An April 7 report from the Department of Homeland Security branding some conservative groups as “rightwing extremists” is enough reason to revive former President Bill Clinton’s idea of an assault-weapons ban, according to an executive of a gun-control group–the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

“I think it certainly helps to make that case because what that report suggests is that there is a rise in the kind of paramilitary activity that we saw actually in years before the Oklahoma City bombing,” Dennis Henigan, the vice president for law and policy at the Brady Center, told CNSNews.com Wednesday

Henigan talked about the years before the 1995 Oklahoma City tragedy–when “rightwing extremist militia groups (were) out training with assault weapons, training for war against the United States government, training to shoot federal law enforcement,” he said.

“Now, unfortunately there is very credible evidence that that is beginning to happen again,” Henigan added later. “So, there is no place on our streets for these kinds of military weapons.”

He described assault weapons as being “designed for war,” adding that, “they are designed basically to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible in a battlefield situation.”

Henigan spoke to CNSNews.com after he testified before a House subcommittee on Capitol Hill in support of the No Fly, No Buy Act of 2009, sponsored by New York Democratic Reps. Carolyn McCarthy and Steve Israel.

Neither McCarthy nor Israel answered inquiries from CNSNews.com to comment on Heinigan’s comment.

The legislation, which is still in draft form and has not been introduced yet, is aimed at keeping individuals that are on the Department of Homeland Security’s Transportation Security Administration “no fly list” from being able to purchase guns. The “no fly list” is aimed at keeping suspected terrorists off planes.

In response to Henigan’s comments, the National Rifle Association told CNSNews.com that the Brady Center was “exploiting” the DHS report to push its “political agenda.”

“Mr. Henigan’s employer has been trying to re-enact this gun ban by exploiting the tragic situation that’s occurring in Mexico right now as a result of violence by drug cartels,” NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam told CNSNews.com.

“Now he’s using a report that was widely criticized by various people as being insulting to our veterans and I think this is just further proof they will say anything and will do anything to push their political agenda with little or no regard for fact,” he added.

The NRA spokesman further pointed out that during the 10 years when the assault weapons ban was the law, studies show, the ban was ineffective.

“Numerous studies, without including studies commissioned by the Clinton Justice Department–in every single one of those studies it was found that the ban was worthless,” Arulanandam told CNSnews.com.

“As a result, 10 years after this law was enacted, it was allowed to expire,” he added.

In April, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano released a report warning that “right-wing extremists” were “gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues”–including the election of President Obama and “the economic downturn.”

The report, which is considered insulting by many conservatives, warns of the dangers of  “anti-government” groups and others “in opposition to abortion or immigration”–as well as returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, who, it said “face significant challenges reintegrating into their communities.”

According to the report: “Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government.”

The report added that the “high volume” of purchases and “stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions” in some parts of the country has become “a primary concern” for law enforcement.

Source: CNSNews

The Federal Reserve apparently can’t account for $9 trillion in off-balance sheet transactions.

When Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Orlando) asked Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman of the Federal Reserve some very basic questions about where the trillions of dollars that have come from the Fed’s expanded balance sheet, the IG didn’t know.

Worse, nobody at the Fed seems to have any idea what the losses on its $2 trillion portfolio really are.

“I am shocked to find out that nobody at the Federal Reserve is keeping track of anything,” Grayson says.

Grayson asked Coleman if her agency had done any research into the decision not to save Lehman Brothers, which “sent shockwaves through the entire financial system,” Coleman said it had not.

“What about the $1 trillion plus expansion of the Federal reserve’s balance sheet since last September?” Grayson asked.

“We have different connotations,” Coleman replied. “We’re actually conducting a fairly high-level review of the various lending facilities collectively.”

Translation: Nobody at the Fed knows where the money went.

Do you know what who got the $1 trillion or more in the Fed’s expansion of its balance, Grayson pressed.

“I do not know. We have not looked at this specific area at the particular point on that specific review,” Coleman answer.

What about the trillions of off-balance transactions since last September, Grayson asked.

Coleman demurred again, saying the IG does not have jurisdiction to audit the Federal Reserve.

Grayson pointed out that it was the inspector general’s job to audit such spending and asked again if the office had done any investigation at all.

Coleman’s answer: Not enough yet to even respond. “We are in not a position to say if there losses.”

