OWS Protesters: Rush More Dangerous Than Al-Qaeda

Hippie Dances on Soldiers' Memorial

Former Soviet Citizen Confronts Socialists at Occupy Wall Street

Joe Biden Becomes Upset After Being Asked About Controversial Rape Comments

Poor Biden thinks that cops interrupt a rape in progress. This kind of delusional reasoning posits that the rape victim has both the time and opportunity while being assaulted for a phone call to be placed to the police department. Additionally, this brilliant thinking believes that the assailant will sit still to wait while not only the rape victim takes a break to call the police, but for the ensuing squad car to be dispatched and arrive at his location.

This is what happens when you've had a brain anyuerism and/or spent too many years "serving the people":

OWS Supporter Rants Against Israel, Jews

OccupyWallSt Poster Boy A Trust Fund Baby, Attempted Stowaway At JFK

Why I Can't Take Ron Paul Seriously

This is why I can't take Ron Paul seriously:

WINTERSET, Ia. – Two weeks away from the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, presidential candidate and Texas Rep. Ron Paul says that U.S. intervention in the Middle East is a main motivation behind terrorist hostilities toward America, and that Islam is not a threat to the nation.

At a campaign stop on Saturday in Winterset, one man asked Paul how terrorist groups would react if the U.S. removed its military presence in Middle Eastern nations, a move the candidate advocates.

“Which enemy are you worried that will attack our national security?” Paul asked.

“If you’re looking for specifics, I’m talking about Islam. Radical Islam,” the man answered.

“I don’t see Islam as our enemy,” Paul said. “I see that motivation is occupation and those who hate us and would like to kill us, they are motivated by our invasion of their land, the support of their dictators that they hate.”

Regarding 9/11, Paul said that attacks against the U.S. from Middle Eastern groups at home and abroad can be traced to the foreign presence of U.S. troops, as well as America’s relationships with dictator regimes.

Paul referred to a military base in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, as a key motivator in the Sept. 11th attacks. Osama bin Laden viewed it as an American desecration of holy land.

“After 9/11, (people said) ‘Oh yeah, it’s those very bad people who hate us,’ but 15 of (the hijackers) came from Saudi Arabia,” said Paul. “One of the reasons they attacked us, is we propped up this Sharia government and the fundamentalists hated us for it.”

The congressman particularly decried U.S.-led bombings in foreign nations, saying that “almost always those individuals that they are trying to kill did not have any direct relationship” with threats to the U.S.

Accordingly, his expectations for the rebels in Libya, who were assisted by American-led bombing efforts, aren’t very bright.

“Remember ‘Mission Accomplished’? That’s probably about where we are right now,” Paul told The Des Moines Register, “and (the U.S.) better be very cautious about bragging about anything.”

The crumbling of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s regime wouldn’t amount to a significant victory because al-Qaeda forces would arise there soon, Paul said.

“As bad as Gadaffi was, he didn’t like the al-Qaeda,” Paul said. “He kicked those people out.”

Paul cited a University of Chicago professor, Robert Pape, whose research argues that most of the suicide terrorism in the past 30 years was caused by military occupation. Pape’s research, funded by the Defense Department, shows that suicide bombings in Afghanistan went up one third after the Obama administration surged 30,000 troops into the country.

“(9/11) was one of the main motivations for getting your attention on why they hate us and want to kill us,” he said. “You could send 20 million people over there and all it would do is make our problems worse.”(source)

Ron is on the side of our enemy and the rest of the blame-America-first crowd with this kind of rhetoric. In one amazingly obtuse moment, he gives aid and comfort to the enemy, and denies that we gave away the lives of good American men and women in the defense of millions of people worldwide for their causes, and still do to this day.

To hear him talk, you would think that there is nothing in the heart of this worldwide movement of jihadists except simple revenge for wrong-headed global imperialism by the bully Uncle Sam, compounded by every bootstep that Johnny takes on their holy soil.

Sounds as plain as the nose on your face, doesn’t it? Let’s just do what Yuseff says, ok? After all, the jihadists speak for all Muslims and Arabs, right? We should base our foreign policy on the thinking of these war-driven lunatics who imagine an offense at everything we do from allowing our women to walk around without complete cover to giving voice to homosexuals.

Good move, there, Ron. You’ve succeeded in pulling the wool over the Americans’ eyes that have no knowledge of history. Your attempt to lull them to sleep is working with a surprising amount of naive folks. A little more of your philosophy on foreign policy is all we need to be on our knees again, begging for our way of life.

But there’s just a few nagging questions left that don’t fit into your “revenge for-stepping-on-our-soil” explanation:

When jihadists tried to assassinate the Pope repeated times in the past 30 years, what was his crime?

When jihadists have murdered, raped, and evacuated Buddhists in Bangladesh, Thailand, and India, what imperialism had they committed?

When jihadists in the 7th century invaded and destroyed the Zoroastrians, what did they do to deserve eradication?

When Iran’s Supreme Ruler, the Ayatollah Khomeni called for any good Muslim to kill Salman Rushdie on sight, what imperialism had he committed?

Ron’s woefully undereducated comments border on the bizarre, of course. It’s almost as if he’s not getting enough oxygen to his brain anymore. How can you square this non-sequitur: “One of the reasons they attacked us, is we propped up this Sharia government and the fundamentalists hated us for it.”

The Islamic fundamentalists WANT Shariah Law, Ron. You need to sit down and catch your breath, now. You’re embarrassing yourself.

Ron’s also been known to step on that good ship Lollypop known as Jew-hatin’, from time to time in the past. He has good company these days with the American Left, who resent our support of Israel and like to blame all Middle Eastern tension on such, as well. When you hear them use the word neo-con, you know you’re listening to someone who drinks from the same well as the Islamic Fundamentalists who kill Americans any chance they get.

You can chose to believe Ron and his brand of foreign policy that seeks to blame every US soldier’s death from Islamic Fundamentalists on our relationship with a tiny little speck of a nation, surrounded by hostile neighbors that have repeatedly tried to “push them into the Mediterranean” known as Israel (the only democracy in the Arab Empire), but can you answer these questions?:

Is Jemmaah Islamiya attempting to establish an Islamic state in Indonesia because the US supports Israel?

Are the Chechyan jihadists waging Jihad against Russia because the US supports Israel?

Is Abu Sayyef attempting to establish an Islamic state on Mindanao because the US supports Israel?

Are Jihadists attempting to establish an Islamic state in southern Thailand because the US supports Israel?

Have Nigerian Jihadists attacked innocent Christians repeatedly because the US supports Israel?

Is Al Shabaad conducting terrorist attacks in Kenya and Somalia on innocent civilians because the US supports Israel?

Are Jihadists attempting to create an Islamic state in India’s Kashmir because the US supports Israel?

Have Jihadists killed thousands in attacks on innocent civilians in Morocco, Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, the UK, Spain, Jordan and Bangladesh because the US supports Israel?

Are young Jihadis rioting in France because the US supports Israel?

Ron is right on about 99% of what he says concerning domestic spending, in my opinion. But it’s this 1% that completely paints him as your “crazy Uncle Ron” who likes to believe that he can hear aliens transmitting signals through the fillings in his teeth for me. And it’s a shame, too. But at 76 years old, you have to accept a little senility, I guess.

Barack O'Bully Wants To End Israel

"Racism" is a killing hatred for an ethnos, a people or nation. It could be cold hatred, where you just want all those people to disappear from the face of the earth, or red-hot hatred, where you're just itching to bring out your Turkish scimitar and start chopping innocent men, women and children. It doesn't matter if racism is cold or hot. It's the "final solution" that defines it.

Obama just demanded that seven million Jews in Israel abandon their homes to live inside the cease-fire lines of their War of Independence. Those cease-fire lines are not borders, and were never meant to be borders. They are so weirdly drawn that Israel becomes nine miles wide at the waist. For Israel to withdraw to those lines is to "commit suicide" as a nation, as Newt Gingrich has just said. Gingrich is right. This is what radical Islamists keep shouting about, in one, vast industrialized stream of oil-fueled hate propaganda.

And now, ten years after 9/11/01, Obama has joined them.

I don't think Americans really understand that yet. It's obvious that many American Jews don't understand it either. There's a kind of culture shock when radicals express their real beliefs. Nobody wants to believe it.

I can't read minds, and I don't know if Obama has a visceral hatred for Israel. It's not even the right question to ask. The real, practical question is whether Obama is trying to sabotage and ultimately destroy that country. It's "practical racism" that's the issue.

The Left is always trying to draw an imaginary line between Israel hatred and Jew hatred. But it's a distinction without a difference. It's like saying that you love Americans -- but the country named "America" has to be destroyed.

