How many of you take your taxes to someone else to prepare? If you do, you might be one of more than 400,000 Americans who has their tax return data sent to someone overseas to actually prepare... Have you thought about that? About sending your Social Security Number, date of birth, address, total income, bank account information, investment data, and everything to someone overseas?
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
Cirque du Jihad
Courtroom Cirque du Jihad
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010
Imagine this nightmare courtroom scenario: Unhinged Jew-bashing, open mockery of American soldiers, juror intimidation, and coldly calculated exploitation of U.S. constitutional protections by a suspected al Qaeda defendant. Well, there’s no need to wait for the Gitmo terror trial circuses. New York City is already getting a glimpse of the future.
Jihadi scientist Aafia Siddiqui is on trial right now in a federal Manhattan court for the attempted murder and assault of U.S. military personnel in Pakistan two years ago. She’s an accomplished Karachi-born scientist who studied microbiology at MIT and did graduate work in neurology at Brandeis University before disappearing in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
Counterterrorism investigators connected Siddiqui and her estranged husband, anesthesiologist Dr. Mohammed Amjad Khan, to Saudi terror funders. The couple’s bank account showed repeated purchases of high-tech military equipment and apparel, including body armor, night-vision goggles, and military manuals. Her second husband, fellow al Qaeda suspect and 9/11 plot helper Ammar al Baluchi, is one of five Gitmo detainees that the Obama administration is planning to transfer to New York for trial.
Siddiqui was identified as an al Qaeda operative, financier, and fixer by no less than 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed during U.S. interrogations. Al Baluchi is KSM’s nephew. Mohammed reportedly enlisted Siddiqui in a Baltimore-based plot to bomb gas stations, fuel tanks, and bridges, and poison water reservoirs in the greater Washington, D.C. area.. Siddiqui was taken into custody in Kabul in July 2008 after attempting to shoot U.S. military interrogators and FBI agents.
Now, the savvy “Terror Mom” of three is pulling out all the stops to win a mistrial. Among her Cirque du Jihad antics:
*Demanding that jurors be genetically tested for a “Zionist or Israeli background” to ensure a fair and impartial jury of her Jew-hating peers;
*Ranting about 9/11/Israel conspiracies during voir dire;
*Screaming out loud during the testimony of U.S. Army Capt. Robert Snyder, who was in the room in Kabul when Siddiqui allegedly grabbed an M-4 rifle and proclaimed, “Allah Akbar!” and “I hate Americans! Death to America!” Before being ejected from the courtroom, Siddiqui shouted to Snyder, “You’re lying!” She also babbled about torture at a secret prison;
*And blurting out “I feel sorry for you” to the witness in front of the jury before being led out of the courtroom again.
Siddiqui’s defense team, funded in part by the Pakistani government, asserts that Lady Al Qaeda is so mentally ga-ga that she should not be allowed to take the witness stand. Bleeding-heart human rights groups have dutifully rallied around Siddiqui. She’s Mumia abu Jamal in a burqa. Indeed, her supporters have launched their own “Free Affia” campaign. But two government-retained psychiatrists, working independently, determined last year that Siddiqui’s so-called symptoms of mental illness were attributed to “malingering” and “manipulation.” The judge in the case concluded that she is competent and understands full well the charges against her.
The Crazy Jihadi tactic is in perfect sync with the al Qaeda training manual advising its operatives to claim victimhood status if arrested and put on trial. This act is also in keeping with a long tradition of terror defendants invoking the insanity card – from “20th hijacker” Zacarias Moussaoui (whose lawyers chalked up his mass-murdering ambitions to a traumatic childhood) to Fort Hood massacre Nidal Hasan (whose defense will undoubtedly play up his lonely bachelorhood).
To make matters worse, the New York Post reported this week that an “unidentified man in a white headdress” mouthed an obscenity at the Siddiqu trial and cocked his finger like a gun at two jurors. The jurors were let go; it remains unclear whether the thug in white headdress will be charged and what relation, if any, he has to Siddiqui.
Would you answer a jury summons knowing you could end up sitting in front of a jihadi sympathizer on the loose mentally painting a target on your forehead? And would you trust the White House ringmasters and Justice Department terror-coddlers to protect you from harm?
These suspects belong in controlled military tribunals, not federal courtrooms that are being turned into al Qaeda p.r. platforms. The O.J. Simpson spectacle of a smirking murder suspect, preening defense attorneys, a showboating judge, and the judicial process run amok on cable TV 24/7 was bad enough. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial, which gave the bin Laden network a multi-million-dollar, tax-subsidized legal team, free translation services, personal dry-cleaning services, race-baiting defense witnesses, and access to information that was allegedly used by jihadists to evade surveillance, was even worse.
The specter of 10 or 15 or 20 Siddiqui-style courtroom carnivals – at a cost of at least $1 billion to taxpayers – threatens to throw our civilian courtroom system into complete chaos. America can’t afford to clown around with national security.
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010
Imagine this nightmare courtroom scenario: Unhinged Jew-bashing, open mockery of American soldiers, juror intimidation, and coldly calculated exploitation of U.S. constitutional protections by a suspected al Qaeda defendant. Well, there’s no need to wait for the Gitmo terror trial circuses. New York City is already getting a glimpse of the future.
Jihadi scientist Aafia Siddiqui is on trial right now in a federal Manhattan court for the attempted murder and assault of U.S. military personnel in Pakistan two years ago. She’s an accomplished Karachi-born scientist who studied microbiology at MIT and did graduate work in neurology at Brandeis University before disappearing in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
Counterterrorism investigators connected Siddiqui and her estranged husband, anesthesiologist Dr. Mohammed Amjad Khan, to Saudi terror funders. The couple’s bank account showed repeated purchases of high-tech military equipment and apparel, including body armor, night-vision goggles, and military manuals. Her second husband, fellow al Qaeda suspect and 9/11 plot helper Ammar al Baluchi, is one of five Gitmo detainees that the Obama administration is planning to transfer to New York for trial.
