bin Ladin’s Bodyguard Transferred to SA from Gitmo

Usama bin Ladin’s bodyguard is transferred to Saudi Arabia.

Full detainee file is here.

  1. (S//NF) Personal Information:
  • JDIMS/NDRC Reference Name: Abdul Shalabi
  • Current/True Name and Aliases: Abd al-Rahman Shalbi Isa

Uwaydah, Abdul Haq Rahman, Saqr al-Madani, Mahmud

Abd Aziz al-Mujahid

  • Place of Birth: Medina, Saudi Arabia (SA)
  • Date of Birth: 4 December 1975
  • Citizenship: Saudi Arabia
  • Internment Serial Number (ISN): US9SA-000042DP
  1. (U//FOUO) Health: Detainee is in good health.
  2. (U) JTF-GTMO Assessment:
  3. (S) Recommendation: JTF-GTMO recommends this detainee for Continued Detention

Under DoD Control (CD). JTF-GTMO previously recommended detainee for Continued

Detention Under DoD Control (CD) on 26 October 2007.

  1. (S//NF) Executive Summary: Detainee is a member of al-Qaida and a long-term bodyguard for Usama Bin Laden (UBL), serving in that position beginning in 1999.

Detainee received specialized close combat training for his role as a suicide operative in an aborted component of the 11 September 2001 al-Qaida attacks. Detainee participated in hostilities against US and Coalition forces and was captured with a group referred to as the Dirty 30, which included UBL bodyguards and an assessed 20th 11 September 2001 hijacker.

Detainee received basic militant and advanced training at al-Qaida associated training camps.

 

October 6 & 22, Benghazi Cmte, Popcorn Buttered?

More emails surface in Hillary Clinton Benghazi probe

Politico: More previously-undisclosed State Department emails related to Benghazi have surfaced in a federal court filing, offering a public accounting of at least some of the records still being sought by congressional investigators.

The filing Monday in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the conservative group Citizens United describes about a dozen Benghazi-related emails that were withheld in whole or in part as State responded to one of the group’s requests seeking information about contacts between a top aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and officials with the Clinton Foundation.
Most of the documents also appear to have been withheld from the House Select Committee on Benghazi, which is investigating State’s response to the attack. The committee is scheduled to take public testimony from Clinton on Oct. 22.

A panel spokesman said he could not immediately confirm which of the documents had been turned over to the committee, but Citizens United President David Bossie told reporters staffers at the House panel told the group State never produced the records to Congress.

“To the best of their knowledge, the do not have these documents either, even though they are under subpoena for an extended period of time,” Bossie told reporters outside U.S. District Court in Washington after a hearing on the suit.

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach told POLITICO there is no effort to impede congressional probes.

“The Department has made every effort to cooperate with the Benghazi Committee, providing 32 witnesses for interviews and over 70,000 pages of documents, including over 20,000 pages in the last month alone,” Gerlach said. “We will continue to respond to the Benghazi Committee’s requests, but as they mount and modify over time, so too must we plan accordingly for the time and resources they consume.”

In the new court filing, State Department official John Hackett said nearly all the Benghazi-related emails involved in the FOIA lawsuit involve deliberations among State officials about how to respond to Benghazi-related congressional inquiries.

In several high profile cases, including the ill-fated Operation Fast and Furious gunrunning investigation, the Obama Administration has defended its right to keep confidential its internal discussions about House and Senate investigations. The administration has also sought to extend that confidentiality to cover responses to media inquiries prompted by congressional probes.

In June, while producing records to congressional committees, the State Department confirmed it was holding back some Benghazi documents.

“A small number of documents implicate important Executive Branch institutional interests and are therefore not included in this production,” Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affiairs Anna Frifield wrote in a letter to the House Benghazi panel.

However, House staffers said the diplomatic agency has repeatedly rebuffed requests for a log of documents State is withholding. The FOIA lawsuits provide a vehicle to force the agency to identify those emails, although the substance of the messages is not disclosed.

At the court hearing Tuesday, a federal judge pressed the State Department to move more quickly to process documents requested by Citizens United and others who have been demanding records relating to Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state .

“I think there has to be some reallocation of resources, because these are atypical cases,” U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said. “This case is important to the public. The public is clamoring for information. Everyone is clamoring for information.”

