Saturday, February 1, 2014

ohn Kerry Threatens Israel With Boycotts if Talks Fail

Dept. Defense Minister responds to new boycott threats by US Sec. of State Kerry: 'Friends don't put ultimatums on Israel's security.'
AAFont Size
By Ari Yashar
First Publish: 2/1/2014, 6:51 PM

United States Secretary of State John Kerry
United States Secretary of State John Kerry
US Secretary of State John Kerry on Saturday threatened Israel that a failure in the peace talks would lead to global boycotts and delegitimization of the Jewish state. The warning comes as no surprise to those familiar with reports earlier in the month, which revealed that Kerry is orchestrating the European boycotts against Israel.
Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon responded to Kerry's threats of boycotts, saying "we respect Secretary of State Kerry but will not hold talks with a gun to our head. Friends don't put ultimatums on the security of the state of Israel."
Speaking at a security council in Munchen, Germany, Kerry also mentioned Defense Secretary Moshe Ya'alon's comments calling Kerry "messianic" and "obsessive" in trying to force Israel to submit to a peace deal, which would include massive territorial withdrawals and an Arab capital in Jerusalem.
"I'm a little surprised by the articles quoting statements on obsession or a fanatical effort to try and achieve peace," remarked Kerry. "We're just working hard, and I still am full of hope that our efforts will succeed and bring a peace agreement."
At the same time that he rejected accusations of "fanaticism," Kerry stated "we're working hard, because the consequences of failure are unacceptable to us." Kerry's plan reportedly includes Israeli withdrawals along the 1949 Armistice lines.
Danon declared in response "we will make decisions that guard the interests of the state of Israel. If we made choices based on the various forecasts of boycotts, we wouldn't be here today. In the past we saw that wherever the IDF wasn't present terror takes root."
Following the 2005 "Disengagement" plan that expelled all Jews from Gaza, the terror group Hamas took over the area and launched several waves of deadly attacks, resulting in two major counterterrorism operations in 2009 and 2012.
The ceasefire that was brokered by the Egyptians after the 2012 Operation Pillar of Defense was assessed as being dead by some security officials earlier this month following ongoing rocket barrages from Gaza.
This is not the first time the US Secretary of State has threatened Israeli security or interests in the event his country's "peace initiative" is not adopted by the Jewish state.
Last November, Kerry threatened that Israel would face a "Third Intifada" - or violent uprising - if talks did not end with a "Palestinian state" in Judea and Samaria.

Bypassing Congress, Obama's Bureaucrats are Promulgating Coercive and Costly Rules

Bypassing Congress, Obama's Bureaucrats are Promulgating Coercive and Costly Rules

By Ted Abram on February 01, 2014
The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.
—James Madison, Speech in the Virginia State Convention of 1829-1830

Bypassing Congress, Obama's Bureaucrats are Promulgating Coercive and Costly Rules

With three years remaining as president, Barrack Obama has lost a significant amount of public respect and admiration during his term.  His political power has been reduced, and the House of Representatives is controlled, and will mostly likely continue to be controlled, by Republicans.  
Most likely, Republicans will continue to gain seats in the Senate.  So, our President knows he lacks the power to properly promulfate new laws impacting climate change, education, transportation, nutrition, microwaves, minimum wage and almost every other aspect of American life.  He boasted in his State of the Union speech he intends to “bypass Congress.” 
 Politico reports on the new and coercive rules made by bureaucrats.  The Obama administration uses and controls Federal government, financial grants to manipulate everything from abortions to welfare.  The combination of financial manipulations and the rules are expensive, and ultimately impacts every American.  Most of these bureaucratic decisions will impede economic advancement in America.  Below is a partial list of bureaucratic rules impacting Americans:
  • limiting trans-fat in snack foods
  • reducing sulfur content in gasoline
  • improving efficiency standards for trucks
  • cutting carbon emissions to stop global warning
  • creating green energy grants, e.g., Solyndra and solar farms in the Mojave Desert
  • restricting for profit higher education and community colleges based on students ability to payoff student loans
  • regulating placement of k-12 teachers
  • rewarding “livability” transportation routes in cities
  • banking for legal marijuana vendors
  • calorie counts on vending machines
  • wood stoves
  • smokeless tobacco
  • salt content fo potato chips
  • minimum wage
  • political activity of non-profit organizations
Politico reports:

According to the administration's own estimates, last year alone Obama-era regulations added 158 million hours of reporting requirements – very costly.  The American Action Forum claims the last five years of new regulations cost nearly $500 billion – the size of Sweden's gross domestic product.
Of course, this violates our Constitutional order.  Most important, the stealth abuse of bureaucratic power deprives Americans of participating in an honest and complete discussion of the issues.  Very harmfully, President Obama and his vast bureaucracy do not respect the honor of our Constitution.   
Please login or register on FreedomConnector to post a comment.

IRS grants tax-exempt status to member of TERRORIST organization, also BROTHER of the President

By The Right Scoop

Walid Shoebat has been doing some more digging and has uncovered something BIG. Allow me to distill it down for you:
In 2008 an umbrella organization known as the “The Union of Good” was designated a terrorist entity by the US Treasury department. This organization was created by Hamas.
Among the many member groups on the official website for “The Union of Good” is listed the Islamic Dawa Organization of which Malik Obama (Obama’s brother) is Executive Director:
Translation by Google from The Union of Good’s official website
The Islamic Dawa Organization is also listed on the Contributing Institutions page for “The Union of Good”:
Translation by Google from The Union of Good’s Contributing Institutions page on their official website
In June of 2011, Louis Lerner with the IRS granted the Barack H. Obama Foundation tax exempt status as a (501(c)3) and she did it less than a month. She also backdated it to April of 2008. The Barack H. Obama Foundation was founded by Malik Obama.
So what we have here is Malik Obama, a member of a US-designated terrorist entity that raises money for Hamas, being granted a tax exempt status for the Barack H. Obama Foundation by the IRS in 2011 under the Obama administration. And as we mentioned before, this is the brother of the President of the United States.
Walid Shoebat has far more details on this so please check out his website.

muslims will recognize their mahdi / saviour by a glowing mark on his forehead.




Prince William has a glowing forehead MARK caused by a 7 iron.: via @youtube 

Identification of the Prophesied Imam Mahdi

The Holy Prophet Muhammad(SAW) has prophesied about several events that will occur just before the advent of the day of judgment.  Among these, Rasulullah(SAW) has foretold the advent of one of his descendants, Al Mahdi (the guided one), which will materialize when the believers are severely oppressed in every corner of the world.  He will fight the oppressors, unite the Muslims, bring peace and justice to the world, rule over the Arabs, and lead a prayer in Mekkah at which Isa(pbuh) (Jesus) will be present.
Throughtout the history of Islam, a few individuals -- driven either by the desperate state of Muslims in their community or a selfish pursuit of power and prestige -- laid claim to being Mahdi and found a following among the uninformed masses who were looking for salvation from the heavens.  For some of these individuals (like Bab of Iran or Mirza Ghulam of India) the claim to being Mahdi was just a stepping stone to the development of heretic sects which broke away from the fold of Islam.  Thus, it is at least prudent to visit the facts of this prophecy and avoid falling pray to false claimants that will appear from time to time.
As Muslims, we should remember that the prophecy about Mahdi is one that will come to pass. This prophecy, however, does not absolve the Muslim ummah from its duty to strive in the cause of Allah(SWT), oppose injustice, and seek peace and betterment of human condition.  Centuries have passes from the time of the holy Prophet(SAW) and there is a good possibility that many more will expire before the advent of Al Mahdi.  Muslims who are negligent in their duty hoping for a savior are committing a grave mistake and are not following the divine decrees ordained in Quran or taught by Rasulullah(SAW).

