Labels:
Bagels
An overdone bagel forced the evacuation of Portland’s City Hall. The Oregonian reported that City Hall emptied for about 20 minutes Wednesday morning while firefighters dealt with the burning bagel in the break room of Mayor Sam Adam’s office. There’s no immediate word on who burned the bagel in the toaster oven or what type of bagel it was.City commissioners were meeting at the time and joined those who took to the sidewalks. Adams apologized for the interruption after the evacuation.
The Jewish mind knows how to take advantage of every situation. This is El Al's latest ad... in the post-"tefillin bomber" era
(Hat Tip: INN)
Labels:
Anti-Semites»
anti-Semitism»
Anti-Zionism»
Christiane Amanpour»
CNN»
CNN is FRAUD»
Judenhass»
organ harvesting»
Rick Sanchez
 |
not journalism. |
 |
via twitter.com |
Labels:
Haj-Amin el-Husseini»
Holocaust»
YAD VASHEM
(IsraelNN.com) A growing number of Arab youths take part in the Holocaust Studies Program at Holocaust Museum Yad VaShem, according to the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor (MoITL). Most of these youths attend professional schools that are run by MoITL.This brings up some challenging questions: do they teach clearly about the Arab/Islamic role in the Holocaust, such as that of Haj-Amin el-Husseini? Because if they don't, that's buckling to political correctness! No matter what their reaction is, they have to know if a member of their society committed an act of evil, and how they can learn to avoid and prevent those kind of things from happening in the future.
According to the ministry, a total of 3,800 eleventh grade students from MoITL schools are participating in the Holocaust Studies Program this year, and of these – about 1,500 are Arabs. Last year, the total number of MoITL school students who participated was about 3,200 and 1,300 of them were Arabs.
[...]
Arabs who participate in the studies have special problems with the subject matter, Birger said, including ignorance of basic Holocaust-related terms and mixed feelings including “suspiciousness toward other people's suffering and social alienation toward Israeli society.”
The Holocaust studies program for Arabs therefore treats the Holocaust first as a universal event, and only later tells the personal stories of Jews who were murdered.
Labels:
George Soros»
Gold
Watch the above CNBC interview with George Soros
Mr Soros, arguably the most famous hedge fund manager in history, warned that with interest rates low around the world, policymakers were risking generating new bubbles which could cause crashes in the future. In comments delivered on the fringe of the World Economic Forum, Mr Soros said: "When interest rates are low we have conditions for asset bubbles to develop, and they are developing at the moment. The ultimate asset bubble is gold."
Labels:
Goldstone
U.N. accused of setting up Israeli officials
'Real danger' is that unsupported war crimes charges will develop
An organization that holds special "consultative status" with a branch of the United Nations is accusing the international body of setting up Israeli officials for unjustified war crimes prosecutions with a biased report on the nation's 2008 conflict with Hamas.
The charge is being leveled by officials with theEuropean Centre for Law and Justice, an international law firm focusing on the protection of human rights and religious freedom in Europe and worldwide.
In an evaluation of the U.N.'s Goldstone Report on the military conflict, the ECLJ challenged the objectivity of the report that levels accusations of war crimes against Israel and "encourages states and the International Criminal Court (ICC) to exercise universal jurisdiction to prosecute the Israelis."
"The real danger from the Goldstone Report is that countries will believe the many falsehoods contained in it and urge the International Criminal Court to try Israeli officials for war crimes that they did not commit and, in fact, took Herculean measures to avoid," said Robert Ash, a senior litigation counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, the ECLJ's American division, and an attorney who worked extensively on the report.
via wnd.com
The Goldstone Report is much more scurrilous than most of its detractors (and supporters) believe. According to the report, Israel used the more than 8,000 rocket attacks on its civilians merely as a pretext, an excuse, a cover for the real purpose of Operation Cast Lead, which was to target innocent Palestinian civilians—children, women, the elderly—for death. This criminal objective was explicitly decided upon by the highest levels of the Israeli government and military and constitutes a deliberate and willful war crime. The report found these serious charges “to be firmly based in fact” and had “no doubt” of their truth.In contrast, the Mission decided that Hamas was not guilty of deliberately and willfully using the civilian population as human shields. It found “no evidence” that Hamas fighters “engaged in combat in civilian dress,” “no evidence” that “Palestinian combatants mingled with the civilian population with the intention of shielding themselves from attack,” and no support for the claim that mosques were used to store weapons.
