Day of reckoning as secretive billionaires face the spotlight

Day of reckoning as secretive billionaires face the

spotlight

• Hedge fund chiefs appear before US Congress today
• ‘Hellish’ industry comes under fire from all sides

Andrew Clark

Financier George Soros

George Soros, who made more than £1bn betting against sterling on Black Wednesday, has long predicted a crisis in capitalism. Photograph: Kieran Doherty/Reuters

Like urban foxes, they dislike the glare of lights and avoid the human gaze. But the stealthiest, wealthiest billionaires in America’s hedge fund industry will reluctantly show their faces today to deny that they have wrecked the global economy.

At a hearing of Congress’s house oversight committee called by the pugnacious Democrat Henry Waxman, five top hedgies with a combined wealth of $29bn (£19bn) will be called to account on the activities of their secretive, high-risk, barely regulated industry.

John Paulson, George Soros, Jim Simons, Ken Griffin and Philip Falcone are the cream of a crop of financiers who, to their enemies, are the robber barons of the modern economic order.

The world’s richest man, Warren Buffett, has dubbed their fees “grotesque”. Italy’s finance minister has called for the funds to be banned, branding them a “hellish” industry of “absolutely crazy bodies”. Germany’s former deputy chancellor once compared them to swarms of locusts.

For a decade, hedge funds have seemed to be a licence to print money with returns comfortably beating the stockmarket. Some 10,000 funds globally manage more than $2tn. But for many players in the industry, the gravy train has come to an abrupt halt.

According to Chicago-based Hedge Fund Research, more than 350 hedge funds have liquidated this year. The average fund has lost 15% its value with five successive months of decline and some believe that as the shake-out accelerates, the industry could shrink by a half. So what has gone wrong?

Roger Ibbotson, a Yale University finance professor who chairs a US fund, Zebra Capital Management, says firms have been hit by a double whammy of a financing squeeze and dismal returns.

Traditionally, hedge funds have borrowed heavily on the back of their clients’ money to increase their leverage and to give them more chips to gamble. But banks, wounded by the credit crunch, have become more risk averse and with the failure of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, two leading servicers to the industry have disappeared.

“Hedge funds have had to de-leverage and they’ve all had to do it at the same time,” says Ibbotson. “That has been catastrophic for a lot of firms.”

Hedge funds hurriedly exiting positions have been blamed for aggravating extreme stockmarket volatility. Meanwhile, many have been exposed as simply lacking the cunning to compete in a fast-moving, crisis-stricken economy.

John Godden, managing partner at London-based hedge funds consultancy IGS, says the industry has expanded too far and too fast, at the cost of quality.

“Barriers to entry have been too low,” he says. “People have been able to start funds with a minimum amount of capital, they’ve been able to get set up with service providers and they’ve been able to do so with a sub-par skill level.”

Among those suffering the most are “long-short” funds that buy some shares and bet on drops in others. Godden says many such funds have been found to be lacking.

“As a total strategy, equity long-short has failed miserably this year because, frankly, many of them weren’t equity long-short – they were equity long,” says Godden. “They’ve ridden the market wave over the past few years and they didn’t have the skill set to do what they’re supposed to in a downturn.”

Just this week, a $10bn Connecticut-based former high flyer, Tontine Capital, shut two of its four funds after slumps of more than 65%. A number of funds have frozen investor withdrawals, including Platinum Grove Asset Management, run by the Nobel Prize winner Myron Scholes. Even Ken Griffin’s massive Chicago-based Citadel Group is suffering, with falls of 35% in two of its key funds.

Longstanding critics of the industry claim vindication. Peter Morici, professor of business at the University of Maryland, says hedge funds originated in a lucrative niche that has simply become too crowded.

“There were some very smart guys who would find seams in the market – inconsistencies in pricing on different markets,” says Morici. “But if a lot of people do it, they end up competing against each other for very small opportunities. The concept of a hedge fund was simply not scale-able.”

To opponents, the vast growth of the hedge fund industry has contributed to a culture of risk and aggression that has infected traditionally staid banks in the Square Mile and on Wall Street, with catastrophic consequences as the credit markets unwind.

“They were, in part, responsible for creating this culture,” says Morici, who predicts that hedge funds will recede to cater for their original client base of sophisticated, wealthy investors before boom times arrived at the beginning of the decade.

But insiders beg to differ. The crisis, they believe, presents a long-term opportunity. As the likes of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley retreat to become commercial banks, hedge funds will fill the “risk-taking” space on Wall Street. Hedge funds themselves, say advocates, are victims, rather than villains, in the present crisis.

“Hedge funds are the product of a world that demands higher returns,” says Adam Sussman, director of research at the US financial consultancy Tabb Group. “It’s human nature to fulfil that demand.”

At today’s hearing, congressional figures are likely to quiz hedge fund bosses about the likely impact of greater regulation. One possibility is that firms could be required to disclose information about their holdings. There could also be longer-term restrictions on short-selling shares – a phenomenon blamed by some for destabilising troubled banks.

Sussman expects the fee structure of hedge funds to take a knock as clients prove harder to come by, with earnings to becoming far more modest in years to come. But he doubts that government oversight will kill off the industry. “There will always be hedge funds – but they might not be called hedge funds. They’ll come up with a new entity that will allow them to make more money.”

Israeli army officials: “War with Gaza will could talk place in the coming two months”

Israeli army officials: “War with Gaza will could talk place in the coming two months”

Saed Bannoura – IMEMC

israeli_tanks_at_the_gaza_strip_borders__file_2007.jpg


author Wednesday November 12, 2008 21:20author by Saed Bannoura – IMEMC & Agencies Report this post to the editors
November 11, 2008

Senior Israeli military officials stated on Wednesday that they believe that the Gaza Strip will witness a new war in the coming two months. The officials said that this war could happen although Hamas, in control of Gaza, is not interested at all in ending the truce.

The officials stated that the Palestinians consider December 19 as the last day of truce as the six-month truce deal was achieved through indirect talks mediated by Egypt between Israel and Hamas nearly six months ago, also the term of President Mahmoud Abbas in office officially ends on January 9 of 2009.

Hamas officially stated that on January 9, Abbas will officially become an “illegitimate president”.

Israeli military sources stated that even if Hamas is not interested in a new confrontation with Israel, “there are other factions in Gaza, such as the Islamic Jihad and other group close to Al Qaida, that will be interested in a new confrontation”, according to the Israeli sources.

Based on this belief, the Israeli military officials are convinced that Israel should be prepared for any possible war with Gaza.

Meanwhile, Israeli Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, said that Hamas leaders should understand that any strike against Israel will result “in dozens of painful strikes against Gaza”.

The Israeli army already prepared a plan for a possible attack against Gaza, the plan was prepared several months ago and includes several scenarios.

One of the scenarios put forth is a full invasion to the Gaza Strip and imposing full Israeli military control over it. This plan would also be accompanied by a series of assassinations that would target military and “extreme” political leaders of Hamas. The pan would also include reimposing the Israeli military control over the “Philadelphia Route” along the Gaza Egypt borders.

Yet, Barak said that Israel is interested in the continuation of the truce and rejected demands from the Israeli right wing to reoccupy Gaza in order to free the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

He also said that military officials will have a free hand to decide any military measures they deems essential.

Israeli political analysts said that any successful military offensive against the Gaza Strip will help Barak in the upcoming Israeli elections, as Barak and his Labor party are losing public support.

The analysts also said that the Israeli public would forget all of the “medals of courage decorating Barak’s chest” and will chose Benjamin Netanyahu.

They added that Barak wants to remind the Israelis that he “is number one among Israeli political and military leaders in the country”.

PATRIOTS, YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU!

PATRIOTS, YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU!

Patriots, get us out of this Zionist nest! We were warned by our wise forefathers of the danger of becoming beholden to a partner in our government. President Washington showed us the light but our government blew it out and now are paying a dear price, in blood and treasure, to keep our beloved America from being sucked down the proverbial Zionist drain of no return.