Siddiqui was identified as an al Qaeda operative, financier, and fixer by no less than 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed during U.S. interrogations. Al Baluchi is KSM’s nephew. Mohammed reportedly enlisted Siddiqui in a Baltimore-based plot to bomb gas stations, fuel tanks, and bridges, and poison water reservoirs in the greater Washington, D.C. area.. Siddiqui was taken into custody in Kabul in July 2008 after attempting to shoot U.S. military interrogators and FBI agents.
Now, the savvy “Terror Mom” of three is pulling out all the stops to win a mistrial. Among her Cirque du Jihad antics:
*Demanding that jurors be genetically tested for a “Zionist or Israeli background” to ensure a fair and impartial jury of her Jew-hating peers;
*Ranting about 9/11/Israel conspiracies during voir dire;
*Screaming out loud during the testimony of U.S. Army Capt. Robert Snyder, who was in the room in Kabul when Siddiqui allegedly grabbed an M-4 rifle and proclaimed, “Allah Akbar!” and “I hate Americans! Death to America!” Before being ejected from the courtroom, Siddiqui shouted to Snyder, “You’re lying!” She also babbled about torture at a secret prison;
*And blurting out “I feel sorry for you” to the witness in front of the jury before being led out of the courtroom again.
Siddiqui’s defense team, funded in part by the Pakistani government, asserts that Lady Al Qaeda is so mentally ga-ga that she should not be allowed to take the witness stand. Bleeding-heart human rights groups have dutifully rallied around Siddiqui. She’s Mumia abu Jamal in a burqa. Indeed, her supporters have launched their own “Free Affia” campaign. But two government-retained psychiatrists, working independently, determined last year that Siddiqui’s so-called symptoms of mental illness were attributed to “malingering” and “manipulation.” The judge in the case concluded that she is competent and understands full well the charges against her.
The Crazy Jihadi tactic is in perfect sync with the al Qaeda training manual advising its operatives to claim victimhood status if arrested and put on trial. This act is also in keeping with a long tradition of terror defendants invoking the insanity card – from “20th hijacker” Zacarias Moussaoui (whose lawyers chalked up his mass-murdering ambitions to a traumatic childhood) to Fort Hood massacre Nidal Hasan (whose defense will undoubtedly play up his lonely bachelorhood).
To make matters worse, the New York Post reported this week that an “unidentified man in a white headdress” mouthed an obscenity at the Siddiqu trial and cocked his finger like a gun at two jurors. The jurors were let go; it remains unclear whether the thug in white headdress will be charged and what relation, if any, he has to Siddiqui.
Would you answer a jury summons knowing you could end up sitting in front of a jihadi sympathizer on the loose mentally painting a target on your forehead? And would you trust the White House ringmasters and Justice Department terror-coddlers to protect you from harm?
These suspects belong in controlled military tribunals, not federal courtrooms that are being turned into al Qaeda p.r. platforms. The O.J. Simpson spectacle of a smirking murder suspect, preening defense attorneys, a showboating judge, and the judicial process run amok on cable TV 24/7 was bad enough. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial, which gave the bin Laden network a multi-million-dollar, tax-subsidized legal team, free translation services, personal dry-cleaning services, race-baiting defense witnesses, and access to information that was allegedly used by jihadists to evade surveillance, was even worse.
The specter of 10 or 15 or 20 Siddiqui-style courtroom carnivals – at a cost of at least $1 billion to taxpayers – threatens to throw our civilian courtroom system into complete chaos. America can’t afford to clown around with national security.
The Colorado Model
This is an older article, that shows in one state, how the liberal left is organized and how they managed to move into control. Now, since they have tested and proven that it works you can bet that it is going on elsewhere. Take a look at your area and see if you can pick up the same pattern there. Depending on your personal opinion, you might want to see if you can expose what they are doing, and try to stop it.
The Colorado Model
Posted using ShareThis
The Colorado Model
Posted using ShareThis
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Every Senate Democrat voted to raise debt limit to $14.3 trillion
Every Senate Democrat voted to raise the debt limit to $14.3 trillion. The vote was 60-40 on straight partisan lines.
Let me repeat that — and let it be repeated loudly and often:
Every Senate Democrat voted to raise the debt limit to $14.3 trillion.
That’s $45,000 per American.
Here’s the roll call vote:
Can’t say it enough: There is no such thing as a “moderate Democrat” in the Senate.
(Just in case you want to verify... Here is a link to the NY Times story)
Let me repeat that — and let it be repeated loudly and often:
Every Senate Democrat voted to raise the debt limit to $14.3 trillion.
That’s $45,000 per American.
Here’s the roll call vote:
Can’t say it enough: There is no such thing as a “moderate Democrat” in the Senate.
(Just in case you want to verify... Here is a link to the NY Times story)
State of the Union: Barack Obama gets an F for world leadership
In order to get an international prosepctive, since we do live in the "Global Reality" of what happens in one country has an effect on the others... here is what the British had to say about the State of the Union address last night.
State of the Union: Barack Obama gets an F for world leadership
State of the Union: Barack Obama gets an F for world leadership
Your corrupt DOJ-gives-another-corrupt Democrat-a-pass story of the day
By Michelle Malkin • January 26, 2010 11:18 AM
Let’s see. Corruptocrat Attorney General Eric Holder gave the New Black Panther Party thugs a pass. And he gave pay-for-play corruptocrat Bill Richardson a pass.
Who’s the lucky winner today?
