Dems, Lobbyists Blocked Oversight of Fannie, Freddie

This is quality. From AP IMPACT: Mortgage firm arranged stealth campaign, dated October 20, 2008:

WASHINGTON – Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae, three years before the government took control to prevent their collapse.

In the cross hairs of the campaign carried out by DCI of Washington were Republican senators and a regulatory overhaul bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. DCI's chief executive is Doug Goodyear, whom John McCain's campaign later hired to manage the GOP convention in September.

Freddie Mac's payments to DCI began shortly after the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee sent Hagel's bill to the then GOP-run Senate on July 28, 2005. All GOP members of the committee supported it; all Democrats opposed it.

In the midst of DCI's yearlong effort, Hagel and 25 other Republican senators pleaded unsuccessfully with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to allow a vote.

"If effective regulatory reform legislation ... is not enacted this year, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole," the senators wrote in a letter that proved prescient.

So, Republicans in the Senate saw the shipwreck that was coming, and wanted to do something about it -- they were going to regulate Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and trim them. And, what would have been the effect? Less probability that these two would go under, and less taxpayer exposure if they did?

Unknown to the senators, DCI was undermining support for the bill in a campaign targeting 17 Republican senators in 13 states, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. The states and the senators targeted changed over time, but always stayed on the Republican side.

In the end, there was not enough Republican support for Hagel's bill to warrant bringing it up for a vote because Democrats also opposed it and the votes of some would be needed for passage. The measure died at the end of the 109th Congress.

Naturally, Democrats were opposed to trimming this quasi-governmental program, and they were opposed to limiting taxpayer exposure.

However, the Republicans are not off the hook! Skipping down....

Before 2004, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were Democratic strongholds. After 2004, Republicans ran their political operations. McLoughlin, who joined Freddie Mac in 2004 as chief of staff, has given $32,250 to Republican candidates over the years, including $2,800 to McCain, and has given none to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics.

It's just that, while the Democrats were all against regulation of these quasi-governmental giants, so were some Republicans.

On Friday night, Hagel's chief of staff, Mike Buttry, said Hagel's legislation "was the last best chance to bring greater oversight and tighter regulation to Freddie and Fannie, and they used every means they could to defeat Sen. Hagel's legislation every step of the way."

"It is outrageous that a congressionally chartered government-sponsored enterprise would lobby against a member of Congress's bill that would strengthen the regulation and oversight of that institution," Buttry said in a statement. "America has paid an extremely high price for the reckless, and possibly criminal, actions of the leadership at Freddie and Fannie."

The result: "a congressionally chartered government-sponsored enterprise" (GSE) was playing fast and loose. Having a smaller fraction of reserves, they could make more money when times were good; if their system collapses, they don't care, because they could send the bill back to Congress, regardless of the fact that there was no explicit government guarantee of capital, because the Washington elite would not want to allow this GSE to fail.

So, Congress picks up the tab -- on the giant credit card we have given them.

1) There needs to be a criminal investigation of all of this.

2) The Constitution does not authorize the Federal Government to get involved in the mortgage market; these "government sponsored enterprises" are unconstitutional, and this economic disaster demonstrates why.

Last month, the concerns of the 26 Republican senators who signed Hagel's bill became a reality when the government seized control of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae amid their near financial collapse. Federal prosecutors are investigating accounting, disclosure and corporate governance issues at both companies, which own or guarantee more than $5 trillion in mortgages, roughly equivalent to half of the national debt.

[snip]

Democrats did not like the harshest provision, which would have given a new regulator a mandate to shrink Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae by forcing them to sell off part of their portfolios. That approach, the Democrats feared, would cut into the ability of low- and moderate-income families to buy houses.

That's a chunk of change -- all because the socialist elite Democrats want taxpayers to underwrite loans for people who can't really afford them.

It's an economic train-wreck; Senator McCain will do nothing to slow this down, and Senator Obama will do everything to speed this up.

Economic 9-11?

First of all, in light of the ongoing global financial crisis, I have updated my sidebar by adding links to BusinessWeek and The Economist.

But, what about this crisis? What can we non-experts understand about it?

Wikipedia has this to say about the the ongoing global financial crisis:

The global financial crisis of September–October 2008 is a developing financial crisis with roots in the subprime mortgage crisis.

So, we go to Wikipedia's article on the subprime mortgage crisis:

The subprime mortgage crisis is an ongoing economic problem that became more apparent during 2007 and 2008, and is characterized by contracted liquidity in the global credit markets and banking system. The downturn in the U.S. housing market, risky lending and borrowing practices, and excessive individual and corporate debt levels have caused multiple adverse effects on the world economy. The crisis has passed through various stages, exposing pervasive weaknesses in the global financial system and regulatory framework.

The crisis began with the bursting of the United States housing bubble^[1][2] and high default rates on "subprime" and adjustable rate mortgages (ARM), beginning in approximately 2005–2006. For a number of years prior to that, declining lending standards, an increase in loan incentives such as easy initial terms, and a long-term trend of rising housing prices had encouraged borrowers to assume difficult mortgages in the belief they would be able to quickly refinance at more favorable terms. However, once interest rates began to rise and housing prices started to drop moderately in 2006–2007 in many parts of the U.S., refinancing became more difficult. Defaults and foreclosure activity increased dramatically as easy initial terms expired, home prices failed to go up as anticipated, and ARM interest rates reset higher. Foreclosures accelerated in the United States in late 2006 and triggered a global financial crisis through 2007 and 2008. During 2007, nearly 1.3 million U.S. housing properties were subject to foreclosure activity, up 79% from 2006.^[3]

So, this whole mess grew because of "declining lending standards" that led to loans being made to people who should not have qualified.

Farther down, we see some details:

The Center for Responsible Lending, in its report on IndyMac, related testimony that the bank actually made efforts to avoid having income information about some borrowers.^[44] The Associated Press has reported that a federal grand jury is investigating subprime lenders Countrywide Financial Corp., New Century Financial Corp. and IndyMac Bancorp Inc. and reports also that the FBI is investigating IndyMac for possible fraud.^[45] The question, then, is whether banks and other private mortgage originators of subprime and other "nonprime" loans might deliberately have profited or attempted to profit - in moneys, economic benefit or even fraudulent gain - through reducing the amount of information they collected from borrowers.

Notice that last sentence: "The question, then, is whether banks and other private mortgage originators of subprime and other 'nonprime' loans might deliberately have profited or attempted to profit - in moneys, economic benefit or even fraudulent gain - through reducing the amount of information they collected from borrowers."

Judge Leslie Tchaikovsky of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California, found on 25 May 2008 that even though a pair of borrowers had, indeed, misrepresented their incomes on a "stated income" home equity loan, National City Bank's "reliance" on these statements of income "was not reasonable based on an objective standard".^[46]

The banking industry provided home loans to undocumented immigrants, viewing it as an untapped resource for growing their own revenue stream.^[47][48] Pro-immigrant expert Tim Ready at the University of Notre Dame argued that "It's really important to the economy as a whole and to the real estate market in particular that Latinos be able to purchase a home."^[49] Banks, including some major institutions, offered home-mortgage loans to people who don't have Social Security numbers.^[50]

But, who is supposed to police these banks?

In Wikipedia's article on the Federal Reserve System, we find the following excerpt from TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER VII > § 301 of the US Code: 301. Powers and duties of board of directors; suspension of member bank for undue use of bank credit:

Each Federal reserve bank shall keep itself informed of the general character and amount of the loans and investments of its member banks with a view to ascertaining whether undue use is being made of bank credit for the speculative carrying of or trading in securities, real estate, or commodities, or for any other purpose inconsistent with the maintenance of sound credit conditions; and, in determining whether to grant or refuse advances, rediscounts, or other credit accommodations, the Federal reserve bank shall give consideration to such information. The chairman of the Federal reserve bank shall report to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System any such undue use of bank credit by any member bank, together with his recommendation. Whenever, in the judgment of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, any member bank is making such undue use of bank credit, the Board may, in its discretion, after reasonable notice and an opportunity for a hearing, suspend such bank from the use of the credit facilities of the Federal Reserve System and may terminate such suspension or may renew it from time to time.

So, it is the job of the Federal Reserve to monitor the loans of its member banks, and, if they are "playing fast and loose", to report the matter and, ultimately, it is the job of the Board of Governors to suspend those banks from the Federal Reserve System if they continue with their irresponsible lending practices.

Dare I point out that all of the current members of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors were appointed by President George W. Bush? Ben Bernanke, Donald Kohn, Kevin Warsh, Randall Kroszner and Elizabeth A. Duke; by 2006, four of the five were in place on the Board of Governors.

Now President Bush -- in reaction to this crisis that the people he appointed to the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors should have seen coming and should have avoided -- has given us a hard-sale on a 700 billion dollar (?) bailout package -- which we all know will cost much more by the time this plays out.