The following are the collection of Sahih (authentic) Hadith regarding Mahdi.
Hadhrat Abdullah bin Mas'ood(RA) reports from the Prophet(SAW), who said:
The world will not come to pass until a man from among my family, whose name will be my name, rules over the Arabs.
(Tirmidhi Sahih, Vol. 9, P. 74; Abu Dawud, Sahih, Vol. 5, P. 207;
also narrated by Ali b. Abi Talib, Abu Sa'id, Umm Salma, Abu Hurayra)
The Prophet(SAW) said:
Allah will bring out from concealment al-Mahdi from my family and just before the day of Judgment; even if only one day were to remain in the life of the world, and he will spread on this earth justice and equity and will eradicate tyranny and oppression.
(Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Vol. 1, P. 99)
Hadhrat Ali(RA) narrates that Rasulullah(SAW) said:
Even if only a day remains for Qiyamah to come, yet Allah will surely send a man from my family who will fill this world with such justice and fairness, just as it initially was filled with oppression.
(Abu Dawood)
Ali b. Abi Talib(RA) has related a tradition from the Prophet(SAW) who informed him:
The promised Mahdi will be among my family. God will make the provisions for his emergence within a single night.
(Ibn Majah, Sahih, Vol. 2, P. 519)
Hazrat Umme Salmah(RA), Prophet's wife, narrates that she heard the Prophet(SAW) say:
The promised Mahdi will be among my progeny, among the descendants of Fatima.
(Abu Dawud, Sahih, Vol. 2, P. 207; Ibn Majah, Sahih, Vol. 2, P. 519)
Rasulullah(SAW) announced:
The Mahdi will be of my family, of the descendants of Fatima (the Prophet's daughter). (Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol. 2, Tradition No. 4086)
The Prophet(SAW) taught:
Al-Mahdi is one of us, the members of the household (Ahlul-Bayt).
(Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol. 2, Tradition No. 4085)
Abu Sa'id al-Khudari(RA) narrated that the Prophet(SAW) said:
Our Mahdi will have a broad forehead and a pointed (prominent) nose. He will fill the earth with justice as it is filled with injustice and tyranny. He will rule for seven years.
(Abu Dawud, Sahih, Vol. 2, p. 208; Fusul al-muhimma, p. 275)
Hadhrat Abu Saeed Khudri(RA) relates that Rasulullah(SAW) said:
Al Mahdi will be from my progeny. His forehead will be broad and his nose will be high. He will fill the world with justice and fairness at a time when the world will be filled with oppression. He will rule for seven years.
Hadhrat Umme Salmah(RA) narrates that Rasulullah(SAW) said:
After the death of a Ruler there will be some dispute between the people. At that time a citizen of Madina will flee (from Madina) and go to Makkah. While in Makkah, certain people will approach him between Hajrul Aswad and Maqaame Ibraheem, and forcefully pledge their allegiance to him.
Thereafter a huge army will proceed from Syria to attack him but when they will be at Baida, which is between Makkah and Madina, they will be swallowed into the ground.
On seeing this, the Abdaals of Shaam as well as large numbers of people from Iraq will come to him and pledge their allegiance to him. Then a person from the Quraish, whose uncle will be from the Bani Kalb tribe will send an army to attack him, only to be overpowered, by the will of Allah. This (defeated) army will be that of the Bani Kalb. Unfortunate indeed is he who does not receive a share from the booty of the Kalb. This person (Imam Mahdi) will distribute the spoils of war after the battle. He will lead the people according to the Sunnat and during his reign Islam will spread throughout the world. He will remain till seven years (since his emergence). He will pass away and the Muslims will perform his Janazah salaat.
(Abu Dawood)
The holy Prophet(SAW) said:
A group of my Ummah will fight for the truth until near the day of judgment when Jesus, the son of Marry, will descend, and the leader of them will ask him to lead the prayer, but Jesus declines, saying: "No, Verily, among you Allah has made leaders for others and He has bestowed his bounty upon them.
(Sahih Muslim)
It is reported from Abu Hurayra(RA) that the Prophet(SAW) said:
What will be your reaction when the son of Mary (Jesus) descends and your Imam is from among yourselves?
(Sahih Muslim, bab nuzul 'isa, Vol. 2; Sahih Bukhari, kitab bad' al-khalq wa nuzul 'isa, Vol. 4)
The holy Prophet(SAW) said:
What would be your situation if the Son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends upon you and your Imam is from among you?
(Bukhari, kitabul-Anbiya, Chapter Nuzul Isa bin Maryam)
According to these reliable, authentic, and universally accepted narrations, Mahdi will:
  1. Be from among the family of Prophet(SAW), among the descendants of Fatima(RA);
  2. Have a broad forehead and pointed noise;
  3. Appear in one night;
  4. Appear just before the day of judgment;
  5. Have same name as hazrat Muhammad(SAW);
  6. Escape from Madina to Makkah where people will pledge allegiance to him;
  7. Receive pledge and help of Iraqi people;
  8. Fight in battles;
  9. Rule over the Arabs for seven years according to Sunnah;
  10. Spread justice and equity on earth;
  11. Eradicate tyranny and oppression;
  12. Lead a prayer in Mekkah which Jesus(pbuh) will follow in;
  13. NOT be the same individual as the Promised Messiah (Jesus).

The following narrations have been taken from books on which there is no consensus among Muslim scholars.  Their authenticity is in question:
The holy Prophet(SAW) said:
The world will not come to an end until a man from my family (ahl al-bayt), who will be called al-Mahdi, emerges to rule upon my community.
(Bihar al-anwar, Vol. 51, P. 75; Ithbat al-hudat, Vol. 1, P. 9)
Umme Salmah(RA), the wife of the Prophet, has related a tradition of the Prophet(SAW):
Mahdi will be among my progeny, among the children of Fatima.
(Bihar al-anwar, Vol. 51, P. 75)
Rasullullah(SAW) said:
The world will not come to an end until a man from the descendants of Hussain takes charge of the affairs of the world and fills it with justice and equity as it is filled with injustice and tyranny.
(Bihar al-anwar, Vol. 51, P. 66)
Abu Sa'id al-Khudari(RA) has related a tradition from the Prophet(SAW) who declared:
The earth will be filled with injustice and corruption. At that time, a man from among my progeny will rise and will rule for seven or nine years and will fill the earth with justice and equity.
(Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, Vol. 3, P. 27)
Abu al-Hujaf(RA) quotes the Prophet(SAW) saying three times:
Listen to the good news about the Mahdi! He will rise at the time when people will be faced with severe conflict and the earth will be hit by a violent quake. He will fill the earth with justice and equity as it is filled with injustice and tyranny. He will fill the hearts of his followers with devotion and will spread justice everywhere.
(Bihar al-anwar, Vol. 51, P. 74)
Ali b. Abi Talib(RA) said, I asked the Prophet(SAW):
"Is Mahdi going to be among our own family or from some other?" He replied: "He will be among us. God will conclude His religion through him, just as He began it with us. It will be through us that people will find refuge from sedition, just as it was through us that they were saved from polytheism. Moreover, it will be through us that God will bring their hearts together in brotherhood following the animosity sown by the sedition, just as they were brought together in brotherhood in their religion after the animosity sown by polytheism."
(Bihar al-anwar, Vol. 51, P. 84; Ithbat al-hudat, Vol. 7, P. 191; Majma` al-zawa'id by `Ali b. Abi Bakr Haythami (Cairo edition), Vol. 7, P. 317)
I heard the Prophet(SAW) declare from the pulpit:
The Mahdi from among my descendants, from my family, will rise at the End of Time, while the heavens will pour rain and the earth will bring forth green grass for him. He will fill the earth with justice and equity as it is filled with tyranny and injustice.
(Bihar al-anwar, Vol. 51, P. 74; Ithbat al-hudat, Vol. 7, P. 9)
Abu Sa'id al-Khudari(RA) narrated that Prophet(SAW) said:
Severe calamity from the direction of their ruler will befall my people during the Last Days. It will be a calamity which, in severity, shall be unprecedented. It will be so violent that the earth with injustice and corruption will shrivel for its inhabitants. The believers will not find refuge from oppression. At that time God will send a man from my family to fill the earth with justice and equity just as it is filled with injustice and tyranny. The dwellers of the heavens and the earth will be pleased with him. The earth will bring forth all that grows for him, and the heavens will pour down rains in abundance. He will live among the people for seven or nine years. From all the good that God will bestow on the inhabitants of the earth, the dead will wish to come to life again.
(Ibn Hajar, al-Sawa'iq al-muharriqa, P. 161; Yanabi' al-mawadda, Vol. 2, P. 177)
Abu Hurayra(RA) narrated on behalf of the Prophet(SAW):
People will pay allegiance to the Mahdi between rukn and maqam (in Mekkah).
(Ibn Tawus, Kitab al-malahim wa al-fitan, P. 64.)
According to these hadith, Mahdi will:
  1. Be from the Family of Prophet(SAW) and descend from Hussain(RA), son of Fatima(RA);
  2. Appear at the end of time;
  3. Appear when earth is filled with injustice and tyranny and believers are severely oppressed;
  4. Appear when a severe earthquaker will occur and green grass will grow (presumably in Arabia);
  5. Fill the earth with justice and equity;
  6. Spread brotherhood, equity, and devotion among Muslims;
  7. Rule over Muslim community, according to Hadith, for seven or nine years;
  8. Live and act with the qualities of the holy Prophet(SAW).

