Monday, October 21, 2013

Jim Rogers: US govt shutdown is sham & charade to jerk us all around

'Dollar valueless, about to crash' - World Bank whistleblower

Check out the blog post ‘(IBD) Green California Gives Its OK To Fracking As Safe – Helps U.S. Pass Saudi Arabia As Oil Producer’

Blog post added by Daniel John Sobieski:

Energy: The Golden State’s governor has signed legislation that regulates but does not ban the technology that has sparked an energy boom …

Blog post link:

(IBD) Green California Gives Its OK To Fracking As Safe – Helps U.S. Pass Saudi Arabia As Oil Producer

Same U.S. Attorneys that defrauded the U.S. Congress and Federal court about Obama’s case and Obama’s IDs by claiming to act on behalf of the U.S. Congress while keeping the U.S. Congress in the dark, have embarked on a 13 billion shakedown of JP Morgan. How much of this money will go sideways? Which banks will be next for the shakedown? Citi? BofA? Wells Fargo? Goldman? How much will the companies have to give in “donations” to the Democratic party candidates to be left alone??? It reminds me of Stalin and the U.S.S.R as well as Germany in 1930s.

Posted on | October 20, 2013 | 7 Comments

As I am finalizing the appellants brief in the Grinols case, I can’t stop thinking about the magnitude of corruption in the WH and the DOJ? If you recall, I filed the Grinols case in the Eastern District of CA. U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner and assistant U.S. Attorney Ed Olsen appeared before Judge England and claimed that they represent the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Electoral college. They claimed that their clients wanted this case dismissed and that they are satisfied with Obama’s IDs. Later I found out that they simply lied and went behind the back of the U.S. Congress and behind the back of the members of the U.S. Electoral college, they never provided their alleged clients with any documents and pleadings and rushed to dismiss the case defrauding both the Congress and the court.
You can read the latest article in the NY times to see that Benjamin Wagner, Tony West and Eric Holder engaged in the biggest shakedown in the U.S. history, where they threatened criminal charges against the JP Morgan and got 13 billion in a tentative agreement.
I am wondering where all of this money will go to at the end of the day. For example. Obama was stating that there is no money to pay for security for U.S. citizens to visit the White House, which is less than 1 million, however Obama had no problem finding 100 million for security and other expenses to travel to Africa.
DOJ have no money to investigate crimes, however it had enough money to use its outreach department to incite racial riots in Florida and elsewhere all over the country.
Under Obama NASA fired thousands of people in Florida due to budget cuts, but had millions of dollars for an outreach to Muslims in Indonesia.
There was no money to assure the security of the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi, but there was enough money to topple the government there, institute a private central bank there, bring dozens of CIA agents who reportedly got hold of Muamar Qaddafi’s weapons and smuggled them to Al Qaeda insurgents in Syria.
You can catch my drift. The more money Obama and Dems get, the bigger the appetite, the bigger the radius for shakedowns, I have no doubt other banks and large companies will be next in line. Moreover, not so long ago Trump appeared on National TV and stated that Democrat AG in NY filed a bogus law suit against him because Trump did not give enough in donations.
I am not saying that banks should not be held accountable, they should, however this administration is acting in a typical Chicago style and I can guarantee you that the appetite will only increase and after JP Morgan we’ll see similar charges against other banks and other large companies or we will see a shakedown in the form of bundling of donations for Democratic party candidates. With more donations, there will be a stronger grip on power, silencing of opposition. Make no mistake that the latest Health care bill is a massive shakedown of the whole population of this nation. Obamacare tax or as I call it “The breathing tax” today is $2,000 or 1% of your income, whichever is more.
Here is small reminder for you: nearly 100 years ago, when the income tax was introduced in 1913, it was only 1% and only 1% of the high-earners paid it. Now most of us pay the income tax and it goes up to nearly 40% of your income. Obama’s father, Hussein Senior wrote an article stating that it is ok for the government to take a 100% of people’s earnings, as long as the government decides that the money goes to your own good. So, who is going to decide, what is good for us? Hussein Junior? Moochelle? Valerie Jarett? Eric holder? Tony West? Benjamin Wagner? and besides, how do you call a situation where the government takes a 100% and decides what do you need? You call it slavery, GULAG or worse …
Please, make it go viral!

New York Times

See realtime coverage

US Deal With JPMorgan Spurred by a Phone Call

New York Times

- ‎34 minutes ago‎

During talks over a tentative $13 billion settlement, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr Justin Sullivan/Getty Images During talks over a tentative $13 billion settlement, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.

27:09

Taitz report 10.18.2013 Will Judge Lamberth seek a Special Prosecutor in Obama’s fabricated SSS?

