Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Nothing like a little egg on your face for helping terrorist-friendly clients access the US financial system. You could ask when people will begin to understand that giving terrorists or their enablers access to the world’s financial systems supports terrorism. But it is likely the truth is they know who they are dealing with and do not care. Here the terrorists use the infidels’ weakness for greed and corruption against them. Another sad fact is that even when such crimes are committed there is only another exchange of money. No one seems to be held personally responsible for their actions.

Of course the story includes the tainted bank expressing its concern and that it ‘is committed to maintaining the highest levels of integrity’, etc.,etc. What a load of manure that is. You were stripping customer information from transactions so they would not be flagged by filtering software at destination banks. How is that a matter of ‘enhancing compliance programs’? It is a matter of a conscious decision to defraud. Something that should not allow those involved to continue in the banking business……EVER AGAIN!!

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Lloyds TSB Bank has agreed to pay a $350 million penalty to U.S. authorities for falsifying records to allow clients from Iran, Sudan and Libya illegal access to the U.S. financial system.

The London-based bank admitted responsibility for violating U.S. sanction laws under deferred prosecution agreements filed Friday by the U.S. Justice Department and the New York County District Attorney’s Office.

Their joint investigation accuses Lloyds of deliberately removing customer information - a process known as “stripping” - so that wire transfers would pass undetected through filters at U.S. financial institutions.

The process made it appear the transactions originated at Lloyds rather than the sanctioned banks.

In a statement announcing the deals struck with investigators, the bank said it is committed to maintaining the highest levels of integrity and has taken significant steps to enhance its compliance programs.

Under terms of the agreements, Lloyds must turn over all the data it still has that was removed from past money transfers to U.S. authorities. The bank is required to cooperate fully with U.S. authorities for the next two years.

Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau said the case against Lloyds grew out of an investigation into suspicious money transfers by alleged Iranian front companies and charities in New York.

In the New York agreement, Lloyds admitted that from 2002 to 2004 it allowed Iranian banks and their customers to illegally move more than $300 million. Most of the money was sent into the United States, but it is not clear if any of the funds ended up in terrorist hands.

Money transfers from sanctioned countries violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which allows the U.S. president to block commerce with countries deemed a threat to the United States.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP, AP and Reuters.

While Queen Elizabeth II continued a British tradition that goes back to 1957 and exercised one of her rare occasions to freely express her own views, a 16 year old tradition was continued at the national TV outlet Channel Four presenting ‘an Alternative Christmas Message featuring someone who is not the most popular man on campus.

As the report below indicates, ‘giving the platform’ to the Iranian President for an alternative Christmas Message has ‘generated controversy in some quarters’ in Britain. Ahmadinejad has openly called for the elimination of Israel. Iran is currently involved in a political conflict with many nations on their pursuit of nuclear options that may include weapons. There is much about this scenario which now gives more credence to the notion there are many parallels and similarities to Ahmadinejad and Hitler. This latest event in Britain is reminiscent of similar circumstances in British history. There are a number of events over the past few years that are reminders of British reaction to world events in the last 100 years. Should we be concerned?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

In her traditional Christmas message to the country, Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II focused on the concerns many are feeling this year about the deepening economic downturn. Meanwhile, Britain’s Channel 4 Television has broadcast what it calls an alternative Christmas address, delivered by the President of Iran.

Mindful of the prolonged recession many in Britain are predicting, Queen Elizabeth II noted that these are nervous times for many. Unemployment is rising steadily, a number of major retail outlets have already gone out of business and some big banks are only operating now with the help of government assistance.

“Christmas is a time for celebration but this year, it is a more somber occasion for many. Some of those things which could once have been taken for granted suddenly seem less certain and naturally give rise to feelings of insecurity,” she said. “People are touched by events which have their roots far across the world, whether it is the global economy or violence in a distant land, the effects can be keenly felt at home.”

The Queen’s Christmas speech represents one of the rare occasions in the year when she can freely express her own views.

Her annual TV broadcast goes back to 1957.

Meanwhile in a tradition stretching back over the past 16 years, a so-called Alternative Christmas Message was broadcast on British national TV outlet, Channel Four.