Democrat Rep. Alan “Cheat River” Mollohan of West Virginia.
You may recall that he was forced to step down from the House Ethics Committee four years ago in the wake of publicity over his shoddy financial disclosure forms and a National Legal and Policy Center complaint documenting shady real estate dealings.
Holder waved his magic wanded and ended a DOJ probe of the cesspool today. Poof:
Let’s see. Corruptocrat Attorney General Eric Holder gave the New Black Panther Party thugs a pass. And he gave pay-for-play corruptocrat Bill Richardson a pass.
Who’s the lucky winner today?
Democrat Rep. Alan “Cheat River” Mollohan of West Virginia.
You may recall that he was forced to step down from the House Ethics Committee four years ago in the wake of publicity over his shoddy financial disclosure forms and a National Legal and Policy Center complaint documenting shady real estate dealings.
Holder waved his magic wanded and ended a DOJ probe of the cesspool today. Poof:
The Justice Department has shuttered its nearly four-year investigation into the personal finances of Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.), freeing the 14-term lawmaker to pursue what could be a tough bid for reelection without the lingering cloud of a federal criminal probe.Mum’s the word.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia had been overseeing an investigation of Mollohan, a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, for steering roughly $250 million in line-item expenditures to several nonprofit organizations run by close friends, who also were real estate partners with him.
Mollohan’s office was notified this month that the investigation had been closed without criminal charges filed. Federal prosecutors declined to elaborate on what the investigation had found.
“We’re not going to get into any details, but I can confirm we’ve closed the investigation into Alan Mollohan,” Ben Friedman, spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office, said Monday evening.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Chosin
In the winter of 1950, at the height of America's "forgotten war," fifteen thousand US Soldiers and Marines found themselves surrounded by an overwhelming force of communist Chinese soldiers in the frozen mountains of North Korea. After sixty years of silence, the men who survived finally tell their story.
The veterans of Chosin take us back to towering mountains stained with blackened, blood-covered snow. Most of them are just kids -- 18 or 19 years old -- and they are outnumbered and cut off behind enemy lines. As the sun goes down each night, bugles and war-cries echo through the mountains, followed by massive human wave attacks lasting until dawn. Sub-zero temperatures render weapons inoperable and fighting devolves into terrifying nights of savage hand-to-hand combat. Unable to dig into the frozen ground, the Marines build parapets out of dead bodies in order to withstand each night’s onslaught. Despite overwhelming odds, the men never lose faith in each other. They refuse to surrender and instead fight their way to freedom through 78 miles of unforgiving, mountainous terrain.
The 1st Marine Division suffered over 4,000 killed and wounded but saved the lives of 98,000 refugees fleeing communist rule in North Korea. Seventeen Medals of Honor and 70 Navy Crosses were awarded to the heroes of this campaign, making it one of the most decorated battles in American history. Chosin will be the first documentary film to tell their incredible story.
The veterans of Chosin take us back to towering mountains stained with blackened, blood-covered snow. Most of them are just kids -- 18 or 19 years old -- and they are outnumbered and cut off behind enemy lines. As the sun goes down each night, bugles and war-cries echo through the mountains, followed by massive human wave attacks lasting until dawn. Sub-zero temperatures render weapons inoperable and fighting devolves into terrifying nights of savage hand-to-hand combat. Unable to dig into the frozen ground, the Marines build parapets out of dead bodies in order to withstand each night’s onslaught. Despite overwhelming odds, the men never lose faith in each other. They refuse to surrender and instead fight their way to freedom through 78 miles of unforgiving, mountainous terrain.
The 1st Marine Division suffered over 4,000 killed and wounded but saved the lives of 98,000 refugees fleeing communist rule in North Korea. Seventeen Medals of Honor and 70 Navy Crosses were awarded to the heroes of this campaign, making it one of the most decorated battles in American history. Chosin will be the first documentary film to tell their incredible story.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Obama Information Czar Calls For Banning Free Speech
Sunstein: Taxation and censorship of dissenting opinions "will have a place" under thought police program advocated in 2008 white paper
Paul Joseph Watson
Propaganda Matrix
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The controversy surrounding White House information czar and Harvard Professor Cass Sunstein's blueprint for the government to infiltrate political activist groups has deepened, with the revelation that in the same 2008 dossier he also called for the government to tax or even ban outright political opinions of which it disapproved.
Sunstein was appointed by President Obama to head up the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an agency within the Executive Office of the President.
On page 14 of Sunstein's January 2008 white paper entitled "Conspiracy Theories," the man who is now Obama's head of information technology in the White House proposed that each of the following measures "will have a place under imaginable conditions" according to the strategy detailed in the essay.
1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing.
2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.
That's right, Obama's information czar wants to tax or ban outright, as in make illegal, political opinions that the government doesn't approve of. To where would this be extended? A tax or a shut down order on newspapers that print stories critical of our illustrious leaders?
And what does Sunstein define as "conspiracy theories" that should potentially be taxed or outlawed by the government? Opinions held by the majority of Americans, no less.
The notion that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone in killing JFK, a view shared by the vast majority of Americans in every major poll over the last ten years, is an example of a "conspiracy theory" that the federal government should consider censoring, according to Sunstein.
A 1998 CBS poll found that just 10 per cent of Americans believed that Oswald acted alone, so apparently the other 90 per cent of Americans could be committing some form of thought crime by thinking otherwise under Sunstein's definition.
Sunstein also cites the belief that "global warming is a deliberate fraud" as another marginal conspiracy theory to be countered by government action. In reality, the majority of Americans now believe that the man-made explanation of global warming is not true, and that global warming is natural, according to the latest polls.