After Sullivan derided State’s approach as “business as usual,” Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Shapiro insisted that State’s 63.5-member FOIA processing staff has been working long hours and weekends in “demoralizing” conditions to publish emails from Clinton’s account as well as records sought in about 100 pending FOIA lawsuits and thousands of pending FOIA requests.
“I just want to assure the court that it’s not business as usual,” Shapiro declared. “The State Department’s being crushed by obligations.”

Much of the hearing was spent discussing why the State Department failed to complete searches of emails provided by former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills and Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin by a court-ordered deadline of September 13.

Sullivan seemed to waver on how culpable State was for delays, sometimes suggesting that the agency had to wait for the cooperation of its former employees and at other points suggesting that State was being sluggish.

The judge initially attributed the delay to “foot-dragging” by Mills and Abedin in response to requests from their former agency. However, he quickly withdrew that accusation.
“So, there was foot-dragging on their part–well, there was delay. I can’t say there was foot-dragging,” Sullivan said.

Justice Department attorney Caroline Anderson insisted that the State Department was only obliged to produce records in its possession at the time the search began, so records turned over later by Mills and Abedin were not technically covered by the FOIA requests filed last year for records of contacts between top Clinton aides and officials with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, a private consulting firm with connections to former President Bill Clinton.

“The State Department is in compliance with every order of this court,” Anderson said.

Anderson proposed that State have until December 9 to locate and process relevant records from Mills’ and Abedin’s accounts, but eventually said it was just “the State Department’s hope” to get it done by then. That seemed to irritate Sullivan.

“How long does it take you to run a computer search?” the judge asked. “Someone pushes a button. I’m not minimizing it, but it’s a computer search.”

Citizens United attorney Matthew McGill insisted that State knew or should have known weeks ago if it was going to have trouble meeting the deadline. “They should have come to the court then….Instead, they waited,” McGill said. “That was a tactical decision on their part. It was meant to delay.”

Anderson asked that State have a month to finish the computer-based searches and then more time to review the content of the documents for sensitive national security information and other details subject to withholding. But the judge said a shorter timeline was necessary.

Sullivan ordered State to finish the searches by October 2 and set a hearing four days later.

Bossie said State’s sluggish response was part and parcel of an effort to benefit Clinton’s Democratic presidential bid by kicking the issue down the road.

“Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills have taken the specific strategy and tactics just like they did in the 90s–the same people the same strategies–to drag these efforts out, to drag out congressional committees, to frustrate justice and to frustrate the American people from getting information so that people ask questions like: ‘This has been going on for three years and don’t we know everything and isn’t this a rehash?” the conservative activist said. “That is their deliberate strategy. They’ve been doing this for 20 years…..the same Clinton playbook is played over and over and over again.”

Clinton campaign spokesmen and attorneys for Abedin did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Mills’s lawyer, Beth Wilkinson, called Bossie’s claim of deliberate delay “untrue.”

 

 

 

 

 

Bernie Sanders Donors: Labor and Shady

The top donors for Bernie Sanders are labor unions and organizations.

PACs rule campaigns today, of this there is no exception. Candidates are called to tow their lobby line for money and access. Bernie loyalists have a dark side, a criminal side.

New filing raises more questions about shady pro-Bernie Sanders group

Sanders campaign has decried Americans Socially United super PAC

PublicIntegrity: Americans Socially United, a super PAC that recently received nearly $50,000 from James Bond actor Daniel Craig, has submitted its first official campaign finance report to the Federal Election Commission.

And it’s a mess: The report from the group that claims to support presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders is riddled with anomalies and raises as many questions as it answers.

The filing by Americans Socially United — whose founder, Cary Lee Peterson, has a history of financial and legal problems and is a wanted man in Arizona — came nearly seven weeks after the mandatory report was due and a week after the Center for Public Integrity raised questions about the super PAC’s operations.

The money from Craig appears to have come at a critical time for Americans Socially United, as the super PAC’s new report states it ended June about $50,000 in the red.

The new report further indicates Americans Socially United had raised about $100,000 from its formation in February through the end of June, although the exact amount is unclear.

That’s because one section of the report lists the super PAC’s total receipts as about $91,000, while other figures indicate it collected about $114,000.

Americans Socially United also states in its report that it refunded a significant portion of the money it collected. But the exact amount is again unclear.

One section of the report states the super PAC refunded about $54,000 in total to donors. Yet another indicates that that number is higher — nearly $80,000 — including $50,000 from a foreign national identified as Alejandro Fernandez of La Paz and $25,000 from a second foreigner simply identified as Anthony Rice.