This year, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was given the platform.

In his speech, Ahmadinejad rhetorically asks what Jesus Christ would make of the current world. The Iranian leader concludes he would hoist the banner of justice and oppose what he called warmongers, occupiers, terrorists and bullies around the world.

The message has generated controversy in some quarters here. Britain’s Foreign Office predicts it may cause offense amongst what it calls friendly nations abroad.

The head of Channel Four News says it is enormously important to hear the views of the leader of one of the most powerful states in the Middle East.

There will be plenty of support provided President-elect Barack Obama from liberals and anyone else who voted for him. To keep the discussion honest some of us will have to present the less positive aspects of this new development. Questions raised during the campaign and not answered by the Obama/Biden team are again surfacing in responses from around the world on the US election results. This post starts with European leaders weighing in with their reaction to the new President.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown began with a comment that was relatively benign. He said he looked forward to working with the new President. A statement one might expect if the source was trying to remain somewhat neutral. The part that raises questions similar to those from the campaign would be his conclusion that Obama is ‘a true friend of Britain’ and that he has shared values and policies with Britain for solving current economic issues. What information did Gordon Brown have access to that the rest of us have been denied? Or more precisely how did Mr Brown come up with that analysis? No one else seems to know what he will do for sure when this whole thing gets under way.

Sarkozy of France is buying into the Obama and DNC hope mantra. He says this election raises hope for just about everyone on the planet. This entire hope and change slogan seems to be long on optimism and short on details. Are people so simplistic to believe that just putting someone else besides George Bush in the White House will cause some sort of global enlightenment? Will all the barriers between people of the world be suddenly vanquished? No one yet has provided a coherent agenda that may be forthcoming from the Obama/Biden team. Why all the high praise and complimentary expressions for a huge unknown?

The German Chancellor and EU foreign policy chief expressed closer cooperation and an emphasis on change, respectively, as their appraisal of President-elect Obama. Aside from possibly echoing the hope and change mantra, a more realistic assessment of Merkel’s statement may be the reason many foreign powers are happy about Obama being elected. Appeasement and caving to the demands of foreign governments may be the hope from abroad regarding the new US Presidential Administration.

The statements from foreign leaders sound as uninformed as those from people on the street where one person said they are excited that Obama might bring some changes. This is a sentiment that was repeated regularly during the campaign and now again afterwards. It is alarming that people can base such an important decision on such flimsy rhetoric. The reliance on the idea of hope and change as a reason to vote for Obama and Biden is absolutely stunning. Perhaps privately those being quoted from around the world are laughing hysterically at the foolish Americans who chose a President on a vague idea and promise. One which Barack Obama quickly extinguished in his acceptance speech when he said things may not get done in one year or his entire first term. Rather than help the middle class he expressed everyone’s need to sacrifice.

That was President-elect’s first speech, the acceptance speech. You may wish to read or hear it again. It is available around the internet in text and mp3 form. The first words he uttered after the deal was done. After the campaign was over and the votes were in and tallied for the most part Mr Obama made a speech. It could very well be that all bets are off based on his comment that nothing may get accomplished in his first term.

As stated at the top of this post someone has to bring up the less than positive as the MSM and staunch Obama/Biden supporters will dominate the discussion. You may or may not wish to consider the possibility you were just sold something equating to the well known swamp land in Florida or the Brooklyn bridge or just the simple bill of goods the value of which are suspect.

You may not but foreign leaders around the world may get what they want from President-elect Barack Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

On Friday night, December 21, 2007 the News Hour on PBS had the public suffer through an excessively long interview with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The only humor injected in this conversation came at the very beginning when Reid was introduced and when ‘welcomed’ to the broadcast replied, ‘thank you for allowing me on..’

TRANSCRIPT
Originally Aired: December 21, 2007
Newsmaker Interview

Senate Majority Leader Reid Weighs Partisan Divides, Security in Iraq

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., discusses how partisan differences have impacted the pace of recent legislative progress on Capitol Hill, the state of the Iraq war and the next steps for the Democratic-led Congress in an interview with Ray Suarez.
Senator Harry Reid

audioRealAudio
Download

JIM LEHRER: Now, our Newsmaker interview with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada. And to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: Senator Reid, welcome to the program.