Why do I have the feeling we have been stampeded again?

As Bush's Presidency draws to a close, why do I recall the following quote from the Sibel Edmonds case?

From The Highjacking of a Nation, Part 2: The Auctioning of Former Statesmen & Dime a Dozen Generals by Sibel Edmonds, November 29, 2006:

Long gone are the days when generals were content to retire and go back home where they held their heads high as honorable patriots and heroes who had served their nation; where they marched in their towns' parades as proud distinguished men and women who had fulfilled their duty to the people. Today, as we clearly see, they perceive themselves and their authority as a commodity; they go about marketing their worth (nationally and internationally; foreign and domestic) long before they leave their positions as public servants.

[snip]

The foreign influence, the lobbyists, the current highly positioned civil servants who are determined future 'wanna be' lobbyists, and the fat cats of the Military Industrial Complex, operate successfully under the radar, with unlimited reach and power, with no scrutiny, while selling your interests, benefiting from your tax money, and serving the highest bidders regardless of what or who they may be. This deep state seems to operate at all levels of our government; from the President's office to Congress, from the military quarters to the civil servants' offices.

New label: Stampede.

The Free Speech Protection Act of 2008: "The Wrong Victim"

House Bill H. R. 5814 has now passed in the House of Representatives; next is the battle in the Senate.

For those of you who don't know what it is about, here are excerpts from H. R. 5814:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the 'Free Speech Protection Act of 2008'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) The freedom of speech and the press is enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(2) Free speech, the free exchange of information, and the free expression of ideas and opinions are essential to the functioning of representative democracy in the United States.

(3) The free expression and publication by journalists, academics, commentators, experts, and others of the information they uncover and develop through research and study is essential to the formation of sound public policy and thus to the security of Americans.

(4) The First Amendment jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, articulated in such precedents as New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), and its progeny, reflects the fundamental value that Americans place on promoting the free exchange of ideas and information, requiring in cases involving public figures a demonstration of actual malice--that is, that allegedly defamatory, libelous, or slanderous statements about public figures are not merely false but made with knowledge of that falsity or with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity.

(5) Some persons are obstructing the free expression rights of Americans, and the vital interest of the American people in receiving information on matters of public importance, by first seeking out foreign jurisdictions that do not provide the full extent of free-speech protection that is fundamental in the United States and then suing Americans in such jurisdictions in defamation actions based on speech uttered or published in the United States--speech that is fully protected under First Amendment jurisprudence in the United States and the laws of the several States and the District of Columbia.

(6) Some of these actions are intended not only to suppress the free speech rights of journalists, academics, commentators, experts, and other individuals but to intimidate publishers and other organizations that might otherwise disseminate or support the work of those individuals with the threat of prohibitive foreign lawsuits, litigation expenses, and judgments that provide for money damages and other speech-suppressing relief.

(7) The governments and courts of some foreign countries have failed to curtail this practice, permitting lawsuits filed by persons who are often not citizens of those countries, under circumstances where there is often little or no basis for jurisdiction over the Americans against whom such suits are brought.

(8) Some of the plaintiffs bringing such suits are intentionally and strategically refraining from filing their suits in the United States, even though the speech at issue was published in the United States, in order to avoid the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence and frustrate the protections it affords Americans.

(9) The Americans against whom such suits are brought must consequently endure the prohibitive expense, inconvenience, and anxiety attendant to being sued in foreign courts for conduct that is protected by the First Amendment, or decline to answer such suits and risk the entry of costly default judgments that may be executed in countries other than the United States where those individuals travel or own property.

(10) Journalists, academics, commentators, experts, and others subjected to such suits are suffering concrete and profound financial and professional damage for engaging in conduct that is protected under the United States Constitution and essential to informing the American people, their representatives, and other policy-makers.

(11) In turn, the American people are suffering concrete and profound harm because they, their representatives, and other government policymakers rely on the free expression of information, ideas, and opinions developed by responsible journalists, academics, commentators, experts, and others for the formulation of sound public policy, including national security policy.

(12) The United States respects the sovereign right of other countries to enact their own laws regarding speech, and seeks only to protect the First Amendment rights of Americans in connection with speech that occurs, in whole or in part, in the United States.

SEC. 3. FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION.

(a) Cause of Action- Any United States person against whom a lawsuit is brought in a foreign country for defamation on the basis of the content of any writing, utterance, or other speech by that person that has been published, uttered, or otherwise disseminated in the United States may bring an action in a United States district court specified in subsection (f) against any person who, or entity which, brought the foreign suit if the writing, utterance, or other speech at issue in the foreign lawsuit does not constitute defamation under United States law.

(b) Jurisdiction- It shall be sufficient to establish jurisdiction over the person or entity bringing a foreign lawsuit described in subsection (a) that such person or entity has filed the lawsuit against a United States person, or that such United States person has assets in the United States against which the claimant in the foreign action could execute if a judgment in the foreign lawsuit were awarded.

(c) Remedies-

(1) ORDER TO BAR ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER INJUNCTIVE RELIEF- If the cause of action set forth in subsection (a) is established, the district court shall order that any foreign judgment in the foreign lawsuit in question may not be enforced in the United States, including by any Federal, State, or local court, and may order such other injunctive relief that the court considers appropriate to protect the right to free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(2) DAMAGES- In addition to the remedy under paragraph (1), damages may be awarded to the United States person bringing the action under subsection (a), based on the following:

(A) The amount of the foreign judgment.

(B) The costs, including all legal fees, attributable to the foreign lawsuit that have been borne by the United States person.

(C) The harm caused to the United States person due to decreased opportunities to publish, conduct research, or generate funding.

(d) Treble Damages- If, in an action brought under subsection (a), the factfinder determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the person or entity bringing the foreign lawsuit at issue intentionally engaged in a scheme to suppress First Amendment rights by discouraging publishers or other media not to publish, or discouraging employers, contractors, donors, sponsors, or similar financial supporters not to employ, retain, or support, the research, writing, or other speech of a journalist, academic, commentator, expert, or other individual, the factfinder may award treble damages.

(e) Expedited Discovery- Upon the filing of an action under subsection (a), the court may order expedited discovery if the court determines, based on the allegations in the complaint, that the speech at issue in the foreign defamation action is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(f) Venue- An action under subsection (a) may be brought by a United States person only in a United States district court in which the United States person is domiciled, does business, or owns real property that could be executed against in satisfaction of a judgment in the foreign defamation lawsuit giving rise to the action.

(g) Timing of Action; Statute of Limitations-

(1) TIMING- An action under subsection (a) may be commenced after the filing of the defamation lawsuit in a foreign country on which the action is based.

(2) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS- For purposes of section 1658(a) of title 28, United States Code, the cause of action under subsection (a) accrues on the date on which the defamation lawsuit in a foreign country on which the cause of action is based is filed.

For a summary from its sponsors of this bill's importance, I quote a passage from a news release from Senator Joe Lieberman:

"Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of expression of ideas, opinions, and research, and freedom of exchange of information are all essential to the functioning of a democracy, and the fight against terrorism," Senator Specter said. "There is a real danger that American writers and researchers will be afraid to address the crucial subject of terror funding and other important matters without these protections."

"Discovering the truth requires full and open debate, which is not possible when courts are used to chill inquiry and research," Senator Lieberman said. "The freedom of American journalists should not be threatened by foreign courts that do not adhere to America's principles of free speech."

"Our journalists provide us with insight on issues that affect all Americans, such as war and terrorism," Rep. King said. "We cannot allow their voices to be silenced by those who prefer to keep secret the inner details of these issues. American authors and journalists should be able to practice their first amendment right without the fear of a lawsuit."

This legislation creates a federal cause of action and federal jurisdiction so that federal courts may determine whether there has been defamation under United States law when a U.S. journalist, speaker, or academic is sued in a foreign court for speech or publication in the United States. The bill authorizes a court to issue an order barring enforcement of a foreign judgment and to award damages.

The impetus for this legislation is litigation involving Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, a U.S. citizen and Director of the American Center for Democracy. Dr. Ehrenfeld's 2003 book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It, which was published solely in the United States by a U. S. publisher, alleged that a Saudi Arabian subject and his family financially supported Al Qaeda in the years preceding the attacks of September 11. He sued Ehrenfeld for libel in England, although only 23 books were sold there.

For some background, we have the following excerpt from U.S. should stand up to 'libel tourism', published earlier this month:

When Rachel Ehrenfeld wrote Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It, she assumed she would be protected by the First Amendment. She was, in the United States. But a wealthy Saudi businessman she accused in the book of being a funder of terrorism, Khalid bin Mahfouz, sued in Britain, where the libel laws are heavily weighted against journalists, and won a sizable amount of money.