But Sunstein saves his most ludicrous example until last. On page 5 he characterizes as "false and dangerous" the idea that exposure to sunlight is healthy, despite the fact that top medical experts agree prolonged exposure to sunlight reduces the risk of developing certain cancers.
To claim that encouraging people to get out in the sun is to peddle a dangerous conspiracy theory is like saying that promoting the breathing of fresh air is also a thought crime. One can only presume that Sunstein is deliberately framing the debate by going to such absurd extremes so as to make any belief whatsoever into a conspiracy theory unless it's specifically approved by the kind of government thought police system he is pushing for.
Despite highlighting the fact that repressive societies go hand in hand with an increase in "conspiracy theories," Sunstein's 'solution' to stamp out such thought crimes is to ban free speech, fulfilling the precise characteristic of the "repressive society" he warns against elsewhere in the paper.
"We could imagine circumstances in which a conspiracy theory became so pervasive, and so dangerous, that censorship would be thinkable," he writes on page 20. Remember that Sunstein is not just talking about censoring Holocaust denial or anything that's even debatable in the context of free speech, he's talking about widely accepted beliefs shared by the majority of Americans but ones viewed as distasteful by the government, which would seek to either marginalize by means of taxation or outright censor such views.
No surprise therefore that Sunstein has called for re-writing the First Amendment as well as advocating Internet censorship and even proposing that Americans should celebrate tax day and be thankful that the state takes a huge chunk of their income.
The government has made it clear that growing suspicion towards authority is a direct threat to their political agenda and indeed Sunstein admits this on page 3 of his paper.
That is why they are now engaging in full on information warfare in an effort to undermine, disrupt and eventually outlaw organized peaceful resistance to their growing tyranny.
Paul Joseph Watson
Propaganda Matrix
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The controversy surrounding White House information czar and Harvard Professor Cass Sunstein's blueprint for the government to infiltrate political activist groups has deepened, with the revelation that in the same 2008 dossier he also called for the government to tax or even ban outright political opinions of which it disapproved.
Sunstein was appointed by President Obama to head up the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an agency within the Executive Office of the President.
On page 14 of Sunstein's January 2008 white paper entitled "Conspiracy Theories," the man who is now Obama's head of information technology in the White House proposed that each of the following measures "will have a place under imaginable conditions" according to the strategy detailed in the essay.
1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing.
2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.
That's right, Obama's information czar wants to tax or ban outright, as in make illegal, political opinions that the government doesn't approve of. To where would this be extended? A tax or a shut down order on newspapers that print stories critical of our illustrious leaders?
And what does Sunstein define as "conspiracy theories" that should potentially be taxed or outlawed by the government? Opinions held by the majority of Americans, no less.
The notion that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone in killing JFK, a view shared by the vast majority of Americans in every major poll over the last ten years, is an example of a "conspiracy theory" that the federal government should consider censoring, according to Sunstein.
A 1998 CBS poll found that just 10 per cent of Americans believed that Oswald acted alone, so apparently the other 90 per cent of Americans could be committing some form of thought crime by thinking otherwise under Sunstein's definition.
Sunstein also cites the belief that "global warming is a deliberate fraud" as another marginal conspiracy theory to be countered by government action. In reality, the majority of Americans now believe that the man-made explanation of global warming is not true, and that global warming is natural, according to the latest polls.
But Sunstein saves his most ludicrous example until last. On page 5 he characterizes as "false and dangerous" the idea that exposure to sunlight is healthy, despite the fact that top medical experts agree prolonged exposure to sunlight reduces the risk of developing certain cancers.
To claim that encouraging people to get out in the sun is to peddle a dangerous conspiracy theory is like saying that promoting the breathing of fresh air is also a thought crime. One can only presume that Sunstein is deliberately framing the debate by going to such absurd extremes so as to make any belief whatsoever into a conspiracy theory unless it's specifically approved by the kind of government thought police system he is pushing for.
Despite highlighting the fact that repressive societies go hand in hand with an increase in "conspiracy theories," Sunstein's 'solution' to stamp out such thought crimes is to ban free speech, fulfilling the precise characteristic of the "repressive society" he warns against elsewhere in the paper.
"We could imagine circumstances in which a conspiracy theory became so pervasive, and so dangerous, that censorship would be thinkable," he writes on page 20. Remember that Sunstein is not just talking about censoring Holocaust denial or anything that's even debatable in the context of free speech, he's talking about widely accepted beliefs shared by the majority of Americans but ones viewed as distasteful by the government, which would seek to either marginalize by means of taxation or outright censor such views.
No surprise therefore that Sunstein has called for re-writing the First Amendment as well as advocating Internet censorship and even proposing that Americans should celebrate tax day and be thankful that the state takes a huge chunk of their income.
The government has made it clear that growing suspicion towards authority is a direct threat to their political agenda and indeed Sunstein admits this on page 3 of his paper.
That is why they are now engaging in full on information warfare in an effort to undermine, disrupt and eventually outlaw organized peaceful resistance to their growing tyranny.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
EVERYONE needs to watch this, and send the link to everyone you know.
Anyone (like Barack Obama) entertaining ideas of western democracies establishing friendly relations with the radicals of the Islamic world should watch this video.While watching the inflammatory rhetoric of the speaker, remember that this is not a Jihadists from Iran but a professor from Kuwait - a country with every reason to be grateful to the USA for liberating it from the tyranny of Saddam Husseins invasion.
In case the embeded video doesn't load, here is the link to it.
In case the embeded video doesn't load, here is the link to it.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Police discover children as young as seven being groomed for terrorism
This article is from the (website for the) British Newspaper The Telegraph. Once again, we see the reality of the "Religion of Peace"
Police discover children as young as seven being groomed for terrorism
Children in Britain as young as seven have been identified by police as being groomed for terrorism, with some already talking about become suicide bombers.