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), Senate Majority Leader: Thank you very much for allowing me to be on your show.

If you have a tendency toward conspiracy theories you could surmise the interview was prompted by Reid. But that can’t be. After all, this is journalism in America. Subjects of an interview don’t influence their selection. Besides the lame inquiry opening the interview pointing to the pathetic performance of the majority, Reid often repeated his claim that the minority blocked Democratic party initiatives 62 times and that it was some kind of record. His claim that the Democratic party supports the troops with their failed surrender strategy may also have annoyed viewers.

But the left’s amnesty agenda masquerading as immigration reform is the topic of this post. It is reasonable to note that those supporting the rule of law and opposing amnesty are not the only ones on the planet displeased by the fantasy of the ‘global economy’. Offshore outsourcing and the importation of cheap labor are trends that only serve the corporate boardroom. The following reference from 2004 adequately addresses a typical sham of the ‘global’ propaganda.

Workers asked to train foreign replacements
By Stephanie Armour, USA TODAY
4/6/2004

When computer programmer Stephen Gentry learned last year that Boeing was laying him off and shipping his job overseas, he wasn’t too surprised. Many of his friends had suffered the same experience.

What really stunned him was his last assignment: Managers had him train the worker from India who’d be taking his job.

“It was very callous,” says Gentry, 51, of Auburn, Wash., a father of three who is still unemployed. “They asked us to make them feel at home while we trained them to take our jobs.”

The report below from VOA News echoes a sentiment often employed by those who support amnesty for illegal immigrants in the United States. The emotional appeal employed to embarrass or insult opponents of amnesty for illegal immigrants at best succeeds with the latter outcome. That illegals are only here in pursuit of a job or better life and that the US is a nation of immigrants ignores much about the past and ignores other American traditions; not the least of which is playing by the rules.

The situation in Britain mirrors some characteristics of the US problem. They have organized opposition to their immigration problem and a member states the situation only benefits the few. The similarities lend support to the notion that those supporting unreasonable immigration policies do so for personal gain and not the altruistic reasons often claimed in support of the pursuit of bigger profits at the expense of the people and country that made their financial success possible.

British Unease Grows with Foreign Workers
By Sonja Pace
London
21 December 2007

Pace report - Download MP3 (913k)
Listen to Pace report

The British government is set to announce a series of measures early next year to tighten restrictions on immigrant workers. A booming economy has attracted foreigners to Britain from many parts of the world in recent years, especially from the new members of the European Union, but also from the United States, Asia and Africa. While many provide a crucial source of labor, their arrival has also sparked an uneasy debate in Britain over a growing migrant work force. VOA’s Sonja Pace has more from London.

The building boom in Britain may be driven by a strong economy, but the work is carried out largely by foreigners.

British government statistics indicate that more than 2.5 million foreign workers have registered in Britain since 2002.

The largest single group of legal migrants has come from Poland. Zbigniew Cwik is one of them. He says when he first came here life was difficult, without his family and long hours.

“The work was from morning to evening so I am just thinking about the work,” he said.

He goes by Zibbi, for short. He originally came on a training course, stayed, found work doing construction and home refurbishments, brought his family over and eventually started his own business.

Many of the newcomers from parts of Europe arrive here by bus, hoping to find a job and a better life. More than 220,000 Polish workers have registered in Britain in the past year. And, in all, some 700,000 East European workers have come here since the 2004 EU expansion, which opened avenues for them to work in Britain legally.

Hugo Brady of the Center for European Reform says migrant workers are behind Britain’s economic boom.

“Really, immigration in this sense as per the 2004 enlargement has been a win-win situation. I can’t think of any situation in Europe in which it has not been beneficial,” he said.

While some work in highly skilled jobs, most migrants do not. They work in construction, in agriculture - they build roads, sweep streets, clean houses, tend gardens and take care of other people’s children.

And, not everyone is pleased with the influx. The chairman of the lobby group, Migration Watch UK, Andrew Green says the migrant workforce benefits only a few.