The following are narrations not attribute to the Holy Prophet(SAW) and only represent second hand narrations attributed to companions of the holy Prophet(SAW). Thus, they are included only for completeness and are unreliable.
Ammar Yasir has related:
At the time when Nafs al-Zakiyya is killed a caller from the heaven will say: 'Your commander is so-and-so.' (announce Mahdi) Following it the Mahdi will emerge and fill the earth with justice and equity.
(Ibn Tawus, Kitab al-malahim wa al-fitan, P. 179)
Abd Allah b. Umar mentioned the name of Mahdi in the presence of an Arab who said: Mahdi is Mu'awiya b. Abu Sufyan. Abd Allah said:
It is not as you say. Mahdi is a person behind whom Jesus will offer his prayers.
(Ibn Tawus, Kitab al-malahim wa al-fitan, P. 179)
Mujahid said about Mahdi:
One of the Prophet's companions told me that the Mahdi will not appear until that time when Nafs al-Zakiyya will be killed. At that time he will take the command and will fill the earth with justice and equity.
(Ibn Tawus, Kitab al-malahim wa al-fitan, P. 171)
Nufayl's daughter Umayra narrates that she heard Hasan b. Ali's daughter saying:
This affair about which you are waiting will not occur until among you some seek to distance themselves from the others and curse each other.
(Majlisi, Bihar al-anwar, Vol. 52, P. 211)
Salma b. Zafar reports that one day people were talking about the appearance of the Mahdi in the presence of Hudhayfa. Hudhayfa said:
If Mahdi has indeed appeared while you are living close to the Prophet's period and while his companions are living among you, then you are truly fortunate. However, that is not the case. Mahdi will not appear until people are devoured by oppression and tyranny and there is no one absent more beloved and more needed than him.
(Kitab al-hawi li al-fatawa, Vol. 2, P. 159)
These narrations are based on opinion of single individuals and are not reliable. However, they indicate that Mahdi might:
  1. Not appear until all Muslims are divided and curse each other (i.e. no brotherhood);
  2. Appear when tyranny and oppression rule and no Muslim is free;
  3. Be announced by a voice from heavens;
  4. Fill the earth with justice and equity;
  5. Lead the prayer which Jesus(pbuh) will follow.

The following narration has not been attributed to the Holy Prophet(SAW). It has been identified as false and has been rejected by Muslim scholars for centuries.
Amr son of Shamer quoted Jabir, who quoted Mohammed bin Ali to have said:
For our Mahdi, there are two signs. Since the birth of Universe, these events have never taken place. Those two signs are that there will be Lunar Eclipse on the first night of Ramadhan and Solar Eclipse in the middle of Ramadhan.
(Dar-e-Qatni, Vol. 1, P.188)
This narration is not attributed to holy Prophet(SAW), but attributed to Mohammed bin Ali. No other person has substantiated this statement attributed to Mohammed bin Ali. Muslim scholars have always rejected this and other narrations of Amr and Jabir, as both have been known to transmit unreliable and forged narrations.

Home Page    Ask Imam
© Idara Dawat-O-Irshad, USA Inc.  -  P.O. Box 22885, Alexandria, VA  22304  -  Tel:  (703) 256-8622  -

HSBC Bank on Verge of Collapse: Second Major Banking Crash Imminent


Fears are growing that HSBC bank is insolvent, after the Bank refused cash withdrawals and has an $80bn blackhole in their balance sheet.  Today, China itself has suspended cash transfers amid fears that it is not just HSBC but the Chinese state that has run out of cash.
A variety of sources including Forbes, Max Keiser, and FXstreet (Forex) have are reporting a Bank of China announcement suspending all cash transfers for the next several days.  The Forbes report states:
“The People’s Bank of China , the central bank, has just ordered commercial banks to halt cash transfers.
In short, there will be a three-day suspension of domestic renminbi transfers.  There will also be a suspension, spanning nine calendar days, of conversions of renminbi to foreign currency.
The specific reason given—“system maintenance” at the central bank—is preposterous.  It is not credible that during the highest usage period in the year—the weeklong Lunar New Year holiday beginning January 31—the central bank would schedule an upgrade and shut down cash transfers.
A better explanation is that the country’s banking system is running dry.”
This news comes on top of my report yesterday that HSBC bank looked likely to require a bail-in by customers, or a bail out by the Chinese state in the near future, due to the $80bn shortfall in cash.  With China now on the brink of a currency crisis,  and holder of $1.3trn of US debt, we might want to brace ourselves for a distinctly stormy economic situation, imminently.
I refer you to my previous report below.
HSBC Collapse

HSBC is scrambling to manage a seemingly terminal liquidity crisis (a lack of hard cash) that could see the bank become the next Northern Rock – and trigger a bank crash.  The analyst’s advice is for shareholders to sell HSBC investments, and customers to move their accounts elsewhere before the crash.
This from the Telegraph:
Forensic Asia on Tuesday began its coverage of Britain’s largest banking group with a ‘sell’ recommendation, warning the lender had between $63.6bn (£38.7bn) and $92.3bn of “questionable assets” on its balance sheet, ranging from loan loss reserves and accrued interest to deferred tax assets, defined benefit pension schemes and opaque Level 3 assets.
According a report by the BBC’s MoneyBox Programme, HSBC customers have gone to withdraw cash from their accounts, only to find HSBC would not release the funds.  Customers were told to make a bank transfer instead, unless they provided documentation proving the intended use of the money. Stephen Cotton attempted a withdrawal and told the programme:
“When we presented them with the withdrawal slip, they declined to give us the money because we could not provide them with a satisfactory explanation for what the money was for. They wanted a letter from the person involved.”
Mr Cotton says the staff refused to tell him how much he could have: “So I wrote out a few slips. I said, ‘Can I have £5,000?’ They said no. I said, ‘Can I have £4,000?’ They said no. And then I wrote one out for £3,000 and they said, ‘OK, we’ll give you that.’ “
He asked if he could return later that day to withdraw another £3,000, but he was told he could not do the same thing twice in one day.
As this was not a change to the Terms and Conditions of your bank account we had no need to pre-notify customers of the change”
He wrote to complain to HSBC about the new rules and also that he had not been informed of any change.
The bank said it did not have to tell him. “As this was not a change to the Terms and Conditions of your bank account, we had no need to pre-notify customers of the change,” HSBC wrote.
Mr Cotton is not alone, with other customers seeking to withdraw cash amounts over £3,000 facing the same obstacles.  While HSBC argue there is comes customer security interest here, the story simply doesn’t add up.  Customer identification is required for large withdrawals, not customer intentions – a person’s cash is theirs to withdraw and place wherever they so wish.  Instead, HSBC has been found to have a capitalization black hole (gap between actual cash and obligations) of $80bn.  The message is simple, get your money out now.
The Gold Rush
The major banks and states appear to be preparing for impending crisis, while pretending to the public that the economic situation is improving.
There is a gold rush underway, with Banks and States frantically buying up as much gold reserve as they can, stoking fears that confidence in currency is at an all-time low.  In recent months and weeks, banks like HSBC and JP Morgan, and states such as the US, Germany and China have joined the gold rush, making vast purchases of stocks.
Investment analysts at Seeking Alpha have been monitoring the strange activity on the COMEX, stating:
“keeping track of COMEX inventories is something that is recommended for all serious investors who own physical gold and the gold ETFs (SPDR Gold Shares (GLD), PHYS, and CEF) because any abnormal inventory declines may signify extraordinary events behind the scenes.”
Another Bank Crash? Why?