The report is demonstrably wrong about both of these critical conclusions. The hard evidence conclusively proves that the exact opposite is true, namely that:
1. Israel did not have a policy of targeting innocent civilians for death. Indeed the IDF went to unprecedented lengths to minimize civilian casualties; and
2. That Hamas did have a deliberate policy of having its combatants dress in civilian clothing, fire their rockets from densely populated areas, use civilians as human shields, and store weapons in mosques.
What is even more telling than its erroneous conclusions, however, is its deliberately skewed methodology, particularly the manner in which it used and evaluated similar evidence very differently, depending on whether it favored the Hamas or Israeli side.
I have written a detailed analysis of the Goldstone Methodology, which is now available online, (http://www.alandershowitz.com/goldstone.htm). It is being sent to the Secretary General of the United Nations for inclusion in critiques of the Goldstone report received by the United Nations. This analysis documents the distortions, misuses of evidence and bias of the report and those who wrote it. It demonstrates that the evidence relied on by the report, as well as the publicly available evidence it deliberately chose to ignore, disproves its own conclusions.
The central issue that distinguishes the conclusions the Goldstone Report reached regarding Israel, on the one hand, and Hamas, on the other, is intentionality. The report finds that the most serious accusation against Israel, namely the killing of civilians, was intentional (and deliberately planned at the highest levels). The report also finds that the most serious accusations made against Hamas, namely that their combatants wore civilian clothing to shield themselves from attack, mingled among the civilian populations and used civilians as human shields, was unintentional. These issues are, of course, closely related. If it were to turn out that there was no evidence that Hamas ever operated from civilians areas, and that the IDF knew this, then the allegation that the IDF, by firing into civilian areas, deliberately intended to kill Palestinian civilians, would be strengthened. But if it were to turn out that the IDF reasonably believed that Hamas fighters were deliberately using civilians as shields, then this fact would weaken the claim that the IDF had no military purpose in firing into civilian areas. Moreover, if Hamas did use human shields then the deaths of Palestinian civilian shields would be more justly attributable to Hamas then to Israel.
Since intentionality, or lack thereof, was so important to the report’s conclusions, it would seem essential that the report would apply the same evidentiary standards, rules and criteria in determining the intent of Israel and in determining the intent of Hamas. Yet a careful review of the report makes it crystal clear that its writers applied totally different standards, rules and criteria in evaluating the intent of the parties to the conflict. The report resolved doubts against Israel in concluding that its leaders intended to kill civilians, while resolving doubts in favor of Hamas in concluding that it did not intend to use Palestinian civilians as human shields. Moreover, when it had precisely the same sort of evidence in relation to both sides—for example, statements by leaders prior to the commencement of the operation—it attributed significant weight to the Israeli statements, while entirely discounting comparable Hamas statements. This sort of evidentiary bias, though subtle, permeates the entire report.
In addition to the statements of leaders, which are treated so differently, the report takes a completely different view regarding the inferring of intent from action. When it comes to Israel, the report repeatedly looks to results and infers from the results that they must have been intended. But when it comes to Hamas, it refuses to draw inferences regarding intent from results. For example, it acknowledges that some combatants wore civilian clothes, and it offers no reasonable explanation for why this would be so other than to mingle indistinguishably from civilians. Yet it refuses to infer intent from these actions.