2 days ago
1,013 views

Report on a case dealing with Obama’s use of a fabricated Selective Service certificate with a fabricated cancellation USPS stamp and other fabricated IDs, review of current events, what…

19:06

Report 0919 2013 FBI is used as NAZI Gestapo

1 month ago
2,340 views

Sworn declaration of an investigator in regards to Obama’s use of a stolen Social security number of Harry Bounel…

Fw: HEARING: OCTOBER 23RD AT CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALS, SANTA ANA!!

Inbox

Alicia Lutz-rolow <theplanetruth1@yahoo.com>

8:45 PM (9 hours ago)

to microcapmaven, Leonard, Keith, drumbeat2000, quiroga556, Josh, warkaj, livefreeordieca, chris.ogle, riobravoxray, coastrotti, austin_bryant, Oathkeeper, clytn_rb, JUST, me

Please People…

Orly Taitz is an AMAZING Patriot fighting Fiercely to protect our freedoms and she has been fighting the fight for so very long…Every day she faces de facto retribution…unbelievable reprisal…humiliation…alienation…and as of late…even death threats…

She has spend thousands and thousands of her own dollars fighting to get the usurper out of our White House…I am privileged and honored to find myself fighting alongside such a focused and determined Patriot…She…like myself… is much too familiar with the ways and oppression of communist life…She loves this country and is determined…even at the high financial cost and terrible price that she is paying…to continue her fight against this de facto tyranny being perpetrated on our Nation and our People…by this unlawful government that no longer has any representation and is no longer of the People…by the People…and for the People…

Please do what you can to be at the courthouse in Santa Ana…for whatever amount of time that you can be there…but BE THERE… to not only show this great Patriot your unrelenting support and solidarity that she so much deserves…but to also show this out of control hijacked communist government…and their despotic kangaroo courts and corrupt judges…that We The People are Uniting…and We The People are coming…If you are an OathKeeper…please wear your Oathkeeper shirts…If there was EVER an OathKeeping situation… to hold these people’s feet to the fire and remind them to “Keep their Oath “to the Constitution that they swore to protect and defend….this is it!!!!!!!!!!!!

We Do Not Forgive …

We Do Not Forget…

Expect Us!

In Solidarity & Freedom…
Alicia Lutz Rolow
American Patriot & OathKeeper to the Constitutional Republic…
My Life…My Fortune…My Sacred Honor…So Help Me God!

On Saturday, October 19, 2013 7:05 PM, Peri McMillan <peri.mcmillan@dslextreme.com> wrote:

—– Original Message —–

DC court got my opposition in Taitz v Donahoe (Obama’s forged Selective Service registration with a fabricated cancellation USPS stamp). I am waiting for them to docket it. You may want to call the clerks office and ask to expedite docketing, as it is a matter of National importance and National security

Posted on | October 21, 2013 | 3 Comments

Reminder: court hearing Wednesday, October 23, 9am, 4th District Court of Appeal, 601 Santa Ana Blvd, Santa Ana CA

Posted on | October 21, 2013 | 2 Comments

Media will be in court on October 23, Oathkeepers and veterans will be in court as well

Posted on | October 20, 2013 | 2 Comments

Reminder: please, be in court on October 23, 9am, Fourth district Court of Appeal, 601 Santa Ana, Santa Ana CA. Taitz v Obama.

Fw: HEARING: OCTOBER 23RD AT CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALS, SANTA ANA!!

Inbox

Alicia Lutz-rolow <theplanetruth1@yahoo.com>

8:45 PM (9 hours ago)

to microcapmaven, Leonard, Keith, drumbeat2000, quiroga556, Josh, warkaj, livefreeordieca, chris.ogle, riobravoxray, coastrotti, austin_bryant, Oathkeeper, clytn_rb, JUST, me

Please People…

We Do Not Forgive …

We Do Not Forget…

Expect Us!

In Solidarity & Freedom…
Alicia Lutz Rolow
American Patriot & OathKeeper to the Constitutional Republic…
My Life…My Fortune…My Sacred Honor…So Help Me God!

On Saturday, October 19, 2013 7:05 PM, Peri McMillan <peri.mcmillan@dslextreme.com> wrote:

—– Original Message —–

From: Robert 2 Green

Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2013 6:56 PM

Subject: HEARING: OCTOBER 23RD AT CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALS, SANTA ANA!!

I Have been asked to pass on that, This Wednesday October 23,9am, there will be a hearing at the California Court of Appeal, 601 Santa Ana Blvd, Santa Ana California…..

Hearing on Elections fraud case, one and a half million invalid voter registrations, & Obama’s use of fabricated ID’s.

Please, be there to support Attorney Orly Taitz. More information on her website OrlyTaitzESQ.com

If you are an Oath Keeper, you are asked to wear your shirts.

Please pass this on to others. We want a packed court!

