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.
Monday, January 11, 2010
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)
