Friday, November 7, 2008

Shariah-Compliant Financing – “Jihad with money”!

Dear Readers,

This is a "must read" and see item. I recently posted the startling news about the U.S. Treasury Department hosting a shariah-compliant finance forum today entitled “Islamic Finance 101.”

With the crisis in our financial and credit markets, shariah-compliant finance is coming at us full-speed. ACT! for America has been working behind the scenes to launch some projects aimed at exposing this tentacle of shariah law, but the pace of events has convinced them that they need to accelerate their pace as well.


In this vein, ACT! for America has posted a new video on their website about shariah-compliant finance narrated by Joy Brighton, pictured at right. As one who holds an MBA, “cut her teeth” on the trading floor with Lehman Brothers, and is a professor of securities and investments, Joy is eminently qualified to address this issue.

To view this video log on to their home page, www.actforamerica.org.

Other concerned groups and organizations are coming together in a Coalition to Stop Shariah. ACT! for America is proud to be part of this coalition. They will make more announcements in the near future regarding their efforts to stop shariah.

Shariah-compliant finance is, as one of its leading advocates puts it, “jihad with money.” ACT! for America is committed to doing everything possible to ensure that America is awakened to this threat of cultural jihad.

We urge you to view the video as soon as possible and then forward this site to everyone you know!!!

The missiles of November

Former Spook, an ex-intelligence analyst, described Russia’s deployment of SS-26 Iskander to Kaliningrad as a “shot across the bow” of the incoming administration. The purpose of these missiles was to threaten to destroy components of the planned US anti-missile defense shield in to be based in Poland. The SS-26s themselves are fired from mobile launchers and designed to launch “effective missile strikes at small-size targets of particular importance” on very short notice. Russian President Dimitry Medvedev also said that Russia “plans to jam a radar located in the Czech Republic, used to detect in-bound missiles and guide the Polish-based interceptors.”

Together the moves are designed to neutralize the US ballistic missile defense systems in Eastern Europe. By threatening to destroy the interceptors and jam the radar which may guide them, Russia can blow a hole in the defense shield. But they always could, from sheer numbers alone. The shield was never designed to blunt a Russian attack only that of a rogue state’s. That makes the reasons for the Russian move all the more puzzling. According to Phil Coyle, a former Pentagon weapons tester quoted by Wired, the US ballistic missile defense systems are nearly useless, at least in their current state. “The system proposed for Poland and the Czech Republic doesn’t exist, has never been tested, and has no demonstrated effectiveness to defend Europe or the U.S. under realistic operational conditions”.

A Russian threat to bombard Poland simply because it had a potential defense system useful against Iran might be construed as overly provocative, especially since Barack Obama had said in his campaign that “he would institute an ‘Independent Defense Priorities Board,’ cut investments from an ‘unproven missile defense system,’ ’set a goal for a world without nuclear weapons,’ ‘work with Russia to take our ICBM’s off hair trigger alert’ and ’slow the development of Future Combat Systems.’” Why would Russia seek to provoke an Obama administration already prepared to concede the missile defense system? The answer, according to the private think-tank STRATFOR, was that the moves were aimed at emphasizing Russian strength to pry Russia away the Ukraine, a challenge which would split NATO.

The morning after Obama’s election, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev announced that Russia was deploying missiles in its European exclave of Kaliningrad in response to the U.S. deployment of ballistic missile defense systems in Poland. Obama opposed the Russians on their August intervention in Georgia, but he has never enunciated a clear Russia policy. We expect Ukraine will have shifted its political alignment toward Russia, and Moscow will be rapidly moving to create a sphere of influence before Obama can bring his attention — and U.S. power — to bear.

Obama will again turn to the Europeans to create a coalition to resist the Russians. But the Europeans will again be divided. The Germans can’t afford to alienate the Russians because of German energy dependence on Russia and because Germany does not want to fight another Cold War. The British and French may be more inclined to address the question, but certainly not to the point of resurrecting NATO as a major military force.

If STRATFOR is correct the Russian missile deployment is simply a prelude to a wider geopolitical game. It’s the opening bell of a main event whose outlines have yet to be definitely discerned.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Charities and Terrorism

(Compiler's note: Must read. rca)

by Phil Leggiere


New paper examines how Al Qaeda uses moderate Muslims to ‘microfinance” terror

Terrorist networks and organizations have many “underground” means of financing themselves, from drug smuggling to cybercrime. As challenging as these clandestine methods are to globally eradicate, an equally vexing problem is how to shut-off jihadist funding siphoned off from so-called “legitimate” charities.

Addressing that problem, according to Tolga Koker Department of Economics and Carlos Yordan Department of Political Science Drew University, means addressing the question of why tens of thousands of Muslims who are not terrorists and often opposed themselves to terrorism nonetheless support the work of charities that support jihadist operations. Their new paper , titled Microfinancing Terrorism: A Study in Al Qaeda Financing Strategy, published Tuesday by the Social Science Research Network, tries to do just that.

Although new banking and financial regulations may have made it difficult for terrorist groups to move funds around the world, the authors argue, these groups have be quite resourceful in finding ways to adapt to the new regulatory environment and to undermine it.

“For terrorist networks,” they write, “ especially those informed by jihadist ideologies, one source of finance is Muslims’ religious donations to Islamic charities. Although Al Qaeda and its affiliates have employed other funding mechanisms, individual donations are a key source of financing because it is a steady flow of funds.

Charities, according to the report, have been a fundamental part of Al Qaeda’s financial Infrastructure, not only helping Al Qaeda raise funds, but allowing it to move funds across national boundaries and hide the transfers from financial regulators.

Though some charities, according to the authors knowingly and actively supported Al Qaeda’s efforts, “most were not aware that al Qaeda operatives working for these charities or that they were siphoning off thousands of dollars to fund terrorist activities and to build Al Qaeda’s global network, which supported jihadist struggles in Chechnya, the Balkans, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia.”

"Given that Al Qaeda and other groups fund most of their activities through donations, collected by Islamic charities, why would Muslims provide funds to these organizations," the authors ask.

The answer, the authors conclude, is that "social pressure forces moderate Muslims to publicly support the work of charities that may provide assistance to Al Qaeda or groups inspired by a jihadist worldview."

As they explain it, an individual will comply with social pressures and donate funds to a charity that may supports jihadi causes if he perceives it as critical to his reputation and public recognition as a “practicing” Muslim. Given the primacy of charitable donations in the culture and status system of Muslim communities the need to maintain reputation in this sphere is a powerful force, one that Al Qaeda has been able to tap.

“Microfinancing jihadi charities has a snowballing effect,’ they write. “A Muslim who previously refrained from donating to Islamic charities is likely to find himself in a position to provide some funds to religious organizations if he constantly observes his fellow acquaintances’ donations. As a bigger portion of Muslims are yielding to social pressures to contribute extra monies to jihadi charities, al Qaeda and other groups informed by jihadi goals will secure more funds to run their violent operations.”

The reputational model of charitable behavior, the authors believe, has strong implications for policy and counter-terror strategy.

“ The model implies,” they say, “ that identifying first and then publicly exposing such charities may help pious Muslims, especially those with high expressive drive to sincerely voice their concern among their communities. Encouraging individual donors with high threshold to voice their opinion against violence may create a snowballing effect deterring others from contributing to possible jihadi charities.”