Orly Taitz Back in Court 10-23-13- Santa Ana, CA

Posted by By GeorgeM at 19 October, at 21 : 10 PMPrint

IN THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Case G047746
Superior Court Ca5e Number
30-2012-00582135
ORLY TAITZ
APPELLANT
V
BARACK OBAMA, DIANE FEINSTEIN, ELIZABETH EMKEN
APPELLEES

from Taitz site:

Reminder: please, be in court this Wednesday, October 23, 9 am, 601 Santa Ana Blvd, Santa Ana, CA, Taitz v Obama. Please, contact veterans, bikers, truckers, tea party, ask people to be in court

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=437689
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=434088
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Taitz-v-Obama-Appeal-4th-District-Court-of-Appeal.pdf

https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Taitz-v-Obama-supplemental-brief-court-of-appeals.pdf&chrome=true

Shocking! The most liberal paper in the country, San Francisco Chronicle, de facto calls Obama a liar and Obamacare: not a computer glitch, but a total lie

Obamacare's real kink - fuzzy math

Debra J. Saunders

Published 5:01 pm, Monday, October 21, 2013

Larger | Smaller

Printable Version

Email This
Font

At an event on Monday to boost the Affordable Care Act after its glitch-rich rollout, President Obama asserted that his signature health care plan is a hit because "prices have come down." That's the administration's big lie: that Washington can mandate universal health care with beefed-up benefits and somehow the plan will save everyone money.
"So one study shows that through new options created by the Affordable Care Act," the president boasted, "nearly six in 10 uninsured Americans will find that they can get covered for less than $100 a month." He glossed over the fact that, according to the federal government study, 56 percent of the uninsured should pay less than $100 a month because they qualify for Medicaid or for federal subsidies. To the extent that these people's prices come down, it's because someone else pays the price.
Some people will save without subsidies. Obama read a letter from John Mier of Leetsdale, Pa. Mier agreed the website "stank" when he first logged on, but later he found that instead of paying $1,600 a month for coverage, as his current provider would charge, thanks to Obamacare, "we have a plan that will only cost us $692 a month - a savings of $900 per month."
I talked to Mier, who is a consulting engineer; his wife works for his business. The couple does not qualify for subsidies. He's in his 60s. She's in her late-50s. He has a pre-existing condition, and she has diabetes. One insurer turned down his wife. I asked him if he thought his claims experience, because of the family's medical history, explained the couple's high premiums. Mier answered, "probably, no doubt."
I've been hearing from healthy Californians who were kicked off their private plans because of Obamacare and were informed they would have to pay much higher premiums on Affordable Care Act exchanges. It could be that his family's boon spells a financial hit for healthy individuals who had good affordable health care before Obamacare.
The White House doesn't hold events with families who have been harmed by Obamacare. The president had promised Americans that if they liked their heath care plans, they could keep them. But the president doesn't read letters from people who feel they were betrayed and deceived.
Couples who decide to earn less money so that they can qualify for federal subsidies don't swoon on the White House steps as the president crows about how swell Obamacare is. There is no "rate shock" on Pennsylvania Avenue.
So let me quote from an e-mail from a San Francisco contractor who is "very angry over this new health care act." Kaiser informed him that for him to comply with the new law, his deductible would rise from $2,700 per year to $4,500, and his premiums would rise from $356 to $567. "All I ever heard was that if you currently had health insurance, you need not worry, you could keep your same coverage, your doctor and nothing would change for you. Wrong, wrong, wrong."
Voters never should have believed that Washington could provide the same benefits, no more benefits, to millions more Americans and still people would pay less. That thinking, not computer glitches, is the real "kink in the system" of Obamacare.

Holder's DOJ Attorneys, Not ATF Agents, Let Grenades Go to Mexican Drug Cartels

Katie Pavlich | Oct 21, 2013

Late last week news broke of a connection between grenades illegally trafficked from the U.S. into Mexico by Jean Baptiste Kingery and the murder of Mexican police officers. Years ago, Kingery was suspected of trafficking parts for grenades into Mexico and then building explosives for cartels.
An incident report detailing a fire fight between Mexican police and cartel members states, "Jalisco State Police Officers murdered during a shooting with members of the Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion in Tepatitlan, Jalisoc, MX. In the late hours of October 10, 2013, officers with the Jalisco State Police engaged in a shooting with members of the cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion in Tepatitlan, Jalisco. During the shooting, three Jalisco State Police Officers were killed, including the third in command of the Police Department, and three others were injured. Elements of the State Police received fire from a .50 caliber rifle and at least 10 hand grenades, the evidence of one being reported as a "Kingery" grenade. It is also being reported that nine firearms were recovered from the scene during the post incident search. ATF MCO is awaiting further information in order to submit urgent trace requests to the National Tracing Center as well as attempting to receive more information from contacts within the Jalisco Police Department."
In the story last week, it was stated ATF agents 'let grenades walk' into Mexico, which is incorrect. In fact, ATF agents had a full confession from Kingery stating that he was supplying grenades to Mexican cartels after trafficking parts to build them once inside the country. ATF agents had plenty of evidence, wanted him prosecuted and even described him as a terrorist.
"At no point did ATF ever knowingly let this guy walk grenades. He never had live grenades while he was under surveillance. The stuff he had is not illegal in the United States. The only time it is illegal is when it's crossing the border," Special Agent Peter Forcelli said. "They were just parts, they weren't whole grenades."
At one point, Kingery was arrested by ATF agents as he tried to cross into Mexico, but the case was dropped by the Department of Justice under orders from former U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke and former Assistant U.S. Attorney Emory Hurley.
As a refresher:

"[U.S. Attorney] Emory [Hurley] shat on a couple other significant cases we were working on, including a case on grenades," Forcelli says. "In the grenade case, a suspect named Jean Baptiste Kingery was believed by Forcelli and other agents to be sending grenades out of the country, trafficking parts for grenades into Mexico, and then building explosives for the cartels.

"Their advice was, under no circumstances, do not let him leave the country but, if you catch him leaving the country, we won't prosecute him," Focelli explains. "They tied our hands."

Eventually, Kingery was arrested by ATF agents as he tried to cross into Mexico with grenade parts and components packed in his tires. Forcelli received a full-blown confession from Kingery. The suspect reportedly admitted that he had been making grenades for the cartels and smuggling explosives across an international border. Instead of a prosecution from Burke of Hurley, they dismissed the case and Kingery went free.

"The only hands the U.S. Attorney's Office handcuffed in the Kingery case were the hands of ATF," Forcelli recalls. "In my opinion, dozens of firearms trafficking cases were given a pass by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Arizona."

"Despite the existence of 'probable cause' in many cases, there were no indictments, no prosecutions, and criminals were allowed to walk free. In short, their office policies, in my opinion, helped pave a dangerous path."

ATF agents did their job in trying to stop Kingery and grenade parts, which would eventually be assembled into explosives, from going south into Mexico. Department of Justice attorneys Burke and Hurley set him free and ignored the case for years, resulting in the murders of multiple Mexican police officers last week. Kingery is now being held and prosecuted in Mexico by Mexican authorities after his grenade mill and factory was located near Mazatlan. After a search warrant was executed, authorities found Kingery had trafficked enough material to build 800-1000 grenades. He's facing 40 years in a Mexican prison.
The Office of the Inspector General is conducting an investigation into how the Kingery case was handled, it's expected to be released soon.

Thursday, October 17, 2013

GARDEN TOMB DOCUMENTARY CONCLUSION PART 4.

Details of recordings Morsi and al-Qaeda leader

Media Ahmed Musa revealed the details of audio recordings between former President Mohamed Morsi and Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda leader and his brother Muhammad al-Zawahiri, which was based on the permission of the Egyptian judiciary, stressing that these recordings will be used as evidence against a berth in the spying case. He explained, "Moses" through its "people want to" channel "liberation" - that Marina had telephone contacts between al-Qaeda leader addressed the agreement on calming 100 thousand of the terrorist al-Qaeda in the Sinai, and that these fighters they would be "the army ...

Saudi Bankrolling of al-Qaeda Well Known to U.S. Government

Saudi Bankrolling of al-Qaeda
Well Known to U.S. Government

by Jeffrey Steinberg and Edward Spannaus
[PDF version of this article]

"If I could somehow snap my fingers and cut off the funding from one country, it would be Saudi Arabia."
                    —Stuart Levey,
                        Treasury Under Secretary,
                        in charge of tracking terror financing,
                        to ABC News, Sept. 11, 2007.

Sept. 23—The U.S. government has known for years that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the largest source of funds for global jihadist terrorism, including funding of the 9/11 attacks against the U.S., but has, to date, refused to take any effective action against it. Behind the Saudis, of course, are the British, a relationship that is exemplified by the British-Saudi Al-Yamamah slush fund, used by Prince Bandar and others as a major source of terror funding.
This coverup goes far beyond the suppression of the crucial 28-page chapter from the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, concerning Saudi support for the 9/11 hijackers, the concealment of which has continued under the Obama Administration.
Something which has received far too little attention, is the 335-page report issued in July 2012 by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, exposing the role of HSBC (formerly, the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation) in money-laundering and global narcotics and terrorism financing. This included a 50-page chapter on HSBC's sordid ties to Al-Rajhi Bank, the largest private bank in Saudi Arabia, with $59 billion in assets, and over 500 branches. The bank was founded by the Al-Rajhi brothers, led by Sulaiman Abdul Aziz Al-Rajhi, chairman of the board of the bank, and a pivotal al-Qaeda financier, according to a number of CIA and Treasury reports.
As is recounted in the Senate report, the 9/11 Commission Report and numerous other official government documents show that in March 2002, the FBI and Bosnian authorities raided the Bosnian offices of the Benevolence International Foundation, a Saudi charity known to conduit money to al-Qaeda. Investigators found a computer hard drive documenting al-Qaeda's funding apparatus, which was dubbed the "Golden Chain." Among the top 20 funders of al-Qaeda identified in one document on the hard drive, was Sulaiman Al-Rajhi.
The Senate report also noted that at the same time that the Bosnia raid occurred, in March 2002, the FBI was also raiding the Northern Virginia offices of the SAAR Foundation, a front for the Al-Rajhi group, linked both to the Muslim Brotherhood and other hard-core terrorist cells around the globe. "Operation Green Quest" targeted SAAR and the affiliated Safa Group of charitable and business fronts, all tied to the Saudi regime.
Additionally, in 2003, as cited in the Senate report, the CIA produced a classified report that was later leaked to the Wall Street Journal, titled "Al-Rajhi Bank: Conduit for Extreme Finance." According to the Lloyds lawsuit (see below), the CIA report stated:

"Islamic extremists have used Al-Rajhi Banking & Investment Corporation (ARABIC) since at least the mid-1990s as a conduit for terrorist transactions, probably because they find the bank's vast network and adherence to Islamic principles both convenient and ideologically sound. Senior al-Rajhi family members have long supported Islamic extremists and probably know that terrorists use their bank. Reporting indicates that senior al-Rajhi family members control the bank's most important decisions and that ARABIC's principal managers answer directly to Suleiman. The al-Rajhis know they are under scrutiny and have moved to conceal their activities from financial regulatory authorities."

Saudi Role Officially Recognized

Other evidence of official U.S. knowledge of Saudi terrorism financing, cited in the Senate report, includes:

The 9/11 Commission found that the Al-Rajhi Bank was directly implicated in conduiting funds to the hijackers through the International Islamic Relief Organization, which maintained accounts at Al-Rajhi. It was through those accounts that funds were wired to Abdulaziz Al-Omari, one of the 9/11 hijackers, just four days before the attacks.
The U.S. State Department and the Congressional Research Service reported in 2007 that Saudi Arabia continued to be a source of financing for al-Qaeda and other terrorist organization, including the statement by Stuart Levey quoted above.
In April 2008, Levey testified that, although Saudi Arabia was taking strong action against terrorists inside its borders, it was not working as hard to prevent money from flowing to terrorists outside its borders. "Saudi Arabia today remains the location from which more money is going to terror groups and the Taliban—Sunni terror groups and the Taliban—than from any other place in the world."
A 2009 GAO report prepared for Congress stated: "U.S. officials remain concerned about the ability of Saudi individuals and multilateral charitable organizations, as well as other individual visiting Saudi Arabia, to support terrorism and violent extremism outside of Saudi Arabia."

WikiLeaks cables assess terrorism funding in Saudi Arabia, Gulf states

By Tim Lister, CNN

December 6, 2010 2:34 a.m. EST

The WikiLeaks media dilemma

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

U.S. cables published by WikiLeaks assess terrorism funding in the Gulf region
"Terrorist funding emanating from Saudi Arabia remains a serious concern"
The Saudi government is cooperating with the United States more than ever before
But donors in Saudi Arabia "continue to constitute a source of funding" to Sunni extremists

(CNN) -- "Terrorist funding emanating from Saudi Arabia remains a serious concern." So states a cable prepared for the visit of U.S. Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke to the kingdom earlier this year.
It is one of several that have appeared on the WikiLeaks site to indicate that despite some progress, the flow of cash to extremist groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan from individuals and charities in the Gulf has certainly not been halted.
The cable, written by U.S. Ambassador James B Smith, says that the Saudis are "cooperating more actively than at any previous point to respond to terrorist financing concerns raised by the United States, and to investigate and detain financial facilitators of concern."
It says the Saudi Ministry of Interior had begun to detain individuals involved in funding networks for groups such as Lashkar e-Tayyiba (LeT), an extremist Pakistani group that carried out the Mumbai attacks in 2008, the Taliban, and Hamas.
But it says donors in Saudi Arabia "continue to constitute a source of funding to Sunni extremist groups worldwide, especially during the Hajj and Ramadan." And it adds the kingdom remains "almost completely dependent on the CIA to provide analytic support and direction for its counterterrorism operations."

