March 4 (Bloomberg) -- The Vatican said banks should look at the rules of Islamic finance to restore confidence amongst their clients at a time of global economic crisis.
“The ethical principles on which Islamic finance is based may bring banks closer to their clients and to the true spirit which should mark every financial service,” the Vatican’s official newspaper Osservatore Romano said in an article in its latest issue late yesterday.
Author Loretta Napoleoni and Abaxbank Spa fixed income strategist, Claudia Segre, say in the article that “Western banks could use tools such as the Islamic bonds, known as sukuk, as collateral”. Sukuk may be used to fund the “‘car industry or the next Olympic Games in London,” they say.
Pope Benedict XVI in an Oct. 7 speech reflected on crashing financial marketssaying that “money vanishes, it is nothing” and concluded that “the only solid reality is the word of God.” The Vatican has been paying attention to the global financial meltdown and ran articles in its official newspaper that criticize the free-market model for having “grown too much and badly in the past two decades.”
The Osservatore’s editor, Giovanni Maria Vian, said that “the great religions have always had a common attention to the human dimension of the economy,” Corriere della Sera reported today.
Great religion, my ass. Islam stipulates that 2.5 - 20% of all transactions must go to Zakat. Zakat OFTEN is used to finance Jihad against the Infidels.
For the Western world to engage with Islamic Sharia Finance is tantamount to suicide.
There's something very wrong on the inside of the Vatican.
First Lady Michelle Obama's interview with Robin Roberts was broadcast today on "Good Morning America", during her first solo out-of-town trip as First Lady. I just had to see if there was a change in ol' girl's body language from the Barbara Walters interview in November (ABC does not offer the embedded video option, so click here and here). Here's my armchair analysis, based on what I've read about body language and facial coding:
Mrs. Obama Says: "Military Families Is An Important Issue To Me" Her True Belief: "It May Not Be An Important Issue To Me. I'm Still Figuring It Out"
She sighs, does a body shrug and then claims "well, this is an important issue for me" (3:58 mark). A combined sigh and body shrug is an indicator of lying. It means, "I have no confidence in what I'm saying." She then shrugs both shoulders (3:56 mark), which means "I don't know." These body movements suggest that she may be taking on the issue for political reasons, but it's not an issue that she is quite passionate about...at least at this time.
Mrs. Obama does a chin thrust (:53 mark) while claiming that she has faith that "our current Commander-In-Chief will see us through." Whoa! A chin thrust is a sign of anger. I don't know if she disagrees with any military policies that hubby has done so far, but she is angry with him about something in that arena. Which is interesting because it leads to the next big thing....
Mrs. Obama Says: "I'm Positive About The Economy Because I Believe In This Nation And In My Husband"
Her True Belief: "I Don't Believe In This Nation Nor In My Husband, At Least When It Comes To The Economy"
She vigorously shakes her head no while making this claim (:39 mark), which means it is not her true belief. I.e., she is lying. She then follows it up with a left shoulder shrug (:35 mark), which is an indicator that she doesn't believe what she is saying. This is an interesting development, because in the footage from the Barbara Walters interview in November, when her husband was still President-Elect, she was body-verbal congruent - i.e., truthful - when she said that she believed in her husband and his vision. Something is going on here. Perhaps she disagrees with something that President Obama is doing re: the economy, or she doesn't believe that he can fix the economy. However, it's something.
When she states that she wouldn't want anyone else heading up things but her husband because he is a "focused, clear-thinking, rational man" (:28 mark), her head is shaking no and yes. This indicates that she is actually unsure about her claim.
Mrs. Obama Says: "Malia And Sasha Are Doing Great In The White House" Her True Belief: "For At Least One Of The Girls...Not So Great"
Mrs. Obama is shaking her head no while making this claim (2:59 mark, Video #2). She also looks downward, and a gestural emblem of worriness flashes across her face several times. She is actually concerned about the adjustment of at least one of her daughters, or possibly both.
Mrs. Obama Says: "Having My Mom Help Out Is Great! It's Immeasurable" Her True Belief: "I'm Unsure About Having Mom With Us In The White House"
Mrs. Obama shrugs her shoulders (2:36 mark), but without a sigh, and thus is an "I don't know" indicator. She also looks downward and then does a chin thrust (2:32 mark), displaying an indicator of anger. Perhaps Mrs. Obama and her mother have some disagreements about parenting skills, but she has some anger toward Mrs. Robinson about something in this arena. She later jokes about there being a "little extra piece of dessert tonight, I'm sure is going on" while she is on her out-of-town trip, so perhaps. She shakes her head no (at 1:59 mark) while claiming that "it's just been great to have her", which is followed up by shrugging her shoulders. In actuality, Mrs. Obama is conflicted about her mother being in the White House.
LMAO when Mrs. Obama sarcastically stated, "Well, I covered my arms up" for this interview when Ms. Roberts compliments her about her workouts (:11 mark)! More of this interview will be shown tonight, so I await more footage!
And from CNN: “Russia expressed interest in using Cuban airfields during patrol missions of its strategic bombers, Russia’s Interfax news agency reported.”
And from Bloomberg: “Russia could land strategic bombers at Cuban and Venezuelan airfields while conducting patrols, the head of the Russian strategic air force was quoted as saying by the Interfax news service.”
This is serious. This is politics-ends-at-the-water’s-edge stuff.
Pray for the president. He must succeed in this.
I don’t know what Obama is doing this weekend, but whatever it is, he had better drop it and head back to the White House (or the equally secure Camp David).
President Obama’s overtures to Russia and Cuba have been answered.
A couple years ago our company mandated everyone attend a “sensitivity” workshop they were giving. So that we all would know the “proper” way to treat and address each other, whether it is in the office or talking to customers in the field.
Turns out I’m a sensitivity class’s politically incorrect nightmare. Who knew?