The lawsuit is a case of what legal experts are calling "libel tourism." Ehrenfeld is an American, and “Funding Evil” was never published in Britain. But at least 23 copies of the book were sold online, opening the door for the lawsuit. When Ehrenfeld decided not to defend the suit in Britain, bin Mahfouz won a default judgment and is now free to sue to collect in the United States.

British law is un-American

The upshot is a First Amendment loophole. In the Internet age, almost every American book can be bought in Britain. That means American authors are subject to being sued under British libel law, which in some cases puts the initial burden on the defendant to prove the truth of what she has written. British libel law is so tilted against writers that the U.N. Human Rights Committee criticized it last month for discouraging discussion of important matters of public interest.

Bin Mahfouz, who has denied financing terrorism, said Ehrenfeld's book contained inaccuracies and demanded a retraction. He also demanded a significant contribution to a charity of his choice – a charity Ehrenfeld said she feared would be one with ties to terrorism. Ehrenfeld, who describes herself as being "in the business of stopping people who fund terrorism," refused to back down. "I said," she later recalled, "he's found the wrong victim."

For a list of Senators you can contact regarding this bill, see Rachel's Law for Free Speech -- although I recommend you investigate this matter yourself and write your own letter, not just copy-and-paste the letter found at the link.

For more information, you can also see the posts linked in my sidebar; for other background and contact information, you can see Exclusive: Your Turn: Contact Congress about the Free Speech Protection Act.

I also highly encourage you to go to Dr. Ehrenfeld's website to learn more, and to contribute to our legal counterjihad.

To hear Sheikh bin Mahfouz' side of the story, see the link in my sidebar under the heading "Financiers of Holy Terror".

Rachel's Law

Adapted from a press release that I found in my email inbox:

ACD UPDATE

Contact: Rachel Ehrenfeld
American Center for Democracy
www.acdemocracy.org

The Libel Terrorism Protection Act,
also known as
RACHEL's LAW,
signed by Governor

Albany, NY (May 1, 2008) -- New York State Governor David Paterson yesterday signed the "Libel Terrorism Protection Act" (S.6687/A.9652), which on March 31 passed the state's Assembly and Senate unanimously.

Also known as Rachel's Law, the bill sponsored by Assemblyman Rory Lancman (D-Queens) and Senate Deputy Majority Leader Dean G. Skelos (R-Rockville Centre) will protect American journalists and authors from foreign lawsuits that infringe on First Amendment rights. The bill also received unprecedented support from Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.

"New Yorkers must be able to speak out on issues of public concern without living in fear that they will be sued outside the United States, under legal standards inconsistent with our First Amendment rights," said Governor Paterson. "This legislation will help ensure of the freedoms enjoyed by New York authors."

Reflecting the New York legislation's importance, U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) on April 16 introduced a similar bill, the Freedom of Speech Protection Act (H.R. 5814), in the House of Represenatives.

In Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz, New York State's highest court held that it was unable to protect Dr. Ehrenfeld from a British lawsuit filed by Saudi billionaire Khalid Salim Bin Mahfouz. Britain's High Court ordered her to pay over $225,000 in damages and legal fees to Bin Mahfouz, apologize and destroy copies of her books.

Instead, November 2006, Dr. Ehrenfeld sought a U.S. federal court order to protect her constitutional rights. But a New York Court of Appeals ruling with national implications sent legal shockwaves throughout American newsrooms.

The New York court potentially undermined U.S. journalists' ability to expose terrorism's financial and logistical support networks, when it ruled that the court lacks jurisdiction to protect Americans - on U.S. soil - from foreign defamation judgments that contradict the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Rachel's Law declares overseas defamation judgments unenforceable in New York State unless the foreign defamation law provides, in substance and application, the same free speech protections guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. The law gives New York residents and publishers the opportunity to have their day in court.

The bill could not have passed without the expert assistance of Attorney Daniel Kornsein of New York City's Kornstein, Veisz, Wexler & Pollard, LLP. Kornstein represented Dr. Ehrenfeld in Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz.

Its supporters included First Amendment Attorneys Floyd Abrams, David Siegel, Samuel Adaby, Harvey Silverglate; the New York City Bar Association; PEN; The Authors Guild; New York D.A. Robert M. Morgenthau; Former Secretary of State George Shultz; Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey; State University of New York Counsel Nicholas Rostow; 9/11 Families for a Secure America; The Association of American Publishers; Act for America; Rabbi Aaron Raskin; New York Board of Rabbis President Joseph Potasnik; many other public officials and tens of thousands of concerned New Yorkers and Americans, especially New York business leader Lawrence Kadish and ACD Senior Fellow Alyssa A. Lappen.

"This law will give New York's journalists, authors and press the protection and tools they need to continue to fearlessly expose the truth about terrorism and its enablers, and to maintain New York's place as the free speech capitol of the world," Lancman stated.

"The truth is a critically-important component in the War on Terror," said Senator Skelos. "This important new law will protect American authors and journalists who expose terrorist networks and their financiers."

Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau said: "Terrorism and terrorist financing are matters of vital interest to all New Yorkers, in no small part because New York City remains a target of significance for international terrorists. New York authors must have the freedom to investigate, write and publish on terrorism and other matters of public importance, subject only to limitations that are consistent with the U.S. Constitution. This legislation will help to ensure such freedom."

Today, Governor Paterson declared the intention of New York State, the publishing capital of America, to safeguard the First Amendment and its courageous writers.

Rachel's Law marks an important step in Dr. Ehrenfeld's efforts to stop Arab billionaires like Khalid bin Mahfouz from attempting to silence U.S. writers who
expose Saudi terrorist funding and global radical Muslim organizations, including al Qaeda and Hamas.

Rachel's Law -- and your financial support -- now make it possible for Dr. Ehrenfeld to return to court for a declaratory judgment against Mahfouz. Your generosity makes possible the continued exposure of financial jihad by courageous investigative journalists and researchers. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your financial assistance is essential to our success.

The American Center for Democracy (ACD) is a tax-deductible, non-profit organization that qualify as exempt organizations under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and Regulations.

Your support is important to us. Thank you for helping our work to preserve democracy and freedom in America.

__________

Go to www.acdemocracy.org and donate to the legal counterjihad.

Pride of Lions, Part 1

I have been working on this new series of posts (even though I have other series unfinished), but have been wondering how to introduce it. Well, hat tip to my email tipster for providing me a link that fits the bill!

We begin with Foreign Law and the First Amendment by Floyd Abrams, April 30, 2008:

Late in 1941, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion which, for the first time in our history, starkly distinguished American protection of speech from that of England.

Two union members had been convicted of assaulting nonunion truck drivers. The day before they were to be sentenced, the Los Angeles Times published an editorial urging the trial judge not to grant probation, but to punish the transgressors severely: "This community," the editorial asserted, "needs the example of their assignment to the jute mill."

Contempt of court proceedings were brought against the newspaper. California law at the time, like that of other states, was rooted in English law, under which such commentary, aimed at a judge during a trial, constituted contempt. Under English law, both then and today, such speech is punishable by massive fines or even imprisonment.

In reversing the ruling of the California courts holding the newspaper in contempt, the Supreme Court set this country on a different course. "No purpose in ratifying the Bill of Rights was clearer," Justice Hugo Black wrote, "than of securing for the people of the United States much greater freedom of ... expression ... than the people of Great Britain had ever enjoyed."

Today, there are sharp distinctions between U.S. and English law. One difference is that under the First Amendment we provide far more protection for speech that is claimed to be libelous.

There is no need for democratic nations to agree upon such matters. The values of free speech and individual reputation are both significant, and it is not surprising that different nations would place different emphasis on each.

But a serious problem has surfaced. In recent years, English libel law has come to have a disturbing impact on the right of Americans to speak out.

England has become a choice venue for libel plaintiffs from around the world, including those who seek to intimidate critics whose works would be protected in the U.S. but might not in that country. That English libel law has increasingly been used to stifle speech about the subject of international terrorism raises the stakes still more.

As you may have guessed by now, this post is about the Ehrenfeld case. This series, however, will go beyond Dr. Ehrenfeld's epic David-vs-Goliath struggle, and will address the game that is being played out, of which Dr. Ehrenfeld's battle is only a part; beyond even that, we will look at the stakes involved in this game not just for the United Kingdom, but for Europe, and even for the world.

The case against Rachel Ehrenfeld in England by Saudi banker Khalid Bin Mahfouz is illustrative. Her 2003 book "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Funded and How to Stop It" dealt at length with one of the most significant (and difficult and dangerous to research) topics – the funding of terrorism. The conduct of Mr. Bin Mahfouz as a possible funder of terrorism was one of the subjects discussed in the book, which was published in New York.

