitudes. But new models are outfitted with additional intelligence gear that has enabled the CIA to confirm the identities of targets even when they are inside buildings and can't be seen through the Predator's lens.

The agency is also working more closely with U.S. special operations teams and military intelligence aircraft that hug the Pakistan border, collecting pictures and intercepting radio or cellphone signals.

Even so, officials said that the surge in strikes has less to do with expanded capabilities than with the decision to skip Pakistani approval. "We had the data all along," said a former CIA official who oversaw Predator operations in Pakistan. "Finally we took off the gloves."

The Bush administration's decision to expand the Predator program was driven by growing alarm over Al Qaeda's resurgence in Pakistan's tribal belt.

A 2006 peace agreement between Islamabad and border tribes had allowed the network to shore up its finances, resume training operatives and reestablish connections with satellite groups.

The Bush administration had been constrained by its close ties with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who argued against aggressive U.S. action. But by last summer, after a series of disrupted terrorist plots in Europe had been traced to Pakistan, there were calls for a new approach.

"At a certain point there was common recognition of the untenable nature of what was happening in the FATA," said a former senior U.S. counter-terrorism official, referring to Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas where Al Qaeda is based.

The breaking point came when Musharraf was forced to resign mid-August, officials said. Within days, President Bush had approved the new rules: Rather than requiring Pakistan's permission to order a Predator strike, the agency was allowed to shoot first.

The effect was immediate.

There were two Predator strikes on Aug. 31, and three more by the end of the week. CIA officials had suspected that their targets were being tipped by Pakistani intelligence to pending U.S. strikes; bypassing the government ended that concern.

It also eliminated delays. Former CIA officials said getting permission from Pakistani authorities could take a day or more, sometimes causing the agency to lose track of the target. The missed opportunities were costly because it often took months to assemble the intelligence necessary for a strike.

In 2006, for example, the CIA got word from Pakistani intelligence that Habib was staying at a compound in Miram Shah. A CIA officer involved said he spent weeks at a Pakistani military outpost near the compound, monitoring images from a Predator on a flat-screen device.

"We had a Predator up there for hours at a stretch, just watching, watching," the official said. The agency studied the layout of the compound, trying to determine who slept where, and scanning the surrounding roads for the arrival of Habib's truck.

"They took a shot at the compound a week after I left," the official said. "We got some bodyguards, but he was not there." It took more than two years for the agency to catch up to Habib again. He was killed in a Predator strike in South Waziristan in October.

Pakistan has repeatedly criticized the Predator campaign; the attacks are reported to have caused dozens of civilian casualties. "Drone attacks are counterproductive," said Nadeem Kiani, press attache at the Pakistan Embassy in Washington. Rather than firing missiles, Kiani said, the United States should provide intelligence to Pakistan "and we will take immediate action."

U.S. officials say that despite such complaints, the Pakistani government's opposition has been muted because the CIA has expanded its targeting to include militant groups that threaten the government in Islamabad.

The success of the Predator campaign has prompted some counter-terrorism officials to speak of a post-Al Qaeda era in which its regional affiliates -- in North Africa and elsewhere -- are all that remain after the center collapses.

"You can imagine a horizon in which Al Qaeda proper no longer exists," said Juan Zarate, former counter-terrorism advisor to Bush. "If you were to continue on this pace, and get No. 1 and No. 2, Al Qaeda is dead. You can't resuscitate that organization as we know it without its senior leadership."

How to achieve that without undermining the government in Pakistan is a key issue the Obama administration faces as it searches for a new strategy in the region. In a tour of the region, CIA Director Leon E. Panetta arrived in Islamabad Saturday for talks with Pakistani intelligence officials.

"There's a risk of driving [Al Qaeda and its allies] farther and farther into Pakistan, into cities," said Daniel Byman, a former CIA analyst and terrorism expert at Georgetown University. "There's a danger of weakening the government we want to bolster. It's already to some degree a house of cards."

In fact, the stepped-up strikes have coincided with a deterioration in security in Pakistan. Over the last six months, Taliban elements tied to Al Qaeda have carried out increasingly bold attacks, including in Islamabad, and a recent truce between the government and militants in the Swat Valley was seen by some observers as a capitulation to Islamic hard-liners.

But proponents of the strikes argue that the opportunity to cripple Al Qaeda, perhaps permanently, outweighs concerns over the strains being placed on Pakistan.

"Is this really helping when you have radical militants controlling more territory than ever before?" Zarate said. "That is a good question, but that is a different question from whether this is effective against Al Qaeda."

So far, that appears to be the prevailing view within the Obama administration. A strike in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province last Sunday was the second in four days, and the ninth this year.

Panetta, asked about the Predator attacks in a meeting with reporters last month, refused to discuss the program directly, but said, "Nothing has changed our efforts to go after terrorists, and nothing will change those efforts."