Only U.S. citizens and green card holders are allowed to donate to federal candidates and political committees.

The report includes the names of about 30 donors but failed to provide federally required information about their addresses, employers and occupations.

Other donations were returned because Peterson’s super PAC got the money by mistake. Some contributions were intended for Sanders’ official campaign, the filing indicates.

Until recently, Americans Socially United listed the names of more than 500 people on its website who had donated, or pledged to give, to the group.

When contacted by the Center for Public Integrity, several of them said they thought they were contributing to the official campaign committee of Sanders, who has himself disavowed all super PAC support as he challenges Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party presidential nomination.

The Sanders campaign — which has itself collected $2,700 from Craig — even sent Americans Socially United a cease and desist letter in June demanding that Peterson curtail his operation.

Peterson has largely ignored the letter’s demands, which include taking down his social media pages and websites, which include BetonBernie.com, BetonBernie2016.com, PledgeSanders2016.com and SociallyUnited.org.

Among the super PAC’s biggest expenses during its first months of existence? Media, although the filing doesn’t offer many details.

Americans Socially United paid a company called EMW Services about $24,500 for “media services,” according to the report.

Two other donors — one from Naples, Florida, and one from Montreal — are listed as making in-kind contributions to cover five-figure media expenses.

Americans Socially United also paid $4,875 to Peterson’s own company — Robert Peterson Fields Associates — for unspecified “professional services” and spent about $2,500 on airline tickets, rental cars and hotels.

Reached via email, Peterson declined to comment for this story.

In a statement included with his super PAC filing, Peterson said he has been a “target of cyber-industrial sabotage and alleged acts of criminal syndicalism committed by specific financial service providers, a financial institution, web service providers and independent contractors.”

Earlier this month, Peterson declined to comment about the two active warrants out for his arrest in Arizona. Both stem from Peterson failing to appear in court for misdemeanor cases, including a disorderly conduct charge and an “extreme DUI” conviction.

Peterson has also routinely run afoul of creditors, as the Center for Public Integrity recently reported.

He most notably stiffed Dow Jones & Co. out of nearly $170,000 after one of his companies failed to pay for advertisements in the Wall Street Journal.

Moreover, Peterson’s been evicted twice from apartments in Texas in recent years for failing to pay rent.

Peterson told the Center for Public Integrity earlier this month that his past run-ins with the law were not relevant to the work he’s doing now — and that he started Americans Socially United because he’s just a fan of Sanders.

“You don’t need to look back on my past,” Peterson said. “I’m going out there trying to make a difference.”

Campaign finance watchdogs have raised concerns about Peterson’s activities, and the FEC has already told him that his group could face “civil money penalties, an audit or legal enforcement action” for his tardy campaign finance filing.

Ann Ravel, the Democrat who currently serves as the FEC’s chairwoman, told the Center for Public Integrity that she couldn’t speak directly to the actions of Peterson or his super PAC, as the agency does not comment on organizations that it might be actively investigating.

But she expressed general concerns about what she calls “sham PACs,” which primarily exist not to support a political candidate or cause, but the personal bank accounts of the people running the super PACs.

She also issued a warning to people to people considering making a contribution to a super PAC they don’t know much about.

“Make sure the organization you’re giving to is fulfilling the purpose for which you’re giving money,” Ravel said. “It would behoove people to talk to the actual candidate’s committees first” if they’re unsure about a super PAC purporting to support the candidate.

Matthew Petersen, the FEC’s Republican vice chairman, said that in general, people who want to contribute to a candidate’s campaign committee should take care to ensure they’re sending their money to the correct place.

“You really need to be sure to read the disclaimers that indicate whether a committee is an authorized committee” of a particular candidate, Petersen said.

He also said the FEC itself could also review the effectiveness of its regulations and guidance on how unauthorized committees may — or may not — incorporate political candidates’ names into their own.

Save for a few narrow exceptions, super PACs and other political committees are barred from using candidates’ names.

But the FEC hasn’t aggressively enforced these provisions, and a number of groups — chief among them pro-Carly Fiorina super PAC Conservative, Authentic, Responsive Leadership for You and for America, which routinely goes by CARLY for America — have seemingly danced on the fuzzy line between what’s legal and what’s not.

