Monday, September 29, 2008

Religious Texts Taken Down After Complaints

Muslim students are crying foul after the University of Southern California’s provost took down historical documents that call for Muslims to kill Jewish people from a student group’s site, the Daily Trojan reports.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

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

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

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

Mainstream US Islamic Websites -- and Terror

By Patrick Poole

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

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

....

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

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

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

Red flag rising

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atlanta motorists stalk fuel trucks; MARTA sees more riders

In IRS Protest, Pastors Back Candidates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click here for additional information

The Big 3 bailout you didn't know about

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

You would be wrong.

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

Possible change of heart

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

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

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

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

God’s Hand in the Founding of America

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

by Elder L. Tom Perry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FBI hunts American citizens trained overseas for terror

by WorldNetDaily

Feds launch dragnet to stop 'October surprise' attack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Doug Hagmann

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

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

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

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

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

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

Short selling of stocks: Sound familiar?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Warner Todd Huston

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bet on Israel bombing Iran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Syria resumes covert nuclear projects in partnership with North Korea

DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources report that it took Damascus a year to recover from the demolition of its plutonium project at El Kibar in northern Syria, but already the nuclear scientists and technicians who were to have been employed there have been hired for new projects. This time the installations are scattered in different parts of the country. North Korean nuclear experts are back too. ....

Here is the latest bailout draft bill if you can’t access the House website

The House website is down.

I’ve uploaded the most recent bailout draft bill right here:

Click.


Via N.Z. Bear, here’s a quick-and-dirty, section-by-section analysis of the latest draft going around the Hill: .....

Bailout Plan! The House Aint Buyin It!!

Video


If you want to understand why the House Republicans are protecting taxpayers' hard-earned money by not buying the bailout plan, watch this video!


Building a National Enterprise to Keep America Safe, Free, and Prosperous

In 2004, a task force chaired by homeland security experts from the Center for Strategic and International Stud­ies (CSIS) and The Heritage Foundation (and consisting of representatives from academia, research centers, the pri­vate sector, and congressional staffs) presented its conclusions in "DHS 2.0: Rethinking the Department of Homeland Security." Their report evaluated the capacity of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to fulfill its mandate as set out in the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Their evaluation was based on four criteria: management, roles and missions, authorities, and resources. It offered more than 40 major recommendations and made the case for a significant reorganization of the DHS to improve this instrument's effectiveness and efficiency for preventing and responding to terrorist threats. Many of these proposals in the report were subsequently adopted by Congress and the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Four years later, this follow-up report concludes that, while many still find the department a work in progress, the most pressing needs for enhancing the protection of the country from transnational terrorist threats do not lie in further major reorganization of the DHS or revisiting its roles and missions. Rather Congress and the Administration should shift their focus to strengthening the effectiveness of the national homeland security enterprise as a whole.
The terrorist threat is nimble and dynamic. It exploits the seams of our society, operating in the gaps between bureaucratic notions of foreign and domestic, state and federal, civil and military. To counter this threat, we must build a national homeland security enterprise that is as agile and seamless as those who seek to harm us. The objec­tive of this report is to highlight the most critical tasks for building such an enterprise.
To be more agile, our bureaucracy must foster better decision making in Congress and in the interagency pro­cess, support the development of a new generation of professionals, and facilitate information sharing throughout all elements of the enterprise. Furthermore, to close the gaps where terrorists hide, we must empower individuals and communities and extend international cooperation throughout our homeland security activities.
Each section of this report consists of findings and recommendations agreed upon by the task force. Major rec­ommendations in the report include:
  • Empowering a national culture of preparedness by focusing on building more self-reliant communities and individuals,
  • Shifting to a strategy that is focused on building and sustaining a resilient national infrastructure,
  • Expanding international cooperation throughout homeland security programs,
  • Developing a framework for domestic intelligence, and
  • Establishing national programs to improve professional development at all levels of governance on security and public safety.
The next Congress and Administration have an opportunity to look at our national homeland security enterprise anew. In doing so, they should adopt specific initiatives to address these critical tasks. The Administration should adopt an interagency approach led by a revitalized, reorganized, and integrated National Security Council that treats domestic and international security concerns in a more holistic manner.
In addition to consolidating committee jurisdiction over the DHS and creating committees to oversee interagency education, assignments, and accreditation, Congress should establish a bipartisan caucus that meets regularly to con­sider issues that affect the national homeland security enterprise. Both the next Congress and Administration need to engage private businesses and the American people—two great, but seemingly forgotten strengths of American soci­ety—more effectively to persuade them to contribute to and participate in homeland security.
Protecting America at home is a national mission that requires the concerted effort of the nation, including state and local governments, the private sector and nongovernmental organizations, local communities, families, and individuals. Many of the most vital tasks are conducted most effectively in a decentralized manner. The national enterprise must facilitate cooperation, innovation, resiliency, flexibility, and adaptability, not promote rigid Wash­ington-centric solutions. In addition, virtually every aspect of domestic security from securing the border to disaster response has an international dimension requiring the cooperation of friends and allies around the world. We are facing threats—naturally occurring and deliberate—that can, will, and do target all elements of our society. It is therefore incumbent upon all elements of our society to work together to counter these threats.
While this report's 25 recommendations are grouped by critical task subject, many of the proposals are interde­pendent, affecting more than one mission area. In particular, the initiatives regarding community preparedness and resiliency of national infrastructure and global systems dovetail closely. Thus, the task force envisions these recom­mendations as integral parts of a holistic strategy for building the national homeland security enterprise that the nation needs, not as a menu from which policymakers should pick and chose.