Twenty-three copies of the book were sold in England. On that slim basis, Mr. Bin Mahfouz sued there, claiming that his reputation had been gravely harmed.

Ms. Ehrenfeld (on the advice of English counsel) refused to appear before the English courts, and a judgment against her was entered in the amount of $225,000. At any time, Mr. Bin Mahfouz could seek to enforce that judgment. Whether or not he does, the harm to Ms. Enhrenfeld's reputation remains real.

This is a part of the case that never seems to get addressed.

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is a competent scholar. Her work is thoroughly researched, and well-documented.

Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz has not sought to challenge her work based on its merits in an American court of law, but rather has challenged it in UK courtrooms, where the laws are very different, and where the merits of Dr. Ehrenfeld's research are not examined. Consequently, Shiekh bin Mahfouz won by default in the UK.

The fact that he has a technical legal "victory" -- however hollow and illusory it may be -- does damage to Dr. Ehrenfeld's reputation.

That Sheikh bin Mahfouz funds terrorists is a conclusion supported by a great deal of evidence, evidence documented and interpreted not only by Dr. Ehrenfeld, but by other competent scholars as well. Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz is thus a Financier of Holy Terror.

Beyond that, though, Sheikh bin Mahfouz's legal maneuverings, which were obviously intended to avoid the merits and facts of the case, have the effect, which was also obviously intended, of deterring researchers from exploring how terrorism is funded, and of deterring publishers (and others) from disseminating the results of such research.

Sheikh bin Mahfouz is thus not merely a Financier of Holy Terror, but rather, as his legal maneuverings are intended to terrorize infidels into submission, he is thus a terrorist -- a Libel Terrorist.

That so much effort is being expended to silence Dr. Ehrenfeld and other researchers only confirms the sensitivity of their work. Terrorism is portrayed as a "legitimate" means of oppressed people to strike against their oppressors; the truth is, however, that terrorist acts are diabolically criminal in their deliberate targeting of innocent civilians. Moreover, far from being a tool of "the oppressed", terrorism is in fact a tool of the oppressors -- terrorism can now not be separated from organized crime activities that fund it, so much so that terrorism is big business, and important terrorists are very wealthy men. Yasir Arafat, for example, died a billionaire -- one with enormous power over vast tracts of land via the Palestinian Authority.

Consider these quotes from an interview with Sibel Edmonds, entitled Former FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Calls Current 9/11 Investigation Inadequate by Jim Hogue, May 07, 2004:

JH: Can you explain more about what money you are talking about?

SE: The most significant information that we were receiving did not come from counter-terrorism investigations, and I want to emphasize this. It came from counter-intelligence, and certain criminal investigations, and issues that have to do with money laundering operations.

You get to a point where it gets very complex, where you have money laundering activities, drug related activities, and terrorist support activities converging at certain points and becoming one. In certain points -- and they [the intelligence community] are separating those portions from just the terrorist activities. And, as I said, they are citing "foreign relations" which is not the case, because we are not talking about only governmental levels. And I keep underlining semi-legit organizations and following the money. When you do that the picture gets grim. It gets really ugly.

[snip]

JH: Here's a question that you might be able to answer: What is al-Qaeda?

SE: This is a very interesting and complex question. When you think of al-Qaeda, you are not thinking of al-Qaeda in terms of one particular country, or one particular organization. You are looking at this massive movement that stretches to tens and tens of countries. And it involves a lot of sub-organizations and sub-sub-organizations and branches and it's extremely complicated. So to just narrow it down and say al-Qaeda and the Saudis, or to say it's what they had at the camp in Afghanistan, is extremely misleading. And we don't hear the extent of the penetration that this organization and the sub-organizations have throughout the world, throughout their networks and throughout their various activities. It's extremely sophisticated. And then you involve a significant amount of money into this equation. Then things start getting a lot of overlap -- money laundering, and drugs and terrorist activities and their support networks converging in several points. That's what I'm trying to convey without being too specific. And this money travels. And you start trying to go to the root of it and it's getting into somebody's political campaign, and somebody's lobbying. And people don't want to be traced back to this money.

Returning now to Foreign Law and the First Amendment:

She sought a declaratory judgment in New York determining that the English judgment was not enforceable here, and that her work was protected under American law. But the New York Court of Appeals determined that her suit could not be heard under state law. Any change in that law, the court concluded, was up to the New York legislature.

To the surprise of those who denigrate the ability of the New York legislature to act decisively, both the Assembly and its Senate have unanimously passed a bill that would give Ms. Ehrenfeld and other citizens who are sued for libel abroad the right to obtain a declaration here that their works are protected under American law.

Gov. David Paterson has until the end of today to decide whether or not he will sign the bill. Meanwhile, the Ehrenfeld saga has led Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) to propose federal legislation which would provide similar relief.

The need for such legislation has become very real – all the more so since English libel law is increasingly being used to limit public debate about terrorism. Mr. Bin Mahfouz has personally commenced or threatened to commence at least 30 law suits in England. This tactic has served him well in obtaining libel judgments that would be unthinkable as well as unconstitutional here. The danger is that other American writers and publishers will shy away from this crucial subject, out of fear of being sued far from home.

This is a reasonable concern as a good deal of litigation related to reporting on terrorism has been threatened or started in England by individuals who have limited contact with that nation, but who find its libel law congenial.

England should be free to choose its own libel law. But so should we. It is not too much to ask that American law should protect our people when they speak in precisely the "uninhibited, robust and wide-open" manner that the First Amendment was drafted to protect.

You can learn more about Dr. Ehrenfeld's case, read her work, and contribute financially to counterterrorism by funding her legal counterjihad all at her website, The American Center for Democracy.

Meanwhile, speaking of "uninhibited, robust and wide-open" freedom of speech -- and of freedom of religion -- we have the following from Are Muslim enclaves no-go areas, forcing other people out, asks historian John Cornwell, from March 16, 2008:

Allahu akbar, Allahu akbar (Allah is the greatest, Allah is the greatest). Ash-hadu alla ilaha illa-llah (I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship but Allah).

The call to prayer resounds across the rooftops before dawn, bringing echoes of the Levant to provincial Luton and its 30,000 Muslims. But for infidel locals, the holy wake-up is a curse. "I'd like to pull the plug on that caterwauling," a second-generation Luton Irish woman tells me. "I go to work, and I've got two small kids. It's just not fair on non-Muslim families around here."

It is not only non-Muslims who suffer. While the borders of the Islamic world are bloody and oppressive, the interior of the Islamic world is more so.

From The Gina Khan Interview - Part One January 9, 2008:

Gina Khan lives in Birmingham's Ward End. She is a British Muslim and has spoken out in the past about the problems she and her community faces from extreme Islamists. Described as "a very brave woman" in an article for the London Times, Gina will, over the coming days, be stating her experience to the Westminster Journal as a British Muslim and calling out, especially to the British Government, for help in solving the Islamist problem the West now experiences from within.

Q: So, Gina, tell us a little about yourself, your background and your motivations:

I'm a British Asian Woman from a Pakistani ethnic background; a Sunni Muslim and a lone parent. I grew up in Birmingham in the English Midlands -- in an area with a preponderance of Muslims.

I used to be a victim of psychological aggression. With hand on heart and head, I can say this was just because I was born a female into a Muslim family in the West. (Pain figures in the lives of many Muslim women because of accepted Muslim social practices. I was no exception to the rule).

Today the rhetoric you hear from extreme Islamists or the stories you read in British papers about honour killings or forced marriages doesn't shock me or many others at grassroots level. It's an old story, one that has been repeated for hundreds of years. Just that today the voices are amplified after 9/11 and there are more extreme mosques and more extreme Islamists than ever on the streets of areas like mine.

I was once one of the 'silent majority' who remained silent. I was told silent and good Muslim women are respected and honoured. I was told Islam protects and gives special status to Muslim women/mothers compared to the Western woman.

My life experience proved otherwise.

I have always had an issue with aspects of my religion and culture but was taught never to question. Now I question, seek and acknowledge the truth -- the truth as I see it, as I lived it, and as I observed it from others around me, all of my life.

I am not liked by the Islamists. I've had bricks thrown through the window and I've had family members beaten up. I've been told to move on. But I'm not budging. This is my home and I belong here. The Islamists where I live -- in Birmingham's Ward End -- are an awful scourge.

With my very first post on this blog, I pointed out that Islam is not a religion of peace, but rather an ideology of armed conquest.

Yet, Islam as practiced by people like Gina Khan seems to be very much a "religion of peace", and if the Islamic world were more fully populated with people like Gina Khan, the whole "religion of peace" question would be one very much academic, perhaps debated by people like Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld -- Islamic conquest would certainly not be a subject I would be blogging on.