“Polish immigration is great news for the chattering classes, because you get cheap nannies, you get cheap restaurants, you get wonderful gardeners and the plumbers are wonderful,” he said. “If you happen to be a British plumber it’s not so good.”

Migration Watch wants tougher immigration limits.

“We’ve got a million young [British] people who are not in education, not in training, not in work,” he added. “Now it’s even more difficult to get those people into the work force if you’ve got literally hundreds of thousands of bright, young Poles ready to do the job.”

But, Britain also hosts migrants from non-EU states, including from the United States, Asia and Africa. The government is now set to further tighten immigration rules with an Australian-style system for restricting immigration to those with skills the country needs.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said this new point system would help manage the immigration flow.

“This is probably the biggest change in our immigration rules that has been seen for many decades,” he said. “It is precisely to encourage the skills that we need as a country and to discourage the skills we don’t need.”

And so the debate goes on. How many migrants should be allowed in, how long should they stay, do they benefit the economy or do they take jobs away from locals?

Hugo Brady with the Center for European Reform says there is another factor.

“People will always fear the ‘other’ and they don’t like the idea of strangers descending on them even if it is a good thing, even if they themselves have benefited from it,” he added. “Somehow this prejudice remains.”

For the migrants who come here, the priority is to make a better life for themselves and their families. Some plan to return home, others are not so sure.

For Britons, the issue remains an ongoing debate.

By Sonja Pace
London
30 November 2007

A British court has ordered the government to remove the Iranian opposition group, the People’s Mujahedeen, from its list of terrorist organizations. The group is hailing the decision as a major victory while the British government says it will appeal the ruling. VOA’s Sonja Pace has the story from London.

The People’s Mujahedeen of Iran has been described by some as a cult and by others as the only viable opposition to the clerical regime in Tehran. It has also been fighting a long-running battle to get off the list of terrorist organizations in Europe as well as in the United States.

On Friday, it won a major victory when a British tribunal ruled that there is no evidence the People’s Mujahedeen has carried out any terrorist activity in years or encouraged others to do so. The court ruled the group should be dropped from Britain’s list of terrorist organizations.

The People’s Mujahedeen is part of the broader umbrella grouping - the National Council of Resistance in Iran. The group’s president-elect Maryam Rajavi called Friday’s verdict a “magnificent victory for justice.”

Speaking to VOA from the group’s headquarters in Paris, spokesman Shahin Gobadi says the ruling sends an important political message to the government in Tehran.

“The message is that firmness should be the policy vis-a-vis the Iranian regime, and also it means that the policy of appeasement which this [terrorism] listing is part and parcel of, should be put aside once and for all,” Gobadi said.

Gobadi says Friday’s ruling vindicates the group’s assertion that the terrorist label was wrong from the start and was part of the West’s attempt to get on a better footing with Tehran.

The British government said it was disappointed by Friday’s ruling and will appeal. Until then, the People’s Mujahedeen will reportedly remain on the terrorist list.

The opposition group was first set up in the 1960s with the aim of overthrowing the U.S.-backed regime of the late Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. It took part in the Islamic revolution, but soon fell out with the new clerical government and set out on a campaign of assassinations and bombings to topple it. The group moved to Iraq in the 1980s and operated from there with the blessing of Saddam Hussein. After Saddam was ousted, the U.S. military disarmed the group.

The group’s resolve toward regime change in Iran has found support among lawmakers in Europe and the United States. Dozens of British members of parliament supported the case to drop the People’s Mujahedeen from Britain’s terrorism list.

By VOA News

A British court has ruled that radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri can be extradited to the United States to face terrorism charges.

The court in London issued the ruling Thursday.

Al-Masri is currently serving a seven-year prison sentence in Britain, after his 2006 conviction for inciting murder and racial hatred.

He was originally arrested in Britain on an extradition warrant from U.S. authorities in 2004. But that process was put on hold until his London trial ended and his appeals were exhausted.

The decision still needs the approval of Britain’s Home Secretary Jacqi Smith.

U.S. officials accuse the cleric of aiding a 1998 hostage-taking in Yemen and of trying to set up a terrorist training camp in the northwestern U.S. state of Oregon.