The crash is in some ways a replay of the last one.  The US dollar is a fiat currency (as is the pound sterling, the euro and most other major currencies).  This means, it is monopoly money.  There is no gold reserve that its values are pegged to.  It is simply made up.  So how does money get made? A private, for profit central bank prints it and lends it to the government (or other banks) at an interest rate.  So the Central Bank prints $100, and gives it to the government on the basis that it returns $101.  You may have already spotted the first flaw in this process.  The additional $1 can only ever come from the Central Bank.  There is never enough money. The second issue is that all money is debt.
This used to be the way pretty much all of the money in circulation came to be.  That is, until Investment and Retail Banks got tired of this monopoly on debt based currency, and kicked off the commercial money supply.  You might assume that when you take out a loan or other form of credit, a bank gives you that money from its reserves, and you then pay back that loan to the Bank at a given interest rate – the Bank making its profit on the interest rate.  You would be wrong. The Bank simply creates that loan on a computer screen.  Let’s say you are granted a loan for $100,000.  The moment that loan is approved and $100k is entered on the computer – that promise from you to the bank creates $100k for the bank, in that instant.  This ledger entry alone creates the $100k, from nothing. Today, over 97% of all money that exists, is made this way.
This is what drove the dodgy lending practises that created the last crisis.  But since then, the failure to regulate the markets means that while bailouts hit public services and the real economy – banks were free to continue the same behaviour, bringing the next crash.
The world’s second richest man, Warren Buffet warned us in 2003 that the derivatives market was ‘devised by madmen’ and a ‘weapon of mass destruction’ and we have only seen the first blast in this debt apocalypse.
The news that should have us all worried is: the derivatives market contains $700trn of these debts yet to implode.
Global GDP stands at $69.4trn a year.  This means that (primarily) Wall Street and the City of London have run up phantom paper debts of more than ten times of the annual earnings of the entire planet.
Not only can the Bankers not pay it back, the combined earning power of the earth could not pay it back in less than ten years if every last cent of our productive power went solely to pay off this debt.
This is why answering the issues with our currencies, our banking practices and economic system are not theoretical or academic – they are a matter of our very survival.

After what we have seen this November, how is any American ever supposed to trust the integrity of our elections ever again?  There were over 70,000 reports of voting problems on election day, and there are numerous eyewitnesses that claim that they saw voting machines change votes for one candidate to another candidate right in front of their eyes.  In several of the swing states there were counties where the number of registered voters exceeded the total voting age population by a very wide margin.  How in the world does that happen?  Some of the vote totals that were reported in some of the most important swing states were completely and totally absurd, and yet we are just supposed to accept them on blind faith without ever being able to ask any questions.  Of course the Romney campaign has already totally given up, so it isn’t as if there is any chance that the results of the presidential election could be overturned anyhow.  But if massive election fraud did take place and nobody is held accountable, what kind of message will that send for the future?  Will we ever be able to have faith in the integrity of our elections ever again?

The following are 22 signs that voter fraud is wildly out of control and the election was a sham…
#1 According to the Election Protection Coalition, voters across the United States reported more than 70,000 voting problems by 5 PM Eastern time on election day.
#2 There were 59 voting divisions in the city of Philadelphia where Mitt Romney did not receive a single vote.  In those voting divisions, the combined vote total was 19,605 for Barack Obama and 0 for Mitt Romney.
#3 The overall voter turnout rate in Philadelphia was only about 60 percent.  But in the areas of Philadelphia where Republican poll watchers were illegally removed, the voter turnout rate was over 90% and Obama received over 99% of the vote.  Officials in Philadelphia have already ruled out an investigation.
#4 According to WND, one poll watcher in Pennsylvania actually claims that he witnessed voting machine software repeatedly switch votes from Mitt Romney to Barack Obama…
It was in Upper Macungie Township, near Allentown, Pa., where an auditor, Robert Ashcroft, was dispatched by Republicans to monitor the vote on Election Day. He said the software he observed would “change the selection back to default – to Obama.”
He said that happened in about 5 percent to 10 percent of the votes.
He said the changes appeared to have been made by a software program.
Ashcroft said the format for computer programming has a default status, and in this case it appeared to be designating a vote for Obama each time it went to default.
#5 Somehow Mitt Romney won 55 out of the 67 counties in the state of Pennsylvania and still managed to lose the entire state by a wide margin because of the absurd vote totals that Obama ran up in the urban areas.
#6 Barack Obama received more than 98 percent of the vote in 10 out of the 50 wards in the city of Chicago.
#7 Prior to the election, voters in the states of Nevada, North Carolina, Texas and Ohio all reported that voting machines were switching their votes for Romney over to Obama.
#8 There were more than 50 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio where Mitt Romney received 2 votes or less.
#9 There were more than 100 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio where Barack Obama received more than 99 times the votes that Mitt Romney did.
#10 Barack Obama also received more than 99% of the vote in a number of very important precincts down in Broward County, Florida.
#11 Wood County, Ohio (which Obama won) has a voting age population of 98,213, but somehow 106,258 voters were registered to vote on election day.
#12 Ten counties in the swing state of Colorado have a voter registration rate of more than 100%.
#13 Barack Obama did not win in a single state that absolutely requires a photo I.D. in order to vote.
#14 In Ohio, two election judges were caught allowing unregistered voters to cast ballots.
#15 Many Ohio voters that showed up at the polls on election day were surprised when they were informed that they had already voted.
#16 In fact, there were reports all over the nation of people being unable to vote because records showed that they had already voted.
#17 According to U.S. Representative Allen West, there were numerous “voting irregularities” in St. Lucie County, Florida on election day…
“The thing that spurred our curiosity in our race was the fact that at 1 o’clock in the morning on Election Night, all of a sudden there was a 4,000-vote swing that took me from being ahead to put the lead into my opponent’s hands.”
#18 In Wisconsin, there were allegations that Obama voters were actually being bussed in from out of state
The Democrats stationed a self described “BIG Chicago pro bono attorney” as one of their two observers at this small polling place. He remained at the polling place from 7:00 a.m. until well after 8:p.m. …..A high priced CHICAGO attorney, sitting in a Sheboygan WISCONSIN polling place, observing wards comprised of 1500 voters? …. WHY???
Why would someone from Chicago be observing in Sheboygan Wisconsin? And WHY at such a small polling place? Finally, isn’t it interesting that this would occur at the VERY polling place in which all of the above described events ALSO occurred? AGAIN WHY WOULD A CHICAGO ATTORNEY BE OBSERVING AN ELECTION POLLING PLACE WITH FEWER THAN 1500 VOTERS IN IT, IN SHEBOYGAN WISCONSIN? Of all the places where there has been suspected voting irregularities, and OUTRIGHT FRAUD throughout the ENTIRE United States, WHY HERE? WHY SHEBOYGAN? WHY THIS SMALL WARD?
This lawyer spent the day running in and out making, and taking calls, which coincidentally then coincided with influxes of groups of individuals by the van and bus loads, coming in to register, AND VOTE, using what appeared to be copied Allient energy bills. These individuals often did not have photo I.D.’s, could not remember their own addresses without looking at the paper, and became easily tripped, confused and annoyed when questioned.
Many of these same individuals, just so happened to be dressed in/wearing CHICAGO BEARS apparel, and whom openly discussed “catching busses back to Chicago” with each other, with poll workers, via their cell phones in the lobby area just outside the polling place, as well as in the parking lot, both before and AFTER registering and voting.
One woman was dressed head to toe in CHICAGO BEARS apparel including perfectly manicured BEARS fake fingernails!
She complained because registering was taking too long and she had to hurry up to catch her bus back to Chicago.
We have photos of these people in vehicles with plates from different states, photos of them leaving the polls, and other irregularities.
#19 Prior to election day, an Obama for America staffer was caught on video trying to help someone register to vote in more than one state.
#20 It is being alleged that unions in Nevada have been registering illegal immigrants and pressuring them to vote.
#21 According to, there was a systematic effort by the Obama campaign to suppress the military vote because they knew that most military votes would go against Obama…
Aiding Obama’s win was a devious suppression of the conservative vote. The conservative-leaning military vote has decreased drastically since 2010 due to the so-called Military Voter Protection Act that was enacted into law the year before. It has made it so difficult for overseas military personnel to obtain absentee ballots that in Virginia and Ohio there has been a 70% decrease in requests for ballots since 2008. In Virginia, almost 30,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots than in 2008. In Ohio, more than 20,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots. This is significant considering Obama won in both states by a little over 100,000 votes.
#22 According to the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association, it appears that thousands of military votes from this election will never be counted at all.
So what do you think about all of this?
Do you still believe that elections in America are fair and honest?
Please feel free to post an article with your thoughts below…


Islamic group once tied to terror trial received thousands in farm subsidies, without growing crops

Islamic group once tied to terror trial received thousands in farm subsidies, without growing crops

