Cain atop the Republican heap in several polls despite sexual harassment claims
Romney calls Iran Obama's 'greatest failure' and urged pre-emptive action
Gingrich: 'You take whatever steps are necessary to break their capacity'
Cain endorses waterboarding, calling it 'enhanced interrogation', not torture
Rick Perry says his foreign aid budget will start at 'zero dollars'
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 2:06 PM on 13th November 2011
In spite of multiple sexual harassment claims, most U.S. polls have Herman Cain at the top of the Republican heap, but can he keep it going?
An AARP poll Friday night shows the former pizza boss over GOP rival Mitt Romney, 25 per cent to 22 per cent in Iowa.
In South Carolina, he edges the former Massachusetts governor 28 per cent to 27 per cent.
Cain is reportedly a close second in the next crucial state, Florida - where the former Godfather's Pizza CEO enjoys strong Tea Party support.
Charles Bullock, a political scientist at the University of Georgia, told the New York Daily News: 'No one believed he’d get as far as he has and yet he’s still in this thing.'
He added: 'A lot of voters see him as being authentic and a straight-talker. He's not a politician, and that’s a strength right now.'
A CBS poll has Cain and Romney in a three-way tie with Newt Gingrich, who’s gaining ground thanks to two solid debate appearances this week.
Last night, Romney and Gingrich both used the presidential debate on foreign policy to back a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to stop the country obtaining nuclear weapons.
Romney said that if 'crippling sanctions' failed, war would be an option because it is 'unacceptable' for Iran to become a nuclear power, while ex-House Speaker Gingrich argued the United States should covertly 'take out their scientists,' and 'break up their systems'.
'If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if you elect Mitt Romney, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon,' vowed Romney.
The Republican presidential hopefuls were unanimously critical of Barack Obama during the sparring session, but they disagreed over the right course in Afghanistan and the use of waterboarding.
On waterboarding, Cain and Rep Michele Bachmann both said they would reinstate the technique designed to simulate drowning.
High-flying Cain went one step further, adding that he would leave it up to military leaders - rather than their civilian superiors - to decide what forms of interrogation amount to torture, which he said he opposes.
As for the war in Afghanistan, former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman and Representative Ron Paul of Texas both said it was time for U.S. troops to come home after a combat mission of 10 years duration.
While the Republicans were talking about foreign policy, President Obama was on the world stage, as America's diplomat in chief.
After meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Hawaii, he said the two men intend to 'shape a common response' to new allegations that Iran has been covertly trying to build a nuclear bomb.
The issue is fraught because the regime in Tehran is harshly anti-Israel, a nation the United States has pledged to defend.
If the presidential trip gave the Republicans pause, they didn't show it in a 90-minute debate.
'There are a number of ways to be smart about Iran, and a few ways to be stupid. The administration skipped all the ways to be smart,' said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
The debate occurred less than two months before the formal selection of national convention delegates begins on January 3 in the Iowa caucuses, with the race remarkably unsettled.
Romney has been at or near the top of the public opinion polls for months, while a succession of rivals vying to emerge as his principal challenger has risen and fallen in turn.
The latest soundings show Cain the current leader in that sweepstakes, although Gingrich has risen significantly in national polls in recent weeks as Perry has fallen back.
And while the subject matter of defense and foreign policy didn't readily lend itself to a discussion of the principal campaign controversies, the race has had plenty of them in the past two weeks.
Cain has stoutly denied any and all charges of sexual harassment - four women have leveled accusations - while Perry embarked on an apology tour after failing in a debate Wednesday night to remember the name of the third of three Cabinet-level departments he wants to abolish.
The debate at Wofford College was crisp, and any attempts to score points off a rival lacked the personal antagonism of earlier encounters.
The tone was set at the outset, when the Republicans were asked if they would support a pre-emptive strike to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Gingrich quickly agreed with Romney, saying that if all other steps failed, 'you have to take whatever steps are necessary' to prevent the Islamic regime from gaining a nuclear weapon.
Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania agreed. Noting that a mysterious computer virus had caused disruption inside Iran's nuclear labs, and that Iranian scientists have been killed in recent months, he said, 'I hope that the U.S. has been involved' in those and other covert actions.
Paul wanted no part of a military strike. 'It's not worthwhile to go to war,' he said. He added said that if America's security is threatened the president must ask Congress for a formal declaration of war before taking military action.
Perry responded without answering the question. 'This country can sanction the Iranian central bank right now and shut down that country's economy, and that's what the president needs to do,' he said.
The United States has long had sanctions in place against Iran, and Obama's news conference in Hawaii suggested there will soon be more.
The war in Afghanistan produced the same range of responses as the question relating to Iran's nuclear ambitions - unanimous criticism of the president but differences among the Republicans seeking to take his place.
Huntsman, who served as Obama's first ambassador to China, said it was time to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan, a land where their boots first touched the soil a decade ago. 'I say it's time to come home. I say this nation has achieved its key objectives,' he said.
Romney and Perry said they would side with military commanders on the ground about when to withdraw troops. They criticized Obama for 'telegraphing' the nation's intentions.
Yet Romney backed a timetable of a complete withdrawal by the end of 2014, the same that Obama has cited.
Obama's would-be successors differed on waterboarding, as well, the interrogation technique that former President George W. Bush authorized and Obama has banned.
While Cain and Bachmann both said they would reinstate the technique, Huntsman said use of the procedure diminishes U.S. standing in the world and Paul said it is illegal.
Romney wasn't asked directly, but said he would 'use whatever means necessary to protect America.'
Perry said: 'This is war. That's what happens in war. I'm for using the techniques, not torture, but using those techniques that we know will extract the information to save young Americans' lives - and will be for it until I die.'
IRAN
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney warned that only his administration could prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
'If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon,' Romney said. 'And if we elect Mitt Romney, if you'd like me as the next president, they will not have a nuclear weapon.'
Herman Cain said he supports regime change in Iran, but stopped short of threatening military action. He favours moving warships to the region to deter Iran and would support the resistance to Tehran to overthrow the regime.
Texas Governor Rick Perry said America should sanction the Iranian central bank to 'shut down that country's economy. And that's what the president needs to do.'
And rival Ron Paul, a congressman from Texas, says any use of force against Iran would require approval from Congress.
___
PERRY'S GAFFE
Perry poked fun at himself again for forgetting about the Department of Energy during the last debate when he tried to name the three agencies he'd cut.
On this night, Perry said he was glad that moderator Scott Pelley of CBS News remembered to ask him about the Energy Department. The moderator said he's had some time to think about it.
'Me too,' Perry cracked back, drawing laughs from the knowing audience.
___
DON'T BAIT NEWT
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich — who is rising in polls — refused to take the bait when asked to evaluate former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who leads the GOP field in polls.
'No,' Gingrich said.
When the moderator noted that Gingrich had been willing to criticise Romney the night before, Gingrich responded: 'Yesterday, I was on a national radio show.'
He took a pass on this night, adding: 'We're here tonight talking about how every one of us is better than President Obama.'
Gingrich called Romney 'a friend who's a great businessman' and 'a great improvement over Obama.'
___
HOME STATE SENATORS
Toward the end of the debate, South Carolina's junior and senior U.S. senator took over the questioning — and used the opportunity to raise their pet issues.
Senator Lindsay Graham pressed the candidates on the prison for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as well as on interrogation techniques and military tribunals — topics he's long worked on in the Senate.
Senetor Jim DeMint asked the candidates what programs they'd cut to bring down the debt — perhaps the top issue among fans of the tea party.
___
WHAT YOU DIDN'T SEE ON TV
As the debate began, someone shouted: 'The military loves Ron Paul!'
Mark Sanford, the former South Carolina governor who left office in disgrace after acknowledging an affair with an Argentine woman, was on hand.
Gingrich got a strong reaction from the crowd with one word: 'No.' He refused to criticise Romney in front of this audience as he did earlier this week in questioning Romney's ability to think outside the box.
Monday, November 14, 2011
The US is to China what Italy and Greece are to Germany
The euro zone and yuan-dollar currency systems point to the looming valuation and consumer demand problems facing the trading partners
Tom Holland
Nov 11, 2011
It was "risk-off" all over again in Asia yesterday. Stock markets across the region tumbled after Italian government bond yields entered the perceived default danger zone above 7 per cent....
Tom Holland
Nov 11, 2011
It was "risk-off" all over again in Asia yesterday. Stock markets across the region tumbled after Italian government bond yields entered the perceived default danger zone above 7 per cent....
Big banks binge on Bush-Obama venture socialism
Obama uses taxpayers $$ to cover the 1% he hates?
by Timothy P. Carney
Senior Political Columnist
Largely out of the media spotlight, the federal government operates a network of financial subsidy programs that benefit big banks by putting taxpayer money at risk. And President Obama, that self-styled populist scourge of Wall Street, is increasing this racket of private profit and public risk that Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) aptly dubbed "venture socialism."
In its latest act of venture socialism, the Obama administration has offered a novel taxpayer backstop to General Electric, the multinational industrial conglomerate that is famously close to this administration, and that spends more on federal lobbying than any other company. The government accessory in this instance is the Export-Import Bank of the United States, a federal agency that finances U.S. exports at taxpayer risk.
Ex-Im exists to subsidize U.S. businesses, with most of the subsidy dollars facilitating Boeing sales. Other industrial titans like GE, Bechtel, and General Dynamics devour most of the rest of the Ex-Im subsidy pie. But manufacturers aren't the only beneficiaries of this little-known federal agency -- banks profit from it, too. For instance, when Ex-Im recently approved $1 billion in financing to subsidize Pemex, Mexico's government-owned oil company, 3M and other U.S. exporters of oil-field equipment benefited, but so did some big banks. Bank of America and JP Morgan financed these sales, and so if Pemex defaults, it's these megabanks the U.S. taxpayer will be bailing out.
Now Obama has created a new Ex-Im subsidy for banks. The name is a mouthful: "The Supply-Chain Finance Guarantee Program."
Here's how to understand what's going on: Imagine I'm a shoe exporter. I ship shoes to stores in Europe, and then I wait a few weeks to get paid by the stores. But what if more orders come in, and I need to restock the shoes right away, before I get paid for my last shipment? I could just borrow from a bank. But another option is that I can just sell my invoices, in effect, to the bank. If the shoe stores owe me $1,000, I might sell Citibank, for $950, the right to be paid by those shoe stores. That's called supply-chain finance, and it's a quintessential capitalist arrangement.
But in the midst of this commerce among banks, exporters, and importers, Barack Obama has inserted the unwitting U.S. taxpayer. As part of his Export Initiative aimed at doubling U.S. exports in five years, the Supply-Chain Finance Guarantee Program to guarantees 90 percent of the banks' exposure. In our hypothetical example, if the European shoe stores welched, the U.S. taxpayers would cover 90 percent of Citibank's loss.
Citi and JP Morgan were the first two banks admitted to this new subsidy program, and earlier this month, Ex-Im welcomed GE Finance. So GE, which already rakes in tens of billions of Ex-Im subsidies as an exporter (in September, for instance, Ex-Im approved a $425 million subsidy to help GE sell locomotive equipment to Kazakhstan), will now also pocket Ex-Im subsidies as a financier, too.
Many aspects of the Obama-Bush industrial policy works this way. The green-energy loan guarantee programs that benefitted Solyndra are also bank subsidies. For instance, the Energy Department this fall guaranteed $1.4 billion loan for solar companies NRG Energy and Prologis to install solar panels. But it wasn't the solar companies applying for the subsidy -- it was Bank of America, through the Financial Institutions Partnership Program created by the stimulus bill, which asked -- and received -- this taxpayer-funded gift from the Obama administration. Taxpayers will repay B of A if this $1.4 billion solar investment doesn't pan out. But what are the odds of a stimulus-subsidized solar venture flopping, right?
Failed and bailed-out housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have a similar arrangement. Like Obama's Export Initiative, and the green-energy subsidies, politicians always have some grand justification. It saves the environment! It helps small business! It creates jobs! It makes the American Dream come true!
But whenever politicians are moving around large chunks of money, you can bet the whole thing is being subtly guided by the businesses with the best lobbyists and the most access to power. Foremost among those businesses are the banks, and GE is always a guest at the proverbial table.
If you ask the Wall Street Occupiers, it's capitalism and the free markets that drive banks' booming profits. If you look more closely, it's venture socialism.
Timothy P.Carney, The Examiner's senior political columnist, can be contacted at tcarney@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Monday and Thursday, and his stories and blog posts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com.
by Timothy P. Carney
Senior Political Columnist
Largely out of the media spotlight, the federal government operates a network of financial subsidy programs that benefit big banks by putting taxpayer money at risk. And President Obama, that self-styled populist scourge of Wall Street, is increasing this racket of private profit and public risk that Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) aptly dubbed "venture socialism."
In its latest act of venture socialism, the Obama administration has offered a novel taxpayer backstop to General Electric, the multinational industrial conglomerate that is famously close to this administration, and that spends more on federal lobbying than any other company. The government accessory in this instance is the Export-Import Bank of the United States, a federal agency that finances U.S. exports at taxpayer risk.
Ex-Im exists to subsidize U.S. businesses, with most of the subsidy dollars facilitating Boeing sales. Other industrial titans like GE, Bechtel, and General Dynamics devour most of the rest of the Ex-Im subsidy pie. But manufacturers aren't the only beneficiaries of this little-known federal agency -- banks profit from it, too. For instance, when Ex-Im recently approved $1 billion in financing to subsidize Pemex, Mexico's government-owned oil company, 3M and other U.S. exporters of oil-field equipment benefited, but so did some big banks. Bank of America and JP Morgan financed these sales, and so if Pemex defaults, it's these megabanks the U.S. taxpayer will be bailing out.
Now Obama has created a new Ex-Im subsidy for banks. The name is a mouthful: "The Supply-Chain Finance Guarantee Program."
Here's how to understand what's going on: Imagine I'm a shoe exporter. I ship shoes to stores in Europe, and then I wait a few weeks to get paid by the stores. But what if more orders come in, and I need to restock the shoes right away, before I get paid for my last shipment? I could just borrow from a bank. But another option is that I can just sell my invoices, in effect, to the bank. If the shoe stores owe me $1,000, I might sell Citibank, for $950, the right to be paid by those shoe stores. That's called supply-chain finance, and it's a quintessential capitalist arrangement.
But in the midst of this commerce among banks, exporters, and importers, Barack Obama has inserted the unwitting U.S. taxpayer. As part of his Export Initiative aimed at doubling U.S. exports in five years, the Supply-Chain Finance Guarantee Program to guarantees 90 percent of the banks' exposure. In our hypothetical example, if the European shoe stores welched, the U.S. taxpayers would cover 90 percent of Citibank's loss.
Citi and JP Morgan were the first two banks admitted to this new subsidy program, and earlier this month, Ex-Im welcomed GE Finance. So GE, which already rakes in tens of billions of Ex-Im subsidies as an exporter (in September, for instance, Ex-Im approved a $425 million subsidy to help GE sell locomotive equipment to Kazakhstan), will now also pocket Ex-Im subsidies as a financier, too.
Many aspects of the Obama-Bush industrial policy works this way. The green-energy loan guarantee programs that benefitted Solyndra are also bank subsidies. For instance, the Energy Department this fall guaranteed $1.4 billion loan for solar companies NRG Energy and Prologis to install solar panels. But it wasn't the solar companies applying for the subsidy -- it was Bank of America, through the Financial Institutions Partnership Program created by the stimulus bill, which asked -- and received -- this taxpayer-funded gift from the Obama administration. Taxpayers will repay B of A if this $1.4 billion solar investment doesn't pan out. But what are the odds of a stimulus-subsidized solar venture flopping, right?
Failed and bailed-out housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have a similar arrangement. Like Obama's Export Initiative, and the green-energy subsidies, politicians always have some grand justification. It saves the environment! It helps small business! It creates jobs! It makes the American Dream come true!
But whenever politicians are moving around large chunks of money, you can bet the whole thing is being subtly guided by the businesses with the best lobbyists and the most access to power. Foremost among those businesses are the banks, and GE is always a guest at the proverbial table.
If you ask the Wall Street Occupiers, it's capitalism and the free markets that drive banks' booming profits. If you look more closely, it's venture socialism.