Peterson has also created seven other political committees this year, including several with seemingly official sounding names such as the Congressional Committee on Cuban Affairs and the Congressional Committee on Eurasian Affairs.

None of those groups have yet to file their mandatory mid-year campaign finance reports that were due on July 31.

***

When it comes to standing with government employees, Bernie Sanders in solidarity of increasing the minimum wage. He joined the strike.

Truths Surface via Whistleblowers on Intel Reports

In part from JC Chairman Dempsey in position closing words:

It has to be understood at the highest levels. “When I talk to my peers in the military and when I talk to our elected officials, I talk about options and I talk about whether we’re in a period that requires either a bias for action or a bias for inaction,” he said. “But what we can’t allow is this proliferation of information to do is generate an almost insatiable appetite for more information and more options, which can actually paralyze the system.”

People want an exquisite solution, the chairman explained, and they often believe that with just a bit more information and a bit more time that a perfect solution exists. “What I’m suggesting is, as I pass the torch of the chairmanship to [Marine Corps] Gen. [Joseph] Dunford, I think that reality of making strategy in public and the risk of paralysis is much more real than it was when I became the chairman, and I can only imagine how that environment could change over the next four years.”

Whistleblower: Iraq intel ‘grossly thrown’ aside

WashingtonExaminer:

Reports about terror activity in Iraq have been “grossly thrown to the side” by officials in U.S. Central Command since the death of Osama bin Laden in 2011, according to a former Army official with the command, in an attempt to paint a rosy picture of the coalition’s efforts in the Middle East.

Retired Army Sgt. 1st Class William Kotel told the Washington Examiner that he was pushed out of his position after raising concerns about “missing pieces” in reports for Central Command, which oversees U.S. military operations in the Middle East. He had attempted to include in his official reports information about an Iraqi target that had allegedly stolen U.S. money from the Central Bank of Iraq. But the intelligence was stripped from his final report at the behest of his superiors, he said.

Since it was first reported that dozens of intelligence analysts have accused Central Command of downplaying information that suggested terrorist groups such as the Islamic State were making strategic gains, five congressional committees have opened investigations into the matter, on top of a probe by the Pentagon’s inspector general.

Kotel, who was noncommissioned officer in charge of the Joint Targets Enterprise, said warnings about imminent terror attacks in Iraq were required to be routed through a maze of Pentagon channels, a process that could take weeks, instead of communicated directly with military units in harm’s way.

He said the policy of substituting economic or environmental information for terror-related intelligence in reports was never made explicit by Central Command’s leadership, but that he and his colleagues had “implied orders” not to report facts on the ground in Iraq.

The problem, Kotel said, is not necessarily that final reports were being edited for political reasons. Instead, it’s that key intelligence wasn’t allowed in those reports in the first place.

Kotel said it was “really disheartening” when credible intelligence about terror activity was discarded.

“They’ve spent more money and time trying to push down this intelligence … than they have actually spending time and effort on real security,” he said.

Bridget Serchak, a spokeswoman for the Pentagon’s inspector general, declined to answer questions about when the probe was opened or when it would conclude, but said the investigation is underway.

“The investigation will address whether there was any falsification, distortion, delay, suppression, or improper modification of intelligence information; any deviations from appropriate process, procedures, or internal controls regarding the intelligence analysis,” Serchak said.

She noted there would be “personal accountability for any misconduct or failure to follow established processes.”

Two Senate and three House committees are now investigating the matter as well.

A spokesman for Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, confirmed her committee had met with a whistleblower about the issue.

Senate Armed Services Chairman. John McCain said his committee is investigating the whistleblower’s claims as well.

“This committee is disturbed by recent whistleblower allegations that officials at Central Command skewed intelligence assessments to paint an overly rosy picture of conditions on the ground,” the Arizona Republican said during a hearing last week.

Gen. Lloyd Austin, head of Central Command, told the committee he would “take appropriate action” if the Defense Department’s inspector general found evidence of wrongdoing.

“Because the allegations are currently under investigation, it would be premature and inappropriate for me to discuss this matter,” Austin said during the hearing. “I cannot speak to the specifics of the allegations.”

A bipartisan group of lawmakers has urged the Pentagon to conduct an anonymous survey of intelligence analysts throughout the Defense Department to get a sense of the political pressures those analysts might face.

In a letter to Defense Secretary Ash Carter, two Democrats and two Republicans in the House pressed Pentagon leadership to shield whistleblowers involved in the investigation from retaliation.