Apparently I am not to address a woman as “my dear” or “lady”. I should Treat them as my equal, nevermind that they are better than us men in so many ways. Not refer to a man as “Friend” or “good sir”. No no, none of that. It’s demeaning. Patronizing.
Two years on and a lifetime habit hasn’t changed and I haven’t been bitten for it, either.
I freely admit I am a womanizer, a flirt, a schmoozer. And, if the lady is so inclined, not afraid of bawdy conversation. But not a philanderer. It ends before I leave the bar, so to speak.
And I treat men with equal regard. And will continue to do so until you cross me or otherwise give me reason to stop.
Leaving the politically correct argument aside, it seems to me that in America (can’t speak for other Western countries since I haven’t been there) we have abandoned a basic sense of decency, civility and courtesy toward each other in our everyday walkabout lives. Not everyone, of course, but many. There’s a sense of gallantry fading since the 60’s or so.
How many will stop and hold a door for someone, even if it means waiting 15 or 20 seconds, and stand aside to let the other go first?
How many will go out of their way to open a door for someone, whether they need the help or not?
How many men still remove their hats in a building?
How many will tip that hat to a lady?
How many will give a slight bow when opening that door, or when saying after you or when greeting somebody?
How about a firm handshake, automatically, when running into someone whether friend or acquaintance?
Allow someone with a bigger load and a crying kid to step in front of you in line, though it may delay you an extra 10 minutes?
How about a drive in window or with a waitress, May I have a Cheeseburger, fries and coffee? instead of Gimme a cheeseburger, fries and coffee. Who would you rather deal with?
Try Thank you and have a good afternoon once in awhile.
Personally I do all of the above, and more. Even in comments here or emails with many of you. And Christian Soldier or In Mary’s Image or AoW or Ro or anyone else have never blasted me for refering to them as Milady.
To me there is nothing wrong with addressing someone as Good Sir or Kind Sir or My Good or Dear Fellow. Or Friend. Mr. C. Or Mr. Smith. Emphasis on the Mr.
Nothing wrong with addressing a woman as Lady, My Dear, Milady ,Miss, Ma’am love of my life (got to be a little more careful with that one, use only in a casual situation). Offering to carry a bag or box. Offering a hand when they are stepping out of a car.
Nothing wrong with showing them deference, behaving as though that. at a certain level, you will be happy to be at their service. And I’ve gotten more hugs for it.
It’s a kindness, a gentility, a sense of respect and courtesy, we have abandoned to our great detriment.
It’s a way of conducting and carrying yourself.
And, you know, at least at my office I’ve noticed others starting to do the same although I don’t think they realize it.
You won’t see that kind of deference in the Islamic nations. A man bowing to a woman in Pakistan? Kissing her hand upon greeting her? Horrors!
(yes, I still do that, too)(it was the first thing I did when I first met the lady who would become my wife)
Make a flattering comment about someone’s new hairstyle or outfit? Telling someone they look nice? Sorry. I do it. So sue me. (In Iran: Hey babe, that’s a beautiful burqa you got there? This old thing? I’ve been wearing it everyday for years.)
It’s the kind of thing that leads to protocol gaffes like we’ve seen from Obama toward our allies. The man is slick and maybe smooth but has no real courtesy toward others. It’s why our politics have become such a circus, why we scream at each other instead of debating an issue, why we feel it’s okay to spit on a returning serviceman, protest at the funeral of a fallen hero, look for the worst in someone suddenly thrust into the spotlight (think Joe the Plumber) or trash a President for personal indiscretions.
My own flamboyant behavior is taken to extremes. It’s the show off in me. But why can't we return to a time where we treat each other a little better. Maybe then we could sit down across from each other and have a decent discussion instead of a shouting match where all that’s accomplished is epithets thrown back and forth and hard feelings that will already color the next discussion before it even begins.
I don't mind being called an Ugly American. Sorta proud of it. I do object to being a rude one.
If we’re to again come together as a society we need to start treating each other civilly.
OK. Rant over. Talk amongst yourselves. Nicely.
Maybe we should all learn to Tango. . .
We should restore the practice of dueling. It might improve manners around here. --Ed Abbey
Obama still has the approval of the people, but the establishment is beginning to mumble that the president may not have what it takes.
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Mar 10, 2009 | Updated: 8:37 a.m. ET Mar 10, 2009
Surfer that he is, President Obama should know a riptide when he's in one. The center usually is the safest, most productive place in politics, but perhaps not now, not in a once-in-a-century economic crisis.
Swimming in the middle, he's denounced as a socialist by conservatives, criticized as a polite accommodationist by government-is-the-answer liberals, and increasingly, dismissed as being in over his head by technocrats.
Luckily for Obama, the public still likes and trusts him, at least judging by the latest polls, including NEWSWEEK's. But, in ways both large and small, what's left of the American establishment is taking his measure and, with surprising swiftness, they are finding him lacking.
They have some reasons to be concerned. I trace them to a central trait of the president's character: he's not really an in-your-face guy. By recent standards—and that includes Bill Clinton as well as George Bush—Obama for the most part is seeking to govern from the left, looking to solidify and rely on his own party more than woo Republicans. And yet he is by temperament judicious, even judicial. He'd have made a fine judge. But we don't need a judge. We need a blunt-spoken coach.
Obama may be mistaking motion for progress, calling signals for a game plan. A busy, industrious overachiever, he likes to check off boxes on a long to-do list. A genial, amenable guy, he likes to appeal to every constituency, or at least not write off any. A beau ideal of Harvard Law, he can't wait to tackle extra-credit answers on the exam.
But there is only one question on this great test of American fate: can he lead us away from plunging into another Depression?