The North American Islamic Trust, despite receiving farm subsidies, was not doing what is pictured here -- harvesting crops.AP
An Islamic organization once listed by the Justice Department as a co-conspirator in a high-profile terror case is among many groups that have received thousands in federal farm subsidies, without producing any crops.
The subsidies to the North American Islamic Trust are just a slice of the questionable payments that, as has been well documented, go to millionaires and non-farmers every year. But as Congress moves to rein in the program, these subsidies stand out considering the group's involvement in the Holy Land Foundation case of 2008. During the trial, the group's farm subsidies stopped, only to be reinstated after a federal judge cleared them.
Records show that since 1998, the North American Islamic Trust has received over $10,000 across 34 separate taxpayer-funded programs. NAIT's two relatively small land plots are tax-zoned as "agricultural" -- but they aren't developed.
The group has been able to obtain farm subsidies legally without producing any crops because it is a nonprofit "charity group" landowner -- so it received subsidies on top of being tax-exempt.
"Organizations with no history in agriculture are getting in on taxpayer-provided farm subsidies," said Adam Andrzejewski, founder of the transparency database and former Republican candidate for governor of Illinois.
He said the NAIT's subsidies are "probably legal," adding: "The federal farm bill has become so large that it has nothing to do with 'preserving the family farm' or 'creating a stable food supply'."
The North American Islamic Trust's history is complicated -- as the offshoot of the Muslim Students Association and its financial arm, NAIT was founded in 1973 by Middle Eastern-born college students. The majority of NAIT's founders were members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the group continues to be backed by Saudi Arabia. NAIT uses Shariah-approved investing with its own company, Allied Asset Advisors, to buy and pool mosques and community centers. Former Allied Asset Advisor board member, Jamal Said, preached the most conservative forms of Islam and was specifically named as a co-conspirator in the terror-funding case.
In the Holy Land Foundation case of 2008, which prosecuted investors charged with sending  money to Hamas, NAIT was named by U.S. federal prosecutors as a co-conspirator and an entity that is or was "a member of the Muslim Brotherhood" (the parent organization of Hamas).
The Holy Land Foundation's five accused individuals were sentenced for funneling $12.4 million to the terror group, which controls the Gaza Strip and is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. NAIT never was formally charged in the case.
NAIT's sheer size may have worked against it. An estimated one in five mosques in the United States is owned by NAIT; those properties are estimated to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Several of these mosques, though, have been places of worship for those convicted in terror activities.
But even before a verdict in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation case had been reached, NAIT appealed their co-conspirator status, saying that they had "suffered injuries" from a "public branding."
In October of 2010, the Fifth Circuit Court overturned the group's "co-conspirator" status after NAIT's appeal and pressure from the ACLU. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said "if NAIT could have been accurately characterized as a joint venture," that "does not carry an inherently criminal connotation."
NAIT's farm subsidies stopped in 2008 during the trial and were first received again in 2011.
Every farm subsidy to the North American Islamic Trust has been received at the mailing address of the Islamic Center of Central Missouri Mosque, records show. The USDA lists the "farm location" as Boone County, Mo. But aerial searches of the "agricultural" properties owned by the North American Islamic Trust reveal that the plots are undeveloped, tree-dotted land combined to form just over 100 acres valued at about $59,000.
The North American Islamic Trust and the Islamic Center of Central Missouri did not reply to multiple requests for comment.
According to the USDA and, about half of NAIT's subsidies were "Direct Payments," a program which costs taxpayers an annual $5 billion. By 2011, the North America Islamic Trust began obtaining subsidies under the auspice that it is a "church, charity, or non-profit organization."
The payment program in question, though, could be under the budget knife in the latest farm bill which passed through the House earlier this week.
The federal government began farm subsidies during the Great Depression, in part because farmers were producing surplus crops and could not sell to a struggling market. The total cost for farm pay-outs in 1995 was just over $8.1 billion, when planted farm acreage in the United States stood at roughly 260 million. By 2012, taxpayers were subsidizing farmers by nearly double when planted acreage had decreased by millions of acres.
Interview with Benjamin Netanyahu; Interview with Susan Rice; Interview with Nancy Pelosi; Interview with Rudy Giuliani
Aired September 16, 2012 - 09:00   ET

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN ANCHOR: Is it really about an obscure promotion on YouTube, or is there a bigger picture?

Today as anti-American protests hit the Arab world a challenge of a different sort in the prickly relationship between president Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.


BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: What's guiding me contrary to what I've read in the United States, it's not the American political calendar, it's the Iranian nuclear calendar.


CROWLEY: And the future of the president's outreach to the Muslim world with U.S. ambassador of the United Nations Susan Rice.

Then democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, bullish on winning back the house.


REP. NANCY PELOSI, (D) CALIFORNIA: That was the pivotal day.


CROWLEY: Plus, foreign policy and poll numbers with Romney supporter and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.

I'm Candy Crowley. And this is State of the Union.

Another Middle East problem area flamed anew this week: certain that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, but pressured not to take military action right now, the prime minister of Israel is pushing back. Benjamin Netanyahu argues the U.S. must set specific limits for Iran. He suggested otherwise Israel will move forward on its own.


NETANYAHU: Those in the international community will refuse to put red lines before Iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.


CROWLEY: Netanyahu's call for red lines to restrain Iran was presumably the main topic in a private one-hour phone conversation with President Obama this week. But Secretary of State Clinton said publicly the U.S. will not set any deadlines after which Netanyahu told an Israeli paper, "I hear all those people who say we should wait until the very last minute, but what if the U.S. doesn't intervene? That is the question we have to ask."

Joining me now Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Thank you so much for joining us, Mr. Prime Minister. There has been all this talk about red lines put before Iran which you have talked about. Can you tell me what you would like that red line to be in the best of all possible worlds for you and for Israel, what would you like the U.S. to commit to in terms of a red line?

NETANYAHU: I think the issue is how to prevent Iran from completing its nuclear weapons program. They're moving very rapidly, completing the enrichment of the uranium they need to produce a nuclear bomb. In six months or so they'll be 90 percent of the way there. I think it's important to place a red line before Iran. And I think that actually reduces the chance of military conflict because if they know there's a point, a stage in the enrichment or other nuclear activities that they cannot cross because they'll face consequences, I think they'll actually not cross it. And that's been proved time and again.

President Kennedy put a red line before the Soviets in the Cuban Missile Crisis. He was criticized for it, but it actually pushed back the world from conflict and maybe purchase decades of peace. There wasn't such a red line before Saddam Hussein, before -- on the eve of the Gulf War when he invaded Kuwait. Maybe that war could have been avoided. And I think Iran, too, has received some clear red lines on a number of issues, and they backed off from them.

So I think as Iran gets closer and closer to the completion of its nuclear program, I think it's important to place a red line before them. And that's something I think we should discuss with the United States.

CROWLEY: And let me read you something I know you're probably quite familiar with. But for our viewers, something the president has said repeatedly. This he said at the beginning of the year. "As president of the United States I don't bluff. I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."

Do you disagree with that?

NETANYAHU: I think that when he says that implicit in that is that he will stop them before they get to a nuclear weapon, which means they'll draw red line somewhere. I think it's important to communicate it to them.

I wouldn't bet -- I wouldn't bet the security of the world and my own country's future from a country that threatens our annihilation, murders civilians en masse in Syria and brutalizes its own people. I wouldn't bet the future on intelligence for simple reasons.

American intelligence and Israeli intelligence that cooperate together had had wonderful successes in saving lives and alerting our people, but we've also had our failures, both of us. You know, you've just marked 9/11. That wasn't seen. None of us, neither Israel or the United States, saw Iran building this massive nuclear bunker under a mountain. For two years they proceed without or knowledge. So I think the one thing we do know is what they're doing right now. We know that they're enriching this material. We know that in the six, seven months they'll have got to covered 90 percent of the way for an atomic bomb material. And I think that we should count on the things that we do know in setting the red line.

CROWLEY: And what we know is, of course, that Iran is allowed under agreements, international agreements to go ahead and do what it's doing because there are legitimate peaceful purposes for enriching this uranium.

NETANYAHU: Do you think so? You think so, Candy? That's like -- well, let me interrupt -- it's not legitimate. This is a country that talks about -- denies the holocaust, promises to wipe out Israel, is engaged in terror throughout the world. It's like Timothy McVeigh walking into a shop in Oklahoma City and saying I like to tend my garden. I would like to buy some fertilizer.

How much do you want?

Oh, I don't know, 20,000 pounds.

Come on. We know that they're working towards a weapon. They're not -- we know that. It's not something that we surmise. We have absolutely certainty about that. And they're advancing towards that nuclear program.