Reps. Jackie Speier and Mike Thompson, both Democrats, and Reps. Duncan Hunter and Mike Coffman, both Republicans, signed the letter, which was obtained by the Examiner.

The lawmakers asked the Pentagon to report to Congress any instances of potential retaliation against whistleblowers involved in the complaint.

They pushed Carter to arrange regular briefings on the inspector general’s investigation of the intelligence tampering for “interested members” of the House Armed Services Committee and the House Intelligence Committee.

Retaliation against whistleblowers?

Hunter sent another letter to Jon Rymer, Pentagon inspector general, urging the watchdog to look into instances of retaliation against soldiers who may be attempting to speak to Congress on behalf of Sgt. Charles Martland, who is being removed from his post after confronting an Afghan police commander who had kidnapped and raped a young boy.

The Army imposed gag orders on soldiers who wanted to reach out to members of Congress, Hunter said.

But the problem extends beyond Martland’s case. The Army has a reputation for silencing whistleblowers, the California Republican wrote in his letter last week.

What’s more, the Pentagon inspector general has in the past shared information with the Army that has then been used as fodder against officials who report wrongdoing.

Because some of the whistleblowers who raised concerns about the intelligence reports are from the Army, the congressman is concerned that the military branch could discover the identities of analysts who alerted the inspector general to the tainted intelligence reports and attempt to take action against them.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. Ron DeSantis, chairman of Oversight’s National Security Subcommittee, asked Carter last week for more information about the military intelligence reports on the Islamic State’s progress.

DeSantis said the oversight committee “is taking these reports very seriously” and vowed to “investigate fully.”

Maj. Genieve David, spokesperson for Central Command, said the agency “welcomes” the inspector general review.

“While we cannot comment on the specific investigation cited in the article, we can speak to the process,” David said.

She noted security assessments are based on a collection of intelligence from a variety of sources, including from military commanders on the ground and from “key” advisers.

“The multi-source nature of the assessment process purposely guards against any single report or opinion unduly influencing leaders and decision-makers,” David said.

She declined to comment on allegations that the Central Command intelligence team focused on Iraq had been pressured to leave certain information out of their reports.

The intense congressional scrutiny of the intelligence reports, especially those that involve the Islamic State, has renewed criticism of the Obama administration’s strategy to combat extremism in the Middle East.

Lawmakers are escalating their calls for a review of the president’s plan for the Islamic State, with many voicing concern that airstrikes in Syria and Iraq are not effectively deterring the terrorist organization.

*** One piece of good news:

 

Cook confirmed the Sept. 10 death of senior ISIL leader Abu Bakr al Turkmani and the July 5 death of French national David Drugeon, an al-Qaida operative and explosives expert.

The press secretary said the coalition airstrike that killed Turkmani near Tal Afar, Iraq, “will help disrupt ISIL operations in the Tal Afar area and shows that their leadership is not beyond the coalition’s reach.”

Disrupting ISIL

Turkmani, an ISIL administrative amir, was part of al-Qaida in Iraq before joining ISIL and was a close associate of many ISIL senior leaders in Iraq, Cook said. Drugeon, killed by a coalition airstrike near Aleppo, Syria, belonged to a network of veteran al-Qaida operatives sometimes called the Khorasan group, who are plotting attacks against the United States, its allies and partners, Cook told reporters.

“As an explosives expert, he trained other extremists in Syria and sought to plan external attacks against Western targets,” the press secretary said.

The action, he added, will degrade and destroy ongoing al-Qaida external operations against the United States, its allies and partners. Read more detail here.

 

Senate Democrats, the Pope, Climate Change, Oil Investments

Back in April of 2015, The Vatican held a one days summit on Climate Change where Jeffrey Sachs was the keynote speaker.

For Pope Francis, he has his own ‘green agenda’ and is quite outspoken in this global issue.

He has become an outspoken advocate on environmental issues, saying acting on climate change is “essential to faith”and calling the destruction of nature a modern sin. He has vowed to only increase pressure on world leaders after his disappointment with the Lima climate talks. He is hoping that his encyclical will influence the climate talks in Paris at the end of the year.

Just in time for the Pope’s visit, enter the Senate Democrats and the climate change legislation they have introduced today.