"There is essentially one battle going on, and it is a battle about Islam"

by Robert Spencer

So says former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. And he makes it all very simple and Manichaean: there are "two elements in Islam: one wanted to work with the West; the other did not." We just have to work with the one that wants to work with the West.

Of course! Why didn't anyone think of that before?

Anything in his talk about why the "extremists" are so popular, or is that assumed to be a simple matter of policy and reaction to Western foreign policy? Did Blair even get close to mentioning the fact that there is a traditional, deeply rooted idea in Islamic texts and teachings, that Muslims must wage war against and subjugate unbelievers -- regardless of what those unbelievers have done or not done? I am sure that he didn't, despite its relevance to his point.

But until analysts grapple with that fact, nothing is more certain than that the global jihad will continue, no matter which smiling moderate is feted in Western capitals today.

"Battle on Islam heart of Mideast crisis—Blair," by John Nery for the Philippine Daily Inquirer, March 23 (thanks to Wilkie):

MANILA, Philippines – Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, in Manila for a series of leadership conferences, used an open forum at the Ateneo de Manila University to make what he called "a larger point" about the turmoil in the Middle East.

"There is essentially one battle going on, and it is a battle about Islam."...

He told a sympathetic audience that the "larger point" was the right framework with which to understand the pivotal, conflict-ridden region.

Blair said there were two elements in Islam: one wanted to work with the West; the other did not.

The right approach to peace and development in the Middle East, then, would be to "partner with the modernizing and moderate element," he said.

He made his remarks in answer to a question about how he made major decisions, such as joining the US-led Coalition of the Willing in invading Iraq.

He answered the Iraq question first, and then broadened his view to include the titanic struggle for the future of Islam.

Referring to the moderates doing battle with extremists, he said: "We gotta make sure those guys win."

AIG Scandal May Be Last Straw for Chris Dodd's Career

HARTFORD, Conn. – Howard Rosenblatt voted for U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd five years ago. He won't do that again.

"It's time for Chris to resign," said the 62-year-old owner of Rosenblatt's department store in Naugatuck, Conn., a working-class borough of more than 30,000. "He sits on the Senate banking commission, and he had his hands on funny money loans."

Earl Reilly, a 59-year-old factory worker from Naugatuck, shares Rosenblatt's anger with the state's senior senator.

"Don't get me started on Dodd," he said. "He's been doing the job too long, and he's got a hole in his canoe and it's sinking."

While Dodd, 64, has only recently found himself in the nation's political hot seat because of his role in the AIG bonus debacle, it has become clear that his issues with voters back home have been festering for two years. The AIG controversy appears to have exacerbated his popularity problems. ....

Cops mowed down by rules of engagement - die first, shoot later...

by Jaxon Van Derbeken & Carolyn Jones

Four Oakland police officers were shot and critically wounded this afternoon and a suspect killed after a car stop went bad.

Two of the officers were gunned down about 1:15 p.m. after they pulled over a car in the 7400 block of MacArthur Boulevard, not far from the Eastmont Town Center. Two other officers were shot two hours later when a SWAT team went after the suspect, who had barricaded himself in an apartment building at Hillside Street and 74th Avenue.

The suspect, who has not been identified, shot at the officers, who "returned fire in defense of their lives," said Officer Jeff Thomason, a department spokesman. The suspect, whom police believe was acting alone, was killed.

"We've received four officers in the trauma center," said Patricia VanHook, a Highland Hospital spokeswoman who said no other information was available.

About 100 officers were gathered outside the entrance to the hospital's emergency room, waiting desperately for information about their wounded friends and colleagues. Some of them were wearing SWAT gear, while others were wearing baseball jerseys after having raced from a game.

While the Alameda County coroner was called to the hospital in response to the shooting, information could be slow in coming, Thomason said.

"This is a highly sensitive situation that we're dealing with right now," he said. "We're still trying to notify family members that their family members were hurt."

First reports of the incident came from a 911 call at 1:16 p.m., reporting that two officers had been shot, possibly with an assault-type rifle. The suspect fled from the scene, sparking a huge manhunt that involved officers from at least five different law enforcement agencies.

Another 911 call reportedly told police that the suspect was in an apartment building just blocks from the original shooting. Officers went to the building and went into the building, where the final shootings took place.

Oakland police opened a substation at the Eastmont Mall in 1992, responding to neighborhood complaints about crime and violence in the area. But the substation, built in an old tire shop, did not end the neighborhood's problems.

In 1996, a rowdy rap concert in the mall turned into a melee, with a crowd lobbing bottles and rocks at police, cars and buses. Some of the concert-goers started racing their cars up and down the streets, and two men died after their car crashed through the fence of a nearby school playground.