“More importantly,” they conclude, “ finding ways to decrease reputational benefits is crucial in curbing the financial resources flowing terrorist networks. However, this is not an easy task. It needs the involvement of secular charities to provide several basic services that were considerably diminished with the neo-liberal polices since the 1980s in Muslim countries and elsewhere. Strictly regulated foreign aid to secular charities may help in this regard.”

The ultimate goal of this campaign of cultural outreach will be “making contribution to jihadi charities unpopular, and hence, changing the direction of social pressure from donating monies to such charities to avoiding such organization will have a paramount effect in the fight against terrorism. This is a long-term goal which is not feasible in the very short run since it asks for major revisions in world politics of which the jihadi charities are by-products.”

Obama Hears ‘Family Jewels’ Intel Briefing, Clearance Concerns

By Anthony L. Kimery,

Such briefings have 'been the beginning of when a new president’s hair starts turning white'

President-elect Barack Obama today receives his first comprehensive, "above" Top Secret presidential-level intelligence briefing.

In addition to receiving the regular "President’s Daily Brief," or PDB, which consists of analytical summaries of best available intelligence on vital national security matters over the previous 24-hours, intelligence sources told HSToday.us that Obama's briefing also will include the latest analysis on the reconstitution of Al Qaeda and the terrorist organization’s presence in Pakistan and Pakistan's border with Afghanistan; the state of the terrorist/insurgency in Iraq and Pakistan; Al Qaeda’s efforts to acquire nuclear and, especially, biological weapons; Iran and North Korea’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile developments; and the increasing threat posed to the United States by Mexico’s warring narco-terrorist cartels, which have ties to Colombia’s FARC and Islamist terrorist organizations with long-established operational infrastructure throughout Central and South America.

(Editor’s Note: In the January issue, HSToday will feature a major report on Mexico’s cartels by Anthony Kimery, online editor and senior reporter, who in October met with federal, state and local law enforcement during a trip to the US/Mexico border)

Director of National Intelligence and former National Security Agency Director Mike McConnell will provide the first presidential-level intelligence briefing to Obama and selected president-elect transition team members. He will be accompanied by CIA Director of Intelligence, Michael J. Morell, a 28-year CIA veteran and former Associate Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

Although Obama received regular intelligence briefings as a presidential candidate, this will be the first time he is presented the PDB, which is similar to the daily intelligence summary that’s prepared for the Secretary of State by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), which may prepare any number of briefs for the Secretary throughout the day.

As a matter of background, INR provides value-added independent analysis of events to Department policymakers; ensures intelligence activities support foreign policy and national security purposes; and serves as the focal point in the Department for ensuring policy review of sensitive counterintelligence and law enforcement activities.

In a memo to CIA officers regarding the transition between the incoming Obama administration and the outgoing Bush White House, Director of Central Intelligence Michael Hayden stated “we in the Intelligence Community [IC] will have—until noon on January 20th—two sets of consumers. As we continue to serve the current administration, we are also in touch with President-elect Obama and his national security team. Through expanded access, greater than what he had in his briefings as a candidate or as a Senator, he will see the full range of capabilities we deploy for the United States."

In short, Obama will be given the most classified briefing he’s yet had on the threats to national security and American interests around the world. He’ll also be briefed on the US’s vast intelligence gathering capabilities. One of the IC sources HSToday.us spoke to said historically, such briefings have “been the beginning of when a new president’s hair starts turning white.”

Similarly, Karl Rove, President Bush’s former deputy chief of staff, said Wednesday night that no matter what a presidential candidate might think and say during an election, it all changes when he receives “that first intelligence briefing.” Rove added that once you have access to the intelligence the president does, “it changes you”—you suddenly have a completely new perspective.

Whether it is a President, members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, or anyone with this level of security clearance, the first exposure to the intelligence that Obama now has access to can be a mind opening event, the sources explained.

Having been privy to leaks of every classification of intelligence, this reporter can testify that these characterizations are accurate.

As President, Obama automatically is granted access to any codeword Top-Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) and Special Access Program (SAPs).

(By tradition and practice, United States officials who hold positions prescribed by the Constitution of the United States are deemed to meet the standards of trustworthiness for eligibility for access to classified information. Therefore, the President, the Vice President, Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, and other federal judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate need not execute form SF 312—the "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement" [CINA]—as a condition of access to classified information. All other members of government and civilians who conditionally are granted a clearance must sign the CINA)

Top White House officials must undergo routine security clearance procedures for security clearances, but, depending on the level of their "need to know," these clearances may not grant them access to all TS/SCI code-word intelligence, programs and analysis, or SAPs, which typically are highly classified military weapons platforms or intelligence activities. And, as with all persons given clearances to classified information, they must sign the CINA "as a condition of access."

The seriousness of the nature of TS/SCI information is underscored by the official presumption that unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause “exceptionally grave damage” to national security—even war.

With regard to security clearances, HSToday.us was told that some members of Obama’s inner circle who he may intend to appoint to White House or administration posts who do not already possess security clearances may face delays in their clearances being processed because of past or present associations with “problematic” persons, a presumed reference to associations with former domestic terrorist William Ayers and others who have histories or have been involved in activities that inherently are of concern to the FBI and Secret Service, and which typically in any other circumstance might prohibit the granting of a security clearance.

While some uninformed bloggers and partisan websites have pooh-poohed the notion of problems stemming from anyone in Obama’s camp having had prior associations with the likes of the Ayers’ or who have espoused radical positions that ordinarily would raise concern on the part of the Secret Service and FBI, the truth is that these are matters that are indeed taken very seriously, and which potentially could cause problems that require more extensive vetting in order to satisfy the Secret Service, FBI and IC.

Legitimate questions also were raised by security and intelligence authorities prior to the election about whether Obama himself would have qualified for the level of clearance he automatically received upon being elected President because of his own association with Ayers, other questionable persons, and other matters that are routinely red-flagged as part of a TS/SCI clearance investigation. The concern was justified, despite, again, uninformed bloggers and partisan websites saying otherwise. The reality is it’s debatable whether Obama would have been cleared for a TS/SCI security clearance had he not been elected president.

"There is no possibility that a Top Secret clearance would be awarded to a member of the Armed Forces whose background included such associations. An intelligence service clearance for the handling of highly classified material would be totally out of the question," wrote George Wittman, a member of the Committee on the Present Danger and founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.

Obama was granted a security clearance as a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, where he was appointed chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs in early 2007, but it was no where near the level of clearance that’s given to senior White House officials.


Indeed. As the CINA briefing booklet notes, members of Congress—who, incidentally, do not have to sign a CINA—"are not inherently authorized to receive all classified information, but agencies provide access as is necessary for Congress to perform its legislative functions, for example, to members of a committee or subcommittee that oversees classified executive branch programs. Frequently, access is governed in these situations by ad hoc agreements or rules to which the agency head and the committee chairman agree."