America is not at a crossroad. We are way beyond that and have been for 41+ years. The Six Day War in June of 1967 was the path to our prosperity and the joy of real freedom but our bought and paid for government, from LBJ to the congress and courts took the road of a snake’s forked tongue and the snake has all but devoured all that this great land is endeared for, such as our dignity, fairness, love of family, friends, love of country and our planet, and, most of all, God. We have given until we can’t give anymore. The greedy Jewish Zionist bankers have bankrupt this country from Wall Street to your street, to your house, to your farm, your land, your car, your boat, and your life.

We cannot and must not fight anymore wars for Israel. If they want to fight Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, or anywhere else, let them fight their own fights. Let them pay with their own lives, their own treasures, not with America’s sons and daughters, not one more day! Enough is enough! Israel, you are on your own. No more aid for you, period! No more aid for any other country. America, we must cut the head off of the snake that is devouring us or we Will never see this country the same ever again. It’s up to you, patriots, to raise your voices and your pen and demand freedom from the Israeli leaches before America’s blood is sucked dry.

If Israel would have been slapped down and punished, fiercely, for the murders of American sons on the high seas on June 8, 1967 aboard the USS LIBERTY, this country would not be in the shape it is in today. The saddest part of all is this country is under the Zionists’ thumb now more than ever before in history. Wake up, American patriots!! You are the only ones that can save us. Put country before self for the sake of our children and their children, for God’s sake!!

Patriots, I beg you as a combat wounded patriot. I have seen the Zionist sword slay my fellow Americans like cattle. We can’t allow anymore of our blood and treasure to be stolen by the Zionist State of Israel with the rubber stamped approval of this corrupt Zionist run government called the good ole USA.

The elections we all just went through changes nothing. Our new president chose as his chief of staff Roam Israel Emanuel, an Israeli IDF officer, an Israeli firster, no doubt. God save our nation!

Phillip F. Tourney

USS LIBERTY survivor

Three time president of the USS LIBERTY Veterans Association

Co-host of THE LIBERTY HOUR, Saturdays @ 11:00 eastern time, republicbroadcasting.org

Was the global financial crisis a media failure as well?

Was the global financial crisis a media failure as well?

“Another criticism leveled at business reporters is that they are too close to Wall Street and the City of London, and have too much respect for the institutions they are supposed to be examining…“businessmen are seen as heroes” and it’s all part of the “cult of masters of the universe;” he cites the endless sycophantic articles about Bill Gates of Microsoft and Richard Branson of Virgin. He argues that there is a kind of “cultural embedding – as financial journalists cover business, they become part of the scene, they identify with the players, go to the parties, they are increasingly in a world of fewer and fewer people that is cut off from the mainstream of American life.” He believes that many financial journalists want to be like these “Masters of the Universe” that they write about every day.”

The media stands accused of failing to foresee the global financial crisis, of a lack of understanding of the issues, and even of having a hand in the problems we now face. The Editors Weblog discussed the issue with Danny Schechter, a respected investigative journalist and the author of “Plunder,” a searing indictment of the modern banking system, the role of government in finance, and the greed-is-good mentality.

Schechter believes that there were two key areas where the media failed. He says that there was little or no examination into the new breed of exotic financial products that caused many of the problems, such as CDOs, and that the media ignored the warnings from community housing organizations of the predatory lending practices in some of America’s poorest communities. “This was a big media failure, we were not warned about it” says Schechter. If Schechter’s assertion is correct, why did the media fail to fulfil its role? Newspapers, and the media in general, are supposed to be the fourth estate, a watchdog for citizens. Is it a lack of knowledge on the workings of high finance or has the media lost its way and become part of the problem?

Schechter believes that the media failed in its role because of vested interests. He points out that one of the key sources of revenue for newspapers is real estate advertising in weekend supplements and classifieds, as well as advertisements for credit card and refinancing companies. As a result, he argues there is a connection between the real estate and newspaper industry; their future and success are intertwined. Schechter says, “The newspaper industry is the marketing arm of the real estate industry. In some cities you actually had newspapers getting a piece of the action of sales through the ads that they generated. So they were actually part of the corruption of this whole relationship. So of course there was little real scrutiny about what was actually happening in the neighborhoods where houses were flipping, where people who couldn’t afford to buy houses were buying them with bogus mortgages. Newspapers were making money on the sales of these homes.”

Schechter argues that after the dot.com bubble burst back in 2000, all the advertisements from these new emerging businesses stopped, so the $3 billion in lost advertising revenue for the media industry had to be found somewhere. Schechter puts forth that credit card companies and refinancing firms stepped into the gap. He points out that the majority of people do not automatically spend money that they don’t have, but it was marketed to them through the media in advertising and life-style supplements. Most of the money that the media makes in advertising is in the last quarter in the run up to Christmas, newspapers run articles on the best presents to buy, and so forth, all of it driving a concept of “buy and shop” which “stimulates consumption.” Schechter says, “for me, on the consumer front newspapers are a marketing instrument and on the investment front it’s a confidence building instrument. The media was part of this whole sales machine, and it happened at the same time that newspapers were cutting back on investigative reporting, and ironically expanding business news targeted at the business world; not at the general public, not on the economy and how it affects you and me.”

Another criticism leveled at business reporters is that they are too close to Wall Street and the City of London, and have too much respect for the institutions they are supposed to be examining. John Friedman of MarketWatch was at the press conference announcing Bank of America’s acquisition of Merrill Lynch and wrote, “the media were so polite and deferential to the two CEOs; they behaved as if the press conference were a victory lap for the financial services industry.” Schechter believes that “businessmen are seen as heroes” and it’s all part of the “cult of masters of the universe;” he cites the endless sycophantic articles about Bill Gates of Microsoft and Richard Branson of Virgin. He argues that there is a kind of “cultural embedding – as financial journalists cover business, they become part of the scene, they identify with the players, go to the parties, they are increasingly in a world of fewer and fewer people that is cut off from the mainstream of American life.” He believes that many financial journalists want to be like these “Masters of the Universe” that they write about every day.

Schechter also says that there is no real pressure at the top of media organizations to thoroughly investigate these companies. Thee reason being that they would be investigating their advertisers. As a result, there is no impetus behind financial reporting, no push for the truth and the heart of the story, not enough cynicism.

Furthermore, with the advent of multi-platform publishing and shrinking newsrooms, a journalist is frequently a “fireman, going from one fire to the next. When you are doing that, there is very little time for reflective analytical reporting.”

During an interview recently on the Editors Weblog, Financial Times managing editor Daniel Bogler said, “It’s unfortunate that the financial literacy and understanding of how things work in the City and of basic accounting and so on, is actually very thin in financial journalism.” Schechter agrees, saying, “You have people who are not really very well educated covering these issues. Hence they go to a briefing and a company gives them a story, and they don’t really have a counter-narrative.”

Schechter’s assessment is not unilateral. He points out that many newspapers and bloggers are asking the right questions and searching for the truth in this financial crisis. He cites the UK’s Telegraph and Guardian newspapers, saying they “have been way ahead.”

Looking back, Schechter sees “a financial system failure, a regulatory failure and a media failure. Everyone is willing to talk about the first two, but they are not willing to discuss the last one. We are all in this. It’s a media failure of omission and commission.”

This interview was first published by the Editors Weblog.

Friends of Lebanon Speak to Barack Obama

Friends of Lebanon Speak to Barack Obama

By Joint Communique

Nov 12, 2008, 07:58

Email this article Printer friendly page

An open letter to Mr Barack Obama, US President-elect from Friends of Lebanon

Dear Mr Obama:

Tell me we haven’t been bamboozled.  We need the change you promise, but something just doesn’t seem right.  After eight years under a Bush administration that engendered misery at home and around the world, the United States had found itself distrusted, scorned and despised.  And so it seems—correct me if I’m wrong here, please—the US did what the US does best: sell.

Public relations.  Imagine with me, if you will, a room of men, probably old white men, with a problem.  How do we, they ask themselves, hold onto our place as the world superpower, yet at the same time get rid of the all the bad PR, those annoying threats and censures?  How do we, they ask themselves, appease the voices that dare to suggest we’ve gone too far? Without, of course, conceding anything.  Epiphany! Change our image, not our style. Ah, the art of American business.  Substance is irrelevant, just package it and sell it.  They grabbed onto the marketing ploy that has sold many a dubious product: “New and improved.”