Instead, in addition to the wonderful, peaceful, law-abiding people like Gina Khan, the Islamic world is also populated with barbarous thugs -- murdering, drug-running terrorists who enslave and torment their own people; criminals for whom no crime is too horrible to commit in the pursuit of their insane goal of forcing humanity to submit to the depravity of their evil god, whom they created in their own image.

Muslims -- of all kinds -- are people, and this is a story as old as mankind.

However, this story has the potential to be the final chapter of Mankind's Story.

Stay tuned to Stop Islamic Conquest as Pride of Lions continues.

"If the freedom of speech is taken away
then dumb and silent we may be led,
like sheep to the slaughter."

George Washington

Bushfire, Part 4

Continued from Part 3

But I hold back

Halliburton Iraq contract expands May 7, 2003

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Army Corps of Engineers says a contract awarded without competition to a subsidiary of Halliburton included not only putting out oil well fires in Iraq but also "operation of facilities and distribution of products."

Officials previously have said the multi-million dollar contract only dealt with putting out oil well fires and performing emergency repairs as needed.

The awarding of the contract in March prompted some lawmakers, including Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to question whether the administration's deep ties with Halliburton helped secure the contract -- charges the White House has adamantly denied. Vice President Dick Cheney formerly ran the company.

Get away from the heat

What Went Wrong with the Rebuilding of Iraq? May 16, 2007

Bremer defended his action, suggesting it was naïve to try to impose Western-style accounting practices in Iraq during a war. Several investigations led by Stuart Bowen, the special inspector-general for Iraq reconstruction, have found that the reconstruction effort was riddled with waste, fraud, corruption and shoddy construction. Bowen told NPR's All Things Considered about one particularly bad construction site he investigated -- a $75 million police training academy built by Parsons Corp.

"Essentially, when they put in the plumbing, they had no fittings, so they just joined plumbing pipes, cemented them together," he said. "The connections burst once they started to be used, and the sewage thus leaked from the bathrooms down through the building -- and into light fixtures and through the ceilings."

Hold back

Cracking the Case: An Interview With Sibel Edmonds August 22, 2005

SE: Sure. And believe me, once they lift the state-secrets privilege and once the court case actually begins and we have the witnesses and we can subpoena documents, it will be public. And it will be major. And it would make the AIPAC case look lame, actually.

SH: Oh, it will make the AIPAC case look lame?

SE: Correct.

In my field of vision

What Went Wrong with the Rebuilding of Iraq? May 16, 2007

There is little to show for the tens of billions of dollars spent over the last four years to rebuild Iraq. Plans that began with high hopes and were aimed at improving everything from Iraq's dilapidated infrastructure to its health care and education systems have instead become mired in corruption, waste and mismanagement.

Shortly after Baghdad fell in 2003, huge contracts were awarded to several U.S. companies. Some were no-bid, such as the $1.4 billion contract handed to Halliburton to rebuild Iraq's oil industry. For other contracts, there was limited competition.

Hold back

Interview: L. Paul Bremer, III June & August, 2006

We had to help the Iraqis rebuild their economy. Here we had some successes, not as much as I would have liked. It was very difficult to get the major amount of money that the American taxpayers have committed to Iraq spent while I was there. Less than 1 percent of the $18 billion had been spent on reconstruction by the time I left, which was very frustrating. But we had spent billions of Iraqi dollars, funds from the Iraqi government, on reconstruction. We had spent almost a billion dollars through very small projects that the military commanders ran. We had some progress there.

I see smoke

What Went Wrong with the Rebuilding of Iraq? May 16, 2007

The United States is trying to pressure Iraqis to do more for themselves, including spending their own money.

Iraq's proposed budget for 2007 is more than $40 billion.

Smoke in your eyes

For sale: West's deadly nuclear secrets January 6, 2008

Among the hours of covert tape recordings, she says she heard evidence that one well-known senior official in the US State Department was being paid by Turkish agents in Washington who were selling the information on to black market buyers, including Pakistan.

The name of the official -- who has held a series of top government posts -- is known to The Sunday Times. He strongly denies the claims.

However, Edmonds said: "He was aiding foreign operatives against US interests by passing them highly classified information, not only from the State Department but also from the Pentagon, in exchange for money, position and political objectives."

Bushfire

How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish February 8, 2007

However, evidence before the committee suggests that senior American officials were unconcerned about the situation because the billions were not US taxpayers' money. Paul Bremer, the head of the CPA, reminded the committee that "the subject of today's hearing is the CPA's use and accounting for funds belonging to the Iraqi people held in the so-called Development Fund for Iraq. These are not appropriated American funds. They are Iraqi funds. I believe the CPA discharged its responsibilities to manage these Iraqi funds on behalf of the Iraqi people."

Bremer's financial adviser, retired Admiral David Oliver, is even more direct. The memorandum quotes an interview with the BBC World Service. Asked what had happened to the $8.8bn he replied: "I have no idea. I can't tell you whether or not the money went to the right things or didn't -- nor do I actually think it's important."

Bushfire

The Shadow Realm (Part 3) October 16, 2007

The Left screams about oil as the reason for the war in Iraq, and oil certainly plays a part. Some on the Left scream about profiteering, and this, too, was a big factor in the invasion. But, consistently overlooked are the ties between corrupt elements in the US government and heroin-trafficking cartels in Central and Southwest Asia. One important reason for the Iraq invasion was to destabilize the region sufficiently to create the conditions necessary for the movement of the new bumper crops of opiate products from Afghanistan to Turkey, and 363 tons of US money were flown in to Iraq to pay for it all -- profiteering, terrorism and instability, heroin, everything -- with untainted money.

Bushfire

How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish February 8, 2007

Q: "But the fact is billions of dollars have disappeared without trace."

Oliver: "Of their money. Billions of dollars of their money, yeah I understand. I'm saying what difference does it make?"

The landscape's burning red (Bushfire)

One More Reason to Win - Let Sibel Edmonds Speak October 30, 2006

Yet, fellow FBI translator Malek Can Dickerson, who had encouraged Sibel to join the ATC, was suppressing intelligence Edmonds was uncovering regarding these front groups and their relationship to "certain allies and American business interests" in deference to the very organizations that the FBI had under investigation.

One can look back at the names mentioned in this criminal activity and notice that many of the players were involved in the more glamorous stories in the news over the past years. Armitage (MIC Inc./PNAC) leaking the name of a CIA operative who was investigating arms trafficking to Iran and Feith and Perle (IA Inc./PNAC) who were instrumental in the invasion of Iraq and who are together with Michael Ansari (MIC Inc.) pushing for an attack on Iran are just four of the most notorious examples.

It's red hot (Bushfire)

Taliban rejects Bush's 'second chance' offer October 13, 2001

Afghanistan's ruling Taliban has rejected President George W. Bush's "second chance" offer to surrender terrorist suspect Osama bin Laden, the Afghan embassy in Islamabad said today.

President Bush told a news conference on Thursday that if the Taliban "cough him up and his people today" then the United States will "reconsider what we're doing to your country. You still have a second chance," Bush said. "Just bring him in, and bring his leaders and lieutenants and other thugs and criminals with him."

The landscape's burning red hot (Bushfire)

The Shadow Realm (Part 7) November 8, 2007

In the wake of the first attempt on the World Trade Center, blueprints for certain US skyscrapers went to the Middle East, and the FBI eventually heard of this. The FBI also heard that terrorists were planning to crash airliners into tall buildings in the US -- all before 9/11. Law enforcement and the US intelligence community did nothing; the information was suppressed, and not allowed to flow freely throughout the US government agencies that could have done something.

Why?

The landscape is red hot (Bushfire)

Bush pledges to get bin Laden, dead or alive December 14, 2001

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush pledged anew Friday that Osama bin Laden will be taken "dead or alive," no matter how long it takes, amid indications that the suspected terrorist may be bottled up in a rugged Afghan canyon. The president, in an Oval Office meeting with Thailand's prime minister, would not predict the timing of bin Laden's capture but said he doesn't care how the suspect is brought to justice. "I don't care, dead or alive -- either way," Bush said. "It doesn't matter to me."

Hold me in a field of molten flowers (Bushfire)

For sale: West’s deadly nuclear secrets January 6, 2008

She claims that the FBI was also gathering evidence against senior Pentagon officials -- including household names -- who were aiding foreign agents.

"If you made public all the information that the FBI have on this case, you will see very high-level people going through criminal trials," she said.

Hold me in a field of molten flowers (Bushfire)

CNN EVANS, NOVAK, HUNT & SHIELDS: Interview With General Richard Myers April 6, 2002

HUNT: The Big Question for General Myers: One embarrassment for the U.S. has been that, in almost seven months after 9/11, we still haven't captured Osama bin Laden. With the apprehension this week of one of his top lieutenants, have we gotten enough information to be any closer to maybe finally getting bin Laden?