In 1999, an Oakland police technician was shot at outside the police substation. In 2002, Michelle Horton of San Leandro was shot and killed as she drove on Bancroft Avenue near the mall.

Chronicle staff writers David R. Baker and John Wildermuth contributed to this report

Is this the end of America?

U.S. law-making is riddled with slapdash, incompetence and gamesmanship

By Terence Corcoran

Helicopter Ben Bernanke’s Federal Reserve is dropping trillions of fresh paper dollars on the world economy, the President of the United States is cracking jokes on late night comedy shows, his energy minister is threatening a trade war over carbon emissions, his treasury secretary is dithering over a banking reform program amid rising concerns over his competence and a monumentally dysfunctional U.S. Congress is launching another public jihad against corporations and bankers.

As an aghast world — from China to Chicago and Chihuahua — watches, the circus-like U.S. political system seems to be declining into near chaos. Through it all, stock and financial markets are paralyzed. The more the policy regime does, the worse the outlook gets. The multi-ringed spectacle raises a disturbing question in many minds: Is this the end of America?

Probably not, if only because there are good reasons for optimism.

We the People Stimulus

(Compiler's note: Must read - listen)

This audio will be heard more & more -- it is time that "We the People" of these United States present a stimulus of our own to our current and soon to be past elected government leaders. The gov't has long forgotten that they work for us!

Thanks for listening.
Bob Anderson

Bankruptcy, Not Bailout

by Newt Gingrich

"Outrage" is the word on everyone’s lips to describe the fat bonuses being paid with taxpayer funds to the failed executives at AIG -- and it is an outrage.

It’s an outrage that the American people are being asked to pay for the bad behavior of people who should have known better, be they reckless traders on Wall Street or reckless borrowers on Main Street.

But the cure for our outrage is not merely, as President Obama is demanding, that AIG be prevented from paying its executives. The $165 million in planned bonuses -- as manifestly undeserved as it is -- is chicken feed compared to the $170 billion in taxpayer funds AIG has received so far.

Nor is it acceptable to ask Americans to keep throwing their tax dollars at failed companies and their leaders.

The answer is an old fashioned one: AIG should choose between receivership or bankruptcy. It should not be allowed to choose more bailouts from the taxpayer.

Restore the Rule of Law: Allow Failing Corporations to go Bankrupt

Under U.S. law, Chapter 11 bankruptcy allows a company to reorganize. Chapter 7 allows a company to dissolve itself.

The choices for AIG, as both an insurance and non-insurance company, are more complicated, but ultimately boil down to the same options. And for other companies either receiving or looking to receive a bailout from the taxpayers, the option should instead be bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy would send a needed message to U.S. investors: Don’t assume the government will bail you out when you do something stupid.

And most importantly, bankruptcy would replace the rule of politicians over U.S. financial institutions with the rule of law.

Geithner Didn’t Inherit the Policy of Throwing Billions at Failing Companies -- He Helped Create It

Because when it comes to Washington’s handling of the financial crisis, so far we’ve had the rule of politicians, not the rule of law.

Most prominent among the politicians in question is Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

As Americans’ level of outraged has risen, so has the level of finger pointing by Geithner and others for the mess we’re in.

But Treasury Secretary Geithner is disingenuous at best and untruthful at worst when he says that he “inherited the worst fiscal situation in American history.”

The truth is that Secretary Geithner didn’t inherit the policy of throwing billions of taxpayer dollars at failing companies -- he helped create it.

Even before he was Treasury Secretary -- when he was still head of the New York Federal Reserve -- Geithner was so deeply involved in the government’s bail out of Bear Stearns, its take over of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and its bailout of AIG that this was the Washington Post’s headline from September 19, 2008:

“In the Crucible of Crisis, Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner Forge a Committee of Three”

The first meeting of the first bailout -- of Bear Sterns -- was held in Geithner’s office. And the first meeting of what has become a $170 billion bailout of AIG was held -- where else? In Geithner’s New York Fed office.

Why Not Bankruptcy for AIG? Because Wall Street Wouldn’t Have Done As Well

From the outset, Geithner was central to the developing policy of having the taxpayers bail out ailing financial institutions like AIG rather then allow them to go bankrupt. And for months now, we’ve been told that these bailouts were necessary to avoid a wider, cataclysmic, financial meltdown.

But now it’s clear that other, less noble, considerations were at play.

As the Wall Street Journal editorialized yesterday, the real outrage over the AIG bailout isn’t executive bonuses, it’s that billions in taxpayer funds intended for AIG have been passed through to benefit foreign banks and Wall Street behemoths like Goldman Sachs.

And as former AIG CEO Hank Greenburg testified last October, these financial institutions wouldn’t have faired as well if AIG had filed for bankruptcy protection rather than do what it did, which was to negotiate a bailout with Timothy Geithner’s New York Federal Reserve.