Highly relevant to the report’s conclusion that militants did not intend for their actions to shield themselves from counterattack is that the Mission was “unable to make any determination on the general allegation that Palestinian armed groups used mosques for military purpose,” “did not find any evidence to support the allegations that hospital facilities were used by the Gaza authorities or by Palestinian armed groups to shield military activities,” did not find evidence “that ambulances were used to transport combatants or for other military purposes,” and did not find “that Palestinian armed groups engaged in combat actives from United Nations facilities that were used as shelters during the military operations.” There is, however, hard evidence that Hamas did operate in mosques and, at the very least, near hospitals. Circumstantial evidence (precise weaponry) was used to prove Israeli intent. Regarding Hamas, the circumstantial evidence even stronger in inferring intent. It is beyond obvious that militants do not fire rockets in the vicinity of mosques or hospitals because it is easier to launch rockets near community institutions. Rather, they do so only because of the special protections afforded to hospitals and religious centers in war.
The report—commissioned by an organization with a long history of anti-Israel bigotry, and written by biased “experts,” with limited experience and a pre-ordained result—is one-sided and wrong in its fundamental conclusions. This should not be surprising since conclusions can be no better than the methodology employed, and the methodology employed in this report is fundamentally flawed.
So now it is up to Richard Goldstone to explain the evidentiary bias that is so obviously reflected in the report, and that is documented in my lengthier analysis available online. The burden is on him to justify the very different methodologies used in the report to arrive at its conclusions regarding the intentions of Israel and the intentions of Hamas. Failure to assume that burden will constitute an implicit admission that the conclusions reached in the Goldstone report are not worthy of consideration by people of good will.
via hudsonny.org
Palestine Press Agency says that Hamas' response to Goldstone also talks about how it is treating Gilad Shalit.
Their "commission of inquiry" claims that the armed groups holding Shalit are "committed to the Third Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war, saying he has the proper amounts of food and was being held in a safe and clean manner that preserves his dignity."
The only problem is that the Third Geneva Conventions also specifically says inArticle 125
Art. 125. Subject to the measures which the Detaining Powers may consider essential to ensure their security or to meet any other reasonable need, the representatives of religious organizations, relief societies, or any other organization assisting prisoners of war, shall receive from the said Powers, for themselves and their duly accredited agents, all necessary facilities for visiting the prisoners, for distributing relief supplies and material, from any source, intended for religious, educational or recreative purposes, and for assisting them in organizing their leisure time within the camps. Such societies or organizations may be constituted in the territory of the Detaining Power or in any other country, or they may have an international character.Hamas has never allowed any third party to visit Shalit. As far as I can tell, Hamas never specified how Red Cross visitation would compromise Hamas' security.The Detaining Power may limit the number of societies and organizations whose delegates are allowed to carry out their activities in its territory and under its supervision, on condition, however, that such limitation shall not hinder the effective operation of adequate relief to all prisoners of war.
The special position of the International Committee of the Red Cross in this field shall be recognized and respected at all times.
As soon as relief supplies or material intended for the above-mentioned purposes are handed over to prisoners of war, or very shortly afterwards, receipts for each consignment, signed by the prisoners' representative, shall be forwarded to the relief society or organization making the shipment. At the same time, receipts for these consignments shall be supplied by the administrative authorities responsible for guarding the prisoners.
Also, Article 13 states "prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." This was violated with Hamas' parade mocking Shalit in front of thousands of Gazans in 2008.
This may go down as the worst State of the Union Address in history. The current administration tripled the national deficit, nearly doubled the unemployment from the average during the Bush years, and nearly bankrupt the country on failed stimulus while focusing on nationalizing health care and energy, but blamed the previous adminstration for all of his woes. President Obama could not get himself to admit we won in Iraq and inappropriately attacked the Supreme Court all in one awful speech.