CROWLEY: Do you mean you and the U.S. know that, because I don't from what I read, from what I hear, I don't get the sense that the U.S. has the certainty that you do or the urgency that you seem to have. Is there a disconnect there?

NETANYAHU: First of all, I talked about the certainty of their enrichment program, and I didn't talk about the other elements. And I spoke about the difficulty of knowing other things, but we have no difficulty as the IAEA report just tells us what they're doing in their enrichment program. That we know for sure. That's the only thing we know for sure that is verifiable and accessible. We know that.

As far as the U.S. and Israel, obviously we have different capability. You're a big country. You're several thousand miles away. You have stronger military capabilities. We're a smaller country. We are more vulnerable. They threaten our very annihilation, so obviously we have different capabilities and different clocks. But in terms of what is happening as Iran is getting closer and closer to completing its work for the first atomic bomb, the differences between us in our capabilities are becoming less and less important because Iran is fast approaching a point where it could disappear from our capability of stopping and our capability means not only Israel.

CROWLEY: I get the sense that your hour-long phone conversation with President Obama did not get you where you wanted to go insofar as U.S. willingness to set this red line. Is that correct?

NETANYAHU: Look, we had a good conversation. I'm not going to get into the details. I respect the president. I respect also the confidence of our conversation. But I think that -- I think this is a matter of urgency and people should understand it, that's what's guiding it.

What's guiding me, contrary to what I have read in the United States, is not the American political calendar, it's the Iranian nuclear calendar. And the Iranian centrifuges that are charging ahead simply do not take time out for the American elections. I wish the Iranians would shut down the centrifuges and then we won't have to talk about it, but they don't. And in fact, they do the very opposite. That's what's driving the urgency of this. And again, we have close consultations with the United States on this issue.

CROWLEY: Is the answer then, that no, you don't have the red line that you would like to have from the U.S.? Can you tell me at least that?

NETANYAHU: I think you should have a red line communicated to Iran, that's what I would say. And I think it's vital. I know that people value flexibility. I think that's important. But I think at this late stage of the game, I think Iran needs to see clarity. I'm not sure I would have said this three years ago, two years ago, one year ago, but as we get closer and closer and closer to the end game, I think we have to establish that.

That's becoming important, because you have to just think about it. You know, you see the Middle East. You see these fanatics storming your embassies, and I want to send my condolences to the American people for the loss of that extraordinary ambassador and his extraordinary colleagues. We sympathize as no other people does with the United States.

And yet, you know that as we face the possibility of a regime that is guided by the same fanaticism would have nuclear weapons, it's become something urgent for all of us to make sure they don't get there, and if you want to make sure that they don't get there. And if you want to make sure that they don't get there, make sure that they know that there is a line they shouldn't cross. Because otherwise, they'll cross it, and they'll get there.

CROWLEY: There's also people in your own country who have said that this is more aimed at President Obama and your friend Mitt Romney than it is about any new urgency. And I know you have heard this.

CROWLEY: And I wanted to ask you as a wrap-up question, do you see any major differences between the U.S. position vis-a-vis the relationship with Israel when you look at President Obama's position and when you look at former Governor Romney's position? Is there any difference in their policies towards Israel that you can detect?

NETANYAHU: Look, I know that people, Candy, are trying to draw me into the American election, and I'm not going to do that. But I will say that we value, we cherish the bipartisan support for Israel in the United States, and we're supported by Democrats and Republicans alike.

You know, this is not an electoral issue. It is not based on any electoral consideration. I think that there's a common interest of all Americans over all political persuasions to stop Iran.

This is a regime that is giving vent to the worst impulses that you see right now in the Middle East. They deny the rights of women, deny democracy, brutalize their own people, don't give freedom of religion.

All the things that you see now in these mobs storming the American embassies is what you will see with a regime that would have atomic bombs. You can't have such people have atomic bombs. And I believe that's as important for Republicans as it is for Democrats, important for Democrats as it is for Republicans. It's as important for President Obama as it is for Mitt Romney. It's important for the future of our world.

CROWLEY: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that's a good place for us to end it. I appreciate your time this morning.

NETANYAHU: Thank you.

CROWLEY: The Arab Spring's unintended consequences, that's next.


CROWLEY: In his second inaugural address, President Bush said the U.S. would seek out and promote democracy around the globe.


GEORGE W. BUSH, 43RD PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. (APPLAUSE)

BUSH: The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.


CROWLEY: In Cairo, four years later, President Obama reached out the Muslim world with a new version of the same idea.


BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years. And much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear, no system of government can or should be imposed by one nation, by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people.


CROWLEY: And then early last year uprisings on the Arab streets toppled longstanding autocratic regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya with the explicit yet sometimes delayed support of the West.

This week in at least 23 countries around the world the people returned to the streets to protest, sometimes violently, sometimes not, outside U.S. embassies. How, why, and what turned the Arab Spring into this autumn rage against the West. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice is next.


CROWLEY: Joining me is the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice.

Madam Ambassador, thank you for joining us.

RICE: Good to be with you, Candy.

CROWLEY: One of the things when I spoke with the Israeli prime minister that struck me was the conviction that he has that for certain Iran is building -- on its way to building a nuclear weapon, and his sense of urgency that at this moment the U.S. needs to set what he calls a "red line" for the U.S.

Does the U.S. share the conviction that Iran is, indeed, building a nuclear weapon? And, B, what about the concept of a red line?

RICE: Well, Candy, the United States is in constant communication with Israel and Israeli intelligence, Israeli policy makers, the military. We're sharing our assessments every day. And our assessments, our intelligence assessments are very similar. Obviously, we share a grave concern about Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon. We are determined to prevent that from happening. President Obama has been absolutely clear, and on this there's absolutely no daylight between the United States and Israel that we will do what it takes to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

We are not at that stage yet. They do not have a nuclear weapon. Our shared intelligence assessments is that there is still a considerable time and space before they will have a nuclear weapon should they make the decision to go for that. But we've been very clear. The United States is not interested and is not pursuing a policy of containment. President Obama has been very plain. We will keep all option on the table, including the military option, as necessary, to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

But, Candy, the fact is we have just seen the imposition of another layer of the toughest sanctions that have ever been impose odd a country. In this case, Iran. Their economy is beginning to buckle. Their oil production is down 40 percent. Their currency has plummeted 40 percent in the last year. Their economy is now shrinking. And this is only going to intensify.

So we think that there's still considerable time for this pressure to work. But this is not an infinite window. And we've made very clear that the president's bottom line is Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.

CROWLEY: Let me move you to what's gone on in the Middle East in Arab countries and elsewhere. There is a "New York Times" story this morning that suggests that the administration thinks this is a foreshadowing of a fall that will see sustained instability. Does the administration expect to see these sorts of protests outside U.S. embassies and elsewhere throughout the fall?

RICE: Well, Candy, first of all, let's recall what has happened in the last several days. There was a hateful video that was disseminated on the internet. It had nothing to do with the United States government and it's one that we find disgusting and reprehensible. It's been offensive to many, many people around the world.

That sparked violence in various parts of the world, including violence directed against western facilities including our embassies and consulates. That violence is absolutely unacceptable, it's not a response that one can ever condone when it comes to such a video. And we have been working very closely and, indeed, effectively with the governments in the region and around the world to secure our personnel, secure our embassy, condemn the violent response to this video.

And, frankly, we've seen these sorts of incidents in the past. We've seen violent responses to "Satanic Verses." We've seen violent responses to the cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed in an evil way. So this is something we've seen in the past, and we expect that it's possible that these kinds of things could percolate into the future. What we're focused on is securing our personnel, securing our facilities.

CROWLEY: Do you at this moment feel that U.S. embassies abroad are secure?

RICE: We are doing our utmost to secure our facilities and our personnel and in various vulnerable places. We have demanded and we are receiving the cooperation of host governments. Host governments have also put out very strong messages in Libya, in Egypt, in Yemen and Tunisia condemning violence, saying that it's a completely unacceptable response to such a video. And we feel that we are now in a position doing the maximum that we can to protect our people.

CROWLEY: Why would one not look at what is going on in the Middle East now and say that the president's outreach to Muslims, which began at the beginning of his administration in Cairo and elsewhere has not worked because, yes, this video sparked it, but there is an underlying anti-Americanism that is very evident on the streets. So Why not look at it and think that this is this outreach has failed?