MYERS: Well, if you remember, if we go back to the beginning of this segment, the goal has never been to get bin Laden. Obviously, that's desirable.

Take me to the ground (Bushfire)

The Twilight Zone, Part 3 February 23, 2008

The terrorists on 9/11 thought they were martyring themselves for Allah, but they had been duped -- all they were really doing was covering up someone's scheme to simultaneously start a profitable war, gain control over the heroin industry, and launder the proceeds of organized crime...

Mostly heroin money... laundered in stock trades pushed through the computers in the WTC during the attack...

[snip]

And when the bad guys were done, they imploded the Twin Towers and WTC-7 to cover their trail.

Hold me, hold me, hold me

Former FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Calls Current 9/11 Investigation Inadequate May 07, 2004

SE: [snip] If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up.

Psychobabble

This is lovely.

Play of the Day: Lesson in becoming prez, April 1, 2008:

WILKES-BARRE, Pa. - Eight-year-old Michael LaCoste wanted to ask Barack Obama a question.

The young boy got his chance at a campaign stop with the Democratic candidate Tuesday.

"How do you get to be, how do you run for president," asked Michael.

The crowd applauded and gave a little "ahhhh" as the Illinois senator started to answer.

"You have to work really hard in school and get really good grades. You have to do everything that grandma tells you to do," Obama said. "When you get out of school, then you've got to go to college. When you get out of college, you've got to get a job that's hopefully helping other people..."

"And if you do all those things, then you might just be a president someday," Obama said.

The moment was more than sentimental.

Asked about the exchange after the event, Michael said "it was cool" before being quickly interrupted by his grandmother, 51-year-old Sylvia LaCoste.

"Tell him you're not going to be a gangster," said Sylvia.

"I'm not going to be a gangster," repeated Michael.

His grandmother said two weeks earlier, the young boy had declared he wanted to become a gangster, "so I sat him down and told him about good examples, and about Obama. This is a great thing. It's going down in family history."

The Constitutional requirements to be eligible for the Presidency are:

1) to be a US Citizen by birth;

2) to be at least 35 years of age; and

3) to have resided in the United States for at least 14 years.

There are other requirements 1) to not have previously held the office and been removed by conviction for an impeachable offense, 2) nor to have served as President or Acting President for more than six years.

Senator Obama missed an opportunity to educate this young man, and show his own qualifications for the job by demonstrating knowledge of US law.

Senator Obama's response to this young man's question is pure, unadulterated feel-good psychobabble.

NY Legislature Passes Libel Terrorism Protection Act

I just received in the email a press release under the caption "RACHEL's LAW Unanimously Passed by NY Legislators; Thank you all for supporting the bill."

The release is put out by Assemblyman Rory I .Lancman (New York State Assembly, 25th District) and Sen. Dean G. Skelos (New York State Senate, 9th District). Here it is in its entirety, with one typo cleaned up:

Legislature Passes Libel Terrorism Protection Act To Protect American Journalists and Authors From Overseas Defamation Lawsuits

Albany, NY (March 31, 2008) – The New York State Legislature today unanimously passed the "Libel Terrorism Protection Act" (S.6687/A.9652), sponsored by Assemblyman Rory Lancman (D-Queens) and Senate Deputy Majority Leader Dean G. Skelos (R-Rockville Centre).

When signed into law by Governor David Paterson, this legislation will protect American journalists and authors from foreign lawsuits that infringe on their First Amendment rights.

In Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz, New York State's highest court held that it would not protect Dr. Ehrenfeld from a British lawsuit filed by Saudi billionaire Khalid Salim Bin Mahfouz, where she was ordered to pay over $225,000 in damages and legal fees to Bin Mahfouz, as well as apologize and destroy existing copies of her books.

Dr. Ehrenfeld sought a court order in November of 2006 to protect her constitutional rights, but in a ruling with national First Amendment implications which sent legal shockwaves throughout newsrooms across America, as well as potentially undermining our ability to expose terrorism's financial and logistical support networks, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to protect Americans -- on U.S. soil -- from foreign defamation judgments, which contradict the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Libel Terrorism Protection Act declares overseas defamation judgments unenforceable in New York unless the foreign defamation law provides, in substance and application, the same free speech protections guaranteed under our own constitution, and it gives New York residents and publishers the opportunity to have their day in court here in New York.

"This is a great day for free speech and freedom of the press, and I urge Governor Paterson to quickly sign this legislation into law. This law will protect our journalists and authors from trumped up libel charges in kangaroo courts in overseas jurisdictions which don't share our commitment to free speech and freedom of the press," said Lancman.

"This law will give New York's journalists, authors and press the protection and tools they need to continue to fearlessly expose the truth about terrorism and its enablers, and to maintain New York's place as the free speech capitol of the world," Lancman concluded. Lancman's remarks on the Assembly floor are viewable here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zt_wvhfW7Q.

"The truth is a critically-important component in the War on Terror," said Senator Skelos. "This important new law will protect American authors and journalists who expose terrorist networks and their financiers. In its decision, the Court of Appeals called upon the State Legislature to revise the law. Today, we made clear that New York State will safeguard the First Amendment and these courageous writers." #####

To learn more about Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, her work, and her battle with Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, Financier of Holy Terror, please visit Dr. Ehrenfeld's website, The American Center for Democracy, where you can make a contribution to support her work and her legal defense against Libel Terrorism.


I'm going to be pretty upset if I find out this press release is some kind of April Fool's prank. :)

"Traced Back to This Money"

This is a very educational article: Fact check: Obama and oil money, March 31, 2008, by Jim Kuhnhenn, reproduced in its entirety.

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama has seized on a key feature of voters' economic concerns - rising fuel prices - and is casting himself as the candidate who could bring about energy independence because he is not beholden to energy companies.

Last week, Obama aired a television ad in Pennsylvania called "Nothing's changed" that outlines his energy proposals while declaring, "I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore."

THE SPIN: In his ad, Obama states: "Since the gas lines of the '70's, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing's changed except now Exxon's making $40 billion a year, and we're paying $3.50 for gas. ... I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore. They'll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We'll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil."

The Clinton campaign last week accused Obama of "false advertising."

"Senator Obama says he doesn't take campaign contributions from oil companies but the reality is that Exxon, Shell, and others are among his donors," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said.

THE FACTS: True enough, Obama does not take money from oil companies. No candidate does. It is illegal for corporations to give money to politicians. Corporations, however, do have political action committees that collect voluntary donations from employees and then donate them to candidates. Obama doesn't take money from PACs. He also doesn't take money from lobbyists.

But he does accept money from executives and other employees of oil companies and two of his fundraisers are oil company executives. As of Feb. 29, Obama's presidential campaign had received nearly $214,000 from oil and gas industry employees and their families, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Clinton had received nearly $307,000 from industry workers and their families and Republican Sen. John McCain, the likely GOP presidential nominee, received nearly $394,000, according to the center's totals.

Two of Obama's fundraisers are Robert Cavnar, the chairman and chief executive of Houston-based Mission Resources Corp., and George Kaiser, the president and CEO of Tulsa-based Kaiser-Francis Oil Co.

In January and February alone, Obama received nearly $18,000 from Exxon Mobil workers, according to Federal Election Commission records. Most of the donations were of $250 or less; the money came from workers ranging from executives to engineers to geologists to shift supervisors. Overall, he has raised about $34,000 from Exxon Mobil workers since the beginning of his campaign. Exxon Mobil employees have given Clinton about $16,000 since the beginning of last year.

There are many points to be made here.

First of all, people who have jobs are just as entitled to contribute to the election campaign of a candidate for political office as anyone else; doing so is not sinister, and neither is employment at an oil company.

However, if the leaders of a corporation (or other group) wish to support a candidate, we get a glimpse of how it can be done. First, a political action committee associated with the corporation is formed, and employees contribute to that PAC, which then contributes to the candidate.

Additionally, employees of the corporation can contribute directly to the candidate's campaign; so can others who are perhaps less directly affiliated with a corporation, such as family members of its employees. Someone associated with the corporation may organize and host a fundraiser for the candidate where this happens -- people get to meet the candidate, and have their picture taken with him or her.

Furthermore, people who wish to contribute more to a certain candidate can give to another PAC, and that PAC, in turn, can then support the candidate.

It is also interesting to look at the FEC reports (there's a link in my sidebar so you can do your civic duty and look at them), and see how PACs give money to other PACs. Why do they do that?

Another way of steering money around the legalities and towards the candidate of your choice is to give to a county or state political party, with the understanding that it will spend that money in favor of the candidate of your choice. They may not pay much attention to someone who walks in off the street waving a $5 bill, but if a representative of an important business comes in and talks about doing a fundraiser, the party officials may be interested in that.

This is all basically legal.

