Whose side is he on? I have already posed that question.

It’s not enough that Barack Obama gives away British missile secrets to the Russians:

The US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.

Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.

The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.

Now Obama seems bent on weakening our national defenses to the point of uselessness.

President Obama signaled Congress this week that he is prepared to share U.S. missile defense secrets with Russia.

In the president’s signing statement issued Saturday in passing into law the fiscal 2012 defense authorization bill, Mr. Obama said restrictions aimed at protecting top-secret technical data on U.S. Standard Missile-3 velocity burnout parameters might impinge on his constitutional foreign policy authority.

As first disclosed in this space several weeks ago, U.S. officials are planning to provide Moscow with the SM-3 data, despite reservations from security officials who say that doing so could compromise the effectiveness of the system by allowing Russian weapons technicians to counter the missile. The weapons are considered some of the most effective high-speed interceptors in the U.S. missile defense arsenal.

There are also concerns that Russia could share the secret data with China and rogue states such as Iran and North Korea to help their missile programs defeat U.S. missile defense.

Congress tried to stop him

Section 1227 of the defense law prohibits spending any funds that would be used to give Russian officials access to sensitive missile-defense technology, as part of a cooperation agreement without first sending Congress a report identifying the specific secrets, how they would be used and steps to protect the data from compromise.

but Obama has let it be known that he will have no part of anyone preventing him from giving away defense intelligence:

Mr. Obama said in the signing statement that he would treat the legal restrictions as “non-binding.”

“While my administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the president’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications.”

Apparently nostalgic for another massive breach of national security Barack Obama wants to arrange another Chinese nuclear scientist exchange:

Deputy Energy Secretary Daniel B. Poneman is working on a major Obama administration initiative that would renew scientist exchanges between U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories and Chinese nuclear facilities.

The idea is aimed at promoting openness and transparency by China’s military about its secret, large-scale buildup of nuclear weapons, according to U.S. officials.

Critics say the plan is similar to an exchange program in the 1990s that sent U.S. nuclear scientists to China and produced one of the worst cases of nuclear espionage. Secrets about every deployed warhead in the U.S. arsenal were compromised, including the W-88 small nuclear warhead deployed on submarine-launched missiles.

“We’ve seen this movie before, and it has a bad ending,” one official said.

Unlike Obama, the Chinese are resisting, recognizing the value of secrecy.

Chinese officials repeatedly have rejected U.S. calls for strategic nuclear talks, most recently in January during the visit there by then-Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

A 2008 State Department cable quoted Chinese Foreign Ministry official He Yafei as rejecting U.S. appeals for Chinese nuclear transparency, noting that openness “would eliminate the value of China’s strategic deterrent.”

How ironic that the President who wants to help prosecute the leaker of the climategate emails himself is so willing to leak national security secrets on his own.

It is no longer simply a good idea to change Presidents. It is absolutely imperative. Without such a change, we have no hope.

Worst. President. Ever.

In an ironic counterpoint to the extra-Constitutional power grab he used to get an unlimited new bureaucracy up and running, President Obama popped into the Pentagon on Thursday to announce massive military cuts – grabbing some new cash for social spending by cutting back on one of the few duties Washington is actually supposed to perform.  This will effectively spell the end of the traditional U.S. military doctrine that our armed forces must be able to fight two enemies at once, which is okay, because that has never ever happened before, and anyway the world is nice and peaceful now.

At least we can be confident that America’s potential enemies don’t factor the size of our military into their strategic calculations when they contemplate aggression.  Besides, if we need more troops, we can just hire them real quick, toss them some rifles, and load them into planes.  War is easy nowadays.

…It’s funny how liberals think the military is the one and only sector of the U.S. government that should get “leaner” and more “flexible” or “agile.”  Is there a single other endeavor of the government that Obama thinks could be improved by having fewer federal employees?  Doesn’t the urgency of eliminating men and women in uniform to hit that $450 billion target say something about the high cost of labor that liberals are usually uncomfortable discussing?

Reuters is reporting this is a cut of 10′s of thousands of troops. As John Hayward wrote above, Obama is so naive, so utterly clueless, he believes our wars (and there will be future ones) can be fought long distance….or does he?

In the president’s signing statement issued Saturday in passing into law the fiscal 2012 defense authorization bill, Mr. Obama said restrictions aimed at protecting top-secret technical data on U.S. Standard Missile-3 velocity burnout parameters might impinge on his constitutional foreign policy authority.

As first disclosed in this space several weeks ago, U.S. officials are planning to provide Moscow with the SM-3 data, despite reservations from security officials who say that doing so could compromise the effectiveness of the system by allowing Russian weapons technicians to counter the missile. The weapons are considered some of the most effective high-speed interceptors in the U.S. missile defense arsenal.

There are also concerns that Russia could share the secret data with China and rogue states such as Iran and North Korea to help their missile programs defeat U.S. missile defenses.

Maybe not. I suppose he is just happy knowing we are now no longer a superpower. No longer a threat to anyone. Because then everyone will leave us alone right?

Where will that money go, the money that was supposed to go to the only real job a President has?

To pay for 110,000 unpaid jobs and other entitlement program he can muster up.

In Obama’s world higher taxes creates jobs, throwing free money around makes better citizens, and a smaller military makes stronger.

Worst. President. Ever.

Lost But Now He Is Found, Poor Drunk Uncle Omar Obama

Corruption and Lies seem to be a tradition in the Obama family.

Every family has a “Black Sheep,” someone who embarrasses the family by getting drunk and in trouble. It’s possible some of us have relatives who are illegal aliens on the public dole and have repeatedly defied deportation orders: thankfully, not many of us fit into that category. However, not many drunk relatives tell arresting officers to call the White House, presumably before they do something stupid.

“Omar” or Onyango Obama is the long lost brother Kenyan half-brother of President Obama’s father. The same Uncle Omar mentioned by Bill Ayers in the best selling autobiography “Dreams From My Father”, the life story of President Obama as portrayed by the unrepentant terrorist, Bill Ayers. Although he was mentioned in the book, our president is wishing his drunken uncle would behave himself or live in the shadows.

Drunk Uncle Omar Obama was driving drunk after leaving the Chicken Bone Saloon and barely missed hitting a squad car. When he was pulled over, he demanded that he be allowed to call the White House in a belligerent manner. The cops didn’t find the drunk name dropper all that impressive; a drunk illegal alien with a long rap sheet had run down and killed a 23 year old Milford, Mass. man, two weeks earlier.

Open-borders and Open Society advocates of George Soros philosophy consider drunken Obamas to be “harmless”. However, drunken Uncle Omar has defied two court orders to leave the country. He also owes thousands in back taxes and has a fraudulent Social Security Card and has evaded authorities for 50 years.

The court policy that allows the drunk criminals like Omar Obama to simply stay in the country is the “voluntary departure” system that allows illegal aliens to evade the police and deportation for years. Omar lost his first deportation hearing in 1989, he lost a second time with the Board of Immigration Appeals in 1992.

Uncle Omar joined the ranks of an estimated 400,000 to 700,000 illegal aliens who give the law a one finger salute and look upon disregarding America’s Immigration Laws as a right or entitlement.

Drunk Uncle Omar will now be represented by the same Ohio law firm that fought the deportation of President Obama’s indigent welfare collecting aunt, Aunt Zeituni Onyango. Zeituni landed in the US in 2000 on a temporary visa and sought asylum in 2004. She was denied asylum and refused to leave. She hid with relatives in public housing for years before winning a second bid to stay in the US, a country she seems to despise.

Both parties play games with the immigration issues to win votes from the ever growing illegal demographic. Yes, illegals seem to be able to vote, have driver licenses, and Social Security numbers. Especially those who are here illegally and are related to our president.

Aunt Zeituni Onyango, Ward Of The State, Perpetual Welfare Recipient, President's Aunt, Former Illegal Alien

President Bush told Immigration and Customs Enforcement to stop deportations until after the 2008 election, when Aunt Zeituni was caught and identified as an Illegal Alien in October of 2008. Thank you former President Bush.

The question remains, how many more of these Obama welfare recipients are we going to be asked to support for the rest of their natural lives in a state of permanent Welfare and Public Housing. Our former inept and clueless President, Jimmy Carter, only had one embarrassing relative, Brother Billy, the one who inspired Billy Beer and became a cultural icon and a standing joke. At least, Billy was humorous; Zeituni and Omar are far from humorous.

We might remember the case of Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer, a Palestinian bomb builder by trade; he immigrated to the US illegally (considered legal by Napolitano and Obama) in 1996 through Canada. He claimed political asylum from alleged persecution by Israelis, was released on a $5,000 bond posted by another illegal, then skipped his asylum hearing. His lawyer dropped his asylum claim and a federal judge issued a laughable “voluntary departure order”. Obviously, illegal aliens who enter the country illegally or not interested in leaving the country voluntarily. He later joined a New York City group that was formulating a bombing plot and was arrested after his roommate tipped off local police. And once again we have another example of the DHS being on the ball and defending our country.

“Always remember. Never forget.” Words, just words.

A citizen is rebuffed by a judge for trying to unravel the nefarious facts concerning the president’s dubious Social Security Number.

Unfortunately for the plaintiff, today is not her lucky day.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA____________________________________)ORLY TAITZ, ))Plaintiff, ))v. )) Civil Action No. 11-402 (RCL)MICHAEL ASTRUE, )COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL )SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, ))Defendant. )____________________________________)MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the Court is defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [21]. Upon considerationof defendant’s motion, plaintiff’s opposition [31], the reply thereto [32], the entire record herein,and the applicable law, the Court will grant summary judgment in defendant’s favor for thereasons set forth below.
I.

BACKGROUND
Ever persistent, plaintiff has once again come before this Court in an effort to uncover“the biggest cover up in the history of this nation.” Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. for Summ. J. 20 [31]. Shebelieves that the President is using a “fraudulently obtained” social security number and that theSocial Security Administration—among other agencies—is involved in a scheme to “cover[] upsocial security fraud, IRS fraud, elections fraud and possibly treason” committed by thePresident.
Id.
at 5–6, 13. As her numerous filings with the Court demonstrate, plaintiff will stopat nothing to get to the bottom of this alleged conspiracy. Unfortunately for plaintiff, today is nother lucky day.

In preparing for the 2012 election campaign the President said the following: “The proposition that the government is always right is manifested either in corruption or benefits to ‘preferred’ companies.” He went on: The “economy ought to be dominated by private businesses and private investors. The government must protect the choice and property of those who willingly risk their money and reputation.” Also: “Corruption, hostility to investment, excessive government role in the economy and the excessive centralization of power are the taxes on the future that we must and will scrap.”

Hallelujah! After three years of statist rhetoric a President who understands that it is free markets that create economic prosperity.

Unfortunately however the president speaking was not President Obama, but rather Russia’s President Medvedev. What has become of the world when a Russian president is making a stronger case for free markets than a sitting American President? Is the world standing on its head? Should we now expect the Chinese to declare Falun Gong as the national religion and announce free and fair elections?

As depressing as having a President who’s less of a free market fan than his Russian counterpart is, he’s only the tip of the iceberg. President Obama has plenty of progressive company across the country who fail to understand that freedom and economic prosperity go hand in hand.

And freedom is beginning to exit stage left… Not sure about that? The National Labor Relations Board went to court this week seeking to give unions the power to decide where private companies can invest their money; San Francisco is trying to ban circumcision, and some Chicago schools actually ban students from bringing their own lunches from home.

In a less anecdotal appraisal of our freedoms, the Mercatus Center at George Mason University just released the 2011 edition of its Freedom in the 50 States – An Index of Personal and Economic Freedom. The rankings take into account 150 different measures of freedom compiled into four main measures: Fiscal Policy, Regulatory Policy, Economic Freedom and Personal Freedom. Together they give an overall picture of a citizen’s level of freedom on things like the ease of starting a business, overall tax burden, gun laws and a wide variety of other measures.

The rankings pretty much play out the way you would expect. At the top of the list – most free – are # 1 New Hampshire; # 2. South Dakota; # 3. Indiana; # 4. Idaho; # 5. Missouri. At the other end of the freedom spectrum are # 46. Massachusetts; # 47. Hawaii; # 48. California; # 49. New Jersey; # 50. New York.

I would venture to say that most people are not surprised by these rankings. The notion of freedom to do just about anything you want in places like New Hampshire and Idaho are about as strong as the recognition that California and New York are busybody states that seem to want to regulate everything.

I thought it would be interesting to look at the correlation between freedom in general and economic prosperity in particular. My hypothesis was that the states high in freedom would be significantly more robust economically. I was surprised to discover that on my first datapoint – income level growth – that was not the case. From 2005 – 2009 household income for the five least free states grew faster than income growth by the most free in 3 of the 5 years. And their incomes were higher.

That was the last of the surprises however. On every other measure the most free states came out clearly ahead. Unemployment: Every year from 2005 right up to today the average unemployment rate amongst the five most free states was lower than the least free. Indeed, as the economy worsened the disparity grew: In May 2005 the most free states had an average unemployment rate of 4.36% while the least free states had 4.44% – a difference of .02%. Jump ahead to today and the most free states have an average unemployment rate of 7.22% while the least free states have an average rate of 8.52%, a difference of 1.3%.

On taxes the story is pretty much the same. Every single year from 2005-2009 the average tax rate was lower in the most free states than in the least free states, with an overall average of 8.6% vs. 10.8%.

What about cost of living? In ranking the states from 1-50 with one being the least expensive state to live in and 50 being the most expensive, there are no big surprises. The most free states averaged a score of 15 while the least free states hovered near the bottom with an average of 45.

So there you have it… citizens of the most free states have lower unemployment, lower taxes and a lower cost of living than their counterparts in the least free states. Residents of the least free states however come out slightly ahead based upon income and income growth.

It almost seems like it might be a wash with a slight tilt towards the free states… until you look a bit deeper. Why did income grow more in the least free states? Well, it turns out that that difference in growth is not that hard to find… it’s from their state governments’ deficit spending. During 2009 the five least free states ran an average deficit of $11 billion each while the five most free states averaged $494 million each. During 2010 the numbers were even greater, $17 billion vs. $828 million. In both cases the billions of dollars in deficit spending of the least free states was more than responsible for the disparity in income growth rates. So, not only do the citizens of the least free states pay higher taxes, suffer greater unemployment, experience a higher cost of living, it turns out the one measure where they were ahead of the game is a mirage created by a government shell game that leaves them with tens of billions of debt on their backs.

Dmitry Medvedev seems to have come to the realization that freedom and economic prosperity go hand in hand. If he ends up losing the 2012 presidential race to Vladimir Putin (who’s not known for his capitalist or freedom sentiments) perhaps he can start a second career here in the United States teaching President Obama and the rest of the progressives how to bring an economy back to life…

This treaty should of died a long time ago:

Russia, Japan and Canada told the G8 they would not join a second round of carbon cuts under the Kyoto Protocol at United Nations talks this year and the US reiterated it would remain outside the treaty, European diplomats have said.

The future of the Kyoto Protocol has become central to efforts to negotiate reductions of carbon emissions under the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, whose annual meeting will take place in Durban, South Africa, from November 28 to December 9.

Developed countries signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. They agreed to legally binding commitments on curbing greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming.

Those pledges expire at the end of next year. Developing countries say a second round is essential to secure global agreements.

But the leaders of Russian, Japan and Canada confirmed they would not join a new Kyoto agreement, the diplomats said.

They argued that the Kyoto format did not require developing countries, including China, the world’s No. 1 carbon emitter, to make targeted emission cuts.

At last Thursday’s G8 dinner the US President, Barack Obama, confirmed Washington would not join an updated Kyoto Protocol, the diplomats said.

You have to love this part of the article tho….everything is Bush’s fault:

The US, the second-largest carbon emitter, signed the protocol in 1997 but in 2001 the then president, George W. Bush, said he would not put it to the Senate for ratification.

Yeaaah.

Clinton told Gore to sign the stupid thing but the Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel resolution in 1997, passing 95-0, which stated the Treaty shouldn’t be signed. So CLINTON never sent it on to the Senate. Bush never signed it, and neither is Obama.

So why throw that line in there other then to highlight their BDS?

Either way, the scam known as Kyoto is dead.

And Cap n’ Trade in California may be dying as well.

Good news all around.

In Sept, 2008, I penned the post, the US Economy: A Perfect Storm of Housing and Lending Events. This overview of how we managed to bring ourselves to the precarious cliff of a failed economy revealed it was not a single issue, but a combination of many events – including political pressure on lenders for homeownership, relaxing of GSE lending criteria, regulation/deregulation, and profit motivation by financial institutions – leading to an out of whack supply vs demand, driving up housing values to unsustainable and dangerous levels.

It never crossed my mind that financial terrorism could be another element to be factored in. So when the WA Times wrote of an unclassified Pentagon report by Kevin D. Freeman, my head perked up. (Read the Scribd version here.)

Since that time, I’ve tried to dissect what many here, and elsewhere, have dismissed as a report they consider simply a distraction from ill thought US fiscal policies and irresponsibility by both Congress and Wall Street alike, and fueled to a frenzy by irresponsible homeowners.

Be assured that the Freeman report does not dismiss irresponsibility for US fiscal policies and events. Rather, he frames his three Phrase hypothesis upon the premise that our self-induced fragile and unsustainable fiscal trajectory, combined with opaque global trading practices, was easily exploited for purposes of financial terrorism. And several out of the norm trading activities – such as an oil spike that wouldn’t traditionally happen, the bear runs at US financial institutions, and the disappearance of a hefty amount of money in the markets in a short time – were enough to raise suspicion.

It can be said that most conspiracy theories contain variations and glimmers of truth. So, to be as analytical as I can, without slinging political arrows, I offer you my thoughts on the first two of three Phases of the Freeman theory of Financial Terrorism as an element in the global 2008 economic crash.

Under normal conditions, an economic actor would seek to maximize returns and would therefore slow any price rise to reduce suspicion and minimize negative impacts on demand. A desire to spike prices may imply other intentions more in line with the oil as a weapon theory.

To summarize, the end goal of Phase 1 was simple… to generate enough excess wealth to launch Phase 2; bear raids on the markets. This starts with the assumption that the spike in oil prices in late 2007 and 2008 were not as a result of the usual supply/demand reasoning, but of speculation. Growth seemed to be leveling, and drilling activity had increased. So in hindsight, without disruption of crude, speculation was a likely explanation for a tripling of prices in a very short time.

Instead of using the more traditional hedge funds to drive up prices, a newer mechanism was flourishing… the Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs).

 “A Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF) is a state-owned investment fund composed of financial assets such as stocks, bonds, real estate, or other financial instruments funded by foreign exchange assets. These assets can include: balance of payments surpluses, official foreign currency operations, the proceeds of privatizations, fiscal surpluses, and/or receipts resulting from commodity exports.‖

 “Since 2005, at least 17 sovereign wealth funds have been created. As other countries grow their currency reserves they will seek greater returns. Their growth has also been skyrocketed by rising commodity prices especially oil & gas, especially between the years of 2003 – 2008.

44% of all SWFs are in the Middle East, and 61% of the funding sources for these SWF’s are oil and gas related. These new power brokers have not only the motive to drive up oil prices, they have the means. According to Dr. Gal Luft, Executive Director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security – when testifying before House Committee on Foreign Affairs – they have been pouring billions into Western economies’ hedge funds, private equity funds, real estate and other natural western resources. They were estimated to hold approx $3.5 trillion in western assets at that hearing, and predicted to balloon to $10 to $15 trillion within a decade.

This is an amount equivalent to the entire US GDP.

Contrary to popular political beliefs, oil prices are out of our regulatory control. Instead, they are determined on a global basis, effected through non-transparent trading, and regulated outside the United States borders.

But one US corporation, Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), founded by young entrepreneuer, Jeffrey Sprecher in 2000, has been taking the brunt of Congressional Dems blame, with accusations of oil speculation. Sen. Maria Cantwell, along with Maine’s Olympia Snow, had introduced legislation meant to give the CFTC more authority over the juggernaut that ICE has become since it’s creation. Before that, it was a Feinstein/Levin/Snow bill.

ICE was founded as an energy clearing house and online trading market for energy commodies, including partnering with Chicago Climate Exchange (and it’s links to Al Gore, Obama and Goldman Sachs) in 2006. In a letter to Sen. Feinstein, Sprecher protests Congressional charges about transparency, saying “Not only does ICE provide an audit trail but it provides one that cannot be replicated by other parts of the OTC marketplace (voice brokers, bilateral trading parties, etc.).”

But how much transparency is enough, when it comes to financial terrorist attacks? And is it energy clearing houses, such as ICE, that become unwitting (or witting) accomplices for SWFs putting excess revenues into hedge funds that positively speculate on increased oil prices?

Whalid Phares (pg 22 of the Freeman report), like Freeman, attributed much of the economic crisis to political pressure on Wall Street for risky loans, and Wall’s Streets willing participation in the risk. But Phares also sees a potential 3rd player in crisis – radical elements in OPEC nations…. Crumbling the US economic defense in a matter of months.

The thesis argue that combined Salafist-Wahabi and Muslim Brotherhood circles in the Gulf -with consent from the Iranian side on this particular issue, used the escalating pricing of Oil over the past year to push the financial crisis in the US over the cliff. The ‗high point‘ in this analysis is the timing between the skyrocketing of the prices at the pumps and the widening of the real estate crisis. In short the ―Oil-push‖ put the market out of balance hitting back at Wall Street.

~~~

Let‘s not underestimate the power of the Jihadi-oil lobby in America: it has decades of influence and it has long arms into the system, and it has powerful political allies. It knows when Americans are messing up their own system, and it knows very well how to push them over the cliff, into the abyss of economic calamity.

Jihad doesn’t care about economic destabilization in their backyard. And in fact, would welcome such an opportunity, as we witness with the current uprising in the ME countries. A political and economic vacuum translates to a jihad opportunity. How important is oil as a financial weapon to jihad? (excerpts from pgs 23 and 24 of the Freeman report)

―Sheikh Yussuf al Qardawi, Muslim Brotherhood ideologue and mentor of the Qatari-funded channel, spoke openly of Silah al Naft, i.e, ‗the weapon of oil.‘ Indeed, it was called a weapon – as in a warfare situation — and most likely it was used as such.

~~~

For years now, Salafist web sites and al Qaeda spokespersons have loudly called for an ‗oil Jihad against infidel America and its lackeys.‘ Online material is still circulating. But more revealing are the official speeches by Osama Bin Laden and his deputy on the ‗absolute necessity to use that weapon.‘

The second phase appears to have begun in 2008 with a series of bear raids targeting U.S. financial services firms that appeared to be systemically significant.

Motive of the market, for the most part, is profit. And to accomplish that, sometimes it behooves certain market participants to see a decline in stock values. Bear raids short a target stock… i.e. “borrow” shares in the hopes to cover/replace them with a cheaper price than the current rate. So bad news or rumors are spread to get the stock to drop.

Short selling, a similar process, is legit. But a bear raid is a rapid “short selling” process, involving violations of markets rules by using rumors or manipulation of perceived stock value. It is believed that it was such bear raids, conducted by Jesse “The Boy Plunger” Livermore, that lead to the 1929 US crash, and ushered in the creation of the SEC and the “uptick rule”. – the latter which would limit a short seller‘s ability to drive down a stock price simply from continual selling. Ironically, the uptick rule was eliminated by a Dem held Congress back in July 2007 – a year before the crash, and just months before the oil price run up began. Since 2009, debate and a reintroduction of it’s implementation began, but has not resulted in it’s reinstatement.

Not unlike politicians, campaigns and media rumors to negate their appeal, even a healthy business can fail when rumors abound. Such a case was Bear Sterms who failed not from lack of capital, but lack of confidence.

But the bear raid assault has been enhanced in sophistication with other more recent, tools. The success of a raid, using Credit Default Swaps, naked shorting*, Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs), and option strategies increases considerably, plus affords appeal with the near impossibility in tracing their origins. Lehman Brothers was also the victim of a bear raid using a combination of these financial tools. (pg 27 of the Freeman study). Dr. Susan Trimbath estimated that failed trades from naked short sales could account for 30-70% of the decline in share values for both Bear Stearns and Lehman. Had the uptick rule, or more transparency for short selling been in place, it’s entirely possible that even the troubled accounting of LB may have been revivable within bankruptcy reorganizing.

Naked short selling occurs when shares are sold without first owning them or borrowing them. This practice is basically illegal with a few exceptions created to promote short-term liquidity. Unfortunately, provisions against naked short selling have had lax enforcement by regulatory authorities in recent years, creating a serious vulnerability in our financial markets.

Just as with Phase 1, where it’s obvious that the conditions did not warrant a run up of oil prices, finding out the How’s, Who’s and Why’s of those at the heart of the bear raids is important… however extremely difficult.

Per the Freeman theory, the “how’s” were obvious. Multiple bear raids were successfully conducted against major US financial institutions. After the collapse of LB, the credit market froze, and stocks collapsed. Amazing when you consider that LB’s collapse may have been averted if there were a restraint on the naked short selling. Thus the economic dominoes began to fall, with the chaos surrounding AIG, GS, Morgan Stanley, losses in Norway’s government pension funds and the Reserve Primary Fund falling below $1 a share for the 1st time in 14 years.

“Who” demands examining who benefited from this chaos? According to Freeman, only net short financial stocks, or the entire market in general. Considering what it would take to organize such chaos across such wide spans and participants, one might discount conspiracy from the overall stock market community, working in concert.

Not withstanding the lack of transparency in these type of illegal trades, most of this trading originated from behind the fronts of brokerage firms, hedge funds and client investor pools.

Regardless of the motive, the actors behind the bear raids not only prefer anonymity but most likely planned for it from the beginning. This suggests layer upon layer of secrecy through foreign shell corporations, feeder funds, and numerous other pass-through entities. Historically, hedge funds have disclosed nothing to the government and very little to the public. Even from a tax standpoint, there has been virtually no ability for governments to track investment results back to most clients.

With the increase of “dark pools” and hedge funds comes anonymity in trading…, which is ideal for the laundering and the use of terror funds as an economic weapon.

One scenario could be that a terror group could direct investments to a feeder hedge fund. That feeder fund would locate a Cayman Islands-based hedge fund on their behalf that was predisposed to sell short financial shares. With sufficient new money, the hedge fund would expand their short selling activity (naked and traditional) and trade through dark pools or with sponsored access.

At the same time, the same terror group might invest heavily in credit default swaps of the targeted short sales either directly, through foreign contacts, or hedge funds. This activity, focused initially on Bear Stearns would prove greatly profitable. The same activity refocused on Lehman Brothers could account for a significant portion of the 33 million failed-to-deliver (naked short) shares, providing the trigger for the market and economy to collapse. And, nearly all of it would occur without notice. In fact, the original investor could close out positions basically undetected.

What this means is that terrorists no longer need to fly buildings into heart of the US financial district. With substantial financial backing, and Internet connection from their caves, they need only set up several overseas hedge funds and, acting as a coordinated unit, dump U.S. stocks…all under the financial radar of virtually all countries.

But for those seeking the quintessential smoking gun, it will be impossible to prove jihad groups were behind the financial crash. As Freeman notes, the only reason to suspect financial terrorism at all is the existence of such unusual trading activity in the scope of the historical norm. Therefore, in order to speculate on the “who’s”, it becomes necessary to review the available trading in the stocks of the financial services firms that appeared subjects of bear raids.

Starting on pg 43 of the Freeman study is the mention of a 65 pg report to Congress, various law enforcement agencies and regulators, titled “Red Flags of Market Manipulation Causing a Collapse of the U.S. Economy”. The report was submitted by an anonymous author.

In this anonymous report, is the key point that there were two companies at the heart of this style of trading, and they consistently work in concert. Freeman deliberately withholds the names of these two companies from his study because “…trading data alone is insufficient to consider any accusations against them.”

Likely for this reason, I have not found this document on the Internet… nor do I suspect any of us will. But it would be an interesting FOIA request to put in. In case any of you find that some enterprising investigative journalist has successfully done so, please provide the links in the comments for the rest of us.

But with the breadcrumbs of clues Freeman left, we can deduce who these companies are *not*, based on the data provided for the anonymous author.

These firms became, virtually overnight, the largest traders in the U.S. financial markets. These companies provide a one-stop-shop for trade execution, back office clearing and bookkeeping that cater to hedge funds and small broker dealers. To give perspective, the amount of trading executed by these two firms in October 2008 exceeded the trading of securities firms Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Merrill Lynch combined in the NASDAQ market participant reports.

This obviously leaves out the favored political target of Goldman Sachs, who enjoys the current POTUS on the end of their marionette strings. Whoever these firms are, they dwarf these immense US financial institutions.

But for those who may have a better grasp of the players in the global trading world, here are the other clues from “deep keyboard”, as I’ll call this author:

(From the anonymous report directly)

1) The firms have traded trillions of dollars worth of U.S. blue chip companies. They are the number one traders in all financial companies that collapsed or are now financially supported by the U.S. government. Trading by the firms has grown exponentially while the markets have lost trillions of dollars in value.

2) These firms appear to own few or no shares of blue chip companies they are number one traders in. There is no doubt that the magnitude of their trading impacted the marketplace. Since the direction of the market place has been in a severe downward trend, the impact from the firms has been and remains, negative to the marketplace.

~~~

(From Freeman’s summarized addition key findings)

 The two previously small broker dealers mentioned in the report are market makers for every major financial services firm under attack.
 These firms have a combined 76 different symbols under which they act as market maker (by contrast a major firm such as Citigroup has just 6).
 Both firms offer sponsored access.
 Both firms offer access to dark pools.
 From June through September 2008, the two firms appeared to concentrate on Lehman Brothers, trading 1.04 billion shares while the stock price collapsed from $33.83 to $0.21 on 15 September. This pattern seemed to repeat in every other major financial stock.
 The report estimates that the two firms completed as many as 641,000 trades per hour in October 2008 (based on market participation statistics and average trade size from the last available data).
 Total trading volume by month in the financial sector listed for these two firms grew from approximately 350,000 shares (less than 1% of all market participant trading) in September 2006 to approximately 600,000 shares in the sector (about 6% of all market participant trading) in September 2007, to over 8 billion shares in the sector (about 19% of all market participant trading) by September 2008. That‘s an increase of 2.4 million percent in two years.
 While both firms have been around for several decades, their rapid growth began in 2006 for one and 2007 for the other.
 Both firms seem to specialize in the same stocks at the same time, appearing to work in concert.
 Combined, the two firms traded 203 billion shares, mostly concentrated in major financial services companies. This compares to a total of 427 billion shares outstanding of all issues on the New York Stock Exchange.
 The report estimates trading of at least $5 trillion over the 25-month period ending in November 2008.
 The trading appears to represent new money to the marketplace by new participants.
 From July 2008 through September 2008, the two firms ―traded more shares of Fannie and Freddie than were issued‖ even as the share prices were collapsing.
 The firms were also the largest traders of the UltraShort funds as well as the ―financial spider‖ (symbol ―XLF‖) during the reporting period.
 The firms also became the largest traders of energy stocks.
 The two firms did not and do not hold major equity positions on their books

Whoever they are, they had to have sufficient capital to effect $5 trillion in trades in a very short period… whether domestic or foreign. And they used minor league brokers to focus on failed or failing US financial institutions.

This bring us to the “Why’s”…

Their motive comes down to two base choices… financial for profit, or subversive non-economic motives.

Another favorite target would be George Soros. Certainly the Soros Quantum Fund profited by $1.1 billion during this period. But then Soros was also an outspoken voice, warning of the danger of this bear raid activity. Therefore it’s also entirely possible that Soros, an astute businessman if not a likeable character, merely piggybacked wealth on the events out of his control.

Certainly hedge funds profited as well. Add to that, the naked short selling is a favorite of organized crime and the Russian Mafia. In this case, it will have to be a very greased palm for any of the potential mafias involved.

But then, when you consider greed, coupled with the chaos of the markets, you have to wonder if the quick fast profit, and potential destruction of the largest free market economy, is such a wise strategy. Would a manufacturer make a killing on a new invention right out of the gate, then burn down his factory and the potential to make even more?

Which brings me to those with non-economic motives. Barry Ritholtz, the head of research firm FusionIQ, made an interesting observation on his blog, The Big Picture, on Sept 19th, 2008. Ritholtz was discussing the absurdity of banning all short sales.

I have been trying to contextualize this, and I keep coming back to what seemed like a wild theory yesterday that seems a whole lot less wild today. During the day, I had an interesting phone conversation with Joe Besecker of Emerald Asset Management. (We used to do schtick together on Power Lunch, and made for an amusing financial comedy team).

But Joe is a good money manager, a great stock picker, and a thoughtful guy. He raised an intriguing issue: None of the many hedgies he knew were pressing their bets recently. The bear raids on the banks and brokers were NOT a case of piling on by US based hedge funds. And from what he was seeing and hearing about in terms of order flow, the vast majority of the financial short selling the past week or so were being done overseas. It appears that the lion’s share of shorting was coming out of overseas bourses such as London and Dubai.It may not be a coincidence that the financial short selling ban is both here and in London.

Then there is another coincidence: The huge increase in shorting of the financials occurred on the anniversary of 9/11. And on top of that, the same institutions attacked on 9/11/01 were the ones suffering in recent days.

This same financial terrorism theory, plus the date of the economic assault, was noted by Jim Cramer. But in the chaos of the moment, no follow up was done. To pile on to what may not be such a wild theory afterall, add Charles Duelfer and James Rickards in their co-authored NYTs op-ed on Dec 21, 2008, titled Financial Time Bombs.

In their examination of possible suspects, they note that China behaved appropriately during the fiscal crisis, being large holders of US debt. Russia was considered in the bailout of the GSE’s because they are also some of the largest holders of government agency debt. This seems to indicate these two are unlikely perps.

Al Qaeda, on the other hand, has declared that damage to the US economy is it’s 2nd priority, following only mass deaths. To emphasize the jihad focus on the US economy, we need only remember OBL’s words on Dec 21st, 2001.

…hitting the economic structure…is basic for the military power. If their economy is destroyed, they will be busy with their own affairs rather than enslaving the weak peoples. It is very important to concentrate on hitting the US economy through all possible means.”

AQ, acting alone, doesn’t have the financial resources for such an attack. However with their tentacles extending to the cash rich Taliban, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, China and the Arab states, their combined effort may be enough to do the trick. All sects of radical Islam share a common goal – that of replacing “..the ‘slavery’ of the Western international monetary system” with Shariah Compliant Financing (SCF) because it is then subject to Shariah Law.

According to Saudi and Muslim Brotherhood (MB) spiritual leader Hamud bin Uqla al-Shuaibi, “The importance of Financial Jihad [is]…more important…than self-sacrificing.”

There are documented ties between the Shariah Finance Compliance and the widely increased appearance of Sovereign Wealth Funds that have appeared on the scene in the past decade. Which again ties into Phase 1′s driving up the price of oil.

Altho there is no evidence that these SWFs have participated in bear raids, the Shariah-compliant SWF now has the ability to sell short either through SCF-compliant hedge funds or directly via the arboon short sale…. and all without transparency.

Yet none of the above bonding between jihad groups eliminates other likely suspects, such as Venezuela, Iran, Russia and China, as they are also abundant in wealthy SWFs. But, as mentioned above, Russia and China have more financial ties economically that would be negatively affected by a damaged US economy.

But renegade Chinese elements may indeed have their motives, and some of the involvement can be traced back to a Chinese individual, helping to launder money thru multiple global banks, aiding in Iran’s WMD program, presumably obtained from Russian sources. Some of Iran’s largest banks are believed to have played roles in illegal money movement.

Another axis of evil, engaging in illegal money movement has been North Korea, who was ID’d as creating and laundry’ing huge sums of counterfeit money.

The report says North Korea uses front companies and shell companies overseas to facilitate the illicit trafficking in supernotes. The use of fake companies increased after the Treasury Department barred U.S. companies from working with Banco Delta Asia.

To further hide the transactions from international financial authorities, the North Korean party office used a financial front company, set up in China in 2006, to make payments as part of the purchases, the report says. North Korea also set up a front company in the British Virgin Islands in the mid-2000s to take advantage of lax banking regulations and tax laws there, it says, and other branches of the front company were established for financial support activities in China, Russia and Southeast Asia.

However what may possibly be the largest indication that financial terrorism is at work is a 2009 story that was virtually swept under the rug by the MSM. The arrest of two Japanese nationals (or Asian men, as reported elsewhere) in Italy, trying to smuggle $134.5 billion in US Treasury bearer bonds into Switzerland. If they were real, it would constitute the largest financial smuggling operation in history. If fake, the quality of the counterfeiting was such high quality to be almost undistinguishable from the original.

At the time, Seeking Alpha pointed out the many strange inconsistencies in the story. Obvious points were their choice of transportation, where two affluent business men would have stood out like sore thumbs on a train filled with Italian common workers, and why the bearer bonds would have been hidden in a secret cache of an attaché case. If they were real, they could have been transported in a diplomatic pouch, exempt from customs scrutiny.

Another eyebrow raiser was the amount of the bearer bonds. The arrest of the Asian men took place early June of 2009. In March, 2009, US Treasury Department announced that USD $134.5 billion remained in TARP funds…, coincidently the same amount of the counterfeit bearer bonds.

The head scratching moments don’t end there. While doing an article about just how this attempt to smuggle bearer bonds could bring down the US economic, Contrarian Profits also points out who broke the story of this historic smuggling attempt… AsiaNews.it…, an obscure Vatican-sponsored news website.

This story has more holes than a Swiss cheese. We know from experience here at Notes (your co-editor spent two years working as an investigative reporter in his native Ireland) that there is rarely smoke without fire when it comes to news stories. But one aspect of this story still puzzles us… and it’s a part of the story nobody to date has questioned: What was an obscure Vatican-sponsored news outfit doing breaking the largest financial crime story all time?

As far as we can tell, AsiaNews.it broke the story on June 8. Major news services followed on with their own reports much later. Bloomberg, for instance, only got to it yesterday. So how did AsiaNews.it, a website linked to the Ponticial Institute for Foreign Missions and funded by the Vatican scoop the major news agencies on the bond story?

AsiaNews.it’s About Us page freely admits that it is an anti-Communist organ of the Roman Catholic Church, “nobly dedicated to China and her people.” The organization’s missionary zeal is not difficult to detect.

A smuggling operation of this magnitude demands a level of sophistication that is absent in this attempt in every fashion… from the strategic action to the media outlet who exposed it. It was almost as if they wanted to be caught.

Why? As Seeking Alpha notes, there’s no faster way to sabotage and usher in the death of a currency than to raise legitimate questions about its ability to withstand counterfeiting efforts. (as was done by the Nazis in WWII with Operation Bernhard)

Ironically, the Asian business men, arrested, were released. According to the Italian authorities, they were not caught using the fake bonds in the commission of fraud. Status of the bonds as real or counterfeit did not seem to enter the picture for prosecution.

As for the US Treasury, they declared them counterfeit. (linked from Cryptogon’s various updates on the story…)

“The whole thing is a total fraud,” Stephen Meyerhardt, a spokesman for the Treasury Department, said Thursday. “They don’t look anything like real securities, which in any case were never issued in any of those denominations.”

The highest denomination ever issued by the Treasury Department was $10,000, he said. The Italian financial police claimed some of the paper was “Kennedy bonds” from the 1930s, but no such bonds ever existed. And the total of Treasury bearer bonds still outstanding is a mere $105 million; the Treasury has been issuing bonds in electronic form since 1986.

Here’s the rub… the Treasury dept declared their counterfeit status not by in person inspection, but
by photos on the Internet. WTF? They appear to be so real as to fool Italian customs, yet can be so easily dismissed by shooting a photo or two thru cyberspace??

On the contrary, again the Vatican’ news arm, AsiaNew.it, linked above, gives reason to doubt the quick dismissal of authenticity.

One more element in favour of the bond’s authenticity is found in the securities, which in the June 4 statement, the GdF termed “Kennedy Bonds” with photos provided. These photos reveal that the securities under discussion are not bonds but Treasury Notes, because they are securities that can be immediately exchanged for their worth in goods or services and because they are devoid of interest coupons. One side carries a reproduction of the image of the American president, the reverse side that of a spaceship. From confidential, usually well-informed sources, AsiaNews has learned that this type of paper money was issued less than ten years ago (in 1998), although it is difficult to know whether those seized in Chiasso are authentic. But the fact that the release of this particular State Treasury was not completely in the public domain tends to exclude the possibility of counterfeiting. It highly unreasonable to suppose that a forger would reproduce a State Treasury not commonly in circulation and of which there is no public knowledge.

As Freeman notes in his report:

The sheer amount of the bonds takes the activity out of the role of the criminal and into the realm of financial terrorism and/or economic warfare.

Again, more questions than answers INRE motive, and players. But it’s obvious that financial terrorism is not a conspiracy theory to be lightly dismissed.

Coming next…. Phase 3, assault on the US dollar.

The People Of The Stables

The race track is a world within a world. It can be a dangerous place, injuries and death happen all too frequently, but you can make dear friends at the track; especially, if you work on the backside where the horses are stabled. Everyone on the backside can be divided into three groups: those who are addicted to gambling, those who are in love with the equine beast and those for whom the equine is merely a means to provide a job or for a few to make a fortune.

The gamblers are lost souls to be sure and only one out of 500 or maybe a thousand ever builds an estate with winnings; most gamblers funnel the memorable wins they score right back through the betting windows, but those wins become memories enshrined as gambling mythology and the efforts to duplicate those legendary wins become mystical like the search for the Holy Grail. Thus the gambler becomes one of many lost legions of forgotten people who exist solely to keep racing alive.

The horse lovers are in a precarious position; for they know deep inside that racing is one of the hardest sports of all for the equine and that injuries happen all to frequently and death is always waiting. They often choose to ignore the obvious contradictions and spend their time caring the horses and giving them comfort during their often all too short lives. Like concubines for gladiators, they willingly give their love to these superb athletes and move on when necessary. Sadly, these most dedicated of care givers end up hollow shells within a couple of decades, they are often bitter people who are dedicated cynics and view almost all other humans as lesser beings.

Of the people for whom the horse provides an income, a group that includes me, there are those who are born under the right star and make a fortune, but even these with luck and skill must be wary, for even the greatest can stumble and end up ruined and destroyed financially. For every successful jockey, vet, trainer, horseshoer; there are at least twelve or twenty more that are standing around hoping to get that one big break that will launch their career. Most of them will never get that break and of those that do, a large percentage will let that measure of success destroy them as surely as the moth flies into the flame. The temptations are never in short supply for those who enjoy a measure of success and the giving in to temptation helps to soothe the pain from years of rejection.

A Track Character

One of my favorites from the group for whom the race track provides a job was T Red Booker. He was an old man when I met him, a Black Cajun with a bright yellow color to his eyes. We hit it off right away, I suspect it was because of his rural upbringing in the woods of Louisiana and his interest in healing remedies and cooking. He was a groom for one of my big outfits from New Orleans. We talked for hours on cures for hoof rot, puncture wounds, poultices, shivers, fever fighters and then we would talk about our favorite cooking techniques. He liked to hear about my experiments smoking bacon and hams, my recipes for moose nose, elk liver, grizzly heart, and he told me about stuffed quail wrapped in bacon, snapping turtle fries, smoked alligator, and 20 varieties of poke salad.

He wasn’t interested in gambling and he knew he was at the terminal position in his station in life, so he was above all the desperate struggling of the average race tracker. T Red was content to watch the others struggle for their goals; consequently, he was an excellent mentor for me at this stage of my life.

I once asked him if the name T Red meant anything in Cajun or Coonasse as he would say. He said that as a lad that no one could outrun him for any distance between a quarter mile and a mile. He had once raced a famous stakes horse at the Fair Grounds in New Orleans for a quarter mile, even though the jockey was running too close to him in an effort to scare him. In their language the name meant Fast Red. In his younger days, his hair was a reddish color before turning gray, the name stuck. So he had been T Red Booker ever since, one of the few men that could outrun a horse.

Booker and I were like a lot of people I’ve met in the horse world; they were just born in the wrong period of history. They were much more comfortable with horses and all things associated with an earlier time of civilization than they were with mechanical and electronic things of more recent times. We are often left with the feelings that are probably accurate, that we just don’t really fit in with modern society, thus we congregate on race tracks, ranches, and farms. We ride, drive teams, pack, and work on horses to keep a dying culture alive for a few more generations, mainly because there really isn’t anything else that holds our interest. Oh, we are a varied bunch, every shape, size, and color; usually, we are a bit rough around the edges for sophisticated types; some are educated and others have ever been to school; there are friends and there are enemies, but the best among us can size up a horse or a rider within two strides and we all respect a gifted horseman for what he can do.

For several years, I looked for T Red’s outfit to pull into Chicago or Kentucky; we always had a homecoming of sorts and a period to catch up on the news of mutual acquaintances. On one of these occasions, I was sorry to see T Red was on light duty with a terrible limp. I asked him what was wrong and he said he had an ingrown toe nail that was giving him problems.

Unexpected Trouble

The next day, I had to shoe a gelding for T Red’s outfit and T Red was going to hold the horse. I was there about 10 AM and most of the track work was over for the day until the races started after lunch. T Red brought out a comfortable folding lawn chair and sat down while holding the horse. Between the relaxed nature of the two of us the horse was very cooperative.

T Red had an old shoe on his right foot and had cut out the leather around the area of his big toe, the toe was about three times bigger than normal and looked like it was ready to explode. T Red fell asleep with legs out in front of him, so I was real careful not to step on his sore foot while clinching the front shoes.

I was working away and noticed that T Red had dropped the leather lead shank on the ground. The horse was really easy to work with, but he was still a race horse and if he took off it would be trouble for T Red, so I wrapped the leather lead shank around the arm of the lawn chair, just in case, and went back to work.

I couldn’t help myself, I kept looking at that infected big toe; suddenly, just as I was finishing the hind shoes, I had a brilliant idea to help T Red. I lifted one of the horses front legs and brought it out in front of him with his knee locked straight. I aimed the hoof and brand new aluminum shoe with its steel toe grab right over that ingrown toe nail that needed to come off of that toe. I lifted the foot up and down several times to be sure of my aim and let it go. The steel toe grab was right on target with a couple of hundred pounds of force as it landed on the base of that toe nail. Immediately the corruption exploded out of that toe and T Red woke up emitting a loud roar that scared the horse back without picking up his hoof and that ripped the ingrown toe nail from the hoof and the toe was really draining well at this point.

There was one problem, I had forgotten that I had wrapped the lead shank around the chair arm earlier. The horse pulled back until the lead shank tightened, which was about the length of a millisecond and when he felt the weight of T Red in the chair he spun around to the right until he was behind T Red; who was making the situation worse by screaming blood curdling screams while reaching for his foot and then throwing his hands in the air. All of this strange behavior by T Red had the poor horse confused and he took off at a dead run. Thankfully, this made T Red quit screaming and he looked at me with this blank expression as the horse gained speed with the lawn chair and T Red bouncing along beside him. It was amazing how long the chair stayed in the upright position, because that horse was gaining speed with every stride, but when the chair started to tip over backwards, the lead shank came undone and the horse lost his curious load.

No one really understood how the accident happened and I didn’t want to tell them about T Red falling asleep on the job, so everyone figured it was just one of those race track accidents that are bound to happen now and then. T Red’s big toe healed up in a few days and felt better almost immediately. He received a few bumps and bruises when his lawn chair flipped on him, but all things considered, he did pretty well.

There is a lesson to learned from T Red’s complacency. We have a new treaty and we assume that everything will be perfect now; unfortunately, we tend to drift off into slumber while enjoying the security of a treaty that assures us that we will have peace in our time; unfortunately, there are often little irritants that tend to get out of control while we assume that it is safe enough to go to sleep; suddenly, we are bouncing along backwards in a lawn chair at forty miles an hour awaiting the inevitable crash.

Now that Chaves has purchased missiles from Iran, we can ill-afford to lean back in our lawn chair and how long will it be before the little weirdo from North Korea can purchase the long range missiles he needs to pinpoint Hawaii or the West Coast? A treaty with Russia is the least of our worries, it’s the strange little guys who want to make their mark in history that are the real problems and we have very little in the way of plans to prevent them from dropping the race shoe on our big toe.

I saw this when Googling the blogs today. Interesting in many ways, but it really ties in with something I wrote back in August which should be a warning as to how far this country has edged towards the very Socialistic government that these people fled from.

Many Russian immigrants to the “red borough” of Staten Island are flocking to the Republican Party, saying that the national Democrats’ “socialistic” policies remind them too much of the top-down oligarchy they fled in their native land.

With many of the borough’s Russian arrivees already owning businesses and active in civic organizations, their muscle could help the Island GOP solidify electoral gains made this year, when the party took back congressional and Assembly seats.

Businessman Arkadiy Fridman said that the newly formed Citizens Magazine Business Club, a confederation of more than 50 Russian-owned businesses here and in Brooklyn, has aligned itself with the Molinari Republican Club (MRC) in an effort to increase the Russian community’s political and economic clout.

~~~

In the wake of the national GOP’s big wins this year, when the party took back control of the House, Republicans everywhere are more confident that their bedrock message of smaller government and lower taxes will resonate with American voters.

Fridman said that the Democrats “are going in an absolutely different direction,” focusing on “income redistribution” and rich-versus-poor “class war.”

~~~

The Big Brother approach reminds Fridman too much of what he left behind in the former Soviet Union.

“It’s the same rule like it was there,” said Fridman, who estimates there are around 55,000 Russian immigrants here.

Michael Petrov of the Digital Edge data management firm in Bloomfield, said that he objects to the “micro-managing of the economy” he’s seen from city as well as federal officials.

“Government is affecting small business more and more,” said Petrov, who came to the United States in 1994. “It’s the same as what’s happening in Russia.”

~~~

Reflecting the American Dream ideal that has drawn immigrants here since the county’s founding, Storovin said that many Russians are “grateful” for the religious, business and travel freedoms the United States provide, and want to show it.

“We do feel patriotic,” Storovin said.

Now, here is what I wrote back in August as to a close friend of mine and on this very subject.

“A good friend of mine here in Vegas is from the old Soviet Union. He was lucky to get out years ago and loves his new country dearly. When we talk about this, he always asks the same thing. “Can’t we as a country see what we are doing to ourselves? Can’t we learn from past history? Could it be that we as a country now do not believe in our own principles?

He asks this and states as follows. “I lived the horror in Russia. I’ve seen what Marxist Socialism can do to a people. I have seen it rob the will to succeed and in fact the will to live! When I lived there, the U.S. was the beacon of hope. Now, I fear that the “I wants” of our country have lost track of that.”

He went on to say that the leadership he is witnessing now is every bit as deplorable as where he came from. He sees the beginning of the same lies, the same anti-free speech rhetoric and the same despite for free will now, in this country, as he did then. Funny, isn’t it? A lecture from someone from another country who loves our country more then her native born citizens! In all reality, it’s a harsh indictment on this Anti-American administration and it’s sheer ignorance of our basic principles.”

In a previous post I noted what can happen to a country when a weak man is President. It’s getting worse daily. We’ll look at a number of issues here which might at first appear unrelated but I believe to be interwoven.

The man who has nationalized the banking industry, the auto industry, the financial industry and the health insurance industry is out to turn our nuclear umbrella inside out and render totally unable to defend ourselves.

Curt has a post up about Obama getting us off to a bad START and it’s deadly accurate. This treaty does nothing for the US. Obama promised to unilaterally disarm the United States and what he has done with this new treaty basically is to beg Putin and Medvedev for how much Obama can compromise the United States. According to Frank Gaffney the treaty is unverifiable and grants Russia a say over our missile defenses:

A number of senators have expressed concern that the Kremlin is correct when it asserts that the new accord’s preamble and other provisions will effectively hobble America’s ability to protect its people and allies, even from threats emerging from North Korea and Iran – and that Russia will withdraw from the treaty if that proves not to be the case.

But as always, Obama desperately wanted the symbolism over the substance.

And this treaty does not begin to address the issue of Iranian missiles being planted in Venezuela. Missiles which can reach the US.

Now we can’t defend ourselves from those missiles without Russia’s approval. Obama has swept the issue under the rug so he could beat feet to the Aloha state for the umpteenth time:

Does Obama have within him even one brain cell worthy of JFK, or even one weak patriotic twitch for the good ol’ USA, and not for his ancestral homeland of Kenya or his fondly-remembered Indonesia? That’s a stretch, and I for one can’t stretch that far. Fifty years ago any honest-to-goodness president would have held a press conference about this, jaw clenched in-between giving prudent, good-faith answers to good-faith questions from real reporters in porkpies about the shenanigans of such plotting, dancing devils. And he would have already made a phone call.

Whussup today? Hussein Obama — the Alfred E. Newman* “what, me worry?” president — is going to ignore it, of course. Ditto that bad-hair gargoyle figurehead of a Secretary of State. It can’t be a “missile crisis” if he couldn’t care less. After all, we’ve got to deal with DADT. Perhaps the most we can ask for is that when Barry meets Hugo again at the next hemispheric summit, that he grab him in a playful headlock with one arm and gives him some playful noogies with the other, while murmuring, “Hugo, you sly dog, you.” Playfully, of course. That’ll teach him.

(* Note the Afred E. Newman reference)

Vice Admiral Gerald Miller:

“The Obama administration is continuing a dated policy in which we cannot even unilaterally reduce our own inventory of weapons and delivery systems without being on parity with the Russians,” Miller told the U.S. Naval Institute in Annapolis, Md. “We could give up plenty of deployed delivery systems and not adversely affect our national security one bit, but New START prohibits such action – so we are now stuck with some outmoded and useless elements in our nuke force.”

Meanwhile, down South…

Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was recently killed in a gunfight at the Mexican border. He was shot in the back with an AK 47.

Terry’s family was critical of President Obama’s lackadaisical attitude toward border security:

Not so typical was what Brian’s family had to say to KGUN9 the night before he was brought to his final resting place at Michigan Memorial Park. “I understand that Janet Napolitano called (Tuesday night). What did you say to her?” 9 On Your Side reporter Joel Waldman asked Brian Terry’s father, Kent.
“‘I said you gotta wake your man up in the White House,’” Kent responded. “And she said, ‘He’s done more in the last two years than any other president.’”

But the Terrys told Waldman that they don’t buy it. Kent, step mom Carolyn, mom Josie, older brother Kent Jr., sisters Kelly and Michelle are all angry that their son and brother, Brian, died the way he did. They’re not shy about blaming President Obama’s administration for not doing enough, taking aim directly at Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano.

“She spoke with us and they were empty words today when she spoke,” said step mom Carolyn Terry.

And Napolitano’s gripe with that was the bad publicity surrounding herself.

And over at the airport…

An airline pilot posted a Youtube video showing numerous flaws in the security system

The YouTube videos, posted Nov. 28, show what the pilot calls the irony of flight crews being forced to go through TSA screening while ground crew who service the aircraft are able to access secure areas simply by swiping a card.

“As you can see, airport security is kind of a farce. It’s only smoke and mirrors so you people believe there is actually something going on here,” the pilot narrates.

Video shot in the cockpit shows a medieval-looking rescue ax available on the flight deck after the pilots have gone through the metal detectors. “I would say a two-foot crash ax looks a lot more formidable than a box cutter,” the pilot remarked.

Can you imagine someone being concerned about the ground staff not having to pass through security?

And what was Bis Sis’s reaction to this?

The Fed’s invaded and searched the pilot’s home and seized his handgun and took his concealed weapons permit. This man was a helicopter test pilot and flew UN relief missions for the UN. He had been authorized by the TSA to carry a handgun in the cockpit.

And their response was to make him less able to defend himself, his passengers and his aircraft.

It doesn’t get much more f**king stupid than that. The guy has done nothing wrong.

And Napolitano has more on her table. Just you might have thought Cap and Trade was dead, climate change (aka global warming) is now a national security issue.

(CNSNews.com) — At an all-day White House conference on “environmental justice,” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that her department is creating a new task force to battle the effects of climate change on domestic security operations.

Not satisified with her incompetence at border security, Napolitano becomes part of the Obama promise to bypass Congress and the Constitution to bring this country to its knees economically. It is Obama’s wish for the people of the United States to make all the sacrifices for little to no effect on global warming as we enter a new mini ice age.

Napolitano explained that the task force was charged with “identifying and assessing the impact that climate change could have on the missions and operations of the Department of Homeland Security.”

The solitary Muslim in Congress wants our borders eliminated:

No word on who will pay for all the welfare for the hundreds of millions of immigrants but “kuffar” comes to mind.

Finally, the Idiot of the Day Award goes to Clinton appointee Judge Stefan Underhill who ruled that illegals can sue Border Patrol for allegedly abusive treatment.

A Clinton-appointed judge has given a group of illegal immigrants the green light to sue the U.S. government for violating their constitutional rights during the operation that led to their apprehension.

Ruling that immigration agents and their supervisors can be sued for civil damages, Connecticut federal Judge Stefan Underhill cited the illegal aliens’ story that “defendant officers targeted a primarily Latino neighborhood, arrested people who appeared Latino, detained one plaintiff solely because he spoke Spanish and appeared Latino, and taunted one plaintiff’s girlfriend by saying the plaintiffs were being taken to see Mexican singer Juan Gabriel.”

This will be at our expense, of course. I’d like to see an illegal in Mexico try this.

How many times did we listen to “Bush is taking away our rights” from the looneybin left?

Obama is making Bush look like a veritable libertarian.

Govt ‘creating vast domestic snooping machine’

The government is creating a vast domestic spying network to collect information about Americans in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks and subsequent terror plots, The Washington Post reported Monday. The government is using for this purpose the FBI, local police, state homeland security offices and military criminal investigators, the daily added.

The system collects, stores and analyzes information about thousands of US citizens and residents, many of whom have not been accused of any wrongdoing, the report noted.

The government’s goal is to have every state and local law enforcement agency in the country feed information to Washington to buttress the work of the FBI, noted the paper, which has conducted its own investigation of the matter.

Gitmo is still open for business under Obama and there’s even more!

The ACLU said Obama Administration Will Not Seek Indefinite Detention Legislation

Today? Guantanamo: U.S. seeks indefinite detention

Ironically, while Obama took a “victory lap” to brag about his legislative accomplishments (One might argue that Timothy McVeigh could also claim to having been productive) Der Spiegel branded Barack Obama “The Biggest Loser of 2010.” I have to disagree.

America was the biggest loser of 2010.

Merry Christmas!

This START treaty is bad bad bad….for one very important reason. It reduces our ability to defend ourselves.

Ariel Cohen, a Senior Research Fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies at The Heritage Foundation, notes that the Russians have repeatedly stated they have to right to back out of the treaty if the U.S. missile defense systems is deemed a threat to them.

When has it not been a threat?

This constraint on our missile defense system was the main reason this treaty should never have happened:

Washington has agreed to limitations on its ballistic-missile-defense options (something the administration’s representatives vehemently deny); ambiguous language on rail-mobile ballistic missiles; vague limitations on conventional global-strike systems and a significant degradation of the START verification regime from 1991. All these measures limit U.S. defense options not vis-à-vis Russia, but North Korea, China, and in the future, Iran; and provide the Russian Federation’s Strategic Rocket Forces with unfair advantages.

Furthermore, the treaty’s preamble, the Russian unilateral statement on missile defense and remarks by senior Russian officials suggest an attempt by Russia to limit or constrain current and future U.S. missile-defense capabilities by threatening to withdraw from the treaty should the U.S. expand its missile defenses “qualitatively” or “quantitatively.” Apparently, it will be up to Russia to define these quantitative and/or qualitative criteria, forcing U.S. decision-makers to look to Moscow every time a significant missile defense decision has to be made.

And they all fell for it hook line and sinker.

Some background on the naive thinking of Obama and company:

Though President Obama has announced that Russia is no longer the enemy, Russia still considers the U.S. its “principal adversary,” despite the Administration’s attempts to “reset” bilateral relations. U.S. policymakers need to examine Russia’s views on nuclear weapons and understand Russian nuclear doctrine as it is—not as U.S. arms control advocates wish it to be.

The Russian Approach to Nuclear Arms Control

At the signing of the START follow-on treaty, Medvedev reiterated the Russian position that “the treaty can only be viable” if does not “jeopardize the strategic offensive weapons on the Russian side.”[1]Medvedev essentially created a caveat that makes the Russian commitment to the treaty questionable at best, illustrating that Russia and the U.S. perceive nuclear arms control and doctrine very differently.

Though the Soviet Union collapsed 20 years ago, Russian national leaders, generals, and experts are still captive to a deeply suspicious worldview that hearkens back to hundreds of years of Russian imperial policy.

Announcing the modernization of Russian nuclear forces in 2007, then-President Putin illustrated the Russian worldview by linking nuclear modernization to the U.S. war in Iraq: “Russia, thank God, isn’t Iraq [and] has enough strength and power to defend itself and its interests, both on its territory and in other parts of the world.”[2] For many in Russia, the U.S. is still glavny protivnik (principal adversary), and nuclear arms control does not mean any limits on its ability to maintain modern nuclear weapons. Yet Moscow strives to limit U.S. missile defense and strategic conventional capabilities.

As the Russian military doctrine published this spring illustrates, Russian elites view nuclear weapons not only as a way to protect Russia but as strategic tools used to escalate and end local and regional wars. Nor is Russia interested in President Obama’s vision of a world without nuclear weapons. In 2006, Putin emphasized the importance of Russia’s nuclear arsenal: “When looking at today’s international situation … Russia is compelled to realize that nuclear deterrence is a key element in guaranteeing the country’s security.”[3] The product of Soviet and post-Soviet strategy, current Russian policy is aimed at maximizing deterrence and offensive capability at minimal cost.

~~~

The Obama Administration’s arms control strategy to date has been rooted in an outdated 1970s arms control model and the idealism of the 1960s, both of which embrace a “getting to zero” approach of full nuclear disarmament while weakening missile defense in Eastern Europe.

In a world of global proliferation, and in the context of a Russian nuclear strategy premised on nuclear parity and mutually assured destruction, coupled with scaling down of U.S. defensive systems, this approach to arms control is doomed to fail.

While a conflict with Russia is not likely, and hasn’t been likely in decades…a conflict with Iran, China or North Korea is not out of the question. With our missile defense ability greatly diminished, if not completely destroyed, there is now a greater chance of a nuclear war occurring:

The world, meanwhile, will become a more dangerous place. By simultaneously pursuing a strategy of minimalist missile defense and allowing the U.S. nuclear deterrent to atrophy, the president is lowering the bar for other states to become significant actors. As that trend accelerates, there could well be fewer nuclear weapons in the world — because they’ll have been used in nuclear war. “Pursuing a policy of nuclear disarmament in a proliferated setting actually leads to instability,” our research finds. “When confronted with a crisis, countries rely on nuclear weapons more, not less.”

To make matters worse, the White House will likely follow up New START with an even more ambitious arms-control agenda — one that will likely accelerate our journey down this troubling path.

And to make my point, what happened today?

North Korea threatened nuclear war:

Leader Kim Jong-il and his ministers say they are fully prepared to launch a “sacred war”.

They warn that even the smallest intrusion on its territory would bring a devastating response.

Defence chief Kim Yong Chun said the South’s show of strength with tanks and fighter jets near the border was a “grave military provocation” indicating it was planning to invade.

Kim told a national meeting in Pyongyang that the North would not hesitate to push the button.

He said: “To counter the enemy’s intentional drive to push the situation to the brink of war, our revolutionary forces are making preparations to begin a sacred war at any moment necessary based on nuclear deterrent.” North Korea has threatened nuclear attack before but many analysts say it does not have the technology to launch a nuclear weapon.

Many analysts say? The same analysts that said both North Korea and Iran were nowhere close to gaining a nuclear weapon? Those analysts?

Whether they have the ability to launch one yet matters not. They will. Iran will.

Thanks to Obama and some weak kneed cowardly Republicans we are up sh*t creek without a paddle.