Fareed's Take: What WikiLeaks tells us

Karzai, Gilani downplay WikiLeaks

Bank's WikiLeaks worries

RELATED TOPICS

The U.S. Treasury has led efforts to block sources of terrorist funding, establishing the "Illicit Finance Task Force" and sending specialists to Kabul, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to help follow the money. It also established an office in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in 2008. Treasury sources said earlier this year that other Gulf states had been less co-operative than the Saudis; and other cables obtained by WikiLeaks describe hundreds of millions of dollars in cash being flown from Kabul to various destinations in the region.
The Saudi authorities have made some high-profile arrests in the last two years. Ambassador Smith's cable says the Ministry of the Interior timed its announcement in August 2009 regarding the arrest of 44 terrorist supporters "to deter potential donors from giving money to suspected terrorist groups during Ramadan."
However, one leaked cable sent by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in December 2009 noted that "it has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority." It adds: "Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide" -- running into millions of dollars.
"Riyadh has taken only limited action to disrupt fundraising for the UN 1267-listed Taliban and LeT-groups that are also aligned with al-Qaeda," the cable from Clinton says. It also expresses concern that the Taliban might use the cover of reconciliation talks to raise funds. U.N. Security Council resolution 1267 lists groups and individuals accused of involvement with al Qaeda, the Taliban and other extremist groups.
It is not only Saudi sources of cash for terrorists that have caused concern. The cable sent by Secretary Clinton notes that while Kuwait has clamped down on domestic terror suspects it "has been less inclined to take action against Kuwait-based financiers and facilitators plotting attacks outside of Kuwait."
In particular, the cable says that while the United States had designated the Kuwait-based Revival of Islamic Heritage Society for providing support to al Qaeda and associated groups, the government of Kuwait "has not taken significant action to address or shut down RIHS headquarters or its branches."
Tareq al Essa, the society's chairman, has denied allegations that RIHS has links with terrorist groups.
The leaked cables also express concern that weak regulatory oversight in the United Arab Emirates (a growing financial hub) "makes it vulnerable to abuse by terrorist financiers and facilitation networks."
As for Qatar, the cable from Clinton says it has "adopted a largely passive approach to cooperating with the U.S. against terrorist financing. Qatar's overall level of CT [counter-terrorism] cooperation with the U.S. is considered the worst in the region." The cable asserts that although Qatar's security services have the capability to deal with direct threats and occasionally have put that capability to use, "they have been hesitant to act against known terrorists out of concern for appearing to be aligned with the U.S. and provoking reprisals."
A long section on terrorist financing in Pakistan repeats the frequent charge that "some officials from the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) continue to maintain ties with a wide array of extremist organizations, in particular the Taliban, LeT and other extremist organizations." It says a "network of social service institutions readily provides extremist organizations with recruits, funding and infrastructure for planning new attacks."

Among the groups identified are "UN-proscribed NGOs al Rashid Trust and al Akhtar Trust, and all successor organizations that continue to funnel money and provide other forms of support to the Taliban and LeT."

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Terror watch list grows to 875,000