Grayson concluded, “I am shocked to find out that nobody at the Federal Reserve, including the inspector general, is keeping track of this.”

Meanwhile, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke says the bank is working on ways to rein in the massive balance sheet commitments.

“A majority of the members who made these projections just recently took 2 percent as being an appropriate number” for inflation, Bernanke said Monday.

“Somewhere between 1-1/2 to 2 percent is basically the number that our committee has individually stated is the appropriate medium-term inflation rate.

“To achieve that we need to demonstrate that we will be able to exit from the balance sheet position that we currently have, and have been working on this intensively,” Bernanke said in response to questions after a speech to a conference organized by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, reported by Reuters.

Source: Moneynews

Much of the material cited in the 9/11 Commission’s findings was derived from terror war detainees during brutal CIA interrogations authorized by the Bush administration, according to a Wednesday report.

“More than one-quarter of all footnotes in the 9/11 Report refer to CIA interrogations of al Qaeda operatives subjected to the now-controversial interrogation techniques,” writes former NBC producer Robert Windrem in The Daily Beast. “In fact, information derived from the interrogations was central to the 9/11 Report’s most critical chapters, those on the planning and execution of the attacks.”

“… [Information] derived from the interrogations is central to the Report’s most critical chapters, those on the planning and execution of the attacks,” reported NBC. “The analysis also shows – and agency and commission staffers concur – there was a separate, second round of interrogations in early 2004, done specifically to answer new questions from the Commission.

“9/11 Commission staffers say they ‘guessed’ but did not know for certain that harsh techniques had been used, and they were concerned that the techniques had affected the operatives’ credibility. At least four of the operatives whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report have claimed that they told interrogators critical information as a way to stop being ‘tortured.’ The claims came during their hearings last spring at the U.S. military facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.”

“Commission executive director Philip Zelikow (later counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice) admitted, ‘We were not aware, but we guessed, that things like that were going on. We were wary…we tried to find different sources to enhance our credibility,’” Windrem continued. “(Zelikow testified before the Senate on Wednesday, May 13, that he had argued in a 2005 memo that some of the tactics used on suspected terrorists violated the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.)”

He adds: “At least four operatives whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report have claimed that they told interrogators critical information as a way to stop being ‘tortured.’ Those claims came during their hearings in the spring of 2007 at the U.S. military facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.”

Philip Zelikow, a former colleague of then-National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, was appointed executive director of the 9/11 Commission despite his close ties to the Bush White House, and he remained in regular contact with Rove while overseeing the commission, according to New York Times reporter Philip Shenon’s new book, The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation.

Shenon, who led the Times coverage of the 9/11 Commission and still writes for the paper, based his book on myriad interviews with staffers and members of the commission, according to Holland. In addition to his ties to Rice and Rove, Zelikow had been the “architect” of a plan to demote Clinton-era counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, who sounded the alarm about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda months before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks they perpetrated.

Zelikow “had laid the groundwork for much of what went wrong at the White House in the weeks and months before September 11. Would he want people to know that?” Shenon writes, according to Holland’s summary.

Shenon also reports that Zelikow received at least two calls from Rove while serving as 9/11 Commission executive director, and he made numerous calls to the White House, Holland says.

Zelikow has not denied speaking to Rove, but he apparently claimed their conversations involved his old job as director of the University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs.

9/11 Commission members Thomas Kean and Lee H. Hamilton wrote that although US President George W. Bush had ordered all executive branch agencies to cooperate with the probe, “recent revelations that the CIA destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot.”

“Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.”

They continued: “There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the CIA — or the White House — of the commission’s interest in any and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11 plot.

“Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations,” Kean and Hamilton wrote.

They said the panel made repeated, detailed requests to the spy agency in 2003 and 2004 for information about the interrogation of members of the Islamic extremist network but were never notified about the existence of the tapes.

The CIA has since revealed that in 2005 it destroyed videotapes of prisoners being tortured.

“I’m not a lawyer and I’m not sure if they broke the law or not but what they did do, I think, is try to impede our investigation,” said Kean. “Because we asked for…anything to do with those detainees, because they were the ones who knew most about the plot of 9/11 and that was our mandate.”