Nick Britten
Published: 12:57PM GMT 10 Jan 2010
Around 10 primary school pupils, aged between seven and 10, have been referred to a Government scheme to help combat the radicalisation of youngsters.
One child was referred to the Channel Project, a national programme run by the police and Government, after shocking his teachers by writing on a school book: “I want to be a suicide bomber.”
The Channel Project was set up in the wake of the 7th July terrorist attacks in London.
It is operated by the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers, and works with schools, Muslim communities, youth workers and social workers.
Teachers and parents are asked to look out for warning signs and police officers work alongside Muslim communities to identify impressionable children who are at risk of radicalisation or who have shown an interest in extremist material, either on the internet or in books.
In June 2008 the project had identified 10 children at risk of being turned to violence. By March last year that figure had increased to 200.
Currently around 230 young people, mostly men aged between 15-24, have been identified, many of them by their parents because they suddenly changed from wearing Western clothes to strict Islamic dress, or began expressing devout Islamic views.
The British Government has denied claims that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian charged with trying to set off a bomb on a US-bound plane on Christmas Day, was radicalised and recruited by al-Qaeda whilst a student in London.
Files found by detectives are alleged to have shown that Abdulmutallab, 23, had ties to known Islamic radicals while an undergraduate at University College London between 2005 and 2008, where he was president of the Islamic Society.
Craig Denholm, Deputy Chief Constable of Surrey police, who oversees the project, said: “For people to be identified there have to be distinct changes in behaviour and warning signs.
“We assess each one on its own merits.” He said there was a “very small” number of seven, eight, and nine-year-olds involved.
Tactics used to turn youngsters away from extremism and integrate them into mainstream society include football coaching and outdoor adventure courses.
Police discover children as young as seven being groomed for terrorism
Children in Britain as young as seven have been identified by police as being groomed for terrorism, with some already talking about become suicide bombers.
Nick Britten
Published: 12:57PM GMT 10 Jan 2010
Around 10 primary school pupils, aged between seven and 10, have been referred to a Government scheme to help combat the radicalisation of youngsters.
One child was referred to the Channel Project, a national programme run by the police and Government, after shocking his teachers by writing on a school book: “I want to be a suicide bomber.”
The Channel Project was set up in the wake of the 7th July terrorist attacks in London.
It is operated by the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers, and works with schools, Muslim communities, youth workers and social workers.
Teachers and parents are asked to look out for warning signs and police officers work alongside Muslim communities to identify impressionable children who are at risk of radicalisation or who have shown an interest in extremist material, either on the internet or in books.
In June 2008 the project had identified 10 children at risk of being turned to violence. By March last year that figure had increased to 200.
Currently around 230 young people, mostly men aged between 15-24, have been identified, many of them by their parents because they suddenly changed from wearing Western clothes to strict Islamic dress, or began expressing devout Islamic views.
The British Government has denied claims that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian charged with trying to set off a bomb on a US-bound plane on Christmas Day, was radicalised and recruited by al-Qaeda whilst a student in London.
Files found by detectives are alleged to have shown that Abdulmutallab, 23, had ties to known Islamic radicals while an undergraduate at University College London between 2005 and 2008, where he was president of the Islamic Society.
Craig Denholm, Deputy Chief Constable of Surrey police, who oversees the project, said: “For people to be identified there have to be distinct changes in behaviour and warning signs.
“We assess each one on its own merits.” He said there was a “very small” number of seven, eight, and nine-year-olds involved.
Tactics used to turn youngsters away from extremism and integrate them into mainstream society include football coaching and outdoor adventure courses.
Friday, January 8, 2010
One More Example...
Here's one more member of Obama's criminal crew that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but is a cabinet member... Let's see... didn't some one once say, "Birds of a feather flock together". And maybe something like "You will be known by the company you keep"... Hummm...
Sit on data, Geithner’s Fed told AIG
By HUGH SON BLOOMBERG NEWS
Friday, January 8, 2010
LITTLE ROCK — The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, then led by Timothy Geithner, told American International Group Inc. to withhold details from the public about the bailed-out insurer’s payments to banks during the depths of the financial crisis, e-mails between the company and its regulator show.
AIG said in a draft of a regulatory filing that the insurer paid banks, which included Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Societe Generale SA, 100 cents on the dollar for credit-default swaps they bought from the firm. The New York Fed crossed out the reference, according to the e-mails, and AIG excluded the language when the filing was made public on Dec. 24, 2008. The e-mails were obtained by Rep. Darrell Issa, ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The New York Fed took over negotiations between AIG and the banks in November 2008 as losses on the swaps, which were contracts tied to subprime home loans, threatened to swamp the insurer weeks after its taxpayer funded rescue. The regulator decided that Goldman Sachs and more than a dozen banks would be fully repaid for $62.1 billion of the swaps, prompting lawmakers to call the AIG rescue a “backdoor bailout” of financial firms.
“It appears that the New York Fed deliberately pressured AIG to restrict and delay the disclosure of important information,” said Issa, a California Republican. Taxpayers “deserve full and complete disclosure under our nation’s securities laws,not the withholding of politically inconvenient information.” President Barack Obama selected Geithner as Treasury secretary, a post he took last year.
Geithner was “officially recused from matters dealing with specific companies” at the New York Fed after his nomination for Treasury Secretary on Nov. 24, 2008, and “began to insulate himself weeks earlier in anticipation of his nomination,” said Meg Reilly, a Treasury spokesman. Mark Herr, a spokesman for New York-based AIG, declined to comment.
Issa requested the e-mails from AIG Chief Executive Officer Robert Benmosche in October after Bloomberg News reported that the New York Fed ordered the crippled insurer not to negotiate for discounts in settling the swaps. The decision to pay the banks in full may have cost AIG, and thus taxpayers, at least $13 billion, based on the discount the insurer was seeking.