Reuters: U.S. Senate Democrats on Tuesday unveiled energy legislation designed to hasten America’s adoption of cleaner energy, slash greenhouse gas emissions below the Obama administration’s goal, and help their party attract young voters in the 2016 elections.

The bill, announced by Senate Democratic party leaders and the energy committee’s top Democrat, Senator Maria Cantwell, laid out the party’s vision for cutting emissions at least 34 percent by 2025.

It contrasts with a Republican approach focused on increased oil and gas production. Senator Chuck Schumer, who is expected to take over as the Senate Democratic leader from Senator Harry Reid, called it “a refreshing reprieve from the tired Republican mantra of ‘drill baby, drill.’

Although the bill has no prospect of passing in a Republican-controlled Congress, Democrats hope voters will approve of the preview of their energy policy approach if they regain control of the Senate in 2016.

Democrats said the focus on clean energy will appeal to younger voters.

“This is going to be a huge issue in the 2016 campaign,” Schumer said at the news conference.

The bill would mandate a national reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by at least 2 percent each year through 2025. That would surpass the administration’s target of a reduction of 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by that year.

United Nations-sponsored talks on fighting climate change are scheduled to begin Nov. 30 in Paris.

So, could there be some real hypocrisy in all of this? You betcha. Throughout the United States, the Catholic church is deeply invested in drilling leases and holds stock in oil companies. The revenue is astounding for the church.

Reuters: Yet in the heart of U.S. oil country several dioceses and other Catholic institutions are leasing out drilling rights to oil and gas companies to bolster their finances, Reuters has found.

And in one archdiocese — Oklahoma City — Church officials have signed three new oil and gas leases since Francis’s missive on the environment, leasing documents show.

On Francis’ first visit to the United States this week, the business dealings suggest that some leaders of the U.S. Catholic Church are practicing a different approach to the environment than the pontiff is preaching.

Catholic institutions are not forbidden from dealing with or investing in the energy industry. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) guidelines on ethical investing warn Catholics and Catholic institutions against investing in companies related to abortion, contraception, pornography, tobacco, and war, but do not suggest avoiding energy stocks, and do not address the ownership of energy production interests.

A Reuters review of county documents found 235 oil and gas leasing deals signed by Catholic Church authorities in Texas and Oklahoma with energy and land firms since 2010, covering 56 counties across the two states. None of the Texas leases in the review were signed after the pope’s encyclical.

Those two states have been at the forefront of a boom in U.S. energy production in recent years, often through the controversial hydraulic fracturing production method, known as fracking.

There are other curious investments by the Vatican while most of the financial reports are never reported publically.

Holy See Revenue and Investments
In order to gain an understanding of the complex economy of the Vatican, it is important to establish the differences between Vatican City and the Holy See. The Holy See is the governing body of the nation. If you entered into a contract with the territory, you would do it with the Holy See, in most cases. Vatican City is the physical area where the Holy See resides.

The Holy See generates revenue from Peter’s Pence, an 8th Century term for donations that are received from Catholics all over the world. From individuals to dioceses, the Holy See collects the donations through a special department. The Holy See also gains revenue from interest and investments of its reserves.

Historically, the Holy See invested mainly in Italian industries, spreading its portfolio between stocks and bonds, and limiting its stake in companies to less than 6%. It has invested conservatively, choosing to buy and hold proven companies in strong industries; because of this, investments in the developing world are limited.

More recent investments have been more international, however, particularly in western European currencies and bonds, with some activity in the New York Stock Exchange. The Holy See also has investments in real estate around the world, particularly in land and churches.
There are some investments that the Holy See won’t make however; no investments are made in companies that go against church values, such as pharmaceutical companies that manufacture birth control.

Vatican City Revenue and Banking
The Vatican, by contrast, receives revenue from more traditional stately ventures. There are no formal tourism efforts but the Vatican also collects revenue through museum admissions, tours, highly sought-after stamps and coins and the sale of publications.

Vatican City, on the other hand, was $27 million in the black after 5 million visitors toured in 2012, buying up collectibles and visiting museums.

In January, the Bank of Italy conducted routine inspections and found that Deutsche Bank Italia hadn’t sought proper authorization to process credit card transactions on behalf of the Vatican.

When Deutsche Bank asked for permission, it was turned down due to the Vatican not meeting anti-money laundering standards. The Vatican said that it’s scrambling to meet all provisions to restore credit card payments but as of now, it’s cash only if you’re visiting.