If the establishment still has power, it is a three-sided force, churning from inside the Beltway, from Manhattan-based media and from what remains of corporate America. Much of what they are saying is contradictory, but all of it is focused on the president:
The $787 billion stimulus, gargantuan as it was, was in fact too small and not aimed clearly enough at only immediate job-creation.
The $275 billion home-mortgage-refinancing plan, assembled by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, is too complex and indirect.
The president gave up the moral high ground on spending not so much with the "stim" but with the $400 billion supplemental spending bill, larded as it was with 9,000 earmarks.
The administration is throwing good money after bad in at least two cases—the sinkhole that is Citigroup (there are many healthy banks) and General Motors (they deserve what they get).
The failure to call for genuine sacrifice on the part of all Americans, despite the rhetorical claim that everyone would have to "give up" something.
A willingness to give too much leeway to Congress to handle crucial details, from the stim to the vague promise to "reform" medical care without stating what costs could be cut.
A 2010 budget that tries to do far too much, with way too rosy predictions on future revenues and growth of the economy. This led those who fear we are about to go over Niagara Falls to deride Obama as a paddler who'd rather redesign the canoe.
A treasury secretary who has been ridiculed on "Saturday Night Live" and compared to Doogie Howser, Barney Fife and Macaulay Culkin in "Home Alone"—and those are the nice ones.
A seeming paralysis in the face of the banking crisis: unwilling to nationalize banks, yet unable to figure out how to handle toxic assets in another way—by, say, setting up a "bad bank" catch basin.
A seeming reluctance to seek punishing prosecutions of the malefactors of the last 15 years—and even considering a plea bargain for Bernie Madoff, the poster thief who stole from charities and Nobel laureates and all the grandparents of Boca. Yes, prosecutors are in charge, but the president is entitled—some would say required—to demand harsh justice.
The president, known for his eloquence and attention to detail, seemingly unwilling or unable to patiently, carefully explain how the world works—or more important, how it failed. Using FDR's fireside chats as a model, Obama needs to explain the banking system in laymen's terms. An ongoing seminar would be great.
Obama is no socialist, but critics argue that now is not the time for costly, upfront spending on social engineering in health care, energy or education.
Other than all that, in the eyes of the big shots, he is doing fine. The American people remain on his side, but he has to be careful that the gathering judgment of the Bigs doesn't trickle down to the rest of us.
I occasionally like to poke around Salon.com for a healing dose of tolerance, inclusion and progressive enlightenment whenever my heathen conservative predilections get the better of me. Imagine my shock when browsing through some reader comments when I saw the sort of lowbrow discourse usually reserved for people who couldn’t get into Swarthmore or Brown and never drove a Saab: “go fuck yourself;” “you’re so full of shit;” “shut up idiot;” “get a fucking clue;” “screwball… crank;” “bitch;” “whore;” and the never encouraging, “cunt.”
What's it going to take to put you in some Hope & Change today?
What was happening here? A good-n-proper reaction to the obligatorily reviled Ann Coulter? Did Sarah Palin say something unacceptably state-schooly on TV again? Did an enemy trollette deposit some right-wing talking point in an otherwise high-minded and compassionate Salon discussion thread? Alas, something much more catastrophic had occurred: one of the flock strayed and had to be punished.
Spunky feminist and noted Obama enthusiast Camille Paglia dared speak ill of the first seven weeks of the Obama Presidency in her most recent monthly column, and Salon’s intellectual backwash devoted readership would not stand for it. So just what did Ms. Paglia say to force these rabid jackals to cannibalize one of their own? Ironically, nothing critical about Obama himself, rather, she criticized “his flacks, fixers and goons — his posse of smirky smart alecks and provincial rubes” who led The Chosen One astray. In fact, she bent herself into a yoganidrasana to avoid criticizing Obama, “in whom [she] still [has] great hope and confidence.”
However, it seems that even critiquing the lackeys, yes-men, tax cheats, polished turds and fellow Ivy League Affirmative Action admits who now infest the White House Best and the Brightest Part II is enough to mobilize the Hope/Change Musketeers into battle since it’s an admission that all is not rainbows, sunflowers and waterfalls in Obamatown… “just give him a chance, man, it’s only March.”
Of course, for a litany of reasons discussed on this site at length, Obama’s first two months in office have been a study in ineptitude, failure, and public embarrassment. It’s too early for an “I told you so,” but what we’re seeing now is about what one would expect if a clueless, inexperienced community organizer with socialist erogenous zones was rammed into the White House by a desperate, frothing electorate more concerned with punishing the old guy than picking the right new guy.
Ms. Paglia’s Salon article and comment section betray two strains of debilitating denial currently ravishing the Obama Left. The more obvious case is that of the rank-and-file goose-steppers who see nothing wrong with bungling cabinet appointments to the point of absurdity; inexplicably insulting our strongest foreign ally; publicly indulging a juvenile personal vendetta against a meanie radio host; fear-mongering the Dow to 12-year lows; signing the filthiest pork bill in U.S. history without reading or writing it; lifting America’s knickers and bending over for the much more clever Vladimir Putin; closing Gitmo without an exit strategy; etc. In the eye of the true believer, all of this is miraculous and wonderful by definition because Obama did it. For this group, any blemish on Obama’s record is sooner the fault of George W. Bush, Sasquatch or the Illuminati than it is that of the first African-American President of the United States.
March 14, 2004: Glasgow, Scotland.Kriss Donald was abducted from Kenmure Street, beside the Pollokshields Bowling Club at the foot of McCulloch Street where he lived with his mother, younger brother, and three sisters. The criminal gang who kidnapped him took him on a 200-mile journey to Dundee and back while they made phone calls looking for a house to take him to. Having no success at this, they returned to Glasgow and took him to the Clyde Walkway, near Celtic Football Club's training ground.
There, they held his arms and stabbed him 13 times. He sustained internal injuries to three arteries, one of his lungs, his liver and a kidney. He was castrated, had his tongue cut out and eyes ripped out then doused in petrol, set on fire and left to die.