Your scorecard for understanding mortgage scandal

Find out who's who in the 'Rogues Gallery' of economic crisis

As Congress works on a $700 billion bailout plan for the U.S. financial system, the FBI has extended fraud investigations to 26 companies involved in mortgage lending. Authorities are attempting to determine whether any of the firms have participated in accounting fraud, insider trading or inflating values of mortgage-related assets. The FBI has not disclosed a list of companies under investigation, but the following are just a few firms in distress and executives under scrutiny. ....

Pirates die strangely after taking Iranian ship

By Andrew Donaldson

A tense standoff has developed in waters off Somalia over an Iranian merchant ship laden with a mysterious cargo that was hijacked by pirates.

Somali pirates suffered skin burns, lost hair and fell gravely ill “within days” of boarding the MV Iran Deyanat. Some of them died.

Andrew Mwangura, the director of the East African Seafarers’ Assistance Programme, told the Sunday Times: “We don’t know exactly how many, but the information that I am getting is that some of them had died. There is something very wrong about that ship.

The vessel’s declared cargo consists of “minerals” and “industrial products”. But officials involved in negotiations over the ship are convinced that it was sailing for Eritrea to deliver small arms and chemical weapons to Somalia’s Islamist rebels.

The drama over the Iran Deyanat comes as speculation grew this week about whether the South African Navy would send a vessel to join the growing multinational force in the region.

A naval spokesman, Lieutenant-Commander Greyling van den Berg, told the Sunday Times that the navy had not been ordered by the government to become involved in “the Somali pirate issue”.

About 22000 ships a year pass through the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aden, where regional instability and “no-questions-asked” ransom payments have led to a dramatic rise in attacks on vessels by heavily armed Somali raiders in speedboats.

The Iran Deyanat was sailing in those waters on August 21, past the Horn of Africa and about 80 nautical miles southeast of Yemen, when it was boarded by about 40 pirates armed with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades. They were alleged members of a crime syndicate said to be based at Eyl, a small fishing village in northern Somalia.

The ship is owned and operated by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, or IRISL, a state-owned company run by the Iranian military.

According to the US Treasury Department, the IRISL regularly falsifies shipping documents to hide the identity of end users, uses generic terms to describe shipments and operates under various covers to circumvent United Nations sanctions.

The ship set sail from Nanjing, China, at the end of July. According to its manifest, it was heading for Rotterdam where it would unload 42500 tons of iron ore and “industrial products” purchased by a German client.

At Eyl, the ship was secured by more pirates — about 50 on board, and another 50 on shore.

But within days those who had boarded the ship developed mysterious health trouble.

This was also confirmed by Hassan Allore Osman, minister of minerals and oil in Puntland, an autonomous region of Somalia.

He headed a delegation sent to Eyl when news of the toxic cargo and illnesses surfaced.

He told one news publication, The Long War Journal, that during the six days he had negotiated with the pirates, a number of them had become sick and died.

“That ship is unusual,” he was quoted as saying. “It is not carrying a normal shipment.”

The pirates did reveal that they had tried to inspect the ship’s cargo containers when some of them fell sick — but the containers were locked.

Osman’s delegation spoke to the ship’s captain and its engineer by cellphone, demanding to know more about the cargo.

Initially it was claimed the cargo contained “crude oil”; later it was said to be “minerals”.

And Mwangura has added: “Our sources say it contains chemicals, dangerous chemicals.”

But IRISL has denied that — and threatened legal action against Mwangura. The company has reportedly paid the pirates 200000 — the first of several “ransom instalments”, but that, too, has been denied.

US Financial Crisis: Where is all began .... note the date

Read this carefully.......It wasn't GWB's administration that started this ...... it was long before. Notice the date on NY Times article in 1999.


Today's 200 Word Answer

1d9db11.jpgPelosi: Dems bear no responsibility for economic crisis

1d9db4f.jpg


By STEVEN A. HOLMES

Published: September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer (and current Obama advisor) . ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Pass the salt, please.

The article below gives more information regarding those values and how they get there. It confirms much of what appears in the Holmes article that initiated this thread and then what happened AFTER the Holmes article was written in 1999. This could be one of the most informative e-mail articles you read this month, maybe even this year!

How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett

Commentary by Kevin Hassett

Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.

But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

Turning Point

Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.

It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Commission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.

Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.

Greenspan's Warning

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''

Mounds of Materials

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.


Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.


Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.


Footnote bailout

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.


(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Kevin Hassett at khassett@aei.org

Last Updated: September 22, 2008 00:04 EDT