There are, of course, illegal methods of channeling money to your candidate -- the paper bag or even suitcase full of small bills being useful, although in this case it would be more likely to be big bills with pictures of Benjamin Franklin on them ($100-bills, the largest denomination in circulation, for my foreign readers) and such Benjamins would more likely be a straight-out bribe.

In the context of all this, it is interesting to review some of my posts in the series entitled "The Heroin Lobby" (see sidebar for March, 2008, when the series began), and examine how I came to some of my conclusions. For example, in The Heroin Lobby, Part 8, I pointed out the $59,600 worth of campaign contributions from two students to various political campaigns. These same two students are supporters of TC-USA PAC, which is affiliated with the Turkish Coalition of America, which we have identified as a front organization for Turkish organized crime.

It is also interesting to consider how, in The Balkan Connection, Part 2, we showed that a group that fronts for Albanian organized crime, the AACL, is associated with pizzerias that have served as fronts for heroin trafficking. Its leader, former Congressman Joseph DioGuardi, has long supported ethnic Albanian groups in the Balkans. He has lobbied politicians for US support of these groups; the groups themselves are linked to Islamic extremist terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, and to the trafficking of heroin, arms, and sex slaves, among other contraband. The associated PAC, AAPAC, has as its treasurer Shirley Clowes DioGuardi, who is also the AACL's Balkan Affairs Advisor. AAPAC, for its part, receives a great deal of money from self-employed business leaders, including a high proportion of "restaurateurs" and owners of pizzerias.

Undoubtedly, many of these people are in family businesses that are on the up-and-up, and are proud to be American citizens -- working hard, earning an honest living and having their voices heard in government -- and there is nothing wrong with that, it is what America is all about.

But, we cannot help but suspect that some of these people have operations and connections that they do not want brought to light. And, as we move up the chain, to former Congressman DioGuardi and his support for Senator McCain, and as we consider Senator McCain's support for Kosovo Islamic terrorists -- the KLA -- we begin to wonder, don't we? Just as we begin to wonder about Senator Hillary Clinton's connections to these same groups of terrorists and mobsters.

Some random thoughts...

An Interview with Sibel Edmonds, Page Two by Chris Deliso, July 1, 2004

SE: I can't say anything specific with regards to these departments, because I didn't work for them. But as for the politicians, what I can say is that when you start talking about huge amounts of money, certain elected officials become automatically involved. And there are different kinds of campaign contributions – legal and illegal, declared and undeclared.

John McCain armed Kosovo Islamic terrorists, February 13, 2008



The Candidates on Kosova ... and perhaps beyond, 2008

(D) Senator Hillary Clinton who insisted that her husband initiate the NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 has repeatedly declared that the bombing of Serbia was "a success". She has been the honored guest to of many Albanian fundraisers and is hailed as someone that would continue her husband's legacy as a friend and defender of Albanians. Hillary receives 63% of her campaign donations from individuals who donate $2300 or more and 37% from those who donate the maximum $4,600; in short, she is a "big money" candidate. Hillary Clinton is a socially liberal and aggressively interventionist.

Big money in politics - sign of excess? March 26, 2008

Klaman agreed.

"That is what should frighten Americans -- when these guys get elected are they looking primarily out for the good of the people or are there debts that they need to pay back," he said.

Former FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Calls Current 9/11 Investigation Inadequate by Jim Hogue, May 07, 2004

JH: Here's a question that you might be able to answer: What is al-Qaeda?

SE: This is a very interesting and complex question. When you think of al-Qaeda, you are not thinking of al-Qaeda in terms of one particular country, or one particular organization. You are looking at this massive movement that stretches to tens and tens of countries. And it involves a lot of sub-organizations and sub-sub-organizations and branches and it's extremely complicated. So to just narrow it down and say al-Qaeda and the Saudis, or to say it's what they had at the camp in Afghanistan, is extremely misleading. And we don't hear the extent of the penetration that this organization and the sub-organizations have throughout the world, throughout their networks and throughout their various activities. It's extremely sophisticated. And then you involve a significant amount of money into this equation. Then things start getting a lot of overlap -- money laundering, and drugs and terrorist activities and their support networks converging in several points. That's what I'm trying to convey without being too specific. And this money travels. And you start trying to go to the root of it and it's getting into somebody's political campaign, and somebody's lobbying. And people don't want to be traced back to this money.

"Debts That They Need to Pay Back"

I begin with the first part of an article that appeared in Congressional Quarterly in January, 2007, entitled National Security Whistle Blowers: The 'Undead'? by Jeff Stein, CQ National Security Editor

You'd think a guy who helped bring down a corrupt congressman would get the thanks of a grateful government.

But you, of course, would be wrong.

Like so many other disillusioned ex-CIA, FBI and other erstwhile spooks, Haig Melkessetian's career was derailed for telling the truth.

Today, he's another casualty of Iraq, one of the growing number of national security "undead" in Washington's intelligence demimonde, "entities that are deceased yet behave as if alive," according to Wikipedia's take on the horror flick creatures -- "animated corpses," bureaucratically speaking.

Melkessetian, a former security aide and Arabic translator to Jerry Bremer, the first American proconsul in Iraq, now works in a far lesser job for a U.S. government contractor in the Virginia suburbs.

His first sin: Telling Pentagon officials how screwed up things were in Iraq.

A Beirut-raised former Special Forces operative, Melkessetian told Pentagon officials early in the war that the contractor he worked for had sent unqualified personnel to Baghdad. It was typical of the war's mismanagement, he said.

Half the linguists he worked with did not speak fluent Arabic, he reported. One was a Russian linguist who spoke no Arabic at all.

That contractor he was working for was the now-notorious MZM, whose president, Mitchell Wade, had an unusually close relationship with then-Rep. Randall "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., a member of the House Intelligence Committee, and other high-level politicians with national security connections.

When Wade tried to involve Melkessetian in an MZM scheme to put together a congressional delegation to Saudi Arabia, led by Cunningham, to brush up the kingdom's post-9/11 image, the former soldier balked: There were too many Saudi connections to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Eventually, of course, Cunningham went to jail for steering contracts to MZM in exchange for $2.4 million.

Wade, too, will almost certainly go to jail, after he finishes telling federal investigators about every palm he greased on Capitol Hill, the Pentagon, and perhaps the CIA, as part of his plea agreement.

Meanwhile, a federal prosecutor in San Diego has given the House Appropriations, Armed Services and Intelligence committees a Jan. 31 deadline for turning over records related to Cunningham and contractor earmarks.

Sibel Edmonds

Melkessetian's story is all too typical.

Take John M. Cole, a veteran FBI counterintelligence agent whose 18-year career took a nosedive when he came to the rescue of Sibel Edmonds.

Edmonds is the former FBI language specialist who surfaced in June 2002 with a strange tale of how she had been fired by the Bureau after telling supervisors that a foreign intelligence ring had penetrated the translators' unit where she worked, among other sensitive issues.

Now why would they do that?

You can't find out much, because then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft invoked a "state secrets privilege" to stop her suit against the FBI for wrongful dismissal.

A gag order prevents her from adding details to another of her sensational charges, that government eavesdroppers had intercepted the Sept. 11 hijackers plans.

Edmonds, born in Iran of Turkish origins, also claims she discovered unsavory links between U.S. defense and intelligence officials, weapons makers, Israel, and Ankara.

"I wanted to meet her because I wanted to help her," says Cole, who resigned from the FBI after years of writing unanswered reports about lax security and mismanagement of the translations unit, which handles electronic intercepts of foreign spies, among other materials.

"I thought that I could be of some assistance to her," Cole says in "Kill the Messenger," a new documentary film about her case, "because I knew she was doing the right thing. I knew because she was right."

Cole tells how he had "talked to people who had read her file, who had read the investigative report, and they were telling me a totally different story" than FBI officials, who had only perfunctorily investigated her allegations.

"They were telling me that Sibel Edmonds was a 100 percent accurate, that management knew that she was correct."

But they buried it.

In 2004, after months of harassment by superiors for his defense of Edmonds, Cole resigned.

A year later, the Justice Department's Inspector General concluded: "the evidence clearly corroborated Edmonds' allegations."

To put this into context, let's review excerpts of an article that appeared on Yahoo News today entitled Big money in politics - sign of excess? by Deborah Charles:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With eight months to go before the U.S. presidential election, the candidates have raised almost $1 billion to fund their campaigns -- more than the size of the economies of several African countries.

The unusually long race for the White House -- which began in earnest more than a year ago -- has been a cash bonanza, especially for Democrats who are breaking all records.

Republicans lag behind but still rake in tens of millions and have time to make up ground in the money game between now and the November 4 national election.

Between January 2007 and February, the candidates raised a record $814 million. By the end of this month, analysts expect the total taken in and spent by the candidates and interest groups will reach $1 billion.