His naked and burned body was found the following morning by a man who thought it was an animal carcass dumped in the park.
The five men convicted of the abduction and murder, all of whom were British Asian origin, were convicted of racially aggravated offences. After the murder, some of Donald's attackers fled the United Kingdom and sought refuge in Pakistan. Three suspects were arrested in Pakistan in July 2005 and extradited to the UK in October 2005, following the intervention of Mohammed Sarwar, the MP for Glasgow Central.
The Pakistani police had to engage in a ‘long struggle’ to capture two of the escapees. There is no extradition treaty between Pakistan and Britain, so it was unusual for the extradition to be agreed; it was reportedly the result of Sarwar’s intervention. There were numerous diplomatic complications around the case, including apparent divergences between government activities and those of ambassadorial officials; government figures were at times alleged to be reluctant to pursue the case for diplomatic reasons.
One of the men who killed Kriss Donald was out of prison on early release when he murdered the Glasgow teenager. Imran Shahid was sentenced to 30 months in February 2003 for assault to danger of life and dangerous driving. Shahid, 29, who had also been in prison for assault in 1995, was released after 15 months. Kriss Donald killer Imran Shahid plays race card in appeal bid Nov 15 2008 By Mark McGivern NOTORIOUS race hate killer Imran "Baldy" Shahid tried to overturn his murder conviction by claiming he was discriminated against. The monster, who led the gang who tortured teenager Kriss Donald to death in 2004, insisted he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice because no Asians were on the jury that convicted him. Shahid was ordered to serve at least 25 years in jail after he was found guilty of murdering Kriss. Bodybuilder Shahid, 31, has launched an appeal against his conviction and also the length of the minimum prison term imposed. At the Court of Criminal Appeal yesterday, lawyers argued that the killer had not been judged by a jury of his peers. But Lord Nimmo Smith, who heard the application along with Lord Wheatley and Lord Abernethy, ruled: "His peers are fellow citizens of the United Kingdom."
Surf No Mercy Red Alert THE JEW DESK by Emanuel A. Winston Mid-East analyst & commentator
There are many "Jew Desks" or "Jew Sections" in Washington and such corporations with close connections to Arab Muslim nations and Arab oil companies. This phenomenon is common in the U.S., Europe and Russia. It is a given in the 56 Muslim nations of the world. In brief, their assignment is to watch Israel, evolve plans to subvert Israel whenever possible and plan to arm for a war against Israel, the Jewish State, when the opportunity presents itself. So much for the highlights of backgrounds.
At the moment I would like to back-track from the Chas Freeman appointment for a high and sensitive Intelligence post in America’s National Intelligence Council. Freeman was nominated by Dennis C. Blair, Director of the National Intelligence Council. While Freeman’s background as it surfaced and was profiled by many excellent writers, was as an Arabist who was linked to the Saudis outlook on Israel. Freeman was the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. He reflected Saudi hostility to Israel in well documented speeches and drafts of his position.
He also had a certain relationship with China - wherein he was strongly biased for China’s government and hostile to those Chinese who opposed the abuse of human rights in China.
His background was well-known to Blair and the advisors to President George W. Bush and now advisors to President Obama, especially those in the State Department. Obama’s Middle East advisors understood that picking Freeman would have nicely rounded out Obama’s team whose background was well-categorized as pro-Arab and hostile to Jews and the Jewish State.
What interests me is the Blair mechanism that assists and advises the President on the MIddle East and Israel infrastructure. If a report is drafted with a decided bias and recommendations that furthers that bias, then the President’s policy would very likely follow that tilt. I wonder how long the Blair National Intelligence Council mechanism has been in motion with respect to Israel.
One is reminded of the elitist "Shadow Government" that seems to run the U.S. Government, slightly in the shadows behind the President and other elected officials. If Chas Freeman was considered a good fit for this influential Intelligence Council, then Blair (among others) would have a mechanism that influences and even controls Government policy.
I cannot help but wonder what role they played in completing the false NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) Report of December 3, 2007 that was offered to the President and the public claiming in the first sentence that Iran had ceased its enrichment of Uranium several years ago. You may recall that John Bolton, former Ambassador to the U.N., stated plainly that the State Department planted three of its people in the CIA in order to manufacture this false report - with the intent of stopping President Bush from taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities. If so, given that the U.S. is in a state of war with Iran, such manipulation or subversion of Government policy would be considered "High Treason". I wonder why this group would want Iran’s Nuclear capabilities and, therefore, in control of the region?
So what, if anything, did Director Dennis Blair, as a high advisory Intelligence Agency have to do with assisting the preparation of the NIE false report - for which the Director of the CIA later apologized to Congress, admitting it was inaccurate.
I am further reminded of what was exposed in John Loftus’ book "The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People: 1920-1992". In it Loftus spoke about what was literally called: "The Jew Room" by the participating Intelligence Agencies. He described how the FBI, acting as coordinator for all other U.S. Intel Agencies who pooled their information about Jews, Israel and such American Jewish institutions who supported aid to Israel. This was a shocking disclosure but, never brought before Congressional Hearings to hang out this dirty, undemocratic laundry.
Why not take a deep look at Director Dennis Blair and his Intel Council that reports directly to the President? If he thought so highly of Chas Freeman to nominate him, what does that say about Blair?
As Americans, supposedly free of biased institutions connected to foreign interests, we certainly have a right to know more about Admiral Blair and his advisory Intel organization.
Chas Freeman vitriolic withdrawal speaks more about a more sinister problem than merely exposing Freeman’s alliance with the Saudis and his accurately quoted hostile public statements about Israel.