Change?  Those old white men found the packaging solution. How about the biggest change in American history, colour in the white house?  Appearance is all that matters.  It would have pushed their luck to choose an African American whose ancestors had struggled to rise from having been degraded as slaves.  Such a man may have been too empathetic to the oppressed of the world.  No, your past and your appearance was enough; their front man need only carry the pretence of change.

Mr Obama, look in the mirror.  You don’t look like them, those old white men.  Marketing ploy extraordinaire: product aside, a different image is new and exciting.  “Change,” you advised the world, to an America “where all things are possible.” And we the consumers dared to hope.  Maybe he really is, we dreamed, new and improved.

The marketers knew the American voters were hungry for talk.  Just look at the phenomenal success of YouTube, internet blogging, endless streams of reader-comments, editorial columns, talk shows of every variety.  Voters were frustrated—fighting for oil, fighting to make a living—and frustration is vented in talk. With your charming smile you promised dialogue, diplomacy without preconditions; you said “we are nice, you see, we like to talk too.”

While the magicians distracted us with your youthful dark appearance, however, while we focused on our newfound open-mindedness, you selected Joe Biden as your vice-presidential candidate. Were you off your game?  Or just hoping we wouldn’t dare burst our bubble of self-righteousness by pointing out that this old white man gleefully announced he was a Zionist?

US domestic welfare has been irrevocably intertwined with its foreign policy in the Middle East.  And the Middle East is hurting.  Now you are an intelligent man, Mr Obama.  Did you not think that bringing an unabashed Zionist with you to the White House might tend to dump salt into the wound?  Your statement on foreign policy is clearly dominated by Middle Eastern issues.  You promise change. You promise dialogue and diplomacy without preconditions to resolve these issues.  Yet a truly significant portion of your statement is spent on swearing in the most absolute terms your unmitigated, incontrovertible and permanent allegiance to Israeli interests.  And then Biden.  Talk about preconditions.

In fact, your preconditions are so prevalent that the concept of dialogue is ludicrous.  You state that “Not talking doesn’t make us look tough – it makes us look arrogant, it denies us opportunities to make progress.” How true. Just what the consumer needed to soothe his conscience.  We are not bullies, you assured us, as you offered “direct diplomacy without preconditions to end the threat from Iran.”  But wait a minute, Mr Obama, does that statement not presume that there is a threat from Iran? Once upon a time US intelligence documented that there was no threat, a point which has been obfuscated by a smoke cloud of politically-motivated accusation.

Perhaps it is time to hire a new team of writers, Mr Obama, because they failed to notice the contradiction between the phrase “direct diplomacy without preconditions” and the undeniable precondition which immediately follows that phrase in flashing lights: “Obama and Biden will present the Iranian regime with a clear choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, they would offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization. If Iran continues its troubling behaviour, Obama and Biden will step up our economic pressure and political isolation.”  Do what we say or else.  And we won’t just threaten through the media, we will tell you to your face.  Some dialogue.

It troubles me that you view the July 2006 War (which left 43 Israeli civilians dead and at least 1200 Lebanese civilians dead) as an Israeli exercise in self-defence. It troubles me that you categorically deny Lebanon the same right to self-defence.  Is “self-defence” an objective concept or is it a US/Israeli prerogative?  It troubles me that you vocally champion “adherence to the rule of law” on the one hand, and then look the other way as Israel violates humanitarian and international laws time and again.

Am I being an idealist in mentioning such grandiose notions as humanitarian and international law?  I think not.  You speak often of ideals.  You even acknowledge their violation parenthetically in your “Plan to Actively Engage China.” You note that China has “failed to live up to international standards of human rights,” (a phrase many would say is a gross euphemism at best) and then you kindly chastise China: “the United States has to be frank with the Chinese about such failings and will press them to respect human rights.”  You graciously offer not to “demonize China” because you “understand both the magnitude of the challenges facing a developing China and the importance of a constructive relationship to foster continued peace and prosperity.”

Compare this if you will, to the bold assertions in your “Israel Fact Sheet” (not a speech, a statement or a plan here, but an incontestable fact sheet).  Well, you know what it says, don’t you, Mr Obama.  Israel is always right.   Lebanon, Palestine and any other country that dares support Arabs’ being of equal worth to Jews, they are always inherently wrong.  You do not hesitate to demonise the Arabs/Iranians as violent extremists and terrorists.  “Those who threaten Israel threaten us,” you say.  Does that not recall your predecessor’s warning that “you’re either with us or against us”?

This brand of so-called diplomacy is neither new nor improved.  Any vague sense of hope for change we may have still clung to—those of us who value open-minded dialogue that demands listening as well as speaking—well, that hope that you so carefully crafted during the campaign was resolutely squashed after the election when you nominated as your Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Would you expect anyone to believe that he is not the epitome of bias, a veritable Mr Preconditions?

Bamboozled indeed.  It seems to me that this little game of con the consumer has seduced those who are hungry for power.  For it is this dogged insistence on double standards that has these past eight years fed the distrust and scorn and despising of the US.  And it is the chauvinism of adhering not to the rule of law, but to the rule of men.  And it is the hypocrisy of professing to defend democracy by killing the spirit if not the body of anyone who dares to voice a different opinion.

Mr Obama, it has been a mere week since you were elected, and already you have destroyed any semblance of hope held for peace in the Middle East.  Over sixty years of US subservience to the Zionist dream has not brought peace to anyone, not even to the Israelis. It certainly is time for a change.  You can continue to seek profit from the illusion of power, or you can seek pride from the reality of respect.   It is indeed time, as you say, to promote the cause of peace.  But as you cautioned us to reaffirm the fundamental truth of perpetual hope, you failed to mention the need to reaffirm the ultimate fundamental truth: that all the world’s people are simply that, just people, none better than any other.  If you are serious about dialogue, then everyone deserves the same seat at the table.  Then we can talk.

PRO-ISRAEL PAC CONTRIBUTIONS TO 2008 CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES

PRO-ISRAEL PAC CONTRIBUTIONS TO 2008 CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES

PRO-ISRAEL PAC CONTRIBUTIONS TO 2008 CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES

KEY: The “Career Total” column represents the total amount of pro-Israel PAC money received from Jan. 1, 1978 through July 31, 2008. S=Senate, H=House of Representatives.

Party affiliation: D=Democrat, R=Republican, Ref=Reform, DFL=Democratic Farmers Labor, Ind=Independent, Lib=Libertarian. Status: C=Challenger,

I=Incumbent, N=Not Running, O=Open Seat (no incumbent). *=Senate election year, #=House member running for Senate seat, †=Special Election. Committees:

A=Appropriations (D=Defense subcommittee, FO=Foreign Operations subcommittee, HS=Homeland Security, NS=National Security subcommittee), AS=Armed

Services, B=Budget, C=Commerce, FR=Foreign Relations (NE=Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs subcommittee), HS=Homeland Security, I=Intelligence, IR=International

Relations, NS=National Security, W=Ways and Means. “–” indicates money returned by candidate, “0” that all money received was returned, “[]” = independent

expenditures on behalf of candidate (not included in candidate totals).