RICE: For the same reason, Candy, when you look back at history and we had the horrible experience of our facilities and our personnel being attacked Beirut in 1981, we had the attack on Khobar Towers in the 1990s. We had an attack on our embassy in Yemen in 2008. There have been such attacks. There have been expressions of hostility towards the west.

CROWLEY: But this was sort of a reset, was it not? It was supposed to be a reset of U.S.-Muslim relations?

RICE: And indeed, in fact, there had been substantial improvements. I have been to Libya and walked the streets of Benghazi myself. And despite what we saw in that horrific incident where some mob was hijacked ultimately by a handful of extremists, the United States is extremely popular in Libya and the outpouring of sympathy and support for Ambassador Stevens and his colleagues from the government, from people is evidence of that.

The fact is, Candy, that this is a turbulent time. It's a time of dramatic change. It's a change that the United States has backed because we understand that when democracy takes root, when human rights and people's freedom of expression can be manifested, it may lead to turbulence in the short-term, but over the long-term, that is in the interest of the United States.

The mobs we've seen on the outside of these embassies are small minority. They're the ones who have largely lost in these emerging democratic processes, and just as the people of these countries are not going to allow their lives to be hijacked by a dictator, they're not going to allow an extremist mob to hijack their future and their freedom,. And we're going to continue to stand with the vast majority of the populations in these countries.

They want freedom. They want a better future. And understand that we're with them in that long-term endeavor.

CROWLEY: All right. U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice. I got to let you go here.

RICE: Thank you. Thank you very much.

CROWLEY: We'll switch gears next and talk to Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi about her road map to retake control of the House.

And later, a batch of fresh polls show Mitt Romney may be losing steam in his bid for the White House. Supporter and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is here to discuss.


CROWLEY: No matter what they promise as a candidate, presidents can't do much of what they want without a cooperative congress, which brings us to the U.S. House currently run by Republicans who hold 240 seats compared to 190 held by Democrats. To take control next January, Democrats need a net gain of 25 seats in November.

At the Democratic Convention earlier this month, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi told reporters she's looking for a 27 seat pick- up, that would put her in line to regain the speakership.

She is expecting victories in Texas, California, Illinois, New York, Washington State, and Arizona. Democrats are also eying power changing winds in the presidential battleground states of Florida, Ohio, Iowa, and Nevada. And there is even talk about Montana where the House seat has been Republican for 15 years.

We should stress that most polls point to, and most political forecasters predict that Democrats will gain seats, but not enough to win the majority.

Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and the reason for her optimism is next.


CROWLEY: Earlier I visited with House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. We began with the Democrats' chances for winning back the majority in November.


CROWLEY: I read something in "Roll Call" that described the prospects for Democrats retaking the House as theoretically possible but unlikely. Would you agree with that?

PELOSI: No. I think that, first of all, I don't know what that is, but I do know that the source of our confidence is, and that's the quality of our candidates. They're just great. The fact that they are strong in terms of their grass roots mobilization and their resource raising and the rest. And that the issues are with us.

For one year and a half since the Republicans passed their budget, which the Romney-Ryan now, Republican budget, which severs the Medicare guarantee, we have been saying three important issues of the campaign, and in alphabetical order they are Medicare, Medicare, Medicare.

On August 11th when Governor Romney chose Ryan, that was the pivotal day.

ROMNEY: Paul Ryan has become an intellectual leader of the Republican Party.

PELOSI: That is a day things really changed.

We were on a path. I would have said to you then we were dead even. Well, momentum is very much with us. The Medicare issue in this campaign.

So we have a message. We have the messengers. We have the money. We have the mobilization. We have an excellent chance to take back the House.

CROWLEY: Just quickly, the Romney campaign says that Medicare will always be a choice, but that they want to open it up so that they're not cutting off the Medicare option.

PELOSI: Well, you know, that is completely upside down. It's a contradiction of Medicare. Medicare is a guarantee. To make it a voucher is to put the decision in the hands of the insurance companies. Seniors know that. I'm a senior. I know that.

The whole pillar that Medicare is about economic and health security for our seniors and those who depend on Medicare. There are families who need their parents and grandparents to be provided for under Medicare. Everybody understands that.

If you don't believe in Medicare, you will say what the Republicans are saying.

CROWLEY: Let me ask you, if it should turn out that you gain seats in the House, but you don't take over the majority spot, would you still run for leader of Democrats?

PELOSI: Well, I don't ever predicate anything when losing. I feel very confident about our ability to win. Who will lead the party after that is up to my members. I feel that I...

CROWLEY: Oh, sure, but would you still run, whether it was for speaker or Democratic leader?

PELOSI: Well, I actually, didn't choose to run last time. My members chose that I would run last time.

But this isn't about me, this is about Medicare. It's about Social Security. It's about women's rights. It's about the American dream. It's about our democracy. All of that is on the ballot.

CROWLEY: If we look at the polls rather than the possibilities, it looks as though there is an even chance that the senate Republicans could take over and that the probability is that Democrats will not take over in the House.

So let's say everything stays as is and the president is re- elected. What's different about the dynamic that has been so toxic between Capitol Hill and the White House if we have what currently the polls show is -- you know, if the election were held today?

PELOSI: Well, with that theoretical, the -- you'll see more of the same because it's really important for the public to know that the Republican obstruction of President Obama's jobs bills and whatever he was advancing, their obstruction is their agenda. They really don't believe in...

CROWLEY: Does that change? If nothing changes in the dynamic...

PELOSI: It's what they believe in. Now I have always said in my Republicans take back your party, because this wing of the party or this over the edge crowd that is in charge -- taking charge of wagging the dog in congress is never going to cooperate, because they do not believe in a public roll. Clean air, clean water, public safety, public education, public transportation, public health, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, they don't believe in it, and that's what their budget is about. And that's what wee we vote on the floor almost every day.

CROWLEY: Do you see that changing.

PELOSI: No, I don't see it, that's why it's important for us to win the election so that we can go forward because bipartisan collaboration is on the ballot too.

When President Bush, George W. Bush, was president and we were in the majority and I was the speaker, we had our differences, we fought, but we also found common ground.

GEORGE W. BUSH, 43rd PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I thank the leadership of the congress for joining us here.

PELOSI: There are so many places where we came together.

CROWLEY: So you could work with Mitt Romney basically, if it came to that?

PELOSI: Oh, Mitt Romney is not going to be president of the United States.


CROWLEY: Let me ask you...

PELOSI: I think everybody knows that.

CROWLEY: The president has put out his -- by law he had to put out a response to detail what its cut and what doesn't get cut under what we call sequestration, which are just mandated across the board cuts in both sides of the ledger. It says it will be horrible if it happens, et cetera, et cetera. The Republicans have complained repeatedly that there is no presidential leadership on this.

What is the president's involvement been so far in trying to get Republicans and Democrats together to avoid this fiscal cliff?

PELOSI: Well, the president as recently as yesterday I received a call from him saying we really do have to have an agreement, which I fully agree with, and the must have as much -- do everything we can to find common ground. That's what we did one year ago, more than a year ago in July/August of last year and the president worked very hard with the speaker to come out with a bipartisan agreement that was a big design which had $4 trillion over 10 years in deficit reduction and the House and Senate Democrats said Mr. President, we're with you on this. He agreed to it. The Republicans walked away. CROWLEY: Is he a work-the-phoner, though? I mean, compare him, say, to Bill Clinton who you also worked with. I mean, the image that we have is a president that does not do that as much as a Bill Clinton did in terms of offering guidance, trying to get people together in the same room, reaching out to Republicans, reaching out to you. The level of leadership from the president when it comes to legislative things compared to former President Clinton.

PELOSI: Well, I would say that they both score very high in terms of leadership. If you measure leadership in the number of phone calls, well, that might be a little bit of a different story because they're different personalities.

CROWLEY: Yes, more contact with Bill Clinton over the years.

PELOSI: Well, I wasn't leader or speaker when Bill Clinton was -- President Clinton was president, but we all -- but I saw how he worked with Congress and our leadership at the time.

Make no mistake, President Obama is, of course, a great leader. He has great vision for our country. He knows the issues. He has a plan. He is eloquent and can draw people to what he has to say, and that's all great.

He also is such a respectful person. And I have never seen -- I worked with presidents to a great or lesser degree, certainly to a greater degree to President Bush and President Obama, and this president has listened, spent time, respects the opinions of the Republicans to an extent that I think -- I wish one of them would come up with a new idea because he has more patience listening to them than I do.

But so, really, leadership should not be measured in the number of calls. But they were both great. They are both great leaders.