I am also reminded of Admiral Bobby Ray Inman who, in collusion with then Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger, made an unauthorized decision to withhold vital information on Terrorist nations and the PLO’s planning against Israel. Although many (if not all) American Presidents had signed an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) with Israel to exchange vital information that affected each other, especially in life-and-death issues. Nevertheless Adm. Inman and Sec Def Weinberger - on their own - chose to abrogate that agreement and cut off Israel from information regarding Muslim Arab nations arms capability - especially regarding WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) using NBC (Nuclear, Biological and/or Chemical) warheads.
We must now look into Admiral Dennis Blair and his appointment of a well-known anti-Israel Ambassador who, like many of America’s foreign service Ambassadors and Diplomats serving in the Muslim/Arab/Oil nations became "Arabized" to the point that, when they resigned from the State Department, they were readily adopted by the Saudi Kingdom or other Arab interests at very high prices.
I also wondered about the State Department and Blair’s role in the National Security Council with respect to the NIE Report that was false but, nevertheless, killed any pre-emptive action against Iran’s nuclear development sites. By the way, it is not so difficult to find those site. National Geographic’s August 2008 issue featured a very detailed map, showing exactly where those nuclear sites are.
Perhaps it’s merely coincidental that one or two high ranking Admirals were subsequently fired without a deep explanation.
So, as I have written for many years about a "Shadow Government" actually running American affairs - Is Freeman merely the tip of a larger and deeper mechanism, bonded to the Muslim/Arab/Oil nations for reasons beyond greed, pushed by the multi-national oil maggots?
Is the "Jew Room" spoken about in the Loftus book still functioning as a mechanism that pulls together the 16 American Intel Agencies as a rogue sort of Ku Klux Klan?
Does each Agency operate their own "Jew Desk" dedicated not only to watching the Jewish State but to subverting it whenever they felt it was necessary to grease their lucrative back channel relationships with the Saudis and other Muslim "Jihadists" (warriors for Islam)? They are no friends of America.
It appears that Naval Intelligence plays a strong role in this interlocking Intelligence manipulation of American policy - all the way up to the Oval Office.
Congress should hold in-depth, serious Hearings because this kind of plotting has made America vulnerable. If proven, such activities would fall into the category of "High Treason".
If these "We Know Best" Intel Agencies, are connected to political figures, their actions are a form of "coup d’etat" or overthrow of the American Government’s Democratic tradition.
Let the Congress subpoena some of the known players and those likely to be involved in such a "Shadow Government" who then would know a lot about this if, indeed, such a subversive plot is in motion.
I would certainly subpoena former President George Herbert Walker Bush who was also former Director of the CIA and Vice President during Iran-Contra. Question James Baker III, former Secretary of State under Bush, Sr. And now running the Intel mechanism at Rice University. Consider President George W. Bush, who like his father had extraordinary relations with the Saudis. Certainly, the heads of all American Intel Agencies, e.g., FBI, CIA, NSC and the dozens of others past and present, to see it they will perjure themselves and deny their role (if any) in manipulating America’s foreign policy.
Americans are learning not to be surprised at anything as more and more comes unglued nationally and internationally. Now, some force has contributed to America’s and the Global financial meltdown. Do we know what it is? Do we want to find out?
We watched and felt the rape of our economies all over the world by the oil maggots plotting with the Arab oil countries to raise-raise-raise the price of crude until our system crashed with gas at $4 per gallon.
Americans are just beginning to really feel the rape of our system from rogue Intelligence Agencies to the pigs who feed on American industry. One can hear the denials vomiting out of contributing Media with the Directors of Intel insisting "we were only protecting America". We have already heard the bleating of some in Congress, denying their roles in feeding the economic collapse when some of them were also a guilty part of these burst bubbles. Hopefully, they could only be accused of greed and abysmal stupidity. Now, let them work at fixing the problem so America and the rest of the world can recover, heal and thrive.
Getting back to the selection of Chas Freeman... He clearly was chosen to round out a much larger mechanism to control American policy as part of a "Shadow Government".
This issue is too big for me - so those of you who know high ranking players in Washington and the Media should become investigative reporters who must dig deeper and enlighten us all before America and the Free West resemble Russia or Zimbabwe or Iran.
Students at an Islamic madrassa burn thousands of DVDs, videos and music CDs in Islamabad, Pakistan. The event, reminiscent of the early days of the Taliban in Afghanistan, took place within two kilometers of the Pakistani presidential palace, as well as the heavily-fortified U.S. embassy. Clerics at the mosque, known as the most radical in Islamabad, want Pakistan to adopt a Taliban-style government. They maintain that movies and music are un-Islamic.
March 15, 2009: Peshawar, Pakistan Muslim religious extremists have long sought to ban secular music — and in some parts of the country, militants are enforcing their views with violence.
In areas controlled by the Taliban, CD stores have been destroyed or forced to shut down. Musicians have fled or been silenced, and fear is spreading even in areas where the Taliban is not in full control. One popular singer from the city of Peshawar no longer dares perform. For Pashtuns, the dominant ethnic group in Pakistan's rugged northwest, the voice of Gulzar Alam could bring tears. Drawing on their favorite poets, he sang of love, pride and nationalist aspirations. He packed local halls and was the musician of choice for weddings. He was handsome, well dressed, with a bit of the matinee idol about him. Now, he sits on the floor of a slum, wrapped in a traditional shawl. His shaggy hair and scraggly beard are shot with gray.He laughs ruefully at what he has become: an old man before his time who cannot afford to shave.