2007-08

State Office District Candidate Party Status Contributions Career Total Committees

Alabama S Sessions, Jeff* R I 27,500 224,325 AS, B

H 3 Rogers, Michael R I 3,075 13,325 AS, HS

H 4 Aderholt, Robert R I 1,000 15,500 A(HS)

H 6 Bachus, Spencer R I 2,000 14,500

H 7 Davis, Artur D I 1,000 81,067 W

Alaska S Murkowski, Lisa R I 1,000 53,600 FO

S Stevens, Theodore (Ted)* R I 25,000 100,200 A(D, HS), C, HS

H At-L Berkowitz, Ethan D C 4,000 4,000

Arizona H 5 Mitchell, Harry D I 1,000 4,000

H 8 Giffords, Gabrielle D I 21,000 28,224 AS, FO

Arkansas S Pryor, Mark* D I 53,500 63,000 AS, C, HS

California H 8 Pelosi, Nancy D I 18,000 102,800 House Speaker

H 10 Tauscher, Ellen D I 10,000 22,000 AS

H 11 McNerney, Jerry D I 9,000 11,000

H 12 Lantos, Tom D N 2,000 123,250

H 12 Speier, Jackie D I 3,000 3,000

H 20 Costa, Jim D I 1,500 13,500 FO(NE)

H 24 Gallegly, Elton R I 2,000 48,250 I, FO

H 26 Dreier, David R I 3,500 11,250

H 27 Sherman, Brad D I 5,500 59,430 FO(NE)

H 28 Berman, Howard D I 5,000 72,050 FO(NE)

H 29 Schiff, Adam D I 8,000 56,917 A(FO), I

H 30 Waxman, Henry D I 1,000 37,832 C

H 31 Becerra, Xavier D I 1,000 2,000 B, W

H 36 Harman, Jane D I 6,500 103,771 C, HS

H 37 Millender-McDonald, Juanita D N 500 1,500

H 37 Richardson, Laura D I 2,000 2,000

H 39 Sanchez, Linda D I 3,500 18,950 FO

H 43 Baca, Joe D I 1,000 1,000

H 47 Sanchez, Loretta D I 5,500 51,200 AS, HS

H 48 Kelly, John R I 1,000 1,000

H 48 Young, Steven D C 350 350

Colorado S Allard, A. Wayne* R N -5,000 55,500 A, B

S Udall, Mark*# D O 24,000 35,250 AS

S Schaffer, Robert* R O 5,000 5,000

H 3 Salazar, John D I 2,500 26,600

Connecticut S Lieberman, Joseph Ind I 2,500 366,351 AS, HS

H 2 Courtney, Joseph D I 4,500 10,500 AS

H 3 DeLauro, Rosa D I 2,000 47,400 A, B

H 4 Shays, Christopher R I 3,500 38,350 HS

Delaware S Biden, Joseph, Jr.* D I 1,500 106,607 FO

Florida S Klein, Bernard D N 5,000 5,000

S Nelson, Bill D I -5,000 127,221

H 5 Brown-Waite, Virginia R I 2,000 6,300 HS

H 6 Stearns, Clifford R I 1,000 10,500 C

H 9 Bilirakis, Gus Michael R I 2,000 30,816 FO(NE), HS

H 11 Castor, Kathy D I 2,500 6,000 AS

H 12 Putnam, Adam R I 1,000 7,500

H 14 Mack, Connie R I 1,000 4,200 B, FO(NE)

H 16 Mahoney, Tim D I 16,000 18,000

H 17 Meek, Carrie D N 2,500 9,500

H 17 Meek, Kendrick D I 500 16,500 AS, W

H 18 Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana R I 29,750 155,740 FO

H 19 Wexler, Robert D I 15,500 29,250 FO(NE)

H 20 Schultz, Debbie Wasserman D I 16,300 27,800

H 21 Diaz-Balart, Lincoln R I 22,500 41,000

H 22 Klein, Ron D I 25,000 35,224 FO(NE)

H 23 Hastings, Alcee D I 16,500 65,850

H 25 Diaz-Balart, Mario R I 16,500 27,000 B

Georgia S Chambliss, C. Saxby* R I 9,500 37,000 AS, I

H 4 Coyne, John, III D N 2,000 2,000

H 4 Johnson, Henry, Jr. D I 1,000 30,200 AS

H 5 Lewis, John D I 6,000 77,250 W

H 7 Linder, John R I 500 20,650 W

H 8 Marshall, Jim D I 2,500 10,500 AS

H 12 Barrow, John D I 12,250 43,574 C

H 13 Scott, David D I 2,000 7,000 FO(NE)

Idaho S Risch, James* R O 7,000 7,000

Illinois S Durbin, Richard* D I 42,000 372,421 A(D, FO)

H 1 Rush, Bobby D I 400 7,400 C

H 3 Lipinski, Daniel D I 400 4,900

H 5 Emanuel, Rahm D I 21,500 40,500 W

H 6 Roskam, Peter R I 3,000 5,750

H 7 Davis, Danny D I 450 4,250

H 8 Bean, Melissa Luburich D I 12,250 50,529

H 8 Greenberg, Steven R C 5,000 5,000

H 9 Schakowsky, Janice D I 2,250 23,500 C, I

H 10 Kirk, Mark R I 62,000 191,882 A(FO)

H 10 Seals, Daniel D C 2,000 2,000

H 11 Halvorson, Deborah D O 4,500 4,500

H 11 Weller, Gerald R N 500 37,650 W

H 13 Biggert, Judy R I 450 7,227

H 14 Foster, G. William D I 3,000 3,000

H 16 Manzullo, Donald R I 1,000 5,000 FO

H 17 Hare, Philip D I 2,500 8,150

H 19 Shimkus, John R I 500 11,500 C

Indiana H 2 Donnelly, Joseph D I 1,000 5,000

H 3 Souder, Mark R I 2,500 3,500 HS

H 5 Burton, Dan R I 22,000 109,000 FO

H 6 Pence, Mike R I 32,500 57,750 FO(NE)

H 7 Carson, Andre D I 3,100 3,100

H 8 Ellsworth, Brad D I 22,000 73,250 AS

H 9 Hill, Baron D I 7,000 31,965 C

Iowa S Harkin, Thomas* D I 26,000 546,950 A(D, FO)

H 2 Loebsack, David D I 2,000 2,000 AS

H 3 Boswell, Leonard D I 3,500 32,675 I

Kansas S Roberts, Pat* R I 41,000 41,000

H 2 Boyda, Nancy D I 3,000 3,000 AS

Kentucky S McConnell, Mitch* R I 107,956 485,141 A(D, FO)

H 3 Yarmuth, John D I 6,000 6,000

H 4 Davis, Geoffrey R I 1,500 16,000 AS

Louisiana S Landrieu, Mary* D I 50,000 180,389 A(FO, HS), HS

S Vitter, David R I 3,500 39,000 C, FO

H 1 Scalise, Steve R I 5,000 5,000

H 3 Melancon, Charlie, Jr. D I 2,000 29,100 C

H 5 Alexander, Rodney R I 2,500 11,000 A, B

H 6 Cazayoux, DonaldD I 7,000 7,000

H 6 Sawyer, PaulR C 2,500 2,500

H 6 Jenkins, Louis R C 5,000 5,000

H 7 Boustany, Charles, Jr. R I 1,000 9,000

Maine S Collins, Susan* R I 57,500 113,000 AS, HS

H 2 Michaud, Michael D I 2,000 10,250

Maryland S Cardin, Benjamin D I -1,000 92,015 B, FO(NE)

H 1 Harris, Andrew R O 1,000 1,000

H 1 Kratovil, Frank, Jr. D O 2,000 2,000

H 4 Wynn, Albert D N 18,000 28,250 C

H 4 Edwards, Donna D I 1,000 1,000

H 5 Hoyer, Steny D I 58,000 197,275House Majority Leader

H 7 Cummings, Elijah D I 2,000 20,500 AS

Massachusetts S Kennedy, Edward D I 1,000 100,120 AS

S Kerry, John* D I 12,250 23,502 C, FO(NE)

H 5 Tsongas, Nicola D I 4,000 4,000 AS, B

Michigan S Levin, Carl* D I 69,850 728,737 AS, HS

H 1 Stupak, Bart D I 3,000 37,472 C

H 7 Schauer, Mark D C 1,000 1,000

H 8 Rogers, Michael J R I 1,000 3,500 C, I

H 9 Knollenberg, Joseph R I 6,000 30,750 A(FO)