Barack Hussein Obama is therefore a practical racist -- he can proclaim all the lovely sentiments he wants to, finely tuned to whichever audience he wants to sucker, but his stated, practical goal is to shrink Israel into the tiniest and least defensible borders possible. It's like telling America to go back to the original thirteen colonies.

In a world of reality, not high-flown rhetoric, Obama wants to terminate a viable Jewish State in Israel, just as, deep down, he wants to terminate a viable nation of America. That's the program of the Left, and has been since Karl Marx. It's a utopian, one-world fantasy, that always sounds better than anything real. So Barack Hussein Obama, the President of the United States, has come out against the existence of a viable State of Israel. That would be Progress, he seems to think.

If you haven't understood that, your eyes are closed. Consider lifting your eyelids.

The word "racist" has become a word of abuse without real meaning, like the ancient word "bastard." It used to mean something, and then it became just a fuzzy thing meaning "really bad." The Left makes use of race to smear people it wants to oppress and control. It's a verbal club for beating people over the head. But there really are practical racists, people who dream of actually destroying an entire ethnos, a people. The other word for that is "genocide."

We now hear that Hillary Clinton and the Administration have again repeated that demand to commit national suicide. This is what O'Bully did to Hosni Mubarak during the phony "Egyptian Spring." He demanded that Mubarak must resign, and "Now means Now!!" But Mubarak had been our ally for almost 30 years, the man who kept the Egypt-Israel peace treaty alive. O'Bully humiliated Mubarak in public, a tremendous loss of face for an Arab leader, and he resigned.

Now the Muslim Brotherhood is making a grab for power in Egypt.

We've seen this totalitarian movie before. The last time it cost 100 million people their lives. Like Communists during the Soviet Union, Obama never talks about those 100 million victims of Marxist regimes in the 20th century.

Obama has apologized for America on numerous occasions, but he has never deplored the murderous record of Marxist-Leninism. That is significant.

Twenty years ago the Berlin Wall came down, after Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, John Paul II, and a host of freedom activists like Poland's Solidarity fought for human freedom.

Today Barack O'Bully is trying to reverse history by empowering the reactionary Muslim Brotherhood -- which now controls Turkey, Gaza, and maybe Egypt. The other brand of radical Islam is now in control of Iran, Syria and Lebanon.

Iran is getting nukes, and Obama is doing nothing to stop them. Some reports say it's a matter of weeks or months. The Syrians have been revealed as building two more nuclear sites, beside the one the Israelis identified and smashed several years ago. The Saudis, who are radical Sunnis, are due to buy their own nukes from Pakistan (where they helped to finance Pakistan's nukes).

It's happening right in front of our eyes. The facts are no longer in dispute.

They are what they are.

You can keep your eyes shut tight, like a hundred million liberals do every single day.

Or you can open your eyes.

The choice is yours.(source)

Barry As President: GOOGLE GIVES SPECIAL FAVOR TO THEIR MAN FOR UPCOMING ELECTION SEASON

Google denied Wednesday that it gave President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign special access to a new advertising program, something a sales representative from the search and advertising giant had claimed in an email to customers.

The new ad program would charge clients for every email address (or other piece of user data) they collect. The program is attractive to campaigns eager for that information, so when a staffer at the National Republican Senatorial Committee saw what appeared to be an Obama ad built on this technology on the RealClearPolitics website last month, she emailed a Google sales rep to ask about creating a similar ad campaign for Republicans.


The saleswoman, Sirene Abou-Chakra, replied by suggesting that Obama had a special deal.

“This is a pre-alpha product that is being released to a select few clients,” she wrote in an email, referring to the first stage of a product’s roll-out. “I’d be happy to get you into the beta if you’re interested.”

A similar email went out to at least one other Republican digital media firm, a Republican source said.

“It certainly raises some red flags that the Obama campaign appears to have been given special access to a new online advertising product,” said NRSC communications director Brian Walsh in response to an inquiry from POLITICO.

But Google spokesman Jake Parrilo denied strenuously that the Obama campaign had been granted special access to the pilot program, and chalked the email up to inaccurate “puffery” by the sales representative. The ad that appeared on RealClearPolitics, he said, was not a Google ad at all.

“This is an experiment and while we generally do not comment on those experiments we can tell you that we have not sold a single CPL [cost-per-lead] ad unit to any political candidates or committees,” said Parrillo.

And Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt seconded the company’s account that the campaign had not purchased any ads or enrolled in the Google pilot program.

Google, whose chairman and former CEO Eric Schmidt was an informal adviser and support of Obama and sits on the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, has been accused in the past of favoring the White House. The Federal Trade Commission dropped an investigation into the company after a major privacy breach, leading some Republican groups to cry for an investigation — even as Google agreed to a tough 20-year FTC settlement on a second privacy breach.

After POLTICO asked Google about the suggestion of a special deal for the campaign, a Google spokesman forwarded a reporter correspondence between the company and the NRSC, charging - inaccurately - that the committee had been the source of POLITICO’s information.

The forward prompted Walsh to add that he is “concerned that Google shared a private email exchange with our committee and their company with the media.”

The pilot program at issue is a new type of digital advertising that Google appears to be preparing to launch in the third quarter of 2011.

“It’s a cost-effective, easy and scalable way to generate leads,” boasted Google in a marketing document about their new product. “Fewer steps for users means they’re more likely to complete your lead form.”

Parrillo told POLITICO that the Republican and the Democratic political ad sales teams at Google are kept separate and are unaware of the other side’s projects or deals.(source)

MSM Diary: Owned By The Drudge Report, Which Is More Fair And Balanced Than The Mainstream Press

The liberal bias of the mainstream media tilts so far left that any outlets not in that political lane, like the Drudge Report and Fox News Channel, look far more conservative than they really are, according to a UCLA professor's new book out next month.

In a crushing body blow to the pushers of the so-called "Fox Effect," which claims the conservative media is dragging the left into the center, UCLA political science professor Tim Groseclose in Left Turn claims that "all" mainstream news outlets have a liberal bias in their reporting that makes even moderate organizations appear out of the mainstream and decidedly right-wing to news consumers who are influenced by the slant. [Read Fox's Huckabee slams MSNBC's Matthews, Scarborough over bias.]

"Fox News is clearly more conservative than ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and National Public Radio. Some will conclude that 'therefore, this means that Fox News has a conservative bias,'" he writes in an advance copy provided to Washington Whispers. "Instead, maybe it is centrist, and possibly even left-leaning, while all the others are far left. It's like concluding that six-three is short just because it is short compared to professional basketball players."

What's more, he says, "this point illustrates a common misconception about the Drudge Report. According to my analysis, the Drudge Report is approximately the most fair, balanced, and centrist news outlet in the United States. Yet, the overwhelming majority of media commentators claim that it has a conservative bias. The problem, I believe, is that such commentators mistake relative bias for absolute bias. Yes, the Drudge Report is more conservative than the average U.S. news outlet. But it is a logical mistake to use that to infer that it is based on an absolute scale."

And in further analysis sure to enrage critics of conservative media, Groseclose determines that Drudge, on a conservative to liberal scale of 0-100, with 50 being centrist, actually leans a bit left of center with a score of 60.4. The reason: Drudge mostly links to the sites of the mainstream media, with just a few written by Matt Drudge himself. "Since these links come from a broad mix of media outlets, and since the news in general is left-leaning, it should not be surprising that the slant quotient of the Drudge Report leans left," he writes. [Read Poll: Fox, O'Reilly most trusted news sources.]

The author developed a calculation to figure out the "political quotient" to find the bias of media outlets and the average slant of an organization.

Groseclose opens his book quoting a well-known poll in which Washington correspondents declared that they vote Democratic 93 percent to 7 percent, while the nation is split about 50-50. As a result, he says, most reporters write with a liberal filter. "Using objective, social-scientific methods, the filtering prevents us from seeing the world as it actually is. Instead, we see only a distorted version of it. It is as if we see the world through a glass—a glass that magnifies the facts that liberals want us to see and shrinks the facts that conservatives want us to see." [Check out political cartoons about the Democratic Party.]

He adds: "That bias makes us more liberal, which makes us less able to detect the bias, which allows the media to get away with more bias, which makes us even more liberal."

Some key points:

"Every mainstream national news outlet in the United States has a liberal bias."

"Supposedly conservative news outlets are not far right. For instance, the conservative bias of [Fox's] Special Report is significantly less than the liberal bias of CBS Evening News."

"Media bias aids Democratic candidates by about 8 to 10 percentage points in a typical election. I find, for instance, that if media bias didn't exist, John McCain would have defeated Barack Obama 56 percent to 42 percent, instead of losing 53-46." [See editorial cartoons about Barack Obama.]