Now we find out it wasn’t just Justice Alito who was upset with his trash-talking. Senator John McCain was seen mouthing, “Blame it on Bush,” when Obama misrepresented the situation he inherited. Think Progress caught the president’s dishonest attack on Bush:
By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door.
The camera then cut to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who leaned over to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and appeared to whisper, “Blame it on Bush.” The two men then laughed. Watch it:
For the record the federal deficit was $454 billion last year not $1 trillion.
The president would have done better if he would have stuck with the facts instead of blaming George W. Bush for the mess he’s made.
Labels:
Europe
The Euro was created artificially giving political strength to it's member states to compete with the United States, but like the United States who exists in a greater political union it faces inflation because of the inability to devalue local economies that depend on tourism. The oversized political union is bulky. Those sectors of Europe that depend on tourism need the Euro to be worth less so that those outside of the currency can afford to visit. What is worse is even those inside the union travel outside of the union where the prices are less. The system overextended itself and has forced it's member states into situations that could of been avoided had they not insisted in including economies that did not reflect their own business culture. This is a blue print for why it is so important for local communities to have the ability to control their own economy. Centralization always fails. Even if it looks good in the short term. Because of vanity now Europe is in an uncomfortable position of treating it's members as burdens when these members would of been sustainable independently.
The euro is in serious trouble.
A decade ago, the introduction of the euro, the common currency of 16 of the 27 EU member states, was a political decision -- not a monetary one. When the euro was introduced in 1999, Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman wrote to his friend, the Italian economist Antonio Martino: “As you know, I am very negative about the euro and I am very doubtful about how it will work out. However, I am less pessimistic about it now than I was earlier simply because I never expected that the various countries would display the kind of discipline that was required in order to qualify for the euro.”
The problems result from the recent economic crisis which have badly affected the economy of Greece, one of the countries of the eurozone. Analysts doubt whether the government in Athens is able or willing to address Greece's financial problems. If not, the other 15 nations using the euro will suffer the consequences, which is something they are not likely to accept.
Thomas Mayer, the chief economist of Deutsche Bank, warned last week: “The situation is more serious than it has ever been since the introduction of the euro. […] If the Greece situation is handled badly, the Eurozone could break down, or face major inflation.”
The problems of the euro affect the entire world. The EU currency was not introduced because of economic considerations, but because the European Union is pretending to be a genuine state and states are expected to have single national currencies. Hoping to become a powerful political force in its own right, the EU adopted the euro as the common currency of some 327 million Europeans, so that the currency's economic power would prefigure the political power to be.
The eurozone represents the second largest economy in the world. During the past decade, the euro became the second largest reserve currency after the U.S. dollar. With banknotes and coins in circulation for more than €790 billion, the euro has surpassed the U.S. dollar's circulation. The euro appeared to be very strong, with the value of the U.S. dollar, the British pound, and other currencies dramatically falling in comparison to it -- one of the causes of Greece's problems. Tourism is a major economic sector in Greece. For tourists from outside the eurozone, such as the Americans and British, the country became too expensive as a holiday destination. Last year, when the world economic crisis also affected Europe, with a huge drop in the numbers of EU-citizens, such as Italians, who headed for Greece, the Greek economy collapsed and the Greek government was no longer able to pay the country's public debts.
With Greece facing bankruptcy, the fears about Greece's financial situation have led to a drop in value for the euro. Last week, the finance ministers of Germany and the Netherlands - the two eurozone countries which in pre-euro days had the strongest currencies in the EU: the German mark and the Dutch guilder - announced that they will not help Greece solve its problems. Polls indicate that 70% of the Germans oppose using their taxes to bail out other countries. Despite the EU propaganda line that EU citizens share a common European national identity, this is simply not true. As a leader in the Financial Times Deutschland noted earlier this month: “Spain believes in 'more Europe'. Whether that's the case for Germany as well one cannot be so sure any more.”