Timothy P.Carney, The Examiner's senior political columnist, can be contacted at tcarney@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Monday and Thursday, and his stories and blog posts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com.
Johnny Depp moves back to America to avoid paying taxes in France
Actor Johnny Depp has moved out of France and returned to America because he didn’t want to become a permanent French resident and pay income tax there.
The Pirates of the Caribbean star and his longterm partner, French singer/actress Vanessa Paradis, moved to her native country in the 1990s to live away from the Hollywood spotlight with their two children.
However, Depp has now moved his family out of France after government officials asked him to become a permanent resident, as he feared he would end up paying tax in both countries.
He tells Britain’s The Guardian newspaper, “Well, I kind of do (live back in America). I’m between wherever I end up on location, and then the States. (I left because) France wanted a piece of me. They wanted me to become a permanent resident. Permanent residency status – which changes everything. They just want… Dough. Money… I’m certainly not ready to give up my American citizenship.”
Depp goes on to explain that if he spends more than 183 days a year in France he will have to pay income tax in both Europe and America, adding, “So you essentially work for free.”
– WENN Newsdesk
The Pirates of the Caribbean star and his longterm partner, French singer/actress Vanessa Paradis, moved to her native country in the 1990s to live away from the Hollywood spotlight with their two children.
However, Depp has now moved his family out of France after government officials asked him to become a permanent resident, as he feared he would end up paying tax in both countries.
He tells Britain’s The Guardian newspaper, “Well, I kind of do (live back in America). I’m between wherever I end up on location, and then the States. (I left because) France wanted a piece of me. They wanted me to become a permanent resident. Permanent residency status – which changes everything. They just want… Dough. Money… I’m certainly not ready to give up my American citizenship.”
Depp goes on to explain that if he spends more than 183 days a year in France he will have to pay income tax in both Europe and America, adding, “So you essentially work for free.”
– WENN Newsdesk
LARRY SINCLAIR IS DEAD!
LARRY SINCLAIR IS DEAD!
Posted November 13th 2011 at 11:42 pm by The Editor
Author of “Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder”, Lawrence W. Sinclair has died tonight near his home in a purported car accident. It was apparently a hit and run. Police say the other driver got away and there was no sign of the other driver or his car.
In a 2009 shocker, Sinclair revealed in his book stunning revelations about Barack Hussein Obama, including that he had had a gay lover in Illinois. Shortly after addressing the National Press Club in Washington, DC in 2008, Sinclair revealed that Senior Advisor David Axelrod spearheaded a vindictive smear campaign against him, while Vice President Joe Biden and his son Beau arranged for his arrest after the NPC speech.
The most shocking claim in his 2009 book was the accusation by Sinclair that Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright were involved in the murder of Obama’s former lover, choirmaster Donald Young.
The mysterious circumstances around this accident will surely raise many questions. It is curious that this accident happened late on Sunday night when all the news media is in bed and not paying any attention. We’ll see if it’s reported anywhere tomorrow.
Posted November 13th 2011 at 11:42 pm by The Editor
Author of “Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder”, Lawrence W. Sinclair has died tonight near his home in a purported car accident. It was apparently a hit and run. Police say the other driver got away and there was no sign of the other driver or his car.
In a 2009 shocker, Sinclair revealed in his book stunning revelations about Barack Hussein Obama, including that he had had a gay lover in Illinois. Shortly after addressing the National Press Club in Washington, DC in 2008, Sinclair revealed that Senior Advisor David Axelrod spearheaded a vindictive smear campaign against him, while Vice President Joe Biden and his son Beau arranged for his arrest after the NPC speech.
The most shocking claim in his 2009 book was the accusation by Sinclair that Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright were involved in the murder of Obama’s former lover, choirmaster Donald Young.
The mysterious circumstances around this accident will surely raise many questions. It is curious that this accident happened late on Sunday night when all the news media is in bed and not paying any attention. We’ll see if it’s reported anywhere tomorrow.
ISLAMIC GOVT IN GAZA: ALLAH'S TEACHINGS ARE THE FIRE WITH WHICH "WE HARVEST THE SKULLS OF THE JEWS"
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Islamic Govt in Gaza: Allah's Teachings Are the Fire with Which "We Harvest the Skulls of the Jews"; "We Move Closer to Allah through Blood, Body Parts, and Martyrs"
Give 'em a state!
Give 'em billions!
Obama say, "respect it!"
VIDEO HERE: Islamic Militants in Gaza: Allah's Teachings Are the Fire with Which "We Harvest the Skulls of the Jews"; "We Move Closer to Allah through Blood, Body Parts, and Martyrs" Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas/Gaza) - November 3, 2011 - 02:56 (source: MEMRI)
Islamic Govt in Gaza: Allah's Teachings Are the Fire with Which "We Harvest the Skulls of the Jews"; "We Move Closer to Allah through Blood, Body Parts, and Martyrs"
Give 'em a state!
Give 'em billions!
Obama say, "respect it!"
VIDEO HERE: Islamic Militants in Gaza: Allah's Teachings Are the Fire with Which "We Harvest the Skulls of the Jews"; "We Move Closer to Allah through Blood, Body Parts, and Martyrs" Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas/Gaza) - November 3, 2011 - 02:56 (source: MEMRI)
Occupy Portland stocking up on gas masks, homemade weapons, police warn
Site is scheduled to be cleaned up on Sunday
BY Nina Mandell
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Saturday, November 12 2011, 1:39 PM
Gas masks, homemade weapons and potluck dinners are being gathered by demonstrators at the Occupy Portland site, police warned Friday.
Officials said it seemed many of the protesters are building shields and makeshift weapons in anticipation of the site being temporarily closed for "maintenance" on Sunday, according to a press update on the Portland Police Bureau website.
Since city Mayor Sam Adams made the announcement that the park would be cleaned on Thursday, officials said they've seen increasingly ominous signs.
"We understand a call has gone out to Oakland, Seattle and San Francisco and perhaps other cities encouraging people to come to Portland and engage in resistance," the press release said.
Officials also warned they expect "as many as 150 anarchists" to arrive, adding "people may be in the trees during a police action".
It was not immediately clear why having people in trees was dangerous.
Cops are also concerned that Occupiers are attempting to obtain a large number of gas masks.
At the Occupy site, protesters insisted to the Oregonian they were peaceful - but wanted to make a statement.
In a press release handed to the newspaper, Occupiers said they were just getting ready for Sunday's cleanup.
"We are committed to it remaining peaceful but very concerned about information that people are massing for and preparing for a confrontation with police," the press release said.
Patrick Johnson, who the newspaper found packing up his suitcase, said he believed about a quarter of the protesters would stay - and cause trouble.
"They believe that this has not been a successful occupation because nobody got shot, there have been no mace cans to the head…they're ignorant," he told the paper. "This is history. There were some failures in it, but the cool thing is…we got to try."
While in many cities, including New York, the Occupy protests have stayed calm, many protesters in Portland voiced concern that their peaceful demonstration could have the same fate of Occupy Oakland, where police used tear gas and batons on protesters last week.
Police insisted they were working with the group to facilitate peaceful acts of resistance.
"We've talked to a few people who said they want to be arrested. If that's the case, we're telling them to take a seat, tell the officer they want to be arrested and we will process them in the nicest possible manner. We understand that when people want to practice civil disobedience and be arrested, we can facilitate that," Police Chief Mike Reese told the Oregonian.
BY Nina Mandell
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Saturday, November 12 2011, 1:39 PM
Gas masks, homemade weapons and potluck dinners are being gathered by demonstrators at the Occupy Portland site, police warned Friday.
Officials said it seemed many of the protesters are building shields and makeshift weapons in anticipation of the site being temporarily closed for "maintenance" on Sunday, according to a press update on the Portland Police Bureau website.
Since city Mayor Sam Adams made the announcement that the park would be cleaned on Thursday, officials said they've seen increasingly ominous signs.
"We understand a call has gone out to Oakland, Seattle and San Francisco and perhaps other cities encouraging people to come to Portland and engage in resistance," the press release said.
Officials also warned they expect "as many as 150 anarchists" to arrive, adding "people may be in the trees during a police action".
It was not immediately clear why having people in trees was dangerous.
Cops are also concerned that Occupiers are attempting to obtain a large number of gas masks.
At the Occupy site, protesters insisted to the Oregonian they were peaceful - but wanted to make a statement.
In a press release handed to the newspaper, Occupiers said they were just getting ready for Sunday's cleanup.
"We are committed to it remaining peaceful but very concerned about information that people are massing for and preparing for a confrontation with police," the press release said.
Patrick Johnson, who the newspaper found packing up his suitcase, said he believed about a quarter of the protesters would stay - and cause trouble.
"They believe that this has not been a successful occupation because nobody got shot, there have been no mace cans to the head…they're ignorant," he told the paper. "This is history. There were some failures in it, but the cool thing is…we got to try."
While in many cities, including New York, the Occupy protests have stayed calm, many protesters in Portland voiced concern that their peaceful demonstration could have the same fate of Occupy Oakland, where police used tear gas and batons on protesters last week.
Police insisted they were working with the group to facilitate peaceful acts of resistance.
"We've talked to a few people who said they want to be arrested. If that's the case, we're telling them to take a seat, tell the officer they want to be arrested and we will process them in the nicest possible manner. We understand that when people want to practice civil disobedience and be arrested, we can facilitate that," Police Chief Mike Reese told the Oregonian.
First Obama Ballot Challenge Filed in New Hampshire
Posted by By Unlawful President at 14 November, at 09 : 30 AM
Print
The first Obama ballot challenge will be led by Dr. Orly Taitz in New Hampshire the state with the earliest primary for the Presidential election. Pamela Barnett, Obama State Ballot Challenge 2012 Director, will join in this effort and encourages others to visit Dr. Taitz’s website for exact information and documentation on how to join this effort. Postage and notary costs would be the only costs to participate in this challenge to keep Obama off of the 2012 Presidential ballot in New Hampshire. This challenge will be based on the forged birth certificate posted at whitehouse.gov as well as the Connecticut social security number that he uses that was never issued to him.
From Taitz’s website.
Extremely important, join me and support me in challenging Obama in the early primary state of NH
Posted on | November 13, 2011
This is extremely important. New Hampshire is an early primary state and it allows anyone to challenge a candidate on the ballot. You do not have to be a resident of NH. We have to capitalise on this opportunity.
I put a lot of work and a lot of sleepless nights in gathering all the information and exhibits.
In the post below you will find a total of 87 pages in PDF files and a docx version of the complaint.
You will find a complaint, challenging Obama’s legitimacy on the ballot, 66 pages of exhibits, containing sworn affidavits and documents, showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a fraudulently obtained CT Social Security number 042-68-4425, which was not assigned to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS. You will find a certified mail tracing number and a blank form for you to fill out. On the form you can state, that you want to join the challenge filed by Attorney Dr. Orly Taitz.
As you know, I will have to travel to HI for the third time. It is extremely expensive. I might need to travel to NH. All of this work takes a lot of time and effort. I hope you will support this effort to remove Obama from the ballot early on in this primary by donating to either “Defend Our Freedoms foundation” or to “Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012?.
Link to Taitz’s website for documents. http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=27620
The first Obama ballot challenge will be led by Dr. Orly Taitz in New Hampshire the state with the earliest primary for the Presidential election. Pamela Barnett, Obama State Ballot Challenge 2012 Director, will join in this effort and encourages others to visit Dr. Taitz’s website for exact information and documentation on how to join this effort. Postage and notary costs would be the only costs to participate in this challenge to keep Obama off of the 2012 Presidential ballot in New Hampshire. This challenge will be based on the forged birth certificate posted at whitehouse.gov as well as the Connecticut social security number that he uses that was never issued to him.
From Taitz’s website.
Extremely important, join me and support me in challenging Obama in the early primary state of NH
Posted on | November 13, 2011
This is extremely important. New Hampshire is an early primary state and it allows anyone to challenge a candidate on the ballot. You do not have to be a resident of NH. We have to capitalise on this opportunity.
I put a lot of work and a lot of sleepless nights in gathering all the information and exhibits.
In the post below you will find a total of 87 pages in PDF files and a docx version of the complaint.
You will find a complaint, challenging Obama’s legitimacy on the ballot, 66 pages of exhibits, containing sworn affidavits and documents, showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a fraudulently obtained CT Social Security number 042-68-4425, which was not assigned to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS. You will find a certified mail tracing number and a blank form for you to fill out. On the form you can state, that you want to join the challenge filed by Attorney Dr. Orly Taitz.
As you know, I will have to travel to HI for the third time. It is extremely expensive. I might need to travel to NH. All of this work takes a lot of time and effort. I hope you will support this effort to remove Obama from the ballot early on in this primary by donating to either “Defend Our Freedoms foundation” or to “Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012?.
Link to Taitz’s website for documents. http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=27620
Tax Form Returned,Again!!!
Posted on 11/14/2011 6:17:51 AM by t1b8zs
They sent my Tax Return back! AGAIN!!! In response to the question:
"List all dependents?" I replied -
"12 million illegal immigrants;
"3 million crack heads;
"42 million unemployable people on food stamps,
"2 million people in over 243 prisons;
"Half of Mexico ; and
"535 fools in the U.S. House and Senate.”
And an extravagant family in the White house!!!!!!
Apparently, this was NOT an acceptable answer but I believe it’s correct.
They sent my Tax Return back! AGAIN!!! In response to the question:
"List all dependents?" I replied -
"12 million illegal immigrants;
"3 million crack heads;
"42 million unemployable people on food stamps,
"2 million people in over 243 prisons;
"Half of Mexico ; and
"535 fools in the U.S. House and Senate.”
And an extravagant family in the White house!!!!!!
Apparently, this was NOT an acceptable answer but I believe it’s correct.
Occupy Wall Street costs local businesses $479,400!
By CANDICE M. GIOVE
Last Updated: 1:26 PM, November 13, 2011
It makes no cents.
The Occupy Wall Street movement has cost surrounding businesses $479,400 so far, store owners said.
A Post survey of a dozen restaurants, jewelry shops, beauty salons, a chain store and mom-and-pop establishments tallied almost a half-million dollars lost in the 53 days since the Zuccotti Park siege began on Sept. 17.
“We’re done with them!” barked one Broadway business owner. The restaurateur -- who requested anonymity for fear of reprisals -- said his profits drained as soon as campers moved in.
“My customers used to take food to eat in the park, but now they can’t,” he lamented.
With clogged streets, aggressive signs and stories of predators and criminals lurking among the knot of protesters, business owners and managers say shoppers are not taking the risk of coming to the area.
“They think the protesters are violent,” said Jewelry 21 manager Danny Nia.
It’s worst on Saturdays, when protesters parade up and down Broadway all day long, the businesses said.
“When they march on the sidewalk, everyone runs away,” said Mike Rauach, owner of VIP Men’s Suits on Broadway. “They kill business.”
Some businesses have suffered higher staffing costs. Stubborn occupiers, for example, often hold impromptu meetings inside coffee shop Pret a Manger, forcing workers to stay hours past closing time.
“They’d keep asking for 20 minutes, 20 minutes,” one worker complained.
And the coffee shop has lost loyal customers who now can’t find a place to sit.
“But we can’t tell [OWS protesters] to leave,” the worker added.
The movement costs the dozen businesses just over $9,000 a day.
That figure doesn’t include money spent on toilet paper, cleaning supplies and repairs, businesses said, as the tent dwellers turn bathrooms into personal washrooms.
On two separate occasions the owner of the Essex World Cafe has rolled up his gate to find someone had defecated on it overnight.
“It must be a good place for them to hide,” the owner cringed.
Next door at Ho Yip, a Chinese restaurant, filthy clothes and underwear carpet the bathroom floor, the manager said.
“I have to pick it up,” the manager groused.
At Cafe Health World on Maiden Lane, delivery calls have slowed down from Goldman Sachs, where mid-level analysts burning the midnight oil would often order takeout. Now, manager Alex Furkov said, no one wants to stay in the Financial District.
“They’re making it look like everyone’s Warren Buffett over there,” he said. “They’re our livelihood. That’s what keeps the lights on in this place.”
Last Updated: 1:26 PM, November 13, 2011
It makes no cents.
The Occupy Wall Street movement has cost surrounding businesses $479,400 so far, store owners said.