The e-mail exchanges between AIG and the New York Fed over the insurer’s disclosure of the transactions show that the regulator pressed the company to keep details out of the public eye. Issa’s comments add to criticism from Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, who wrote letters in the past two months demanding information from Geithner, 48, about the costs of the AIG bailout.
AIG’s Dec. 24, 2008, filing was challenged privately by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which polices the adequacy of disclosures by publicly traded firms. The agency said in a letter to then-CEO Edward Liddy six days later that AIG should provide a Schedule A, which lists collateral postings for the swaps and names the bank counterparties that purchased them from the company. The Schedule A was disclosed about five months later in a filing.
“Our position has always been that if AIG’s securities lawyers determine that AIG is legally obligated to make a particular filing or disclosure, then that is what AIG must do,” Thomas Baxter, general counsel for the New York Fed, said in a statement. He said it was appropriate for the New York Fed, as party to deals outlined in the filings, “to provide comments on a number of issues, including disclosures, with the understanding that the final decision rested with AIG’s securities counsel.”
Kathleen Shannon, an AIG deputy general counsel, wrote to the insurer’s executives in a March 12, 2009, e-mail about the conflicting demands fromthe New York Fed and SEC.
“In order to make only the disclosure that the Fed wants us to make,” Shannon wrote, “we need to have a reasonable basis for believing and arguing to the SEC that the information we are seeking to protect is not already publicly available.”
Under pressure from lawmakers, AIG disclosed the names of the counterparties, which included Deutsche Bank AG and Merrill Lynch & Co., on March 15. The disclosure said AIG made more than $27 billion in payments without identifying the securitiestied to the swaps or listing the value of individual purchases by each bank, details the Fed wanted to keep out, according to the March 12 e-mail from AIG’s Shannon.
Earlier that month, Fed Vice Chairman Donald Kohn testified to Congress that disclosure of the counterparties would harm AIG’s ability to do business. The insurer agreed to turn over a stake of almost 80 percent in connection to its bailout.
The e-mails span five months starting in November 2008 and include requests from the New York Fed to withhold documents and delay disclosures. The correspondence includes e-mails between AIG’sShannon and attorneys at the New York Fed and its law firm, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP. Tom Orewyler, a spokesman for Davis Polk in New York, declined to comment as did Shannon.
According to Shannon’s e-mails obtained by Issa, the New York Fed suggested that AIG refrain in a filing from mentioning so-called synthetic collateralized debt obligations, which bundled derivative contracts rather than actual loans.
The filing “reflects your client’s desire that there be no mention of the synthetics in connection with this transaction,” Shannon wrote to Davis Polk on Dec. 2, 2008. “They will not be mentioned at all.”
Business, Pages 27 on 01/08/2010
Sit on data, Geithner’s Fed told AIG
By HUGH SON BLOOMBERG NEWS
Friday, January 8, 2010
LITTLE ROCK — The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, then led by Timothy Geithner, told American International Group Inc. to withhold details from the public about the bailed-out insurer’s payments to banks during the depths of the financial crisis, e-mails between the company and its regulator show.
AIG said in a draft of a regulatory filing that the insurer paid banks, which included Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Societe Generale SA, 100 cents on the dollar for credit-default swaps they bought from the firm. The New York Fed crossed out the reference, according to the e-mails, and AIG excluded the language when the filing was made public on Dec. 24, 2008. The e-mails were obtained by Rep. Darrell Issa, ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The New York Fed took over negotiations between AIG and the banks in November 2008 as losses on the swaps, which were contracts tied to subprime home loans, threatened to swamp the insurer weeks after its taxpayer funded rescue. The regulator decided that Goldman Sachs and more than a dozen banks would be fully repaid for $62.1 billion of the swaps, prompting lawmakers to call the AIG rescue a “backdoor bailout” of financial firms.
“It appears that the New York Fed deliberately pressured AIG to restrict and delay the disclosure of important information,” said Issa, a California Republican. Taxpayers “deserve full and complete disclosure under our nation’s securities laws,not the withholding of politically inconvenient information.” President Barack Obama selected Geithner as Treasury secretary, a post he took last year.
Geithner was “officially recused from matters dealing with specific companies” at the New York Fed after his nomination for Treasury Secretary on Nov. 24, 2008, and “began to insulate himself weeks earlier in anticipation of his nomination,” said Meg Reilly, a Treasury spokesman. Mark Herr, a spokesman for New York-based AIG, declined to comment.
Issa requested the e-mails from AIG Chief Executive Officer Robert Benmosche in October after Bloomberg News reported that the New York Fed ordered the crippled insurer not to negotiate for discounts in settling the swaps. The decision to pay the banks in full may have cost AIG, and thus taxpayers, at least $13 billion, based on the discount the insurer was seeking.
The e-mail exchanges between AIG and the New York Fed over the insurer’s disclosure of the transactions show that the regulator pressed the company to keep details out of the public eye. Issa’s comments add to criticism from Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, who wrote letters in the past two months demanding information from Geithner, 48, about the costs of the AIG bailout.
AIG’s Dec. 24, 2008, filing was challenged privately by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which polices the adequacy of disclosures by publicly traded firms. The agency said in a letter to then-CEO Edward Liddy six days later that AIG should provide a Schedule A, which lists collateral postings for the swaps and names the bank counterparties that purchased them from the company. The Schedule A was disclosed about five months later in a filing.
“Our position has always been that if AIG’s securities lawyers determine that AIG is legally obligated to make a particular filing or disclosure, then that is what AIG must do,” Thomas Baxter, general counsel for the New York Fed, said in a statement. He said it was appropriate for the New York Fed, as party to deals outlined in the filings, “to provide comments on a number of issues, including disclosures, with the understanding that the final decision rested with AIG’s securities counsel.”