H 11 McCotter, Thaddeus R I 2,000 12,500

H 12 Levin, Sander D I 1,500 123,727 W

Minnesota S Coleman, Norm* R I 105,000 145,980 FO(NE), HS

S Klobuchar, Amy D I -5,000 32,835 C

H 2 Kline, John R I 3,000 15,500 AS

H 6 Bachmann, Michele R I 14,000 17,500

Mississippi S Wicker, Roger R I 24,500 24,500 AS, C

H 1 Childers, Travis D I 4,000 4,000

Missouri S Bond, Christopher R I 1,000 166,700 A(D, FO), I

S McCaskill, Claire D I 5,000 19,335 AS, C, HS

H 4 Skelton, Ike D I 6,000 77,450 AS

Montana S Baucus, Max* D I 25,000 352,648

Nebraska S Johanns, Michael* R O 11,750 11,750

Nevada S Ensign, John R I 1,000 44,200 B, C

H 1 Berkley, Shelley D I 45,350 291,555 W

H 3 Porter, Jon, Sr. R I 5,750 6,750 B, W

New Hampshire S Shaheen, Jeanne* D C 21,500 21,500

S Swett, Katrina* D C 49,000 70,000

S Sununu, John* R I 5,000 5,000 C, HS

H 1 Shea-Porter, Carol D I 2,000 2,000 AS

H 2 Hodes, Paul D I 15,750 18,350

New Jersey S Andrews, Robert*# D C 11,500 59,750 AS, B

S Lautenberg, Frank* D I 73,500 507,578 A(HS), B, C

S Zimmer, Dick* R C 5,000 24,850

S Menendez, Robert D I -1,000 128,318 B, FO

H 1 Andrews, Camille Spinello D N 7,000 7,000

H 2 LoBiondo, Frank R I 5,000 16,250 AS

H 3 Adler, John D O 2,000 2,000

H 3 Saxton, H. James R N 1,000 74,900 AS

H 4 Zeitz, Joshua D C 1,000 1,000

H 5 Shulman, Dennis D C 2,250 2,250

H 6 Pallone, Frank, Jr. D I 2,500 66,050 C

H 7 Ferguson, Mike R N 1,000 11,000 C

H 7 Stender, Linda D O 1,500 5,500

H 9 Rothman, Steven D I 6,000 71,503 A(D, FO)

H 10 Payne, Donald D I 2,500 24,250 FO

H 11 Frelinghuysen, Rodney R I 1,000 11,350 A(D)

H 12 Holt, Rush D I 1,000 14,741 I

New Mexico S Domenici, Pete* R N 1,000 51,600 A(D, HS), B, HS

S Udall, Tom*# D O 21,500 25,500 A

H 2 Pearce, Steve R I 5,000 6,000

New York H 2 Israel, Steve D I 6,459 34,559 A(FO)

H 5 Ackerman, Gary D I 3,500 48,500 FO(NE)

H 6 Meeks, Gregory D I 5,000 5,500 FO

H 7 Crowley, Joseph D I 16,500 92,657 FO, W

H 8 Nadler, Jerrold D I 4,000 25,000

H 9 Weiner, Anthony D I 12,000 34,050 C

H 15 Rangel, Charles D I 7,000 23,500 W

H 17 Engel, Eliot D I 36,500 216,418 C, FO(NE)

H 18 Lowey, Nita D I 23,000 141,738 A(FO, HS), HS

H 19 Hall, John Joseph D I 6,500 6,500

H 20 Gillibrand, Kirsten D I 7,250 11,250 AS

H 20 Treadwell, Sandy R C 2,500 2,500

H 23 McHugh, John R I 6,000 6,000 AS, I

H 24 Arcuri, Michael D I 3,000 9,000

H 26 Reynolds, Thomas R N 1,000 10,000 W

H 26 Davis, John, Jr. D O 2,000 4,000

North Carolina S Dole, Elizabeth* R I 18,000 44,000 AS

H 5 Foxx, Virginia R I 2,000 3,500

H 8 Hayes, Robert (Robin) R I 2,500 3,500 AS

H 10 McHenry, Patrick R I 13,000 38,500 B

H 11 Shuler, Joseph (Heath) D I 4,250 7,250

North Dakota S Conrad, G. Kent D I 3,000 267,539 B

Ohio S Brown, Sherrod D I 0 63,750

H 1 Chabot, Steve R I 1,000 13,500 FO(NE)

H 2 Schmidt, Jeannette R I 5,500 5,500

H 8 Boehner, John R I 37,500 62,000House Minority Leader

H 10 Trakas, James R C 1,000 1,000

H 13 Sutton, Betty D I 1,000 7,000

H 15 Kilroy, Mary Jo D O 1,000 6,000

H 18 Space, Zachary D I 4,000 11,000

Oklahoma S Inhofe, James* R I 34,000 123,800 AS

H 4 Cole, Tom R I 1,000 6,000 AS

Oregon S Smith, Gordon* R I 52,000 120,089 C

H 1 Wu, David D I 3,500 31,927 FO

Pennsylvania S Specter, Arlen R I 13,500 503,473 A(D, FO, HS)

H 3 English, Philip R I 200 1,200 W

H 4 Altmire, Jason D I 6,250 8,250

H 6 Gerlach, Jim R I 3,500 16,200

H 7 Sestak, Joseph, Jr. D I 9,000 18,000 AS

H 8 Murphy, Patrick D I 10,000 14,250 AS, I

H 10 Carney, Christopher D I 3,000 7,000 HS

H 13 Schwartz, Allyson D I 10,500 40,650 B, W

Rhode Island S Reed, Jack* D I 50,500 157,850 A(FO), AS

H 2 Langevin, James D I 4,500 19,000 HS, I

South Carolina S Graham, Lindsey* R I 47,500 65,000 AS, B

H 6 Clyburn, James D I 3,500 8,100

South Dakota S Johnson, Tim* D I 24,400 192,237 A(FO)

South Dakota S Thune, John R I 2,000 14,230 AS, C

Tennessee S Corker, Robert, Jr. R I 5,000 14,000 FO

H 3 Wamp, Zach R I 2,000 6,000 A

H 6 Gordon, Bart D I 2,000 60,900 C

H 9 Cohen, Steve D I 11,250 14,250

Texas S Cornyn, John* R I 45,000 61,480 AS, B

H 17 Edwards, Chet D I 5,500 69,700 A(HS), B

H 18 Lee, Sheila Jackson D I 5,000 8,000 FO(NE), HS

H 22 Lampson, Nicholas D I 4,500 39,006

H 23 Rodriguez, Ciro D I 2,000 6,000 A(HS)

H 28 Cuellar, Henry D I 2,000 4,500 HS

Virginia S Warner, Mark* D O 28,500 28,500

H 7 Cantor, Eric R I 47,500 176,230 W

H 10 Wolf, Frank R I 14,500 72,500 A(FO)

H 11 Davis, Thomas, III R N 1,000 18,000

Washington H 2 Larsen, Rick D I 1,000 18,500 AS

H 6 Dicks, Norman D I 1,000 27,850 AS

H 8 Reichert, Dave R I 5,500 8,000 HS

H 8 Burner, Darcy D C 2,500 9,500

West Virginia S Rockefeller, John D., IV* D I 21,500 234,700 C, I

Wisconsin H 7 Obey, David D I 7,500 159,600 A

H 8 Kagen, Steven D I 9,500 14,500

Wyoming S Barrasso, John R I 1,000 1,000 FO

S Enzi, Michael* R I 14,000 26,250 B

H At-L Trauner, Gary D O 2,000

Presidential P Biden, Joseph, Jr. D 4,100 106,607 FO

Candidates P Brownback, Samuel R 500 103,850 A(FO)

P Clinton, Hillary D 15,000 69,618 AS

P Kerry, John F. D 10,000 28,502 C, FO(NE)

P McCain, John R O 6,000 169,500 AS, C

Total for 2007-08 Election Cycle $ 2,530,590

Total 1978-2008 $46,815,244

Total No. of Recipient Candidates 2,097

Obama the Fraud: “We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al Qaeda.”

Obama the Fraud: “We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al Qaeda.”

Gabriele Zamparini

[Zbigniew Brzezinski (Obama's handler) visiting 'his boy', Osama Bin Laden, in training with the Pakistan Army, 1981.] Obama the Fraud named former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (also known as Bloody Madeleine) as his emissary at the international economic summit in Washington.

In 1996 Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” – US Ambassador at the United Nations (soon to become Secretary of State) Madeleine Albright: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it.” CBS – “60 Minutes,” May 12, 1996.