Here’s how Greenburg put it:

“Although AIG stockholders could have fared better if the company had filed for bankruptcy protection, other stakeholders -- like AIG’s Wall Street counterparties in swaps and other transactions -- would have fared worse.”

For the Cost of Bailing Out AIG, Every American Household Could Have Free Electricity For a Year

So now everyone is outraged, and rightly so. But the lavish executive bonuses being paid with taxpayer funds are just the beginning of the story.

So far, the American taxpayers are on the hook for $170 billion to AIG -- that’s an astounding $1,224 per taxpayer.

What else could we have done with all this money?

$170 billion would pay for more than doubling the Navy’s fleet of aircraft carriers.

$170 billion would pay for a four-year education at a public university for more then two million Americans.

$170 billion would cover the electricity bill of every household in America for an entire year.

When You Reward Failure, All You Get is More Failure

What Washington should learn from all this outrage is to return to the common sense that should have guided it all along: When you reward failure, all you get it more failure.

A company that needs a $170 billion taxpayer bailout is a failed company. The executives that led that company are failed executives. But instead of having to face the consequences of their failure responsibly through bankruptcy or receivership, AIG and its Wall Street “counterparties” are being rewarded for their recklessness -- with our money.

Thanks to the Bush-Obama-Geithner policy of bailing out failing companies, we now have the worst of all possible scenarios: A taxpayer subsidized, government supervised private company; an unsustainable public/private hybrid that is too public to make its own decisions and too private to be responsible to the taxpayers that are keeping it alive.

Outrages like the fat cat bonuses currently dominating the headlines will only continue as long as the rule of politicians supplants the rule of law on Wall Street.

Congress should rethink this entire process. The dangers of a domino-like financial meltdown are real. But so, too, is the danger that the outrage of the American people will reach the point that we no longer trust the dire warnings -- or the righteous indignation -- coming from Washington.

Mexican drug wars now worse than Iraq

Mexican drug cartels are now as heavily armed as America’s enemies during the Iraq war and are extending their bloody conflict into the United States, say security experts.

By Tom Leonard in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico

Law enforcement agencies in American cities close to the border with Mexico — including San Diego in California, and El Paso in Texas — are “gearing up” for street confrontations with the drug gangs, which are armed with rockets and grenades and have brought death and chaos south of the border.

The confidence of the cartel chiefs has increased so much that they are moving to affluent neighbourhoods in America to kidnap Mexican businessmen and smuggle them across the border to be ransomed, a private security consultant told The Daily Telegraph.

Van Bethea, the operations director for the Steele Foundation, an American private security company that has protected foreign businessmen in Mexico as well as Iraq, said the two countries were now comparable in terms of the potential danger.

“Quite frankly, in Mexico you can’t be armed enough,” said Mr Bethea. “The dynamic of this combat is approaching the early days of the Iraq war. The cartels’ men are well trained, disciplined and are armed with the latest weaponry, including armour-piercing bullets, rocket-launchers and grenades.”

His claims were backed by Congressmen in Washington, who have said money and guns smuggled from the US were fuelling violence that was now creeping over the border.

In Ciudad Juarez, a Mexican border city of 1.5 million people, five deaths a day in January and February were attributed to drug violence.

But the recent arrival of more than 10,000 troops and federal agents has succeeded in quelling much of the violence. Soldiers have disarmed and replaced a local police force, many of whose members were believed to have been working for the cartels.

But despite the success in Ciudad Juarez, officials estimate that the Mexican cartels are already established in 230 American cities. The gangs have been blamed for killings as far afield as Anchorate, Alaska, and Atlanta, Georgia, as well as 366 kidnappings in Phoenix, Arizona, last year alone.

Mr Medea said many Western businesses, including British companies, had invested heavily in the Mexican factories and were unable to give up doing business in the country easily.

The cartels’ ability to smuggle both guns and kidnap victims into Mexico has been facilitated by lax US border controls, although the Americans are starting to tighten up.

Janet Napolitano, the US homeland security secretary, has admitted that “carloads of cash and mega-weapons” were being transported out of America and into Mexico to fuel the fighting.

President Barack Obama will discuss the Mexican drug violence when he meets Felipe Calderón, the country’s president, in Mexico next month.

Supremes read Kansas blog?

from WorldNetDaily

A Kansas blogger who identifies herself as msplaceddemocrat.com and writes on a wide range of topics recently was surprised to find through her monitoring software that someone from the U.S. Supreme Court was reading her site, which routinely gets several hundred visits per day.

Then she tracked the page to her recent commentary about Orly Taitz, the California lawyer who is pursuing a number of challenges to President Obama's eligibility to be president.