Alam's problems started seven years ago when a coalition of religious parties won elections in Pakistan's northwest. The authorities harassed him, and a crowd attacked his house with rocks. He and his family fled south to Baluchistan. Last year, after the religious coalition in the northwest was defeated, the new secular Pashtun government urged him to return — promising he would now be safe. It was a promise the government could not fulfill. "Four months ago, performers were attacked as they returned from a function. Four musicians were injured, one was killed. No one is safe from the Taliban here. People have retreated into self-imposed censorship," Alam says. Once again, Alam began receiving threatening phone calls. He was shot at on the street. He returned to Baluchistan, but found that the Taliban is now threatening musicians there, too. He tried to find gigs in the port city of Karachi, but there, he faced a different problem: ethnic violence against Pashtuns. Back in Peshawar, he is afraid to perform. He has no source of income. After his elder brother turned him away, fearing the singer would put him in danger, Alam, his wife and five children sought refuge with other relatives. Now, three large families are crammed into three dank, dark rooms with no running water. "It's like falling from the sky to earth," says Rukhsana Muqaddas, Alam's wife. "Before this we had a very modern, wonderful life. We used to send our kids to good schools. Now, we can't afford to educate them at all." Alam's favorite song, a Pashtun ballad about loss of identity, has taken on a new meaning. Once the voice of the Pashtun downtrodden, Alam is now a member, his dreams of a peaceful Pashtun renaissance hijacked by the Taliban. In downtown Peshawar, some music stores are still open. Arshat Khan has come from an outlying area, where all of the stores have been closed, to buy CDs of his favorite singers; Alam is among them. Although his old recordings are still on sale, there is no system of royalties. So while it may warm Alam's heart to know he is loved, this doesn't fill his children's stomachs. Khan says cultural life has come to a standstill. "Life is colorless. … It's like living in a world that is black and white. You have just to eat and excrete and live under perpetual fear,"
Atlas Shrugged, the literary classic which promotes individual enterprise above all else during tough economic times, has catapulted up the charts since the recession.
By Mark Coleman in Los Angeles Last Updated: 8:18AM GMT 10 Mar 2009
Russian-born American author and philosopher Ayn RandPhoto: HULTON
Sales of the 1957 philosophy novel, written by the late Ayn Rand, enjoyed a major resurgence over an 18-month period that coincided with pivotal economic moments.
Such is the modern-day fascination, according to The Economist, that the book's sales rank on Amazon climbed more than 500 places in the book charts over a two-year period, eclipsing such rival tomes as Barack Obama's The Audacity of Hope.
The report said : "The first jump, in September 2007, followed dramatic interest-rate cuts by central banks, and the Bank of England's bail-out of Northern Rock.
"The October 2007 rise happened two days after the Bush Administration announced an initiative to coax banks to assist subprime borrowers.
"A year later, sales of the book rose after America's Treasury said that it would use a big chunk of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Programme to buy stakes in nine large banks."
The publication said that Mr Obama's stimulus plan gave the book another sales boost in January.
Ayn Rand, who died in 1982, is credited by many of her supporters with pioneering individual enterprise.
Known for her loathing of big government, she championed selfishness as a positive means of doing business, earning as many critics as she did advocates.
However her book, which sold six million copies, forecast what has been termed "economic Armageddon" - where industrialists and artists would abandon the workplace and go on strike.
Having watched the diplomatic dance for the past seven years, here's what I observe.
1) Sane world governments begin to believe Hizbollah, Hamas, Fatah, Arafat, Nasrallah, UAE, Saudi, etc., are becoming more moderate.
2) Sane government congratulates said "moderation".
3) Said "moderate" state reaffirms it's Jihadist beliefs.
4) Sane world governments completely ignore Jihadist statements.
Wash, repeat, rinse, same thing over and over. It's just a fucking dog bites man story. All of Islam is a dog bites man story.
Ordinarily a good journalist would stop headlining dog bites man stories. We're looking for man bites dog, right? The unusual.
But, the usual is, Muslims tell us they're going to kill us, they kill us, and then they tell us why they kill us.
And, I keep reporting it over and over. Why?
Because, one of these days they are going to get their hands of some truly malevolent weapons, and they are going to kill an awful lot of us. And, I don't want anyone to be surprised.
On 9/11, Muslim Jihadists used the most sophisticated weapon they could get their hands on, to kill as many of us as they possibly could, and to damage the United States, and by turn, the Western World, as much as they possibly could.
The lesson should be, if they had nukes, they'd use them. Listen to them. They're telling us over and over. We do not deserve to exist.
The leader of Lebanon's Islamist Hezbollah movement, Hassan Nasrallah, has said his group will never recognise Israel's right to exist.
He was responding to a US suggestion that both Hezbollah and the Palestinian faction Hamas should recognise Israel before expecting any US engagement.
"We reject the American conditions," he said. "As long as Hezbollah exists, it will never recognise Israel."
Israel and Hezbollah's armed wing fought a bloody conflict in 2006.
Mr Nasrallah made the statement rejecting the US conditions for talks said in a speech marking the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad.
Hezbollah leads a bloc in Lebanon's parliament that has veto power over major decisions in the unity government.
The coalition was formed last year after a political crisis that brought the country to the brink of civil war.
Last week, the UK said it would establish low-level contacts with the group, citing "positive political developments".
THE FACT THAT THE SOCIALISTS IN POWER IN GREAT BRITAIN ("NEW" LABOUR) ARE SOFTENING THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH HIZBALLAH - AS THEY HARDEN IT AGAINST GEERT WILDERS AND THOSE FIGHTING ISLAMIZATION - TELLS YOU EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE LEFT.
IN THE MINDS OF LEFTISTS LIKE BROWN AND MILIBAND, GEERT WILDERS - WHO MERELY QUOTES JIHADISTS SPEWING THEIR HATE-FILLED IDEOLOGY - IS MORE DANGEROUS THAN JIHADISTS LIKE THOSE FROM HIZBALLAH WHO ADVOCATE THE ANNIHILATION OF ISRAELIS AND JEWS.
AS LONG AS LEFTISTS ARE IN POWER, GLOBAL JIHAD HAS AN ALLY WITHIN THE GATES OF CIVILIZATION.
WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DEFEAT THE JIHADISTS UNTIL WE DEFEAT THE LEFTISTS.
The nation -- indeed, the world -- is waking up to the idea that ideas have consequences. One idea is that sacrificing is not a life-enhancing option and will lead to misery or death. Another is that the heedless policy of a spendthrift is not a rational course of action. Another is that adopting the policy of a spendthrift benefits no one but a politician who advocates it as a sound fiscal policy. Envy is not a paying proposition. “Class warfare” in the form of “soaking the rich” to help the poor assures mutual impoverishment. There are so many more altruist and collectivist ideas that are being grasped by millions as a collective prescription for penury and extinction.
The world seems to be emerging from a moral and intellectual coma, perhaps temporarily, perhaps permanently. It is discovering that other ideas have other consequences, as well, ideas that promote life, promote prosperity, promote ambition and personal success, and that they are possible only in political freedom, and that this freedom has been violated, abridged, and nullified by the first set of ideas. True, politics is the last thing to be affected by a philosophical revolution. But one cannot help but be pleased with how startled the collectivists and altruists are now by the knowledge that they have not successfully pulled a fast one on Americans. These Americans have come knocking on the doors of elitists or leaning over the café railings or invading their legislated smoke-free bars and restaurants to ask: What in hell do you think you are doing?
The Americans who recently protested the spendthrift policies of the Obama administration and Congress with “tea parties,” and who plan to protest them on an even larger scale in the near future, one can wager are not regular readers of The New York Times. They cannot have much in common with its columnists and editors, nor with the news media. So the collectivist and altruist elite become very touchy when the people for whom they are “doing good” for their own sake, even to the point of enacting coercive and felonious legislation, exhibit signs of intelligence, resistance and anger. How dare these yokels!
And nothing raises their hackles higher than any mention of Ayn Rand. This is because they thought she and her philosophy had been buried by that arch-conservative, Whittaker Chambers, wielding a shovel on one side of the grave, while that fellow-traveler and critic Granville Hicks wielded another on the other side, in a true demonstration of bipartisanship half a century ago. And hadn’t all the academics and pundits and book writers since then refuted her and her philosophy over time and ensured that she would not return to haunt them?
The cultural and political elite are upset that she has not been forgotten. That philosophy has returned to haunt them and aggravate their guilt. And they are in high dudgeon because they are being cast in the role, not as saviors, but as her black-hearted villains. They are discovering that ideas cannot be interred as permanently as their authors. Atlas Shrugged is on their minds. The Times blog, “Opinionator” (a round-up of positions expressed in other blogs) of March 6th, called “’Going Galt’: Everyone’s Doing It!“ is a testimonial to how the elite have been blind-sided in their arrogant complacency and sent spinning out of control on the Internet highway, and evidence of how thoroughly they have been indoctrinated in the belief that reality has nothing to do with their chosen “reality.” They are deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming train, but sneer that the train does not exist. They are stuffed animals crammed with the excelsior of worn-out bromides, mulched second-hand sociology, and the sawdust of a failed ideology.
Reading the denials of the cultural elite is almost as amusing as watching Sir Fretful Plagiary, the hack playwright in Richard Brinsley Sheridan’s comedy, The Critic, protest that his play does not fall off, is not tediously spun out, and does not want incident. Incredibly, these are the literary vices they ascribe to Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged, and they claim they can’t understand why it is getting so much attention. Nor can they understand why President Obama is having problems putting over his disastrous policies. Why don’t these “Galtists” just shut up and do as he says?
That they protest too much is an indication that they do understand. These are the crusaders who crusaded to destroy literary, economic and political values, and made living in this culture as pointless as watching a snow-covered TV screen. They would not have campaigned to destroy them if they did not feel threatened by them.
Their truncated minds and shriveled souls will not permit them to concede defeat. They see the “relevance,” these programmed altruists and dispensers of others’ wealth, and join in a chorus of denials of the relevance. Many are loathe to admit their malice. Others, while not projecting their self-deception and hatred on Rand or on her admirers, confess their utter ignorance of the importance of Atlas Shrugged. Randomly, and to wit:
I look to Atlas Shrugged more for conveniently totable beach reading than an economic blueprint…. If only the people in her novels had acted remotely like actual people, rather than [like] comic book characters, I, too, would be rereading the thing now.
This is the kind of “missing link” mentality that never progressed beyond the concretes under her nose. The novel is a novel, not a blueprint for anything. It is an idealization of reality, and the events in it are necessarily telescoped. Those events in the novel are so grounded in reality -- and the heroes and villains are so concretely real -- that it would be futile to explain to such a person that “actual people” are moved by the same values or anti-values as are the novel’s characters. The task of induction would be impossible to her. One must ask, also: Whose fictional characters, in her mind, aren’t of “comic book” caliber? John Updike’s? Joyce Carol Oates’s?
Then there is another kind of arrested mentality, writing about those who may choose to go on strike:
And of course none of these folks designed an engine that would have created basically free energy (and made global warming a non-issue). In the individual case, ‘going Galt’ smacks of a kind of self-aggrandizement in the same way that climate smuggery does. Because, really, your marginal contribution doesn’t matter that much….The point is that you are not John Galt. You don’t even know who he is! And this eventually leaves you weeping on abandoned train tracks.
This is someone struggling to convince “you” that you aren’t important enough to make a difference, and himself that your quitting in protest wouldn’t affect him much. The desperation is in the sneer. This individual apparently has read the novel, and got nothing from it. He is a minuscule, belittling Ellsworth Toohey. Well, Hillary Clinton once said she’d read Ayn Rand’s novels in college, and that it was just a “passing phase.” Look at the kind of contemptible person she grew to be.