"America's really taking a big step forward in terms of spending on their elections," said Steve Weissman of the Campaign Finance Institute, a research organization affiliated with George Washington University.

Weissman said the three main presidential candidates -- Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and Republican John McCain -- are pulling in a combined total of at least $100 million a month. Figures show the candidates are spending up to 93 percent of what they have raised.

[snip]

"Yes it's a lot of money. But really -- it's less about the overall amount of money than where that money is coming from and who is supplying it," said [Gary] Klaman [of watchdog group U.S. PIRG].

Massie Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics said even with the Internet contributions, only about 4 percent of Americans make a contribution to a federal politician.

"The bulk of the money is coming from a tiny group of largely wealthy Americans who are having a great impact disproportionate to their numbers on something that should be important to everybody," he said.

Klaman agreed.

"That is what should frighten Americans -- when these guys get elected are they looking primarily out for the good of the people or are there debts that they need to pay back," he said.

Except for the last two paragraphs from the above article, which are repeated near the bottom of this post, the following snips were collected in Smuggler's Blues, Part 2:

McCAIN AND THE KLA CONNECTION, 2000



McCAIN AND THE KLA CONNECTION, 2000

The caption accompanying the above photo says McCain was in New York doing some fundraising, and it is fair to ask: how much money did he get from the Albanian lobby? As the great "reform" candidate who denounces the influence of "special interests" and the power of money in politics, McCain had better tell us exactly how much the Albanian lobby has thrown his way – and to what effect. Of all the lobbyists in Washington, it is the "special interests" represented by the agents of foreign powers that pose the greatest threat to the integrity of the Presidency.

McCAIN AND THE KLA CONNECTION, 2000

THE DIOGUARDI-McCAIN CONNECTION

There they are, the two of them, DioGuardi and McCain, side by side: one who would carve an Albanian empire in the midst of the blood-soaked Balkans, and the other who would be President of the United States. It is a disturbing juxtaposition, to say the very least.

The Turkish Lobby, Obstruction of Justice and Henry Waxman, 2008

While we're at it, notice who took a great deal of money from the Turkish lobby for her Presidential bid.

The Candidates on Kosova ... and perhaps beyond, 2008

(D) Senator Hillary Clinton who insisted that her husband initiate the NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 has repeatedly declared that the bombing of Serbia was "a success". She has been the honored guest to of many Albanian fundraisers and is hailed as someone that would continue her husband’s legacy as a friend and defender of Albanians. Hillary receives 63% of her campaign donations from individuals who donate $2300 or more and 37% from those who donate the maximum $4,600; in short, she is a "big money" candidate. Hillary Clinton is a socially liberal and aggressively interventionist.

Repeating the end of Big money in politics - sign of excess?

Klaman agreed.

"That is what should frighten Americans -- when these guys get elected are they looking primarily out for the good of the people or are there debts that they need to pay back," he said.

John McCain armed Kosovo Islamic terrorists, 2008

Race to Hell: Make Sure This Happens

We continue now from Race to Hell: Principle, Not Politics quoting from Exposure: The woman behind the camera at Abu Ghraib:

The next morning, after nearly thirty hours in the shower, the corpse was removed from the tier disguised as a sick prisoner: draped with a blanket, taped to an I.V., and rolled away on a gurney. Hydrue Joyner was reminded of the Hollywood farce "Weekend at Bernie's," in which two corporate climbers treat their murdered boss as a puppet, pretending he's alive to avoid suspicion in his death. "I was thinking to myself, Un-freaking-believable. But this came from on high," Joyner said of the charade with the I.V. "I took it as they didn't want any of the prisoners thinking we were in there killing folks." Joyner referred to the dead man as Bernie, but Army investigators soon identified him as a suspected insurgent named Manadel al-Jamadi. He was alleged to have provided explosives for the bombing that blew up the Red Cross headquarters in Baghdad a week before his arrest, and he had died while under interrogation by a C.I.A. agent. Within the week that followed, an autopsy concluded that Jamadi had succumbed to "blunt force injuries" and "compromised respiration"; and his death was classified as a homicide.

Jamadi's C.I.A. interrogator has never been charged with a crime. But Sabrina Harman was. As a result of the pictures she took and appeared in at Abu Ghraib, she was convicted by court-martial, in May of 2005, of conspiracy to maltreat prisoners, dereliction of duty, and maltreatment, and sentenced to six months in prison, a reduction in rank, and a bad-conduct discharge. Megan Ambuhl, Javal Davis, Chip Frederick, Charles Graner, and Jeremy Sivits were among the handful of other soldiers who, on account of the photographs, were also sentenced to punishments ranging from a reduction in rank and a loss of pay to ten years in prison. The only person ranked above staff sergeant to face a court-martial was cleared of criminal wrongdoing. No one has ever been charged for abuses at the prison that were not photographed. Originally, Harman's charges included several counts pertaining to her pictures of Jamadi, but these were never brought to trial. The pictures constituted the first public evidence that the man had been killed during an interrogation at Abu Ghraib, and Harman said, "They tried to charge me with destruction of government property, which I don't understand. And then maltreatment for taking the photos of a dead guy. But he's dead. I don't know how that's maltreatment. And then altering evidence for removing the bandage from his eye to take a photo of it and then I placed it back. When he died, they cleaned him all up and then stuck the bandages on. So it's not really altering evidence. They had already done that for me. But in order to make the charges stick they were going to have to bring in the photos, which they didn't want, because obviously they covered up a murder and that would just make them look bad. So they dropped all the charges pertaining to the guy in the shower."

The picture that gets painted here is one of soldiers who were basically good kids but who showed some bad judgment in following the orders of their superiors -- and they got punished for that.

It should be noted, though, that these were not all clear-cut orders they were following; the real criminals worked behind the scenes, manipulating, causing the troops to believe that certain things had to happen, but themselves carefully remaining in the shadows. These MP's were taken shameless advantage of.

But, of course, that has been the m.o. of the Bush Administration all along, hasn't it?

From Col. Janis Karpinski, the Former Head of Abu Ghraib, Admits She Broke the Geneva Conventions But Says the Blame "Goes All the Way to The Top", October 26, 2005:

COL. JANIS KARPINSKI: Well, there were only -- interrogation operations were only taking place -- at prisons under my control, interrogations were only being conducted at Abu Ghraib, and they were only being conducted in interrogation facilities built specifically for interrogations at Abu Ghraib. There was what they called "Interrogation Facility Wood" and "Interrogation Facility Steel." The pictures, although they were -- when they were released, it was widely reported that this was during interrogation operations. In fact, it was not during interrogation operations. These pictures were being staged and set up at the direction of contract interrogators, civilian contract interrogators, for the use in future interrogations.

AMY GOODMAN: Contract interrogators. What companies?

COL. JANIS KARPINSKI: There are several. Several of the contractors that were in some of the pictures were with Titan Corporation. There has been sworn statements saying they came from "OGA," other government agencies, and CACI. I can only say that some of the --

AMY GOODMAN: CACI?

COL. JANIS KARPINSKI: That's right, and I can only say that the ones that I saw in the photographs were identified as being from Titan Corporation. Now, they were -- my experience with Titan Corporation was that they were providing translators, and again, in some of the information that's been released in the ACLU documents, we know that some of the translators were given the opportunity to become interrogators without any training whatsoever in interrogation operations.

Farming out this military job to untrained "contractors" meant a government contract -- and thus money -- for someone, didn't it?

COL. JANIS KARPINSKI: [snip] The sergeant that I spoke to said that their records had been seized by the investigators, and they started a new log to account for prisoners, make sure that their meals were on time, those kind of things, and he pointed out a memo that was posted on a column just outside of their small administrative office. And the memorandum was signed by the Secretary of Defense, and --

AMY GOODMAN: By Donald Rumsfeld.

COL. JANIS KARPINSKI: By Donald Rumsfeld. And said -- it discussed interrogation techniques that were authorized. It was one page. It talked about stress positions, noise and light discipline, the use of music, disrupting sleep patterns, those kind of techniques. But there was a handwritten note out to the side. And this was a copy. It was a photocopy of the original, I would imagine. But it was unusual that an interrogation memorandum would be posted inside of a detention cell block, because interrogations were not conducted in the cell block.

AMY GOODMAN: This was the command of Donald Rumsfeld himself?

COL. JANIS KARPINSKI: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: Talking about the techniques?

COL. JANIS KARPINSKI: The techniques that were allowed. And there was a note -- handwritten note out to the side of where the list of tactics, interrogation tactics were. It said, "Make sure this happens." And it seemed to be in the same handwriting as the signature. That's what I could say about the memorandum.

But so far, the only people who have been held accountable are a few low-ranking personnel and some designated scapegoats. Nothing has happened to those in Washington, whose orders were to "make sure this happens."