The number of names in a secret U.S. database of suspected terrorists has swollen to 875,000 from 540,000 only five years ago, in part because of rule changes introduced after al Qaeda’s failed underwear bomb plot in 2009.
The new figures were released Friday by the U.S. National Counter-Terrorism Center, which manages the database, the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or TIDE. A senior intelligence official explained the changes to The Washington Times.
“It’s absolutely not unwieldy,” the official insisted. He was seeking to rebut charges that the growing size of such a database actually makes harder the work of finding real terrorists — what critics call the “larger haystack, same number of needles” problem.
U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies have software tools for sorting through the data to find what they need, the official said, “They use the database every day and get the results they desire.”
As of December 2012, a factsheet from the center states, TIDE contained over 875,000 entries. Each one represents a known or suspected terrorist and includes all their known aliases and spelling variations on their name, the official said.
Less than one percent, or fewer than 9,000, were Americans, including both citizens and legal permanent residents, he said, adding the center does not release exact numbers.
The official said the larger number of entries in recent years was due in part to changes to the rules about who gets into the database. The changes were introduced in the wake of the botched Christmas 2009 attack on a Detroit-bound airliner by al Qaeda “underpants bomber” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
After Abdulmutallab’s bomb — which he had successfully smuggled aboard in his underwear — failed to go off, lawmakers honed in on the way TIDE was managed and how names were added.
In response, the National Counter-Terrorism Center changed the rules.
“There’s a lower standard,” for who gets into TIDE, the official said, meaning “less specific derogatory information” about a suspect is needed before they are entered.
TIDE is not in itself a watchlist, but it is the prime source for the nation’s post-Sept. 11 unified terrorist watchlist for law enforcement, intelligence and other agencies, the Terrorist Screening Database, or TSDB.
The difference is vital because TSDB — which is used by state and local police, and multiple federal entities including customs and border agencies and the Transportation Security Administration — has to be unclassified. It is managed by the FBI-run Terrorism Screening Center.
TSDB is used by U.S. agencies, including several within the Department of Homeland Security, to populate their own watchlists, like the TSA’s “no-fly” list, CLASS, the State Department’s database for checking visa applications, and TECS, the customs and border watchlist.
TIDE, on the other hand, is classified at the “secret” level and is managed by the National Counter-Terrorism Center, which is an intelligence agency.
“TSDB is an unclassified subset of TIDE,” said the official, purged of derogatory information and instead just indicating what sort of a threat the individual might pose and what action law enforcement or other officials in contact with them should take.
Also excluded are entries in TIDE that are not specific enough to be useful for watchlisting purposes.
This complex and sprawling U.S. machinery for collecting, assessing and watchlisting information about suspected terrorists, established in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, has come under new scrutiny following the Boston Marathon bombing last month.
Accused Chechen-American bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev was interviewed by the FBI in 2011, after Russian authorities said they were concerned he might be radicalizing and preparing to come to Russia to join Islamic extremist terror groups in the volatile Muslim-majority North Caucasus.
The FBI, who also interviewed relatives and trawled through Mr. Tsarnaev’s electronic communications, found no derogatory information and — after repeatedly requesting more details from the Russians and getting no response — closed their file, the bureau said last month.
While they were investigating him, the FBI listed him in TECS. But not as a terrorist, the senior intelligence official said.
The FBI determination at that time was that there was not sufficient derogatory information to consider Mr. Tsarnaev, a green card holder in the process of becoming a citizen, an “appropriately known or suspected terrorist,” the official said.
“They put him in TECS because they wanted to look at his travel history, not because” they thought he was a threat, the official said. He noted that law enforcement agencies can flag people for scrutiny when they travel abroad for a variety of non-terror related reasons, for example if they are suspected of involvement in drug or people smuggling, or they are believed to be a target or an operative of a foreign intelligence service.
The TECS listing caused what became “the ping heard ‘round the world.”
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Congress the week after the bombing that Mr. Tsarnaev had “pinged” in the DHS‘ watchlist system when he left for Russia on a mysterious six-month visit which investigators believe may be crucial to understanding his motivation and capabilities for the bombing.
By the time he returned six months later, she said, the listing had lapsed because the FBI assessment had been closed.
The remarks prompted charges from lawmakers that U.S. intelligence agencies had once again failed to “connect the dots,” and thwart a terror plot in the making.
But last week, it emerged that both Mr. Tsarnaev and his mother Zubeidat Tsarnaeva, were entered into TIDE anyway, after the FBI had closed their investigation.
“After the FBI went back to the Russians for the second time, the Russians sent the same memo [that they had originally passed to the FBI] to the CIA,” the official said.
“The CIA knew the FBI had done a review, but out of an abundance of caution, they nominated him and his mother [to TIDE] anyway. Under the post-Abdulmutallab rules they were pushed to the TSDB,” he added.
Experts say the difference in the behavior of the two agencies is a classic example of how U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies — though they now work much more closely together on counter-terrorism — continue to have rather different approaches to the issue.
Phillip Mudd, a career counter-terrorism official who held senior posts with both the FBI and the CIA, said there were proper limits on what domestic agencies like the FBI should do to track terror threats, if Americans’ rights are to be protected and an open society maintained.
Speaking recently about the Boston case to a Washington think tank, Mr. Mudd said watchlisting every person ever flagged up as a potential jihadist, especially by a foreign intelligence service, would be beyond the nation’s resources, contrary to its constitution — and ineffective.
“How do you boil down the 10,000 other cases to that one guy” who is actually going to carry out an attack? “And what do you do about the false positives?” he asked — innocent people wrongly suspected, arrested or even charged?
Those who argue for greater vigilance “never talk about the false positives,” he averred.
Mr. Tsarnaev, 26, the elder of the two brothers accused of staging the Boston Marathon attack, died in a shootout with police in the days following the bombing. His younger brother Dzhokhar, 19, was captured the following day and is now facing charges.

Ridiculous DHS list: You might be a domestic terrorist if...

An 18-year veteran in law enforcement warned to beware of Homeland Security training that is being pushed to local law enforcement. "You might be a Domestic Terrorist If" you believe in civil liberties, or if you actually believe in your Constitutional rights. Sadly, this is NOT a joke.

By Ms. Smith on Sun, 04/03/11 - 6:39pm.

We've all heard the "You might be a Redneck If" jokes, but in this series "You might be a Domestic Terrorist If" you believe in civil liberties, or if you actually believe in your Constitutional rights. Sadly, this is not a joke. You might also be a terrorist if you have ever expressed concerns of Big Brother. Are you a Christian who has ever discussed the anti-Christ, the apocalypse, or even mentioned the book of Revelation? Guess what, according to DHS then you too qualify as a potential domestic terrorist.

An 18-year veteran in law enforcement warned to beware of Homeland Security training that is being pushed to local law enforcement. James Wesley Rawles recently posted on AxXiom for Liberty some very disturbing trends in law enforcement training. He reports a shift in focus in the last 18 years from local community to a "federally dominated model of complete social control" coming out of, not surprisingly, Homeland Security. More specifically, the long-reaching DHS arms of TSA and FEMA have been pushed heavily in the last two years to local law enforcement.
Rawles notes that regardless to training session topics, the courses shift to domestic terrorist warnings in the community. That is not abnormal, but the wide scope of what our government describes as having the most potential to be domestic terrorists is highly alarming.
Rawles writes that the following are characteristics that qualifies a person as a potential domestic terrorist:

Expressions of libertarian philosophies (statements, bumper stickers)

Second Amendment-oriented views (NRA or gun club membership, holding a CCW permit)