Other bloggers make equally irrelevant comments about Rand and her novel. Trying to make sense of them is like trying to make sense of a Picasso canvas. Just as interesting, however, are the kinds of responses their comments elicited from their readers, ranging from the malicious to the short-range to the certifiably dumb. To wit:
Atlas Shrugged is a joke. A piece of ridiculosity.
I wish they would take a John Galt….Please feel free to go on strike. We would be better off without you.
Rand falsely assumes these innovative genius[es] work in a vacuum and don’t benefit from having a safe, civil society to work in.
Please show me anything that I can touch, or eat, or live in, or drive that the ‘productive rich’ have made?
Then there are the obvious Obama supporters, individuals ready and willing to sacrifice and work for “the good of society.”
It is not at all clear that we need to bribe people with promises of riches in order to get them to do useful work. If it turns out to be necessary with today’s crop of masters of the universe, then we’ll need to find a way to start over, once we have turned the spoiled brats out of their unearned positions of power.
Please, go Galt. Be my guest….Take that genius talent of yours right over to the bus station at Applebee’s. I can’t wait to watch you scraping uneaten peas into the garbage disposal. You and your genius Galt buddies Bernie Madoff and Sir [Allen] Stanford.
The top tax rate will go up approximately 5%, and this makes you decide to take your ball and go home? That seems silly to me.
One of the characters [Hugh Akston, the philosopher of reason] in Atlas Shrugged was working in a diner frying hamburgers when he encountered Dagny Taggart. He was one of the ones who ‘shrugged.’ It was honest work and he made a very good hamburger. If Malkin and [Rick] Santelli and some others ‘go Galt,’ hopefully we can count on an increase in hamburger quality across the nation.
These are people who probably believe that the concept of “unearned income” is a valid one and should be taxed and otherwise penalized, because no observable physical labor is involved in the rewards of risking investments in stocks and innovators and loans to productive enterprises. Intellectual labor is as much an unreal concept to them as it is to the IRS. Such labor is responsible for everything that the one individual “can touch, or eat, or live in, or drive.”
And, a number of these individuals view Bernard Madoff and Stanford as the symbols of capitalism and freedom. One newscaster on ABC this morning erroneously referred to Madoff as a “financier,” but then the news media suffer from a similar truncated mentality. They don’t “get it” that Obama, his appointees, and Congress are all guilty of the mother of all Ponzi schemes.
Two or three respondents answered with defenses of Rand and the novel. One promised to go on strike.
I will cut back so that my hard-earned income is not taken by the government and redistributed to people who have not worked as hard. I will not subsidize others.
One point of this commentary is to reveal the scope of hostility that exists in our culture to individualism, capitalism, freedom, and “the rich” -- and to the mind. Another is to prepare those who would argue in defense of those things for the levels of ignorance and species of malice they will encounter, not only in people they might personally engage in argument, but in politicians, academics, and the news media.
The thing to remember is that reason and reality are on our side. Most of our opponents and enemies know it. They are not the ones who need convincing or any kind of rational guidance. Beware especially of the ones who claim it is your duty to convince them. These creatures’ minds are the truly truncated. Let reality be their ultimate persuader.
Focus on those who show genuine interest in answers, and never mind the fools.
KAZAKH President Nursultan Nazarbayev has won backing for his plan for a single world currency from an intellectual architect of the euro currency, Nobel-prize winnerProfessor Robert Mundell.
Nazarbayev, speaking at an economic forum in the glitzy new capital he has built on the Kazakh steppe, defended his proposal for the "acmetal'' world currency saying it might "look kind of funny'' but was not.
And he received intellectual support from the Canadian economist Prof Mundell, who helped lay the intellectual groundwork for Europe's single currency.
"I must say that I agree with President Nazarbayev on his statement and many of the things he said in his plan, the project he made for the world currency, and I believe I'm right on track with what he's saying,'' Prof Mundell said, adding the idea held "great promise''.
Mr Nazarbayev and Prof Mundell urged the Group of 20 leading developed and developing economies to form a working group on the proposal at their summit on the global economic crisis in London on April 2.
"We should deliver our thoughts and the thoughts of this conference to the leaders of those countries,'' Mr Nazarbayev said, referring to the G8 and G20 nations.
Mr Nazarbayev, who has held his post since Soviet times and has seen his oil-rich state hit badly by the crisis, unveiled his proposal last month and said yesterday the UN should oversee the currency's introduction.
Though a boost for what might seem an other-worldly plan, Prof Mundell has previously suggested single currencies are only appropriate for countries with similar economies.
Mr Nazarbayev's coining of "acmetal'' combines the Greek word "acme,'' meaning peak or best, and "capital.''
All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.
“I’m quite confident that we’re going to rebel against this abusive government’
I think that we’re in a period today comparable to the American founding period in two senses: one, we’re worried about decay — we’re worried about whether we’re squandering our legacy and whether we’re calling into question whether people can really govern themselves — but also because, and this is the heartening part of this, today as never before in my lifetime, Americans have rekindled their interest in the founding era and the founding principles. Look at the wonderful sales of biographies of the founders: Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison. Look at the Tea Party, which I think frankly is one of the great events of my lifetime.
The American people go through life with a little crick of their necks from looking back at the past, and that’s healthy. We always relate to the Declaration and to the Constitution and here, along comes the Tea Party movement named after something that happened in 1773: the Boston Tea Party. And it’s called us back to reverence for, and understanding of, and insistence upon, the founding principles of limited government. So, in a good sense and a bad sense, I think we’re in the founding period.”
--- George Will
"An Islamic regime must be serious in every field," explained Ayatollah Khomeini. "There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humour in Islam. There is no fun in Islam."
"I want to be very, very clear, however: I understand and agree with the analysis of the problem. There is an imminent threat. It manifested itself on 9/11. It's real and grave. It is as serious a threat as Stalinism and National Socialism were. Let's not pretend it isn't." ~~~~~Bono~~~~~