Obama the Fraud is leaning toward asking Defense Secretary Robert Gates to remain in his position for at least a year, according to two Obama advisers.

The Wall Street Journal understands what it means:

“Like the president-elect, Mr. Gates supports deploying more troops to Afghanistan. But the defense secretary strongly opposes a firm timetable for withdrawing American forces from Iraq, and his appointment could mean that Mr. Obama was effectively shelving his campaign promise to remove most troops from Iraq by mid-2010.”

Obama the Fraud wants to renew the U.S. commitment to finding al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. “We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority,” Obama said during the presidential debate on October 7.

Osama has been probably dead for a long time now, but that’s irrelevant since Obama the Fraud is using the bogeyman to escalate the massive crimes against humanity the US and NATO have been committing in Afghanistan: “It’s time to heed the call . . . for more troops. That’s why I’d send at least two or three additional brigades to Afghanistan . . . The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large and plotting”

Obama the Fraud can count of course on the Western corporate media, Human Rights Watch and the silence-complicity of large sectors of the so-called “antiwar” movement whose “progressive” voices sailed voluntarily with Obama’s Grande Armada.

Gabriele Zamparini is an independent filmmaker and freelance writer living in London. He’s the producer and director of the documentaries “XXI CENTURY” and “The Peace!” DVD and author of “American Voices of Dissent” (Paradigm Publishers). He can be reached at info@thecatsdream.com. More about him and his work on thecatsdream.com

¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤

Source: http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m48726&hd=&size=1&l=e

Please help URUKNET fight against Google’s censorship of it -click HERE.

VARIOUS LINKS:

http://www.deepjournal.com/p/7/a/en/67.html
http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/node/16084
http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-qaeda-is-a-complete-fabrication.html
http://www.how911wasdone.blogspot.com/#flight77

THE PALESTINIAN BEAUTY that cannot be extinguished

Palestine Pre-1947 and After

The old lie that palestine was dry desert waiting for a people is just that–a lie. This clip for all people to see the Beauty of the Palestinian People before they were ethnically cleansed and murdered and made into refugees by the State of Israhell.


Revelation of the Wahhabi Evilness

Official Saudi Attacks Against Subjugated Shia

Yemenites – Revelation of the Wahhabi Evilness

by Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

The Shia Yemenite Najranis have been terribly tyrannized and their persecution and oppression has been carried out by the English colonialism´s best children, the ominous Sunni Wahhabites who are the focus of all sorts of terrorism and evildoing necessary for the eschatological and pseudo-messianic plans of the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge that controls the English and the French political, military and financial establishments.

Recently, the leading NGO Human Rights Watch focused on the issue and published a devastating report that provides with a detailed record of Human Rights violations practiced by the Sunni Wahhabite authorities of Saudi Arabia – the undeservedly and shamelessly venerated ´allies´ in the War against Terrorism”

(full article here)

Now he must declare that the war on terror is over

the most important single thing that Obama should do quickly is to announce the immediate closure of Guantánamo Bay, the corollary has to be a declaration that the war on terror is over. Accept that terrorism is a technique. It is not an ideology. The west faces no global enemy, no worldwide Islamofascist conspiracy.

Now he must declare that the war on terror is over

Obama’s preference for diplomacy can help to forge new, individual relationships with Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan

Jonathan Steele

A day of joy but also another day of horror. Even as American voters were giving the world the man whom opinion polls showed to be the overwhelming favourite in almost every country, his predecessor’s terrible legacy was already crowding in on the president-elect.

Twenty-three children and 10 women died in the latest US air strike in Afghanistan, a failed war on terror that has only brought worse terror in its wake. In Iraq, explosions killed 13 people. Obama’s stand against an unpopular war was the bedrock of his success on Tuesday, even though the financial meltdown sealed his victory. Now he must make good on his promises of withdrawal.

On Iran, the last of the toughest three issues in his foreign in-tray, his line differed sharply from McCain’s. In contrast to the Republican’s call to “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”, Obama offered dialogue. Though he qualified his initial talk of having the president sit down with his Iranian counterpart, he remains wedded to engagement rather than boycott.

In this arc of conflict – Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan – Obama’s approach is preferable to Bush’s or McCain’s. The century-old paradigm of Republicans as the party of realism and the Democrats as the party of ideologues was turned upside down by the neocons. Bush led an administration of crusaders and took the country to disaster. Obama offers a return to traditional diplomacy.

Nevertheless, his position contains massive inconsistencies. While his instincts are cautious and pragmatic, he has not repudiated the war on terror. Rather, he insists that by focusing excessively on Iraq, the Bush administration “took its eye off the ball”. The real target must be Afghanistan and if Osama bin Laden is spotted in Pakistan, bombing must be used there too.

This is a cul-de-sac. If the most important single thing that Obama should do quickly is to announce the immediate closure of Guantánamo Bay, the corollary has to be a declaration that the war on terror is over. Accept that terrorism is a technique. It is not an ideology. The west faces no global enemy, no worldwide Islamofascist conspiracy. Foreign crises should be treated on a case-by-case basis. Their roots lie in the complex interplay of local tensions, social grievances, economic inequalities, unemployment, food and water shortages and cultural prejudice that plagues so many countries. If fundamentalists of this ideology or that religion try to exploit that, they only scratch the surface. Don’t hand them the gift of overreaction.

In Afghanistan that means separating the issue of the Taliban from that of al-Qaida. Nato’s tentative new policy of talking to the Taliban should be expanded, so that foreign troops can be withdrawn from the south. The trend should be to bring troops out, not send more in. Erratic air strikes only enrage the population and foster the Pashtun resistance that is the foundation of the Taliban’s support. Similarly in Pakistan Obama should forge stronger ties to the new government and give it funds to bring development to the North-West Frontier Province. Let Pakistani politicians take the lead in working with tribal authorities.

In Iraq the contradictions in Obama’s policy centre on his plans to keep a “residual force”. His promise to withdraw all combat troops by June 2010 will be welcomed by a majority in Iraq’s parliament, which has been refusing to accept Bush’s draft agreement, partly in the expectation that Obama would offer terms that better respected Iraq’s sovereignty. But what does Obama mean by a residual force? He says it would hunt al-Qaida militants, protect the vast US embassy, and train the Iraqi army. Officials on his team say it could number as many as 50,000 troops. Even if much of this force remains on bases and is barely visible to Iraqi civilians (much as the 4,500 British at Basra airfield are), it cannot avoid symbolising the fact that the occupation continues. Obama should seize the opportunity to withdraw the US from Iraq with dignity. Only a total pull-out can remove the anger over the US occupation felt by most Arabs throughout the Middle East.

Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia will resist this. They will tell Obama that a US retreat hands victory to a resurgent Iran and Shias everywhere. But it is not a US withdrawal that will help Iran. Bush’s war has already done that, since it was bound to empower Iraq’s majority community. The best way to prevent Iran’s strong relationship with the government in Baghdad from becoming a regional threat is for the US to engage with Iran and forge a new relationship.

Of course, that is easier said than done. By coincidence, American voters elected Obama on the anniversary of the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran. American attitudes are still distorted by feelings of anger, humiliation and revenge going back 29 years. Iranian leaders are also wary, assuming reasonably enough that Bush was bent on “regime change” and Obama’s softer policy may contain the same sting.

In his anniversary speech, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, praised the hostage seizure, as usual, as a blow against “global arrogance” – the shorthand now used for the US instead of the “Great Satan”. But Khamenei raised the stakes by insisting the US must apologise for Bush’s efforts to undermine Iran. He attacked what he called “the various plots the US government has hatched against Iran for the past five years”. “Americans have not only refused to apologise for their acts but have also continued with their hegemony,” he continued. “We are for safeguarding our identity, independence and dignity.”

Nevertheless, most analysts in Tehran believe Iranian politicians want a new start. “The only opponents of dialogue with the US are hardliners in the conservative camp,” Dr Hossein Adeli, a former ambassador in London who heads the Ravand thinktank, told me last week. “They’re scattered among various factions. The mainstream of the conservatives favour dialogue with the US, as long as they conduct it themselves. Only if the reformist were running the dialogue might the conservatives oppose it.”