Survivalist literature (fictional books such as "Patriots" and "One Second After" are mentioned by name)

Self-sufficiency (stockpiling food, ammo, hand tools, medical supplies)

Fear of economic collapse (buying gold and barter items)

Religious views concerning the book of Revelation (apocalypse, anti-Christ)

Expressed fears of Big Brother or big government

Homeschooling

Declarations of Constitutional rights and civil liberties

Belief in a New World Order conspiracy

People engaged in the above activities or mind-set may be considered "extremists" or "militia groups" that exist in our communities and are "hiding in plain sight, ready to attack."
We've looked before at suspicious activity reports (SAR database) and fusion centers that keep info on supposedly "suspicious" people, keeping watchlists that can be accessed by local law enforcement and other government agencies. Domestic surveillance seems out of control and ACLU's Policy Counsel on National Security, Immigration and Privacy, Mike German, has said as much: "The most disturbing thing we've uncovered is the scope of domestic intelligence activities taking place today. Domestic spying is now being done by a host of federal agencies (FBI, DOD, DHS, DNI) as well as state and local law enforcement and even private companies. Too often this spying targets political activity and religious practices. We've documented intelligence activities targeting or obstructing First Amendment-protected activity in 33 states and DC."
I'm sure none of us want terrorists in our country. Although there may be domestic terrorists inside the USA, why don't we actually hear about these groups? Could it be that all the warnings of how there are such high risks for terrorism inside the U.S. might be because there are these utterly ridiculous lists of what qualifies as potential terrorists?
I strongly disagree that We the People of the USA, the land of free, are a wildly dangerous group. In fact, I don't think terrorists are lurking everywhere in America, waiting to attack. I believe, it is because we love America that we talk about and write about the worrisome facts of our great country becoming the land of surveillance and distrust, the place where neighbors are encouraged to report neighbors, and where local law enforcement is being told to be on the lookout for terrorists lurking all over their communities.

Like this? Check out these other posts:

All of today's Microsoft news and blogs

Is Skype a security risk that endangers your privacy?

TSA Surveillance: Peep Show, Police State, Privacy Invasion or All Three?

4Chan Founder Moot: 'Anonymity is authenticity,' Zuckerberg 'wrong'

Watchdog Group questions Google's relationship with NSA

The Devil Is In The Details: DHS Monitoring Keywords & Social Media

No Conspiracy Theory Needed: Tor Created for U.S. Gov't Spying

Watchdog Group questions Google's relationship with NSA

Former FBI Agent Turned ACLU Attorney: Feds Routinely Spy on Citizens

Watchdog to Obama: Schmidt policing online privacy is like Madoff heading SEC

Follow me on Twitter @PrivacyFanatic

Obama responds to Benghazi victim’s father with insulting, evasive letter

October 14, 2013 by Tom Tillison 70 Comments

Photo Credit DailyCaller.com

President Obama has responded to a letter from the father of one of the four Americans killed in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.
Even though some may suggest that the response was insulting, at best.

On the one year anniversary of the attack in Libya, during an appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Charles Woods read aloud four questions from a letter he’d sent to Obama, Breitbart News reported.

Woods’ son, ex-SEAL Tyrone Woods, was one of four Americans killed in the terrorist attack in Benghazi.

“What we want are not just answers,” the elder Woods wrote. “We also want the truth.”

A tall order for an administration better know for its stonewalling tactics than the “transparency” it so eagerly touts.

Nonetheless, Obama has written in reply to Woods’ letter, which is the first time the president has responded to a direct question about Benghazi since May of this year when he answered one question at a press conference, according to Breitbart News.

On September 27, Obama wrote, in part:

On that tragic day, I directed my national security team to do everything possible to respond to the attacks against our people and facilities in Benghazi. The United States Government considered a range of options and deployed additional military capabilities, but as our military leaders have said, the military forces needed to carry out the type of operation you describe were not close enough to have made a difference. Please know that my actions would have been the same if the attack had been against my own family. The sad truth is that attacks happened so rapidly that U.S. forces could not arrive in time to prevent the loss of our brave Americans.

Obama lays out the same talking points that his administration has stuck to all along, with the notable exception of invoking his “own family” in saying he could have done no more — a reference to one of the four questions directed at him.

Breitbart News’ Diana West wrote: “Obama’s other answers to Charles Woods are either hotly disputed, demonstrably false, or an illogical evasion.”

Amid so many unanswered questions about what happened on that fateful day, and an administration less than forthcoming about the details, Obama’s evasive response failed to touch on Woods’ specific operational questions:

Why did the president not give “cross-border authority” to rescue the 30 Americans that needed to be rescued?
Who made the decision to “stand down,” and when and why was that decision made?
Is it true that General Ham was relieved from duty for refusing to follow the order not to rescue?
If the president’s child had been in Benghazi, would the rescue attempt have been more aggressive?

The families of the four fallen Americans deserve better than that from the president of the United States.
Continue reading at Breitbart.com