Her commentary included Taitz' recent interviews, on which WND has reported, with Justice Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice John Roberts.

The blogger, Nancy Armstrong, had blogged:

"Dr. Orly Taitz, both a lawyer and naturalized citizen, has personally taken on the issue of Obama's eligibility. There is nothing wrong with her questioning this issue because Obama has literally hidden every evidence of his past. What has he hidden? All school records, passport records, employment records (forget his stupid story about ice cream and an ice cream shop….I believe it is another one of Obama's lies.) and his REAL birth certificate.

"Dr. Orly Taitz wouldn't even have to question anything if Obama was transparent about his life, something he continues to fight with law firms all over the country. Transparency would end all issues, but we will never see that from Obama…," the blogger continued.

"Dr. Taitz has been racing across the country, often times missing her three sons, to meet with Supremes….particularly Scalia and Roberts to further her 'quo warranto' case now at the door of the Supreme Court."

The screen view is posted here:

Screen shot of Kansas blog visitor, IP address 209.144.137.1, listed as the U.S. Supreme Court

Armstrong told WND she was writing about the issue because a friend asked her to do it.

"I just happened to go in and check. I brought my husband in right away. He was dumbfounded. There was the Supreme Court," she said. "It did surprise me.

"It may be that [Taitz] has checkmated the Supreme Court .... which means they are trying to dispense with her and her case," she said.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, some suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

The only statement Obama officials have made to WND about the claims is that all such allegations are "garbage."

Taitz to FBI: Investigate 'tampering' at Supremes

(Compiler's note: A must read - we will be hearing more about this in days to come. Even the main-stream media will eventually have to pick this up and report on it.)

By Bob Unruh

A California attorney battling on a number of fronts to obtain documentation of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president is asking the FBI and U.S. Secret Service to investigate suspected "tampering" at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Orly Taitz, who is pursuing nearly half a dozen causes through her Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, says the issue of Obama's eligibility to meet the Constitution's demand for a "natural born" president has been before the Supreme Court at least four times.

But she wonders whether the justices actually were given the pleadings to review.

"I believe … that there was tampering with documents and records by employees of the Supreme Court and the justices never saw those briefs," she alleges in a letter to the FBI's Robert Mueller, the Secret Service's Mark Sullivan and Attorney General Eric Holder.

"Three hundred five million American citizens … need to know whether a foreign national is usurping the position of the president and the commander in chief," she wrote.

Taitz raises questions about "forgery of court records, tampering with court records, cyber crime, erasing of court records from the docket, fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud and other related crimes."

Specifically, she points to the handling of her own case, Lightfoot v. Bowen, which was submitted to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis. Although it was scheduled for a conference, no hearing ever was held.

Join one third of a million people who are seeking the truth on whether Obama meets the Constitution's "natural born" citizenship clause.

Taitz notes that references to the case were erased from the docket of the Supreme Court on Jan. 21, shortly after Obama, the defendant, met with eight of the nine justices behind closed doors.

It happened just two days before her case was scheduled to be reviewed in conference.

Secondly, Taitz notes that in her conversation with Justice Antonin Scalia at a book-signing in Los Angeles several weeks ago, he appeared to have no knowledge of the cases that had been submitted.

She said she mentioned her case and those brought by Cort Wrotnowski, Philip Berg and Leo Donofrio.

"In the presence of several attorneys, law students and Secret Service agents Justice Scalia kept saying that he didn't know anything … even though all of the plaintiffs have received notification that all of those cases were reviewed by all nine justices," she said.

Taitz said she's also concerned that the Supreme Court docket was somehow modified.

"Did somebody from outside break and enter into the computer system of the Supreme Court or was it done by one of the overzealous employees who wanted to keep Obama in the White House?" she asked.

"I demand to see the printout of entries of both internal docket seen by justices and the external docket seen by the public to verify if those were identical at all times, particularly between January 20th and January 23rd," she said.

She also raised the possibility that justices' signatures may have been "stamped" on documentation.

U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts

Her allegations, she said, were part of what she submitted to Chief Justice John Roberts when she met him at the University of Idaho a week ago.

"Due to the … great urgency of the matter in relation to the national security of the United States … I demand immediate investigation of this matter," Taitz wrote.

Taitz also is developing a Quo Warranto case that has been submitted to Holder.

Essentially, the case demands to know what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto "affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."

As WND reported, Taitz already has submitted a motion to the Supreme Court for re-hearing of Lightfoot v. Bowen, a case she is working on through Defend Our Freedoms alleging some of her documentation may have been withheld from the justices by a court clerk.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, some suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are "garbage," here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:

• New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.


• Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
  
  
• Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.


• Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.


• Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case was dismissed by Judge Michael P. Kenny.
• 
  
• Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
  
  
• Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
  
  
• In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
  
  
• Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.
  