In spite of his preference for dialogue, Obama refers to Iran’s government as a “regime”, and calls it “a threat to all of us”. He also favours sanctions as long as Iran fails to suspend its uranium enrichment programme. Nor has he ruled out military action. But Iranians say the basis for compromise exists. The challenge for Obama is to show the world whether he is ready to offer Tehran a grand bargain rather than a big bang.

Mossad Assassinates Iraqi Scientists in Bomb Blasts

Mossad Assassinates Iraqi Scientists in Bomb

Blasts

Israel is constantly seeking to weaken Arab countries on the scientific, technological and intellectual levels. It does this for the purpose of imposing its domination on them after it has failed through lies, in the past decades, to establish itself as the strongest, developed and most destructive state in the region.

Consequently it obstructs any Arab attempt to achieve development in the nuclear field by assassinating Arab scientists and specialists in the nuclear field.

After the US invasion in 2003, Mossad, the national intelligence agency of Israel, launched a massive campaign to eliminate Iraqi scientists in order to end the dream of Iraq becoming a developed nation. According to a British study, Iraq has the largest number of scientists in the world in relation to its population.

Not only did Israel target Iraqi scientists but it also assassinated a large number of Arab scientists. In 1952 the Egyptian atomic research scientist, Sameera Mousa, was assassinated in the US. The Egyptian atomic scientist, Yehya Al Mashad, was killed in 1980 in Paris, the Egyptian microwave scientist, Sayed Bdeer, was eliminated in his house in Alexandria in 1989 and the Egyptian atomic scientist, Sameer Najeeb, was killed in Detroit in 1967.

Israel also exerted pressure on developed western countries to bar Arab students from joining certain specialized institutions. Some countries prevent students from the third world from studying atomic and missile sciences.

A British State Department official said his country was reviewing the opening of sensitive and important specialized institutions (nuclear engineering, missile technology, jet stimulation and chemical and germ technologies that could be used in building nuclear and missiles potentials) before foreign students.

In 2002 the US House of Representatives approved a ban on students of seven countries, including four Arab states, to study in certain specialized fields.

Assassinations

The Egyptian Professor, Yehya Al Mashad, was one of the most important nuclear scientists in Iraq. He was working for the Iraqi Atomic Energy Agency and at the same time he was lecturing at the Engineering Faculty at the University of Baghdad.

Mashad had managed to rebuild the Iraqi nuclear oven which was destroyed in 1979. He also supervised the transfer of the oven from the Port of Toulon in France to Iraq. After that he became the spokesman and president of the Iraqi Nuclear Program. He also facilitated a deal with France to acquire enriched uranium.

In 1980 he was killed by Mossad in a hotel in Paris.

The Egyptian atomic scientist, Professor Sameera Mousa, left Egypt in 1951 for the US to conduct research at Saint Louis University. After a few months, when asked to remain at the university, she replied, “my precious homeland, Egypt, awaits me”. Before returning home, on her way back after visiting a nuclear laboratory in the US, she was killed by a truck which crashed into her car.

Mousa was born on March 3, 1917 in the Sinbou Village of Al Gharbeyyeh Governorate. She won many prizes in her primary education. She obtained a Masters degree in gas-thermo communication. She obtained a scholarship in the UK and was able to complete her doctorate dissertation in two years.

Mossad also assassinated Professor Mustafa Mashrefah who was the first Arab scientist taking part in space research and one of Albert Einstein’s main assistants. He was called “The Arab Einstein.”

The Egyptian scientist Dr. Nabil Al Laqeeni disappeared mysteriously in what was then Czechoslovakia. The Egyptian scientist Dr. Jamal Hamdan was killed by Mossad and all his books and publications have disappeared.

Dr. Salwa Habib was killed by Mossad after publishing her book “The Israeli Influence in Africa.” She was found slaughtered in her apartment and the Egyptian police failed to find the killer.

The nuclear Palestinian scientist Nabil Ahmed Fleifel, from Al Am’ari refugee camp, was assassinated by Mossad.

Mossad assassinated the Lebanese Physicist Ramal Hassan Ramal who was one of the 100 best Physics scientists in the world and was dubbed “The Edison of the Arabs.”

Mossad kills 350 Iraqi scientists

According to a report, Mossad, in cooperation with the US occupation forces in Iraq, have killed 350 Iraqi nuclear scientists and more than 200 University professors.

The report, prepared by the US Secretary of State and referred to the US President George Bush, said that Mossad and commando groups had been active in Iraq since the invasion in 2003. They targeted Iraqi nuclear scientists after the US had failed to convince them to work for the US or move to the US.

Some of them were forced to work in public research centers in the US but the majority refused to work with American scientists in certain tests, the report added. Many of them fled to other countries.

The scientists who refused to leave Iraq were severely interrogated and were tortured. The report stated that Mossad saw that they had to be eliminated because they posed a threat to the future of Israel.

Mossad found that the best way to assassinate them is through the ongoing violence in Iraq. The report added that the Pentagon was also convinced that this was the best way and special Israeli commando groups were prepared to fulfill this task. The US team gave assistance to the Zionist troops and the team prepared the curriculum vitae of the scientists and provided access to them.

According to the report, the operations have targeted more than 1000 Iraqi scientists and one of the main purposes of the bomb blasts spread in many cities in Iraq is to eliminate the scientists.

__._,_.___

groups.google.fr/group/WorldSocialForum/browse_thread/thread/74018278a3cf5472

[SEE: Mossad hit squads murder Iraqi

scientists, academics]

[RELATED:  JUBA THE SNIPER- extremely disturbing video,

MOSSAD assassinations?]



Jewish Leaders Euphoric Over Emanuel

Jewish Leaders Euphoric Over Emanuel

JEWISH LEADERS EUPHORIC OVER EMANUEL
By Brother Nathanael Kapner, Copyright 2008

Articles May Be Reproduced Only With Authorship of Br Nathanael Kapner
& Link To Real Jew News (SM)
Please Help Support This Site! (Many Expenses)

Or Send Your Contribution To:
Brother Nathanael Kapner; PO Box 1242; Frisco CO 80443.
Email: bronathanael@yahoo.com

For The Best Post Election Coverage CLICK: Rense.com Here
____________________________


“RAHM EMANUEL HAS YIDDISHKEIT” is one of the cheers coming from Jewish leaders with regard to Emanuel being named Chief of Staff by Obama. “Emanuel is a killer in a fight, an attack dog, a committed Jew, he comes from good Irgun stock,” continue the cheers & praises of Jewish leaders.

“Emanuel can be a ‘mamzer,’ but he’s our mamzer,” said Steve Rabinowitz, a Washington political consultant, using the Yiddish term for “bastard” in affectionately describing Emanuel. “Sometimes being a mamzer is what you need,” concluded Rabinowitz.

And being a “mamzer” is what Emanuel does best. Sending a dead fish to a Democratic pollster who turned disloyal illustrates Emanuel’s bastardly conduct. (Read About Emanuel’s ‘Dead Fish’ Incident Here, Here, & Here.)

As for Emanuel having “Yiddishkeit,” a closer look at this Yiddish term will reveal much about Emanuel’s upcoming Jewish influence in the White House. The term “yiddishkeit” is used by Jews to extol the prize of possessing a Jewish consciousness. Having a “Jewish consciousness” fills a Jew with a feeling of superiority over the “goyim.”

Here’s an example of a Jew’s sense of superiority over the Gentiles. I grew up as a Jew and a criticism of a Jew who does something “stupid” is to say that he has a “goyisha kup.” This means that he has a “Gentile brain.” Thus for Emanuel to have “Yiddishkeit” means that he will never “think like a Gentile.”

JEWISH LEADERS & EMANUEL’S WHITE HOUSE POWER THE JEWISH AGENDA literally obsesses the minds of most American Jewish leaders. That obsession is clearly reflected in the near ecstatic prose being strewn across the political landscape by American Jews. For example, the director of the Jewish United Fund Of Chicago, Michael Kotzin, has this to say about Obama’s naming of Rahm Emanuel’s dominant position of White House power in the coming administration:

“Rahm Emanuel has a thorough grasp of issues on our agenda. He is responsive to the needs of the Jewish community. Emanuel often attends Israel-related events and speaks to the crowds about his support for Israel. View Entire Story Here & Here.

The “Jewish agenda” was again voiced by one Ira Forman, Executive Director of the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC). Forman released the following statement about Emanuel’s appointment as Chief of Staff:

“Emanuel has deep Jewish roots and strong ties to the Jewish community. Emanuel has a proven commitment to Israel’s security and served on an Israeli military base during the Gulf War of 1991. We look forward to continuing to work with Emanuel in his new role in the Obama administration.” View Entire Story Here.

Abraham Foxman, arguably one of the most rabid Zionist Jews of all and Director of the Anti Defamation League (ADL), chimed in, enlarging the “Jewish agenda” to a Zionist zenith:

“The significance of Emanuel’s Jewishness is more how unremarkable it is that an unapologetic Jew should rise so far in the political arena. Emanuel has never hesitated to wear his Jewishness proudly on his sleeves.” View Entire Story Here.

DO WE NOW SEE what the “Jewish agenda” is about? “The needs of the Jewish community,” “a commitment to Israel,” “wearing Jewishness proudly.” This is what Jewish leaders praise Emanuel for.

But where do we find a Jewish leader praising Emanuel for seeking the needs of the AMERICAN community? For having a commitment to AMERICA? For wearing his AMERICANISM proudly?

Alas, our nation has been deeply penetrated and is firmly in the hands of a single-minded, some say ruthless, special interest group, the Zionist Jews. These men and women…many dual citizens of Israel…have little if any interest in America beyond how it can benefit – and be used for – Israeli-Zionist-Jewish interests.

Return Of The Living Dead

Return Of The Living Dead

Jim Kirwan

11-12-8

Since the Death of John F. Kennedy this country has been running the political establishment with characters that had to be disinterred from what should have been their political graves. It’s a ghoulish thought, these graveyards in the dead of night, giving up their rotting corpses beneath the heavy clouds of moonless nights; so very far from the blazing spot-lights of everyday political events. No television cameras, no hushed reporters there: Just the lonely sounds of the gravediggers watched over by the occasional owl that sees this true crime against a nation and its people.

What made this not only possible but inevitable was the fact that we have not required a formal end to failed politicians. This has given us the next round of these recently resurrected dead-men. The academic system has classified “philosophy” as a dead field of study-yet the basic-philosophy behind this ancient tradition continues, because the public has voluntarily allowed themselves to be lobotomized against remembering anything that happened beyond last week.

This matters; because now Obama & Company, having no experience themselves in administering anything beyond a political-campaign; must now fill all the positions that are in need of new faces ­ while at the same time supposedly trying to “fix” what has gone horribly wrong with everything economic, diplomatic or military under the new schemes required by The New World Order.

“This is the most serious economic crisis in World history.

The “bailout” proposed by the US Treasury does not constitute a “solution” to the crisis. In fact quite the opposite: it is the cause of further collapse. It triggers an unprecedented concentration of wealth, which in turn contributes to widening economic and social inequalities both within and between nations.

The levels of indebtedness have skyrocketed. Industrial corporations are driven into bankruptcy, taken over by the global financial institutions. Credit, namely the supply of loanable funds, which constitutes the lifeline of production and investment, is controlled by a handful of financial conglomerates.

With the “bailout”, the public debt has spiraled. America is the most indebted country on earth. Prior to the “bailout”, the US public debt was of the order of 10 trillion dollars. This US dollar denominated debt is composed of outstanding treasury bills and government bonds held by individuals, foreign governments, corporations and financial institutions.” (1)

During the LBJ years the Great Society was created to give all kinds of things to the poor. This failed massively; but now that same template is being used to give the failed banks and the corporatocracy whatever their black granite hearts desire. The public should demand the frequent use of the hangman’s noose that ought to be used on those that have so abused the public’s trust over the decades between The Great Society and today. (2)

When politicians or government agency heads fail, they just collect their booty and leave office to write their books and plan their next adventure. The people pay the bill, suck-it-up and move on with only the slimmest of hope that the next creature will not just be a repetition of what had gone before. In almost every case what the public ‘got’ was an even greater set of criminals at a huge increase in the costs for their crimes, in which the offenders have never been forced to face any real consequences, because as long as they are not charged or convicted they are free to re-invent themselves again and return to the public troughs for an ever- increasing share of the public’s hard-earned money. Nixon, Gingrich, and a whole host of lesser criminals were poster- criminals for this behavior.

As the ‘quality’ of our political leadership dropped, so did the theoretical “Bar of Justice” which soon became known as the Criminal’s-Justice-System. A most recent example is Nancy Pelosi, who ran as the Joan-of-Arc for reform and for ending the War-on- Iraq: twice. What she did upon selection was to promote and fund the wars, over and above even what the Dictator called for. She did this while blocking the US House of Representatives from even considering Impeachment-in direct violation of the reason for the very existence of the US House of Representatives-which was namely to serve as a public check against potential-criminality within the executive and legislative branches of what used to be the government.

Pelosi succeeded politically with her own agendas: and killed any chance that the public ever had of forcing the Dictator to alter his unilateral and illegal course; a course that is and was the conquest over everything that matters to people everywhere. Yet her sad constituency re-elected her once more, because of her party- affiliations and her ‘power’ but not for what she had done to this country and to “the rule of law.” Pelosi is a continuing crime in the dying body of a woman that sold out the nation for her own ambitions; and we let her do this without even a hint of anger or recrimination.

We have subscribed again and again to taking this easy-way out. That is the path that doesn’t have time to consider those that we give power to so freely. It is also the path that does not hold anyone accountable until the entire system begins to fail utterly in every aspect ­ and by then, as anyone with eyes can now see ­ it is really too late to alter that course.

This government is reluctant to call this a Recession, when the whole world knows that this is the beginning of a worldwide- Depression that shall dwarf 1929-1931 by increased failures everywhere that have no equal in history. The Media: that government mouthpiece that will not tell us the truth is currently trying to stretch the $700 billion-dollar-bailout, to cover everything imaginable-it’s like trying to feed thousands from a few loaves of bread and a few fish; but it’s also impossible and the public is about to discover the ugly facts behind this most recent shell game.

A few days ago the Fed was caught dispensing $2 Trillion, under new and supposedly transparent laws; yet when asked by congress to whom and for what this money paid-the FED chose to hide behind national security requirements instead of answering the questions. (3)

“A new controversy has erupted over the Bush administration’s refusal to identify banks on the receiving end of almost $2 trillion in taxpayer loans. The Bloomberg news company has sued the Federal Reserve to release a list of borrowing banks and the troubled assets they’re putting up as collateral. The Fed says it won’t release the list to avoid financial panic. The bank loans have come outside of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout package and don’t require congressional approval. The loans were made under the auspices of eleven different government programs. Eight of them have been created in the past fifteen months.” Democracy Now 11-11-8

This ‘Return of the Living Dead’ is something that few could have foreseen, and even fewer were even remotely interested in discovering: because it means the loss of so much more than simply the opportunity to enjoy being an Empire-it means the end of everything that so many have thought they were working to achieve. But what this really represents is the re-balancing of a world that has lost its collective mind and must now pay for these failures in every aspect of our artificially constructed lives that have brought the world to the brink of oblivion.

A real government could have been of real assistance-but this one is the problem because we have not been participating in what we say we want to achieve. We have closed our eyes collectively to the millions of people that these policies have destroyed, in our name: and now we can literally see the price of this moral and financial failure worldwide. There have never been any “Free-Gifts” from either government or industry: Everything we do must be paid for one way or the other, and now we’re so far beyond bankruptcy that even to go back to that dire barrier would be a blessing in disguise. . .

kirwanstudios@sbcglobal.net

1) Who Art the Architects of Economic Collapse

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10860

2) The State of the Nation 1966

http://www.kirwanesque.com/politics/oklahoma/ok8.htm

3) FED Defies Transparency Aim in Refusal to Disclose (Update 2)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aatlky_cH.tY