Applicants under serious consideration for an administration appointment are subject to thorough, rigorous and more personally intrusive scrutiny than most people probably imagine. The FBI background check— which includes analysis of a wide range of federal and intelligence databases—looks at employment, professional, personal, travel, medical, financial, legal, military and educational histories, which are carefully reviewed and scrutinized. In addition, the applicant must undergo a polygraph and psychological evaluation.

New vetting processes for determining clearance eligibility involves several steps, including: Validating the need for a clearance; an electronic application; automated records checks; electronic adjudication; an enhanced subject interview; an expandable focused investigation; and continuous evaluation between clearance investigations.

A TS/SCI clearance can take as long as 100 hours for just one applicant.

Both the Obama camp and the IC would prefer to avoid the kind of problems that plagued the security clearance vetting process that plagued the incoming Clinton administration, members of which were given access to highly classified materials for long periods without having the proper clearance, some of whom in retrospect should not have been granted clearances and who violated the terms of the CINAs they signed.

Historically, one of the biggest challenges faced by incoming administrations has been the time required to obtain security clearances for key officials.

Pursuant to the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 which implemented a 9/11 Commission recommendation, presidential candidates “may submit, before the date of the general election, requests for security clearances for prospective transition team members” who need access to classified information while working on the transition. It also allows the President-elect to submit requests for other nominees immediately after the election. Both Obama and McCain had requested clearances for roughly 100 transition team members between them.

To help accelerate the next administration’s transition, President Bush established a transition commission which in part was tasked with streamlining and accelerating the security clearance process.

We’ll see how well it works.

Sources familiar with the matter said Obama, unlike President Clinton, intends to give the top IC leaders his ear. Clinton, in contrast, virtually shunned CIA Director Jim Woolsey. Clinton also was roundly criticized for his lax interest in intelligence matters and for his disinterest in his regular intelligence briefings, which he sometimes cut short or delegated to subordinates.

Transition vulnerability

by

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Wednesday that the United States is vulnerable to attack or other incidents during the presidential transition period and that the military is ready to respond.

"When you go back and look at the number of incidents that have occurred three or four months before an inauguration to about 12 months out, back to the '50s, it's pretty staggering the number of major incidents which have occurred in this time frame," Adm. Michael Mullen said, noting that the danger is compounded by current world conditions.

The Sept. 11 attacks, for example, occurred eight months after President Bush took office, at a time when many key appointments had not been made.

Recent preparations for the transition in the Pentagon were aimed at preventing any attacks, and if an attack or incident does take place, the military is ready to respond, Adm. Mullen told Sara A. Carter, national security reporter for The Washington Times.

Shifts from old to new administrations are "always a challenging time in our country, always have been," Adm. Mullen said.

"Transitions are always difficult," he said. "We've put a lot of effort into it, and we're ready."

The chairman said he is concerned about the transition because of the global threats and opportunities facing the United States at the present time, namely in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"I consider this a time of vulnerability, and I've worked this for months to have a transition team prepare for a new administration, mindful that this new administration, they don't take charge until the 20th of January," Adm. Mullen said.

The four-star admiral, who is the designated chief military adviser, stated that the military serves "one commander in chief always" while at the same time he will be going to "great lengths" to respond to the Obama transition team.

The team is expected to show up "very rapidly in this building," and Adm. Mullen said he and his staff are ready to help. Adm. Mullen is halfway through his two-year term as chairman.

Leaders' futures

One of the first decisions President-elect Barack Obama must make is whether to keep Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who plans to leave office unless asked to stay.

"As far as I know, he is still planning on returning to his home in Washington state at the end of this administration," Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell told Inside the Ring Wednesday.

"But as he has said many times before, he learned long ago never to say 'never' and does not rule out the prospect of serving the nation longer if needed."

Mr. Gates has focused most of his time at the Pentagon on the Iraq war since taking over for Donald H. Rumsfeld in December 2006.

Mr. Obama stated on his campaign's Web site that "immediately upon taking office," he will order the defense secretary and military commanders to end the Iraq war and withdraw U.S. troops "responsibly."

He said Oct. 30 that he views it as important to have Republicans in senior leadership posts in his administration, but he did not answer a direct question on whether he would keep Mr. Gates.

Among those considered for the key national security post of defense secretary are former Clinton administration Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, an Obama adviser, and Sen. Chuck Hagel, Nebraska Republican and critic of the Bush administration's war-on-terror policies.

CIA Director Michael V. Hayden also may resign or be replaced.

Asked whether Mr. Hayden will leave or stay, CIA spokesman George Little pointed to a statement Mr. Hayden sent to CIA employees Wednesday that said "those privileged to lead this organization understand that they serve at the pleasure of the president.

Obama spokeswoman Wendy Morigi declined to comment on planned appointments or requests for officials to stay in place.

Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell also suggested that he may step down before the new administration. In a message to employees that was obtained by The Washington Times, Mr. McConnell said intelligence agencies have been working for months to prepare for the transition, which is about to enter "a critical stage" after the election and before the inauguration.

"A new national security team will soon emerge," Mr. McConnell said. "The current administration is leaning forward to ensure that the incoming team has security clearances and access to sensitive intelligence as soon as possible."

Intelligence agencies will both be working with the current administration and helping the incoming team, he said.

"We will be responsive to both and will work out priorities should conflicts arise."

A spokesman for Mr. McConnell said the director said earlier that he intends to leave at the end of the current administration unless he is asked to stay on for a period during the transition.

Obama and missile defense

Defense specialists say one likely policy change at the Pentagon under the incoming Obama administration will be funding cuts and program modifications for U.S. strategic missile defenses.

During the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama stated that he opposes "unworkable" missile defenses but that he thinks missile defenses are needed to counter Iranian and North Korean missiles.

A defense official involved in missile defense, however, said there is no reason to believe major changes will be made to the current missile-defense program.

"The Democrat-led Congress appropriated $9 billion for missile defense for 2009, only about $320 million less than the president's budget request," the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of political sensitivities.

"Both North Korea and Iran are continuing their development of missiles of all ranges, including missiles capable of striking the U.S., and there is no indication the threat will abate anytime soon, considering how much money both countries are spending on missile development."

Missile defenses were integrated into the Bush administration's new strategic triad of capabilities, which include nuclear and precision conventional strike forces, passive and active defenses, and the buildup of defense infrastructure. The old triad was a combination of land-based, sea-based and bomber-carrying nuclear forces.

John Holum, former Arms Control and Disarmament Agency director and an Obama campaign adviser, told the Arms Control Association in June that Mr. Obama would limit strategic missile defenses to current deployments in California and Alaska.

"But at the same time, he thinks it´s very important to proceed on the basis of workable defenses, making sure that systems are capable before we put so many resources into these systems," Mr. Holum said.

Missile defense also needs to be based on threats and should focus on short-range missile defenses and "local defenses" against missiles, Mr. Holum said.

Mr. Obama's priorities for missile defense include so-called theater or regional defenses, "and further down the list, as the technology is proven, more effective defenses; national or longer-range defenses," Mr. Holum said.

Mr. Obama thinks a missile attack is less likely than a nuclear blast carried out from a suitcase, boxcar or shipping container smuggled into the country, "where missile defenses don't have any impact," Mr. Holum said.

During the Clinton administration, Mr. Holum opposed both short-range and long-range missile defenses during interagency discussions, favoring existing arms agreements over hardware, according to internal documents obtained at the time.