Perhaps the most useful part of his book is the slant ratings of the media. The numbers are based on a conservative-to-liberal 0-100 rating, with 50 being centrist:

•New York Times-73.7.
•CBS Evening News-73.7.
•NPR Morning Edition-66.3.
•U.S. News & World Report-65.8.
•Drudge Report-60.4.
•ABC Good Morning America-56.1.
•Washington Times-35.4.

Left Turn, How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind, published by St. Martin's Press, is due out July 19.

THE REWARDS OF BEING A SOCIALIST: Pelosi's Wealth Grows By 62 Percent

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) saw her net worth rise 62 percent last year, cementing her status as one of the wealthiest members of Congress.

Pelosi was worth at least $35.2 million in the 2010 calendar year, according to a financial disclosure report released Wednesday. She reported a minimum of $43.4 million in assets and about $8.2 milion in liabilities.

For 2009, Pelosi reported a minimum net worth of $21.7 million.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) also remained a multimillionaire. He reported that his minimum net worth in 2010 was close to $2.1 million, with zero liabilities. His 2009 minimum net worth was more than $1.8 million.

Forms disclosing the assets and liabilities of lawmakers for the 2010 calendar year were released Wednesday. The forms give a good estimate of lawmaker wealth, though they show ranges and not precise values for stocks, pension plans, vacation homes and other assets of lawmakers.

Pelosi saw her wealth rise due to some stock gains and real estate investments made by her husband, Paul.

Apple stock owned by Pelosi's spouse rose from at least $500,000 in 2009 to $1 million in 2010. The minority leader's husband also took a bigger stake in Matthews International Capital Management — worth at least $5 million last year, compared to $1 million in 2009 — and his investment in some undeveloped residential real estate in Sacramento, Calif., jumped to at least $5 million in value.

Paul Pelosi also has sizable assets in the United Football League, including $1 million in a partnership interest in a Jacksonville, Fla., franchise and $5 million in a partnership interest for the Sacramento Lions. (source)

Barry As President: JUST AS NIXON HAD HIS CAMBODIA OPERATION, Obama Orders The CIA To Operate Drones Over Yemen

The CIA is expected to begin operating armed drone aircraft over Yemen, expanding the hunt for al-Qaeda operatives in a country where counter-terrorism efforts have been disrupted by political chaos, U.S. officials said.

The plan to move CIA-operated Predator and other unmanned aircraft into the region reflects a decision by President Obama that the al-Qaeda threat in Yemen has grown so serious that patrols by U.S. military drones are not enough.

U.S. officials said the CIA would operate alongside, and in close coordination with, the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command, which has been flying Predators and other remotely piloted planes over Yemen for much of the past year.

Because it operates under different legal authorities than the military, the CIA may have greater latitude to carry out strikes if the political climate shifts in Yemen and cooperation with American forces is diminished or cut off.

The expanded drone campaign will make use of “a mix of U.S. assets,” said a U.S. official familiar with the plan. “It’s not like you’re going to have a change of command ceremony that goes from U.S. military to CIA.”

A CIA spokeswoman declined to comment when asked Monday about the Yemen plans. National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said the White House also would not comment. The CIA’s plans were first reported by the Wall Street Journal Monday night.

The new tasking for the agency marks a major escalation of the clandestine American war in Yemen, as well as a substantial expansion of the CIA’s drone war.

The agency pioneered the use of armed drones in Afghanistan a decade ago and has carried out hundreds of strikes in Pakistan in recent years. As a result, officials said, the CIA has developed substantial expertise in using a combination of drone surveillance and the cultivation of human source networks on the ground to carry out strikes inside a country where the U.S. military has limited ability to operate.

The addition of CIA drones also addresses a growing concern inside the Joint Special Operations Command that the military-run drone campaign in Yemen was not getting adequate resources, given the seriousness of the threat posed by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, as the Yemen-based offshoot of the terrorist group is known.

Fewer than a dozen JSOC drones have been available to conduct patrols over Yemen for much of the past year, far fewer than have been used in Afghanistan or Iraq, said a second U.S. official.

The official, and others, spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity surrounding operations in Yemen. The decision to deploy CIA drones to Yemen comes as cooperation between U.S. special operations forces and Yemeni counter-terrorism units have collapsed amid political turmoil.

Yemen’s dictator for the past three decades, Ali Abdullah Saleh, flew to Saudi Arabia recently after being injured in an attack. Some Yemeni counter-terrorism teams, which are led by Saleh relatives, have been diverted from the pursuit of AQAP.

The turmoil has put pressure on the White House to use other means to locate AQAP operatives, who are seen as taking advantage of the chaos to improve their position in the country and potentially launch new attacks.

In recent months, some JSOC officers have complained to officials visiting from Washington that their paucity of resources was puzzling, given the concern expressed by the nation’s top intelligence officials about AQAP.

White House officials disputed that characterization. U.S. officials have testified repeatedly in recent months that AQAP represents the most immediate terrorism threat to American targets. At a hearing before a Senate committee Thursday, CIA Director Leon Panetta confirmed that the agency had expanded its counter-terrorism programs in Yemen, Somalia and North Africa.

“Our approach has been to develop operations in each of these areas that will contain al-Qaeda and go after them so they have no place to escape,” he said.

The group is responsible for plots that have included the unsuccessful attempt to bomb a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day in 2009 and an effort to send packages packed with explosives to addresses in the United States last year.

One of the key figures in the group is an American-born cleric, Anwar al-Aulaqi, who escaped a drone strike targeting him in Yemen last month. That strike was the first by the United States in Yemen since 2002, punctuating a long drought that U.S. officials have attributed to a lack of solid intelligence on the whereabouts of AQAP operatives who went into hiding after a flurry of conventional airstrikes in late 2009 and early 2010.

Another constraint on the Yemen campaign has been the availability of runway capacity at a U.S.-operated airfield in Djibouti, where the JSOC drones are based. It is not clear whether the CIA aircraft will operate from the same facility.(source)

Puerto Rican Independentistas Burn US Flag in San Juan During Obama Visit

Obama Heckeled At Miami Fundraiser

Barry As President: Unable To Make A Moral Call, White House Won't Say Weiner Should Resign

Remember how easily it was for Barry to make a judgement on the entire police department of Cambride, Mass, and how "stupidly" they acted? Even more time for review has elapsed in the Weiner scandal case than was allowed the Cambridge Police Dept in the Henry Gates case, but poor little Barry seems paralyzed with fear to make a smilar judgement about Weiner's actions.

A White House spokesman said Monday that Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) is a "distraction" from important issues, but he stopped short of calling for Weiner's resignation.

White House press secretary Jay Carney, who refused to comment on the scandal last week, said Monday that "the president feels, we feel at the White House this is a distraction."

"As Congressman Weiner has said himself, his behavior was inappropriate, dishonesty was inappropriate," Carney said, briefing reporters aboard Air Force One. "But the president is focused on his job, which is getting this economy continuing to grow, creating jobs and ensuring the safety and security of the American people."

Several senior Democrats including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), and Democratic Campaign Congressional Chairman Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), called on Weiner to resign over the weekend.

When pressed on whether Obama would like to see Weiner resign, Carney demurred.

"I answered that question," Carney said. "We think it's a distraction from the important business that this president needs to conduct and Congress need to conduct. Beyond that I don't have any more comment."

Weiner entered a rehab facility over the weekend and has requested a leave of absence from the House while he seeks treatment.

MSM Diary: Weiner Scandal Is The Result Of "Culturally Backwards" Rural Americans, Says Chris Matthews

Palin Email Frenzy Backfires On Her Media Antagonists

The trove of more than 13,000 emails detailing almost every aspect of Sarah Palin’s governorship of Alaska, released late on Friday, paints a picture of her as an idealistic, conscientious, humorous and humane woman slightly bemused by the world of politics.

One can only assume that the Left-leaning editors who dispatched teams of reporters to remote Juneau, the Alaskan capital, to pore over the emails in the hope of digging up a scandal are now viewing the result as a rather poor return on their considerable investment.

If anything, Mrs Palin seems likely to emerge from the scrutiny of the 24,000 pages, contained in six boxes and weighing 275 pounds, with her reputation considerably enhanced. As a blogger at Powerline noted, the whole saga might come to be viewed as “an embarrassment for legacy media”.

Mrs Palin, who suddenly resigned as Alaska governor in July 2009, is no longer a public official. She holds no position in the Republican party. Despite the media hubbub that surrounds her every move, she is unlikely to be a candidate for the White House in 2012.