Kathleen Shannon, an AIG deputy general counsel, wrote to the insurer’s executives in a March 12, 2009, e-mail about the conflicting demands fromthe New York Fed and SEC.
“In order to make only the disclosure that the Fed wants us to make,” Shannon wrote, “we need to have a reasonable basis for believing and arguing to the SEC that the information we are seeking to protect is not already publicly available.”
Under pressure from lawmakers, AIG disclosed the names of the counterparties, which included Deutsche Bank AG and Merrill Lynch & Co., on March 15. The disclosure said AIG made more than $27 billion in payments without identifying the securitiestied to the swaps or listing the value of individual purchases by each bank, details the Fed wanted to keep out, according to the March 12 e-mail from AIG’s Shannon.
Earlier that month, Fed Vice Chairman Donald Kohn testified to Congress that disclosure of the counterparties would harm AIG’s ability to do business. The insurer agreed to turn over a stake of almost 80 percent in connection to its bailout.
The e-mails span five months starting in November 2008 and include requests from the New York Fed to withhold documents and delay disclosures. The correspondence includes e-mails between AIG’sShannon and attorneys at the New York Fed and its law firm, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP. Tom Orewyler, a spokesman for Davis Polk in New York, declined to comment as did Shannon.
According to Shannon’s e-mails obtained by Issa, the New York Fed suggested that AIG refrain in a filing from mentioning so-called synthetic collateralized debt obligations, which bundled derivative contracts rather than actual loans.
The filing “reflects your client’s desire that there be no mention of the synthetics in connection with this transaction,” Shannon wrote to Davis Polk on Dec. 2, 2008. “They will not be mentioned at all.”
Business, Pages 27 on 01/08/2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
White House will not discuss broken promise (Also known as a LIE)
This is from The Washington Examiner
White House: We will NOT discuss broken C-Span promise
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
01/06/10 4:49 PM EST
On Tuesday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs declined to answer questions about the president's campaign commitment to hold health-care negotiations on C-Span. Gibbs said he had not seen a letter from C-Span's Brian Lamb to congressional leaders requesting the coverage and thus could not comment on it.
On Wednesday, Gibbs was asked again about the C-Span commitment. The story had gotten pretty big in the intervening time, and presumably Gibbs had had a chance to familiarize himself with it. So reporters tried for a second day to get him to comment on the president's commitment to holding televised health-care talks. Gibbs' answer? "We covered this yesterday." Gibbs referred reporters to the transcript of Tuesday's briefing and said, "The answer I would give today is similar."
But of course, he hadn't answered the question at all. Here is the transcript from the Tuesday briefing:
QUESTION: C-Span television is requesting leaders in Congress to open up the debate to their cameras, and I know this is something that the President talked about on the campaign trail. Is this something that he supports, will be pushing for?
GIBBS: I have not seen that letter. I know the President is going to begin some discussions later today on health care in order to try to iron out the differences that remain between the House and the Senate bill and try to get something hopefully to his desk quite quickly….
Later in that same briefing, a reporter raised the C-Span issue again:
QUESTION: Okay, just lastly, why can't you answer the C-Span question --
GIBBS: I did.
QUESTION: You didn't, because you said --
GIBBS: I said I hadn't seen the letter, which I haven't --
QUESTION: do you need to see a letter? I mean, this is something the President said during the campaign and he talked about he wants everything open on C-SPAN --
GIBBS: Dan asked me about the letter and I haven't read the letter.
QUESTION: Well, I'll just ask you about having it on C-Span --
GIBBS: I answered Dan's question and I answered this before we left for the break, Keith. The President's number-one priority is getting the differences worked out, getting a bill to the House and the Senate…
QUESTION: There are a lot of reasons not to do it on C-Span -- people could showboat. Does he regret making that statement during the campaign?
GIBBS: No.
Fast forward to Wednesday's briefing. Another question from another reporter:
QUESTION: During the campaign the President on numerous occasions said words to the effect of -- quoting one -- "all of this will be done on C-SPAN in front of the public." Do you agree that the President is breaking an explicit campaign promise?
GIBBS: Chip, we covered this yesterday and I would refer you to yesterday's transcript.
QUESTION: But today is today and --
GIBBS: And the answer that I would give today is similar to the one --
QUESTION: But there was an intervening meeting in which it's been reported that the President pressed the leaders in Congress to take the fast-track approach, to skip the conference committee. Did he do that?
GIBBS: The President wants to get a bill to his desk as quickly as possible.
QUESTION: In spite of the fact that he promised to do this on C-Span?
GIBBS: I would refer you to what we talked about in this room yesterday.
QUESTION: But the President in this meeting yesterday --
GIBBS: And I addressed that --
QUESTION: -- pressed for something that's in direct violation of a promise he made during the campaign.
GIBBS: And I addressed that yesterday.
Another reporter took up the questioning:
QUESTION: Well, does the President think it would be more helpful if this process were more transparent, that the American people could see --
GIBBS: Mike, how many stories do you think NBC has done on this?
QUESTION: Speaking for myself --
GIBBS: Just a guess.
QUESTION: That's not the issue. The issue is whether he broke an explicit campaign promise.
GIBBS: So the answer is --
QUESTION: I deal with the information that --
GIBBS: So the answer is hundreds, is that correct?
QUESTION: Right, but that's got nothing to do with it. I deal with the information, however much or little of it, there is. I'm saying would people benefit by having more information?
GIBBS: Have you lacked information in those hundred stories? Do you think you've reported stuff that was inaccurate based on the lack of information?