Mr. Holum led Clinton administration efforts to extend the now-defunct 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in talks with the Russians to cover short-range defenses, a move opposed by many in the Pentagon as restricting needed defenses against short-range missile attack.

Riki M. Ellison, chairman of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, said he thinks missile defense will grow internationally under Mr. Obama and become part of "an alliance-building movement."

However, missile defenses are likely to be approached differently than under Mr. Bush, he said.

"I believe that there will be no growth in the long-range ballistic missile capability that includes both here in Alaska and California as well as Poland and little growth if any on future missile-defense systems," Mr. Ellison said in an e-mail.

Wanted: Suicide bombers to attack U.S.

By Chelsea Schilling

Iranian group recruits young 'martyrs' to fight 'global arrogance'

A terrorist group is distributing flyers in Iran calling for young volunteers to join the Lebanese Hezbollah to carry out suicide operations against the "Global Arrogance"also known as the United States.

The leaflets promise young recruits that they will join "fighters in the worldwide front against the Global Arrogance," the Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI, reported. The term is used by some Iranian officials in reference to the U.S.

On Nov. 1, Tabnak, an Iranian news website identified with Expediency Discernment Council Secretary and former Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander Mohsen Rezai, announced a group has been actively recruiting members in Tehran and large Iranian provinces for Lebanon's Hezbollah. The flyers are labeled "Registration for Membership in the Lebanese Hezbollah " and "Registration for Martyrdom Operations." Each form requires addresses and additional information so recruits may be contacted for the cause. ....

U.S. Treasury teaches 'Islamic Finance 101'

(Compiler's note: A must read. rca)

By Chelsea Schilling


Advisers, scholars to promote controversial Shariah funding

The Treasury Department has announced it will teach "Islamic finance" to U.S. banking regulatory agencies, Congress and other parts of the executive branch tomorrow in Washington, D.C. – but critics say it is opening a door to American funding of Islamic extremism.

'Islamic Finance 101'

According to its announcement, the "Islamic Finance 101" forum is "designed to help inform the policy community about Islamic financial services, which are an increasingly important part of the global financial industry."

The Treasury Department has collaborated with Harvard University's Islamic Finance Project to coordinate the event. The department says it expects about 100 people will attend the seminar.

Some speakers include Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Neel Kashkari, senior adviser to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Jr.; Harvard Business School professor Samuel Hayes; Mahmoud El-Gamal, chair of Islamic economics, finance and management at Rice University and Islamic finance adviser to the Treasury Department; Sarah Bell of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Yusuf Talal DeLorenzo, Shariah adviser and Islamic scholar; Michael McMillan, chair of the Islamic Legal Forum at the American Bar Association and professor of Islamic finance; and Rushdi Siddiqui, global director for the Dow Jones Islamic Market Indexes and vigorous advocate for Islamic finance.

Islamic finance is a system of banking consistent with the principles of Shariah, or Islamic law. It is becoming increasingly popular, having reached $800 billion by mid-2007 and growing at more than 15 percent each year. Wall Street now features an Islamic mutual fund and an Islamic index. However, critics claim anti-American terrorists are often financially supported through U.S. investments – creating a system by which the nation funds its own enemy.

Aiding the enemy

In his essay, "Financial Jihad: What Americans Need to Know," Vice President Christopher Holden of the Center for Security Policy writes, "America is losing the financial war on terror because Wall Street is embracing a subversive enemy ideology on one hand and providing corporate life support to state sponsors of terrorism on the other hand."

Holden refers to Islamic finance, or "Shariah-Compliant Finance" as a "modern-day Trojan horse" infiltrating the U.S. He said it poses a threat to the U.S. because it seeks to legitimize Shariah – a man-made medieval doctrine that regulates every aspect of life for Muslims – and could ultimately change American life and laws.

Shariah-compliant finance is becoming a major movement, because American banks and investors are seeking wealth from oil profits in the Middle East. Some advocates claim Islamic finance is socially responsible because it bans investors from funding companies that sell or promote products such as alcohol, tobacco, pornography, gambling and even pork.





WND
YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK
U.S. Treasury teaches 'Islamic Finance 101'
Advisers, scholars to promote controversial Shariah funding

Posted: November 05, 2008
10:45 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


U.S. Department of the Treasury

The Treasury Department has announced it will teach "Islamic finance" to U.S. banking regulatory agencies, Congress and other parts of the executive branch tomorrow in Washington, D.C. – but critics say it is opening a door to American funding of Islamic extremism.

'Islamic Finance 101'

According to its announcement, the "Islamic Finance 101" forum is "designed to help inform the policy community about Islamic financial services, which are an increasingly important part of the global financial industry."

The Treasury Department has collaborated with Harvard University's Islamic Finance Project to coordinate the event. The department says it expects about 100 people will attend the seminar.

Some speakers include Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Neel Kashkari, senior adviser to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Jr.; Harvard Business School professor Samuel Hayes; Mahmoud El-Gamal, chair of Islamic economics, finance and management at Rice University and Islamic finance adviser to the Treasury Department; Sarah Bell of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Yusuf Talal DeLorenzo, Shariah adviser and Islamic scholar; Michael McMillan, chair of the Islamic Legal Forum at the American Bar Association and professor of Islamic finance; and Rushdi Siddiqui, global director for the Dow Jones Islamic Market Indexes and vigorous advocate for Islamic finance.

Islamic finance is a system of banking consistent with the principles of Shariah, or Islamic law. It is becoming increasingly popular, having reached $800 billion by mid-2007 and growing at more than 15 percent each year. Wall Street now features an Islamic mutual fund and an Islamic index. However, critics claim anti-American terrorists are often financially supported through U.S. investments – creating a system by which the nation funds its own enemy.

Aiding the enemy

In his essay, "Financial Jihad: What Americans Need to Know," Vice President Christopher Holden of the Center for Security Policy writes, "America is losing the financial war on terror because Wall Street is embracing a subversive enemy ideology on one hand and providing corporate life support to state sponsors of terrorism on the other hand."

Holden refers to Islamic finance, or "Shariah-Compliant Finance" as a "modern-day Trojan horse" infiltrating the U.S. He said it poses a threat to the U.S. because it seeks to legitimize Shariah – a man-made medieval doctrine that regulates every aspect of life for Muslims – and could ultimately change American life and laws.

Shariah-compliant finance is becoming a major movement, because American banks and investors are seeking wealth from oil profits in the Middle East. Some advocates claim Islamic finance is socially responsible because it bans investors from funding companies that sell or promote products such as alcohol, tobacco, pornography, gambling and even pork.

However, Islamic financial institutions also require all industry participants to adhere to tenets of Shariah law. According to Nasser Suleiman's "Corporate Governance in Islamic Banking, "First and foremost, an Islamic organization must serve God. It must develop a distinctive corporate culture, the main purpose of which is to create a collective morality and spirituality which, when combined with the production of goods and services, sustains growth and the advancement of the Islamic way of life."

Three nations that rule 100 percent by Shariah law – Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan – hold some of the most horrific human rights records in the world, Holden said.

"This strongly suggests that Americans should strenuously resist anything associated with Shariah."