CROWLEY: So I'll just extrapolate from that that perhaps Bill Clinton was more hands-on than President Obama, but they both -- you think they both showed leadership?

PELOSI: Well, I think they're both hands-on. It's just a question of how they spent their time. And the challenges are very great today that the president -- as they were under President Clinton, but I think he uses his time well. I have no complaint with that.

CROWLEY: House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, thank you for joining us today.

PELOSI: Thank you, Candy. My pleasure.

CROWLEY: I appreciate it.

PELOSI: Thank you.

CROWLEY: Battleground polls show trouble for Governor Mitt Romney. Supporter and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is here next.


CROWLEY: I'm joined by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Mr. Mayor, thanks for being here. It occurs...


CROWLEY: ... to me that you, as well as anybody, understands that when there is a crisis, Americans tend to rally around their leaders. So with that in mind, tell me who had the better week this week, President Obama or Mitt Romney?

GIULIANI: Well, I think clearly Mitt Romney. Largely because what we see is the president's policies in the Middle East falling apart. I mean, the reality is the president got elected to reset our relationship in the Middle East. We might as well not have had the reset.

I mean, look at the American flag being burned, unrest in 20 countries, a front page article in The New York Times today saying they anticipate numerous additional demonstrations over the next four or five months.

America is no more popular in the Middle East than it was four years ago. And now in addition to that, we've shown this kind of provocative weakness to the Middle East. And we were for Mubarak before we were against Mubarak. We were more or less neutral on Gadhafi until we wanted to overthrow him.

Hillary Clinton announced that Assad was a reformer. Now we want to overthrow him. And we don't seem to be willing to set a red line for Iran when that's exactly what Jack Kennedy did in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

And you do that any time you are dealing with a provocative enemy that needs to know, well, how far can you go so we have no confusion? The president refuses to do it. Prime Minister Netanyahu is absolutely correct in pushing him to do it.

CROWLEY: There are plenty of people who would argue that the president as commander-in-chief had a better week, but I want to move you on to some things that I think are possibly troubling inside the Romney campaign.

This is the latest look at some battleground states from the NBC News/Marist poll with The Wall Street Journal. Ohio, it has President Obama up 7 points. And in Florida and Virginia, the same poll has President Obama up 5 points. What is wrong there?

GIULIANI: Nothing is wrong. It's a close election. Those are polls...

CROWLEY: Well, that's -- some of these -- I mean, those are pretty good leads compared to what we have seen before.

GIULIANI: I don't know. Those are the kinds of leads John Kerry had on Election Day, and George Bush became the president. You know? So those are -- those are margins that are well within striking distance for either candidate. To be overconfident about who is going to win this election, in fact, whoever is overconfident about whoever is going to win this election is probably going to lose it.

This is a darn close election. Whoever expected what happened in the last week, week-and-a-half with -- in this election. This was going to be an election about the economy. It's now becoming an election that's looking an awful lot like 1980 with Jimmy Carter-style president in the White House.

CROWLEY: But sure -- even you would agree, surely, that having American hostages held for 444 days is a little different from having a protest outside American embassies, yes, there -- and we had the deaths of these -- the tragic deaths of these four Americans in Libya, which a lot of folks are arguing is a different thing from saying everything here has failed.

So the question is, do you actually believe that this no longer is about the economy?

GIULIANI: No, no, I do. I believe it's about the economy, but I think the situation in the Middle East is becoming more and more important. And, Candy, I would argue that the situation in Iran is equally as dangerous as it was with the hostages there except this time they want to become nuclear.

And the president is fiddling while Iran is just moving ahead. I mean, he had to be forced -- he had to be forced to use these crippling sanctions, which he has used late, and I don't know how crippling they are since he has exempted 20 countries from them.

CROWLEY: And yet at...

GIULIANI: I mean, these sanctions...

CROWLEY: ... this point, Mr. Mayor...

GIULIANI: Even the U.N. is saying his sanctions aren't working. They are not working. The president doesn't want to deal with it.

CROWLEY: And yet at this point can you tell me something different in Mitt Romney's proposed policies toward Iran than President Obama's policies? They both said Iran should not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon, period. What's different?

GIULIANI: Well, I believe that Mitt Romney would set a red line. He'd make it clear exactly the point beyond which...

CROWLEY: Why doesn't he do that now?

GIULIANI: Well, he might over the course of these debates. He might very well do it. Although then you'd all criticize him for engaging and interfering in foreign policy. I mean, Mitt Romney can't win no matter what he does.

He spoke out as a leader about a really, really ridiculous statement by the State Department, for 16 hours they had a statement out there apologizing. All of a sudden he gets criticized.

I mean, the administration was clearly wrong about the level of security needed for that ambassador in that consulate. And you had Nancy Pelosi just on saying there was enough security.

If they are as wrong in their security estimate of Iran as they were about the consulate in Benghazi, we are in serious trouble.

CROWLEY: Let me turn you back to the economy, since it remains issue number one. When you look at our -- I'm sorry, at a New York Times/CBS poll, this was about the probable electorate, and the question was, which candidate would do a better job of handling the economy and unemployment? President Obama, 47, Mitt Romney, 46 percent.

Your candidate has lost the edge when it comes to the economy. If the economy is as bad as Republicans have told us it is, what is holding Mitt Romney back here because from your description of the economy, others' description of the economy, this really should be a president that doesn't have a chance and yet he's beating Mitt Romney.

GIULIANI: There's no such thing as an incumbent president doesn't have a chance. Having the presidency is an enormous advantage. The president has used it well. They have done a good job, I think an unfair one, they've done a good job of raising all kinds of irrelevant questions about Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, and the Romney/Ryan campaign has to overcome that.

But if you just look at the fundamentals, you know, 43 months of 8.1 or plus percent unemployment, no American president has ever been elected with these kinds of job loss numbers and permanent unemployment.

We haven't had something like this since the Great Depression.

CROWLEY: Which I think...

GIULIANI: I think that's going to...

CROWLEY: ... argues for why he isn't doing better. But let me, in our final moments, ask you whether you believe that the Romney campaign, that Mitt Romney needs to come out and say specifically, here is what I would do to reform the tax code, here are the loopholes I would close.

Does he need to be more specific? Does he need to give a foreign policy speech? Because the rap now from a lot of Republicans is, we don't -- there is no real alternative out there. Does he need to do that?

GIULIANI: Well, these are a bunch of Republicans who are, you know, running scared, because the polls aren't -- I mean, Romney is not ahead by 10 points or 15 points which, of course, would be totally unrealistic. I think he's running a perfectly fine campaign. This is the level of specificity that American candidates usually give in a campaign.

My goodness, President Obama wasn't terribly specific four years ago when he told us he was -- he ran on hope and change. Hope and change. Look what a strategy that has been for the Middle East. Hope and change and now we have demonstrations in 20 countries.

CROWLEY: OK. All right. Mr. Mayor, thank you so much for joining us...

GIULIANI: Thank you.

CROWLEY: ... this morning. Come see us in the new studio.

GIULIANI: Always a pleasure, Candy.

CROWLEY: Thanks.

A tribute to five American heroes, after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) CROWLEY: And finally we leave you with images from this week's tributes to five American heroes. Friday the bodies of the four Americans murdered in Libya, Christopher Stevens, Glenn Doherty, Sean Smith, and Tyrone Woods (ph), returned home to the U.S.

And just the day before, a memorial service was held here honoring Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon. He died at the age of 82. Armstrong never saw himself as a hero, but his extraordinary accomplishments didn't just leave his mark on the moon but here on Earth too.

Thanks for watching STATE OF THE UNION.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Neil will always be remembered for taking humankind's first small step on a world beyond our own.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No one, no one, but no one could have accepted the responsibility of his remarkable accomplishment with more dignity and more grace than Neil Armstrong. He embodied all that is good and all that is great about America.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Gracious God, on behalf of a grateful nation, and in the presence of grieving family members, friends, and colleagues, we welcome home for the final time Ambassador Chris Stevens, Mr. Sean Smith, Mr. Glen Doherty, and Mr. Tyrone Woods.

HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE: If the last few days teach us anything, let it be this, that this work and the men and women who risked their lives to do it, are at the heart of what makes America great and good. OBAMA: Four Americans, four patriots, they loved this country. And they chose to serve it and served it well. They had a mission, and they believed in it. They knew the danger, and they accepted it. They didn't simply embrace the American ideal. They lived it. They embodied it.