He continued: “We asked for every single thing that they had, and then my vice chairman, Lee Hamilton, looked the director of the CIA in the face and said, ‘look, even if we haven’t asked for something, if it’s pertinent to our investigation, make it available to us.’ And our staff asked again and again of their staff and the tapes were not given to us. So there was no question.”

In a telephone survey of 1200 individuals, just 47% agreed that “the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is nonsense.” Almost as many, 45%, indicated they were more likely to agree “that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success.”

A number of widows of the victims of attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 said the 9/11 Commission was a failure for not addressing all the concerns and questions about the day’s events. They have called for a new, independent commission to probe the real history of that day.

Source: Raw Story

A document indicates that US banks were instructed to accept bailout money under the Bush administration, or face ‘exposure’.

Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson had warned nine US banks they would be obliged to accept USD 125 billion in government investments under any circumstances, according to a memo, published by Bloomberg on Wednesday.

Information only recently made available quotes Paulson as saying “If a capital infusion is not appealing, you should be aware that your regulator will require it in any circumstance,” to a gathering of lenders’ chief executive officers on 13th October, 2008.

“We don’t believe it is tenable to opt out, because doing so would leave you vulnerable and exposed,” he said.

Ten days earlier, the Bush administration had proposed buying USD 700 billion worth of bad mortgage debts (also know as toxic assets) – a bill that was approved by Congress.

The recent revelation has sparked controversy among many bankers and legal experts.

The president of Judicial Watch, Tom Fitton, termed the Treasury arrangement ‘thuggery’. “Most Americans are going to be uncomfortable with the government forcing the banks into this arrangement,” he said, Bloomberg reported.

Andrew Williams, a spokesman for the Treasury, has not commented on the issue.

Source: PressTV

The World Health Organization is investigating a claim by an Australian researcher that the swine flu virus circling the globe may have been created as a result of human error.

Adrian Gibbs, 75, who collaborated on research that led to the development of Roche Holding AG’s Tamiflu drug, said in an interview that he intends to publish a report suggesting the new strain may have accidentally evolved in eggs scientists use to grow viruses and drugmakers use to make vaccines. Gibbs said he came to his conclusion as part of an effort to trace the virus’s origins by analyzing its genetic blueprint.

“One of the simplest explanations is that it’s a laboratory escape,” Gibbs said in an interview with Bloomberg Television today. “But there are lots of others.”

The World Health Organization received the study last weekend and is reviewing it, Keiji Fukuda, the agency’s assistant director-general of health security and environment, said in an interview May 11. Gibbs, who has studied germ evolution for four decades, is one of the first scientists to analyze the genetic makeup of the virus that was identified three weeks ago in Mexico and threatens to touch off the first flu pandemic since 1968.

A virus that resulted from lab experimentation or vaccine production may indicate a greater need for security, Fukuda said. By pinpointing the source of the virus, scientists also may better understand the microbe’s potential for spreading and causing illness, Gibbs said.

Possible Mistake

“The sooner we get to grips with where it’s come from, the safer things might become,” Gibbs said by phone from Canberra yesterday. “It could be a mistake” that occurred at a vaccine production facility or the virus could have jumped from a pig to another mammal or a bird before reaching humans, he said.

Gibbs and two colleagues analyzed the publicly available sequences of hundreds of amino acids coded by each of the flu virus’s eight genes. He said he aims to submit his three-page paper today for publication in a medical journal.

“You really want a very sober assessment” of the science behind the claim, Fukuda said May 11 at the WHO’s Geneva headquarters.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta has received the report and has decided there is no evidence to support Gibbs’s conclusion, said Nancy Cox, director of the agency’s influenza division. She said since researchers don’t have samples of swine flu viruses from South America and Africa, where the new strain may have evolved, those regions can’t be ruled out as natural sources for the new flu.

No Evidence

“We are interested in the origins of this new influenza virus,” Cox said. “But contrary to what the author has found, when we do the comparisons that are most relevant, there is no evidence that this virus was derived by passage in eggs.”

The WHO’s collaborative influenza research centers, which includes the CDC, and sites in Memphis, Melbourne, London and Tokyo, were asked by the international health agency to review the study over the weekend, Fukuda said. The request was extended to scientists at the Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome, the World Organization for Animal Health in Paris, as well as the WHO’s influenza network, he said.

“My guess is that the picture should be a lot clearer over the next few days,” Fukuda said. “We have asked a lot of people to look at this.”

Continued at Bloomberg