Tenets of Shariah

In his essay, "Islamic Finance or Financing Islamism," Alex Alexiev outlined the following tenets of Shariah taken from "The Reliance of the Traveler: The Classic Manual of Sacred Law":

  • A woman is eligible for only half of the inheritance of a man
  • A virgin may be married against her will by her father or grandfather
  • A woman may not leave the house without her husband's permission
  • A Muslim man may marry four women, including Christians and Jews; a Muslim woman can only marry a Muslim
  • Beating an insubordinate wife is permissible
  • Female sexual mutilation is obligatory
  • Adultery [or the perception of adultery] is punished by death by stoning
  • Offensive, military jihad against non-Muslims is a religious obligation
  • Apostasy from Islam is punishable by death without trial
  • Lying to infidels in time of jihad is permissible

'Useful idiots'

Alexiev writes that many Islamic financial institutions claim Shariah-Compliant Finance "derives its Islamic character from the strict observance of the ostensible Quranic prohibition of lending at interest, the imperative of almsgiving (zakat), avoidance of excessive uncertainty (gharar) and certain practices and products considered unlawful (haram) to Muslims …" However, he said, "[E]ven a casual examination of the reality of Islamic finance today reveals it to be a bogus concept practiced by deceptive ploys and disingenuous means by practitioners that are or should be aware of that, but remain predictably silent."

Shariah finance institutions that have funded militant Islamism for more than 30 years. Alexiev cites Islamic Development Bank's hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Hamas in support of suicide bombing. Bank Al-Taqwa and other banks and charities run by Saudi billionaires have funded al-Qaida activities.

Additionally, Shariah law mandates that Muslims donate 2.5 percent of their annual incomes to charities – including jihadists. When 400 banks regularly contribute to such charities, potential financial sums can be virtually limitless.

If Western banks endorse Shariah, they will "end up becoming what Lenin called useful idiots or worse to the Islamists," Alexiev writes. "And it is a very thin line between that and outright complicity in the Islamist agenda."

Children Trained to Become Suicide Bombers in Lebanese Scout Camp

(Compiler's note: Sad indeed. rca)

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

New Report Warns About Threat of Emerging Infectious Diseases

(Compiler's note: A must read report.)

by Anthony L. Kimery


The nation's defenses against emerging infectious diseases are insufficient

The already staggering number of Americans who die each year from merging and re-emerging infectious diseases could skyrocket during a worst case influenza pandemic or yet unknown disease outbreak, stated a new report by the Trust for America's Health (TFAH), “Germs Go Global: Why Emerging Infectious Diseases Are a Threat to America.”

More than two years ago, HSToday.us reported health authorities were concerned that hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) that kill an estimated 90,000 to 100,000 Americans each year during routine hospital stays could be expected to be rampant during a health crisis in which tens of thousands – or more – persons require emergency medical care under what will likely be less than sterile and sanitary conditions. Conditions primarily responsible for the transmission of HAIs.

Shortly before his recent death, the world renowned virologist, Dr. Graeme Laver, also expressed his concern to HSToday.us about the spread of HAIs during a pandemic and mass casualty events. He said "they would most assuredly spread" in overcrowded hospitals and temporary structures erected to treat the numbers of people who will need medical attention in a pandemic.

“We’re looking at a little known and largely ignored health crisis secondary to a pandemic or large-scale terrorist bombing like a nuke or something,” a source involved in federal emergency medical preparedness planning told HSToday.us a year ago.

HAI infections can cause serious illnesses and, in severe cases, death. Indeed, infectious diseases are a major cause of illness, disability and death, statistics and authorities point out.

A year ago the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported that a strain of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) spreading around the country is causing more life-threatening infections than public health authorities had thought, and killing more people in the US each year than AIDS.

"Antimicrobial resistance undercuts the effectiveness of essential medicines and reverses years of progress made in the treatment of infectious diseases. Left unchecked, antimicrobial resistance is as destructive and deadly as any global health threat," said Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH). "That's why I've introduced the Strategies to Address Antimicrobial Resistance (STAAR) Act. By accelerating efforts to combat antimicrobial-resistance, this bill would prevent further erosion in the effectiveness of critical medical treatments."

"Infectious diseases are not just a crisis for the developing world. They are a real threat right here, right now to America's economy, security, and health system," said TFAH Executive Director, Dr. Jeffrey Levi. "Infectious diseases can come without warning, crossing boarders, often before people even know they are sick. Americans are more vulnerable than we think we are, and our public health defenses are not as strong as they should be."

TFAH’s report also finds that the nation's defenses against emerging infectious diseases are insufficient, creating serious consequences for the US health system, economy, and national security.

Because of this possibility, and the fact that the spread of HAIs is already at an alarming level during non-catastrophic emergency conditions, HSToday.us noted that HAIs are viewed as a national security threat, according a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a fact the TFAH report also highlighted.

In Jan. 2000, the National Intelligence Council, the US Intelligence Community’s (IC) center for midterm and long-term strategic thinking which leads the effort to produce National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs), released an unclassified version of the NIE, “The Global Infectious Disease Threat and Its Implications for the United States,” which expresses alarm over the national security implications of HAIs. The NIE “represents an important initiative on the part of the IC to consider the national security dimension of a nontraditional threat.”

Indeed, the NIE “responds to a growing concern by senior US leaders about the Implications - in terms of health, economics, and national security - of the growing global infectious disease threat. The dramatic increase in drug-resistant microbes, combined with the lag in development of new antibiotics, the rise of megacities with severe health care deficiencies, environmental degradation, and the growing ease and frequency of cross-border movements of people and produce have greatly facilitated the spread of infectious diseases.”

A crisis will compound the problem. “Alone or in combination, war and natural disasters, economic collapse, and human complacency are causing a breakdown in health care delivery and facilitating the emergence or reemergence of infectious diseases,” the NIE emphasizes.

In this NIE, the IC stated that “hospital-acquired infections … will pose a threat” to national security, noting: “Inadequate infection control practices in hospitals will remain a major source of disease transmission in developing and developed countries alike.”

The TFAH report examines major vulnerabilities in the current US strategy for combating infectious diseases. One crucial area that is problematic is treatment.

“While the US government has invested significantly in treatments that could counter an intentional biological attack, new drugs to treat emerging diseases and new antibiotics to address growing antimicrobial resistance have received far less attention,” the TFAH report stated. “The development of new, improved therapies to treat drug resistant bacterial infections, as well as influenza and other viruses, is essential.”

US Cities, Counties Prepare for Civil Unrest after Election

By Mickey McCarter

Municipal and state police forces around the country have prepared to contain massive celebrations or protests upon the announcement of election results Tuesday night or Wednesday morning, according to various US news sources. ....

Why Liberals Cannot Be Trusted With National Security

by Gregory D. Lee

In the October 25, 2008 edition of the Standard-Times, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) provided some insights as to what we can expect if he and his fellow liberals win both houses of Congress and Sen. Barack Obama becomes president.

According to the article, he called for a 25% cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs. “The military cuts also mean getting out of Iraq sooner,” he said. Then he added, “We don’t need all these fancy weapons.”