A Post survey of a dozen restaurants, jewelry shops, beauty salons, a chain store and mom-and-pop establishments tallied almost a half-million dollars lost in the 53 days since the Zuccotti Park siege began on Sept. 17.
“We’re done with them!” barked one Broadway business owner. The restaurateur -- who requested anonymity for fear of reprisals -- said his profits drained as soon as campers moved in.
“My customers used to take food to eat in the park, but now they can’t,” he lamented.
With clogged streets, aggressive signs and stories of predators and criminals lurking among the knot of protesters, business owners and managers say shoppers are not taking the risk of coming to the area.
“They think the protesters are violent,” said Jewelry 21 manager Danny Nia.
It’s worst on Saturdays, when protesters parade up and down Broadway all day long, the businesses said.
“When they march on the sidewalk, everyone runs away,” said Mike Rauach, owner of VIP Men’s Suits on Broadway. “They kill business.”
Some businesses have suffered higher staffing costs. Stubborn occupiers, for example, often hold impromptu meetings inside coffee shop Pret a Manger, forcing workers to stay hours past closing time.
“They’d keep asking for 20 minutes, 20 minutes,” one worker complained.
And the coffee shop has lost loyal customers who now can’t find a place to sit.
“But we can’t tell [OWS protesters] to leave,” the worker added.
The movement costs the dozen businesses just over $9,000 a day.
That figure doesn’t include money spent on toilet paper, cleaning supplies and repairs, businesses said, as the tent dwellers turn bathrooms into personal washrooms.
On two separate occasions the owner of the Essex World Cafe has rolled up his gate to find someone had defecated on it overnight.
“It must be a good place for them to hide,” the owner cringed.
Next door at Ho Yip, a Chinese restaurant, filthy clothes and underwear carpet the bathroom floor, the manager said.
“I have to pick it up,” the manager groused.
At Cafe Health World on Maiden Lane, delivery calls have slowed down from Goldman Sachs, where mid-level analysts burning the midnight oil would often order takeout. Now, manager Alex Furkov said, no one wants to stay in the Financial District.
“They’re making it look like everyone’s Warren Buffett over there,” he said. “They’re our livelihood. That’s what keeps the lights on in this place.”
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Little Satan Grows Wise To Big Satan's Need For Nov '12 Exorcism
Israel refuses to warn Obama if it attacks Iran
Monday 14 November 2011
Israel has refused to reassure President Barack Obama that it would warn him in advance of any pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear capabilities, raising fears that it may be planning a go-it-alone attack as early as next summer.
By Adrian Blomfield, in Jerusalem
7:49PM GMT 12 Nov 2011
The US leader was rebuffed last month when he demanded private guarantees that no strike would go ahead without White House notification, suggesting Israel no longer plans to "seek Washington's permission", sources said. The disclosure, made by insiders briefed on a top-secret meeting between America's most senior defence chief and Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's hawkish prime minister, comes amid concerns that Iran's continuing progress towards nuclear weapons capability means the Jewish state has all but lost hope for a diplomatic solution.
On Tuesday, UN weapons inspectors released their most damning report to date into Iran's nuclear activities, saying for the first time that the Islamic republic appeared to be building a nuclear weapon. It was with that grave possiblity in mind that Leon Panetta, the US defence secretary, flew into Israel last month on what was ostensibly a routine trip.
Officially, his brief was restricted to the Middle East peace process, but the most important part of his mission was a private meeting with Mr Netanyahu and the defence minister, Ehud Barak. Once all but a handful of trusted staff had left the room, Mr Panetta conveyed an urgent message from Barack Obama. The president, Mr Panetta said, wanted an unshakable guarantee that Israel would not carry out a unilateral military strike against Iran's nuclear installations without first seeking Washington's clearance.
The two Israelis were notably evasive in their response, according to sources both in Israel and the United States.
"They did not suggest that military action was being planned or was imminent, but neither did they give any assurances that Israel would first seek Washington's permission, or even inform the White House in advance that a mission was underway," one said.
Alarmed by Mr Netanyahu's noncommittal response, Mr Obama reportedly ordered the US intelligence services to step up monitoring of Israel to glean clues of its intentions.
What those intentions might be remains distinctly murky. Over the past fortnight, Israel's press has given every impression that the country is on a war footing, with numerous claims that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Barak are lobbying the cabinet to support the military option.
Two weeks ago Israel tested a long-range ballistic missile capable of reaching Iran, its first since 2008. Shortly before, the Israeli airforce took part in Nato exercises in Sardinia that involved air-to-air refuelling, a key component of an aerial strike on Iran. A separate exercise in and around Tel Aviv tested civilian readiness in the event of a missile strike against the city. In a sign of the febrility of the public mood, many beach-goers apparently mistook the air raid sirens for a genuine Iranian attack and fled in panic for their cars. There were similar jitters in Iran yesterday, when a huge but apparently accidental explosion at arms dump outside Tehran killed at least 27 soldiers and shook the city.
Speculation about an imminent Israeli military action has been a regular occurrence over the years, but rarely as fevered as now. Last week, a British official even suggested that an attack could come before Christmas.
Few in Israel believe that is likely and the difficulty of mounting an operation over winter, when cloud cover hampers aircraft targeting systems, means that if military action is being considered it will not come before the spring or summer of next year.
Many observers also believe that the bellicose rhetoric voiced by a number of senior Israeli figures in recent days is largely bluff, designed to goad the international community into imposing sanctions of such severity that Iran would be forced into economic ruin if it persisted with its nuclear ambitions. Israel says that if Iran's central bank were sanctioned and a ban on Iranian oil exports enforced by an international naval blockade, military action would not be necessary.
Mr Barak has already publicly stated that he does not believe the West can overcome Russian and Chinese opposition to the sanctions Israel wants, leaving military action increasingly as the only alternative.
Mr Netanyahu may have another reason to bluff. In recent months, Meir Dagan, who retired as director of Mossad at the beginning of the year, has made a series of unprecedented speeches countenancing against Israeli military action - describing it as "the stupidest idea I've ever heard".
His comments have infuriated the Israeli establishment - senior officials have said they would like to see him behind bars - because they fear it could convince Iran's Mullahs that Israel's sporadic talk of war is a fiction.
Hints by Mr Netanyahu that he is considering the military option may be designed to resurrect Iran's paranoia of Israel, something seen in the Jewish state as a powerful deterrent, says Yossi Melman, a leading intelligence analyst and journalist.
"Meir Dagan made a laughing stock of military action," Mr Melman said. "Netanyahu believes he damaged the deterrent and he wants to repair it."
Yet the fact that Mr Dagan chose to speak out - extraordinary in itself for a just-retired Mossad chief - suggests that he believes Mr Netanyahu is intent on attacking Iran.
Tellingly, until last year, Israel's four most powerful military and security chiefs, including Mr Dagan, were all strongly opposed to military action. All four have now been replaced by younger men who may be less able to stand up to Mr Netanyahu, not that Israeli prime ministers are necessarily bound to heed objections from their top military advisers anyway. In 1981, Menachem Begin did just that when he bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak.
If Israel is to attack Iran, many in the country believe time is running out. Last week's report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) highlighted Iran's apparent determination to build a nuclear warhead, but did not indicate how long it might take.
Some in Israel, however, believe it is very close.
"It is my personal opinion that, if the Iranian regime decides to do so, it can produce a nuclear explosive device within a year, plus or minus a few months," said Ephraim Asculai, a former IAEA official and leading Israeli expert on Iran's nuclear programme.
Not everyone agrees. Some argue that a covert espionage operation has caused such delays that Iran still needs another three years to build a bomb. Sabotage efforts by Israeli, American and British intelligence have successfully slowed Iranian progress, most notably via the Stuxnet computer virus that caused the centrifuges at Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment plant to explode. Mossad agents on motorbikes are also believed to have planted magnetic explosives on the cars of at least two key Iranian nuclear scientists as they weaved through Tehran's traffic jams. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the scientist and Revolutionary Guards officer who is thought to be the ultimate mastermind of the nuclear programme, is now believed to be under round-the-clock protection as a result. But, whatever the time frame, some in Israel believe there is additional cause for urgency that could prompt military action sooner rather than later.
According to western intelligence assessments, Tehran is preparing to move the bulk of its nuclear production to a plant beneath a mountain near the holy city of Qom that would be far harder to hit from the air.
According to Ronen Bergman, senior military analyst for Israel's Yediot Ahronot newspaper and the author of a forthcoming book on Mossad, that makes a strike necessary well before Iran actually perfects its programme.
"Today Israeli intelligence talks of what is known as the 'framework of immunity'," he said. "In other words, it is not the point at which Iran acquires a nuclear device, but the point at which the project has reached such an advanced stage that a strike any time after would be ineffective."
An Israeli attack could probably manage at most a dozen targets, using more than 100 F-15 and F-16 aircraft.
Three German-designed Dolphin submarines equipped with conventional cruise missiles could also be ordered into the Persian Gulf to take part, although it is thought that Israel's Jericho-3 ballistic missiles are to inaccurate to play a role.
But how effective the mission would be is another matter. At best, Israel can hope to delay Iran from building a bomb by two to four years, experts assess. Optimists hope that within such a period, Iran's Islamist regime could collapse and give may to a more moderate government. But it could equally redouble its nuclear efforts, this time arguing that it now had every right to produce a weapon.
As Mr Panetta warned during a Pentagon briefing last Thursday, such a strike would also have a "serious impact" on the region. Iran could blockade the Straits of Hormuz, through which 25 per cent of the world's oil exports are shipped, sending energy prices soaring. US military assets in the Gulf could come also come under attack from Iranian Scud missiles.
Iran would almost certainly fire its Shahab ballistic missiles at Israeli cities and press Hizbollah and Hamas, the militant Islamist groups it funds and equips, to unleash their huge rocket arsenals from their bases in Lebanon and Gaza.
Despite this, last week Mr Barak - making a rare venture in such sensitive territory - predicted that fewer than 500 fatalities would arise "if people stayed at home".
Such are both the political and military risks involved that many Israelis say it is inconceivable that Mr Netanyahu would go to war without the United States alongside him.
"I think personally that if such action is taken, there will be come kind of consultation with the United States," said Ilan Mizrahi, Mossad's former deputy director and Israel's national security adviser until 2007.
"If Iran breaks all the rules, then military action will be needed, but definitely not alone by a tiny country like Israel," added Uzi Eilam, a retired general who held senior positions at the Israeli defence ministry.
But not everyone is so sure. Mr Obama's willingness to take on Iran militarily is openly questioned in Israel. And while many Israelis do not believe Iran has any intention of actually firing a nuclear missile at them, the the key question is whether their prime minister is one of them.
In Mr Netanyahu's eyes, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is another "Hitler" whose aim is to complete what the Holocaust failed to do by wiping out the Jewish race.
"People outside Israel don't understand how profound memories of the Holocaust are, and how they affect future policy making," said Mr Bergman, the military analyst. "At the end of the day, this policy of 'never again' would dictate Israel's behaviour when intelligence comes through that Iran has come close to a bomb."
Monday 14 November 2011
Israel has refused to reassure President Barack Obama that it would warn him in advance of any pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear capabilities, raising fears that it may be planning a go-it-alone attack as early as next summer.
By Adrian Blomfield, in Jerusalem
7:49PM GMT 12 Nov 2011
The US leader was rebuffed last month when he demanded private guarantees that no strike would go ahead without White House notification, suggesting Israel no longer plans to "seek Washington's permission", sources said. The disclosure, made by insiders briefed on a top-secret meeting between America's most senior defence chief and Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's hawkish prime minister, comes amid concerns that Iran's continuing progress towards nuclear weapons capability means the Jewish state has all but lost hope for a diplomatic solution.
On Tuesday, UN weapons inspectors released their most damning report to date into Iran's nuclear activities, saying for the first time that the Islamic republic appeared to be building a nuclear weapon. It was with that grave possiblity in mind that Leon Panetta, the US defence secretary, flew into Israel last month on what was ostensibly a routine trip.
Officially, his brief was restricted to the Middle East peace process, but the most important part of his mission was a private meeting with Mr Netanyahu and the defence minister, Ehud Barak. Once all but a handful of trusted staff had left the room, Mr Panetta conveyed an urgent message from Barack Obama. The president, Mr Panetta said, wanted an unshakable guarantee that Israel would not carry out a unilateral military strike against Iran's nuclear installations without first seeking Washington's clearance.
The two Israelis were notably evasive in their response, according to sources both in Israel and the United States.
"They did not suggest that military action was being planned or was imminent, but neither did they give any assurances that Israel would first seek Washington's permission, or even inform the White House in advance that a mission was underway," one said.
Alarmed by Mr Netanyahu's noncommittal response, Mr Obama reportedly ordered the US intelligence services to step up monitoring of Israel to glean clues of its intentions.
What those intentions might be remains distinctly murky. Over the past fortnight, Israel's press has given every impression that the country is on a war footing, with numerous claims that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Barak are lobbying the cabinet to support the military option.
Two weeks ago Israel tested a long-range ballistic missile capable of reaching Iran, its first since 2008. Shortly before, the Israeli airforce took part in Nato exercises in Sardinia that involved air-to-air refuelling, a key component of an aerial strike on Iran. A separate exercise in and around Tel Aviv tested civilian readiness in the event of a missile strike against the city. In a sign of the febrility of the public mood, many beach-goers apparently mistook the air raid sirens for a genuine Iranian attack and fled in panic for their cars. There were similar jitters in Iran yesterday, when a huge but apparently accidental explosion at arms dump outside Tehran killed at least 27 soldiers and shook the city.
Speculation about an imminent Israeli military action has been a regular occurrence over the years, but rarely as fevered as now. Last week, a British official even suggested that an attack could come before Christmas.
Few in Israel believe that is likely and the difficulty of mounting an operation over winter, when cloud cover hampers aircraft targeting systems, means that if military action is being considered it will not come before the spring or summer of next year.
Many observers also believe that the bellicose rhetoric voiced by a number of senior Israeli figures in recent days is largely bluff, designed to goad the international community into imposing sanctions of such severity that Iran would be forced into economic ruin if it persisted with its nuclear ambitions. Israel says that if Iran's central bank were sanctioned and a ban on Iranian oil exports enforced by an international naval blockade, military action would not be necessary.
Mr Barak has already publicly stated that he does not believe the West can overcome Russian and Chinese opposition to the sanctions Israel wants, leaving military action increasingly as the only alternative.
Mr Netanyahu may have another reason to bluff. In recent months, Meir Dagan, who retired as director of Mossad at the beginning of the year, has made a series of unprecedented speeches countenancing against Israeli military action - describing it as "the stupidest idea I've ever heard".
His comments have infuriated the Israeli establishment - senior officials have said they would like to see him behind bars - because they fear it could convince Iran's Mullahs that Israel's sporadic talk of war is a fiction.
Hints by Mr Netanyahu that he is considering the military option may be designed to resurrect Iran's paranoia of Israel, something seen in the Jewish state as a powerful deterrent, says Yossi Melman, a leading intelligence analyst and journalist.
"Meir Dagan made a laughing stock of military action," Mr Melman said. "Netanyahu believes he damaged the deterrent and he wants to repair it."
Yet the fact that Mr Dagan chose to speak out - extraordinary in itself for a just-retired Mossad chief - suggests that he believes Mr Netanyahu is intent on attacking Iran.
Tellingly, until last year, Israel's four most powerful military and security chiefs, including Mr Dagan, were all strongly opposed to military action. All four have now been replaced by younger men who may be less able to stand up to Mr Netanyahu, not that Israeli prime ministers are necessarily bound to heed objections from their top military advisers anyway. In 1981, Menachem Begin did just that when he bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak.
If Israel is to attack Iran, many in the country believe time is running out. Last week's report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) highlighted Iran's apparent determination to build a nuclear warhead, but did not indicate how long it might take.
Some in Israel, however, believe it is very close.
"It is my personal opinion that, if the Iranian regime decides to do so, it can produce a nuclear explosive device within a year, plus or minus a few months," said Ephraim Asculai, a former IAEA official and leading Israeli expert on Iran's nuclear programme.