QUESTION: Democrats ran against the very sort of process that is being employed in this health care --
GIBBS: We had this discussion yesterday. I answered this yesterday. Is there anything --
QUESTION: But the President met with members of Congress in the meantime --
GIBBS: And he'll do so today.
QUESTION: -- and pressed them to --
GIBBS: Do you have another question?
And that was the end of that. If the public wants to know why President Obama didn't keep his pledge to hold televised health-care negotations, they'll have to look for answers elsewhere. The White House isn't talking.
White House: We will NOT discuss broken C-Span promise
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
01/06/10 4:49 PM EST
On Tuesday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs declined to answer questions about the president's campaign commitment to hold health-care negotiations on C-Span. Gibbs said he had not seen a letter from C-Span's Brian Lamb to congressional leaders requesting the coverage and thus could not comment on it.
On Wednesday, Gibbs was asked again about the C-Span commitment. The story had gotten pretty big in the intervening time, and presumably Gibbs had had a chance to familiarize himself with it. So reporters tried for a second day to get him to comment on the president's commitment to holding televised health-care talks. Gibbs' answer? "We covered this yesterday." Gibbs referred reporters to the transcript of Tuesday's briefing and said, "The answer I would give today is similar."
But of course, he hadn't answered the question at all. Here is the transcript from the Tuesday briefing:
QUESTION: C-Span television is requesting leaders in Congress to open up the debate to their cameras, and I know this is something that the President talked about on the campaign trail. Is this something that he supports, will be pushing for?
GIBBS: I have not seen that letter. I know the President is going to begin some discussions later today on health care in order to try to iron out the differences that remain between the House and the Senate bill and try to get something hopefully to his desk quite quickly….
Later in that same briefing, a reporter raised the C-Span issue again:
QUESTION: Okay, just lastly, why can't you answer the C-Span question --
GIBBS: I did.
QUESTION: You didn't, because you said --
GIBBS: I said I hadn't seen the letter, which I haven't --
QUESTION: do you need to see a letter? I mean, this is something the President said during the campaign and he talked about he wants everything open on C-SPAN --
GIBBS: Dan asked me about the letter and I haven't read the letter.
QUESTION: Well, I'll just ask you about having it on C-Span --
GIBBS: I answered Dan's question and I answered this before we left for the break, Keith. The President's number-one priority is getting the differences worked out, getting a bill to the House and the Senate…
QUESTION: There are a lot of reasons not to do it on C-Span -- people could showboat. Does he regret making that statement during the campaign?
GIBBS: No.
Fast forward to Wednesday's briefing. Another question from another reporter:
QUESTION: During the campaign the President on numerous occasions said words to the effect of -- quoting one -- "all of this will be done on C-SPAN in front of the public." Do you agree that the President is breaking an explicit campaign promise?
GIBBS: Chip, we covered this yesterday and I would refer you to yesterday's transcript.
QUESTION: But today is today and --
GIBBS: And the answer that I would give today is similar to the one --
QUESTION: But there was an intervening meeting in which it's been reported that the President pressed the leaders in Congress to take the fast-track approach, to skip the conference committee. Did he do that?
GIBBS: The President wants to get a bill to his desk as quickly as possible.
QUESTION: In spite of the fact that he promised to do this on C-Span?
GIBBS: I would refer you to what we talked about in this room yesterday.
QUESTION: But the President in this meeting yesterday --
GIBBS: And I addressed that --
QUESTION: -- pressed for something that's in direct violation of a promise he made during the campaign.
GIBBS: And I addressed that yesterday.
Another reporter took up the questioning:
QUESTION: Well, does the President think it would be more helpful if this process were more transparent, that the American people could see --
GIBBS: Mike, how many stories do you think NBC has done on this?
QUESTION: Speaking for myself --
GIBBS: Just a guess.
QUESTION: That's not the issue. The issue is whether he broke an explicit campaign promise.
GIBBS: So the answer is --
QUESTION: I deal with the information that --
GIBBS: So the answer is hundreds, is that correct?
QUESTION: Right, but that's got nothing to do with it. I deal with the information, however much or little of it, there is. I'm saying would people benefit by having more information?
GIBBS: Have you lacked information in those hundred stories? Do you think you've reported stuff that was inaccurate based on the lack of information?
QUESTION: Democrats ran against the very sort of process that is being employed in this health care --
GIBBS: We had this discussion yesterday. I answered this yesterday. Is there anything --
QUESTION: But the President met with members of Congress in the meantime --
GIBBS: And he'll do so today.
QUESTION: -- and pressed them to --
GIBBS: Do you have another question?
And that was the end of that. If the public wants to know why President Obama didn't keep his pledge to hold televised health-care negotations, they'll have to look for answers elsewhere. The White House isn't talking.
Guantanamo Prisoners: We want to stay in Guantanamo | Washington Examiner
Well, now isn't that a rather interesting turn? The prisoners at GitMo would rather stay there than be moved to the US? What does that say about the treatment that they are receiving there?
Guantanamo Prisoners: We want to stay in Guantanamo | Washington Examiner
Guantanamo Prisoners: We want to stay in Guantanamo | Washington Examiner
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
What the Dems Know: Universal Voter Registration
Everyone needs to read this, and pass this information on to everyone that they can... We need to get this information out and work to stop this.
What the Dems Know: Universal Voter Registration
What the Dems Know: Universal Voter Registration
Monday, January 4, 2010
I wish he was in Arkansas...
Congressional candidate Lieutenant Colonel West speaking at the American Freedom tour in Fort Lauderdale Florida at the Revolution Nightclub.
For more information about the West for Congress campaign or to become involved please follow this link http://allenwestforcongress.com/.
For more information about the West for Congress campaign or to become involved please follow this link http://allenwestforcongress.com/.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