  
• In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
  
  
• In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.


• California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:

• In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
  
  
• In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
  
  
• In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
  
  
• In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
  
  
• In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

Pres. Obama Pulls Rug Out From Under Ex-Convict Pleading for a Job

By Roy Beck

Today's news reports on Pres. Obama's visit to California include a touching interaction with an ex-convict who has lost his job. But his comments about making sure that illegal aliens keep THEIR jobs illustrates the common occurrence of really smart people at the top of our government who just don't get it. They don't understand that there are a limited number of U.S. jobs and that when you fill those jobs with foreign workers (including illegal ones) American workers lose out. Look at what happened . . .

This is from Scott Wilson's report on Mr. Obama's visit in southern California in the March 19 edition of the Washington Post:

In one exchange, a man who said he was a convicted felon, thanked Obama for listening to him, then told him he had recently been laid off from Toyota after 13 years on the job.

'What am I going to do?' he asked.

After a pause, Obama told him, 'You have made amends for your past mistakes, you are rehabilitated, and you have proven yourself in the job market. Based on what you are telling,' the President said, 'what you are facing has less to do with the fact that you are a felon, than that the job market is really tight right now.'

This is the point you want the President to say that he'll do everything he can to help people like the questioner to be able to find a job later this year.

But the very next paragraph in the Post said that Mr. Obama pledged the opposite:

Obama pledged to work for comprehensive immigration reform but said it 'would not be a free ride' for those here illegally. He said successful reform would entail better control of the border -- an issue he said he intends to work on with President Felipe Calderon of Mexico in a visit there next month -- and a process that would allow 'those who have been here for a long time to come out of the shadow' and become citizens.

Studies show that most ex-convicts who have been released from prison are less-educated, the very same characteristic shared by most illegal aliens. The estimated 7 million illegal aliens who are working are holding jobs that are best suited for the hundreds of thousands of Americans being released from prisons.

We went through this same intellectual disconnect with Pres. Bush. Remember his grandiose State of the Union address in which he announced a program to ensure that people being released from prisons would find jobs so they can turn their lives around?

The problem was that Mr. Bush insisted on importing around 140,000 foreign workers a month in addition to enticing other foreign workers to come here illegally to take the jobs that the ex-cons needed. Not surprisingly, Mr. Bush's program for ex-cons never really took hold.

Well, we have a new President with the same set of blinders. And we have a news media that don't notice the disconnect, either.

I don't see any evidence that anybody thought it was strange that Pres. Obama could show such concern and compassion for the recently unemployed ex-con and then say that he intends to keep as many jobs tied up with illegal foreign workers as possible.

And now this morning, Fox News is reporting from sources inside DHS that worksite raids have for all practical purposes been suspended.

Very strange. The raids have been opening up jobs for unemployed Americans, primarily those at the bottom of the economic ladder. A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies finds that every job opened by driving out an illegal alien was quickly filled by a legal worker and that wages went up for all workers at those worksites after the raids.

Why would Pres. Obama want to stop helping American workers like that?

The answer is that political pandering to the radical extreme of his ideological base blinds him to even considering that illegal immigration has anything to do with unemployed Americans.

Banker fury over tax ‘witch-hunt’

Bankers on Wall Street and in Europe have struck back against moves by US lawmakers to slap punitive taxes on bonuses paid to high earners at bailed-out institutions.

Senior executives on both sides of the Atlantic on Friday warned of an exodus of talent from some of the biggest names in US finance, saying the “anti-American” measures smacked of “a McCarthy witch-hunt” that would send the country “back to the stone age”.

There were fears that the backlash triggered by AIG’s payment of $165m in bonuses to executives responsible for losses that forced a $170bn taxpayer-funded rescue would have devastating consequences for the largest banks.

“Finance is one of America’s great industries, and they’re destroying it,” said one banker at a firm that has accepted public money. “This happened out of haste and anger over AIG, but we’re not like AIG.” ....

The war on "man-caused disasters"

Politically Correct Theater of the Absurd

Dear Robert,

Yesterday we emailed you the link to a video of an Islamist matter-of-factly discussing how easy it would be to smuggle anthrax across our border and kill over 300,000 people. Since then over 40,000 people viewed the video, demonstrating the reach ACT! for America currently has.

Juxtapose that video with the comments recently made by Homeland Security director Janet Napolitano. As the commentary below notes, Napolitano referred to Islamist terrorism as “man-caused disasters.”

As Diana West asks, “Is this a joke?” Unfortunately, no. Political correctness is running so rampant in Washington that the person charged with protecting our “homeland security” twists herself into an absurd rhetorical pretzel in order to avoid using the “I” word. Imagine the scorn that would have been heaped on Franklin D. Roosevelt if, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, he declared war on “man-caused disasters”! That tells how much things have changed in Washington.