Not everyone agrees. Some argue that a covert espionage operation has caused such delays that Iran still needs another three years to build a bomb. Sabotage efforts by Israeli, American and British intelligence have successfully slowed Iranian progress, most notably via the Stuxnet computer virus that caused the centrifuges at Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment plant to explode. Mossad agents on motorbikes are also believed to have planted magnetic explosives on the cars of at least two key Iranian nuclear scientists as they weaved through Tehran's traffic jams. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the scientist and Revolutionary Guards officer who is thought to be the ultimate mastermind of the nuclear programme, is now believed to be under round-the-clock protection as a result. But, whatever the time frame, some in Israel believe there is additional cause for urgency that could prompt military action sooner rather than later.
According to western intelligence assessments, Tehran is preparing to move the bulk of its nuclear production to a plant beneath a mountain near the holy city of Qom that would be far harder to hit from the air.
According to Ronen Bergman, senior military analyst for Israel's Yediot Ahronot newspaper and the author of a forthcoming book on Mossad, that makes a strike necessary well before Iran actually perfects its programme.
"Today Israeli intelligence talks of what is known as the 'framework of immunity'," he said. "In other words, it is not the point at which Iran acquires a nuclear device, but the point at which the project has reached such an advanced stage that a strike any time after would be ineffective."
An Israeli attack could probably manage at most a dozen targets, using more than 100 F-15 and F-16 aircraft.
Three German-designed Dolphin submarines equipped with conventional cruise missiles could also be ordered into the Persian Gulf to take part, although it is thought that Israel's Jericho-3 ballistic missiles are to inaccurate to play a role.
But how effective the mission would be is another matter. At best, Israel can hope to delay Iran from building a bomb by two to four years, experts assess. Optimists hope that within such a period, Iran's Islamist regime could collapse and give may to a more moderate government. But it could equally redouble its nuclear efforts, this time arguing that it now had every right to produce a weapon.
As Mr Panetta warned during a Pentagon briefing last Thursday, such a strike would also have a "serious impact" on the region. Iran could blockade the Straits of Hormuz, through which 25 per cent of the world's oil exports are shipped, sending energy prices soaring. US military assets in the Gulf could come also come under attack from Iranian Scud missiles.
Iran would almost certainly fire its Shahab ballistic missiles at Israeli cities and press Hizbollah and Hamas, the militant Islamist groups it funds and equips, to unleash their huge rocket arsenals from their bases in Lebanon and Gaza.
Despite this, last week Mr Barak - making a rare venture in such sensitive territory - predicted that fewer than 500 fatalities would arise "if people stayed at home".
Such are both the political and military risks involved that many Israelis say it is inconceivable that Mr Netanyahu would go to war without the United States alongside him.
"I think personally that if such action is taken, there will be come kind of consultation with the United States," said Ilan Mizrahi, Mossad's former deputy director and Israel's national security adviser until 2007.
"If Iran breaks all the rules, then military action will be needed, but definitely not alone by a tiny country like Israel," added Uzi Eilam, a retired general who held senior positions at the Israeli defence ministry.
But not everyone is so sure. Mr Obama's willingness to take on Iran militarily is openly questioned in Israel. And while many Israelis do not believe Iran has any intention of actually firing a nuclear missile at them, the the key question is whether their prime minister is one of them.
In Mr Netanyahu's eyes, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is another "Hitler" whose aim is to complete what the Holocaust failed to do by wiping out the Jewish race.
"People outside Israel don't understand how profound memories of the Holocaust are, and how they affect future policy making," said Mr Bergman, the military analyst. "At the end of the day, this policy of 'never again' would dictate Israel's behaviour when intelligence comes through that Iran has come close to a bomb."
Al-Qaida opportunism: Grabbing Arab Spring's guns
Smuggled Libyan Weapons Raise Al Qaeda Fears
Published November 12, 2011
The Wall Street Journal
TRIPOLI, Libya – Weapons smuggled from Libya after the collapse of Muammar Qaddafi's government are flowing through the surrounding region, the president of neighboring Niger said, a development that threatens to destabilize a swath of the continent already struggling against ethnic unrest and a regional branch of Al Qaeda.
"Arms were stolen in Libya and are being disseminated all over the region," Niger's president Mahamadou Issoufou said following a meeting with South African president Jacob Zuma. "Saharan countries are facing terrorist threats, arms and criminal trafficking. The Libya crisis is amplifying those crises."
Issoufou's remarks came days after Niger's military clashed with arms smugglers traveling from Libya. Six smugglers and one soldier died in Sunday's battle, he said.
Niger's foreign minister Mohamed Bazoum said the battle was the fourth such incident since February, the beginning of the uprising in Libya that resulted in Qaddafi's overthrow and the widespread looting of his vast armories.
The stretch of desert between Libya and West Africa already ranks among the world's principal smuggling routes, according to officials and locals. It is maintained by militants from the local Tuareg tribe who help to traffic arms, Europe-bound cocaine from Colombia, cigarettes and even household merchandise like diapers, these people say, over the ancient caravan route.
The inflow of missiles "adds a whole level to the arsenal," Peter Pham of the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank, said. "The one area where governments that are trying to assert control of this large, ungoverned space have had the advantage is on air superiority. If that's taken away, it's very difficult to control the ground."
Published November 12, 2011
The Wall Street Journal
TRIPOLI, Libya – Weapons smuggled from Libya after the collapse of Muammar Qaddafi's government are flowing through the surrounding region, the president of neighboring Niger said, a development that threatens to destabilize a swath of the continent already struggling against ethnic unrest and a regional branch of Al Qaeda.
"Arms were stolen in Libya and are being disseminated all over the region," Niger's president Mahamadou Issoufou said following a meeting with South African president Jacob Zuma. "Saharan countries are facing terrorist threats, arms and criminal trafficking. The Libya crisis is amplifying those crises."
Issoufou's remarks came days after Niger's military clashed with arms smugglers traveling from Libya. Six smugglers and one soldier died in Sunday's battle, he said.
Niger's foreign minister Mohamed Bazoum said the battle was the fourth such incident since February, the beginning of the uprising in Libya that resulted in Qaddafi's overthrow and the widespread looting of his vast armories.
The stretch of desert between Libya and West Africa already ranks among the world's principal smuggling routes, according to officials and locals. It is maintained by militants from the local Tuareg tribe who help to traffic arms, Europe-bound cocaine from Colombia, cigarettes and even household merchandise like diapers, these people say, over the ancient caravan route.
The inflow of missiles "adds a whole level to the arsenal," Peter Pham of the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank, said. "The one area where governments that are trying to assert control of this large, ungoverned space have had the advantage is on air superiority. If that's taken away, it's very difficult to control the ground."
U.S. 'lazy,' Obama tells Asian audience
President Obama: U.S. Gotten a Bit "Lazy" on Attracting Businesses
Kimberly Schwandt
November 13, 2011
HONOLULU - President Obama said that the United States has gotten a "little bit lazy" when it comes to bringing in new businesses in to the states. He made the comments at a CEO summit as part of the APEC conference Saturday, when asked by Boeing CEO James McNerney about looking at the world from a Chinese perspective and what they might consider as impediments to investing.
Obama said it's important to remember that the U.S. is still the largest receiver of foreign investment in the world and things like stability, openness and innovative free market culture are attractive. He also said there are a lot of things that make foreign investors see the U.S. as a great opportunity - like stability, openness, our innovative free market culture.
"But we've been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades. We've kind of taken for granted -- well, people will want to come here and we aren't out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new business into America, Obama said.
He then went on to say things his administration has done like setting up Select USA that organizes government agencies in an attempt to make it easier for foreign investors to set up a plant in the U.S.
"Because of our federalist system, sometimes a foreign investor comes in and they've got to navigate not only federal rules, but they've also got to navigate state and local governments that may have their own sets of interests. Being able to create if not a one-stop shop, then at least no more than a couple of stops for people to be able to come into the United States and make investments, that's something that we want to encourage," Obama said.
Later at a press conference, Google CEO Steve Schmidt was asked about the remarks. Schmidt said it is hard to answer without knowing what the standard of laziness is. He did say thought that America could be more aggressive. "I think the government and the nation should always be focusing more on the fastest-growing parts of the world. So I'm not sure that's a new discovery," Schmidt.
However he noted he probably wouldn't have used the word lazy.
The president's remarks in some ways echo what he has set earlier about America's positioning on the global stage.
In response to a question in an interview with Florida television station WESH in late September, Obama said, "The way I think about it is this is a great, great country that had gotten a little soft, and we didn't have that same competitive edge we needed over the last couple of decades. We need to get back on track. But I still wouldn't trade our position with any country's on Earth. We still have the best universities and scientists and best workers in the world. We still have the most dynamic economic system in the world. We need to bring all those things together"
He also said at a fundraiser in San Francsico last month, "Anybody been to Beijing Airport lately? Or driven on high-speed rail in Asia or Europe? What's changed? Well, we've lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge and Hoover Dam and unleashed all the potential in this country."
Kimberly Schwandt
November 13, 2011
HONOLULU - President Obama said that the United States has gotten a "little bit lazy" when it comes to bringing in new businesses in to the states. He made the comments at a CEO summit as part of the APEC conference Saturday, when asked by Boeing CEO James McNerney about looking at the world from a Chinese perspective and what they might consider as impediments to investing.
Obama said it's important to remember that the U.S. is still the largest receiver of foreign investment in the world and things like stability, openness and innovative free market culture are attractive. He also said there are a lot of things that make foreign investors see the U.S. as a great opportunity - like stability, openness, our innovative free market culture.
"But we've been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades. We've kind of taken for granted -- well, people will want to come here and we aren't out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new business into America, Obama said.
He then went on to say things his administration has done like setting up Select USA that organizes government agencies in an attempt to make it easier for foreign investors to set up a plant in the U.S.
"Because of our federalist system, sometimes a foreign investor comes in and they've got to navigate not only federal rules, but they've also got to navigate state and local governments that may have their own sets of interests. Being able to create if not a one-stop shop, then at least no more than a couple of stops for people to be able to come into the United States and make investments, that's something that we want to encourage," Obama said.
Later at a press conference, Google CEO Steve Schmidt was asked about the remarks. Schmidt said it is hard to answer without knowing what the standard of laziness is. He did say thought that America could be more aggressive. "I think the government and the nation should always be focusing more on the fastest-growing parts of the world. So I'm not sure that's a new discovery," Schmidt.
However he noted he probably wouldn't have used the word lazy.
The president's remarks in some ways echo what he has set earlier about America's positioning on the global stage.
In response to a question in an interview with Florida television station WESH in late September, Obama said, "The way I think about it is this is a great, great country that had gotten a little soft, and we didn't have that same competitive edge we needed over the last couple of decades. We need to get back on track. But I still wouldn't trade our position with any country's on Earth. We still have the best universities and scientists and best workers in the world. We still have the most dynamic economic system in the world. We need to bring all those things together"
He also said at a fundraiser in San Francsico last month, "Anybody been to Beijing Airport lately? Or driven on high-speed rail in Asia or Europe? What's changed? Well, we've lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge and Hoover Dam and unleashed all the potential in this country."
Pelosi used position for 'legal' insider trading
'60 Minutes' Uncovers Pelosi's Insider Stock Trades
Sunday, 13 Nov 2011 07:49 PM
By Newsmax Wires
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bought stock in initial public offerings (IPOs) that earned hefty returns while she had access to insider information that would have been illegal for an average citizen to trade with – even though it’s perfectly legal for elected officials, CBS’s "60 Minutes" reported Sunday night.
In a piece relying on data collected from the conservative Hoover Institution, "60 Minutes" revealed that elected officials like Pelosi are exempt from insider trading laws – regulations that carry hefty prison sentences and fines for any other citizen who trades stocks with private information on companies that can affect their stock price.
In the case of elected officials – this secret information ranges from timely details on lucrative federal contracts to legislation that can cause companies’ stocks to rise and fall dramatically.
How do they get away with it? Lawmakers have exempted themselves from the laws that govern every other citizen.
Pelosi, D-Calif., and her husband have participated in at least eight IPOs while having access to information directly relating to the companies involved. One of those came in 2008, from Visa, just as a troublesome piece of legislation that would have hurt credit card companies, began making its way through the House.
“Undisturbed by a potential conflict of interest the Pelosis purchased 5,000 shares of Visa at the initial price of $44 dollars. Two days later it was trading at $64. The credit card legislation never made it to the floor of the House,” Steve Kroft of "60 Minutes" reported.
Kroft confronted Pelosi at a regular press conference after she declined an interview.
Kroft: Madam Leader, I wanted to ask you why you and your husband back in March of 2008 accepted and participated in a very large IPO deal from Visa at a time there was major legislation affecting the credit card companies making its way through the —through the House.
Nancy Pelosi: But —
Kroft: And did you consider that to be a conflict of interest?
Pelosi: The — y — I — I don't know what your point is of your question. Is there some point that you want to make with that?
Kroft: Well, I — I — I guess what I'm asking is do you think it's all right for a speaker to accept a very preferential, favorable stock deal?
Pelosi: Well, we didn't.
Kroft: You participated in the IPO. And at the time you were speaker of the House. You don't think it was a conflict of interest or had the appearance--
Pelosi: No, it was not —
Kroft: — of a conflict of interest?
Pelosi: —it doesn't — it only has appearance if you decide that you're going to have — elaborate on a false premise. But it — it — it's not true and that's that.
Kroft: I don't understand what part's not true.
Pelosi: Yes sir. That — that I would act upon an investment.
The Hoover Institution’s Peter Schweizer stressed that what Pelosi did was completely legal.
“There are all sorts of forms of honest grafts that congressmen engage in that allow them to become very, very wealthy. So it's not illegal, but I think it's highly unethical, I think it's highly offensive, and wrong,” he told Kroft.
“… Insider trading on the stock market. If you are a member of Congress, those laws are deemed not to apply,” Schweizer added. “The fact is, if you sit on a healthcare committee and you know that Medicare, for example, is — is considering not reimbursing for a certain drug that's market moving information. And if you can trade stock on — off of that information and do so legally, that's a great profit making opportunity. And that sort of behavior goes on.”
Pelosi’s office issued a statement Sunday saying, “It is very troubling that ‘60 Minutes’ would base their reporting off of an already-discredited conservative author who has made a career out of attacking Democrats.”
Schweizer’s books include “Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy,” and “Architects of Ruin,” according to Schweizer’s page on the Hoover Institution website.
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Sunday, 13 Nov 2011 07:49 PM
By Newsmax Wires
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bought stock in initial public offerings (IPOs) that earned hefty returns while she had access to insider information that would have been illegal for an average citizen to trade with – even though it’s perfectly legal for elected officials, CBS’s "60 Minutes" reported Sunday night.
In a piece relying on data collected from the conservative Hoover Institution, "60 Minutes" revealed that elected officials like Pelosi are exempt from insider trading laws – regulations that carry hefty prison sentences and fines for any other citizen who trades stocks with private information on companies that can affect their stock price.
In the case of elected officials – this secret information ranges from timely details on lucrative federal contracts to legislation that can cause companies’ stocks to rise and fall dramatically.
How do they get away with it? Lawmakers have exempted themselves from the laws that govern every other citizen.
Pelosi, D-Calif., and her husband have participated in at least eight IPOs while having access to information directly relating to the companies involved. One of those came in 2008, from Visa, just as a troublesome piece of legislation that would have hurt credit card companies, began making its way through the House.
“Undisturbed by a potential conflict of interest the Pelosis purchased 5,000 shares of Visa at the initial price of $44 dollars. Two days later it was trading at $64. The credit card legislation never made it to the floor of the House,” Steve Kroft of "60 Minutes" reported.
Kroft confronted Pelosi at a regular press conference after she declined an interview.
Kroft: Madam Leader, I wanted to ask you why you and your husband back in March of 2008 accepted and participated in a very large IPO deal from Visa at a time there was major legislation affecting the credit card companies making its way through the —through the House.
Nancy Pelosi: But —
Kroft: And did you consider that to be a conflict of interest?
Pelosi: The — y — I — I don't know what your point is of your question. Is there some point that you want to make with that?
Kroft: Well, I — I — I guess what I'm asking is do you think it's all right for a speaker to accept a very preferential, favorable stock deal?
Pelosi: Well, we didn't.
Kroft: You participated in the IPO. And at the time you were speaker of the House. You don't think it was a conflict of interest or had the appearance--
Pelosi: No, it was not —
Kroft: — of a conflict of interest?