She is, however, viewed with a kind of horrified fascination by many in the media, who faithfully records everything she says and does while at the same time decrying her as ignorant and even evil.



Whether or not she runs for the White House – and the solid consensus among Republican leaders is that she won’t – the scramble over the Palin emails confirms her status as a pivotal figure in the race to challenge President Barack Obama next year.

It comes at a moment when the battle for the Republican nomination appears set to be transformed by the late entry of Governor Rick Perry of Texas, a social conservative and Palin ally who could almost immediately leap to the front of a currently lacklustre field.

Sources close to Mr Perry have confirmed that he is “highly likely” to announce a presidential run in the coming days. Intriguingly, they have also hinted at a something they believe would increase immeasurably Mr Perry’s chances of winning the White House – an endorsement from Mrs Palin.

On policy, Mrs Palin and Mr Perry, who succeeded George W Bush in 2000 and has since become the longest-serving governor in Texas history, are in almost perfect alignment. In addition, they are both beloved of the Tea Party, highly suspicious of Washington and physically attractive (Mr Perry is often likened to the Marlboro Man), charismatic figures.

Mrs Palin has repeatedly said that she believes Mr Obama can be defeated and that she will do everything to achieve that. With her popularity among independent voters very low, despite the intensity of her core support, throwing her weight behind a stronger candidate would be a better way of preserving her political capital and earning power than being one of the losing candidates in the Republican primaries.

The notion of Mrs Palin as White House kingmaker would have seemed wildly improbable if anyone had raised it before August 2008.

It was then that she was catapulted to international fame by Senator John McCain’s surprise decision to make her his vice-presidential running mate. Her reaction? “Can you flippinbelieveit?!”

This was a world, as the emails reveal, in which the then Alaska governor fretted about things like there being alcohol in her official residence, that might be a temptation to the teenage friends of her children.

In May 2007, she sought help from her staff in keeping the alcohol in the governor’s mansion away from young people, stating that it should be boxed up and “removed from the People’s House” – both for practical reasons and as a statement about her administration.

“Here’s my thinking: with so many kids and teens coming and going in that house, esp during this season of celebrations for young people – proms, graduations, etc, I want to send the msg that we can be – and ‘the People’s House’ needs to be – alcohol-free. There’s a lot of booze there – its too accessible and may be too tempting to any number of all those teens coming and going.”

In a February 2007 exchange, one adviser recommended that when she was in Washington she meet Pete Rouse, a Senate official who had lived in Alaska. “He’s now chief-of-staff for a guy named Barack Obama,” the aide wrote, adding that Mr Rouse “wants to help Alaska however he can”. Far from shrinking at the idea of conferring with a Democrat, Mrs Palin replied: “I’m game to meet him.”

The emails will finally confirm – in all but the darkest recesses of the world of Left-wing conspiracy theories – that Mrs Palin is, in fact, the mother of her youngest son Trig, who has Down’s Syndrome.

After relentless promotion by Andrew Sullivan, the British blogger who now works for Daily Beast/Newsweek, of the proposition that the mother was in fact Mrs Palin’s daughter Bristol, a teenager at the time, the subject had become part of mainstream debate.

The emails show Mrs Palin’s determination to protect Bristol but also her desire for a degree of privacy. “I wish I could shame people into ceasing such gossip about a teen, but I can’t figure out how to do that,” she wrote.
Communications from her children and husband make her family appear close and loving.

An email from Bristol, referring to her younger sister, said: “Hello Mother, Um, I’m sitting in library and I really thing you need to get Piper a cell phone!! Wouldn’t that be so adorable! She could text me while she was in class!! It’s a done deal right?! Perfect! Ok, I will talk to you later and I need some cash flow! Love ya!”

To an extent, the emails remind Americans of the person they saw take the stage at the Republican National Convention in Minnesota nearly three years ago – refreshing, plain-speaking, open and uncomplicated.

Since then, her image has hardened into one of a brittle, even paranoid, politician who seethes with resentment, feels aggrieved and entitled and is intent on pursuing celebrity even at the expense of her family.

Mrs Palin as a person has become so remote that it is hard to assess how much, if any, of that widely-held caricature has a basis in truth. The email release could mark the end of a chapter of what conservatives have termed “Palin Derangement Syndrome”. Her enemies in the media appear to have overplayed their hand.

Expressing a sentiment that will resonate with many, Greta Van Susteren, a Fox News anchor who is close to Mrs Palin, argued that she had been subjected to “a media colonoscopy” by news organisations on “a mission to destroy”.
With a film entitled The Undefeated, chronicling Mrs Palin’s rise to prominence, about to air, the former Alaska governor is doubtless hoping that harsher perceptions of her can be blunted.

Probably the person who has damaged her most, apart from perhaps the CBS anchor Katie Couric who elicited blank stares when she asked what Mrs Palin read, was Tina Fey, the Saturday Night Live comedienne and impersonator.

It was Fey who seared into the popular imagination the Palin phrase: “I can see Russia from my house!” Mrs Palin had never said any such thing but it encapsulated the feeling that she was frivolous and lacked any foreign policy credentials.

Three days later, a staffer called Patrick Galvin emailed Mrs Palin saying: “My suggestion is you offer to go on SNL and play Tina Fey, and you interview her as she plays you.”

Fey’s impersonation was so powerful that the two women are inseparable in some minds. Fox News, for which Mrs Palin works on a lucrative contract as a commentator, recently aired a picture of fey instead of Mrs Palin by mistake.
Mrs Palin did go on the show back in October 2008. But perhaps now might the time for Mrs Palin to take up Mr Galvin’s suggestion and return for a proper head-to-head.(source)

Obama's Failed Diplomacy At Work: Iran Speaks Nakedly About Testing Its First Nuclear Bomb

'The day after Iran's first nuclear test is a normal day'
A bizarre article on a Revolutionary Guard website breaks a taboo by anticipating the impact of an Iranian bomb

Any mention of an Iranian nuclear weapon is taboo in the Islamic Republic, which insists that its nuclear programme is entirely for peaceful, civil purposes. So it is remarkable, to say the least, that an article has appeared on the Gerdab website, run by Iran's Revolutionary Guards, anticipating the day after Iran's first test of a nuclear warhead. Here is a translation of the text:

The day after Iran's first nuclear test is a normal day.
The day after Islamic Republic of Iran's first nuclear test will be an ordinary day for us Iranians but in the eyes of some of us there will be a new sparkle.
It's a good day. It's seven in the morning. The sun is not fully up yet but everywhere is bright. In the northern hemisphere many countries are beginning the day...

The day before, probably in central deserts of Iran, where once Americans and some other Western countries wanted to bury their nuclear waste, an underground nuclear explosion has taken place. The strength of the explosion was not so great as to cause severe damage to the region nor so weak that Iranian scientists face any problems in running their tests.

Today is a normal day like any other. Like 90% of the year, there is news about Iran, and these are the headlines which can be seen on foreign news sites:

Reuters: Iran detonated its nuclear bomb
CNN: Iran detonated nuclear bomb
Al-Jazeera: The second Islamic nuclear bomb was tested
Al-Arabia: The Shia nuclear bomb was tested
Yahoo! News: Nuclear explosion in Iran
Jerusalem Post: Mullahs obtained nuclear weapon
Washington Post: Nuclear explosion in Iran, Shock and despair in Tel Aviv

Meanwhile, the domestic media will offer many congratulations to the Hidden Imam and the Supreme Leader:

Keyhan: Iran's first nuclear bomb was tested
Jomhoori-e-eslami: Iran successfully carried out a nuclear test
Iran: By order of the president, Iran's 100% homemade nuclear bomb was tested
Ettela'at: Iran's much anticipated nuclear bomb exploded

This strange, hypothetical, article, which first appeared on April 24, hammers home again and again the message that an Iranian nuclear test will not lead to disaster. On the contrary, life will go as before except that Iranians will feel better about themselves.

The news commotion will not knock life in Iran off balance. Civil servants will punch in at work on time as always, while some will be late as always. ...The day after the Islamic Republic of Iran's first nuclear test will be an ordinary day for us Iranians but in the eyes of some of us there will be a new sparkle. A sparkle of national pride and strength.

This has the look of a kite being flown, but for whom? It could be intended to get Iranians used to the idea of a nuclear test, and less fearful of international reaction. It could be a gesture of defiance to the world by hardline elements - according to independent experts, Gerdab is run by the Revolutionary Guards' cyber defence command, which is presumably still smarting from the Stuxnet attack.

Opposition websites describe it as an enforcement tool for the regime, identifying and threatening independent bloggers inside Iran.
The article comes during a period when Tehran's official stance is particularly defiant and assertive, announcing today that it will triple its production of 20% enriched uranium and shift it to the underground Fordow site, near Qom.

Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-Israeli expert on the Tehran regime currently lecturing in Colombia, described the Gerdab article as "unbelievable".

I have never seen anything like this report. It's breaking a major taboo. For now we have to treat it as a one off. However if this report is followed by others similar to it, then it would signify a major change in the way Iran refers to its nuclear program. It would mean that Iran has decided to use the idea of a nuclear bomb as a deterrence against further sanctions and the possibility of a military attack by the West. It could also be a tool for the regime to boost its waning popularity at home.

Such a change could prove to be very damaging in the short and long term, as it would be a significant boost for western efforts to isolate Iran and to consolidate the international consensus against the Islamic Republic and its nuclear program. Such isolation and deteriorating economic situation could be more damaging to the regime's top priority, which is its survival, than a military attack by the West.(source)

Cloward-Piven Strategy: Obama's Undeclared War on America

The Cloward-Piven Strategy
Republican US House Speaker John Boehner, and US Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking minority member Richard Lugar, are both obsessed with bringing President Obama to account under the War Powers Act for his intervention in Libya.

Libya is typical of Obama's foreign policy: timid, tardy, aloof, and counterproductive. Accordingly, the outcome from Obama's Libyan humanitarian adventure has been predictable, needlessly adding over $1 billion to the US federal deficit while emboldening a stalemate benefitting Gaddafi, who continues to inflict civilian casualties with impunity.

Whatever Obama's disposition of the War Powers Act concerning Libya, it is still trivial stuff compared with Obama's undeclared War on America. Boehner and Lugar need to stand down from the snipe hunt over Libya and pay attention to Obama's destruction here at home.

Obama's undeclared War on America has been as intense, unrelenting, costly, and devastating as any undeclared war since Korea. Obama's carpet-bombing through taxes, regulations, energy policies, and pledging to do more of the same has paralyzed and bankrupted the nation, plunging it into a despondency not seen since eight decades ago.

Apart from James Buchanan, no president has been so ill-prepared and willfully ignorant as Obama when presented with an unprecedented national crisis. We are now mired in the 21st century Great Gloom, our nation's 2nd Great Depression, having identical features with the first one: millions of Americans are out of work with few prospects for any; millions more Americans have lost their homes with even more facing foreclosure and owing more on their mortgages than the homes are worth; the private sector is calcified; high taxes and regulations frustrate capital formation and job creation.

Obama's inability or unwillingness to read history, compounded by his stubborn big government ideology, has led him to adopt or advocate for the single most devastating tactic that doomed Herbert Hoover when the Great Depression began and plagued FDR as the wretchedness of the 1930s persisted for nearly another decade: higher taxes.

The Great Depression's illiquidity closed thousands of banks, wiped out savings, and obliterated home and farm ownership. High tariffs choked international trade, idling more businesses and spoiling more stockpiles of foodstuffs.

Today's analog -- regulatory fever -- has strangled job creation, demolished the real estate markets, and crushed any hope to restore self-confidence by heaping nearly $2 trillion of unrelieved costs on American business.

Except for taxes and tariffs -- as David M. Kennedy argues in his Freedom From Fear-The American People in Depression and War 1929-1945, at least President Herbert Hoover didn't deliberately make the Depression worse. Hoover was physically exhausted and mentally drained in tirelessly applying any remedy that would ease the suffering and stop the economic bleeding.

Says Kennedy ( p. 94) "He kept up a punishing regimen of rising at six and working without interruption until nearly midnight. His clothes were disheveled, his hair rumpled, his eyes bloodshot, complexion ashen.

"By the fall of 1932 he had lost all stomach for political campaigning...seemed to campaign more for vindication of the historical record than for the affection in the hearts of voters.

"Just four years earlier he had won one of the most lopsided victories in the history of presidential elections...The Great Engineer, so recently the most revered American, was the most loathed and scorned figure in the country."

Contrast that scene with Obama on another golf outing, wolfing down chilidogs and cheeseburgers, and launching his 2012 re-election campaign eighteen months in advance.

Hoover gets a bum rap for allowing a recession to turn into the Great Depression. He tried everything at his disposal that contemporaneous economists and banker/financiers thought would work. But as Kennedy further observes, through the lens of economist Herbert Stein, the federal government at the time was too small to be leveraged; state and local governments had collective budgets five times larger than the federal government and some states had statutory restrictions on incurring more indebtedness. According to Kennedy, even Pennsylvania by its own constitution could not borrow more than $1 million.

The federal budget in 1929 was only 3% of GDP. Obama's 2012 budget would approach 25% of GDP. Obama sees no limit to bloated bureaucracies, the size of government tenfold larger and growing even more immense than Hoover could ever have imagined, and the debt to go with it flirting with sovereign default.

In the beginning Hoover, not gregarious by nature, engaged every politician and business leader who he thought could be enlisted for advice or action. Only after exhausting all possibilities, while the nation's fortunes plummeted further, did Hoover become isolated and withdrawn. Kennedy relates a dark joke circulating at the lowest point of Hoover's presidency: "the president asked for a nickel to make a telephone call to a friend, an aide flipped him a dime and said 'call them both'."

Hoover was a man of broad and deep intellect, a voracious student of economics and finance. Kennedy (p 94) recounts a quote from Theodore Joslin, a secretary to Hoover:


His was a mathematical brain...Let banking officials for example come into his office and he would rattle off the number of banks in the country, list their liabilities and assets, describe the trend of fiscal affairs, and go into the liquidity or lack of it, of individual institutions, all from memory.

What a contrast to Obama's teleprompter presidency, uttering shopworn political clichés with it, occasionally unable to string together anything coherent without it.

Prior to becoming president, Hoover was regarded as the most experienced organization titan, ironically owing to his single-handed leadership in the acclaimed Belgian food relief program upon the outset of WWI. As Kennedy notes, at the end of the War, Hoover was President Wilson's personal advisor, "as much as any one man could he got the credit for reorganizing the war-shattered European economy."

Yes, Hoover is tagged with failure. Yet he was serious, purposeful, and above all, even willing to abandon his own ideology in search for a cure. Hoover's acquiescence to the formation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation capped a sequence of measures harnessing the potential power of government intervention when it was clear private means were insufficient. In fact, as Kennedy continues, noted Columbia University economist Rexford Tugwell, FDR's behind-the-scenes architect for much of the New Deal, "later conceded that practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started[.]"

Obama shares but two likenesses with Hoover. The first one in public utterances prone to underestimating the severity of the crisis.

Remarked Hoover in his famous understatement in May 1930, "I am convinced we have passed the worst and with continued effort we shall rapidly recover...the depression is over[.]" Last week we heard from Obama that "the economy is taking a while to mend...and faces bumps on the road to recovery."

Hoover's comments were accidents of timing, Obama's deliberate obfuscations.

And second, not unlike Hoover's (and later FDR's) addiction to tax hikes, Obama has overseen piles of costs heaped on everyday Americans from deliberately high energy prices to environmental regulatory roadblocks on energy production to $1 trillion in taxes and mandates under ObamaCare.

Who can objectively deny Obama has made the extant condition worse? Whether he has purposefully made things worse is up for some debate; after all he has no expertise in anything from which to conjure a sinister plan. Yet economic destruction derived from ignorance, folly, and neglect is still destruction. At least Hoover, by contrast, was a self-made economist who understood capital formation and liquidity, monetary and fiscal theory, and international trade, debt, and currency flows.

Arguably, international isolationism contributed to and prolonged the Great Depression. Obama's own personal isolationism, evidenced by his contempt for regular Americans and standoffish relations with foreign leaders, handmaiden to the scorn and hostility he shows towards Republicans, is a continual roadblock in finding solutions.

Even Obama's own erstwhile cheerleader for doomed Obamanomics, Austan Goolsbee, chief economic advisor to the president, has found either the task overwhelming or the companionship insufferable -- take your pick -- after only 10 months on the job.

Temperamentally Obama is a drone unleashing as much destruction on the American psyche as his drones have done to destroy military targets in Afghanistan. Devoid of honest analytics, Obama continues to issue phony reports from the domestic battlefront. Even the Washington Post, fiercely loyal to Obama's personality and politics, has had enough of his lies about the success from the auto industry bailouts.

If Obama's game is to perfect an undeclared War on America, he is succeeding. It remains to be seen whether the Republicans can summon enough nerve to reprise Gen McAuliffe's famous retort to the German demand for surrender at Bastogne in December of 1944, "Nuts."