We asked yesterday “Why is our shared ACT! for America mission so important? Why is the Islamist threat so dangerous? Why is it essential that we overcome political correctness in America and awaken citizens everywhere?”

You see, we are not only fighting the evil of radical Islamists who are intent on destroying our way of life and replacing our law with shariah law. We are also forced to contend with the willfully self-deceived in our government who are more concerned with appearing respectable than with protecting our safety and liberty.

What can YOU do TODAY that will help us take one more step forward in combating this lunacy?

• First, forward this email to everyone you know, and urge them to log on to www.actforamerica.org and sign up for our daily email alerts.
  
  
• And second, call the Department of Homeland Security “Comment Line,” 202/282-8495, and let them know, in a firm but respectful way, that you are outraged and deeply concerned by Napolitano’s characterization of terrorism.

---

The war on "man-caused disasters"


But what if the jihadist is a woman?

We're not fighting a War On Terror anymore. And we certainly aren't fighting a defensive action against the global jihad and/or Islamic supremacism. No, what we're doing is fighting a War on "man-caused disasters."

Feel better? Feel more politically correct? Less bigoted, racist, and Islamophobic? Good, because that's all you're going to get from this. You certainly aren't going to get any insight into who the enemy is, or why he (or she, Janet, you sexist) is doing what he is doing.

"'Away From the Politics of Fear,'" from Spiegel, March 16 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Janet Napolitano, 51, is President Obama's new Homeland Security Secretary. She spoke with SPIEGEL about immigration, the continued threat of terrorism and the changing tone in Washington.

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

Diana West comments:

Is this a joke, a late-night skit's attempt to skewer PC lingo?

No, this is PC lingo. Having abandoned the idiotic but at least somewhat bellicose moniker "War on Terror," we are now into, what...the "Intervention into Man-Caused Disaster."

Of course, there are two PC problems with the "nuance" Mzzz Napolitano claims.

There is that pesky term "man"--sure to rile the feminists, let alone the female suicide bombers. Brace for the day when Secretary Janet discusses "Person-Caused Disasters."

But that leaves the fact that the kind of "persons" who cause the "disasters" in question believe that Allah, not man (and certainly not woman) causes everything. Remember Operation Infinite Justice? That was the name the US tagged onto the military campaign against the Taliban until Muslims complained (p. 166) on the grounds that they believe only Allah dispenses justice, infinite or otherwise. (And that was enough for Uncle Sam to changes names, natch.) This line of religious belief surely makes "Man/Person-Caused Disaster" practically a term of defamation. I'm thinking Madame Secretary will have to go with something else, maybe renaming the whole agency for further sensitivity's sake. Department for the Prevention of Allah-Caused Disasters, anyone?

FBI Intelligence Assessment Warns of Infrastructure Threat from Copper Thefts

by Anthony L. Kimery

Thefts increasingly disrupting many important infrastructure systems

When I recently told a friend of mine who is in the home remodeling and construction business that I was thinking of installing copper gutters to increase the value of my home in preparation to sell it next spring, his response was: “Yeah, and you’ll be awakened some night to the sound of your gutter and downspout being ripped down by copper thieves, too.”

Before my friend had even closed on the new home he recently bought, thieves had ripped out nearly all the copper wiring and had made off with the air conditioning unit and hot water heater.

It’d slipped my mind that copper theft is still a serious problem, even with the price of a pound of copper down to around a buck fifty from the $4 a pound it was selling for not long ago.

Ask anyone who has been in the building construction business and they’ll tell you copper theft has been a growing problem for at least the last half-decade.

But copper thievery is much more than a pricey nuisance to the construction industry. Today, organized copper theft is considered a homeland security problem, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

In September, the Bureau’s Criminal Investigative Division’s Criminal Intelligence Section issued an unclassified Intelligence Assessment, “Copper Thefts Threaten US Critical Infrastructure,” that spells out the chronic problem copper theft poses to national security.

"The public safety impact could be significant," said the FBI analyst who prepared the report.

“Copper thieves are threatening US critical infrastructure by targeting electrical sub-stations, cellular towers, telephone land lines, railroads, water wells, construction sites, and vacant homes for lucrative profits,” the FBI’s intelligence assessment stated. “The theft of copper from these targets disrupts the flow of electricity, telecommunications, transportation, water supply, heating, and security and emergency services and presents a risk to both public safety and national security.”

Copper thefts increasingly are disrupting many important infrastructure systems like transportation, telecommunications, emergency services, airports, hospitals and agricultural systems.

The FBI intelligence analyst interviewed nearly 150 people from local and state law enforcement agencies and officials from a variety of private sector infrastructure companies. According to the analyst, while everyone had something to say about the problem of copper thefts, "nobody had the big picture."