Pelosi: —it doesn't — it only has appearance if you decide that you're going to have — elaborate on a false premise. But it — it — it's not true and that's that.
Kroft: I don't understand what part's not true.
Pelosi: Yes sir. That — that I would act upon an investment.
The Hoover Institution’s Peter Schweizer stressed that what Pelosi did was completely legal.
“There are all sorts of forms of honest grafts that congressmen engage in that allow them to become very, very wealthy. So it's not illegal, but I think it's highly unethical, I think it's highly offensive, and wrong,” he told Kroft.
“… Insider trading on the stock market. If you are a member of Congress, those laws are deemed not to apply,” Schweizer added. “The fact is, if you sit on a healthcare committee and you know that Medicare, for example, is — is considering not reimbursing for a certain drug that's market moving information. And if you can trade stock on — off of that information and do so legally, that's a great profit making opportunity. And that sort of behavior goes on.”
Pelosi’s office issued a statement Sunday saying, “It is very troubling that ‘60 Minutes’ would base their reporting off of an already-discredited conservative author who has made a career out of attacking Democrats.”
Schweizer’s books include “Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy,” and “Architects of Ruin,” according to Schweizer’s page on the Hoover Institution website.
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Move over Solyndra, here comes Siga
Thomas Lifson
November 12, 2011
If you thought Solyndra was bigtime corruption, wait until you read the details of the Siga scandal. David Willman of the Los Angeles Times reveals a huge no-bid contract bearing all the signs of intervention from above, that could dwarf Solyndra. It involves the health and safety of the American poeple, and a squandering of taxpayer resources.
The Department of Health and Human Services has signed a no-bid contracted with Siga Technologies for as much as much as 2.8 billion dollars' worth of a high priced drug, for a terrorism threat that may not exist. The drug's effectiveness is unknown because it cannot be tested on humans. The threat it is intended to counter is an attack based on Smallpox (which has been eradicated and only "is known to exist only in the locked freezers of a Russian scientific institute and the U.S. government.")
A large stockpile of effective and inexpensive smallpox vaccine already exists. The new drug is intended to be used after exposure to smallpox in the event of a bioterrorism attack.
Dr. Thomas M. Mack, an epidemiologist at USC's Keck School of Medicine, battled smallpox outbreaks in Pakistan and has advised the Food and Drug Administration on the virus. He called the plan to stockpile Siga's drug "a waste of time and a waste of money."
Even if the threat were real, and the drug actually effective, the expensive (estimated $255 per dose, a price that bears no relationship at all to production cost) stockpile only has a shelf life of 38 months. If Obama is re-elected, the gravy train rolls along for another profitable round for Siga.
By coincidence, Siga is controlled by Billionaire Democrat mega-donor Ronald Perelman, who used his McAndrew & Forbes holding company to buy into the business of selling antiviral anti-bioterrorism drugs to the government.
The long and detailed saga told by Willman reveals a path strewn with political interference from above, to benefit Siga. This long piece deserves a careful read, and a call for Congressional hearings.
Add this to Fast & Furious and Solyndra, and the Obama has a hat trick of major scandals. I do believe it is time to call it the "scandal-plagued Obama administration."
Hat tip: Michael Savage
November 12, 2011
If you thought Solyndra was bigtime corruption, wait until you read the details of the Siga scandal. David Willman of the Los Angeles Times reveals a huge no-bid contract bearing all the signs of intervention from above, that could dwarf Solyndra. It involves the health and safety of the American poeple, and a squandering of taxpayer resources.
The Department of Health and Human Services has signed a no-bid contracted with Siga Technologies for as much as much as 2.8 billion dollars' worth of a high priced drug, for a terrorism threat that may not exist. The drug's effectiveness is unknown because it cannot be tested on humans. The threat it is intended to counter is an attack based on Smallpox (which has been eradicated and only "is known to exist only in the locked freezers of a Russian scientific institute and the U.S. government.")
A large stockpile of effective and inexpensive smallpox vaccine already exists. The new drug is intended to be used after exposure to smallpox in the event of a bioterrorism attack.
Dr. Thomas M. Mack, an epidemiologist at USC's Keck School of Medicine, battled smallpox outbreaks in Pakistan and has advised the Food and Drug Administration on the virus. He called the plan to stockpile Siga's drug "a waste of time and a waste of money."
Even if the threat were real, and the drug actually effective, the expensive (estimated $255 per dose, a price that bears no relationship at all to production cost) stockpile only has a shelf life of 38 months. If Obama is re-elected, the gravy train rolls along for another profitable round for Siga.
By coincidence, Siga is controlled by Billionaire Democrat mega-donor Ronald Perelman, who used his McAndrew & Forbes holding company to buy into the business of selling antiviral anti-bioterrorism drugs to the government.
The long and detailed saga told by Willman reveals a path strewn with political interference from above, to benefit Siga. This long piece deserves a careful read, and a call for Congressional hearings.
Add this to Fast & Furious and Solyndra, and the Obama has a hat trick of major scandals. I do believe it is time to call it the "scandal-plagued Obama administration."
Hat tip: Michael Savage
Video: Unreported World - Syria undercover -Ch 4
Video: Unreported World - Syria undercover -Ch 4 - مترجم للعر
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Courtesy of Arabs48.com
A MUST WATCH!
# posted by Tony : 12:02 PM
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Courtesy of Arabs48.com
A MUST WATCH!
# posted by Tony : 12:02 PM
Allen West On Herman Cain: "Conservative Minorities Scare Liberals"
November 12, 2011
Allen West On Herman Cain: "Conservative Minorities Scare Liberals"
But Herman Cain "should have taken the time to get all your facts together, get your story together, then you come out with a solid statement and everybody's on the same sheet of music, but when you start to piecemeal things here and there, and then you contradict what you said yesterday, then it causes some concern for people" -West
Allen West On Herman Cain: "Conservative Minorities Scare Liberals"
But Herman Cain "should have taken the time to get all your facts together, get your story together, then you come out with a solid statement and everybody's on the same sheet of music, but when you start to piecemeal things here and there, and then you contradict what you said yesterday, then it causes some concern for people" -West
Where is there waste in government spending?
November 12, 2011
Where is there waste in government spending?
Wages
Salary of retired US Presidents .............$450,000 FOR LIFE
Salary of House/Senate members ..........$174,000 FOR LIFE
Salary of Speaker of the House ..............$223,500 FOR LIFE
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders .....$193,400 FOR LIFE
Average salary of a soldier DEPLOYED IN AFGHANISTAN - $38,000
Average income for seniors on SOCIAL SECURITY - $12,000
Posted by Diogenes at 4:07 PM
Where is there waste in government spending?
Wages
Salary of retired US Presidents .............$450,000 FOR LIFE
Salary of House/Senate members ..........$174,000 FOR LIFE
Salary of Speaker of the House ..............$223,500 FOR LIFE
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders .....$193,400 FOR LIFE
Average salary of a soldier DEPLOYED IN AFGHANISTAN - $38,000
Average income for seniors on SOCIAL SECURITY - $12,000
Posted by Diogenes at 4:07 PM
QUOTE OF THE DAY
Saturday, November 12, 2011
QUOTE OF THE DAY
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” – Winston Churchill
Posted by Matthew Burke
QUOTE OF THE DAY
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” – Winston Churchill
Posted by Matthew Burke
ALONG WITH SOLYNDRA, THIS SHOULD BE THE BIGGEST STORY IN THE NATION
Saturday, November 12, 2011
ONLY A HANDFUL OF FOLKS ARE LINKING TO IT, AND THE LEGACY MEDIA AIN'T TOUCHING IT YET:
David Willman / Los Angeles Times:
Cost, need questioned in $433-million smallpox drug deal — A company controlled by a longtime political donor gets a no-bid contract to supply an experimental remedy for a threat that may not exist. — The U.S. searched Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, including smallpox, after the 2003 invasion.
+
Discussion: Michelle Malkin, LaborUnionReport.com, The Lonely Conservative, Verum Serum, RedState, Pat Dollard and Wizbang
OBAMA AND HIS COMRADES HAVE BEEN PILFERING THE US TREASURY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MACHINE - THE UNIONS AND THEIR BIG DONORS.
THE SO-CALLED STIMULUS AND THE SO-CALLED GREEN ECONOMY PROGRAMS WERE A STEALTHY MEANS FOR OBAMA AND HIS COMRADES IN THE MACHINE TO STEAL BILLIONS.
BILLIONS.
THE GM BAILOUT WAS A GIFT TO THE UNIONS THAT HELPED ELECT HIM.
SOLYNDRA WAS A GIFT TO A BILLIONAIRE WHO HELPED ELECT HIM. AND SO IS THIS PERELMAN CASE.
THERE ARE DOUBTLESS COUNTLESS MORE CASES.
OBAMA SHOULD BE IMPEACHED, CONVICTED - THEN THROWN OUT OF OFFICE, AND THEN INDICTED AND CONVICTED AGAIN AND THROWN IN JAIL.
FOLKS:
THIS ADDS UP TO MANY BILLIONS STOLEN.
THIS STEALING MAKES ABRAMOFF AND TEA POT DOME LOOK LIKE PENNY ANTE KIDS' PLAY.
ONLY A HANDFUL OF FOLKS ARE LINKING TO IT, AND THE LEGACY MEDIA AIN'T TOUCHING IT YET:
David Willman / Los Angeles Times:
Cost, need questioned in $433-million smallpox drug deal — A company controlled by a longtime political donor gets a no-bid contract to supply an experimental remedy for a threat that may not exist. — The U.S. searched Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, including smallpox, after the 2003 invasion.
+
Discussion: Michelle Malkin, LaborUnionReport.com, The Lonely Conservative, Verum Serum, RedState, Pat Dollard and Wizbang
OBAMA AND HIS COMRADES HAVE BEEN PILFERING THE US TREASURY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MACHINE - THE UNIONS AND THEIR BIG DONORS.
THE SO-CALLED STIMULUS AND THE SO-CALLED GREEN ECONOMY PROGRAMS WERE A STEALTHY MEANS FOR OBAMA AND HIS COMRADES IN THE MACHINE TO STEAL BILLIONS.
BILLIONS.
THE GM BAILOUT WAS A GIFT TO THE UNIONS THAT HELPED ELECT HIM.
SOLYNDRA WAS A GIFT TO A BILLIONAIRE WHO HELPED ELECT HIM. AND SO IS THIS PERELMAN CASE.
THERE ARE DOUBTLESS COUNTLESS MORE CASES.
OBAMA SHOULD BE IMPEACHED, CONVICTED - THEN THROWN OUT OF OFFICE, AND THEN INDICTED AND CONVICTED AGAIN AND THROWN IN JAIL.
FOLKS:
THIS ADDS UP TO MANY BILLIONS STOLEN.
THIS STEALING MAKES ABRAMOFF AND TEA POT DOME LOOK LIKE PENNY ANTE KIDS' PLAY.
Former Senate Candidate Alvin Greene No Longer Running For President
November 12, 2011
Darn it.
dailycaller
Republican presidential candidates can now breathe a sigh of relief. Former South Carolina Senate candidate Alvin Greene is no longer running for president.
Following his headline-grabbing campaign for office in 2010 as the Democratic nominee for Senate, Greene told reporters he would seek the Republican nomination for president.
“I’m running for president of the United States.” Greene said that November. “I’m the greatest person ever. I was born to be president. I’m the man.”
“We will have a Greene/Obama showdown in 2012,” he promised The Daily Caller. “It will be a political heavyweight boxing match.” He cited the economic recession as one of the primary issues he would address, saying, “This past election they re-elected the people that started the recession.”
Contacted by TheDC on Friday, however, Greene said that he would not be running in the upcoming election. “No,” he firmly said.
It is likely too late for Greene to change his mind, as the South Carolina filing deadline — November 1 — has already passed. To have appeared on the state’s ballot, he would have needed to pay a $35,000 filing fee.
Greene told TheDC, “I am neutral on the other candidates,” indicating that he would not be offering his endorsement.
Flashback 2010: Comedy gold. Alvin Greene in an interview on MSNBC with Lawrence O'Donnell kept saying 'Jim DeMint started the recession' no matter what the question was from O'Donnell
Odd Lawrence O'Donnell interview with Alvin Greene, the Democratic Senate candidate for the Democratic party, who will face off against Jim DeMint in November 2010.
Darn it.
dailycaller
Republican presidential candidates can now breathe a sigh of relief. Former South Carolina Senate candidate Alvin Greene is no longer running for president.
Following his headline-grabbing campaign for office in 2010 as the Democratic nominee for Senate, Greene told reporters he would seek the Republican nomination for president.
“I’m running for president of the United States.” Greene said that November. “I’m the greatest person ever. I was born to be president. I’m the man.”
“We will have a Greene/Obama showdown in 2012,” he promised The Daily Caller. “It will be a political heavyweight boxing match.” He cited the economic recession as one of the primary issues he would address, saying, “This past election they re-elected the people that started the recession.”
Contacted by TheDC on Friday, however, Greene said that he would not be running in the upcoming election. “No,” he firmly said.
It is likely too late for Greene to change his mind, as the South Carolina filing deadline — November 1 — has already passed. To have appeared on the state’s ballot, he would have needed to pay a $35,000 filing fee.
Greene told TheDC, “I am neutral on the other candidates,” indicating that he would not be offering his endorsement.
Flashback 2010: Comedy gold. Alvin Greene in an interview on MSNBC with Lawrence O'Donnell kept saying 'Jim DeMint started the recession' no matter what the question was from O'Donnell
Odd Lawrence O'Donnell interview with Alvin Greene, the Democratic Senate candidate for the Democratic party, who will face off against Jim DeMint in November 2010.
Video: To all Jews who still support President Obama
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Video: To all Jews who still support President Obama
Here's a video that might make some Jews who support President Obama a little bit uncomfortable.
Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Shosh).
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:53 AM
Video: To all Jews who still support President Obama
Here's a video that might make some Jews who support President Obama a little bit uncomfortable.
Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Shosh).
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:53 AM
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT THE FIRST TIME!
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Like his making the shale energy from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico IMPOSSIBLE - till after the elections since he was afraid of the environmentalists - Obama turned the Osama mission into his personal tribute - THOUGH he NEVER gave the order to do it!
Thanks to Tam Steele, a former Marine, for forwarding this.
Certainly shows Obama putting politics before all else.
Seals tell of killing ‘Bert’ Laden
Upset by the official account, US Navy Seals commandos reveal the truth of
the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden, nicknames and all
Christina Lamb Published: 6 November 2011
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/bitter-seals-tell-of-killing-bert-l
aden/story-fn8ljzlv-1226186934623
Osama Bin Laden was killed within 90 seconds of the US Navy Seals landing in
his compound and not after a protracted gun battle, according to the first
account by the men who carried out the raid. The operation was so clinical
that only 12 bullets were fired.
The Seals have spoken out because they were angered at the version given by
politicians, which they see as portraying them as cold-blooded murderers on
a “kill mission”. They were also shocked that President Barack Obama
announced Bin Laden’s death on television the same evening, rendering
useless much of the intelligence they had seized.
Chuck Pfarrer, a former commander of Seal Team 6, which conducted the
operation, has interviewed many of those who took part for a book, Seal
Target Geronimo, to be published in the US this week.
The Seals’ own accounts differ from the White House version, which gave the
impression that Bin Laden was killed at the end of the operation rather than
in its opening seconds. Pfarrer insists Bin Laden would have been captured
had he surrendered.
“There isn’t a politician in the world who could resist trying to take
credit for getting Bin Laden but it devalued the ‘intel’ and gave time for
every other Al-Qaeda leader to scurry to another bolthole,” said Pfarrer.
“The men who did this and their valorous act deserve better. It’s a pretty
shabby way to treat these guys.”
The first hint of the mission came in January last year when the team’s
commanding officer was called to a meeting at the headquarters of joint
special operations command. The meeting was held in a soundproof bunker
three stories below ground with his boss, Admiral William McRaven, and a CIA
officer.
They told him a walled compound in Pakistan had been under surveillance for
a couple of weeks. They were certain a high-value individual was inside and
needed a plan to present to the president.
It had to be someone important. “So is this Bert or Ernie?” he asked. The
Seals’ nicknames for Bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri are a
reference to two Muppets in Sesame Street, one tall and thin and the other
short and fat. “We have a voice print,” said the CIA officer, “and we’re 60%
or 70% certain it’s our guy.” McRaven added that a reconnaissance satellite
had measured the target’s shadow. “Over 6 feet tall.”