Only Congress can now do what the voters sent them to do -- disarm and defund Obama's undeclared War on America. And for 2012, who shall be the Republicans' Gen Patton, coming to America's rescue?(source)

Cloward-Piven Strategy: US Is Nearing Even Worse Financial Crisis

The Cloward-Piven Strategy

The U.S. is approaching a financial crisis worse than 2008, Jim Rogers, chief executive, Rogers Holdings, warned CNBC Wednesday.

"The debts that are in this country are skyrocketing," he said. "In the last three years the government has spent staggering amounts of money and the Federal Reserve is taking on staggering amounts of debt.

"When the problems arise next time…what are they going to do? They can’t quadruple the debt again. They cannot print that much more money. It’s gonna be worse the next time around."

The well-known investor believes the government won't shut down in August if agreement isn't reached on raising the debt ceiling, but he did say "draconian cuts" are needed in taxes and spending, especially military spending.

"We’ve got troops in 150 countries around the world. They’re not doing us any good, they’re making enemies. They’re costing us a fortune," he said.

Rogers said he is "not long anything in the U.S." and short on American tech stocks. He owns Chinese stocks as well as commodities and would love the world price of silver and gold to come down so he could "pick up the phone and buy more."

He said he owns Chinese stocks, currencies and commodities, adding the Chinese yuan will be a safer currency than the dollar.

"The U.S. is the largest debtor nation in the history of the world," he said. "The debts are going through the roof. Would you keep lending money to somebody who's spending money and not doing anything about it? No you wouldn't."

The pound sterling lost 90% of its value when it was no longer the world's reserve currency, he said, and the dollar will, too. In keeping with his philosophy he said he owns the U.S. dollar and is waiting for a rally. "If it doesn't happen I'll have to sell and take my losses."

He called Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke a "disaster" who has "never been right about anything" since he's been in Washington. "I hope he doesn't come back with QE3 but that's all he knows. The only thing he knows is to print money."

He predicted that after the Fed ends its quantitative easing program, known as QE2, this month, it may come back under another name.

"They're gonna bring it back because [Bernanke will] be terrified and Washington will be terrified," he said. "There's an election coming in November 2012. Washington's gonna print more money."(source)

UNION TRUTH REVEALED: Crashing A Special Olympics Ceremony To Show Their Hate

Barry As President: Last Week Claims For State Jobless Benefits Increased 1,000 to 427,000

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Record exports in April tempered fears that the economic recovery was running off the rails, even though first-time claims for jobless benefits edged higher last week.

A Commerce Department report on Thursday showed the trade deficit narrowed unexpectedly in April, as exports rose to a new record and imports from Japan tumbled more than 25 percent after its earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster.

The trade gap totaled $43.7 billion despite a jump in oil prices to the highest since September 2008, down 6.7 percent from a revised estimate of $46.8 billion in March, suggesting stronger second-quarter economic growth than economists had expected.

"A lot of forecasters, ourselves included, had lowered expectations for the second quarter, and this will reverse some of that reduction in expectations," said David Resler, chief U.S. economist at Nomura Securities International in New York.

Oil prices slid in May from April peaks but are creeping higher again after the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries on Wednesday failed to agree on production increases.

A second report from the Labor Department, however, showed the number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment aid unexpectedly edged higher last week, reinforcing a view that the job market recovery has stalled.



Initial claims for state jobless benefits increased 1,000 to 427,000. Economists had forecast claims to drop.

First-time claims have now been perched above the 400,000 mark for nine weeks in a row. Analysts normally associate a level below that with steady job growth.

"It's the same dismal trend continuing. It's not getting worse, but it's not getting better either," said Keith Hembre, chief economist at Nuveen Asset Management in Minneapolis.

The U.S. government said on Friday the U.S. unemployment rate ticked up to 9.1 percent in May while nonfarm employers added a paltry 54,000 workers to their payrolls. The report was the latest and most stark sign of economic weakness.

Hembre said the unemployment rate could rise to 9.2 percent in the June report. That would add to President Barack Obama's political woes heading into the 2012 race for the White House.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Tuesday acknowledged the economy had slowed but offered no hint the central bank was considering more stimulus to boost growth.

JAPAN SUPPLY DISRUPTIONS

The $3 billion drop in imports from Japan from March to April was the largest on record. U.S. auto and auto parts imports from Japan and other suppliers fell $2.8 billion, partly reflecting supply chain disruptions in the aftermath of the triple disaster.

Once those problems are worked through, many analysts expect the trade gap to widen again.

"Right now (the trade report) looks like it's going to be positive for Q2 GDP, but by the end of June the bounce back will be obvious I think," said Thomas Simons, money market economist for Jefferies & Co in New York.

A separate Commerce Department report showed U.S. wholesale inventories rose a less-than-expected 0.8 percent in April, as automotive stocks fell the most since December 2009.

After the reports, U.S. stocks edged higher after six days of losses while Treasury debt was mostly flat and the dollar was higher against the euro.

The trade gap narrowed despite the biggest month-to-month jump in prices for imported oil in nearly three years. The average price rose to $103.18 per barrel, the highest since September 2008.

However, the volume of crude oil imports fell, pushing the overall U.S. oil import bill lower in April. That, combined with the lower imports from Japan, helped trim total U.S. imports 0.4 percent to $219.2 billion, even as imports of foods, feeds and beverages set a record, the report showed.

U.S. crude futures extended gains in trading on Thursday, touching $101.74 per barrel.

U.S. exports, buoyed by a weakening of the U.S. dollar, rose 1.3 percent to a record $175.6 billion, led by record shipments of industrial supplies and materials and capital goods and smaller gains for food, feeds and beverages, consumer goods and autos and auto parts.

The closely watched U.S. trade deficit with China jumped nearly 20 percent in April to $21.6 billion. It continues at a pace to exceed last year's record of about $273 billion.(source)

A Lesson To Ralph Stanley

I was broken-hearted when I saw this ad for the first time in the Fall of 2008. A regional legend by the name of Ralph Stanley, bluegrass hero to millions of us from the Appalachian Mountains and beyond, actually endorsed Obama for president. If you know anything about the coal-mining territory in those mountains, it isn't surprising to learn that Democrat politics appeal to these poverty-stricken communities.

Despite living a rugged agrarian life in rocky terrain, forced to supplant their meager incomes by raising their own livestock, growing their own corn, and even by selling moonshine, many of these folks secretly yearn for any kind of government relief in whatever form it might take: a welfare check, food stamps, etc.

For those of us who have looked out past the horizon, though, we know that relying on government handouts is the road to ruin. The same politician who says, "I feel your pain", and offers no more than a 16 dollar increase in annual welfare payments to a family of four is also the same politician who wants to destroy your coal mining jobs.

When a misguided Ralph Stanley sits here and says, "I think I know a little something about the families of Southwest Virginia,...and we need a change from the past 8 years", I sadly shake my head and say, "Ralph, Ralph, Ralph. I hardly knew ya'. Don't you know that you're getting in bed with the devil?"

Coal Regs Would Kill Jobs, Boost Energy Bills

By Paul Bedard

Posted: June 8, 2011

Two new EPA pollution regulations will slam the coal industry so hard that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, and electric rates will skyrocket 11 percent to over 23 percent, according to a new study based on government data.

Overall, the rules aimed at making the air cleaner could cost the coal-fired power plant industry $180 billion, warns a trade group.

“Many of these severe impacts would hit families living in states already facing serious economic challenges,” said Steve Miller, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. “Because of these impacts, EPA should make major changes to the proposed regulations before they are finalized,” he said.

The EPA, however, tells Whispers that the hit the industry will suffer is worth the health benefits. “EPA has taken a number of sensible steps to protect public health, while also working with industry and other stakeholders to ensure that these important Clean Air Act standards—such as the first ever national Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for coal-fired power plants—are reasonable, common-sense, and achievable,” said spokesman Brendan Gilfillan. [Read Rep. Darrell Issa: Obama's Bad Policy, Harmful Regulations Add to Gas Prices.]

What’s more, officials said that just one of the rules to cut sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions will would yield up to $290 billion in annual health and welfare benefits in 2014. They say that amounts to preventing up to 36,000 premature deaths, 26,000 hospital and emergency room visits, and 240,000 cases of aggravated asthma. “This far outweighs the estimated annual costs,” says an official on background.

Still, the EPA did note that the two new antipollution rules are “pending” and that the agency has “accepted and are considering feedback” from the industry.

The industry says the costs and potential to lose four jobs for every new clean energy job created isn’t worth the rules, especially in a job-starved economy.

Referring to the analysis of the EPA regulations from National Economic Research Associates, Miller said they would be the most expensive rules ever imposed on power plants.