"Until recently, the implications of these crimes fell below the radar of federal law enforcement," the analyst said, "but now, the serious issues surrounding copper theft are known and being addressed."

The intelligence advisory noted that in April, five tornado warning sirens in the Jackson, Mississippi area did not warn residents of an approaching tornado because copper thieves had stripped the sirens of copper wiring, rendering them inoperable.

The month before, in Polk County, Florida, nearly 4,000 residents were left without power after half-a-million in copper wire was stripped from an active transformer at a Tampa Electric Company power facility.

From 2006 to 2007, AT&T reported that thefts of copper bus bars, grounding wires or cable from cell sites in North Texas rose more than 200 percent. Nationwide, AT&T said copper theft had cost the company nearly $6.7 million in 2007.

“Every outage caused by copper theft has left customers and communities isolated and possibly vulnerable in an emergency,” spokesman Dave Pacholczyk said at the time.

From January 2007 through July 2007, an organized copper theft ring busted by the FBI made off with nearly $500,000 worth of copper grounding bars and wiring from more than 130 cell phone tower sites in 17 different jurisdictions in the Eastern District of Virginia and eastern North Carolina.

A few weeks ago, about 3,000 Windstream Communications phone and broadband customers in Washington County, Pennsylvania were left without service for a day after thieves cut lines and fiber optic cables to steal copper wiring.

Earlier in November in Goshen and Montgomery, New York, power was cut off to hundreds after thieves stole copper wire from electric utility poles.

In Rancho San Diego, an area of unincorporated San Diego County, California, electricity recently was knocked out when thieves cut down and made off with copper power lines.

Between October 2007 and March 2008, $90,000 worth of copper was stolen from 11 power substations in northwestern Montana belonging to the Bonneville Power Administration and Flathead Electric Cooperative.

In Greenville, South Carolina in July 2006, a man was electrocuted trying to steal copper from a Duke Energy substation.

More disturbingly, late last year thieves cut out a 300 foot section of copper wire from a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control tower in Ohio, threatening communications between pilots and air traffic controllers.

Copper theft increased more than 1,000 percent from 2005 to 2006. A study by the Department of Energy found that in 2007, copper theft cost the electric power industry about $1 billion – and is growing. From January 2006 to March 2007, electric utility companies in 42 states reported 270 copper thefts.

The problem isn’t likely to abate anytime soon, especially with some analysts predicting that the price of copper will hover around $3 a pound through 2012.

According to the FBI’s intelligence assessment of the problem, “the global demand for copper, combined with the economic and home foreclosure crisis, is creating numerous opportunities for copper-theft perpetrators to exploit copper-rich targets. Organized copper theft rings may increasingly target vacant or foreclosed homes as they are a lucrative source of unattended copper inventory.”

The FBI stated that “current economic conditions, such as the rising cost of gasoline, food, and consumer goods, the declining housing market, the ease through which copper is exchanged for cash, and the lack of a significant deterrent effect, make it likely that copper thefts will remain a lucrative financial resource for criminals.”

Continuing, the FBI pointed out that “China , India and other developing nations are driving the demand for raw materials such as copper and creating a robust international trade. Copper thieves are receiving cash from recyclers who often fill orders for commercial scrap dealers. Recycled copper flows from these dealers to smelters, mills, foundries, ingot makers, powder plants and other industries to be re-used in the United States or for supplying the international raw materials demand.”

And “as the global supply of copper continues to tighten, the market for illicit copper will likely increase,” the FBI warned.

Maricopa County, Arizona Farm Bureau President Steven Bales, Jr. told a state committee during hearings on the matter that copper theft “has rapidly escalated into an epidemic.”

The Copper Theft Prevention Act of 2008 was introduced in the House just prior to the August congressional recess, but so far no action has been taken on it since it was sent to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

The legislation is aimed at protecting the nation’s critical infrastructure that relies on copper. The bill would “require certain metal recyclers to keep records of their transactions in order to deter individuals and enterprises engaged in theft and interstate fencing of stolen copper.

Meanwhile, the FBI said, “industry officials have taken some countermeasures to address the copper theft problem” which “include the installment of physical and technological security measures, increased collaboration among the various industry sectors, and the development of law enforcement partnerships.”

And in lieu of congressional action, “many states are also taking countermeasures by enacting or enhancing legislation regulating the scrap industry––to include increased recordkeeping and penalties for copper theft and noncompliant scrap dealers.”

Why is the Islamist threat so dangerous?

(Compiler's note: Must read - see.)

Why is it essential that we overcome political correctness in America and awaken citizens everywhere?

Why?

Watch this chilling, newly-released video.

http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=0861ff3eabea1ceb73e4