Does cutting defense 25% while engaged in two wars make any sense? It does to liberals.
Despite the fact that most of the 9/11 terrorist hijackers were in this country illegally, and many possessed multiple genuine driver licenses, liberals continue to push legislation to grant licenses to illegal aliens. Sen. Obama is in favor of illegals obtaining drivers licenses.

Sen. Obama proudly reminds voters at every opportunity that he was against the war in Iraq from the beginning. John Edwards said his vote was a mistake. If the overwhelming intelligence available at the time couldn’t convince Sen. Obama that Saddam Hussein was a threat that had to be stopped, I’m afraid nothing would have convinced him to go to war to protect this country. If someone showed Obama a photograph of Bill Clinton or John Edwards passionately kissing his wife, would he say there wasn’t enough evidence to question her about it?

Stanfield Turner almost single-handedly dismantled the CIA when he was Jimmy Carter’s liberal director, but he did succeed in destroying the morale among the ranks of intelligence case officers with loony ideas like only using persons with clean records as informants to gather intelligence. Please show me an informant for the CIA who doesn’t have baggage like drug dealing or human rights violations. These people possess valuable information only insiders like them have and they are willing to trade it for something valuable. The idea of only using priests and rabbis as intelligence gatherers is a very bad idea. Yet it was hailed by liberals as a necessary reform at the CIA.

Liberals are also the ones who built the “wall” within the FBI’s criminal and foreign intelligence divisions and between the FBI and the CIA so they could not share information about terrorists operating in the U.S. Then liberal members of Congress had the gall to appoint Jaime S. Gorelick to the 9/11 Commission. Gorelick, as an underling to former Attorney General Janet Reno, actually wrote the Department of Justice policy that erected the wall! The commissioners didn’t have to go far to find out who was partially to blame for the tragedy. All they had to do was turn their chairs to the far Left and there she was.

Despite liberals’ dismal track record on national defense policy, they claim to be every bit as patriotic and concerned about national security as conservatives. Even if you gave them the benefit of the doubt about their patriotism, they cannot point to a single policy or achievement since the dropping of the bomb on Nagasaki that has enhanced national security. Advocating a nuclear freeze during the Cold War when it was needed most, defunding anti-Communist guerrillas in Central America, voting against a missile defense shield, leaving town for a recess instead of voting on an important terrorism wiretap bill that was about to expire, and not allowing off-shore drilling for oil, readily come to mind as other examples of the weakening, not strengthening, of national security.

Democrat vice-presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden said to mark his words that a President Obama would be tested with a foreign policy crisis within the first six months of his presidency. I think he may be right, given Sen. Obama’s liberalism and lack of any meaningful experience. Putting liberals in charge of this nation’s security is a fool’s bet. In this dangerous era of Islamofacism and Russian reemergence, a liberal in charge of our national security is a nightmare that might come true this election.

I’m going to go out on a limb and predict the American people will come to their senses and elect Sen. John McCain by a two-to-five point margin. We don’t have long to find out if I’m right.

John Bolton: Letter to the next president

(Complier's note: A must read opinion piece.)

Congratulations, Mr President-elect, on your victory. After the longest presidential campaign in our history, you now have 77 days to prepare to govern. While foreigners might see eleven weeks as an eternity, you know only too well that it is precious little time to select your top advisers and then subject them to our cumbersome FBI and ethics screening of their backgrounds, their finances, their potential conflicts of interest, and whatever skeletons are hanging in their closets.

Then, of course, they need to learn the intricacies of their respective responsibilities, and, for many, begin the Senate confirmation process, which may take months. Time is already growing short.

The current economic turmoil will consume a significant amount of your Transition Team’s time and effort, and properly so. But in the wider world, our adversaries and even our friends are actively considering how to advance their interests as your January 20 Inauguration approaches.

You will have four full years of foreign-policy issues and problems, such as the rise of China and India, the decline of the European Union, and the role of Russia, but I suggest the following as priorities in your first Hundred Days:

You are the decider

Although President Bush tried to make this his mantra, his Administration was plagued in its first term by incoherence in national security decision making. Crisp decisions were not made, strong differences of opinion among Cabinet Secretaries were not resolved, and policy too often oscillated between conflicting options with no consistency or direction.

Ironically, the Bush Administration’s second term erred in the opposite direction, almost eliminating differences in advice to the President until there was really only one voice in his ear at critical points. You must avoid both pitfalls, and you must make that clear immediately. You must resolve disagreements among your advisers, and not allow drift, and you must insist on discipline once you make a decision.

If anyone disagrees with this approach, you may invite them to do the honourable thing and resign, or not sign on in the first place. Iran Tehran’s ruling mullahs have no intention of affording you a “honeymoon”. They will move quickly to test your resolve both on their rapidly progressing nuclear weapons program and on their massive support for international terrorism.

Nearly six years of European diplomacy has failed to slow Iran’s nuclear program. Five UN Security Council Resolutions demanding that Iran halt uranium enrichment (and imposing risibly weak sanctions) have had essentially no effect.


Russia in particular is using Iran as the sharp tip of the spear to disrupt our policy throughout the Middle East. Moscow will watch what you do just as intently as Tehran. Any new President will be advised to engage in at least some renewed diplomatic effort. But do not be fooled. Insist on three months of intense, good-faith negotiations, and we will soon find out if Iran is serious.

If not, which I believe to be demonstrably the case, suspend negotiations quickly. Then, ratchet up efforts on the only options, unattractive though they are, that have a chance of stopping Iran from acquiring deliverable nuclear weapons: regime change or the targeted use of military force against Iran’s nuclear program.

If you wait longer, you will surely have the worst of all worlds: Iran with nuclear weapons, and an even greater threat of nuclear proliferation as other Middle Eastern states draw the appropriate conclusions from its success at thwarting our non-proliferation efforts.

North Korea

We are kidding ourselves if we think North Korea will ever voluntarily give up its nuclear weapons program. Even during the campaign, as the Bush Administration was squandering our negotiating leverage, North Korea continued to try to proliferate ballistic missile technology.

As with Iran, there is essentially no chance that Pyongyang will be talked out of its nuclear weapons. Moreover, with the world in near-complete ignorance about the state of Kim Jong-il’s health or plans for regime succession, even more uncertainty surrounds the intentions of this prison camp of a country. Expecting that the long-running Six-Party Talks will “solve” the North Korean problem is a delusion.

Instead, you must deal directly with China as the highest priority in our bilateral relationship, and insist that we act together to eliminate the current regime in Pyongyang and is nuclear program, and ultimately reunite the Korean Peninsula.

China needs to understand that leaving the North with nuclear weapons is not an option, and that their inaction will have an increasingly negative impact on our bilateral relationship. Beijing alone can change North Korea, and it needs to get started.

America’s Image

Do not let global “public opinion” about the United States, from Albania to Zimbabwe, dissuade you from doing what you think is right for America. Your job is to defend and advance our interests and values, a task which invariably will displease our adversaries, and even many of our friends, especially those who wish we were, well, more European in our behaviour and attitudes.

What we must do, however, is more effectively advocate the policies you will be pursuing. Failure at both the political level in Washington and abroad, and at the level of the career Foreign Service, made the Bush Administration one of the most tongue-tied Presidencies in our history. We should try to shift international public opinion to support our policies, not modify our policies to try to satisfy international public opinion. The State Department will not understand this distinction. You must.