Coal-fired energy plants currently fuel about half of the nation’s energy supply.(source)

Arab spring: An Interactive Timeline of Middle East Protests

The Predictable Middle East Crisis

Can we know what will happen in the Middle East? William Gibson, an author and prophet of the information age, who, among other things, coined the word cyberspace, says that the future is predictable: "The future is already here -- it's just not evenly distributed."

Contemporary Jewish-Muslim relations are distributed so grotesquely unevenly that they provide plenty of hints at future trends. These relations vary wildly with the setting, numerical strength of each group, and context. Let us take four examples, moving from one extreme to the other.

Context 1. When prominent American Muslims appear on English-language TV to discuss issues like the Ground Zero Mosque, they love to play the Jewish card. They equate contemporary American society's treatment of the Muslims with what the American Jews experienced back in the '20s and '30s, hoping that this comparison will gain them more sympathy. Generally, when they face a largely skeptical Western audience, they project an enlightened and friendly attitude toward their Jewish brothers.

Context 2. This attitude changes drastically on American college campuses, where the Muslim groups feel emboldened by the left-wing professors and students. But they still have nothing against the Jewish people per se. They just demonize the Jewish state, which they call "criticism."

Context 3. The distinction between the Jews and Israel completely disappears when the Muslims become a sizable minority. For example, this is the case in Malmo, Sweden's third-largest city, where the Muslims make up 25% of the total population. Jew-hatred in Malmo has reached a point that even the BBC abandoned its usual political correctness and devoted one of its reports in December of 2010 specifically to the verbal and physical harassment of Malmo's tiny Jewish community by Muslim immigrants.

Context 4. If you think that the situation cannot get any uglier, you are mistaken. Let us go to a place where the Muslims are a majority. The screams "Jew! Jew!" served as a battle cry for the gang-rape of liberal journalist Lara Logan in Egypt. It was not an ordinary rape carried out in a secluded location. It took place in crowded Tahrir Square, and it went on for 25 minutes. She is not a Jew, but the mere labeling her as such was reason enough for the viciousness unleashed on her.

Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the West, fueled by immigration, higher birth rates and proselytizing, especially in prisons. If you are pondering the future of Jewish-Muslim relations, remember that the future is already here. It's just not evenly distributed yet.

Because of their relatively small numbers, Jews are a convenient target. But Christian-Muslim relations follow the same trajectory, to which the Egyptian Copts will readily attest. An Iraqi Christian has been quoted by the Christian Science Monitor as saying, "What's happening to us is what happened to the Jews."

Speaking of predictions, the Internet is currently abuzz with a recent report titled "The Next Middle East War." Its author, Chuck DeVore, has an impressive resume. He attended the American University in Cairo in the '80s. Then, he served as a US Army lieutenant colonel in military intelligence and worked as a Reagan-appointed special assistant for foreign affairs in the Pentagon. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, DeVore "beat the CIA" to predicting the current Arab crisis, a.k.a. the Arab Spring. In a word, his new report is definitely worth a brief review.

The report defies the conventional wisdom that a direct military attack on Israel will have to await the next presidential election in the US in 2012. It argues that two other events will precipitate the attack. They are the parliamentary elections in Egypt in September, where the Brotherhood wants to boost its popularity, and the pending release of the Hariri report by the UN, which Hezb'allah wants to prevent. Even though Hamas and Hezb'allah represent two opposing wings in the Muslim world, the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality will bring them together.

Hence, the attack will occur in August of 2011, asserts the report. Here is the way it will unfold. Hamas and Hezb'allah declare a maritime blockade on Israel. They install anti-ship missile batteries in residential areas in Gaza and Lebanon, which attack Israeli ships. When Israel responds by hitting the batteries, the two terrorist groups invite Western media to report on casualties among civilians. International TV networks broadcast footage of bloodied women and children in Gaza.

The ensuing international indignation aroused by the Israeli 'atrocities' gives Hamas and Hezb'allah a "justification" to unleash a massive "retaliatory" rocket attack on major Israeli cities. Huge crowds in Tahrir Square in Cairo chant "Death to Israel, death to America!" The Obama administration calls for a "comprehensive settlement of the Palestinian question" and demands that Israel show more restraint. The UN Security Council calls for a ceasefire, while Egyptian parties pressure the military council to "teach Israel a lesson." Palestinian Authority President Abbas and Hamas leaders announce the creation of the Palestinian state. The media overlooks the part of the new state's charter proclaiming the intent to destroy Israel and institute Islamic law.

That was just the gist of Chuck DeVore's scenario. It sounds like a déjà vu, since we have already seen its main features, such as playing the victim card and using women and children for that reason. Another familiar feature is the dual role of the media. First, it is shamelessly manipulated to present a distorted view of reality. And second, once the distorted view is presented, this view actually shapes the reality by further inflaming Jew-hatred. In summary, the report paints a picture that is both chillingly dark and painfully familiar.

Eugene Veklerov is a scientist living in the Bay Area. (source)

Are Democratic Elections Feasible in the Middle East?

Americans are hopelessly infatuated with "democracy" and relentlessly try to export it. The recent "Arab Spring" testifies to the seductive power of our proselytizing. Protestors often demand "freedom and democracy" but mesmerizing slogans aside, why is "democracy" so valuable or what it does it mean to those risking life and limb for it? The hard truth is that tribalism prone Arab nations will not become democratic. Democracy cannot be commanded into existence; it requires a complex culture to flourish and that culture is in short supply in today's Middle East.


When American leaders implore others to embrace democracy they usually mean free, regular elections. Then add multiple political parties, a reasonably independent media to report events, and an honest counting of the vote, and voilà, there you have it -- instant democracy. What could be simpler? And, from time-to-time, thanks to American pressure (and bribery) such instant election-based democracies momentarily emerge (e.g., Afghanistan) before reverting to violence-filled, corrupt authoritarianism.


American champions of democracy ignore harsh cultural realities and without certain habits of mind, democracy is just brief interlude. Failures far outnumber successes. The democratic Weimar Republic lasted less than 15 years and was easily toppled by Hitler. In Italy Mussolini similarly almost effortlessly pushed aside a democracy with shallow roots. In innumerable Third World nations, from Zimbabwe to Venezuela, Kenya to Egypt, the pattern is "One Person, One Vote, One Time."


So, what are the extra ingredients necessary for an enduring election-based democracy? Three in particular strand out. For one, the election's outcome ends the battle for power until the next election -- losers don't continue on with suicide bombers. Political quarrels don't vanish, but the key question of who won is settled and the loser publicly concedes, thanks supporters, congratulates the winner, and then fades into the background. Think of the razor thin 1960 Kennedy/Nixon election in which Nixon graciously conceded despite clear irregularities in the Illinois vote. Recent violence in the Ivory Coast, Nigeria, and countless places elsewhere exemplify this problem -- the loser just fights on regardless of the verdict. A mini version of this occurred in the US after the 2000 presidential election. When the Senate, as per Constitution, was certifying Bush's victory, a few disgruntled Democratic House members vocally disrupted Senate proceedings, and refused to leave the Senate floor until threatened with forcible removal by Capitol security (and the Gore camp encouraged this culturally aberrant behavior with all the talk of a "stolen election").


Democracy also requires that campaigns show self-restraint. Democratic elections are not about annihilating enemies. This is a murky line but there must be some limits lest conflicts escalate into civil war. Democratic elections are peaceful, routinized forms of civil conflict, not opportunities to settle scores violently. Yes, in some American states and cities voters may be enticed by free food and booze, even stuffing a ballot box or two, but bombing and kidnapping are impermissible. Not even our worst cases of voter intimidation, e.g., what occurred in Philadelphia with the New Black Panther Party, entails actually killing opponents.


Functioning democracies also possess what is called a "loyal opposition." That is, the defeated faction accepts its loss but still plays by the democratic rules, i.e., try again the next election. Winners must therefore restrain themselves when dealing with losers, a norm that rests on the supposition that today's winners may be tomorrow's losers. Even when electoral victories are decisive, majorities don't push too hard and in return expect the losers to behave themselves. The power of this norm becomes clear when it is violated. Conceivably, much of the public opposition to ObamaCare reflected the belief that the Democratic congressional majority, though technically within its rights, had over-stepped its power with backroom parliamentary maneuvers to enact hazy bloated legislation by razor thin margins that affected one-sixth of the US economy.


Lastly, democratic elections are not about replacing one kleptocracy with another. Think Zimbabwe where those elected to power enrich friends at the expense of the defeated. Again, moderation is essential. Yes, the winning side in democratic outcomes gains some economic advantages (e.g., Obama's tilt toward labor unions) but democracy and kleptocracies are incompatible. To proceed as if the winner deserves all the property of the loser almost guarantees elections that will quickly escalate into violence and ultimately, the end of democracy.


