Here We Go
Real Estate Inventories…
Single family homes up 33%
Condos up 87%
The sky isn’t falling, just the price of your house
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Friday, April 21, 2006
70 times…
FBI Agent Warned Superiors 70 Times About Moussaoui (by William F. Jasper)
(Excerpt) Harry Samit, the Minnesota FBI agent who arrested Zacarias Moussaoui three and a half weeks before the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, provided explosive testimony against his superiors during cross-examination by Moussaoui’s defense attorneys.
Samit, who arrested Moussaoui and his Oklahoma University roommate Hussein Al-Attas on August 16, confirmed on the witness stand that he and other agents in the Minnesota office had argued repeatedly with their Washington, D.C., superiors, urgently requesting permission for a warrant to search Moussaoui’s laptop computer, as well as Moussaoui and Al-Attas’ apartment and possessions.
Agent Samit said he had contacted his superiors 70 times, urgently requesting assistance with the Moussaoui/Al-Attas investigation, only to be repeatedly rebuffed without any rational explanation. He said the superiors who thwarted the Minnesota investigation were guilty of “criminal negligence and obstruction.”
“You tried to move heaven and earth to get a search warrant to search this man’s belongings and you were obstructed,” defense attorney Edward MacMahon said to the agent. “Yes sir, I was obstructed,” Samit replied, noting that these actions were a “calculated” decision “that cost us the opportunity to stop the attacks.” His superiors even blocked him from sending a memo to the Federal Aviation Administration to apprise them of the information he had uncovered about Moussaoui and Al-Attas and his belief that they were involved in an international hijacking plot. They also prevented him from putting an undercover Arabic-speaking agent in the same cell with Al-Attas.
Samit’s charges echo those of Minnesota FBI agent and lawyer Coleen Rowley, who wrote a letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller bitterly criticizing Washington’s obstruction in the Moussaoui case.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Wild Speculation?
Iranian Invasion is called Wild Speculation by George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. Well, let’s see here. They are openly building/have built Nuclear bombs, openly threaten the USA and Isreal, and they have more Oil than Iraq, and they DONT? WANT TO INVADE? Then you look at the reasons we invaded Iraq. Up is down, I am never joining the military cuz iys possible it could be run by a bunch of idiot politicians. Is it because we can’t invade? Is this just an inside job, both gov’ts coming together to try to control the Young Revolutionary Iranian population/keep Americans conent and the oil flowing at record profits? Why did we let them get a bomb. I am a supporter of the policy of The nuclear non-proliferation. The question is, is nuclear non-proliferation really nuclear proliferation????? Food for Thought
Monday, April 3, 2006
Am I Supporting Terrorism or Encouraging Public Response/Action?
|
Airport Screeners Let Bomb Materials Through Breaking from NewsMax.com Federal agents tested security screeners at 21 U.S. airports by carrying bomb-making materials - and not a single would-be “suicide bomber” was detected. “In all 21 airports tested, no machine, no swab, no screener anywhere stopped the bomb materials from getting through,” according to a report from NBC Nightly News that cited government sources. “Even when investigators deliberately triggered extra screening of bags, no one stopped these materials.” |
P-Q4
A number of writings have recently appeared with the thesis that the announced plans of the Teheran government to institute a Teheran Oil Bourse, perhaps as early as this month, is the real hidden reason behind the evident march to war on Iran from the Anglo-American powers.
No, the Iran Oil Bourse is not a casus belli…
This article is the WHOLE ENCHILADA
Arab central banks move assets out of dollar
Independent Online Edition > Business News
Middle Eastern anger over the decision by the US to block a Dubai company from buying five of its ports hit the dollar yesterday as a number of central banks said they were considering switching reserves into euros.
The United Arab Emirates, which includes Dubai, said it was looking to move one-tenth of its dollar reserves into euros, while the governor of the Saudi Arabian central bank condemned the US move as “discrimination”.
9 Trillion and Counting
| The Times | March 17, 2006 |
US spends its way to 28 Eiffel towers: made out of pure gold
IF YOU are worried about how much you owe on your credit cards, this might put things in perspective: America’s national debt limit was increased yesterday to $9 trillion. That’s $9,000,000,000,000 — enough to buy Buckingham Palace 9,000 times.
The increase, passed by Congress, allows the Government to borrow another $781 billion (£447 billion), increasing the national debt limit — the maximum America can borrow — from $8 trillion and $184 billion to $8 trillion and $961 billion.
If the debt ceiling, which is set by Congress, had not been raised by March 24, the Administration would not have been able to borrow more money and the US would have begun to default on its domestic and foreign obligations, an untenable consequence.
The vote to increase the debt limit, requested by the White House, is the fourth since Mr Bush took office. In 2001 the national debt was $5.7 trillion. Today it has ballooned to $8.2 trillion, figures rarely talked about in Washington.
The national debt is the total amount owed by the Government. It is not to be confused with the federal budget deficit, which is the yearly amount by which spending exceeds revenue. When budget deficits are big, the national debt inevitably increases.
When Mr Bush took office he inherited a $236 billion budget surplus. Bill Clinton, his predecessor, had used budget surpluses to pay down some of the national debt in his last two years in office. Mr Bush also inherited some extraordinarily overoptimistic projections. Experts pronounced that budget surpluses would increase to $5.6 trillion over ten years, and there was even heady talk of paying off the entire national debt with the proceeds.
$9 TRILLION
- Is roughly four times Britain’s GDP
- Equates to $1,500 for every man, woman and child in the world
- Would buy all the tea in China. In fact it would buy all the tea in the world for the next 2,000 years.
- Is enough to solve the Palestinian crisis by rehousing every Israeli and Palestinian family in a £1.5m detached house in Henley-on-Thames
- Would build 28 Eiffel Towers — constructed out of gold.
Here We Go…
Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement
In addendum to law, he says oversight rules are not binding
WASHINGTON — When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act’s expanded police powers.
The bill contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers. The provisions require Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations. Under the law, the administration would have to provide the information to Congress by certain dates.
Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ”a piece of legislation that’s vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people.” But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ‘’signing statement,” an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.
In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law’s requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ”impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive’s constitutional duties.”
Let me guess….To protect the rights of Americans would only help the terrorists?