When McRaven added they would use Ghost Hawk helicopters, the team leader
had no doubt. “These are the most classified, sophisticated stealth
helicopters ever developed,” said Pfarrer. “They are kept in locked hangars
and fly so quiet we call it ‘whisper mode’.”
Over the next couple of months a plan was hatched. A mock-up of the compound
was built at Tall Pines, an army facility in a national forest somewhere in
the eastern US.
Four reconnaissance satellites were placed in orbit over the compound,
sending back video and communications intercepts. A tall figure seen walking
up and down was named “the Pacer”.
Obama gave the go-ahead and Seal Team 6, known as the Jedi, was deployed to
Afghanistan. The White House canceled plans to provide air cover using jet
fighters, fearing this might endanger relations with Pakistan.
Sending in the Ghost Hawks without air cover was considered too risky so the
Seals had to use older Stealth Hawks. A Prowler electronic warfare aircraft
from the carrier USS Carl Vinson was used to jam Pakistan’s radar and create
decoy targets.
The men who did this and their valorous act deserve better. It’s a pretty
shabby way to treat them Operation Neptune’s Spear was initially planned for
April 30 but bad weather delayed it until May 1, a moonless night.
The commandos flew on two Stealth Hawks, codenamed Razor 1 and 2, followed by
two Chinooks five minutes behind, known as “Command Bird” and the “gun
platform”.
On board, each Seal was clad in body armor and nightvision goggles and equipped with laser targets, radios and sawed-off M4 rifles. They were expecting up to 30 people in the main house, including Bin Laden and three of his wives, two sons, Khalid and Hamza, his courier, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, four bodyguards and a number of children. At 56 minutes past
midnight the compound came into sight and the code “Palm Beach” signaled
three minutes to landing.
Razor 1 hovered above the main house, a three-story building where Bin
Laden lived on the top floor. Twelve Seals abseiled the 5ft-6ft down onto
the roof and then jumped to a third-floor patio, where they kicked in the
windows and entered.
The first person the Seals encountered was a terrified woman, Bin Laden’s
third wife, Khaira, who ran into the hall. Blinded by a searing white strobe
light they shone at her, she stumbled back. A Seal grabbed her by the arm
and threw her to the floor.
Bin Laden’s bedroom was along a short hall. The door opened; he popped out
and then slammed the door shut. “Geronimo, Geronimo, Geronimo,” radioed one
Seal, meaning “eyes on target”.
At the same time lights came on from the floor below and Bin Laden’s son
Khalid came running up the stairs towards the Seals. He was shot dead.
Two Seals kicked in Bin Laden’s door. The room, they later recalled, “smelt
like old clothing, like a guest bedroom in a grandmother’s house”. Inside
was the Al-Qaeda leader and his youngest wife, Amal, who was screaming as he
pushed her in front of him.
“No, no, don’t do this!” she shouted as her husband reached across the
king-size bed for his AK-47 assault rifle. The Seals reacted instantly,
firing in the same second.
One round thudded into the mattress. The other, aimed at Bin Laden’s head, grazed Amal in the calf. As his hand reached for the gun, they each fired again: one shot hit his breastbone, the other his skull, killing him instantly and blowing out the back of his head.
Meanwhile Razor 2 was heading for the guesthouse, a low, shoebox-like
building, where Bin Laden’s courier, Kuwaiti, and his brother lived.
As the helicopter neared, a door opened and two figures appeared, one waving
an AK-47. This was Kuwaiti. In the moonless night he could see nothing and
lifted his rifle, spraying bullets wildly.
He did not see the Stealth Hawk. On board someone shouted, “Bust him!”, and
a sniper fired two shots. Kuwaiti was killed, as was the person behind him,
who turned out to be his wife. Also on board were a CIA agent, a Pakistani-
American who would act as interpreter, and a sniffer dog called Karo,
wearing dog body armor and goggles.
Within two minutes the Seals from Razor 2 had cleared the guesthouse and
removed the women and children.
They then ran to the main house and entered from the ground floor, checking
the rooms. One of Bin Laden’s bodyguards was waiting with his AK-47. The
Seals shot him twice and he toppled over.
Five minutes into the operation the command Chinook landed outside the
compound, disgorging the commanding officer and more men. They blasted
through the compound wall and rushed in.
The commander made his way to the third floor, where Bin Laden’s body lay on
the floor face up. Photographs were taken, and the commander called on his
satellite phone to headquarters with the words: “Geronimo Echo KIA” — Bin
Laden enemy killed in action.
“This was the first time the White House knew he was dead and it was
probably 20 minutes into the raid,” said Pfarrer.
A sample of Bin Laden’s DNA was taken and the body was bagged. They kept his
rifle. It is now mounted on the wall of their team room at their headquarters in Virginia Beach, Virginia, alongside photographs of a dozen colleagues killed in action in the past 20 years.
At this point things started to go wrong. Razor 1 took off but the top
secret “green unit” that controls the electronics failed. The aircraft went
into a spin and crashed tail-first into the compound.
The Seals were alarmed, thinking it had been shot down, and several rushed
to the wreckage. The crew climbed out, shaken but unharmed.
The commanding officer ordered them to destroy Razor 2, to remove the green
unit, and to smash the avionics. They then laid explosive charges.
They loaded Bin Laden’s body onto the Chinook along with the cache of
intelligence in plastic bin bags and headed toward the USS Carl Vinson. As
they flew off they blew up Razor 2. The whole operation had taken 38
minutes.
The following morning White House officials announced that the helicopter
had crashed as it arrived, forcing the Seals to abandon plans to enter from
the roof. A photograph of the situation room showed a shocked Hillary
Clinton, the secretary of state, with her hand to her mouth.
Why did they get it so wrong? What they were watching was live video but it
was shot from 20,000 ft by a drone circling overhead and relayed in real time
to the White House and Leon Panetta, the CIA director, in Langley.
The Seals were not wearing helmet cameras, and those watching in Washington had no
idea what was happening inside the buildings.
“They don’t understand our terminology, so when someone said the ‘insertion
helicopter’ has crashed, they assumed it meant on entry,” said Pfarrer.
What infuriated the Seals, according to Pfarrer, was the description of the
raid as a kill mission. “I’ve been a Seal for 30 years and I never heard the
words ‘kill mission’,” he said. “It’s a Beltway [Washington insider’s]
fantasy word. If it was a kill mission you don’t need Seal Team 6; you need
a box of hand grenades.”
Posted by Alan Peters at 6:08 PM
Like his making the shale energy from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico IMPOSSIBLE - till after the elections since he was afraid of the environmentalists - Obama turned the Osama mission into his personal tribute - THOUGH he NEVER gave the order to do it!
Thanks to Tam Steele, a former Marine, for forwarding this.
Certainly shows Obama putting politics before all else.
Seals tell of killing ‘Bert’ Laden
Upset by the official account, US Navy Seals commandos reveal the truth of
the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden, nicknames and all
Christina Lamb Published: 6 November 2011
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/bitter-seals-tell-of-killing-bert-l
aden/story-fn8ljzlv-1226186934623
Osama Bin Laden was killed within 90 seconds of the US Navy Seals landing in
his compound and not after a protracted gun battle, according to the first
account by the men who carried out the raid. The operation was so clinical
that only 12 bullets were fired.
The Seals have spoken out because they were angered at the version given by
politicians, which they see as portraying them as cold-blooded murderers on
a “kill mission”. They were also shocked that President Barack Obama
announced Bin Laden’s death on television the same evening, rendering
useless much of the intelligence they had seized.
Chuck Pfarrer, a former commander of Seal Team 6, which conducted the
operation, has interviewed many of those who took part for a book, Seal
Target Geronimo, to be published in the US this week.
The Seals’ own accounts differ from the White House version, which gave the
impression that Bin Laden was killed at the end of the operation rather than
in its opening seconds. Pfarrer insists Bin Laden would have been captured
had he surrendered.
“There isn’t a politician in the world who could resist trying to take
credit for getting Bin Laden but it devalued the ‘intel’ and gave time for
every other Al-Qaeda leader to scurry to another bolthole,” said Pfarrer.
“The men who did this and their valorous act deserve better. It’s a pretty
shabby way to treat these guys.”
The first hint of the mission came in January last year when the team’s
commanding officer was called to a meeting at the headquarters of joint
special operations command. The meeting was held in a soundproof bunker
three stories below ground with his boss, Admiral William McRaven, and a CIA
officer.
They told him a walled compound in Pakistan had been under surveillance for
a couple of weeks. They were certain a high-value individual was inside and
needed a plan to present to the president.
It had to be someone important. “So is this Bert or Ernie?” he asked. The
Seals’ nicknames for Bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri are a
reference to two Muppets in Sesame Street, one tall and thin and the other
short and fat. “We have a voice print,” said the CIA officer, “and we’re 60%
or 70% certain it’s our guy.” McRaven added that a reconnaissance satellite
had measured the target’s shadow. “Over 6 feet tall.”
When McRaven added they would use Ghost Hawk helicopters, the team leader
had no doubt. “These are the most classified, sophisticated stealth
helicopters ever developed,” said Pfarrer. “They are kept in locked hangars
and fly so quiet we call it ‘whisper mode’.”
Over the next couple of months a plan was hatched. A mock-up of the compound
was built at Tall Pines, an army facility in a national forest somewhere in
the eastern US.
Four reconnaissance satellites were placed in orbit over the compound,
sending back video and communications intercepts. A tall figure seen walking
up and down was named “the Pacer”.
Obama gave the go-ahead and Seal Team 6, known as the Jedi, was deployed to
Afghanistan. The White House canceled plans to provide air cover using jet
fighters, fearing this might endanger relations with Pakistan.
Sending in the Ghost Hawks without air cover was considered too risky so the
Seals had to use older Stealth Hawks. A Prowler electronic warfare aircraft
from the carrier USS Carl Vinson was used to jam Pakistan’s radar and create
decoy targets.
The men who did this and their valorous act deserve better. It’s a pretty
shabby way to treat them Operation Neptune’s Spear was initially planned for
April 30 but bad weather delayed it until May 1, a moonless night.
The commandos flew on two Stealth Hawks, codenamed Razor 1 and 2, followed by
two Chinooks five minutes behind, known as “Command Bird” and the “gun
platform”.
On board, each Seal was clad in body armor and nightvision goggles and equipped with laser targets, radios and sawed-off M4 rifles. They were expecting up to 30 people in the main house, including Bin Laden and three of his wives, two sons, Khalid and Hamza, his courier, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, four bodyguards and a number of children. At 56 minutes past
midnight the compound came into sight and the code “Palm Beach” signaled
three minutes to landing.
Razor 1 hovered above the main house, a three-story building where Bin
Laden lived on the top floor. Twelve Seals abseiled the 5ft-6ft down onto
the roof and then jumped to a third-floor patio, where they kicked in the
windows and entered.
The first person the Seals encountered was a terrified woman, Bin Laden’s
third wife, Khaira, who ran into the hall. Blinded by a searing white strobe
light they shone at her, she stumbled back. A Seal grabbed her by the arm
and threw her to the floor.
Bin Laden’s bedroom was along a short hall. The door opened; he popped out
and then slammed the door shut. “Geronimo, Geronimo, Geronimo,” radioed one
Seal, meaning “eyes on target”.
At the same time lights came on from the floor below and Bin Laden’s son
Khalid came running up the stairs towards the Seals. He was shot dead.
Two Seals kicked in Bin Laden’s door. The room, they later recalled, “smelt
like old clothing, like a guest bedroom in a grandmother’s house”. Inside
was the Al-Qaeda leader and his youngest wife, Amal, who was screaming as he
pushed her in front of him.
“No, no, don’t do this!” she shouted as her husband reached across the
king-size bed for his AK-47 assault rifle. The Seals reacted instantly,
firing in the same second.
One round thudded into the mattress. The other, aimed at Bin Laden’s head, grazed Amal in the calf. As his hand reached for the gun, they each fired again: one shot hit his breastbone, the other his skull, killing him instantly and blowing out the back of his head.
Meanwhile Razor 2 was heading for the guesthouse, a low, shoebox-like
building, where Bin Laden’s courier, Kuwaiti, and his brother lived.
As the helicopter neared, a door opened and two figures appeared, one waving
an AK-47. This was Kuwaiti. In the moonless night he could see nothing and
lifted his rifle, spraying bullets wildly.
He did not see the Stealth Hawk. On board someone shouted, “Bust him!”, and
a sniper fired two shots. Kuwaiti was killed, as was the person behind him,
who turned out to be his wife. Also on board were a CIA agent, a Pakistani-
American who would act as interpreter, and a sniffer dog called Karo,
wearing dog body armor and goggles.
Within two minutes the Seals from Razor 2 had cleared the guesthouse and
removed the women and children.
They then ran to the main house and entered from the ground floor, checking
the rooms. One of Bin Laden’s bodyguards was waiting with his AK-47. The
Seals shot him twice and he toppled over.
Five minutes into the operation the command Chinook landed outside the
compound, disgorging the commanding officer and more men. They blasted
through the compound wall and rushed in.
The commander made his way to the third floor, where Bin Laden’s body lay on
the floor face up. Photographs were taken, and the commander called on his
satellite phone to headquarters with the words: “Geronimo Echo KIA” — Bin
Laden enemy killed in action.
“This was the first time the White House knew he was dead and it was
probably 20 minutes into the raid,” said Pfarrer.
A sample of Bin Laden’s DNA was taken and the body was bagged. They kept his
rifle. It is now mounted on the wall of their team room at their headquarters in Virginia Beach, Virginia, alongside photographs of a dozen colleagues killed in action in the past 20 years.
At this point things started to go wrong. Razor 1 took off but the top
secret “green unit” that controls the electronics failed. The aircraft went
into a spin and crashed tail-first into the compound.
The Seals were alarmed, thinking it had been shot down, and several rushed
to the wreckage. The crew climbed out, shaken but unharmed.
The commanding officer ordered them to destroy Razor 2, to remove the green
unit, and to smash the avionics. They then laid explosive charges.
They loaded Bin Laden’s body onto the Chinook along with the cache of
intelligence in plastic bin bags and headed toward the USS Carl Vinson. As
they flew off they blew up Razor 2. The whole operation had taken 38
minutes.
The following morning White House officials announced that the helicopter
had crashed as it arrived, forcing the Seals to abandon plans to enter from
the roof. A photograph of the situation room showed a shocked Hillary
Clinton, the secretary of state, with her hand to her mouth.
Why did they get it so wrong? What they were watching was live video but it
was shot from 20,000 ft by a drone circling overhead and relayed in real time
to the White House and Leon Panetta, the CIA director, in Langley.
The Seals were not wearing helmet cameras, and those watching in Washington had no
idea what was happening inside the buildings.
“They don’t understand our terminology, so when someone said the ‘insertion
helicopter’ has crashed, they assumed it meant on entry,” said Pfarrer.
What infuriated the Seals, according to Pfarrer, was the description of the
raid as a kill mission. “I’ve been a Seal for 30 years and I never heard the
words ‘kill mission’,” he said. “It’s a Beltway [Washington insider’s]
fantasy word. If it was a kill mission you don’t need Seal Team 6; you need
a box of hand grenades.”
Posted by Alan Peters at 6:08 PM
It's official: The Obama administration promotes Islamist regimes
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Hillary Clinton made a speech last week that has gotten nowhere near enough attention. In it, she said that the Obama administration would encourage Islamist governments to take power. No, really.
“Not all Islamists are alike. Turkey and Iran are both governed by parties with religious roots, but their models and behavior are radically different. There are plenty of political parties with religious affiliations—Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Muslim—that respect the rules of democratic politics. The suggestion that faithful Muslims cannot thrive in a democracy is insulting, dangerous, and wrong. They do it in this country every day.”
“Parties committed to democracy must reject violence; they must abide by the rule of law and respect the freedoms of speech, religion, association, and assembly; they must respect the rights of women and minorities; they must let go of power if defeated at the polls; and in a region with deep divisions within and between religions, they cannot be the spark that starts a conflagration. In other words, what parties call themselves is less important to us than what they actually do.”