All of these necessary traits (and several others) are cultural, the results of decades of experience and punishing violators, and cannot be created by paper proclamations. Acculturating these norms runs counter to human nature. Modern humans have existed for perhaps 180,000 years and during that period, with tiny exceptions, power rested on naked force. Violent repression in Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain are reactions rooted in 9,000 generations of human existence, and are not aberrations. In evolutionary terms, the penchant for peaceful democratic elections might be likened to an exceedingly rare genetic mutation.


Americans seldom recognize how we have been "trained" toward a culture undergirding electoral democracy. We take the immense and successful effort for granted. Most Americans grew up regularly voting in well-scripted school elections and watching them on TV, and "let's vote and abide by majority rule" was the mechanism to settle disputes. Beauty pageants and award ceremonies (e.g., the Oscars) display a reoccurring pattern -- secret ballot votes, limits on campaign tactics while losers graciously accept the verdict. Moderation was learned via sports -- "good sportsmanship" included post-game rituals such as shaking hands to cool lingering animosities. I tell my political science graduate students that the informal pick-up basketball game usually typifies the strength of democratic norms -- players from both teams observe unwritten rules of fairness, quickly forget the game, even if a little rough, and then go off for beer and pizza. Conflict is restrained, bounded, and transitory, just as it is in the political realm.


I seriously doubt whether Arab nations possess this facilitating culture. Just observe hair-trigger recourse to violence, the infatuation with guns and militias, a willingness to fight to the death, cruelty toward defeated foes, and how the passion for revenge can trump everything, including peace and prosperity. The British wisely understood the region -- after the Ottoman Empire's demise following WWI, Britain installed monarchies in the region as the "natural" political arrangement. Judged by the subsequent peace, monarchy, not democracy, was the correct choice.


Though "democracy" is a popular slogan among rebellious Arabs, I suspect that they really want is not democracy but a more equitable re-distribution of wealth coupled with less brutal authoritarian rule -- more cars and TVs, fewer secret police. "Economic populism" is a more accurate description and this hardly requires the institutional bric-a-brac of electoral democracy. A benign tyrant will suffice. In the final analysis, then, election-based democracy should not be the gold standard when judging Middle East political progress. Let us not be blinded by political fantasies.

Robert Weissberg is professor of political science-emeritus, University of Illinois-Urbana. His latest book is Bad Students Not Bad Schools.(source)

Prospects for Liberal Democracy in the Middle East

The world has been mesmerized by the uprisings taking place in the Middle East against authoritarian regimes. Some speculation is that this effect was caused by the example of Iraq sustaining multiple democratic cycles. By force, the Bush administration annihilated Saddam's brutal regime and forced into place a democratic process. The speculation is that people in neighboring countries have been observant of the changes and now seek democracy for themselves. However, a liberal democracy is comprised of particular attributes such as representative government, rule of law, equality before the law, just punishment, property rights, and certain freedoms (e.g. religion, speech, association, etc.). It remains to be seen what the Iraqis and, for that matter, the rest of the Middle Eastern revolutionaries make of their opportunity.


Liberal democracy grows only in certain cultures. History has empirically demonstrated that cultures stemming from Christian, Eastern, and Far Eastern religions are compatible with stable, long term liberal democracies. On the other hand, it is not obvious that cultures emanating from an Islamic foundation are compatible with liberal democracy. This uncertainty is a key reason the European Union has resisted integrating Turkey. It may explain why there are no Muslim liberal democracies.


After World War I, Mustafa Ataturk brought the power of the Turkish state to bear against fundamentalist Islam. In an attempt to modernize, Ataturk forcibly introduced Western systems and required a secular bent. However, in current times, Recep Erdogan has leveraged public disapproval of government corruption, incompetence, and ineffectiveness to make gains in legislative representation. His Justice and Development Party, with ties to an earlier Islamist party, have been leading Turkey since 2002. While shair'a has not been formally declared the law of the land, a cultural shift is apparent by observing the effects of increased pressure on women to conform to Islamic dress styles (e.g. head scarves, veils) and public behaviors (fewer single women about, fewer women intermingling with men socially, etc.). In a downward trend, Freedom House notes the loss of freedoms of speech and the press. Even Turkey's president, Abdullah Gul, admits civil liberties are endangered. Within the last year, in foreign affairs, Turkey has distanced itself from Israel and moved closer to Syria, a client state of Iran. Also, Turkey instigated the attempt to break Israel's blockade of Gaza in order to aid the Muslim Brotherhood progeny Hamas. The Muslim Brotherhood aims to install totalitarian Islamist governments in all Muslim countries; oppression and persecution of non-believers is conjoined with their goals and not incidental.


New constitutions for both Afghanistan and Iraq were catalyzed by the United States. Unfortunately, both of their constitutions include diametrically opposed ideas. For example, both constitutions convey freedom of religion to citizens. But both also recognize the supremacy of Islamic law known as shair'a. Shair'a is opposed to freedom of religion. This tension suggests shair'a or the constitution must give. So far, in both countries, illiberal shair'a has prevailed. On several occasions, Afghanistan has attempted to impose the shair'a penalty of death on Afghans who converted to Christianity from Islam. And Iraq's Christian population has been targeted for violence to the extent that a small fraction of believers remain in their country today compared to several years ago.


Iran purports to be a democracy. But the current repression against the Green Movement after the corrupted 2009 presidential election indicates little tolerance for dissent against the theocracy. Following the fall in 1979 of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi by the Iranian Revolution, Khomeinists established a theocratic constitution. This has prevented any effective liberal opposition from forming legally. Now, that opposition is being brutally repressed even to the point of civilian deaths.


It is difficult to establish causality for the reason Muslim countries are inhospitable to liberal democracies. But there are many reasons shair'a is incompatible with classical liberalism. A leading reason is that shair'a is a totalitarian system brooking no dissent. Submission is required by shair'a of believers and non-believers alike. There is no quarter given for debate or reasoning.


One feature of liberal democracy is representative government. Juxtaposed against this is shair'a's imposition of poll taxes on non-believers in order to discourage participation. Also, there can be prohibitions against non-believers holding government office or judicial positions. Shair'a does not recognize the separation of mosque and state, so only particular political parties are allowed to form.


The rule of law is central to liberal democracy. However, shair'a doesn't consist of codified statutes per se. Rather, shair'a includes Koranic content and practices of Mohammed (sunna). Any fatwa, or religious ruling, issued by innumerous individuals, could result in an ex post facto hazard. Also, there are no trials by jury, but only trials before religious officials.


Equality before the law means that men and women have equal legal standing in a liberal democracy. But shair'a devalues the worth of women. As witnesses, a woman has half the value of a man. This means two women must contest one man's claims. A wife must prove her innocence if a husband accuses her of adultery, but a wife must prove her husband's guilt if she accuses. Wife beating is the prerogative of her husband's governance. Females are entitled to half the inheritance of males. Also, drawing the greatest distinction in inequality, shair'a countenances slavery. Enslavement can range from servitude to treatment as chattel (i.e. the slave does not retain even rights over his/her own body).


Liberal democracies eschew cruel and unusual punishments. But shair'a requires imprisonment and even severing of a hand of a thief, stoning to death for adultery by married men or women, and lashings for other sexual transgressions. Homosexual behavior and sodomy are punishable by death.


Property rights are not uniform under shair'a. For example, Saudi Arabia has no churches anywhere in the country. Elsewhere, in Muslim countries, it is not uncommon that Christians may not build churches. For churches that already exist, approval might be withheld to effect repairs.


Shair'a does not sanction freedom of speech or the press. The orchestrated worldwide violence protesting the Jyllands-Posten cartoons of September 30, 2005 depicting Mohammed is consistent with Islamic fundamentalism. Contesting Islamic beliefs is considered heresy and punishable by death. This is consistent with the lack of freedom of religion imposed by shair'a. Apostasy is a capital offense. The Koran encourages conversion at the point of the sword and permits killing non-believers who won't convert.


Optimists, multiculturalists, ignoramuses, and naifs think protesters in the Middle East will replace tyrannies with liberal democracies. Unfortunately, you can't get to there from where the protesters are starting. With the sole exception of Israel, cultures in the Middle East, dominated as they are by shair'a, are inimical to liberal democracy and liberty. Tyrants may fall, but any democracies that are established will devolve sooner or later into the totalitarian state that shair'a demands. In general, American foreign policy decisions should be informed by the constraints shair'a imposes on movement into modernity in the Middle East. In particular, Americans should not expend one drop of blood or any treasure on current or future uprisings in the Middle East. (source)