A final word

Many U.S. and foreign commentators have been quick to tell us that America is in decline, and that our role in the future will not be what it once was. They will be correct only if you fall prey to their pessimism.

And if you do, rest assured that they will shortly turn critical of “American isolationism,” just as they have been critical in recent years of “American unilateralism.” You will never satisfy them. Defend America and its friends, and the rest will take care of itself.

Opposing Views: Could Voter Fraud Steal the 2008 Election?

(Compiler's note: Read and consider each side on this issue outlined below. It will likely impact what we see in the days to come.)

Also see Toledo Police brace for possible civil unrest

A fierce firefight has erupted over voter fraud as the 2008 presidential campaign races toward its conclusion. Both sides are worried sick that America's true choice for chief executive will get hijacked by dirty pool. Are dead people voting? Have minorities been disenfranchised? The non-partisan Web site Opposing Views asked the Heritage Foundation and the NAACP whether voter fraud will play a role in this election.


We Should Be Worried

By Hans A. von Spakovsky, Heritage Foundation

Should we be concerned over voter fraud in the upcoming election? If history is any guide, then the emphatic answer is "yes!" There are numerous cases, just in the last decade or so, in which elections were stolen and races were decided by a handful of votes.

An investigation of 5,000 fraudulent absentee ballots in Miami in 1997 resulted in the election results being overturned. In addition to votes by fictitious individuals and persons using false addresses (persons who didn't actually live in Miami), votes were also bought. And vote buying is a federal crime that the Department of Justice has prosecuted repeatedly.

In 2003, the Indiana Supreme Court threw out the results of a mayoral election because of absentee ballot fraud. The results of a state senate race in Tennessee in 2005 decided by only 13 votes were declared invalid because of votes by felons, the dead, people who didn't live in the district, and individuals whose registered addresses were vacant lots. The photographs of those vacant lots, taken by an investigator, starkly illustrate the kind of voter fraud that unfortunately still goes on in our elections.

Today, there are investigations in more than a dozen states over tens of thousands of fraudulent voter registration forms submitted by ACORN. How many of those fraudulent registrations have not been caught by election officials? How many will result in fraudulent votes? If we have a very close election, fraudulent votes may well end up deciding the results, damaging our democracy and our confidence in our election process.

Hans A. von Spakovsky is a visiting legal scholar at the Heritage Foundation. His Special Report on "Democracy in Danger: Case Studies of Election Fraud," is available at www.heritage.org.

Voter Discrimination is the Real Fraud
Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP Washington Burea
u

According to those chanting the disturbing chorus of "voter fraud," elections are being influenced and sometimes determined by people ineligible to cast a ballot impersonating eligible voters.

To be sure, the NAACP sees disenfranchising, disturbing instances of "voter fraud" every election cycle. However, the "fraud" we witness is different. We know of deceptive practices, misinformation and lies that are used to keep registered, legitimate voters away from the polls. Sadly, we also still find ourselves fighting attempts by unscrupulous election officials to disenfranchise the people in communities we represent.

It is our experience that "voter impersonation" is actually quite rare. Nationwide, between 2002 and 2006, when a crackdown on voter fraud was one of the U.S. Justice Department's top priorities, more than 400 million votes were cast, but an average of only 30 federal cases per year were prosecuted.

Regardless of the questionable prevalence of this type of voter fraud, several states have passed discriminatory photo ID laws. Sadly, rather than addressing real voter fraud, the true effect of these laws is to disenfranchise the estimated 20 million Americans who have not purchased IDs. Disproportionately these people are minorities, elderly and low-income Americans.

Yet, malicious voter fraud continues. In Virginia, registered voters received robotic calls stating that they could vote by telephone by pressing a number for the candidate of their choice. The call ended by stating that they had now voted and didn't need to go to the polls.

In 2006 in Orange County, Calif., 14,000 Latino voters got letters in Spanish saying it was a crime for immigrants to vote in a federal election. It didn't say that immigrants who are citizens have the right to vote.

The NAACP has also seen a dramatic increase in erroneous purging of voting rolls, as well as eligible voters mistakenly not added. These are voters believing or having been told that they have done everything correctly, only to be turned away from the voting booth on Election Day.

We know from Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 that erroneous purging of the rolls, underestimating the number of needed functioning voting machines and ballots, the inadequate number and under-trained poll workers, intimidation of voters and the misuse of photo ID requirements, especially in neighborhoods with heavy concentrations of racial and ethnic minorities, along with blocked access to polling sites and intentional deception and voter intimidation, lead to disenfranchisement of eligible voters. These problems are more than just "voter fraud." These problems are a national travesty.

Sunday, November 2, 2008

Salafism, a Conservative Strain of Islam, Gains Ground in Algeria

ALGIERS, Algeria — "The Taliban are among us!"

The recent headline in one of Algeria's leading newspapers was designed to shock. It also spoke volumes about fears that an austere, conservative strain of Islam is gaining ground in this North African nation, prized by the West for its oil and gas wealth and its help in fighting Al Qaeda-linked terror.

Algeria is worried about Salafism, an extreme branch of Islam that is a concern for authorities across North Africa. Imported from Saudi Arabia and backed by Saudi oil money, Salafism has gained a significant following not only in Algeria but in neighboring Morocco, and has grown dramatically across the Middle East in recent years.

The latest alarm came when authorities in a Sahara Desert town, Biskra, rounded up people who failed to fast during the holy month of Ramadan and sentenced six of them to four years each in prison.

The arrests caused an outcry — and El Watan's headline — because Algeria has traditionally taken a more relaxed attitude to religious observance than places like Saudi Arabia. No law in Algeria explicitly bars people from drinking, smoking or otherwise breaking the daytime fast during the holy month, which this year fell in September. ....

Obama Promises San Francisco Audience He Will Bankrupt Coal Industry!!

from Gateway Pundit

OBAMA TOLD A SAN FRANCISCO AUDIENCE THAT HE WILL BANKRUPT THE COAL INDUSTRY!!!

ATTN: Coal states Virginia , Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Indiana, guess what Obama told San Francisco about you?

OBAMA TELLS SAN FRANCISCO HE WILL BANKRUPT THE COAL INDUSTRY:

Hat Tip Über
Here's the transcript via Free Republic from his talk to San Francisco Gate in January 2008:

Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

It's just that it will bankrupt them."
This goes hand-in-hand with what he's said about nuclear energy.
His preconditions make it impossible to expand nuclear energy at this time.
From The Wall Street Journal:

On nuclear power, Sen. Obama says he's open to expanding nuclear energy, which now provides 20% of the nation's electricity, as part of an effort to increase power sources that emit little or no carbon dioxide. But he also has said there is no future for expanded nuclear energy until the U.S. comes up with a safe, long-term solution for disposing of nuclear waste. He opposes the Bush administration's plan for storing waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
No wonder Rupert Murdoch is worried about an Obama presidency.

Nuke plant faulted for using janitors as guards

For a week in early October, members of a contract cleaning crew stood guard along sections of the plant’s perimeter fencing during repairs to the plant’s alarm system.