“In Tunisia, an Islamist party has just won a plurality of the votes in an open, competitive election. Its leaders have promised to embrace freedom of religion and full rights for women. To write a constitution and govern, they will have to persuade secular parties to work with them. And as they do, America will work with them, too, because we share the desire to see a Tunisian democracy emerge that delivers for its citizens and because America respects the right of the Tunisian people to choose their own leaders.”
Barry Rubin explains what Clinton said.
What’s striking about the administration’s position is the lack of the most basic logic. True, a political party with religious affiliations might “respect the rules of democratic politics.” But that doesn’t mean parties favoring a Sharia state in which, say, Muslims who convert to another religion are sentenced to death, fall into that category. There is no proof that Islamist parties “respect the rules of democratic politics” except their willingness to run in elections. The Nazis and Communists also ran in elections. So what?
And what is a moderate Muslim? He might be a conservative traditionalist; liberal reformer; Kurdish or Berber nationalist; tribal loyalist; etc. But that doesn’t apply to an Islamist, someone who wants to fundamentally transform the existing society into one governed by Sharia law under a hardline interpretation, wiping of Israel off the map, subordinating Christians and women; and driving Western influence out of the region.
Winning an election and forming a government is only the first step. What does that government do? It passes laws that enforce an Islamist conception of society; puts its people into the bureaucracy, rewards imams who are radical and fires those who are moderate; rewrites textbooks and what appears on the media, chooses judges and the commanders of the armed forces; and sponsors terrorism against other states.
It would be something else completely for the U.S. government to say: We will accept the Muslim Brotherhood in government if it takes power in an election, but we will do everything possible to stop that from happening. That would be a proper U.S. interests’ policy.
–“The suggestion that faithful Muslims cannot thrive in a democracy is insulting, dangerous, and wrong. They do it in this country every day.” Can you really be that dangerously stupid? There is a difference between non-Islamists and Islamists; a difference between a group that is a tiny minority in the United States and that is—in Egypt—90 percent of the population. Clinton is suggesting that to say Islamists are not moderate democrats is to be an Islamophobe and a racist.
That paragraph is thus full of careless and ignorant rhetoric. The U.S. government seems to be defining a “faithful Muslim” as someone who supports the Muslim Brotherhood. Who do you think is going to be filling the prisons of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Gaza, and Lebanon? Faithful Muslims, that’s who.
Read the whole thing.
Hillary Clinton made a speech last week that has gotten nowhere near enough attention. In it, she said that the Obama administration would encourage Islamist governments to take power. No, really.
“Not all Islamists are alike. Turkey and Iran are both governed by parties with religious roots, but their models and behavior are radically different. There are plenty of political parties with religious affiliations—Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Muslim—that respect the rules of democratic politics. The suggestion that faithful Muslims cannot thrive in a democracy is insulting, dangerous, and wrong. They do it in this country every day.”
“Parties committed to democracy must reject violence; they must abide by the rule of law and respect the freedoms of speech, religion, association, and assembly; they must respect the rights of women and minorities; they must let go of power if defeated at the polls; and in a region with deep divisions within and between religions, they cannot be the spark that starts a conflagration. In other words, what parties call themselves is less important to us than what they actually do.”
“In Tunisia, an Islamist party has just won a plurality of the votes in an open, competitive election. Its leaders have promised to embrace freedom of religion and full rights for women. To write a constitution and govern, they will have to persuade secular parties to work with them. And as they do, America will work with them, too, because we share the desire to see a Tunisian democracy emerge that delivers for its citizens and because America respects the right of the Tunisian people to choose their own leaders.”
Barry Rubin explains what Clinton said.
What’s striking about the administration’s position is the lack of the most basic logic. True, a political party with religious affiliations might “respect the rules of democratic politics.” But that doesn’t mean parties favoring a Sharia state in which, say, Muslims who convert to another religion are sentenced to death, fall into that category. There is no proof that Islamist parties “respect the rules of democratic politics” except their willingness to run in elections. The Nazis and Communists also ran in elections. So what?
And what is a moderate Muslim? He might be a conservative traditionalist; liberal reformer; Kurdish or Berber nationalist; tribal loyalist; etc. But that doesn’t apply to an Islamist, someone who wants to fundamentally transform the existing society into one governed by Sharia law under a hardline interpretation, wiping of Israel off the map, subordinating Christians and women; and driving Western influence out of the region.
Winning an election and forming a government is only the first step. What does that government do? It passes laws that enforce an Islamist conception of society; puts its people into the bureaucracy, rewards imams who are radical and fires those who are moderate; rewrites textbooks and what appears on the media, chooses judges and the commanders of the armed forces; and sponsors terrorism against other states.
It would be something else completely for the U.S. government to say: We will accept the Muslim Brotherhood in government if it takes power in an election, but we will do everything possible to stop that from happening. That would be a proper U.S. interests’ policy.
–“The suggestion that faithful Muslims cannot thrive in a democracy is insulting, dangerous, and wrong. They do it in this country every day.” Can you really be that dangerously stupid? There is a difference between non-Islamists and Islamists; a difference between a group that is a tiny minority in the United States and that is—in Egypt—90 percent of the population. Clinton is suggesting that to say Islamists are not moderate democrats is to be an Islamophobe and a racist.
That paragraph is thus full of careless and ignorant rhetoric. The U.S. government seems to be defining a “faithful Muslim” as someone who supports the Muslim Brotherhood. Who do you think is going to be filling the prisons of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Gaza, and Lebanon? Faithful Muslims, that’s who.
Read the whole thing.
Michelle's Makeup Artist Earns $15,000 Per Day!
Saturday, November 12, 2011
It looks like Michelle Obama has been spending quite a bit of money on the services of high profile makeup artist Derrick Rutledge:
Rutledge is the man behind the look of some of the world’s most famous names. A leading makeup artist, he gets as much as $15,000 for a day’s work and boasts a coveted client list, including two of the nation’s most photographed faces, Michelle Obama and Oprah, as well as singers such as Patti LaBelle, Shirley Caesar and CeCe Winans. Just last month, his work was on the covers of Essence and AARP, which featured Obama, and O, which featured, obviously, Oprah.
Source: Washington Post
It looks like Michelle Obama has been spending quite a bit of money on the services of high profile makeup artist Derrick Rutledge:
Rutledge is the man behind the look of some of the world’s most famous names. A leading makeup artist, he gets as much as $15,000 for a day’s work and boasts a coveted client list, including two of the nation’s most photographed faces, Michelle Obama and Oprah, as well as singers such as Patti LaBelle, Shirley Caesar and CeCe Winans. Just last month, his work was on the covers of Essence and AARP, which featured Obama, and O, which featured, obviously, Oprah.
Source: Washington Post
$433 million no bid contract for experimental drug goes to longtime Democratic donor
November 12, 2011
$433 million no bid contract for experimental drug goes to longtime Democratic donor
Reporting from Washington — Over the last year, the Obama administration has aggressively pushed a $433-million plan to buy an experimental smallpox drug, despite uncertainty over whether it is needed or will work.
Senior officials have taken unusual steps to secure the contract for New York-based Siga Technologies Inc., whose controlling shareholder is billionaire Ronald O. Perelman, one of the world's richest men and a longtime Democratic Party donor.
When Siga complained that contracting specialists at the Department of Health and Human Services were resisting the company's financial demands, senior officials replaced the government's lead negotiator for the deal, interviews and documents show.
When Siga was in danger of losing its grip on the contract a year ago, the officials blocked other firms from competing. [...]
[...] The price of approximately $255 per dose is well above what the government's specialists had earlier said was reasonable, according to internal documents and interviews. [...]
Posted by Will Profit at 9:27 PM
$433 million no bid contract for experimental drug goes to longtime Democratic donor
Reporting from Washington — Over the last year, the Obama administration has aggressively pushed a $433-million plan to buy an experimental smallpox drug, despite uncertainty over whether it is needed or will work.
Senior officials have taken unusual steps to secure the contract for New York-based Siga Technologies Inc., whose controlling shareholder is billionaire Ronald O. Perelman, one of the world's richest men and a longtime Democratic Party donor.
When Siga complained that contracting specialists at the Department of Health and Human Services were resisting the company's financial demands, senior officials replaced the government's lead negotiator for the deal, interviews and documents show.
When Siga was in danger of losing its grip on the contract a year ago, the officials blocked other firms from competing. [...]
[...] The price of approximately $255 per dose is well above what the government's specialists had earlier said was reasonable, according to internal documents and interviews. [...]
Posted by Will Profit at 9:27 PM
IRONY: Occupy Denver Ended Before BlogCon
Saturday, November 12, 2011
The two days of BlogCon was an intensive introduction to some new tools being made available to conservative bloggers from the folks at FreedomWorks plus a preview of some really cool news that will be coming out during the next few weeks.
But most of today the buzz through the conference was yesterday's two confrontations with Occupy Denver, and what was expected to be one more confrontation as the entire group was planning to march outside our hotel at around noon. First thing in the morning we were told that Hotel Security and the Denver PD were both requesting that the conference attendees remained inside and of course we complied.
What we didn't know until a few hours later that the Occupy Denver group would be thrown out of their hobo camp today, but not before they revived a visit from Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs and Jim Hoft the Gateway Pundit.
The two tested out the spacious living quarters of the Occupy Denver protesters in Lincoln Park.
Check out Atlas Shrugs and Gateway Pundit for more great pictures of their "dream date."
Little did they know that just a few hours later the happiness of the hobo camp would be interrupted, the Denver PD moved in on the camp as thankfully the Denver government decided to take back their city. On Friday the Occupiers were told to remove their belongings by Saturday they would be forcefully removed from the park.
A little after 5PM the police moved to take back the park, my friend Ben Howe was there to take this video
Liberty Chick got some video also
After leaving the park the occupiers decided to go to the sixteenth street mall and protest, where they met up with among other people, Da Tech Guy who was on his way back from mass.
(Peter has more videos on his site)
As I walked back to the hotel after dinner, I saw the occupiers were still at the 16th street mall congregating in small groups trying to block traffic.
The entire thing was very ironic. This group which tried so hard to stop BlogCon was stopped themselves was thrown out of their camp hours before the group they tried to silence, packed up and left Denver. I guess that means we won, but in actuality the real winners were the city of Denver, whose Police Department put their own bodies on the line to clear the city of this Occupy scourge.
The two days of BlogCon was an intensive introduction to some new tools being made available to conservative bloggers from the folks at FreedomWorks plus a preview of some really cool news that will be coming out during the next few weeks.
But most of today the buzz through the conference was yesterday's two confrontations with Occupy Denver, and what was expected to be one more confrontation as the entire group was planning to march outside our hotel at around noon. First thing in the morning we were told that Hotel Security and the Denver PD were both requesting that the conference attendees remained inside and of course we complied.
What we didn't know until a few hours later that the Occupy Denver group would be thrown out of their hobo camp today, but not before they revived a visit from Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs and Jim Hoft the Gateway Pundit.
The two tested out the spacious living quarters of the Occupy Denver protesters in Lincoln Park.
Check out Atlas Shrugs and Gateway Pundit for more great pictures of their "dream date."
Little did they know that just a few hours later the happiness of the hobo camp would be interrupted, the Denver PD moved in on the camp as thankfully the Denver government decided to take back their city. On Friday the Occupiers were told to remove their belongings by Saturday they would be forcefully removed from the park.
A little after 5PM the police moved to take back the park, my friend Ben Howe was there to take this video
Liberty Chick got some video also
After leaving the park the occupiers decided to go to the sixteenth street mall and protest, where they met up with among other people, Da Tech Guy who was on his way back from mass.
(Peter has more videos on his site)
As I walked back to the hotel after dinner, I saw the occupiers were still at the 16th street mall congregating in small groups trying to block traffic.
The entire thing was very ironic. This group which tried so hard to stop BlogCon was stopped themselves was thrown out of their camp hours before the group they tried to silence, packed up and left Denver. I guess that means we won, but in actuality the real winners were the city of Denver, whose Police Department put their own bodies on the line to clear the city of this Occupy scourge.
The Black Hole of History
Political Islam
Everybody knows that Turkey, Egypt, North Africa, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and other Islamic nations (there are 57 in all) are nearly 100% Muslim. Those countries were Christian, Buddhist and Hindu. Exactly how did this change to Muslim happen?
When you read history it seems that Islam came, and, magically, the countries are Islamic. But of course an event of this magnitude did not simply happen. But our schools insist that Islam “just happens.” In fact, the entire history of the rise of Islamic imperialism is denied in the curriculum of our private, state and religious schools. Our schools don’t teach how Islam transforms each and every nation it invades to pure Islam, how it happens and what the consequences are. This is the law of Islamic saturation. Our history denies the truth of the Islamification of civilizations. Actually, our history denies that Islam is even involved. It was the Turks, the Arabs, the Moors and so on. There is no Islam, just some ethnic group.
Look even closer at the history and ask this question: how many Kafirs (non-Muslims) died in Islamic conquest? You may find a number of dead here and there at a particular battle, but the establishment answer of the number murdered by jihad is zero, zip, none. In fact, there was not even a category called “jihad deaths.” You see, Islam just happens.
After 9/11, there was an intellectual response to the establishment intellectual vacuum about how Islam actually functioned. A revolution of new scholarship on Islam was created by those amateur scholars who are outside the brain-dead establishment academy. The minds and labors of Bat Ye’or, Spencer, Trifkovic, Bostom, Warraq, Warner, Phares and many others tackled the problem of the true nature of Islam. The new scholarship gave answers to all of the questions about Islamic colonization of the world.
For the deaths caused by Sharia law, the Center for the Study of Political Islam coined the name, Tears of Jihad. There is no way to actually come up with a precise number of deaths, because Islam has written the history (after all, they were the winners) and, of course, the history is all beautiful. There is only one way to even get close to a precise answer and that is for the academy to take up this subject and treat it as a priority. Conferences would be held, papers given, journals published with peer reviews and the rest of the academic critical thought process would go on for decades and many papers.
If the answer to the total jihad deaths is not zero, then CSPI proposes that 270 million Kafirs have been murdered over the last 1400 years. This figure includes 60 million Christians and 80 million Hindus. What if only 30 million Christians had been killed? Does that mean that churches should continue to ignore the Coptic murders in Egypt today and deny the million Armenians killed in the 20th century? Would Hindus have more or less courage if only 50 million, instead of 80 million had been murdered?
This is a civilizational problem, not an accounting problem. It is not that we deny that 270 million have been killed by jihad; we deny that Islam is even at war with all Kafirs and Kafir civilization. A better kill number won’t erase the cowardice that blinds us today to an acknowledgment that Islam has a history of annihilating all civilization—the law of Islamic saturation.
It is interesting to see people’s reaction to the numbers. The vast majority ignore them. They don’t want to know. The most political figure is the number of Africans killed in jihad for the slave trade. The establishment tells us that all slaves were brought here from the West coast of Africa by Christians. It turns out that the slave trade was also on the Mediterranean and the east coast of Africa and each and everyone of the wholesalers in Africa were Muslims. This knowledge violates the establishment dogma of Christian evil.
One of the failures of the number 270 million is that it does not include the number of the Zoroastrians killed in Persia and other minorities such as the Sabians and Bahai. Who knows how many peasants died in some village without a name, simply because they did not believe that Mohammed was the prophet of Allah?
So, if the number is not 270 million, then what is a better number? Use critical thought to answer this problem, and don’t tell us that the number is zero. Give us an improvement, not a denial. We have had denial for 1400 years.
Facts and numbers are important but the real tragedy here is that our schools don’t teach the history that is the source the world’s greatest suffering caused by Islamic jihad imperialism. Since establishment professors and historians refuse to touch the subject of the Tears of Jihad, we must depend upon other scholarship to address the question of how we get the exact numbers. To that end, if you can improve any of the death figures with factual data, go to /blog/the-black-hole-of-history/ and give us your information.
Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink /blog/the-black-hole-of-history/
Posted by GS Don Morris, Ph.D./Chana Givon
at 7:06 AM
Everybody knows that Turkey, Egypt, North Africa, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and other Islamic nations (there are 57 in all) are nearly 100% Muslim. Those countries were Christian, Buddhist and Hindu. Exactly how did this change to Muslim happen?
When you read history it seems that Islam came, and, magically, the countries are Islamic. But of course an event of this magnitude did not simply happen. But our schools insist that Islam “just happens.” In fact, the entire history of the rise of Islamic imperialism is denied in the curriculum of our private, state and religious schools. Our schools don’t teach how Islam transforms each and every nation it invades to pure Islam, how it happens and what the consequences are. This is the law of Islamic saturation. Our history denies the truth of the Islamification of civilizations. Actually, our history denies that Islam is even involved. It was the Turks, the Arabs, the Moors and so on. There is no Islam, just some ethnic group.
Look even closer at the history and ask this question: how many Kafirs (non-Muslims) died in Islamic conquest? You may find a number of dead here and there at a particular battle, but the establishment answer of the number murdered by jihad is zero, zip, none. In fact, there was not even a category called “jihad deaths.” You see, Islam just happens.
After 9/11, there was an intellectual response to the establishment intellectual vacuum about how Islam actually functioned. A revolution of new scholarship on Islam was created by those amateur scholars who are outside the brain-dead establishment academy. The minds and labors of Bat Ye’or, Spencer, Trifkovic, Bostom, Warraq, Warner, Phares and many others tackled the problem of the true nature of Islam. The new scholarship gave answers to all of the questions about Islamic colonization of the world.
For the deaths caused by Sharia law, the Center for the Study of Political Islam coined the name, Tears of Jihad. There is no way to actually come up with a precise number of deaths, because Islam has written the history (after all, they were the winners) and, of course, the history is all beautiful. There is only one way to even get close to a precise answer and that is for the academy to take up this subject and treat it as a priority. Conferences would be held, papers given, journals published with peer reviews and the rest of the academic critical thought process would go on for decades and many papers.
If the answer to the total jihad deaths is not zero, then CSPI proposes that 270 million Kafirs have been murdered over the last 1400 years. This figure includes 60 million Christians and 80 million Hindus. What if only 30 million Christians had been killed? Does that mean that churches should continue to ignore the Coptic murders in Egypt today and deny the million Armenians killed in the 20th century? Would Hindus have more or less courage if only 50 million, instead of 80 million had been murdered?
This is a civilizational problem, not an accounting problem. It is not that we deny that 270 million have been killed by jihad; we deny that Islam is even at war with all Kafirs and Kafir civilization. A better kill number won’t erase the cowardice that blinds us today to an acknowledgment that Islam has a history of annihilating all civilization—the law of Islamic saturation.
It is interesting to see people’s reaction to the numbers. The vast majority ignore them. They don’t want to know. The most political figure is the number of Africans killed in jihad for the slave trade. The establishment tells us that all slaves were brought here from the West coast of Africa by Christians. It turns out that the slave trade was also on the Mediterranean and the east coast of Africa and each and everyone of the wholesalers in Africa were Muslims. This knowledge violates the establishment dogma of Christian evil.
One of the failures of the number 270 million is that it does not include the number of the Zoroastrians killed in Persia and other minorities such as the Sabians and Bahai. Who knows how many peasants died in some village without a name, simply because they did not believe that Mohammed was the prophet of Allah?
So, if the number is not 270 million, then what is a better number? Use critical thought to answer this problem, and don’t tell us that the number is zero. Give us an improvement, not a denial. We have had denial for 1400 years.
Facts and numbers are important but the real tragedy here is that our schools don’t teach the history that is the source the world’s greatest suffering caused by Islamic jihad imperialism. Since establishment professors and historians refuse to touch the subject of the Tears of Jihad, we must depend upon other scholarship to address the question of how we get the exact numbers. To that end, if you can improve any of the death figures with factual data, go to /blog/the-black-hole-of-history/ and give us your information.
Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink /blog/the-black-hole-of-history/
Posted by GS Don Morris, Ph.D./Chana Givon
at 7:06 AM
SurveyUSA Poll: Romney beats Obama by 25 points, Gingrich beats Obama by 17 points in Kansas
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Head-To-Head:
Mitt Romney 56% (+25)
Barack Obama 31%
Newt Gingrich 52% (+17)
Barack Obama 35%
What if your choice was between Democratic ticket of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and the Republican Ticket of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, who would you vote for?
Romney/Gingrich 56% (+24)
Obama/Biden 32%
What if your choice was between the Democratic ticket of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and the Republican Ticket of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, who would you vote for?
Romney/Gingrich 56% (+22)
Obama/Clinton 34%
What if your choice was between Democratic ticket of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and the Republican Ticket of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, who would you vote for?
Gingrich/Romney 53% (+19)
Obama/Biden 34%
What if your choice was between the Democratic ticket of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and the Republican Ticket of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, who would you vote for?
Gingrich/Romney 52% (+18)
Obama/Clinton 34%
The poll of 800 adults was conducted on November 10 and has an MOE of +/-3.5%.
The crosstabs can be viewed HERE.
Head-To-Head:
Mitt Romney 56% (+25)
Barack Obama 31%
Newt Gingrich 52% (+17)
Barack Obama 35%
What if your choice was between Democratic ticket of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and the Republican Ticket of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, who would you vote for?
Romney/Gingrich 56% (+24)
Obama/Biden 32%
What if your choice was between the Democratic ticket of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and the Republican Ticket of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, who would you vote for?
Romney/Gingrich 56% (+22)
Obama/Clinton 34%
What if your choice was between Democratic ticket of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and the Republican Ticket of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, who would you vote for?
Gingrich/Romney 53% (+19)
Obama/Biden 34%
What if your choice was between the Democratic ticket of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and the Republican Ticket of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, who would you vote for?
Gingrich/Romney 52% (+18)
Obama/Clinton 34%
The poll of 800 adults was conducted on November 10 and has an MOE of +/-3.5%.
The crosstabs can be viewed HERE.
TEA PARTY APPROVED SUNDAY POLITICAL CARTOONS
Sunday, November 13, 2011
TEA PARTY APPROVED SUNDAY POLITICAL CARTOONS
TEA PARTY APPROVED SUNDAY POLITICAL CARTOONS
Introverted and Extroverted blogs
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Introverted and Extroverted blogs
I hadn't previously read Jonathan Rauch's popular article on introversion in The Atlantic. It's simple, but pretty good, although I shudder to think that many people actually regarded this as containing much in the way of new information.
Introverts are not necessarily shy. Shy people are anxious or frightened or self-excoriating in social settings; introverts generally are not. Introverts are also not misanthropic, though some of us do go along with Sartre as far as to say "Hell is other people at breakfast." Rather, introverts are people who find other people tiring.
Extroverts are energized by people, and wilt or fade when alone. They often seem bored by themselves, in both senses of the expression. Leave an extrovert alone for two minutes and he will reach for his cell phone. In contrast, after an hour or two of being socially "on," we introverts need to turn off and recharge. My own formula is roughly two hours alone for every hour of socializing. This isn't antisocial. It isn't a sign of depression. It does not call for medication. For introverts, to be alone with our thoughts is as restorative as sleeping, as nourishing as eating. Our motto: "I'm okay, you're okay—in small doses."
One thing I've noticed is that this blog appears to be a stronghold of introversion, which may help explain why it has such a hard core, but relatively small readership. For example, I actively dissuade what could be considered extrovert-style commenting - generally described in these parts as comment diarrhea - in which the commenter leaves many multiple one-line comments as they occur to him. And I've also noted that many of the blogs with bigger traffic tend to have more and shorter posts.
It has never bothered me that more people might prefer other blogs to this one, nor did I ever wish to imitate them, but I did find it puzzling that so many people like to regularly read blogs that essentially say nothing, and say nothing so succinctly. I'm not talking about aggregators like Drudge and Instapundit, you understand, but the sort of blogs where the commentary on the Republican debate is four lines or the contents of their meals is a frequent topic of conversation. I've tried reading several very popular blogs on occasion, and to be honest, I not only could not read them regularly, I couldn't even figure out why anyone was reading them. Ever.
It couldn't be described as an intelligence thing either. Some of these bloggers were quite smart and very successful, others perhaps not quite so much, but the one thing they had in common is that a) their average post length is very short, both in terms of the selections from the links provided and their own writing, and b) their readers' average time on site is measured in single-digit seconds. That latter fact has always puzzled me too. Who reads anything except Twitter or market prices in less than 10 seconds? How is that even possible? I understand that those who are checking back to see if there is a new post or not will tend to drive down the average, but why would there be so many multiples of post-checking in comparison with incidence of readers actually reading the posts?
If it is true that extroversion and introversion have fundamentally different styles of communication, then these differences should translate to blog writing, blog commenting, and even blog readerships as well. This may also explain why most of the early big bloggers completely failed as book authors... authors tend to be introverts, for obvious reasons, whereas the more visible bloggers who attracted mainstream media attention are more likely to be extroverts and extroverts are seldom able to focus long enough to complete a coherent thoughtcomplete book. SFWA President-For-Life John Scalzi of Whatever is an interesting case; is he an extroverted geek who is able to focus himself long enough to complete his books or an introvert who enjoys performing in public on occasion? Since I find tend to find his approach to both his blog and his books rather scattershot, I suspect the former, but I wouldn't bet much on it. The Prince of Wängst strikes me as extremely introverted, as does Roissy. Ann Althouse's blog, on the other hand, appears to be of the extroverted variety.
To what extent the blog matches the blogger, or the readership, for that matter, I don't know. It's more of an impression than an observation and I'd be interested in hearing your opinions about what blogs fit which category. As should be obvious, like most of the readership, I am rather strongly introverted myself, which is why I always find it both bizarre and amusing when I am accused of writing things solely in order to attract attention. That is the classic extrovert's projection at work; they simply cannot imagine that anyone would not want to be on stage or appear on TV.
As for Rauch's article, the best part of it is where he describes the concept of social fatigue. At every social gathering, there is the inevitable moment when the mundane chatter surrounding me like an aural miasma appears to crescendo, grow ever more incoherent and frenetic, until it finally all fades away into the blessed silence inside my mind.
Occasionally someone will notice that I am paying absolutely no attention to the conversation and ask me what I am thinking. This is a mistake. But because I am sufficiently civilized, I never answer truthfully. There is no benefit to sharing the dark thoughts inspired by an overdose of social exposure, and anyway, it's nothing that a little time alone won't cure.
Introverted and Extroverted blogs
I hadn't previously read Jonathan Rauch's popular article on introversion in The Atlantic. It's simple, but pretty good, although I shudder to think that many people actually regarded this as containing much in the way of new information.
Introverts are not necessarily shy. Shy people are anxious or frightened or self-excoriating in social settings; introverts generally are not. Introverts are also not misanthropic, though some of us do go along with Sartre as far as to say "Hell is other people at breakfast." Rather, introverts are people who find other people tiring.
Extroverts are energized by people, and wilt or fade when alone. They often seem bored by themselves, in both senses of the expression. Leave an extrovert alone for two minutes and he will reach for his cell phone. In contrast, after an hour or two of being socially "on," we introverts need to turn off and recharge. My own formula is roughly two hours alone for every hour of socializing. This isn't antisocial. It isn't a sign of depression. It does not call for medication. For introverts, to be alone with our thoughts is as restorative as sleeping, as nourishing as eating. Our motto: "I'm okay, you're okay—in small doses."
One thing I've noticed is that this blog appears to be a stronghold of introversion, which may help explain why it has such a hard core, but relatively small readership. For example, I actively dissuade what could be considered extrovert-style commenting - generally described in these parts as comment diarrhea - in which the commenter leaves many multiple one-line comments as they occur to him. And I've also noted that many of the blogs with bigger traffic tend to have more and shorter posts.
It has never bothered me that more people might prefer other blogs to this one, nor did I ever wish to imitate them, but I did find it puzzling that so many people like to regularly read blogs that essentially say nothing, and say nothing so succinctly. I'm not talking about aggregators like Drudge and Instapundit, you understand, but the sort of blogs where the commentary on the Republican debate is four lines or the contents of their meals is a frequent topic of conversation. I've tried reading several very popular blogs on occasion, and to be honest, I not only could not read them regularly, I couldn't even figure out why anyone was reading them. Ever.
It couldn't be described as an intelligence thing either. Some of these bloggers were quite smart and very successful, others perhaps not quite so much, but the one thing they had in common is that a) their average post length is very short, both in terms of the selections from the links provided and their own writing, and b) their readers' average time on site is measured in single-digit seconds. That latter fact has always puzzled me too. Who reads anything except Twitter or market prices in less than 10 seconds? How is that even possible? I understand that those who are checking back to see if there is a new post or not will tend to drive down the average, but why would there be so many multiples of post-checking in comparison with incidence of readers actually reading the posts?
If it is true that extroversion and introversion have fundamentally different styles of communication, then these differences should translate to blog writing, blog commenting, and even blog readerships as well. This may also explain why most of the early big bloggers completely failed as book authors... authors tend to be introverts, for obvious reasons, whereas the more visible bloggers who attracted mainstream media attention are more likely to be extroverts and extroverts are seldom able to focus long enough to complete a coherent thoughtcomplete book. SFWA President-For-Life John Scalzi of Whatever is an interesting case; is he an extroverted geek who is able to focus himself long enough to complete his books or an introvert who enjoys performing in public on occasion? Since I find tend to find his approach to both his blog and his books rather scattershot, I suspect the former, but I wouldn't bet much on it. The Prince of Wängst strikes me as extremely introverted, as does Roissy. Ann Althouse's blog, on the other hand, appears to be of the extroverted variety.
To what extent the blog matches the blogger, or the readership, for that matter, I don't know. It's more of an impression than an observation and I'd be interested in hearing your opinions about what blogs fit which category. As should be obvious, like most of the readership, I am rather strongly introverted myself, which is why I always find it both bizarre and amusing when I am accused of writing things solely in order to attract attention. That is the classic extrovert's projection at work; they simply cannot imagine that anyone would not want to be on stage or appear on TV.
As for Rauch's article, the best part of it is where he describes the concept of social fatigue. At every social gathering, there is the inevitable moment when the mundane chatter surrounding me like an aural miasma appears to crescendo, grow ever more incoherent and frenetic, until it finally all fades away into the blessed silence inside my mind.
Occasionally someone will notice that I am paying absolutely no attention to the conversation and ask me what I am thinking. This is a mistake. But because I am sufficiently civilized, I never answer truthfully. There is no benefit to sharing the dark thoughts inspired by an overdose of social exposure, and anyway, it's nothing that a little time alone won't cure.
Limiting Principles, James Madison
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Limiting Principles, James Madison
"In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws: its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." --James Madison
Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs at 2:21 AM
Limiting Principles, James Madison
"In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws: its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." --James Madison
Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs at 2:21 AM
Occupy San Francisco Protesters with Razor Blades Attack Police
Posted by Aurelius at 6:24 AM
Shucks, they're just so peaceful:
One San Francisco police officer was slashed by a razor and another had his uniform torn and cheek cut in a clash with Occupy San Francisco protesters Saturday afternoon, authorities said.
About 3:30 p.m., near the Embarcadero and Broadway, police attempted to prevent marching demonstrators from blocking the intersection where MUNI light rail tracks are located.
A female protester emerged from the crowd and an "exacto razor blade attached to a pen or pencil-like object," San Francisco police said in an email.
"The female slashed the inside of the officer's hand and ran back into the crowd before the officer had time to realize he was cut," police said.
In a second incident, a protester grabbed an officer's police radio and ran back into the crowd. As the officer attempted to retrieve it, a second protester blocked the officer and tore his uniform and cut his cheek, police said, intimating that a weapon had been used.
The officer retrieved his radio and both male demonstrators escaped into the crowd, police said.
Shucks, they're just so peaceful:
One San Francisco police officer was slashed by a razor and another had his uniform torn and cheek cut in a clash with Occupy San Francisco protesters Saturday afternoon, authorities said.
About 3:30 p.m., near the Embarcadero and Broadway, police attempted to prevent marching demonstrators from blocking the intersection where MUNI light rail tracks are located.
A female protester emerged from the crowd and an "exacto razor blade attached to a pen or pencil-like object," San Francisco police said in an email.
"The female slashed the inside of the officer's hand and ran back into the crowd before the officer had time to realize he was cut," police said.
In a second incident, a protester grabbed an officer's police radio and ran back into the crowd. As the officer attempted to retrieve it, a second protester blocked the officer and tore his uniform and cut his cheek, police said, intimating that a weapon had been used.
The officer retrieved his radio and both male demonstrators escaped into the crowd, police said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)