Sunday, February 13, 2011

OBAMA'S AFFINITY FOR MUSLIM DICTATORS, ILLEGALS AND HIS BANKSTER DONORS

MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com


*

Go to http://www.MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com



*



WHAT OBAMA MEANT THAT HE WAS NOT “BUSH”, WAS THAT HE WOULD CRAWL AROUND THE FEET OF THE SAUDI LARDBUCKET DICTATOR TO SEE IF HE CAN SMELL THE KIND OF LOOT THE SAUDIS HAVE HANDED OVER TO HILLARY BILLARY FOR THEIR BULLSHIT LIBRARY, OR THE BUSH CRIME FAMILY, OF BUSH SAUDIS CARLYLE GROUP.



FOUR OF THE BIGGEST WAR CRIMINALS AND TRAITORS OF ALL TIME AR BUSH, HILLARY, BILLARY, AND OBAMA… ALL IN BED WITH THE BIGGEST WAR PROFITEER IN AMERICAN HISTORY, OBAMA- CLINTON DONOR, DIANNE FEINSTEIN!!!





*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Wednesday, June 3, 2009



Television



President Obama spends the day in Saudi Arabia ahead

of what the White House says will be a major speech in Egypt

tomorrow on U.S.-Muslim relations. Critics say the president

should not be delivering this speech in Egypt... which is led

by one of the country’s longest serving autocrats ever. That’s

the subject of our face off debate tonight.

June 2, 2009



*





Obama's 'I'm not Bush' tour of the Middle East

By David Usborne, US Editor

As he sets off for Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the President is under pressure to make good his pledge to mend a fractured relationship

President Barack Obama risks being tripped by over-inflated expectations as he departs Washington tonight for a tour that starts with talks with King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia tomorrow but will be dominated by his long-advertised address to the Muslim world in Egypt on Thursday.

It is Mr Obama's second major trans-Atlantic foray, following his visits to the G20 and Nato summits in April. As well as the Middle East, he will dip once more into European diplomacy, visiting the former concentration camp at Buchenwald in Germany and attending weekend ceremonies to mark the 65th anniversary of the D-Day landings. Beyond the pageantry, he is due to hold private bilateral talks with the leaders of France and Germany.

But it is at Cairo University that Mr Obama, while blessed with undoubted rhetorical skills, faces the biggest challenges. He first promised all the way back in 2007 to deliver an address to the world's 1.5 billion Muslims if he were to become President. This will be that moment, even though he gave something of a preview when he spoke of a new era of "mutual respect" between Muslims and the US in Istanbul at the end of his last trip.

Aides have been working to downplay expectations, insisting that the speech will include no new concrete initiatives and will be more general in nature. "I want to use the occasion to deliver a broader message about how the United States can change for the better its relationship with the Muslim world," Mr Obama said last week after meeting the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, in Washington.

This all on its own may disappoint Muslims in the Arab world and beyond, who are looking for evidence of real change from an America that many grew to despise during the Bush years, when its military invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and was exposed for prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison.

The President is certain to try to separate himself from George Bush, if only by stressing his own personal connections to the Islamic world, such as having people of the Muslim faith in his own family, including his late father from Kenya, and spending part of his childhood in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation in the world.

But in Cairo, where an extraordinary security clampdown is taking place ahead of his visit, Mr Obama will find himself pursuing several goals at once. His audience will want to hear first what he can do to revive still-stalled progress towards an Israeli-Palestinian settlement. Imparting new momentum towards attaining a two-state solution will be the focus of his talks tomorrow in Riyadh as they were at meetings with regional leaders including the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and President Abbas at the White House in recent weeks.

But Mr Obama will also be seeking a regional consensus in the Middle East on dealing with the nuclear ambitions of Iran and countering the threat of extremist terrorism within groups like the Taliban and al-Qa'ida.

The President also faces dilemmas born of his decision to deliver the speech in Cairo, which is historically the cradle of Islamic intellectual thought. He will be aware of the record of his host, President Hosni Mubarak, in repressing political freedoms during the 28 years of his rule.

The White House this week said that among those invited to attend his speech will be "political actors" in Egypt, a list that is likely to include activists who are opposed to President Mubarak's regime.

The danger that Mr Obama will disappoint is widely recognised. "The best he could hope to accomplish is to move Arab public opinion about the United States and make it easier for their governments to work with Washington. We need it for our general influence in the area," noted Elliott Abrams, from the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

Handicapping Mr Obama will be the absence of any real evidence that he is succeeding in moving the Israeli-Palestinian peace process forward. He has notably failed, for example, to persuade Israel to stop construction of new settlements in the occupied West Bank, even after the glad-handing with Mr Netanyahu at the White House.

"How the United States addresses the conflict is how citizens of the region are likely to regard the United States," said Steve Grand, an expert on US-Islamic relations at the Brookings Institution. Mr Obama, he went on, "has been great at a rhetorical level, but he has to provide details about what the United States is going to concretely do to reach out to the Muslim world."

The security apparatus of Egypt is on high alert. To prepare for Thursday's visit by Mr Obama, it has conducted a huge security sweep of the streets that the motorcade will travel on the way to the university campus.

"It's a massive security operation, the biggest we have seen yet," a security official in Egypt said yesterday. Hundreds of students have also been rounded up for questioning ahead of the speech.

Since taking office, Mr Obama has taken steps designed to ease suspicions of the US in the Muslim world, including his order on his first day in office to close the Guantanamo complex within one year.

The first television interview he gave after taking office was to the Arab-language network Al-Arabiya. He recorded a video message speaking directly to the Iranian people to mark Nowruz, the Iranian New Year, and has made overtures to the regime in Tehran about improving relations and ending the nuclear stand-off.



*

Who loves Muslim dictators more? BUSH, HILLARY-BILLARY OR OBAMA??? Or do they all sell us out for the Saudis dirty money?







US Supreme Court declines to hear case of 9/11 families

By Joe Kishore

30 June 2009

The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case brought by families of 9/11 victims against Saudi Arabia, four members of the Saudi royal family, a Saudi bank and a charity. The action lets stand a lower court ruling that the Saudi members cannot be held liable in US courts.

The Obama administration supported the Saudi monarchs, who were accused of financially supporting several of the individuals involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks. The administration last month intervened to ask the high court to reject the appeal.

The family members claim that Saudi princes contributed to charities that funded Al Qaeda and the 9/11 hijackers.

In August 2008, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan upheld a 2006 district court ruling that the Saudi officials and entities were protected under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The families argued that lower courts had made conflicting rulings on the scope of sovereign immunity, and that the Supreme Court should therefore intervene.

The Justice Department has sought furiously to prevent the release of documents assembled by lawyers for the families, which, according to a New York Times report, “provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family.” The government has had copies of the documents destroyed and has sought to prevent judges from even looking at them.

The US government has worked systematically to conceal from the American people evidence of Saudi support for at least two of the hijackers, part of a broader cover-up of the many unanswered questions that still surround the 9/11 attacks.

The documents gathered by the 9/11 families—including a classified section of the 2003 joint congressional inquiry into the attacks—likely include material on Nawaf al-Hamzi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, two Saudi nationals who were aboard the planes that crashed on 9/11. They were known by US intelligence to be members of Al Qaeda at least since 1999.

Despite their previous association, the two men were allowed into the US, where they found accommodations with the help of a Saudi intelligence agent (Omar al-Bayoumi) and, later, an FBI asset (Abdussattar Shaikh). Al-Bayoumi received financing from Princess Haifa, the wife of the Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar.

The suit filed by the families focuses solely on the role of Saudi Arabia. However, the more fundamental question is the role of sections of the American state. The Saudi royal family has had long and intimate ties with American intelligence, and the broader exposure of Saudi links to the attacks threatens to unravel the entire official story of the September 11 attacks.

*

Obama administration seeks to quash suit by 9/11 families

By Barry Grey

26 June 2009

The Obama administration has intervened to quash a civil suit filed against Saudi Arabia by survivors and family members of victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The suit seeks to hold the Saudi royal family liable, charging that it provided financial and other support to Al Qaeda and was thereby complicit in the hijack bombings that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York and Washington DC.

According to an article by Eric Lichtblau in the June 24 New York Times, documents assembled by lawyers for the 9/11 families “provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family.” However, the article states, the documents may never find their way into court because of legal challenges by Saudi Arabia, which are being supported by the US Justice Department.

The administration is taking extraordinary measures to kill the suit and suppress the evidence of Saudi support for Al Qaeda and complicity in the 9/11 attacks. Last month, the Justice Department sided in court with the Saudi monarchy in seeking to halt further legal action. Moreover, it had copies of American intelligence documents on Saudi finances that had been leaked to lawyers for the families destroyed, and is now seeking to prevent a judge from even looking at the material.

OBAMA'S LONG TRAIL OF KISSING UP TO MUSLIM DICTATORS AND PROTECTING THEIR REGIMES

Lou Dobbs Tonight


Wednesday, June 3, 2009



Television



President Obama spends the day in Saudi Arabia ahead

of what the White House says will be a major speech in Egypt

tomorrow on U.S.-Muslim relations. Critics say the president

should not be delivering this speech in Egypt... which is led

by one of the country’s longest serving autocrats ever. That’s

the subject of our face off debate tonight.

June 2, 2009



*





Obama's 'I'm not Bush' tour of the Middle East

By David Usborne, US Editor

As he sets off for Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the President is under pressure to make good his pledge to mend a fractured relationship

President Barack Obama risks being tripped by over-inflated expectations as he departs Washington tonight for a tour that starts with talks with King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia tomorrow but will be dominated by his long-advertised address to the Muslim world in Egypt on Thursday.

It is Mr Obama's second major trans-Atlantic foray, following his visits to the G20 and Nato summits in April. As well as the Middle East, he will dip once more into European diplomacy, visiting the former concentration camp at Buchenwald in Germany and attending weekend ceremonies to mark the 65th anniversary of the D-Day landings. Beyond the pageantry, he is due to hold private bilateral talks with the leaders of France and Germany.

But it is at Cairo University that Mr Obama, while blessed with undoubted rhetorical skills, faces the biggest challenges. He first promised all the way back in 2007 to deliver an address to the world's 1.5 billion Muslims if he were to become President. This will be that moment, even though he gave something of a preview when he spoke of a new era of "mutual respect" between Muslims and the US in Istanbul at the end of his last trip.

Aides have been working to downplay expectations, insisting that the speech will include no new concrete initiatives and will be more general in nature. "I want to use the occasion to deliver a broader message about how the United States can change for the better its relationship with the Muslim world," Mr Obama said last week after meeting the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, in Washington.

This all on its own may disappoint Muslims in the Arab world and beyond, who are looking for evidence of real change from an America that many grew to despise during the Bush years, when its military invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and was exposed for prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison.

The President is certain to try to separate himself from George Bush, if only by stressing his own personal connections to the Islamic world, such as having people of the Muslim faith in his own family, including his late father from Kenya, and spending part of his childhood in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation in the world.

But in Cairo, where an extraordinary security clampdown is taking place ahead of his visit, Mr Obama will find himself pursuing several goals at once. His audience will want to hear first what he can do to revive still-stalled progress towards an Israeli-Palestinian settlement. Imparting new momentum towards attaining a two-state solution will be the focus of his talks tomorrow in Riyadh as they were at meetings with regional leaders including the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and President Abbas at the White House in recent weeks.

But Mr Obama will also be seeking a regional consensus in the Middle East on dealing with the nuclear ambitions of Iran and countering the threat of extremist terrorism within groups like the Taliban and al-Qa'ida.

The President also faces dilemmas born of his decision to deliver the speech in Cairo, which is historically the cradle of Islamic intellectual thought. He will be aware of the record of his host, President Hosni Mubarak, in repressing political freedoms during the 28 years of his rule.

The White House this week said that among those invited to attend his speech will be "political actors" in Egypt, a list that is likely to include activists who are opposed to President Mubarak's regime.

The danger that Mr Obama will disappoint is widely recognised. "The best he could hope to accomplish is to move Arab public opinion about the United States and make it easier for their governments to work with Washington. We need it for our general influence in the area," noted Elliott Abrams, from the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

Handicapping Mr Obama will be the absence of any real evidence that he is succeeding in moving the Israeli-Palestinian peace process forward. He has notably failed, for example, to persuade Israel to stop construction of new settlements in the occupied West Bank, even after the glad-handing with Mr Netanyahu at the White House.

"How the United States addresses the conflict is how citizens of the region are likely to regard the United States," said Steve Grand, an expert on US-Islamic relations at the Brookings Institution. Mr Obama, he went on, "has been great at a rhetorical level, but he has to provide details about what the United States is going to concretely do to reach out to the Muslim world."

The security apparatus of Egypt is on high alert. To prepare for Thursday's visit by Mr Obama, it has conducted a huge security sweep of the streets that the motorcade will travel on the way to the university campus.

"It's a massive security operation, the biggest we have seen yet," a security official in Egypt said yesterday. Hundreds of students have also been rounded up for questioning ahead of the speech.

Since taking office, Mr Obama has taken steps designed to ease suspicions of the US in the Muslim world, including his order on his first day in office to close the Guantanamo complex within one year.

The first television interview he gave after taking office was to the Arab-language network Al-Arabiya. He recorded a video message speaking directly to the Iranian people to mark Nowruz, the Iranian New Year, and has made overtures to the regime in Tehran about improving relations and ending the nuclear stand-off.

Barack Obama & His SAUDIS WAHHABI TERRORIST CONNECTION - Is He Smelling Saudis Dirty Money?

Who loves Muslim dictators more? BUSH, HILLARY-BILLARY OR OBAMA??? Or do they all sell us out for the Saudis dirty money?








US Supreme Court declines to hear case of 9/11 families

By Joe Kishore

30 June 2009

The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case brought by families of 9/11 victims against Saudi Arabia, four members of the Saudi royal family, a Saudi bank and a charity. The action lets stand a lower court ruling that the Saudi members cannot be held liable in US courts.

The Obama administration supported the Saudi monarchs, who were accused of financially supporting several of the individuals involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks. The administration last month intervened to ask the high court to reject the appeal.

The family members claim that Saudi princes contributed to charities that funded Al Qaeda and the 9/11 hijackers.

In August 2008, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan upheld a 2006 district court ruling that the Saudi officials and entities were protected under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The families argued that lower courts had made conflicting rulings on the scope of sovereign immunity, and that the Supreme Court should therefore intervene.

The Justice Department has sought furiously to prevent the release of documents assembled by lawyers for the families, which, according to a New York Times report, “provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family.” The government has had copies of the documents destroyed and has sought to prevent judges from even looking at them.

The US government has worked systematically to conceal from the American people evidence of Saudi support for at least two of the hijackers, part of a broader cover-up of the many unanswered questions that still surround the 9/11 attacks.

The documents gathered by the 9/11 families—including a classified section of the 2003 joint congressional inquiry into the attacks—likely include material on Nawaf al-Hamzi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, two Saudi nationals who were aboard the planes that crashed on 9/11. They were known by US intelligence to be members of Al Qaeda at least since 1999.

Despite their previous association, the two men were allowed into the US, where they found accommodations with the help of a Saudi intelligence agent (Omar al-Bayoumi) and, later, an FBI asset (Abdussattar Shaikh). Al-Bayoumi received financing from Princess Haifa, the wife of the Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar.

The suit filed by the families focuses solely on the role of Saudi Arabia. However, the more fundamental question is the role of sections of the American state. The Saudi royal family has had long and intimate ties with American intelligence, and the broader exposure of Saudi links to the attacks threatens to unravel the entire official story of the September 11 attacks.

*

Obama administration seeks to quash suit by 9/11 families

By Barry Grey

26 June 2009

The Obama administration has intervened to quash a civil suit filed against Saudi Arabia by survivors and family members of victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The suit seeks to hold the Saudi royal family liable, charging that it provided financial and other support to Al Qaeda and was thereby complicit in the hijack bombings that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York and Washington DC.

According to an article by Eric Lichtblau in the June 24 New York Times, documents assembled by lawyers for the 9/11 families “provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family.” However, the article states, the documents may never find their way into court because of legal challenges by Saudi Arabia, which are being supported by the US Justice Department.

The administration is taking extraordinary measures to kill the suit and suppress the evidence of Saudi support for Al Qaeda and complicity in the 9/11 attacks. Last month, the Justice Department sided in court with the Saudi monarchy in seeking to halt further legal action. Moreover, it had copies of American intelligence documents on Saudi finances that had been leaked to lawyers for the families destroyed, and is now seeking to prevent a judge from even looking at the material.

Two federal judges and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals have already ruled against the 7,630 people represented in the lawsuit, rejecting the suit on the grounds that the plaintiffs cannot sue in the US against a sovereign nation and its leaders. The Supreme Court is expected to rule this month on whether to hear an appeal, but the families’ prospects have been weakened by the intervention of the Obama administration, which has called on the court not to hear the plaintiffs’ appeal.

The Times reports that it obtained the new documents from the families’ lawyers, adding that they are among “several hundred thousand pages of investigative material” assembled by the 9/11 families in their long-running suit against the Saudi royal family.

Lichtblau writes that the documents “provide no smoking gun connecting the royal family to the events of September 11, 2001.” However, there is a wealth of evidence in the public record strongly pointing to such a connection. And there is the 28-page, classified section of the 2003 joint congressional inquiry into 9/11 that deals with the Saudi role in the attacks. Lichtblau writes that “the secret section is believed to discuss intelligence on Saudi financial links to two hijackers.”

Then-President George W. Bush ordered that section of the congressional report to be classified, and its contents were blacked out in the findings released to the public by Congress. The Obama administration is continuing this policy of shielding the Saudi monarchy.

Lichtblau reports that the material obtained by the Times from the families’ lawyers includes “thousands of pages of previously undisclosed documents” that provide “an unusually detailed look at some of the evidence.” He cites as one example “internal Treasury Department documents” that show that the International Islamic Relief Organization, a “Saudi charity,” heavily supported by members of the Saudi royal family, “provided ‘support for terrorist organizations’ at least through 2006.”

He gives other examples of evidence of Saudi support for Islamist terrorists in Bosnia in the 1990s and witness statements and intelligence reports of money being given by Saudi princes to the Taliban and to “militants’ activities” in Pakistan and Bosnia during the same decade.

What are the motives behind the Obama administration’s efforts to cover up the connections between the Saudi monarchy and Al Qaeda?

The Justice Department, according to the Times, cites “potentially significant foreign relations consequences” should the 9/11 families’ suit be allowed to go to trial. This is undoubtedly a factor. The US has an immense political and economic interest in protecting the Saudi dictatorship, which is a major American ally in the Middle East, a supporter of Washington’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the world’s biggest producer of oil.

But there is a more immediate and compelling reason for suppressing any exposure of the Saudi connection to Al Qaeda and 9/11. The revelations would undoubtedly shatter the official explanations of the September 11 attacks and point to complicity on the part of US intelligence and security agencies.

Given its longstanding and intimate ties to the Saudi royal family and Saudi intelligence, it is not possible to believe that the CIA would have been unaware of Saudi support for Al Qaeda and at least some of the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals, as they were preparing to carry out the attacks on New York and Washington.

The ties between the Saudi and US intelligence establishments were strengthened during the US-backed war against the pro-Soviet regime in Afghanistan, beginning in 1979 and continuing through the 1980s. The US poured billions of dollars in arms and financing into this war, most of it funneled through the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence agency.

The Saudi regime also helped fund the anti-Soviet guerrillas, many of whom were brought to Afghanistan by Islamist forces in the Middle East. Osama bin Laden served as the Saudi regime’s personal emissary in this cause, helping to organize, train and equip Arab volunteers for the Afghan war. The movement now known as Al Qaeda was spawned through the interaction of these three intelligence agencies—the CIA, the ISI and the Saudis.

The bipartisan 9/11 commission, in its July 2004 report, echoed the Bush administration’s whitewash of Saudi ties to the terrorist attacks, declaring that it found “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded” Al Qaeda.

However, in a book published later that year, Intelligence Matters, then-Florida Senator Bob Graham charged the Bush administration with orchestrating a cover-up of Saudi involvement in the September 11 attacks. Graham was at the time the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which had carried out, along with its House counterpart, the joint congressional investigation into 9/11.

He wrote that “evidence of official Saudi supportî for at least some of the hijackers was ìincontrovertible.” Graham’s charges focused on the extraordinary cases of Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who were identified as hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon.

The two men, both Saudi nationals, are undoubtedly the “two hijackers” to whom Times reporter Lichtblau refers in connection with the secret section of the joint congressional report on 9/11.

Both were known to US intelligence as Al Qaeda operatives at least since 1999. Malaysian agents, acting in concert with the CIA, photographed and videotaped them and others during a 2000 meeting of Islamist terrorist groups in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Nevertheless, after the meeting, al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were allowed to fly to the US using their own passports and visas issued by US consular authorities in Saudi Arabia. While the CIA knew of their presence in the US, it did not inform the Federal Bureau of Investigation, according to the FBI. (The CIA disputes this claim, insisting that it did alert the FBI). Nor did the CIA inform immigration authorities.

After landing in Los Angeles in January of 2000, al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were met by Omar al-Bayoumi, an employee of the Saudi civil aviation authority. US investigators have concluded that al-Bayoumi was a Saudi intelligence agent.

Al-Bayoumi invited the pair to move to San Diego, where he found them an apartment, provided them with money and helped enroll them in flight school.

It has been reported that al-Bayoumi served as a conduit for thousands of dollars in funding for the future hijackers sent by Princess Haifa, the wife of Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the US and a close confidante of the Bush family.

Al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar lived openly in the US, one of them even having his name listed in the telephone directory.

Within months, al-Hazmi moved into the home of Abdussattar Shaikh, a retired professor at San Diego State University. Shaikh was on the FBI payroll, charged with monitoring the activities of Islamist groups in the San Diego region.

In his book, Graham wrote that the FBI concealed from the joint congressional committee the fact that its paid informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, had established a close personal relationship with the two hijackers.

When the committee staff discovered Shaikh’s role and the committee issued a subpoena to question him under oath, the FBI and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft refused to serve the subpoena. Graham said that a senior FBI official wrote to him and the Republican co-chair of the joint committee declaring that the administration would neither allow the FBI to serve a subpoena on Shaikh nor allow the committee staff to interview him.

Graham wrote that this was the only time he had ever heard of the FBI refusing to serve a congressional subpoena. He commented, “We were seeing in writing what we had suspected for some time: the White House was directing a cover-up.”

Bush’s extraordinary intervention to block questioning of FBI informant Shaikh was consistent with his administration’s actions in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, when it allowed chartered planes to ferry some 140 prominent Saudis—including at least a dozen of Osama bin Laden’s relatives—to Boston for evacuation to Saudi Arabia. The pick-up flights were organized at a time when all non-military and non-emergency aviation had been grounded by government order. Bin Laden’s relatives were allowed to leave the country with little or no questioning by the FBI.

In his book, Graham himself posed the question of why the congressional committee was denied access to the San Diego FBI informant. After offering several possible answers, he suggested in deliberately obscure language a “far more damning possibility”—“perhaps the informant did know something about the plot that would be even more damaging were it revealed, and that this is what the FBI is trying to conceal.”

Graham did not spell out what “damning” information about the 9/11 conspiracy the informant might have revealed. But the role of the CIA, the FBI and the Bush administration in the case of al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar suggests that it went beyond involvement by the Saudi government. It strongly suggests he was blocked from being questioned out of concern that he would reveal that elements within the US state apparatus knew of plans for an impending hijacking and allowed them to go forward.

Eight years after the attacks, no one has been held accountable for what on its face is the greatest failure of national security in US history. The question is: Was it a failure, or was a decision taken to permit a terrorist attack on US soil in order to provide the pretext for implementing plans for wars abroad and repressive policies at home that had been drawn up well in advance of September 11, 2001?

That a new administration is continuing the policy of shielding the Saudi monarchy and suppressing evidence of its complicity in 9/11 points strongly to the latter explanation.

*

Is Saudi Arabia Waging Resource Aggression Against the American People and the World Economy?!



Posted November 8, 2007



Imagine waking up to the following nightmare headline "Canada Interdicts the Head Waters of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers and All Water Flows From Its Territory Into the Great Lakes." One's reaction would not be passive nor that of our government to such a blatant act of resource aggression. And if you permit a glib interjection, any argumentation that , "well its water on their side of the border" would hold no water whatsoever. The deterioration of relations between the United States and Canada would be immediate, grave, and threatening.

Yet in degree, this is the current status of our resource relationship with the Saudis. Consider the following. On March 5, 2007 in a first page article "Oil Innovations Pump New Life Into Old Wells", the New York Times reported that Nansen G. Saleri, the head of reservoir management at the state owned Saudi Aramco reported that Saudi Arabia's total reserves were almost three times higher than the kingdom's officially published figure of 260 billion barrels. He estimated the kingdom's resources at 716 billion barrels. Mr. Saleri continued that he wouldn't be surprised if ultimate reserves of Saudi Arabia reached a trillion, (1,000,000,000,000) barrels!

This amazing revelation coming from the reservoir manager of Aramco underlines the degree to which the Saudis have perverted the current world oil market. The Saudis are the putative leaders of OPEC and their capabilities and objectives determine OPEC's policy goals. It is clear as the International Energy Agency phrased it in their recent report, "The greater the increase in the call of oil and gas...the more likely it will be that they will seek a higher rent from their exports and to impose higher prices ... by deferring investment and constraining production."

Saudi Arabia, given its enormous reserves, could readily produce significant additional quantities of oil in order to abate the steep run up of oil prices. At these price levels the fact they and OPEC are maintaining the major portion of their production cuts made at the beginning of this year (OPEC's production cut of 1.7 million barrels/day altered by a production increase of only 500,000 barrels/day starting this month) is smoking gun evidence of their extortionist intent. By holding oil off the market, oil which they clearly have in ample supply, they are gouging the world's economies, pricing their product at levels that have no market rationale whatsoever. They are preying on the world's need for oil. It is an act of resource aggression against the world's consumers much as Canada's hypothetical interference with the headwaters of our major river ways would be an act of aggression against the United States.

Please note in my title I referred to waging resource aggression against the American people. The government was not mentioned because in this imbroglio our administration is in effect Saudi Arabia's, as well as OPEC's and the oil patch's greatest ally. In the near seven years of its Presidency, virtually nothing has been done to constrain Saudi Arabia's policies. On the contrary our President and Vice President are so wedded to the oil industry's interests that the enormous increase in oil prices during their tenure can well be ascribed to willful lack of any forceful policies to counter the Saudi extortion. This has manifested itself in many ways.

Let me just cite a few:

In the near seven years of the Bush presidency, virtually no serious steps have been taken to significantly abate demand for fossil fuels;



The nations Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been used to underpin escalating prices by continuing purchases even as prices exploded, thereby signaling the governments acceptance and approval of these price levels, and worse by declaring the doubling of the Reserve just as crude oil prices were retreating to $50/bbl earlier this year.

Neither through "friendly persuasion" nor as a Dutch Uncle, making Saudi Arabia understand its price and production policies are intolerable. This even though we are in essence the guarantors of last resort of Saudi Arabia's independence as evidenced by the some $100 million dollars a day being expended from this nation's treasury on our naval flotilla stationed off the Saudi Coast in the Arabian Gulf thereby serving as a bulwark against Shia Iran that without our presence would have designs and capabilities against Sunni Saudi Arabia;

By the fawning obsequiousness our high government officials have shown toward Saudi officialdom, (see "The Price of Oil, OPEC and Our Laws and Now Welcome to Vichy" 5.4.06) or be it Price Bandar's open access to the Oval Office while he was Ambassador in Washington and thereafter.

Or as exemplified by the symbolic holding of then Price Abdullah's hand at the Crawford Ranch meeting (see "Cheney in Saudi Land, Don't Hold Abdullah's Hand" 01.16.06; and "President Bush's Most Respectful Letter to King Abdullah on Energy Cooperation" 06.22.06 ) whose coziness resulted in an almost immediate upward ratcheting of oil prices.

The administration's oil industry buddies are ecstatic at the windfall the entire oil sector has reaped by the quadrupling of oil prices to levels undreamed of before the advent of this Presidency, while many of the nations citizens are having their household budgets ripped to shreds in order to meet their home heating bills this coming winter. Rarely if ever in the history of the Republic has there been such a divergence between the nation's interests and those of the vested interests that formed this administration.

.................................................................................



ISLAMOFASCIST that Bush protects and kisses up to!



UNDERSTANDING WAHHABIST INFILTRATION OF AMERICA



November 05, 2007



Understanding the Wahhabist Infiltration of America

Frank Salvato

Part of the reason many Americans don’t appreciate the significance of Osama bin Laden’s declarations of war against the United States and the West is because they are completely oblivious to the in roads radical Islam has made within the United States. Radical Islamists (i.e., Islamofascists, Wahhabis) understand that the conflict must take place on multiple fronts: militarily, economically, diplomatically and ideologically. Because they understand the complexity of the confrontation and the ability of the West to adapt to challenges – albeit lethargically – they employ multiple tactics in their aggressive pursuit of victory. The West’s addiction to sensationalism, epitomized by our limited attention to detail, unless it plays in the superficial 24 hour news cycle, facilitates the successful infiltration of radical ideology into Western society.





Much to the chagrin of the multicultural and the proponents of diversity, those who promote radical Islamist ideology thrive on the fact that the politically correct culture of the West – and the United States in particular – deems it inappropriate to question religious practices or teachings. With this politically correct “wall of separation” in place little if any scrutiny is given to the information disseminated within any given religious institution. This directly facilitates the ideological advancement of Wahhabism, the most radical and puritanical form of Islam, within the mosques of the United States.



To accurately understand the depth of infiltration of the Wahhabist ideology on American soil we need to examine the ideology and how it is advanced within the United States.



Wahhabism is a fiercely fundamentalist form of orthodox Sunni Islam. After a brief examination of its tenets it is clear that it is one of division, domination and hate.



Wahhabism originated circa 1703 and is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia. Wahhabists believe that any and all evolution of the Islamic faith after the 3rd century of the Muslim era – after 950 A.D. – was specious and must be expunged. Consequently, Wahhabism is the form of Islam that Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahri practice.



This radically fundamentalist dogma is fanatically bigoted, xenophobic and lends itself to serve as the catalyst for much of the Islamofascist aggression being perpetrated around the world. It is a wrathful doctrine that rejects the legitimacy of all religious philosophy but its own. Wahhabism condemns Christians, Jews and all other non Muslims, as well as non Wahhabi Muslims. Wahhabists believe it is a religious obligation for Muslims to hate Christians and Jews.



It stresses a worldview in which there exist two opposing realms that can never be reconciled Dar al Islam, or House of Islam, and Dar al Har, or House of War, also referred to as Dar al Kufr, House of the Infidel. When Muslims are in the Dar al Har, they must behave as if they were operatives in a conflict who have been tasked with going behind enemy lines. The Wahhabist ideology permits Muslims to exist “behind enemy lines” for only a few reasons: to acquire knowledge, to make money to be later employed in the jihad against the infidels, or to proselytize the infidels in an effort to convert them to Islam.



Wahhabist doctrine specifically warns Muslims not to imitate, befriend or help “infidels” in any way. It instills hatred for United States because we are ruled by legislated constitutional law rather than by tyrannical Sharia law. Wahhabists are instructed by edict to, above all, work for the creation of an Islamic state where ever they may dwell.



It is because of the Wahhabist ideology’s cruel and unyielding fanaticism that we in the United States should be concerned with its prevalence within the mosques of our nation.



After the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979 – an unprecedented action by the fundamentalists of the Shi’ite sect, the Saudi Arabian government responded by coming to terms with the fundamentalist Wahhabist movement of the Sunni sect. The Saudis, in return for a declaration of non aggression, began to finance the construction of mosques in countries around the world. An estimated $45 billion has been spent by the Saudis to finance the building and operational costs of mosques and Islamic schools in foreign countries, including in North America.



Through the funding of mosques, Islamic Centers and their operations, Saudi Arabia is exporting the Wahhabist ideology. It is not unusual to find that the presiding cleric in any given mosque within the United States is a Wahhabist and that his teachings have been sanctioned and financed by the Saudi government and vetted by the Muslim Brotherhood.



Two of the more predominant mosques in the United States that have received funding from the Saudi government, and that adhere to the Wahhabist ideology, are the al Farooq mosque in Brooklyn, New York, and the King Fahd mosque in Los Angeles, California. Both mosques welcomed a number of the hijackers who piloted the planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania on September 11th, 2001.



In 2005, Freedom House, a 501(c)(3) organization concerned with the mounting threats to peace and democracy, released a report titled, Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques. This examination of a comprehensive sampling of mosques and Islamic Centers across America shows that literature available in an overwhelming number of them indicates deference for the Wahhabist ideology.



Among some of the edicts – or fatwas – issued through this literature:



?? “[I]t is basic Islam to believe that everyone who does not embrace Islam is an unbeliever, and must be called an unbeliever, and that they are enemies to Allah, his Prophet and believers.”



?? “[O]ur doctrine states that if you accept any religion other than Islam, like Judaism or Christianity, which are not acceptable, you become an unbeliever. If you do not repent, you are an apostate and you should be killed because you have denied the Koran.”



?? “Be dissociated from the infidels, hate them for their religion, leave them, never rely on them for support, do not admire them, and always oppose them in every way according to Islamic law.”



?? “Never greet the Christian or Jew first. Never congratulate the infidel on his holiday. Never befriend an infidel unless it is to convert him. Never imitate the infidel. Never work for an infidel. Do not wear a graduation gown because this imitates the infidel.”

?? “Those who reside in the land of unbelief out of their own choice and desire to be with the people of that land, accepting the way they are regarding their faith, or giving compliments to them, or pleasing them by pointing out something wrong with the Muslims, they become unbelievers and enemies to Allah and his messenger.”



?? “To be true Muslims, we must prepare and be ready for jihad in Allah’s way. It is the duty of the citizen and the government. The military education is glued to faith and its meaning, and the duty to follow it.”





With this ideology being taught in mosques across America, there is little reason for speculating as to why hatred exists for American principles, culture and ideology not only within the Islamic community, but among the societally disenfranchised and ideologically vulnerable in the United States who are being indoctrinated into this radical form of Islam.



This brings to the forefront a bothersome question. Why aren’t those of the American Fifth Column, who are predisposed to seeking out the haters among us, calling out the Wahhabist bigots who preach their hate in American mosques?



We in the West – and especially in the United States – must immediately seek out a greater understanding of not only the basic elements of the threat of radical Islam, but the extent to which it has already infiltrated our society. If we continue to remain ignorant of the facts surrounding this very real war against our way of life, we will lose our nation with nary a shot being fired.





Related Reading:



Freedom House

http://www.freedomhouse.org



Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques

http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/special_report/45.pdf



Basics Project: Terrorism – Ideology

http://www.basicsproject.org/terrorism/ideology.htm#Wahhabism



Basics Project: Understanding the Threat of Radical Islam

http://www.basicsproject.org/educational_cd_series.htm#Understanding_the_Threat_of_Radical_Islam

###



We will make it clear that we consider Saudi Arabia withholding oil from world markets an unfriendly act and if our actions in turn result in Iranian hegemony of the Persian/Arabian Gulf, so be it. This with the clear eyed understanding that given Saudi actions our relations with the Iranians can not be worse then they are in actuality with the Saudis, and at some levels, as on a people to people basis, decidedly better. One need only read the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom's report released last week highlighting Saudi Arabia's egregious violations of religious rights and lack of progress on efforts to halt the exportation of extremist ideology and continued practices violating the rights at home of minority Shiite Muslims, non Muslim religious groups and women.



SAUDI LARGEST CONTINGENT OF FOREIGN INSURGENTS/SUICIDE BOMBERS IN IRAQ

Or yesterday's lead story in the NYTimes that the Saudi's are the largest contingent by far of foreign insurgents/suicide bombers in Iraq and that according to American military officials "Saudi citizens provide the majority of financing for Al Queda in Mesopotania." And not to be forgotten, the fifteen Saudi citizens on those planes.



Given their behavior, it is the time to end our supplicant relationship with Saudi Arabia. It is time for government to act!

***

Raymond J. Learsy is the author of the updated Over a Barrel: Breaking Oil's Grip On Our Future.



INSTEAD OF INVADING IRAN, WHY NOT INVADE THE FILTHY SAUDIS? JUST LIKE THEY DID US 9-11.......................!



***

Raymond J. Learsy is the author of the updated Over a Barrel: Breaking Oil's Grip On Our Future.

BANK of AMERICA, DICTATOR MUBARAK and kissing the asses of MUSLIM DICTATORS

WHEREVER THERE’S A DICTATOR OR RAPE AND PILLAGE, THERE WE FIND AN AMERICAN BANKER!


GLOBAL CRIMINAL BANKSTERS, BANK of AMERICA IS ONE OF THE WORST!

WHEREVER THERE’S A SAUDI, THERE’S AN AMERICAN POLITICIAN THAT SMELLS SAUDIS DIRTY MONEY.

IT WAS THE SAUDIS THAT INVADED US 9-11. IT WAS GEORGE BUSH AND BIG BUSH SAUDIS CARLYLE GROUP, ALONG WITH DICK CHENEY – HALLIBURTON, THAT STARTED NOT ONE, BUT WARS AGAINST SAUDIS NEMESES, SADDAM HUSSEIN!

DESPITE THE SAUDIS INVASION, AND THE FACT THAT THE SAUDIS DO NOT PERMIT CHRISTIAN OR JEWISH PLACES OF WORSHIP IN THEIR “KINGDOM” OF LARD BUCKETS, HILLARY-BILLARY HAVE ALSO TAKEN MILLIONS OF SAUDIS DIRTY MONEY FOR THE BILLARY LIBRARY!

YOU HAVE CRINGED AT THE SIGHT OF BARACK OBAMA, BENDING OVER AND KISSING THE HEM OF THE LARD BUCKET DICTATOR OF SAUDIS –WAHHABI TERROR LAND! THIS LARD BUCKET DICTATOR IS LISTED AS No. 5 BY PARADE OF THE TOP 10 DICTATORS.

AND WE ARE SUPPOSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE ABOVE CLOWNS, BUSH, HILLARY, BILLARY, AND OBAMA DID NOT KNOW THAT DICTATOR MUBARAK HAS ACCUMULATED $70 BILLION IN ASSETS, PRIMARILY BY SIPHONING OFF THE $1.6 BILLION OF AMERICAN AID FOR 30 YEARS….???

EVEN AS HILLARY AND OBAMA KISS UP TO THE DRUG ADDICT DICTATOR OF AFGHANISTAN WE PROTECT, ALONG WITH THE DICTATOR’S DRUG DEALER BROTHER. HOW MANY HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS HAS THIS DICTATOR HAULED AWAY OF AMERICAN LOOT??? GOOGLE IT!



Mr. Mubarak’s villa is in a compound developed by Hussein Salem, an Egyptian businessman and close friend of the former president. Mr. Salem pleaded guilty in 1983 to overcharging the Pentagon $8 million for shipping military equipment to Egypt. Despite the conviction, he prospered in Mr. Mubarak’s Egypt and heads a lucrative business that ships natural gas to Israel.





February 12, 2011

Mubarak Family Riches Attract New Focus

By NEIL MacFARQUHAR, DAVID ROHDE and ARAM ROSTON

After Hosni Mubarak’s younger son, Gamal, left his job as an executive with Bank of America in London in the mid-1990s, he joined forces with Egypt’s largest investment bank. Today he has a significant stake in a private equity company with interests throughout the Egyptian economy, from oil to agriculture to tourism, corporate records and interviews show.

During President Hosni Mubarak’s nearly 30-year rule, he and his family were not flamboyant with their wealth, particularly by the standards of other leaders in the Middle East. While there is no indication that Gamal Mubarak or the bank were involved in illegal activity, his investments show how deeply the family is woven into Egypt’s economy.

Now with Hosni Mubarak out of power, there are growing calls for an accounting to begin.

Within hours of Mr. Mubarak’s resignation on Friday, Swiss officials ordered all banks in Switzerland to search for — and freeze — any assets of the former president, his family or close associates. In Egypt, opposition leaders vowed to press for a full investigation of Mr. Mubarak’s finances.

Tracing the money is likely to be difficult because business in Egypt was largely conducted in secret among a small group connected to Mr. Mubarak.

“Now we open all the files,” said George Ishak, head of the National Association for Change, an opposition umbrella group. “We will research everything, all of them: the families of the ministers, the family of the president, everyone.”

Estimates of the Mubaraks’ fortune vary wildly, including a widespread rumor that they are worth as much as $70 billion. United States officials say that figure is vastly exaggerated and put the family’s wealth at $2 billion to $3 billion.

Gamal Mubarak, who was being groomed to be the next president, and his older brother Ala’a, were considered major figures in the business elite.

Gamal Mubarak’s private equity business came through his ties to EFG-Hermes, the largest investment bank in Egypt. EFG-Hermes, which listed assets of $8 billion on its 2010 financial statement, was pivotal in Egypt’s privatization program, in which state companies were sold to politically connected businessmen.

The connection to EFG-Hermes reaches back to the mid-1990s. After Gamal Mubarak left Bank of America, he set up an investment firm called Medinvest Associates in London in 1996 with two partners. Medinvest, in turn, is owned by an international securities fund in Cyprus called Bullion Company Ltd. According to EFG-Hermes, Gamal Mubarak owns half of Bullion, and records in Cyprus show that his brother Ala’a is on the board.

Bullion owns 35 percent of the private equity operation, which has $919 million under management, according to the chief executive of EFG-Hermes, Hassan Heikal. The equity fund invests in oil and gas, steel, cement, food and cattle.

Mr. Heikal said that other than the private equity investment, Gamal Mubarak had no other ties “directly, indirectly, offshore or through family” to the bank. He said the fund constituted only 7 percent of the bank’s business. Questioned about the size of Gamal’s initial investment in the 1990s, Mr. Heikal declined to elaborate.

A spokeswoman for EFG-Hermes said in a statement that the bank “has received no special privileges or consideration from the Egyptian government and has always operated under legal and transparent best-practices.” Calls to Medinvest’s office in London and Bullion’s office in Cyprus last week were not returned. In the past, Gamal Mubarak has denied any wrongdoing and said he was involved in legitimate business activities.

For years, opposition groups have contended that since Egypt privatized its economy in the 1990s, the Mubaraks and a few dozen elite families have held stakes in the sale of state assets and in new business ventures. Later, some of these businessmen were appointed to government positions overseeing the very businesses they ran. Connections to the presidential palace brought benefits like the opportunity to develop government real estate and access to easy bank loans.

“The corruption of the Mubarak family was not stealing from the budget, it was transforming political capital into private capital,” said Samer Soliman, a professor of political economy at American University in Cairo.

Occasionally, members of the ruling elite who fell out of favor were suddenly convicted of financial corruption charges, but generally, the inner workings of the system have remained hidden.

One businessman who won government approval for various major development projects is Magdi Rasekh, Ala’a Mubarak’s father-in-law. Mr. Rasekh is chairman of the board of Sixth of October Development & Investment Company, which built one of a series of sprawling new developments in the desert outside Cairo. The government-backed development, Sixth of October City, is home to 500,000 people, an entirely new satellite city with an industrial park, a hospital, villas and middle-class apartments. Efforts to reach Mr. Rasekh were not successful.

As attention turns to tracking the Mubaraks’ purported wealth, rumors of vast real estate holdings by the family have swirled. But the only property outside of Egypt that has emerged is the London townhouse at 28 Wilton Place in Knightsbridge where Gamal Mubarak lived when he was an investment banker there.

But determining the precise ownership of the house shows why investigating the family’s wealth is complicated. A woman answering the front door of the house said the Mubaraks had sold it, but property agents said there was no record of a sale, and neighbors said they had seen Gamal Mubarak and his family entering it several times recently.

According to British records, the home is owned by a company called Ocral Enterprises of Panama. The registered agent for the company in Panama is a local law firm. A lawyer at the firm said that he could not reveal Ocral’s owner. The lawyer said his firm received its instructions regarding Ocral from a company in Muscat, Oman, which he declined to identify.

Though Swiss banks have begun the search for Mubarak family assets, experts said any money would be returned to Egypt only if its new government formally demanded them.

“Egypt has to run a criminal investigation,” said Daniel Thelesklaf, director of the International Center for Asset Recovery in Switzerland. “A lot will depend on the new Egyptian government.”

As the protest intensified last week, government prosecutors froze the assets of five government ministers and imposed a travel ban on them. The move appeared to be an effort by Mr. Mubarak to distance himself from the wealthy businessmen who had become the focus of public ire over corruption. It is unclear whether the military, which now runs the government and has vast business holdings itself, will allow a full inquiry into the Mubarak family’s wealth.

Perhaps the most difficult question to answer is the level of corruption involving Hosni Mubarak himself. Former American diplomats said he appeared to live relatively simply, particularly by the standards of rulers in the region. His main residence outside Cairo was a villa in a private compound in the Red Sea resort town of Sharm el Sheik, where he went after resigning the presidency on Friday. Diplomats said the villa was not particularly grand for the neighborhood, smaller than the nearby home of Bakr bin Laden, a member of the wealthy Saudi construction clan and a half-brother of Osama bin Laden.

Mr. Mubarak’s villa is in a compound developed by Hussein Salem, an Egyptian businessman and close friend of the former president. Mr. Salem pleaded guilty in 1983 to overcharging the Pentagon $8 million for shipping military equipment to Egypt. Despite the conviction, he prospered in Mr. Mubarak’s Egypt and heads a lucrative business that ships natural gas to Israel.

Eric Schmitt and Mark Mazzetti contributed reporting.

*

WHEREVER ON THE GLOBE THERE’S A DICTATORSHIP, THERE SITS A DICTATOR WITH HIS POCKETS FULL OF MONEY LOOTED FROM AMERICANS AS HIS PEOPLE GO WITH OUT FOOD!

IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ONLY KNEW HOW MUCH THE SAUDIS, - THE 9-11 INVADERS BUY OUR LEADERSHIP!





Mubarak family fortune could reach $70bn, say experts

Egyptian president has cash in British and Swiss banks plus UK and US property





Gamal and Hosni Mubarak are reported to have built up huge fortunes, including properties in London. Photograph: Cris Bouroncle/AFP/Getty Images

President Hosni Mubarak's family fortune could be as much as $70bn (£43.5bn) according to analysis by Middle East experts, with much of his wealth in British and Swiss banks or tied up in real estate in London, New York, Los Angeles and along expensive tracts of the Red Sea coast.

After 30 years as president and many more as a senior military official, Mubarak has had access to investment deals that have generated hundreds of millions of pounds in profits. Most of those gains have been taken offshore and deposited in secret bank accounts or invested in upmarket homes and hotels.

According to a report last year in the Arabic newspaper Al Khabar, Mubarak has properties in Manhattan and exclusive Beverly Hills addresses on Rodeo Drive.

His sons, Gamal and Alaa, are also billionaires. A protest outside Gamal's ostentatious home at 28 Wilton Place in Belgravia, central London, highlighted the family's appetite for western trophy assets.

Amaney Jamal, a political science professor at Princeton University, said the estimate of $40bn-70bn was comparable with the vast wealth of leaders in other Gulf countries.

"The business ventures from his military and government service accumulated to his personal wealth," she told ABC news. "There was a lot of corruption in this regime and stifling of public resources for personal gain.

"This is the pattern of other Middle Eastern dictators so their wealth will not be taken during a transition. These leaders plan on this."

Al Khabar said it understood the Mubaraks kept much of their wealth offshore in the Swiss bank UBS and the Bank of Scotland, part of Lloyds Banking Group, although this information could be at least 10 years old.

There are only sketchy details of exactly where the Mubaraks have generated their wealth and its final destination.

Christopher Davidson, professor of Middle East politics at Durham University, said Mubarak, his wife, Suzanne, and two sons were able to accumulate wealth through a number of business partnerships with foreign investors and companies, dating back to when he was in the military and in a position to benefit from corporate corruption.

He said most Gulf states required foreigners give a local business partner a 51% stake in start-up ventures. In Egypt, the figure is commonly nearer 20%, but still gives politicians and close allies in the military a source of huge profits with no initial outlay and little risk.

"Almost every project needs a sponsor and Mubarak was well-placed to take advantage of any deals on offer," he said.

"Much of his money is in Swiss bank accounts and London property. These are the favourites of Middle Eastern leaders and there is no reason to think Mubarak is any different. Gamal's Wilton Place home is likely to be the tip of the iceberg."

Al Khabar named a series of major western companies that, partnered with the Mubarak family, generated an estimated $15m a year in profits.

Aladdin Elaasar, author of The Last Pharaoh: Mubarak and the Uncertain Future of Egypt in the Obama Age, said the Mubaraks own several residences in Egypt, some inherited from previous presidents and the monarchy, and others the president has commissioned.

Hotels and land around the Sharm el-Sheikh tourist resort are also a source of Mubarak family wealth.

*

OBAMA, LIKE BUSH AND SAUDIS STOOGES, HILLARY & BILLARY, KISS SAUDI ASS:

US Supreme Court declines to hear case of 9/11 families

By Joe Kishore

30 June 2009

The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case brought by families of 9/11 victims against Saudi Arabia, four members of the Saudi royal family, a Saudi bank and a charity. The action lets stand a lower court ruling that the Saudi members cannot be held liable in US courts.

The Obama administration supported the Saudi monarchs, who were accused of financially supporting several of the individuals involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks. The administration last month intervened to ask the high court to reject the appeal.

The family members claim that Saudi princes contributed to charities that funded Al Qaeda and the 9/11 hijackers.

In August 2008, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan upheld a 2006 district court ruling that the Saudi officials and entities were protected under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The families argued that lower courts had made conflicting rulings on the scope of sovereign immunity, and that the Supreme Court should therefore intervene.

The Justice Department has sought furiously to prevent the release of documents assembled by lawyers for the families, which, according to a New York Times report, “provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family.” The government has had copies of the documents destroyed and has sought to prevent judges from even looking at them.

The US government has worked systematically to conceal from the American people evidence of Saudi support for at least two of the hijackers, part of a broader cover-up of the many unanswered questions that still surround the 9/11 attacks.

The documents gathered by the 9/11 families—including a classified section of the 2003 joint congressional inquiry into the attacks—likely include material on Nawaf al-Hamzi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, two Saudi nationals who were aboard the planes that crashed on 9/11. They were known by US intelligence to be members of Al Qaeda at least since 1999.

Despite their previous association, the two men were allowed into the US, where they found accommodations with the help of a Saudi intelligence agent (Omar al-Bayoumi) and, later, an FBI asset (Abdussattar Shaikh). Al-Bayoumi received financing from Princess Haifa, the wife of the Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar.

The suit filed by the families focuses solely on the role of Saudi Arabia. However, the more fundamental question is the role of sections of the American state. The Saudi royal family has had long and intimate ties with American intelligence, and the broader exposure of Saudi links to the attacks threatens to unravel the entire official story of the September 11 attacks.

*

Obama administration seeks to quash suit by 9/11 families

By Barry Grey

26 June 2009

The Obama administration has intervened to quash a civil suit filed against Saudi Arabia by survivors and family members of victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The suit seeks to hold the Saudi royal family liable, charging that it provided financial and other support to Al Qaeda and was thereby complicit in the hijack bombings that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York and Washington DC.

According to an article by Eric Lichtblau in the June 24 New York Times, documents assembled by lawyers for the 9/11 families “provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family.” However, the article states, the documents may never find their way into court because of legal challenges by Saudi Arabia, which are being supported by the US Justice Department.

The administration is taking extraordinary measures to kill the suit and suppress the evidence of Saudi support for Al Qaeda and complicity in the 9/11 attacks. Last month, the Justice Department sided in court with the Saudi monarchy in seeking to halt further legal action. Moreover, it had copies of American intelligence documents on Saudi finances that had been leaked to lawyers for the families destroyed, and is now seeking to prevent a judge from even looking at the material.

Two federal judges and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals have already ruled against the 7,630 people represented in the lawsuit, rejecting the suit on the grounds that the plaintiffs cannot sue in the US against a sovereign nation and its leaders. The Supreme Court is expected to rule this month on whether to hear an appeal, but the families’ prospects have been weakened by the intervention of the Obama administration, which has called on the court not to hear the plaintiffs’ appeal.

The Times reports that it obtained the new documents from the families’ lawyers, adding that they are among “several hundred thousand pages of investigative material” assembled by the 9/11 families in their long-running suit against the Saudi royal family.

Lichtblau writes that the documents “provide no smoking gun connecting the royal family to the events of September 11, 2001.” However, there is a wealth of evidence in the public record strongly pointing to such a connection. And there is the 28-page, classified section of the 2003 joint congressional inquiry into 9/11 that deals with the Saudi role in the attacks. Lichtblau writes that “the secret section is believed to discuss intelligence on Saudi financial links to two hijackers.”

Then-President George W. Bush ordered that section of the congressional report to be classified, and its contents were blacked out in the findings released to the public by Congress. The Obama administration is continuing this policy of shielding the Saudi monarchy.

Lichtblau reports that the material obtained by the Times from the families’ lawyers includes “thousands of pages of previously undisclosed documents” that provide “an unusually detailed look at some of the evidence.” He cites as one example “internal Treasury Department documents” that show that the International Islamic Relief Organization, a “Saudi charity,” heavily supported by members of the Saudi royal family, “provided ‘support for terrorist organizations’ at least through 2006.”

He gives other examples of evidence of Saudi support for Islamist terrorists in Bosnia in the 1990s and witness statements and intelligence reports of money being given by Saudi princes to the Taliban and to “militants’ activities” in Pakistan and Bosnia during the same decade.

What are the motives behind the Obama administration’s efforts to cover up the connections between the Saudi monarchy and Al Qaeda?

The Justice Department, according to the Times, cites “potentially significant foreign relations consequences” should the 9/11 families’ suit be allowed to go to trial. This is undoubtedly a factor. The US has an immense political and economic interest in protecting the Saudi dictatorship, which is a major American ally in the Middle East, a supporter of Washington’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the world’s biggest producer of oil.

But there is a more immediate and compelling reason for suppressing any exposure of the Saudi connection to Al Qaeda and 9/11. The revelations would undoubtedly shatter the official explanations of the September 11 attacks and point to complicity on the part of US intelligence and security agencies.

Given its longstanding and intimate ties to the Saudi royal family and Saudi intelligence, it is not possible to believe that the CIA would have been unaware of Saudi support for Al Qaeda and at least some of the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals, as they were preparing to carry out the attacks on New York and Washington.

The ties between the Saudi and US intelligence establishments were strengthened during the US-backed war against the pro-Soviet regime in Afghanistan, beginning in 1979 and continuing through the 1980s. The US poured billions of dollars in arms and financing into this war, most of it funneled through the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence agency.

The Saudi regime also helped fund the anti-Soviet guerrillas, many of whom were brought to Afghanistan by Islamist forces in the Middle East. Osama bin Laden served as the Saudi regime’s personal emissary in this cause, helping to organize, train and equip Arab volunteers for the Afghan war. The movement now known as Al Qaeda was spawned through the interaction of these three intelligence agencies—the CIA, the ISI and the Saudis.

The bipartisan 9/11 commission, in its July 2004 report, echoed the Bush administration’s whitewash of Saudi ties to the terrorist attacks, declaring that it found “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded” Al Qaeda.

However, in a book published later that year, Intelligence Matters, then-Florida Senator Bob Graham charged the Bush administration with orchestrating a cover-up of Saudi involvement in the September 11 attacks. Graham was at the time the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which had carried out, along with its House counterpart, the joint congressional investigation into 9/11.

He wrote that “evidence of official Saudi supportî for at least some of the hijackers was ìincontrovertible.” Graham’s charges focused on the extraordinary cases of Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who were identified as hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon.

The two men, both Saudi nationals, are undoubtedly the “two hijackers” to whom Times reporter Lichtblau refers in connection with the secret section of the joint congressional report on 9/11.

Both were known to US intelligence as Al Qaeda operatives at least since 1999. Malaysian agents, acting in concert with the CIA, photographed and videotaped them and others during a 2000 meeting of Islamist terrorist groups in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Nevertheless, after the meeting, al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were allowed to fly to the US using their own passports and visas issued by US consular authorities in Saudi Arabia. While the CIA knew of their presence in the US, it did not inform the Federal Bureau of Investigation, according to the FBI. (The CIA disputes this claim, insisting that it did alert the FBI). Nor did the CIA inform immigration authorities.

After landing in Los Angeles in January of 2000, al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were met by Omar al-Bayoumi, an employee of the Saudi civil aviation authority. US investigators have concluded that al-Bayoumi was a Saudi intelligence agent.

Al-Bayoumi invited the pair to move to San Diego, where he found them an apartment, provided them with money and helped enroll them in flight school.

It has been reported that al-Bayoumi served as a conduit for thousands of dollars in funding for the future hijackers sent by Princess Haifa, the wife of Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the US and a close confidante of the Bush family.

Al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar lived openly in the US, one of them even having his name listed in the telephone directory.

Within months, al-Hazmi moved into the home of Abdussattar Shaikh, a retired professor at San Diego State University. Shaikh was on the FBI payroll, charged with monitoring the activities of Islamist groups in the San Diego region.

In his book, Graham wrote that the FBI concealed from the joint congressional committee the fact that its paid informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, had established a close personal relationship with the two hijackers.

When the committee staff discovered Shaikh’s role and the committee issued a subpoena to question him under oath, the FBI and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft refused to serve the subpoena. Graham said that a senior FBI official wrote to him and the Republican co-chair of the joint committee declaring that the administration would neither allow the FBI to serve a subpoena on Shaikh nor allow the committee staff to interview him.

Graham wrote that this was the only time he had ever heard of the FBI refusing to serve a congressional subpoena. He commented, “We were seeing in writing what we had suspected for some time: the White House was directing a cover-up.”

Bush’s extraordinary intervention to block questioning of FBI informant Shaikh was consistent with his administration’s actions in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, when it allowed chartered planes to ferry some 140 prominent Saudis—including at least a dozen of Osama bin Laden’s relatives—to Boston for evacuation to Saudi Arabia. The pick-up flights were organized at a time when all non-military and non-emergency aviation had been grounded by government order. Bin Laden’s relatives were allowed to leave the country with little or no questioning by the FBI.

In his book, Graham himself posed the question of why the congressional committee was denied access to the San Diego FBI informant. After offering several possible answers, he suggested in deliberately obscure language a “far more damning possibility”—“perhaps the informant did know something about the plot that would be even more damaging were it revealed, and that this is what the FBI is trying to conceal.”

Graham did not spell out what “damning” information about the 9/11 conspiracy the informant might have revealed. But the role of the CIA, the FBI and the Bush administration in the case of al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar suggests that it went beyond involvement by the Saudi government. It strongly suggests he was blocked from being questioned out of concern that he would reveal that elements within the US state apparatus knew of plans for an impending hijacking and allowed them to go forward.

Eight years after the attacks, no one has been held accountable for what on its face is the greatest failure of national security in US history. The question is: Was it a failure, or was a decision taken to permit a terrorist attack on US soil in order to provide the pretext for implementing plans for wars abroad and repressive policies at home that had been drawn up well in advance of September 11, 2001?

That a new administration is continuing the policy of shielding the Saudi monarchy and suppressing evidence of its complicity in 9/11 points strongly to the latter explanation.

J. P. MORGAN - ONE OF THIS NATION'S GREATEST WELFARE CHEATS No Wonder Obama Loves Them So!

OBAMA SAID FROM THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE, IN THE FACES OF THE AMERICA PEOPLE T HAT HE WAS NOT THERE TO PUNISH HIS CRIMINAL BANKSTER DONORS.




LORD, HAVEN’T THEY DONE WELL UNDER THE BANKSTER-OWNED PRESIDENT? THEIR RAPE AND PILLAGE CONTINUES!



Originally published February 12, 2011

Luxury hotels built with federal subsidies meant to help poor communities

Since 2003, some of the world's biggest financial companies, including Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase, have taken advantage of a federal subsidy that will cost taxpayers $10 billion.

By David Dietz

Bloomberg News

MICHAEL L. ABRAMSON / BLOOMBERG MARKETS

Chicago's Blackstone Hotel underwent an opulent renovation that was subsidized by a federal

The landmark Blackstone Hotel in downtown Chicago, which has hosted 12 U.S. presidents, opened in 2008 after a two-year, $116 million renovation. Inside the Beaux Arts structure, built in 1910, buffed marble staircases greet guests spending up to $699 a night for rooms with views of Lake Michigan.

What's surprising isn't the opulent makeover: It's how the project was financed. The work was subsidized by a federal development program intended to help poor communities.

The biggest beneficiary of taxpayer help for the Blackstone revamp was Prudential Financial, the second-largest U.S. life insurer. The company got $15.6 million in tax credits from the U.S. Department of the Treasury for helping to fund the project, according to Chicago city records, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its March issue.

JPMorgan Chase, the second-largest U.S. bank by assets, also took in money by serving as a lender and the monitor of Blackstone construction financing, city records show.

Since 2003, some of the world's biggest financial companies, including Goldman Sachs, U.S. Bancorp, JPMorgan Chase and Prudential, have taken advantage of a federal subsidy that will cost taxpayers $10.1 billion — and most of the public has never heard of it.

Investors have used the program, called New Markets Tax Credits and created in 2000, to help build more than 300 upscale projects, including hotels, condominiums, office buildings and a car museum, on streets far from poverty, according to Treasury Department records released through a federal Freedom of Information Act request.

Building high-end commercial projects goes against the intent of the New Markets program, says Cliff Kellogg, a former senior policy adviser at the Treasury Department who helped design New Markets.

"Things like luxury hotels are entirely contrary to what we set out to do," says Kellogg, who's now a bank consultant. "Some hotels may create jobs and spur other nearby investment, but you have to ask if these projects prevent worthwhile ones from getting done."

Some of the subsidized luxury projects may not have required federal aid at all, the Government Accountability Office found in a 2010 study.

Prudential spokesman Simon Locke declines to answer specific questions about the Blackstone project.

JPMorgan spokesman Tom Kelly also declines to discuss specifics.

"We think these projects help the community," Kelly says. The Blackstone says it hired more than 200 workers when it opened in 2008.





How it works

The Treasury controls who gets tax-credits money and how the subsidies can be used.

The agency bases decisions on census tracts, which are supposed to have common economic standards. Only tracts with at least a 20 percent poverty rate or with a population earning 20 percent less than the median family income of the surrounding metropolitan area qualify for subsidized projects.

The numbers are from the 2000 census. The 2010 count hasn't yet been used.

The 15-block tract that's home to the renovated Blackstone qualifies because it had an individual poverty rate of 26 percent in 2000. A closer look at the demographics tells a different story and shows how investors can game the system, says Janet Smith, who lives in the Blackstone tract and teaches urban planning at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

The poverty profile reflects the large number of students who attend two schools — Columbia College Chicago and Roosevelt University — in the area, she says. Among families, the poverty rate is just 3.9 percent, according to the census.

The tract already had a major hotel — the Hilton Chicago across the street — before the Blackstone reopened. It also had a high-rise condominium, with units selling this year for up to $1.3 million. And it includes a chunk of Grant Park, designed by celebrated urban architect Daniel Burnham.

"I wouldn't say this is a needy tract by any means," Smith says. "You have to make a distinction between family-level poverty and individual-level poverty. The problem with a subsidy program like this is that we give away money where we don't really need to and usually in markets where development is already there."

Scores of New Markets projects have benefited poor communities. The program has helped develop job-training centers, charter schools and housing in severely impoverished locations stretching from the Watts section of Los Angeles to Appalachia in Kentucky and other states.

From 2003 to 2008, 25 percent of project investments, or $3.9 billion, went to tracts with family poverty rates above 30 percent, according to Treasury and census records. Using individual rates alone, Treasury calculates that figure as 49 percent, says New Markets spokesman William Luecht.

"Many desperately needy communities for the first time have gotten access to capital and technical advice," says University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr, a former assistant Treasury secretary who was the program's chief developer. "We feel good about that."

Goldman has used New Markets to build an affordable-housing project with shops and a community center in what had been Brooklyn's rundown Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood.

U.S. Bancorp helped create 1,300 jobs in financially distressed Dubuque, Iowa, by converting a former department store into a service center for IBM.

Goldman targeted tracts on the upswing in Pittsburgh and Portland, when the firm got its first New Markets investment authorizations in 2002. In Pittsburgh, $30.5 million of a $75 million Goldman investment authorization went to a shopping center in the East Liberty neighborhood.

Prudential has used the New Markets program to finance two luxury hotels. Along with the Blackstone, the company in 2008 helped build the Nines in Portland, bringing the firm $27.3 million in tax credits, according to Portland records. A Travel & Leisure magazine guide ranked the Nines 25th among North American hotels in 2010.

Prudential spokesman Locke declines to comment on the Nines. He says his firm no longer owns the Portland tax credits. He declines to elaborate.

Historic amory

In Portland, Goldman and U.S. Bancorp partnered with city government on another cultural development helped by New Markets. In 2004, the Portland Development Commission was advocating conversion of a historic armory into a nonprofit theater, and the project caught Goldman's eye, according to city records.

The armory, which housed horses and cannons in the 19th century, sat in the city's Pearl District, a former industrial area enjoying a resurgence with upscale stores and housing. The tract qualified with a 41 percent individual poverty rate because it included one poor neighborhood on its fringe. The family poverty rate was 11 percent.

Financing arranged

Goldman arranged $28 million in New Markets financing for the theater. U.S. Bancorp put $8.4 million into construction and loaned an additional $11 million. That allowed it to win $10.9 million in tax credits, city records show.

Goldman will collect a fee of $1.4 million for tracking finances for the government, according to Goldman spokesman Stephen Cohen.

The 599-seat Gerding Theater opened in 2006.

The League of Women Voters in Portland assails the use of federal tax subsidies.

"It's ludicrous," says Shelley Lorenzen, a former League of Women Voters board member who has studied Portland urban renewal. "The area has become kind of the hottest real-estate market in town, with the best restaurants, art galleries and very high-end condos."

Kellogg, the former Treasury official who helped structure the subsidy plan, says New Markets needs changes. It should divert money from projects such as high-end hotels and exhibit halls, he says. New Markets should target small-business development in regions that truly need a lift, Kellogg says. After all, he says, that was the point from the start.

*

Obama seldom brings anyone into his administration that is not corrupt, a bankster, or LA RAZA PARTY MEMBER.

WITH HIS NEW CHIEF OF STAFF DALEY, OBAMA HAS BOTH! A J.P. MORGAN BANKSTER (J.P.s PROFITS UP THIS YEAR 47%), AND AN OPEN BORDERS ADVOCATE PER THE U.S. CHAMBER of COMMERCE.



*

“Records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).”



*

THE REASON OBAMA BROUGHT IN DALEY TO BE CHIEF OF STAFF, WAS SO J.P. MORGAN COULD OPERATE THEIR BANKSTER CRIMES OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE, JUST AS CHENEY OPERATED HALLIBURTON OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE, AND GEORGE BUSH OPERATED BIG BUSH SAUDI CARLYLE GROUP OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE!

!AND!.... DALEY, LIKE OBAMA, LA RAZA AND THE U.S. CHAMBER of COMMERCE IS AN ADVOCATE FOR OPEN BORDERS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED WITH HORDES OF ILLEGALS POURING OVER OUR BORDERS!



FROM CREOLE FOLKS



Obama Seeks Brother of "Chicago Mob Boss" for Top White House Post

The roaches and con-artist, fake journalist on cable news are all lying about William Daley being all this and all that, this man is an open borders, down with America, free trade globalist. MSNBC and Gretta "the Scientology" Van Susteren from Fox News are knowingly deceiving the public about D. Issa & his letter to "business owners"=which they made into such a BIG DAM DEAL, but no one says anything when Barrack Hussein Obama, comes around with all of these shady bankers, hedge fund managers and Wall St. Tycoons, which he puts in his cabinet. All of Obama's meeting with Wall Street asking, "What can I do for you?" is never something covered by Keith Oberman or Rachel Maddow.

(Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama is considering naming William Daley, a JPMorgan Chase & Co. executive and former U.S. Commerce secretary, to a high-level administration post, possibly White House chief of staff, people familiar with the matter said.

*

MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com

*

Go to http://www.MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com and read articles and comments from other Americans on what they’ve witnessed in their communities around the country. While most of the population of California is now ILLEGAL, the problems, costs, assault to our culture by Mexico is EVERYWHERE. copy and pass it to your friends.