Moreover, the German economy has also been badly affected by the crisis. Last year, Germany's GDP fell by 5%, the biggest drop since the War, with a drop of 15% in exports and 20% in the sale of German manufactured goods. The German people are not prepared to lift countries such as Greece, Romania, Spain, Portugal and Ireland out of the recession at their own expense.
There is also a lot of anger towards the Greeks in the other EU countries: for some years Greece seems to have covered up its bad economic performance by officially presenting better economic figures than was the case. The promise of the Greek government to reduce Greece's budget deficit from 12.7% of GDP in 2009 to 2.8% in 2012, is being met with scepticism. Many doubt whether the government in Athens will be strong enough to resist the domestic pressure from the powerful trade unions against the radical deficit-cutting efforts that are needed, while others doubt that the Greeks will refrain from manipulating the economic data again.
Unwillingness to help the Greeks is huge within a eurozone currently facing an unemployment rate of 10% of the workforce, the highest figure since the single currency was introduced eleven years ago. Under EU rules, however, all the 27 member states of the EU, not just the 16 member states of the eurozone, are obliged to help the Greeks if the EU decides to bail them out. Article 122 of the EU Treaty, which went into force last December, states: “Where a member state is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control, the council of ministers, on a proposal from the European Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Union financial assistance.”
This decision is taken on a majority vote. Consequently Britain, which always refused to join the eurozone, might be forced to help save the euro. The British press has already reported that if an EU rescue fund for Greece matches the Greek budget deficit, and if the EU decides that member states have to contribute in accordance with their own share of the total EU economy, Britain might be forced to pay a £7 billion bill to bail out Greece -- or perhaps even more, if other bankrupt eurozone countries, such as Spain, are excused their share.
British Eurosceptics fear that if Greece, which represents 3% of EU GDP, is bailed out, other eurozone countries facing financial difficulties (Spain, Portugal, Italy) might claim the same treatment. This, they say, would saddle Britain with a bill of £50 billion to save a currency in which the Brits have never believed.
Even though European public opinion is opposed to a bailout plan for the Greeks, Irwin Stelzer recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal that he expects European politicians to present just such a plan. “There is so much political capital invested in the euro by the political class,” he wrote,”that even the stern and parsimonious [German Chancellor] Angela Merkel will in the end contribute to a bailout fund if necessary.”
However, there also are indications to the contrary. Greek politicians might feel that the only way to avoid civil unrest in Greece might be to drop the euro and re-establish their own national currency, the Greek drachma. This would allow the Greek government to devalue the currency in order to stimulate exports and economic growth - a political-monetary tool which Athens lacks if it remains in the eurozone. It seems that some people at the European Central Bank (ECB), which controls the euro, favor such a move.
On Jan. 17, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard wrote in the London Daily Telegraph that at the ECB headquarters in Frankfurt the legal ground is being prepared for a euro break-up. A major problem, however, appears to be that once a country has accepted the euro it cannot get rid of it unless it leaves the EU altogether. “This is a warning shot for Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain. If they fail to marshal public support for draconian austerity, they risk being cast into Icelandic oblivion.” Apart from Britain and Denmark, two countries which obtained opt-outs in the EU treaties, all EU member states are obliged to join the eurozone or peg their currencies to it. Former IMF analyst Desmond Lachman is quoted in CityAM warning: “There is every prospect that within two to three years...Greece's European membership will end with a bang.”
Evans-Pritchard also reports, however, that the dominant view of financial circles in London seems to be that “if a rescue [bailout of Greece] turns out to be necessary, a rescue will be mounted.” This is a bet, says Evans-Pritchard, that Berlin will do “what it did for East Germany: subsidise forever. It is a judgment on whether EMU is the binding coin of sacred solidarity or just a fixed exchange rate system like others before it. Politics will decide.”
Which brings us back to Milton Friedman: When politicians decide to rule economic and monetary issues, the results are usually catastrophic.
• Watching Media • Defending Truth • Contradicting Parameters • @CriticalAnalyst