Sweden’s Radiation Safety Authority (Strålsäkerhetsmyndigheten – SSM) criticized OKG, the plant’s operators, for violating its own internal safety practices by using untrained workers to guard the facility and for failing to document the break with standard operation procedures. ....

Global meltdown to have a negative impact on food security

by ASHOK B SHARM

Food security usually becomes the casualty in the event of any crisis, be it financial or political. It is not unusual for the recent global financial crisis to invite concerns from ogranisations like FAO and other food policy groups.

The global meltdown in the financial and equity markets follows hard on the heels of soaring food price and energy crisis caused primarily on account of intensified bio-fuel programme. The global commodity prices, though still ruling high, has marked a dip due to good harvest in the current season. According to the latest issue of FAO’s Crop Prospects and Food Situation report, global grain production this year is forecast to increase 4.9% to a record 2,232 million tonne. However, some 36 countries are still in need of external assistance as a result of crop failures, conflict or insecurity or continuing local high prices, the report noted. ....


Terrorists try to infiltrate UK's top labs

(Compiler's note: This wmd warning must be taken very seriously!)



by Mark Townsend

The security services have intercepted up to 100 suspects posing as postgraduate students who aim to acquire weapons material and expertise
A British scientist wears a protective suit in a lab

A British scientist wears a protective suit in a laboratory. MI5 has warned that al-Qaida is seeking to recruit scientists who develop deadly viruses. Photograph: Alamy

Dozens of suspected terrorists have attempted to infiltrate Britain's top laboratories in order to develop weapons of mass destruction, such as biological and nuclear devices, during the past year.

The security services, MI5 and MI6, have intercepted up to 100 potential terrorists posing as postgraduate students who they believe tried accessing laboratories to gain the materials and expertise needed to create chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons, the government has confirmed.

It follows warnings from MI5 to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that al-Qaeda's terror network is actively seeking to recruit scientists and university students with access to laboratories containing deadly viruses and weapons technology.

Extensive background checks from the security services, using a new vetting scheme, have led to the rejection of overseas students who were believed to be intent on developing weapons of mass destruction. A Foreign Office spokesman said the students had been denied clearance to study in the UK under powers 'to stop the spread of knowledge and skills that could be used in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery'.

He added: 'There is empirical evidence of a problem with postgraduate students becoming weapons proliferators.' The overseas students, a number of whom are thought to be from 'countries of concern' such as Iran and Pakistan, were intercepted under the Academic Technology Approval Scheme, introduced by universities and the security services last November.

The findings raise questions over how many terrorist suspects may have already infiltrated the UK's laboratory network. Rihab Taha, dubbed 'Dr Germ', who worked on Saddam Hussein's biological weapons programme, studied for her PhD in plant toxins at East Anglia University's School of Biological Sciences in Norwich.

In addition, a number of well-educated Iraqi scientists - funded by Baghdad - infiltrated several British microbiology laboratories in the run-up to the Gulf war of 1990-91. Britain has about 800 laboratories in hospitals, universities and private firms where staff have access to lethal viruses such as Ebola, polio and avian flu or could acquire the technology and expertise to develop deadly weapons. Whitehall sources remain concerned about the number of countries intent on acquiring the materials and knowledge to develop a nuclear or biological warfare capability.

John Wood of the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control said: 'Any scientist would say it's important that we know who is working in our laboratories, and also why they are working there.'

The trial of two NHS doctors, Mohammad Asha, 27, a Jordanian national, and Bilal Abdulla, 29, from Iraq, who allegedly plotted widespread carnage through car bomb attacks in London's West End and Glasgow airport last year, has intensified scrutiny on the radicalisation of students. Named in the plot is 27-year-old Indian PhD student, Kafeel Ahmed, who drove a Jeep laden with gas canisters into Glasgow Airport's main terminal building but died several weeks later from severe burns. Ahmed studied for his PhD in the technology department of Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge.

A spokesman for Universities UK, which represents vice-chancellors, said the security scheme had so far proved effective. He added: 'It is important to protect the UK from people who may wish to use technology and materials here inappropriately.'

Michael Stephens, head of security at the Medical Research Council, which runs some of Britain's most sensitive laboratories, said they took the issue of biosecurity 'extremely seriously'.

Concern that al-Qaeda is intent on developing a more sophisticated weapons capability moved the former director-general of MI5, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, to warn publicly that terror attacks in Britain could involve weapons of mass destruction. She said: 'We know that attempts to gather materials are there, we know that attempts to gather technologies are there.'

Extremist groups are known to have targeted students, offering to fund courses in return for using their newly acquired expertise. It is unclear if any of those denied 'clearance' to study in the UK during the past year were funded by grants from host governments such as Tehran.

A Foreign Office spokesman said 'efforts' on scrutiny of foreign postgraduate students would continue with only a few of the 20,000 applications rejected for security reasons. In the US, draft legislation advocates banning all non-Americans from laboratories which possess potentially dangerous bacteria and viruses, a measure the UK government believes is too draconian.

Professor George Griffin, chairman of the advisory committee on dangerous pathogens, has warned of the lack of a national standard required for people to work in high-security laboratories.

The move comes as the government considers plans to build a new pathogen research facility in central London, between King's Cross station and the British Library. Experts have warned that a terror attack would prove catastrophic to the surrounding area.

Why Isn’t ACORN’s Voter Fraud A Bigger Story?

(Compiler's note: Must read. You're not hearing this from the standard media. This "ice berg" leading to voter fraud is a national security issue.)

from Nice Deb

You would think that with ACORN being investigated in at least a dozen states for voter fraud, this close to an election, the media would be a little more interested in the story. It’s an important one with major ramifications if the election is a close one, as many think it will be. It should be front page news in every newspaper, and topping the nightly newscasts.

What could possibly account for the media’s silence on so important an issue? This goes beyond the ordinary bias we see every day in the MSM. This is a major scandal, and the only thing that could account for the silence, may be that many of the big wigs in the media, are also fellow travelers.

Consider the Robin Hood Foundation, a group funded 100% by donations, but with George Soros as a major benefactor.

Just as the name implies, their goal is to take from the rich and give to the poor by funding community organizing groups. Groups like ACORN.

Some names on the board of the Robinhood Foundation include Tom Brokaw who is considered the “conscience” of NBC/MSNBC news, and Jeff Immelt, Chariman of GE which owns NBC, as well as Harvey Weistein, ultra lefty movie producer (Fahrenheit 911).

Newsbusters reports:

Brokaw sits on the board of the Robin Hood Foundation, a charity that, according to its website, targets poverty in New York City by applying “sound investment principles to philanthropy.” The foundation awarded ACORN a $456,000 grant in 2003 and a $365,000 grant in 2004. Brokaw does not appear to have played a role in the grants because he didn’t become a member of the board until 2005 according to the guidestar.org database, but these are nevertheless the left-wing circles in which he travels.

The Soros Fund Charitable Foundation, as in George Soros, a major bankroller of the left, gave the Robin Hood Foundation a $9,859,453 community development grant in 2000.

It seems clear that many in the media aren’t just sympathetic to the ACORN zombies, they are active participants in its leftist philosophy, and that’s why so few are talking about it.

This McCain/Palin ad sums up nicely what is being underreported by the MSM: