Archive for October, 2009

Bill Clinton Islamic Charity–Walking the Plank to a Dhimmi Nation–Chapter 6


Bill Clinton—Islamic Charity

Though he may not have realized the consequences, Bill Clinton has played into Islamist hands like a dream. His participation in establishing global governance may seem noble and grand as well as profitable while his appeasement to globalist Islamists has severely undermined America’s safety, sovereignty and the Constitution. Because Clinton accepted millions of dollars from Islamic sources, it is quite probable that he is considered an Islamic charity by Islamic scholars who make such determinations to advance Islam.

Foreign leaders can surely see that Clinton is easily bribed and seduced. He set a poor example as a leader and compromised the freedom of hundreds of millions of free people. One example is America’s youth, who is now confused as to whether oral sex is really sex. Another example his wittingly or unwittingly betrayal of the Christian Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo where he helped set up an Islamic government under the guise of humanitarianism and multiculturalism

Bill Clinton studied international affairs at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. as an undergraduate. He worked as an intern for the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, chaired by Senator J. William Fulbright, an Arkansas Democrat Senator. Clinton was a great admirer of Fulbright, who was an outspoken critic of Israel and a leading critic of United States involvement in the Vietnam War.[1]

Clinton’s mentor, William Fulbright, was an experienced observer of Middle Eastern affairs and he developed close connections between Saudi Arabia and U.S. oil companies. After he lost his bid for re-election in 1974, Fulbright became a registered agent for the Saudi Government and engaged in activities on the Saudi behalf in efforts to shift American loyalty from Israel to Saudi Arabia.[2]

During his two terms in office, Clinton made many moves that would promote Arab interests. His collaboration with the since convicted terrorist, Abdurahman Alamoudi, a self-described supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah, founder and an Executive Director for the American Muslim Council (AMC), allowed for hundreds of millions of dollars to come in from the Middle East for a variety of causes including Clinton’s library and Presidential Fund. As Abdurahman Alamoudi donated $15-25 million to Clinton’s funds, he cultivated ties with the Democratic Party, and contributed significant amounts to a variety of its partisans and candidates for years.

Clinton privileged Abdurahman Alamoudi with the position of Islamic Affairs Advisor and Pentagon appointee in charge of choosing and training Muslim chaplains for the U.S. military. Certainly not in the best interest of America, Alamoudi was also a State Department “Goodwill Ambassador” to Muslim nations and helped Clinton write the 1995 “Religious Expression in Public Schools,” a guideline that paved the way for Islamic instruction in the public school system, effectively stopping schools from displaying nativity scenes and saying the pledge of allegiance. Clinton and Alamoudi’s alliance opened the doors for lessons on Islam under the guise of history and social studies as funding for Islamic educational materials poured in from Saudi Arabia and Muslim nations.

While in office, and after leaving his presidential post, Bill Clinton continues to make millions of dollars in speaking fees from Arab sources. To be fair, Dubai has given millions of dollars to both Clinton and G.W. Bush. However, Bill Clinton received $300,000 for a speech in January 2002 in an effort to legitimize Dubai after 9/11. Hilary Clinton’s 2008 tax records showed that for 2007, Bill Clinton made approximately $5 million from foreign countries including Kuwait’s National Bank, with other sources in Canada, Germany, India, Malaysia, Mexico and Portugal, and Hong Kong.[3]

Dubai has been suspended from the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation insurance programs because of non-compliance with internationally recognized worker rights standards. Tens of thousands of migrant workers from India and Pakistan are reportedly abused in Dubai yet Clinton’s former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, former security advisor Sandy Berger, and Al Gore have attended big events there.[4] Dubai also denies Israelis entrance into the country and does not allow the importation of Israeli goods, or goods with Israeli parts.[5] Under the guise of humanitarianism, Bill Clinton created a Dubai Scholars Program for American students at the American University in Dubai.

While Hillary Clinton loudly opposed the Dubai Ports deal, Bill Clinton gave Dubai advice and recommended the Glover Park Group to represent the country. The Glover Park Group was a group of lobbyists that included top advisers to Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton. The advisors were paid about $100,000 each to help the government-owned Dubai International Capital Corporation in its acquisition of the British engineering firm Doncasters Group Ltd. Glover Park represented companies that Dubai has a stake in.[6] At issue was the sale of port management businesses in six major U.S. seaports to a company based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and whether such a sale would compromise port security in the U.S.

Taking a stand that it did not pose a significant security threat, Clinton and New York Democrat Senator Charles Schumer hoped to acquire the port operations for the Dubai Company in the ensuing controversial “Dubai Ports Deal.” Glover Park’s contract with Dubai was channeled through the Los Angeles law office of Raj Tanden, a representative of the United Emirate’s royal family in their 2005 acquisition of $1 billion in U.S. real estate holdings. Tanden is the brother of longtime Hillary Clinton policy adviser Neera Tanden who served as a congressional liaison for Bill Clinton before becoming a key Hillary Clinton Senate campaign aide.[7]

President Clinton issued statements promising to find terrorists, but actually pardoned sixteen terrorists convicted of executing one hundred thirty bombings. Clinton shut down investigations of Islamic charities, radically downsized our military, and cut funding for CIA informants. He refused delivery of Osama bin Laden from Sudan, and he repeatedly refused to act on detailed information about both al-Qaeda and Bin Laden between ongoing terrorist bombings that led up to the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001. Robert Baer, a 21-year veteran of the CIA’s Directorate of Operations states:

 “Whether it was Osama bin Laden, Yasser Arafat, Iranian terrorism, Saddam Hussein, or any of the other evils that so threaten the world, the Clinton administration seemed determined to sweep them all under the carpet.” [8]

In 1995, the 104th Congress included a provision that would authorize ANWR exploration but Bill Clinton cast the cloak of environmentalism over ANWR when he vetoed the bill furthermore promising to veto all legislation for ANWR exploration. Alaska’s North Slope once averaged two million barrels of oil per day, representing more than half the oil used on the West Coast. With ANWR off-limits, Alaska’s drilling production declined to less than half their former rate, allowing OPEC and other foreign oil producers to make up the difference. According to a letter signed by conservative leaders and sent to the House and Senate Leadership on March 8, 2006, development of ANWR would:

“… increase proven U.S. crude oil reserves by fifty percent; equivalent to approximately a quarter century of current imports from Saudi Arabia.”[9]

In Alaska, caribou numbers have actually increased under the warmth of pipeline, and scientists contest the accuracy of the global warming theory. If Clinton had not vetoed the legislation fourteen years ago, as much as 1.4 million barrels of oil per day could now be produced in America.

Curtailing the production of domestic oil by placing oil reserves off-limits, is based on an unproven theory. The security threat it imposes on the United States suggests misplaced loyalty because the need for oil places Americans at the mercy of foreign oil producers from countries that resent the Constitution and freedom. The U.S. domestic need for oil combined with homeland security issues raise concerns that global warming might literally be part of an agenda to weaken America’s sovereignty. Trillions of American dollars now go instead to Arab countries allowing them to buy their way into American policy through financial institutions, educational programs, while they finance terror organizations and build mosques around the world. [10]

On September 22, 1997 Bill Clinton made a speech to the Arab dominated U.N. General Assembly describing treaties he had signed as a “web of institutions and arrangements.” He referred to them as “international ground rules for the 21st century.” 

As the descriptions suggest, Clinton’s Global Warming Treaty and the NATO Expansion Treaty were designed to bind the United States in a global web of entanglement for the purpose of “binding international commitments to protect the environment.” Clinton urged Americans to support “the emerging international system.”

Clinton played right into Islamist globalization when he supported Muslims in Bosnia. According to a U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee Report, President Clinton funneled weapons and money into Bosnia to prop up the Izetebegovic Muslim government in the country’s capital Sarajevo through the Third World Relief Agency. The Third World Relief Agency had been organized in 1987 by Muslim fundamentalists to cover efforts to import Muslim fundamentalism into Yugoslavia.

The Third World Relief Agency promoted the creation of an Islamic state in Bosnia, promoting a “religious sense among Bosnia’s secular Muslims.” The Muwafaq foundation, founded by Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz in 1991 also funded the Muslim Bosnian fighters from 1991-1995. Christians comprised of Catholic Croatians and Eastern Orthodox Serbs were still the majority in Bosnia in 1992 when Bosnia broke away from Yugoslavia.[11]

Bill Clinton lifted the Iranian Arms Embargo solely for shipments of arms and personnel from Iran to the Bosnian Muslims. Throughout most of his administration, beginning in 1993, Clinton knew about the arms smuggling scheme while pretending to be neutral. He also provided additional weapons from America at taxpayer’s expense.

In April 1994, Clinton gave the Muslim-led government of Bosnia additional shipments of weapons from Iran and other Muslim countries at the urging of National Security Council chief Anthony Lake and the U.S. ambassador to Croatia, Peter Galbraith. The Clinton Administration’s policy of aiding delivery of arms to the Bosnian Muslims made it instrumental in a network of international governments and organizations that are pursuing the Islamization of Europe and America under the guise of humanitarian and multicultural diversity.

Iranian Revolutionary Guards entered Bosnia in large numbers from radical Muslim organizations from countries including Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Turkey. The Iranian intelligence service developed intelligence networks, set up terrorist support systems, and recruited terrorist sleeper cells as agents of influence. The Clinton Administration’s involvement with the Islamic network included inspections of missiles from Iran by U.S. government officials.

The President of Bosnia, Alija Izetbegovic, wrote the radical “Islamic Declaration: A Programme for the Islamization of Muslims and the Muslim Peoples,” which calls for “the Islamic movement” to take power as soon as it could overturn “the existing non-Muslim government . . .and build up a new Islamic one,”  destroying all non-Islamic institutions. Izetbegovic’s book advocated the creation of an international federation of Islamic states.

Alija Izetbegovic’s Islamic Declaration proclaimed that:

 “There can be neither peace nor coexistence between the Islamic religion and non-Islamic social institutions.”

 A House Republican Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare Report, dated September 1, 1992 confirmed that Alija Izetbegovic intended to establish an Islamic Republic in Bosnia by reporting that:

“At the center of the Iranian system in Europe is Bosnia-Hercegovina’s President, Alija Izetbegovic, . . . who is committed to the establishment of an Islamic Republic in Bosnia-Hercegovina.”

 The Task Force report described Izetbegovic’s contacts with Iran and Libya before the Bosnian war began. In 1991, Izetbegovic was noted as a “fundamentalist Muslim” and a member of the “Fedayeen of Islam” organization, an Iranian-based radical group that dates back to the 1930’s. In the late 1960’s, The Fedayeen of Islam recognized Ayatollah Khomeini as their supreme leader, or Imam, while he was still in exile by the late Shah. Izetbegovic stepped-up his efforts to establish Islamic power in Bosnia following Khomeini’s accession to power in 1979, and Izetbegovic openly declared his alliance with Iran. The Iranian regime supported Izetbegovic during his 1996 election campaign with $500,000 in cash.

The Clinton Administration’s policy completely misrepresented the Bosnian Muslim government of Alija Izetbegovic. Rather than the tolerant, multicultural democratic government it pretended to be, Izetbegovic’s party, the Party of Democratic Action (SDA), was guided by the principles of radical Islam.[12]

A similar conflict between neighboring Kosovo Muslims and Christian Serb forces broke out in 1998 after the Croatian Army ethnically cleansed 250,000 Croatian Serbs out of Croatia in 1995 with the substantial support of the US and European governments. The U.S., Germany and others had equipped, trained and armed the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) for several years before NATO bombed Kosovo and Serbia in 1999. The media presented the violence rather than the real reason for the conflict, and there were few who listened to logical peaceful solutions.[13]

Behind most of the Kosovo conflict was Bill Clinton’s administration. Clinton is celebrated as a hero by Kosovo’s Muslim Albanians for launching NATO’s bombing campaign in 1999 that stopped the Christian Serb forces and made Kosovo a Muslim state. [14]

Bill Clinton’s ties to the Islamic Republic of Iran were revealed in a commentary written by Dr. Rachael Ehrenfeld on January 5, 2009 for Forbes. Dr. Ehrenfeld is director of the American Center for Democracy and author of “Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It.”

Ehrenfeld wrote that on Dec. 19, 2008 the Islamic regime contributed between $25,000 and $50,000 to the William J. Clinton Foundation and $30,000 in the fiscal year ending March 2006 through the Iranian owned Alavi Foundation operating in New York.

The President of the Alavi Foundation, Farshid Jahedi, was indicted the very same day in 2008 with obstructing justice by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York for allegedly destroying documents subpoenaed by a grand jury concerning the relationship of the Alavi Foundation with the Iranian Bank Melli, and ownership of the Manhattan office building, home of the Alavi Foundation at 650 Fifth Avenue. 

The Treasury Department had just designated the Alavi Foundation’s partner, New York-based ASSA Corporation, a terrorist entity as a front company created and controlled by Iran’s Bank Melli to funnel money from the United States to Iran. [15]

The Alavi Foundation office building at 650 Fifth Avenue had been constructed and operated in the 1970’s by the late Shah of Iran as a non-profit organization to pursue Iran’s charitable interests in the United States. The building was financed Bank Melli, a state-owned bank in Iran. The Alavi Foundation was first known as The Pahlavi Foundation, and renamed the Mostazafan Foundation when Ayatolah Khomeini rose to power. Later renamed the Alavi Foundation and forming the  “650 Fifth Avenue Company” in 1989 in partnership with Bank Melli but disguising the  bank’s ownership.

    In 1995 the Department of Treasury had prohibited exportation of any goods, technology, or services from the United States to Iran, or the Government of Iran without a valid export license from the U.S. Department of Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). According to the Treasury Department, ASSA Corporation provided services to Bank Melli by maintaining the bank’s interest in the 650 Fifth Avenue office building and transferring income from the office to Bank Melli without an OFAC license and alleging money laundering.

Bank Meli has been recognized as a front for transferring money for Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and was designated a terrorist entity on Oct. 25, 2007.

According to Ehrenfeld’s commentary in Forbes, the Alavi Foundation reported $87,899,567 in assets and $3,315, 237 in charity to the IRS in 2007. The foundation had given $365,056  to schools and universities, $328,667 for book publications and distribution, and $262,325 in interest-free loans to schools. It claims to support Shiite educational, religious and cultural programs, while owning and funding several mosques and educational centers in the states of New York, Maryland, Texas and California.

Though the contributions to Clinton were not found to be illegal, accepting money from  Islamists and pretending they are not part of an Islamic agenda allows them to advance in the U.S.[16]

Phyllis Schlafley, political activist, constitutional attorney, and columnist wrote a series of articles about Clinton’s global involvement. Schlafley wrote that Madeleine Albright testified before the Senate of Foreign Relations Committee, admitting that NATO Expansion commits U.S. to defend the borders and the NATO-defined “interests” of Eastern Europe, extending its influence to reach “the Middle East to Central Africa.” The NATO Treaty means that NATO, not Congress, decides when America will go to war. Using U.S. tax dollars to fund the Armed Services as global police officers and global social workers, and burdening the U.S. with one “Bosnia” after another.

The NATO Expansion Treaty abandoned Ronald Reagan’s successful strategy of peace through strength, replacing it with a strategy of entering foreign conflicts under NATO or UN command. It was also against the advice of George Washington “to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world”

The Phyllis Schlafly Report, April 1998 revealed that NATO Expansion was an important part of Clinton’s 1996 campaign in cities with large communities of ethnic voters.

The New York Times wrote, on March 30, 1998, that U.S. weapons contractors spent $51 million lobbying for the NATO Expansion Treaty. Their motivation was to make billions of dollars selling arms and military equipment to the new NATO nations. The weapons manufacturers funneled an additional $32.3 million equally to Republican and Democrat Congressional candidates. In 1996, the U.S. arms industry lobbied a bill through Congress to force American taxpayers to guarantee loans for weapons exports. (New York Times, March 30, 1998)

While in office, Clinton also used his position to take away states rights and private land ownership rights with his proposed Rivers Initiative in his 1997 State of the Union Message. Clinton issued Executive Order 13061 on September 11, 1997. It would have allowed the federal government to take over rivers and their adjacent lands under the American Heritage Rivers Initiative (AHRI). Clinton financed AHRI by diverting funds from 12 federal departments and agencies. Thankfully, Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID), subsequently introduced H.R. 1842 to stop Clinton’s Rivers Initiative, and as of 2009, only fourteen rivers are designated American Heritage Rivers. [17]

Under the original initiative, one hundred fourteen rivers would have been included by the year 2000 to institute national land-use planning and zoning over large portions of land along certain U.S. rivers. The plan superseded constitutional state’s jurisdiction, restricting the property rights of private property owners, by putting the adjacent land under the control of federal regulators.

Under the AHRI process, local communities would nominate enough rivers to allow the President to choose the rivers he wanted. The President’s Council on Environmental Quality subsequently makes plans for the future of the chosen rivers and the property alongside it. The Council on Environmental Quality would then appoint an American Heritage Rivers Interagency Committee to make recommendations to the President for the land control, potentially earmarking it for crony pork-barrel connections.

Clinton’s original AHRI would have authorized the appointment of ten river czars, or River Navigators, with and ten more appointed each succeeding year, to be paid a yearly salary of $100,000. Their jobs would be to guide the local citizens through the federal programs.

Opponents of AHRI claimed it violated constitutional and statutory law, imposed federal bureaucracy reducing the influence of states, restricted private property rights, and interfered with private owner and state economic activity. [18]

Clinton did, however issue an executive order to hold up 1.7 million acres of Utah land containing the largest reserve of high-quality coal and minerals in the continental U.S. Known as the Kaiporowitz coalfield, one of the premier coalfields in the United States and perhaps the world, the undeveloped Kaiporowitz coalfield contains approximately sixty-two billion tons of high BTU rating, clean burning, low-sulfur hard coal worth a trillion dollars. According to Dr. Lee Allison, Utah state geologist, the coal is very compliant and burns so cleanly that it exceeds the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Removing the huge natural resource from commercial availability tremendously enhanced the value of the world’s second largest source of environmentally safe coal on the Indonesian island of Kalimantan, which is partly owned by members of Muslim Indonesia’s very successful ethnic Chinese minority, friends of Clinton, the Indonesian Riadys. [19]

Mochtar Riady is an ethnic Chinese who founded the Lippo group. In 1984, the Lippo Group purchased the Bank of Trade in Los Angeles, which became a Lippo Bank subsidiary.[20] The Lippo Bank in L.A. was implicated for giving millions of dollars to Clinton’s presidential campaigns in 1992 and 1996. According to a 1998 Senate Governmental Affairs Committee report, the Lippo Bank in California raised illegal foreign money for the Democratic National Party through Lippo-owned shell companies that were ultimately traced to the greater China region.[21]

Clinton’s Executive Order, EO 13107 on Implementation of Human Rights Treaties was an attempt to bypass the constitutional requirement that U.S. treaties be ratified by the Senate. It set up a framework to obligate the U.S. under UN treaties on human rights. There are several unratified UN human rights treaties that could be imposed under EO 13107.

Implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights refuses to recognize one of the most fundamental American economic rights, the right to own property. This U.N. treaty tries to bind the U.S. to take steps to use all of our resources in order to achieve “full realization” to provide food, clothing and housing for everyone in the world, obligating us “to ensure an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need.”

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child would bring about massive UN interference in family life, education, daycare, health care, and standard of living, setting up a committee of ten “experts.” Because the UN is dominated by Islamic countries, it is likely that such experts will be Islamic “scholars.”

The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) would require us to follow the Arab dominated U.N. dictates about “customs and practices,” “social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women,” “family education,” and even revision of textbooks.

Other Clinton Executive Orders include  EO 12919 of June 3, 1994, entitled National Defense Industrial Resources Preparedness, which asserts plenary and dictatorial authority over citizens, food, transportation, energy, health, contracts, materials and resources to be exercised by the National Security Council and FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). [22]

The Law of the land and Sea Treaty would impose international bureaucracy on commerce, shipping lanes, mineral resources, fishing rights, environmental concerns. President Bill Clinton signed the Law of the land and Sea Treaty in 1994 and sent it to the U.S. Senate, but it has yet to achieve the majority vote for passing.[23] One of the reasons the Law of the land and Sea Treaty is dangerous, is that it will compromise American sovereignty regarding oil.

Hilary Clinton, currently President Obama’s Secretary of State, believes it is a top priority to ratify the UN Law of the Sea Treaty, which will also establish a global tax to gain access to oil, gas, and minerals in the oceans. Russia is claiming ownership of 460,000 square miles of Arctic territory with huge reserves of oil and gas, so the U.S. State Department wants to turn the treaty over to the Arab dominated UN, when documentary evidence exists showing that Americans have legitimate claims to the resources in the Arctic region near Alaska.[24]

Accusations that the Saudi government used charities as front organizations to fund international terrorism are long-standing. They surfaced in the early eighties when U.S. intelligence officials first warned Congress that the Saudis were directly funding terrorist groups.

The Clinton administration stopped a 1995 investigation after Islamic charities were targeted for diverting cash to groups that fund terrorism. The investigations would have exposed Saudi Arabia’s suspected ties to global money-laundering efforts to raise millions of dollars for terrorists.

Four interrelated Islamic foundations, institutes and charities in Virginia with more than a billion dollars in assets donated via the Saudi Arabian government were allowed to continue under a veil of secrecy according to Former federal prosecutor John J. Loftus, a St. Petersburg, Florida lawyer who later filed the Loftus suit in 2002 under the Florida Consumer Protection Act. Loftus accused the Saudi government of diverting cash to terrorists in a massive scheme involving charities in Virginia and Florida. Loftus said:

“If federal agents had been allowed to conduct the investigation they wanted in 1995, they would have made the connection between the Saudi government and those charities.” [25]

After the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, an interagency task force was created to investigate ties between charitable organizations in the United States and terrorist groups abroad. Investigations focused on allegations that tax-exempt and nonprofit charities operating out of the United States from Virginia to Florida contributed millions of dollars to international terrorist groups including the Islamic Jihad and Hamas. The same investigations also revealed that a Pakistani charity that transferred $100,000 to Mohamed Atta, one of the 19 al Qaeda hijackers in the September 11, 2001 attacks, was funded by the Saudi government. That information had helped U.S. officials identify the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were from Saudi Arabia. 

Non-transparency of donations to Bill Clinton by Islamists conceals the extent of Bill Clinton’s involvement in the Islamization of the U.S. That the World Trade Center was destroyed just after Clinton’s administration may have been no coincidence. It could have been an effort to destroy evidence of corrupt business dealings during and prior to Clinton’s administration and keep secret who the world’s real imperialists are.

Bill Clinton’s policies are known to have effected education, financial institutions, environmental regulations and oil production. Clinton’s willingness to accept money from anti-Democratic Islamic sources combined with the non-transparency of Shari’ah financing should be cause for concern because it could be tantamount to treason. It is not surprising that Clinton shut down investigations of Islamic charities.  Under Islamic law Clinton could actually be considered an Islamic charity. Therefore it would not be surprising if examination of Islamic source donations to Clinton reveal bribery and support for terrorism.

[1] Bill Clinton: MSN Encarta, February 16, 2009,

 [2] Emerson, Steve; The American House of Saud: The Secret Petrodollar Connection, Chapter 6, pp. 100-101, Franklin Watts Publisher, 1985

 [3] Lee, Matthew; “Bill Clinton Made Millions From Foreign Sources,” January 27, 2009,

 [4] Morris, Dick & McGann, Eileen; Fleeced, Chapter 7, pp 156-157, 2008, Harper Collins, New York, NY

 [5] Ibid; Chapter 7, pp 161, 2008

 [6] Ibid; Chapter 7, p. 158, 2008, Harper Collins, New York, NY

 [7] Thrush, Glenn; “Clinton Aides Had Hand in Dubai Deal,” September 14, 2006,,0,5479619.story

 [8] Schroeder, Jen; “How Clinton Sold Our Children to Islam,”

[9]  Weyrich, Paul M; “Drill ANWR: Realism Over Emotion,” May 23, 2006,

 [10] “OPEC’s Senate Caucus,” June 5, 2006,


  [12] Craig, Larry; United States Senate Republican Policy Committee Report, “Extended Bosnia Mission Endangers U.S. Troops: Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base,” January 16, 1997,

[13] Oberg, Jan;  November 22, 2007,

[14]  Qena, Nebi: Former President Clinton Unveils Statue in Kosovo,  Associated Press, November 1, 2009,

 [15] HP-1330,  Treasury Designates Bank Melli Front Company in New York City , December 17, 2008,

 [16] Ehrenfeld, Rachael; Clinton’s Iranian Connection, January 5, 2009,

[17] “American Heritage Rivers,”

 [18] Schlafly Phyllis; “Will America be Caught in Clinton’s Web,” The Phyllis Schlafly Report,  Volume 31, No. 9, April 1998,

 [19]  Bresnahan, David; “Utah’s Protests of U.S. Land Grab Muted,” May 15, 1998,

 [20] “Campaign Finance Key Player: The Lippo Group,”

 [21] “Lippo Bank,”

 [22] Schlafly Phyllis; “Power Grab Through Executive Orders,” The Phyllis Schlafly Report,  Volume 32, No. 10, April 1998,

 [23] Porter, Keith; “Law of the Sea Treaty,” September 7, 2009,

 [24] Letter by Cliff Kincaid, President of America’s Survival, Inc,

 [25] Seper, Jerry; “Clinton White House Axed Terror-Fund Probe,” The Washington Times, April 2, 2002,


October 31, 2009 at 9:28 am 2 comments

Obama Admits He is a Muslim

Much ado about Islam yet he calls America arrogant!

October 30, 2009 at 6:27 am 3 comments

The Looting of a Free Market–Chapter 5–Walking the Plank to a Dhimmi Nation


The Looting of a Free Market

 “When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.” — Napoleon Bonaparte

 The 2008 financial crisis and subsequent bailout might have more to do with financial jihad and Shari’ah Financing than Americans would ever imagine or dare to suggest out of fear of being chastised as politically incorrect and Islamophobic. The 2009 Stimulus Plan may as well be a plan to keep American’s in dhimmitude for generations. The very poignant possibility should be explored because questions are still unanswered and Americans are still confused and bewildered over the astronomical amounts of money that they will owe for generations. This chapter takes the liberty of thinking outside the facade of unsatisfactory explanations that have been given.

In September 2008 the largest domestic and international financial crisis in American history became public. U.S. banks and global markets began to decline and the U.S. Treasury, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve rushed to the rescue with an initially proposed $250 billion dollars for nine of America’s largest financial institutions. The decision soon expanded, and on October 14  the Treasury Department announced its decision to inject $700 billion and take equity stakes in nine major U.S. banks because they were described as ”too big to fail.” Executives of the nine banks were told to participate in the program whether they wanted to or not, “for the good of the national economy.”

U.S. Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson said that banks did not have a choice but to give up minority stakes of private ownership, and accept $125 billion each. The plan allocated an additional $125 billion for investment into thousands of other banks and financial institutions across the country for the next 30 days in an effort to jump-start lending and encourage smaller institutions to accepting federal funding.

Global leaders agreed to launch a coordinated program guaranteeing bank debt on a worldwide scale. As part of a much wider plan extending way beyond $700 billion, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) created an insurance fund to guarantee growing concerns of bank debt, providing unlimited deposit insurance for non-interest-bearing accounts at central banks on a global scale.[1]

It is very important to recall from the previous chapter that Shari’ah Compliant Financial products (SCFs) and loans are non-interest bearing, and are offered on a global scale. It is also very important to realize that large banks and Wall Street had been seduced into promoting Shari’ah financial products since at least 2001 without the public’s knowledge.

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, commonly referred to as the “bailout” of the U.S. financial system, authorized the U.S. Treasury to use the $700 billion to purchase or insure “troubled assets,” which were reported to be mortgage backed securities (MBS), and included commercial mortgages, securities, “obligations” or “other” instruments related to mortgages that were issued on or before March 14, 2008, the date of Bear Stearns collapse. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act also authorized the U.S. Treasury to make capital injections into both foreign and domestic banks.[2]

“Securitization” of MBSs is the pooling of mortgages or other debts to sell investors in the form of bonds rather than unpaid loans, which involves packaging and underwriting huge pools of mortgages into structured securities called “bundled loans.” The growth of securitization allowed non-banks to issue loans even though and many non-banks were not subject to examination by federal bank examiners or underwriting guidelines by federal financial regulators.

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was a two-part program designed to put the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act into action in two parts known as TARP I, and TARP II. TARP included the ambiguous “other financial instruments” at the discretion of the Secretary of Treasury and Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

 TARP I was primarily to buy preferred stock and future options in the nine largest American banks. Similar to a debt, preferred stock is paid before common equity shareholders are paid. TARP II, the second part of the program, was supposed to help the more than ten million homeowners owing more than the market value of their home and those facing foreclosure to stay in their homes. Under TARP II, the Treasury would buy up the mortgages at a higher price than the current market value, then issue new mortgages reflecting the true market value of the homes, and supposedly allow homeowners to keep their homes.[3] However, thousands of homes went into foreclosure anyway, and were sold cheaply on the open market.

Participation criteria in The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act was unclear and confusing to the public, however the Act stated that “financial institutions” included in TARP must be “established and regulated” under the laws of the United States and included foreign banks that have “significant operations” in the U.S. These operations include: U.S. banks, U.S. branches of foreign banks, U.S. savings banks or credit unions, U.S. broker-dealers, U.S. insurance companies, U.S. mutual funds or other U.S. registered investment companies, tax-qualified U.S. employee retirement plans, and bank holding companies.[4] It turned out that the $700 dollar bailout was a blank check for receiving banks to buy even more banks and insurance companies.

Then, in February 2009, Congress passed, and President Obama signed into law the largest government spending and borrowing package in the history of mankind, The American Recovery Reinvestment Act. This $787 billion dollar act was supposed to allow for government programs and other investments that would stimulate the economy and provide jobs for Americans. With most of the money designated to loosely described education, health welfare, and alternative energy programs, The Recovery and Reinvestment Act proposed to encompass a multitude of non-productive programs and projects with unidentified recipients, raising more questions than obvious solutions, such as where the money would come from and who would get the contracts. Broad grandiose ideas of creating new programs, and building libraries, did not address what the so-called “other” investments were, what the “new” programs were, or what kind of books the new libraries would have. Regarding education spending, promises by Obama to “hire good teachers,” and “fire bad ones,” did not address a need or satisfactorily explain the qualifications for ‘good teachers’ and ‘bad teachers.’ Also, many of the programs that became known were discovered to be non-productive programs that will not stimulate the economy.

With benevolent sounding semantics, President Obama said that some of the funds will be to build a nationwide electric grid, and develop alternative energy sources to free Americans from “foreign oil.”

Obama did not tell Americans that the electric grid is a “smart grid” to be built by General Electric and IBM, with RFD devices.[5] Neither did he tell Americans that Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC) acquired General Electric’s Plastics division for $11.6 billion in cash on May 21, 2007.[6] Obama did not mention that GE is also one of the largest lenders in countries other than the United States.[7] So while an electric grid may help reduce the cost of foreign oil, it does not guarantee freedom from undemocratic “foreign control.” Because GE stands to take in stimulus dollars by manufacturing the turbines for the proposed alternative energy units, America’s dependence on foreign oil will transfer to Saudi influenced control of electricity, alternative energy, and ultimately, personal activity.

After promising “no pork,” Americans learned that the Recovery and Reinvestment Act included some 9000 earmarks. An example of Orwellian verbiage is that “no pork” may turn out to be deception by interpretation. Take for example the non-productive program to study swine odor. The only given objective for the “study” is that swine manure management is a serious concern in Iowa and “other countries.” Research shows that toxins in swine manure can attach to dust if not properly held in a manure-holding lagoon, causing allergies and depression. However, it is already known that dust leads to allergies, and depression can be a result of exposure to other kinds of manure. The point is that the results of this study may be controlled with the objective of an environmental protection act,  and further legislation hindering the availability of, or the taxation of pork as food, thus, delivering the promise of  “no pork.”

Another confusing report about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is that GE will build a train to go from Disneyland to Las Vegas. This contradicts an earlier report that revealed President Obama would not fund contracts for projects in Las Vegas. It is reasonable to doubt that a joy ride to Las Vegas will ever materialize under the stimulus plan even if funds are allocated.  After allocation, the funds can be used for something else if the project is dropped. It is extremely important to read between the lines and think of the unthinkable–such as a train to Las Vegas could be for other reasons than fun-loving Americans would ordinarily think of when thinking of a ride to Las Vegas. For example, what if a train was to transport prisoners to some kind of a detention camp!

Furthermore, while American taxpayers and future generations of Americans gamble the stimulus plan will work as advertised; no enforcements exist pledging that legal immigrants and American citizens will get those jobs. The House of Representatives initially included provisions to reasonably assure that legal U.S. workers would fill the jobs created with U.S. taxpayer dollars, but the Senate did not accept the House version. Without debate or explanation, the bill was deprived of E-verification safeguards by Senator Henry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a closed-door session. [8]

Expecting to reach $13 trillion by 2010, Americans found it difficult to keep up with the overwhelming, daily deepening Stimulus debt that cannot hope to be re-paid. Members of Congress and citizens alike do not know where the money will come from, what the government programs will involve, what private organizations will be contracted, or to whom the debt will be repaid in the effort to bolster the economy. Believing we will be indebted to China is likely a diversion and a misnomer because China is also indebted to the Saudi’s for oil, and surely the Saudi’s have strategic investments there as well as in the U.S. A more sensible explanation is that strategic companies will provide the services, and the American taxpayers will pay them back with interest for generations, creating an unstated condition of dhimmitude.

President Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel has told a Wall Street Journal conference of top corporate chief executives that the financial crisis is an inheritance from the Bush administration, and an opportunity:

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama’s new chief of staff, this week…Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.”[9]

Instead of opportunity for Americans, the promise to stimulate the economy may in the very least for an “agenda” to obliterate American sovereignty in an effort to promote socialism bordering on fascism as government is controlled by corporations and organizations that are largely owned and controlled by foreigners. If the initial financial disaster affected the entire international financial market system, Americans should ask why they are the only ones who are paying for it.

Conservatives believe that the massive spending programs will actually kill jobs, cripple the economy, and crush any hope for the American dream. With the stock market index the lowest in twenty-five years, and job losses amounting to several million in early 2009, they are probably correct.

Throughout the 1990’s many foreign countries had also fallen into financial crisis: Mexico in 1994; Asia, Thailand, Indonesia and Korea from 1997-1998; Brazil and Russia in 1998; and Argentina in 2000. A study determined that those crises resulted from poorly regulated banking systems, surplus borrowing, irresponsible lending,  deficits from foreign borrowing, lax corporate governance, and corrupt cronyism.

In 1995, Clinton took from a U.S. Treasury Department fund that had been set up in the 1930s to stabilize the U.S. dollar if necessary. Clinton used the money to bail out the Mexican and Brazilian governments, allowing them to make loan payments they owed Goldman Sachs, where Clinton’s Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin had once worked.[10]  Goldman Sachs also received billions of dollars in the 2008 bailout and then gave out billions of dollars in bonuses to executives.

U.S. subprime lenders had begun entering financial crisis in 2007. Declining employment, a deteriorating dollar and increasing housing crisis, prompted the Federal Reserve to cut the lending rate 50 basis points and purchase tens of billions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities.

Leading up to the 2008 financial crisis was the collapse of Bear Stearns Investment Banking and Securities Brokerage Firm. Bear Stearns, had developed an extensive market in swaps and hedge funds, and put $1.6 billion into two failing hedge funds. After losing all their value, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York gave Bear Stearns an unsuccessful emergency loan, and JP Morgan Chase purchased the company on March 14, 2008.

Bear Stearns was actively involved in purchasing mortgage backed securities prior to their failure. The bundled loans were sold to institutional investors, such as hedge and pension funds, while some were retained by the bank itself.

Other Wall Street firms such as Merrill Lynch and Freddie Mac were also actively engaged in packaging, underwriting, trading, and investing in mortgage backed securities. As large financial institutions began failing in the U.S., the crisis rapidly evolved into a global scenario leading to a number of European bank failures, declines in various stock indexes, large reductions in the market value of equities and commodities worldwide, with liquidity and borrowing becoming problematic in the United States and Europe.[11]

Investment banks that had borrowed money from Bear Stearns began to withdraw cash from their accounts. Concerned that the firm would not be able to pay claims, a number of institutional investors attempted to reverse their trades, leading to a drop in Bear’s liquidity.

Negotiations ensued between Bear, JP Morgan, The Federal Reserve, and Treasury officials, leading to JP Morgan Chase’s purchase of Bear Stearns at a mere $2 a share. Bear and JP Morgan renegotiated those terms to avoid shareholder litigation, bringing the share’s value up to $10.

In 1978 Saudi Arabia was reported to be the largest holder of Fannie Mae certificates[12] 

Then, in 2006, Government regulators filed civil charges against three former Fannie Mae executives seeking the return of over $115 million in bonuses. [13]

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) filed 101 charges against former Fannie Mae CEO’s, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Franklin Raines, former Chief Financial Officer, J. Timothy Howard, and former controller Leanne G. Spencer for manipulating earnings to gain the large bonuses.

The CEO’s neglected internal controls and sound accounting by misapplying over twenty accounting principles, which led to overstated earnings from 2001 through the first two quarters of 2004 by $6.3 billion. The inaccurate accounting statements and inaccurate reports allowed for the unsound growth of Fannie Mae, resulting in $7.9 billion in losses after taxes.

In addition to a yearly salary of $1 million, Raines received $84.6 million in bonuses between 1998 and 2003. The government wanted Howard to return $27.3 million that he had received in options and bonuses, and $5.6 million from Spencer. [14]

Raines had served in the Carter Administration as associate director for economics and government in the Office of Management and Budget, and as the assistant director of the White House Domestic Policy Staff from1977-1979. From 1991-1996 he was Fannie’s Mae’s Vice Chairman. In 1994, he was forced to retire from Fannie Mae, taking with him $240 Million in benefits even after the discovery of accounting flaws.[15] Raines then worked under Clinton as Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget from 1996-1998. The Government filed suit against Raines in 1996 when his involvement in the accounting scandal became clear[16]

In 1999, Raines returned to Fannie Mae as CEO until 2005 when he was forced to retire again. In 2006, the Courts ordered Raines to return $50 million.

For years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had pursued lobbying strategy efforts to get lawmakers on their side, pouring money into lobbying and campaign contributions to federal candidates, parties and committees.[17] In 1998, banks began making thousands of bad loans to people who put no money down and claims of undocumented income.  From 1999-2005 Fannie Mae gave millions of dollars to Democratic causes such as ACORN, and millions to 354 Congressmen and Senators from both parties. Senator Christopher Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee; Senator Barack Obama, member of the Finance Committee; Senator Chuck Schumer, Chairman of the Finance Committee; and Representative Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee were the top four recipients.

Tim Howard, Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae advocated using accounting strategies to ensure a “stable pattern of earnings.” The Government Investigation determined that Howard failed to provide adequate oversight for key control and reporting functions within Fannie Mae.

The two former Fannie Mae executives denied manipulating Fannie Mae’s income statements, however investigations by federal regulators and the company’s board of directors determined they had manipulated 1998 earnings to achieve bonuses. Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004 with a severance agreement reportedly estimated to be $20 million.[18]

Jim Johnson, former executive at Lehman Brothers, was also forced from his CEO position as a result of the Fannie Mae scandal. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson’s 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was somewhere between $6 million and $7 million when it was actually $21 million. Johnson’s Golden Parachute was estimated to be $28 million.

During Obama’s campaign, Johnson would once again come under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide during his years as CEO at Fannie Mae, and subsequently resigned from a position to be part of a committee to choose Obama’s vice presidential running mate.[19]

In 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were finally forced to declare bankruptcy leading to nationalization.[20] Recall from the previous chapter that in 2001, Freddie Mac, one of the nations’ largest investors in Islamic home financing products, announced it had become the first major U.S. mortgage investor to contract the purchase of Islamic mortgages. Freddie Mac announced that it had begun buying Shari’ah compliant mortgages on May 1, 2001.[21] An article by Paul Wiseman for USA Today on March 28, 2008 revealed that some of the banks from which Freddie Mac began buying Shari’ah-compliant mortgages, offer a range of Shari’ah products. Mostly in areas with largely Democratic Party leader representation, the banks included Devon Bank in North Chicago, Guidance Residential in Reston, Virginia; University Bank in Ann Arbor, Michigan; and American Finance House Lariba in Pasadena, California, Wiseman wrote that Citigroup, HSBC, Deutsche Bank, AIG have affiliates with Shari’ah products. Devon Bank in North Chicago started giving Shari’ah loans (loans without interest) to Muslims in 2001.

The Wiseman article also revealed that the global Islamic finance market was worth about $700 billion in March 2008, and had grown 15% in the previous three years. It further noted that Freddie Mac had purchased over $250 million in Islamic mortgages in 2007 alone. [22] 

A Fannie Mae Foundation report had boasted working with community activists following “the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted” Fannie Mae’s $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 grew to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion early in 2003.[23]

Billions of dollars is of course over $250 million, so it could be, in a manipulative play on words, that Freddie Mac actually purchased billions of dollars in Shari’ah loans. Because the larger American public does not know that Freddie Mac purchased any Shari’ah mortgages, they cannot know if those investments were profitable. The investments may be part of the ‘toxic’ zero down, ‘risky’ loans that ended up amongst the unpaid bundles of debt that generations of American taxpayers are now supposed to pay for.

Wachovia acquired mortgage lender Golden West Financial Corporation in 2006. Like Washington Mutual Inc., Wachovia offered adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs), which required very low introductory payments, and had $122 billion in ‘Pick-A-Payment’ loans, that allowed borrowers to defer some of their interest payments. Delinquencies and defaults on these types of mortgages skyrocketed in the months prior to the financial crisis, causing big losses for the banks.

In the summer of 2008, Wachovia reported a $9.11 billion loss for the second quarter, announced plans to cut 11,350 jobs, and slashed its dividend. Wachovia also boosted its provision for loan losses to $5.57 billion during the second quarter, up from $179 million in the same period of 2007.

Citigroup’s investors became concerned that it too might collapse given its massive exposure to MBSs, when Citigroup did not turn a profit for three straight quarters, loosing $17.4 billion during one period after writing down its assets by about $46 billion.

Then, on December 14, 2008, after receiving tens of billions in TARP funds, Citigroup loaned $8 billion to Dubai. Citigroup’s chairman, Win Bischoff, said at the time, “This is in line with our commitment to the U.A.E. market in general, and reflects our positive outlook on Dubai in particular.” [24]

When Citigroup received $45 billion from the American taxpayers in the fall of 2008, the company already had plans to lobby to change laws during the Obama administration. Citigroup hoped that the $787 billion rescue plan under the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment allowing them to sell their ‘toxic’ mortgages and other assets for a higher price than they actually paid for them.

The Economic Stimulus Plan prevented banks from profiting on the sale of troubled assets to the government, but there was an exception for assets acquired in a merger or buyout, from companies that filed bankruptcy. In mid February 2009, Citigroup stock fell to $2 a share and the U.S. Government announced plans for its nationalization. On February 27, 2009 Americans learned that Citigroup’s nationalization was effective with the U.S. government owning just 36% of the bank.

An article posted on Arabian Business.Com and The Global Islamic Finance Center (GIFC) website in May 2008 titled “Citi Launches Shari’ah Compliant Products in UAE” identified Saudi Prince, Alwaweed bin Talal as the largest Citigroup shareholder at the time, with the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority and Kuwait Investment Authority additional  investors. According to the article, Citi Islamic Investment Bank described its global Islamic business as :

“The world’s leading ‘book runner’ of global Islamic finance transactions, set up its global Islamic banking operations in 1981 in London.” [25]

 If Saudi Arabia’s Prince Alwaweed bin Talal was Citigroup’s largest shareholder, and  Abu Dhabi Investment Authority and Kuwait Investment Authority are more recent investors, the question is: Who and what are the American taxpayers really funding?

The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate, and The Community Reinvestment Act of 1999 greatly reduced underwriting standards and encouraged financial institutions to provide loans to individuals in low-income neighborhoods. A February 5, 2008, article in the New York Post by Stan J. Liebowitz, “The Real Scandal: How Feds Invited the Mortgage Mess,” states:

 “Perhaps the greatest scandal of the mortgage crisis is that it is a direct result of an intentional loosening of underwriting standards—done in the name of ending discrimination, despite warnings that it could lead to wide-scale defaults. At the crisis’ core are loans that were made with virtually nonexistent underwriting standards—no verification of income or assets; little consideration of the applicant’s ability to make payments; no down payment.”


The Federal Reserve also rescued American International Group, Inc. (AIG), the world’s largest insurance company, only one day after investment bank Lehman Brothers fell into bankruptcy for investing in bad mortgages. Even though the company had lost $5 billion in the 4th quarter of 2007, Martin J. Sullivan, who ran the company from 2005 until June 2008, reportedly urged AIG’s board of directors to waive pay guidelines in 2007 in favor of $5 million in bonuses. Auditing firm Pricewaterhouse Cooper had warned the company that it showed potential losses from insuring mortgage-related securities in December 2007. Days later, Sullivan reassured shareholders of the company’s stability. Giving the government an 80% stake of its holdings in the fall 2008, AIG initially received $85 billion, and by March 2, 2009, the loans had amassed to $162 billion with $30 billion likely to follow. Later in the month, Americans would learn that AIG gave $93 billion to Goldman Sachs and other European banks.[26]

An investigation by a London based editorial, Sunday Telegraph, determined there was a correlation between the losses and the many regulators responsible for AIG’s activities throughout 130 countries. The auditing firm, Pricewaterhouse Cooper had previously warned AIG that the “root cause” of its problems was the denial of internal oversight in its Financial Products Branch. Federal regulators at the Office of Thrift Supervision also warned AIG in March 2008 that “corporate oversight of AIG Financial Products lack critical elements of independence.”

A Congressional Hearing on October 7, 2008 revealed that AIG’s problems reportedly came from its ‘financial services operations,’ primarily the insurance of mortgage-backed securities and ‘other’ risky debt, not from its ‘traditional’ insurance subsidiary.

In the midst of the bailout crisis, on December 1, 2008, a subsidiary of AIG Commercial Insurance, Risk Specialists Companies, Inc. (RSC), announced an Islamic Homeowners Policy, as the first of a series of Shari’ah-compliant products in the U.S. that are compliant with the Islamic finance tenets described in the previous chapter.

The Islamic homeowners’ policy is underwritten through Risk Specialists Insurance, Inc., in conjunction with Lexington Insurance Company, in association with an AIG division licensed by the Bank of Bahrain. Established in 2006, the division, known as AIG Takaful Enaya, provides a range of Shari’ah compliant Takaful products, including accident and health, auto, energy, property and casualty products. [27]

Less than a week after the federal government bailed out AIG, the company sent life insurance executives on a $440,000 retreat to an upscale California resort, St. Regis, south of Los Angeles. Lawmakers were outraged even though executives were not from the Financial Products Division.[28]

U.S. Congressman who chaired the hearing into AIG, unveiled documents showing that AIG executives had hidden the full range of its risky Financial Products Division from auditors as losses increased, according to documents released by a congressional panel examining the chain of events that led to the bailout of AIG.

In London, a Wall Street veteran named Joseph Cassano ran AIG Financial Products Division. According to US Congressional records, the company paid Cassano $280 million from 1999-2007. Company accountants changed the basis on which they valued collateral held by some of its units, marking down a half trillion dollars worth of credit default swaps (CDSs) that had led to quarterly losses. CDSs are questionable insurance products bought by investors seeking protection against defaults on mortgage-backed securities and other credits. By the end of 2007, AIG had $562 billion in CDS contracts in its books, and the October 7 testimony before the House Oversight Committee revealed that Cassano’s office was the origination.

As a result, Cassano transferred to a consulting position for AIG that paid him $1 million per month for nine months. According to Sullivan, Cassano helped AIG Financial Products Division unravel the devaluing CDSs.

According to regulators in other countries, the British Financial Services Authority (FSA) may have been partly responsible for the credit crisis that led to the global financial crisis. They found a financial chain linking American sub-prime mortgages to the packagers and sellers of mortgages in London, and Wall Street. The British Conservative Party Treasury spokesman Philip Hammond called for a public inquiry into the FSA’s oversight of its AIG Financial Products in London saying: “We must not allow London to become a bolt hole for companies looking for a place to conduct questionable activities.”

Serious concern regarding Shari’ah Compliant Financing products is that banking oversight in the UK is entrusted to the FSA, which is made up of non-governmental members appointed by the Treasury. The FSA (coincidentally) defers regulation of Shari’ah Compliant Financing products to the scholarly Islamic Shari’ah supervisory board of each institution.

According to undisclosed FSA associations, the AIG Financial Products Division (coincidentally) fell outside FSA jurisdiction. Under FSA rules, AIG Financial Products is an “internal treasury operation” and as such, (coincidentally) not regulated by FSA. The FSA does have regulatory oversight responsibility for a number of AIG units in London, including a company called AIG FP Capital Management in London. Associations to the FSA said AIG FP Capital Management was a separate company from AIG Financial Products, and not involved in the creation of the failing CDSs. Nevertheless, U.S. lawmakers considered London AIG Financial Products to be at the root of AIG’s Financial Products disaster.

The UK Telegraph article stated, “During the hearing into the causes and effects of the AIG bail-out on October 7, the US House of Representatives Oversight Committee, led by Congressman Waxman, politicians mentioned London a dozen times. California Congresswoman Jackie Speier referred to London’s AIG Financial Products as ‘the casino in London.’”

During the U.S. HROC hearing, American AIG chief executives Martin Sullivan and Robert Willumstad revealed information about the AIG Financial Products unit in London citing a New York Times article on September 28, 2008. It turned out that in November 2007, when AIG accountants advised the insurer to change the way it valued its CDSs, the small base of capital on which AIG Financial Products had built a massive business came into focus, leading to AIG’s exposure.

The UK Telegraph article revealed that British authorities had not said anything about AIG’s involvement. However, unknown to the general American public, there were multiple investigations into AIG in the U.S. In addition to the October 7 Congressional hearing, the AIG Financial Products Division was being investigated by the Office of Thrift Supervision in Washington and the New York State Department of Insurance in Manhattan.

In early October 2008, New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo sent a letter to AIG informing the company it was under investigation for “irresponsible and damaging” expenditures, “among other things,” for the executive compensation packages that were not cut even as AIG accepted the $85 billion to keep itself afloat. [29]

A December 10, 2008, article in the Wall Street Journal stated that AIG still had close to $10 billion in ‘undisclosed counterparty obligations.’ Included in the portfolio a “notional amount” as of September 30, was approximately $9.8 billion of swaps that were sold as credit protection on “synthetic” securities. The swaps on the so-called synthetic securities were referred to as “cash settlement” or “Pay As You Go” swaps because they are settled in cash when the losses are taken.

AIG noted that the majority of the multi-sector CDS swaps were written as “physical settlement” swaps, where AIG was required to physically buy the underlying collateralized debt obligation (CDO) bond in the event of a CDO credit problem. Remember (from the previous chapter) that in Shari’ah Compliant Financing, the banks purchase the homes and rent them out to the prospective buyers.

In December, suit was filed against Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the Federal Reserve Board challenging the AIG bailout citing their involvement in Shari’ah Compliant Financing and charging that Shari’ah-based Islamic religious activities are anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, and anti-American. The Obama administration’s Department of Justice unsuccessfully tried to have the suit dismissed.

The plaintiff, Kevin J. Murray, sued the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve

Board in December 2008, claiming that the Treasury’s 79.9% stake in AIG as part of a rescue plan  violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by issuing the Shariah-compliant policies. Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff  agreed that the federal government’s involvement with AIG effectively promotes Islam.[30]

The huge bonuses that bank CEO’s received sparked another huge controversy because taxpayer money had paid for them. No one liked the fact that CEO’s got the huge bonuses and severance agreements for nor justifiable reason, though it was said that these were the only executives who knew what was really going on, and therefore were the only ones who could straighten it out. This could be a very misleading excuse, meaning something entirely different. For example, when a CEO leaves a company, he takes with him trade secrets. Therefore, it is very likely that such secrets involve knowledge of involvement in financial activities and transactions that must be kept secret from the American taxpayer. The huge bonuses could actually be “pay-offs” to mislead Americans and keep them in the dark regarding fraudulent and misleading internal operations.

Severance agreements and huge bonuses could be hush money  making recipients partners in crime with the Federal Reserve and contracting parties, especially if something like Shari’ah Compliant Financing was involved.

New York Attorney General Cuomo also determined the explanation that bonuses are tied to performance, does not appear to be accurate after he looked into the files of the banks. Cuomo conducted an investigation that  revealed at least 4,793 bankers and traders were paid over $1 million in bonuses in 2008. Goldman Sachs Group Inc, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase & Co paid bonus amounts that were more than the banks’ net income.

The report said that Goldman Sachs received $10 billion in TARP funding, and paid $4.8 billion in bonuses after earning  $2.3 billion. Morgan Stanley received $10 billion in TARP funding, paid $4.475 billion in bonuses, and earned $1.7 billion. JP Morgan Chase received $25 billion in TARP funding, paid $8.69 billion in bonuses, and  earned $5.6 billion. Wells Fargo lost $42.93 billion and still paid bonuses of $977,500.

Cuomo said his office found that many of the banks increased compensation in the 2003-2006 bull market years, staying at those levels during the mortgage crisis.

Merrill Lynch and Citigroup lost over $27 billion each. Merrill paid $3.6 billion in bonuses, and  Citigroup paid $5.33 billion in bonuses. The two banks received a combined $55 billion of TARP money.[31]

For a couple of years prior to the bailouts there was a running joke on Wall Street, “Dubai, Mumbai, Shanghai or goodbye.” CEO’s of a troubled investment bank flocked to one of the three cities desperately looking for cash. In Dubai they offered “structured products” to encourage Muslim investors. The products were basically bonds, but were not actually called bonds. Some of the investments that Dubai World is in jeopardy of defaulting on are actually called Shariah-compliant “sukuk.”[32]

An article in a Quatar English speaking newspaper, The Gulf Times, dated June 16, 2008, revealed that Omair Mooraj, a senior Mideast executive at U.S. investment bank JP Morgan Chase & Co was detained in Dubai as part of a fraud investigation at Dubai Islamic Bank. As the managing director and head of Islamic banking for the region, Mooraj was one of several people held by Dubai police in a string of arrests. The report alluded to an earlier detainment of Rifat Usmani, a vice president of structured finance at Dubai Islamic, and Charles Ridley, a British Bahrain-based businessman. [33] 

The Federal Reserve consists mostly of foreign bankers who are not citizens of these United States, and is a private corporation. The Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have lent or spent over $8 trillion American taxpayer dollars– almost $3 trillion over the past two years, pledging up to $5.7 trillion more.

President Woodrow Wilson created the Federal Reserve under the inspiration of the Marxist, E. Mandell House. Since its creation, the U.S. Congress has had little to do with managing America’s fiscal policies, and Wilson later admitted regret over his part in its creation.

Many patriotic Americans believe that the Federal Reserve and its cohorts have manipulated every bit of the 2008-2009 financial crisis. H.R. 833, introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Ron Paul, upon enactment, will abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve banks. [34]

In September  2008 Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system yet two months later, the Federal Reserve loaned even more in separate rescue programs without requiring Congressional approval. Americans had no idea where their money was going, or what securities the banks are pledging in return.

The Constitution requires that U.S. currency must be backed by a commodity like gold and silver, and that only Congress has the power to make monetary policy, while private domestic banks and foreign banks are forbidden to do so. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to:

“To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.”


Federal Reserve Notes, paper money, is not regarded as legal tender under the U.S. Constitution because it is not backed by anything. Combined with the fact that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation consisting mostly of foreign bankers who are not citizens of these United States makes the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 unconstitutional.

Dan Fuss, vice chairman of Boston based Loomis Sayles & Co. Bloomberg News said that collateral was not adequately disclosed regarding the recipients of nearly $2 trillion in emergency loans at the onset of the 2008 bailout. Fuss requested details of Federal Reserve lending under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act and filed a federal lawsuit on November 7, 2008 seeking disclosure.[35]

Arabs began buying U.S. Treasury bonds thirty-some years ago, and have bought into our capital market infrastructure including American banks. Steven Emerson noted that in the eighties, the U.S. Treasury began keeping Saudi and Arab investments in the U.S. hidden from the American public.

Anti-capitalist Islamists are now hastily claiming the financial crisis is evidence of a failing and greedy Western financial system. Contrarily, non-transparent Shari’ah practices could actually be the cause of the failing Western system. Hiding the fact that Shari’ah products and transactions had become a part of the bank portfolios could also very well be the reason for giving out large bonuses. Shari’ah Compliant Finance products as part of mortgage backed securities in bundled loans as and portfolios cannot be ruled out as an important part of the scandalous activities that led to the recent financial crisis. SCFs involve unexamined loans that are described as “complex,” and “customized.” With unchallenged regulation, they cannot prove distance from risky and scandalous activities.

World leaders met in London on April 2, 2009 at the G-20 meeting reportedly in an effort to “strengthen” the global financial system. Jerome Corsi, a noted financial services speaker and writer, wrote an article describing how the G20 would create an international Financial Stability Board with authority to intervene in U.S. corporate affairs by dictating executive compensation and approving or disapproving business management. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Financial Stability Board became the global regulators of the whole corporate world, thus superseding U.S. governmental authorities, including the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and other corporate regulators, including the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Department of Labor. The Financial Stability Board essentially negates the U.S. Declaration of Independence and abrogates the sovereignty of the United States.

Corsi wrote that the new global regulator has the authority to examine all U.S. banks, brokerage firms, and corporations including non-financial companies such as the Big Three automakers. It has the international authority to set policies within these corporations, including compensation packages paid to top executives and senior managers. [36]

While at the G-20 meeting, Obama gave such a deep bow to King Abdullah Aziz of Saudi Arabia that he appeared to be kissing the King’s hand or ring. A video of the incident on the Internet was removed after controversy ensued and the White House denied that it was a kiss. While the hands of both men were not always visible in the video, the expressions of astonishment from the other leaders show that the gesture was a spectacle at the very least.  

Early in the bailout, and before the G20 meeting, President Obama made many references to Americans chastising us for “bad habits,” “greediness,” and “addiction to oil.” In other words, trying to make Americans feel guilty and accept the position of scapegoat for what really might be organized international crime.  

Americans should question whether American home mortgages in default are the main cause of the 2008 global financial crisis. Obama’s inference of placing the blame on American citizens alone is tantamount to fear mongering and extortion and might be part a larger plan to vanquish American sovereignty and negate the Constitution.

After the Bailout and the Stimulus Bill came the Omnibus Bill, the Budget Bill, the Cap and Trade Bill, and most recently the Health Care Bill. These bills all depend on Americans tax dollars. Combined they are thousands of pages of rules, regulations, and restrictions that will control Americans with unknown, unwarranted astronomical debt, and possibly far worse as future generations will essentially be born in debt and live their whole lives in bondage.

During the ninth through eleventh centuries royal policy with the English and the Franks was to pay a tax, the Danegeld, as tribute to safeguard them from being invaded and ravaged by Vikings raiders. In closing, the poem, “Dane-Geld” by Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936) is timeless wisdom for today’s socio-political-economic policies.

“It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,

to call upon a neighbor and to say:

“We invaded you last night–we are quite prepared to fight,

unless you pay us cash to go away.”

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,

and the people who ask it explain

that you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld

and then you’ll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,

to puff and look important and to say:

“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.

We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;

but we’ve proved it again and again,

that if once you have paid him the Dane-geld

you never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,

For fear they should succumb and go astray,

So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,

You will find it better policy to say:

“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,

No matter how trifling the cost;

For the end of that game is oppression and shame,

And the nation that plays it is lost!”

[1] Cho, David, Irwin, Neil, & Whoriskey, Peter; “U.S. Forces Nine Major Banks to Accept Partial Nationalization,” October 14, 2008,

 [2] “Energy Economic Stabilization Act of 2008”;

 [3] Baker, Dean; “TARP II: Money For Banks, Not Homeowners,” January 19, 2009,

 [4] “Troubled Assets Relief Program,”

 [5] Jones, Alex;” Smart Grid: Government Spying Targets Rural America,” March 7, 2009,

 [6] Deutsch, Claudia H.; May 22, 2007, “General Electric to Sell Plastics Division,”

 [7] “SABIC,”

[8] “$800 Billion Economic Stimulus and Job Creation Bill Includes No Protections for U.S. Workers,” March 2009,

 [9]  Seib, Gerald F.; November 21, 2008, “In Crisis, Opportunity for Barrack Obama, Wall Street Journal,

 [10] Schlafly, Phyllis; “Power Grab Through Executive Orders,” The Phyllis Schlafly Report,  Volume 32, No. 10, April 1998,

[11] “Bear Stearns,”

 [12] Emerson, Steve; The American House of Saud: The Secret Petrodollar Connection, Chapter 16, p. 330, Franklin Watts Publisher, 1985


 [14] Carter, Matt;  “Feds Charge Former Fannie Mae Execs With Manipulated Earnings,” December 18, 2006,

 [15] Tyson James & Jaffe Mark; “Fannie Mae Missteps Trip Up Raines Remarkable Rise,” December 4, 2004,

 [16] “Franklin Raines,”

 [17] Mayer,  Lindsay Renick; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Democrats,” July 16, 2008,

[18] Huslin, Anita; “On the Outside Now: Watching Fannie Falter,”  July 16, 2008


 [20] “The History of a Financial Disaster,”

 [21] “Freddie Mac Invests in Islamic Mortgages,” May 1, 2001,

 [22] Wiseman, Paul;  “Islamic Loans Turn Profit for Banks in USA,” March 28, 2008,   


 [24] Sorkin, Andrew Moss;  “A Financial Mirage in the Desert,” November 30, 2009,

[25] Malik, Tala; “Citi Launches Shari’ah-Compliant Products in UAE,” May 13, 2008,

 [26] Rush Limbaugh,  March 16, 2009

 [27] “Risk Specialists Companies Announces First Takaful Homeowners Products for U.S.,” December 1, 2008, 

 28] After Bailout, AIG Execs Lounged At Resort,” CBS News,  October 7, 2008,

 [29] Koeing, Peter; “AIG Trail Leads to London ‘Casino,’ October 18, 2008,

[30] “AIG Judge Won’t Dismiss Suit Claiming AIG Bailout is Unconstitutional,” May 29, 2009,

 [31] Reuters, “Some U.S. Banks Pay “unmoored” from Performance: Cuomo,”

 [32]  Sorkin, Andrew Ross; “A Financial Mirage in the Desert,” November  30, 2009,

 [33] Sleiman, Mirna; “Executive Detained in Bank Fraud Probe,” June 16, 2008,

 [34] Baldwin, Chuck; “President and Congress Grovel Before the Fed,” February 10, 2009,

 [35] Fitzgerald, Alison; Ivry, Bob; Pittman, Mark;  “Fed Defies Transparency Aim in Refusal to Disclose,”

 [36] Corsi, Jerome;” Obama’s G20 plan kisses off Declaration of Independence,” April 8, 2009,

October 25, 2009 at 7:22 am 1 comment

Co. Richard Kemp on the U.N. Goldstone Report

October 19, 2009 at 10:53 pm 1 comment

Is Obama Going to Cede U.S. Sovereignty?

October 19, 2009 at 10:32 pm 1 comment

Saudi/U.S. vs. Iran/Russia?

The Saudi’s and Iran have competed for power in the Persian Gulf area for decades. I believe that American officials were forced to choose sides in the early 80’s. That is why we dissed the Shah, showing our loyalty to the Saudis. Saudi Arabia and Iran are at odds over power and oil because Iranians are Shiite and Saudis are Wahabbi (originally Sunni) muslims.

 I get the sense that Russia is siding with Iran, and the U.S. is siding with the Saudis. After you read the article to follow by Ralph Peters, look at this website: .  It is a webste that condems Iranian nukes, and it is sponsored by none other than General Electric, which is owned in part by Saudis, and GE also owns NBC. What most people do not know is  that Saudi Arabia is also in the process of pursuing a nuclear program of their own. The Saudis have made many strategic investments in the U.S. and the world with their petrodollars. These investments create political loyalties that are not always in America’s best interest.This may have more to do with why our troops are in Afghanistan than we realize. Perhaps we are being forced to fight for the Saudis under the threat that  they will terrorize us if we do not. This may also have more to do with using up our resources, our troops, and training Islamic militants  than actually “winning” a war on terror.  That would be extortion using oil, terror, and finances as weapons. That is jihad.
 New York Post

Putin’s Iran plan

  Iran’s traditional emblem has been the Persian lion. Russia’s should be a vulture: Prime Minister Vladimir Putin intends to feed on the carcass left by any confrontation with Iran.
The current crisis is a win-win-win for Putin. But before laying out his plan, let’s run the numbers:

* For now, Russia profits wonderfully from its trade, both legal and illicit, with Iran, while the West talks itself to death. Life is good.
So the worst outcome for Putin — more of the same — is still good. A bad outcome for everybody else is even better in Putin’s strategy to renew Russia’s superpower status.

For Moscow, this crisis isn’t about Tehran’s acquisition of nukes. It’s about Russia’s acquisition of a stranglehold on global energy markets.

Putin’s playing with fire — but he’s sure we’ll be the ones burned.

As for the Obama administration’s desperate (and stunningly naive) hope that economic sanctions can deter President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and his fellow thugs-for-Allah from pursuing nuclear weapons, forget it.

Even were Putin to permit his front-man, President Dmitri Medvedev, to agree to half-baked sanctions, Moscow would violate them before Obama could step out of Air Force One with a piece of paper in his hand guaranteeing peace in our time.

The Persian Gulf’s littoral states hold over 60 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves and 40 percent of the natural gas. Russia has “just” 10 percent of the oil reserves and 35 percent of the world’s natural gas.

Do the math: Iran and its neighbors, along with Russia, own two-thirds of the world’s oil reserves and 70 percent of the natural gas. And the global economy still runs on oil and gas, folks.

Despite the State Department’s compartmentalization mentality, Russia and Iran don’t exist in separate worlds. It’s less than a day’s drive from Russia’s southern border through Azerbaijan to Iran’s northwestern border. I’ve driven it.

This is one macro-region for energy, the zone of ultimate control. Putin gets it, even if we don’t. Here’s Czar Vladimir’s strategic trifecta:

* But life could get even better: If Iran’s nuclear quest isn’t blocked, a nuclear arsenal will give Iran de facto control of all Persian Gulf oil. Putin envisions a Moscow-Tehran axis, an energy cartel that dramatically increases the value of his oil and gas — the only economic props keeping the corpse of Russia upright.

* If Israel’s driven to a forlorn-hope attack on Iran’s nuke program, Iran will respond by striking Gulf Arab oil fields and facilities, while closing the Strait of Hormuz. The US military will be in it, like it or not. Oil and gas prices will soar unimaginably — and the bear will have its paws on the golden tap.

Why on earth would this guy help us stop Iran? When he hates us, anyway? (It isn’t you, Barack. It’s just business.)

For all his viciousness, Putin’s a serious strategist. We don’t have any high-level strategists. Not one. On either side of the Potomac.

In his first decade on the throne, Czar Vladimir focused on addicting Europe to Russian gas, while moving successfully to exert control over as many pipelines as possible. That was the constructive decade.

The second decade in the reign of Vladimir I is the energy-cartel-building phase. This will be the confrontational phase.

Energy’s the only real power Putin has, so he’s maximizing it.

It’s no accident that a strategic triangle has emerged between Moscow, Tehran and Caracas — home of the great Latin mischief-lover, Hugo Chavez, who thrives on his own nation’s petro-wealth.

For us, the Iran crisis is about peace. For Putin, it’s about power. Yet the self-deluding Obama administration really believes that Moscow’s going to support us. After our president gave away our only serious bargaining chip, the missile-defense system promised to our European allies.

Putin thinks in 10-year-plans. We can’t think past the next congressional roll-call vote.

The Obama administration’s primary legacy to the world is going to be a nuclear-armed Iran.

October 6, 2009 at 7:54 pm 2 comments

Financial Jihad in America–“Walking the Plank to a Dhimmi Nation”–Chapter 4


Financial Jihad in America 

Shari’ah-compliant finance plays a significant role in denying the freedoms of Democracy and the integration of Muslim immigrants into Western host countries. Legitimizing and enabling Shari’ah law in the West coerces Muslim individuals and groups to live under Islamic law yet many U.S. banks have opened Shariah compliant financial departments and are catering to an Islamic agenda.
When there were not any Shari’ah-compliant banks in the West, devout Muslims were allowed to use the conventional “infidel” institutions of their Western host countries under the Shari’ah doctrine of “extreme necessity,” but Western banks started catering to Muslim demands and Shari’ah-compliant financial (SCF) departments came into to existence. As SCF institutions become available, Muslims will patronize them exclusively. Allowing the spread of Shari’ah finance in the West and the U.S.,  also pushes Americans toward Shari’ah.[2]

Shari’ah Law is the totalitarian legal system that Islamists believe should govern every aspect of humanity in a global theocracy. Theoretically upon establishment of an Islamic one-world government, Shari’ah would be the basis of all law. Leading Islamic scholars and practitioners explicitly acknowledge Shari’ah financing as complementary to violent jihad, with the main purpose to promote Shari’ah law. For this reason, Islamists see Shari’ah finance as “financial jihad.” Advocates of Islam define the Islamic agenda as a complete socio-political system encompassing both personal and private life that for Americans, would mean the loss of many freedoms we enjoy today.

Sheik Qaradawi, a terrorist banned from entering the United States and Great Britain, who leads international Islamic Finance agencies describes Shari’ah finance as:

 “I like to call it Jihad with money, because God has ordered us to fight enemies with our lives and our money.”[3]

 Conventional banking has been widespread for years in the Islamic world, however, in the past decade a stricter interpretation of Shari’ah is gaining ground and drives the growth of fundamental no-interest Islamic finance, misleadingly promoted in the West as “ethically and socially responsible.” Ethically and socially responsibility in an Islamic context, it  enables the oppressive governance and bondage of Islamic laws. University of Southern California professor Timur Kuran, who holds the King Faisal Chair in Islamic Thought, concurred “Islamic banking defies the separation between economics and religion.”

Shari’ah requires those who cannot participate in Jihad physically, to support it financially. Driven by power, and to appease radical Islamists who might otherwise overthrow the Saudi regime, members of the Wahhabist Saudi oligarchy willingly fund radical Islamists organizations.

Shari’ah compliant financing (SCF), originally created to be a terrorist tool, seduces proponents who buy in to the hype that interest is always usury. While the Koran prohibits usury, it does not actually prohibit interest, only such rates that border on loan sharking. But given the hypothesis that interest is forbidden, SCF uses terms and features like “fees,” and “zakat,” where fees take the place of interest, and zakat is an Islamic religious tax requiring that alms be given to Islamic charities in compliance with the third pillar of Islam. Ironically or hypocritically, Shari’ah financial funds can be invested in companies that earn a profit from interest or otherwise  un-Islamic activities, as long as the  returns on investment are purified by donating 2.5% to 20% of the annual earnings, with percentages dependent on the source, to charities of Islamic scholarly determination.

This laundering process supposedly purifies the money and makes it socially responsible and clean regardless of its source. Islamic “scholars” on Shari’ah finance boards at the individual organizations determine which charities will receive the donations. The decisions are based on Islamic law and are void of further oversight and no claims or attempts at transparency. SCF non-transparency and “complexity” is what makes them difficult to trace and such excellent terrorist funding tools. Rabidly expanding in the West as a way to cash in on petrodollars, SCF products are counterproductive to human rights as well as Western values. Proponents of  SCF are promoting a seditious agenda with risks of racketeering and  violation of security & anti-trust laws  while enabling consumer fraud.

Not above taking advantage of an established Western market, and with a means to purify the ill-gotten money to aid jihadi efforts, affluent individual Muslims are active investors in U.S. and European financial institutions. European nations like the UK and France, foolishly promote Islamic Shari’ah products with SCF bonds, SCF car insurance, SCF credit cards, and SCF mortgages in an effort to expand product lines.

Wall Street, American financial institutions, and the media know that Sharia banking is a major source of terror funding, but still buy into them. In an April 3, 2008 article titled “Jihad Comes to Wall Street,”  Alex Alexiev, The Security Council Vice President wrote that dozens of Western banks promote Shari’ah products today, and described Shari’ah finance: 

“… as a massive subversion campaign by radical Islam designed to legitimize Shari’ah in the West, to undermine our markets, and ultimately to imperil our free-enterprise system and national security — all the while exposing banks to financial risks that make the sub-prime fiasco look like a walk in the park.” [4] 

The U.S. Treasury Department is aware that SCF institutions have participated in financially supporting terrorism yet on November 6, 2008 the U.S. Treasury Department and the Islamic Finance Project of the Harvard Law School, hosted a forum entitled “Islamic Finance 101.” Presented only two days after the 2008 Presidential Election and in the midst of the 2008 financial crisis, the forum was an effort to train government employees on Shari’ah-compliant finance (SCF). Its purpose was to introduce and educate the Treasury Department staff, U.S. banking regulatory agencies, Congress, Department of Treasury, and other parts of the Executive Branch on Shari’ah finance. According to a press release, the forum was “designed to help inform the policy community about Islamic financial services, which are an increasingly important part of the global financial industry.”

Two SCF banks registered in the Bahamas; Bank Al-Taqwa and Akida Bank, laundered money to terrorists, and were run out of Italy and Switzerland. Bank Al-Taqwa transferred tens of millions of dollars to HAMAS, Al Qaeda, the PLO, and others from 1988 until November 2001, when it was designated a terrorist entity by the U.S. government and the UN.

Al Qaeda was initially funded with approximately $30 million per year, by diversion of the charity money that strategically placed financial facilitators collect from both knowing and unknowing donors. The funds are then diverted to terrorist groups. Both Bank Al-Taqwa and Akida Bank used charities in the U.S., Europe, and the Middle East to funnel money to terrorist groups.[5]

An SCF investment company based in Seacaucus, New Jersey called Bait u Mal al Islami (BMI), promoted itself as an Islamic alternative to conventional investments and solicited funds for real estate development. It was referred to by U.S. federal prosecutors as the “U.S. banker for the Muslim Brotherhood.” In testimony before a U.S. Senate committee, former White House counter terrorism advisor Richard Clarke said that BMI’s financial services were little more than a cover “to conceal terrorist support,” and its investor list “read like a who’s who of designated terrorists and Islamic extremists.” BMI worked closely with the Akida Bank and Bank Al-Taqwa in networking millions of dollars to terrorist groups.

Iran’s largest bank, Bank Melli, was named in the November 2007 edition of The Banker as the largest Shari’ah-compliant bank in the world. It was sanctioned by both the U.S. government and the European Union for its role in financing Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

According to terrorist and Shari’ah financing expert, Rachael Ehrenfeld, Sharia’h proponents lure U.S. and Western investors into high-rate sukuk or al-ijara Islamic bonds, which she describes as “some of the most complex ever created,” claiming “alternative” instruments that do not pay or earn interest, however use Western structured finance tools. Ehrenfeld explains in an April 2008 article, “America for Sale,” that Shari’ah instruments convert liquid, traceable cash flows from interest-bearing debt into illiquid assets. Ehrenfeld wrote that the Shari’ah instruments 

“…resemble ‘portfolio insurance’ that caused the 1987 crash, and the mortgage-backed bonds behind the 1994 bond-market bust that eviscerated $1 trillion…and then some 10% of the U.S. bond market. Those collapses damaged many huge pension funds, municipalities and institutional investors, and killed off several hedge funds.”[6] 

Nearly $33 billion of Islamic bonds were issued in 2007, up from $5.5 billion in 2001 and are already available in the US, Britain and Japan.[7]  The sukuk bonds are asset-backed bonds that comply with Shari’ah no interest. Corporate sukuk issuance rose from $0.4 billion in 2000 to $4.5 billion in 2006 according to the International Islamic Financial Market (IIFM). With growth topping 122% in 2006, Islamic finance is not a niche market any longer, but is increasingly becoming a mainstream component of the global banking system.[8]

ACT for America Founder and terrorism expert, Brigitte Gabriel, asks pertinent questions about SCFs such as: 

“What will happen to our courts and our laws when our largest financial institutions and our Treasury Department are deeply indebted to SCF compliant money? Do our financial and policy experts believe SCF dollars will come without ultimatums, bribery, and strings? What kind of pressures will eventually be brought to bear on government and financial leaders by those Islamist leaders of Shari’ah-compliant finance who call SCF “jihad with money?” 

Gabriel concedes that there is much that the U.S. government can and should do to regulate Shari’ah finance to ensure that it is not promoted in the United States. Citing SCF as seditious, Gabriel warns it is dangerous to the West because it is an effort to legitimize and institutionalize Shari’ah law, advancing a religious and criminal conspiracy with the main purpose of overthrowing the United States Constitution and government in favor of Islamic rule.[9]

An Islamic mortgage is similar to a lease-to-own deal where the bank, not the borrower, buys the house. The borrower makes installment payments to the bank for a number of years, at the end of which time title to the house is obtained.  In this respect, the bank’s profit technically comes from renting the house and its attached fee, not by lending the money.[10]

Borrowers and investors trust the experts who determine the rates and custom terms of the loans. In SCF, the experts are required to be Shari’ah legal and religious authorities, or Islamic “scholars” who oversee qualifications of the investments.

In September 2008, the American public became aware that American International Group (AIG) was falling into a financial black hole. The world’s biggest insurer by market value, AIG launched a Shari’ah compliant Islamic insurance subsidiary on October 1, 2006 in Bahrain called AIG Takaful Enaya in an effort to win a share of an estimated $2.5 billion a year Islamic insurance market that is growing, and began with an initial capital of $15 million.

AIG Takaful Enaya plans were to provide Shari’ah compliant insurance to the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims. AIG Takaful Enaya, headquartered and licensed by the Central Bank of Bahrain, also promotes Shari’ah finance and Shari’ah mutual trusts. AIG Sun America, AIG Financial Services Corp, and other divisions of AIG also have Shari’ah mutual trusts as part of their portfolios. The AIG Takaful insurance coverage listed on the AIG website,, include personal lines, financial lines, management liability, professional liability, fidelity, accident and health, crisis management, small business solutions, property, energy, casualty, and marine policies

What is outrageous about Islamic insurance is that the Muslim community has traditionally not even had an insurance market. The commercial market necessitates selling the basic concept of insurance to Muslims. Regardless of the disputable demand for Islamic insurance policies, AIG’s promotion strategies include explaining why Shari’ah compliant  insurance should make sense to Muslims, explaining, “that Muslims can feel comfortable buying the AIG Takaful products because they are after all, Shari’ah compliant.”

AIG Takaful Enaya’s initial plans included expansion from the Middle East, to South East Asia in 2007, then to the UK and North America, with expectations of writing premiums of $10 million in the first 18 months.

In November 10, 2008, author Jeffrey Immon wrote an article referencing AIG, titled America Must not Own a Shari’ah based Financial Business. Immon outlined a plan calling on Americans to stop harboring Islamic Supremism through Shari’ah finance in America. On September 16, 2008, the Federal Reserve provided an $85 billion loan to AIG, in exchange for a U.S. Government share of 79.9 percent equity interest in AIG and less than a week later AIG’s Shari’ah-based business announced further expansion. On November 10, 2008, the Federal Reserve announced that it would purchase $40 billion of newly issued AIG preferred shares, “giving taxpayers an ownership stake in the company.”[11]

The AIG expansion announced two months earlier in September, may have come to fruition on December 1, 2008, when Risk Specialties, Inc., a subsidiary of AIG Commercial Insurance, announced a new AIG Takaful Homeowners Policy as

 “…the first installment in Lexington Takaful Solutions, a series of Shari’ah-compliant (Takaful) product offerings in the U.S. The newly announced Takaful products are compliant with key Islamic finance tenets and based on the concept of mutual insurance.” [12]

 Under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the Government sanctioned bailout purchase of AIG stock grew to over $160 billion by March 2009, with more promised. 

The fact that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act had just become law, allocating $700 billion to U.S. banks that have Shari’ah divisions and products, calls in the possibility of extortion and massive non-transparency. It is shocking that the Federal Reserve would authorize loans to a company that was in the process of expanding its Shari’ah portfolio at the time. It is both terrifying and telling that that the U.S. Treasury Department would ally itself to SCF activity by hosting an Islamic Finance 101 Forum in the midst of the bailout, only two days after the election.

Speakers at the forum were scheduled to include Neel Kashkari, the newly appointed Assistant Treasury Secretary; Rushdi Siddiqui, the Founder and Director of  the Dow Jones Islamic Market Index Group; Talal DeLorenzo, Shari’ah advisor; and Jamia Uloom, product of a radical jihadist school in Pakistan. It is shocking that Talal DeLorenzo was  the Director of Education at the Islamic Saudi Academy.  The Islamic Saudi Academy is a school that was the focus of report by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom in early 2008, which documented material in the Academy’s textbooks calling for ‘the killing of apostates’ from Islam and the approved killing of ‘polytheists,’ and was allowed to expand in 2009.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., Founder, President, and CEO of The Center for Security Policy wrote an article two days before the Islamic Finance 101.  Gaffney, who was the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security, and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy during the Reagan administration wrote:

 “Regardless of who wins the election, ‘The U.S. Treasury Department is submitting to Shari’ah. That the seditious religio-political-legal code, authoritative Islam, seeks to impose worldwide under a global theocracy.”

 Gaffney also wrote: 

“Shari’ah-Compliant Finance serves as a leading edge of the spear for those seeking to insinuate Shari’ah into Western societies…Thus far, we in this country may not have reached the point where evidence of this sort of creeping Shari’ah is so manifest. But (the U.S.) Treasury’s accommodation to SCF demonstrates that we are on the same trajectory – the one ordained and demanded by the promoters of Shari’ah, one to which we serially accommodate ourselves at our extreme peril. After all, the object of Shari’ah is the supplanting of our government and Constitution, through violent means if possible and, until then, through stealthy ones.”[13]

 Devon Bank on Chicago’s North Side is one of the largest Islamic lenders in the country. According to David Loundy, Devon’s vice president, Devon Bank’s SCFs account for 75% of their mortgage portfolio and makes Shari’ah compliant loans in 36 U.S. states, catering mostly to Pakistani and Middle Eastern immigrants.

In March 2001, Devon Bank announced its plan to begin selling Islamic home financing products to Freddie Mac in an effort to expand opportunities for Muslims in Illinois and nine other states. Freddie Mac, established by Congress in 1970, and a stockholder-owned corporation at that time, announced simultaneously that it had become the first major U.S. mortgage investor to contract the purchase of Islamic mortgages. Based in McLean, Va., Freddie Mac is one of the nations’ largest investors in mortgages and Islamic home financing products. In March 2001, Freddie Mac became the first major U.S. mortgage investor to contract to purchase Islamic homeownership products in conjunction with Chicago’s Devon Bank.[14]

Since 2003, Devon Bank’s Islamic financing programs have enabled Muslims throughout the Chicago area and other states to acquire homes and businesses with Islamic financing. Devon Bank’s services include residential and commercial real estate financing, financing for business equipment and trade goods, stand-by letters of credit and some construction financing.[15] 

Minnesota Housing is the first state agency to offer Shari’ah mortgages, with Chicago’s Devon Bank underwriting for a New Markets program targeted at low-to-moderate income families. Hussein Samatar, director of the African Development Center in Minneapolis created the program with the presumption that Islamic financing will grow as more Muslims make their home in the U.S.

 Samatar said, “The process (SCF) is different, but the outcome will look the same.” Samatar believes that cooperation with the state of Minnesota is “a nod to the Muslim community’s growing economic power.” [16]

SCFs are described as “flexible” in that they take a borrowers “situation” into account. They can be determined on a monthly or yearly basis, and terms can be “adjusted.” Adjustments and flexibility are not inherently benevolent terms controllable by the borrower, and are not necessarily just about rates. Regardless of wishful thinking, truth is not always self-evident, especially in a religion that advocates “taqiyah”, (taqiyah is a concept that means that is permissible to lie or mislead in an effort to advance Islamic causes). The truth here is that flexibility could refer to a number of things from refinancing fees to coercion into stricter Islamic law.

Subprime rates are comparable to prime rates in that prime rates are the best rates a loaning institution can charge, and subprime rates are less profitable for them. With no interest, SCF fees can fall into the subprime category because they can be either more or less than current market rates, depending on the “situation.” Unsuspecting Westerners do not realize that situations can involve a host of non-financial decisions. For example, the purpose of a loan, the dress of the applicant, and specifically the (apparent) religion of a loan recipient. In a case of “either-or,” it could be argued that “changeable” Shari’ah loan fees could produce a profit, say…if the recipient’s religion presents a “risk.” It is just as logical to deduce that Shari’ah-compliant institutions award zero to very low profit fees for low income Muslims, or others who are obviously Muslims who incidentally adhere to a host of personal requirements such as jewelry, clothing, fingernail and hair cutting guidelines, and are forbidden to drink alcohol or keep pets in their homes.

Because SCF rates are determined individually and beholden to Islamic charities, they are as discriminatory as they are dangerous to the West. Even though one may argue that non-Muslims can obtain Shari’ah loans, remember that terms are “individually” decided. If a non-Muslim wishes, and initially qualifies to get a SCF loan, he must, as part of the future “changeable,” agreement acknowledging that a percentage of his “fees” will fund Islamic charities. He or she will also have a “flexible” fee amount that may be higher than a fee that a Muslim pays.

In an article for The Washington Times on September 16, 2008, Frank Gaffney compared subprime loans with SCFs. Noting the effect that subprime loans had on the 2008 financial crisis, he wrote:

“…they [subprime loans] are therefore an unsound business practice because they have just shown themselves to be inadequate in supporting the U.S. capital market loaning institutions. Basing loans on nontransparent bundles of subprime mortgage-backed securities was a violation of industry standards and government regulations with respect to transparency, disclosure, due diligence, good governance, and accountability.”

 Gaffney pointed out that SCF loans “bear all the hallmarks of the subprime market” with “a systematic failure to disclose.” This is exactly what makes them “great tools for terrorist funding.”

David Yerushalmi, a litigator specializing in securities law and an expert on international policy produced a memorandum examining the civil and criminal exposure inherent in SCFs in 2008 and concluded that banks and investment houses offering SCF products may be enabling or engaging in racketeering, antitrust activities, securities fraud, consumer fraud, and material support for terror.

Copies of Yerushalmi’s memorandum were sent to Wall Street firms and leading U.S.commercial banks. The Center for Security Policy sent the memorandum pointing  out the similarities between subprime loans and SCFs. According to Gaffney’s article, only the former Merrill Lynch responded to the memorandum, but only with a note that curtly acknowledged its concern about terrorism.

Gaffney describes SCFs as a tool to overthrow the U.S. Government: 

“What makes Shari’ah-Compliant Finance even more dangerous than subprime is that, in its effort to legitimize and institutionalize Shari’ah in America, it is advancing a criminal conspiracy whose purpose is the violent overthrow of the United States Constitution and government in favor of Islamic rule. That would make it sedition” [17] 

Gaffney wrote that Alex Alexiev, the Vice President of Center for Security Policy, describes Gulf state’s Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs), as “slush funds of the sovereigns… increasingly invested to promote Shari’ah law,” adding to what was in 2008 already estimated to be an $800 billion global industry. According to Alexiev, SCFs are: 

“…a deliberate attempt to undermine Western markets and legitimize Shari’ah with practices that ‘imperil our free-enterprise system and national security — all the while exposing banks to financial risks that make the sub-prime fiasco look like a walk in the park.” [18] 

Opponents of Shari’ah law believe that transparency and checks and balances are impossible when deference to religious “scholars” is policy. People in democratic nations do not realize they are unintentionally allowing seditious activity by promoting SCF. By not informing consumers and clients of the purpose of SCF, institutions are not providing accurate or transparent information from which a consumer can make a well-informed decision. Thus, it was also misleading for the U.S. Treasury to host a seminar on SCF without revealing its use as a tool in Islamic jihad. Instead of legitimizing Shari’ah in place of democratic constitutional values, the Treasury Department should have created regulations, oversight, and transparency mechanisms to eliminate the threat of Shari’ah compliant finance.

Proponents of Shari’ah finance hope to see it move deeper into mainstream global finance. American opponents maintain that Shari’ah finance is unconstitutional because it promotes a religion, and funds terrorism lacking transparency and credibility. Shari’ah interpretation varies between institutions and regions and is deficient in regulatory oversight.

SCF transactions are backed by a non-financial trade, rendering Shari’ah compliant products  more complex than conventional transactions and lacking the likes of corporate treasury and derivatives products. Also there are a limited number of Islamic scholars to oversee the transactions and financial products for Shari’ah compliant financial products.

With Deutsche Bank, Barclays Capital and BNP Paribas among the world’s top five issuers of sukuk, and the fact that the International Capital Market Association and the International Islamic Financial Market (IIFM)  are planning to develop standard contracts for Islamic instruments,  is telltale of who is controlling global financial infrastructure when global banks are putting their weight behind Islamic finance.[19]

Americans should urge our Senate and House leaders to investigate financial corporations that sell Shari’ah products, and put an end the U.S. ownership of SCF businesses by boycotting Banks that offer them. We should demand that our leaders close all U.S. banks that offer Shari’ah compliant products regardless of standardization, and we should demand the resignation of those in the U.S. government responsible for enabling and purchasing banks that have Shari’ah products and products.

The Center for Secure Policy and The McCormick Foundation have written a pamphlet that has specific steps and recommendations for ending Shari’ah compliant financial products. The pamphlet, “Shariah, Law and ‘Financial Jihad’: How Should America Respond?”  can be downloaded  at the McCormick Foundation Website and the Stop Shariah Now Project Website: 

[2] Shari’ah Finance Watch; http://www.Shari’ 

[3] Gabriel, Brigitte; “U.S. Treasury Department to Host Islamic Finance 101 Forum!,” November 1, 2008,

[4] Alexiev, Alex;  “Jihad Comes to Wall Street,” April 3, 2008

[5] Roth, John;  Greenburg, Douglas; Wille, Serena; National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, “Staff Report to the Commission” 

[6] Ehrenfeld,  Dr. Rachel, & Lappen, Alyssa A.; “America for Sale, “ Posted 04/01/2008, 

[7] “Second Islamic Bank in Switzerland,” March 31, 2008, 

[8]Watts, Christopher; “Is Islamic Finance at Tipping Point,” 

[9] Gabriel, Brigitte; “What Opportunities Lie Ahead,”

 [10] Morais, Richard C.; “International Investing Guide– Don’t Call it Interest,” July 23, 2009,

[11] Immon, Jeffrey; “America Must Not Own a Shari’ah-Based Financial Business,” November 10, 2008,’ahnow/ 

[12] “Risk Specialists Companies Announces First Takaful Homeowners Products for U.S.,” December 1, 2008,

[13] Gaffney, Frank Jr;  “U.S. Treasury Submits to Shari’ah,” November 5, 2008, 

[14]“Devon Bank Freddie Mac Announce Expanding Opportunities for Muslim Homebuyers,” Profitwise: News and Views, Consumer and Community Affairs Division, Consumer and Community Affairs Division

Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago,230 S. LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60604-1413 October 2005


[16] Mador, Jessica; “New Islamic Mortgages Now Available in Minnesota,”  March 1, 2009,

[17]Gaffney, Frank; “Wall Street: What’ Next,” September 16, 2008, 

[18] Alexiev, Alex;  “Jihad Comes to Wall Street,” April 3, 2008

[19] Watts, Christopher; “Is Islamic Finance at Tipping Point,”

October 5, 2009 at 8:48 am 4 comments

Older Posts