Chris Matthews Declares Newt Gingrich to Be a "Mortal Enemy to Our Civilization"

The canning of Keith Olbermann has failed to scare his former coworker Chris Matthews into behaving like a grownup. Here he is denouncing Nancy Pelosi's RINO couchmate Newt Gingrich as an "enemy to our civilization" for not being eager to crawl into bed with Islamic terrorists who openly plan to kill as many of us as possible:

Careful Tingles. That kind of outlandishly overheated rhetoric can land you in a hole like Current TV.
Via The Blaze, on a tip from Milton.

via moonbattery.com

Chris Matthews Declares Newt Gingrich to Be a "Mortal Enemy to Our Civilization"

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Pirates

DUBAI : Pirates on Wednesday seized a supertanker off the coast of Oman bound for the United States carrying a crew of 25 and a load of more than 1.9 million barrels of oil, officials said.
"We cannot contact the vessel," an official with Enesel, the Greek company that manages the Irene SL, told AFP by telephone.
The tanker was carrying "about 270,000 metric tons" of Kuwaiti crude, which translates to over 1.9 million barrels of oil, he said, asking not to be named.
The Bahrain-based Combined Maritime Forces said the Greek-flagged ship was hijacked at 0926 GMT about 220 nautical miles (370 kilometres) east of the Omani coast, in the Arabian Sea.
"We can confirm that the Irene SL has been pirated off the coast of Oman," a spokeswoman for the international naval force told AFP by telephone.
"It is an oil tanker," she said, adding that it had a crew of 25 and was "bound for the United States".
"We have no reports of casualties," the spokeswoman said.
While the identity of the hijackers is unknown, Somali pirates are the likely culprits.
"We've got no specific information about who has taken it, but I think it would be reasonable to suspect it was an act of Somali piracy," the spokeswoman said.
Various websites devoted to information on shipping listed the tanker as being 333 metres (1,092 feet) long with a 60-metre (196-foot) beam.
Irene SL is the second oil tanker hijacked in two days.
The European Union's Atalanta mission to the seas off Somalia and the Gulf of Aden (Eunavfor) said an Italian oil tanker was taken early on Tuesday 600 miles east of the island of Socotra by a single skiff with five pirates who opened fire on the oiler.
That ship had a crew of 22 - five Italians and 17 Indians, EU forces said.
Piracy has made shipping increasingly perilous off the Horn of Africa and led to the deployment of an international force to protect the key maritime corridor.
On Sunday, the Indian navy captured 28 suspected Somali pirates on board a Thai fishing vessel that had been hijacked up to six months ago and was thought to have been used as a floating base to mount attacks on shipping.
In January, pirates released a Greek-owned oil tanker with a crew of 18 Filipinos that they had seized in the southern Red Sea.
The UN's maritime agency, the International Maritime Organisation, said last week that 67 ships had been hijacked off the coast of Somalia in the past 12 months alone, while a total of 714 seafarers are still being held for ransom on board 30 ships along the eastern African country's extensive coastline.
London's Chatham House international affairs think-tank estimates that piracy costs the global economy between US$7 billion and US$12 billion (five billion and 8.8 billion euros) every year.
Leading global shipping groups have called for a "more robust" international response to Somali piracy, warning that escalating violence towards seamen could prompt the industry to seek alternative routes.
"The current situation is unacceptable to the industry," four shipping associations said in an open letter dated February 4, released on Monday by the union of Greek ship owners.
"Unless necessary action is taken by the international community, the shipping industry will be looking at all possible options, including alternative routes, which could have a very dramatic effect on the world economy and global trade, including the delivery of oil," the groups warned.
- AFP/al

via channelnewsasia.com

image via notesbit.com

No No No Mubarak Will Not Let Go

The upheaval in Egypt, and the media’s negligence in failing to report on anti-Semitism in the Arab world

His comments in a national TV address confounded earlier reports that he was preparing to stand down immediately.
Mr Mubarak said he would delegate some powers to Vice-President Omar Suleiman, but would ignore "diktats from abroad".
Thousands of anti-government protesters in central Cairo reacted angrily to his announcement.

via librabunda.blogspot.com

Anti-Semitism in the Arab world has been described by professor Robert Wistrich as comparable to that of Nazi Germany at its worst, and yet it is a subject that is rarely covered by the Guardian and the rest of the mainstream media.  The following excerpt of a recent essay by Caroline Glick, as well as the subsequent commentary by Fresno Zionism, is especially relevant in the context of Rachel Shabi’s recent Guardian piece, where, as I noted yesterday, she not only whitewashed anti-Semitism of the Muslim Brotherhood, but actually claimed that Israeli fears of the Brotherhood was indicative of Israeli racism.
This is cross posted at Fresno Zionism:
Caroline Glick:

“Israelis are indifferent [to the current upheavals in the Middle East] because we realize that whether under authoritarian rule or democracy, anti-Semitism is the unifying sentiment of the Arab world. Fractured along socioeconomic, tribal, religious, political, ethnic and other lines, the glue that binds Arab societies is hatred of Jews.
A Pew Research Center opinion survey of Arab attitudes towards Jews from June 2009 makes this clear. Ninety-five percent of Egyptians, 97% of Jordanians and Palestinians and 98% of Lebanese expressed unfavorable opinions of Jews. Three quarters of Turks, Pakistanis and Indonesians also expressed hostile views of Jews…
That is why for most Israelis, the issue of how Arabs are governed is as irrelevant as the results of the 1852 US presidential elections were for American blacks. Since both parties excluded them, they were indifferent to who was in power.
What these numbers, and the anti-Semitic behavior of Arabs, show Israelis is that it makes no difference which regime rules where. As long as the Arab peoples hate Jews, there will be no peace between their countries and Israel. No one will be better for Israel than Mubarak. They can only be the same or worse…
One of the more troubling aspects of the Western media coverage of the tumult in Egypt over the past two weeks has been the media’s move to airbrush out all evidence of the protesters’ anti- Semitism…
Given the Western media’s obsessive coverage of the Arab-Israel conflict, at first blush it seems odd that they would ignore the prevalence of anti-Semitism among the presumably pro-democracy protesters. But on second thought, it isn’t that surprising.
If the media reported on the overwhelming Jew hatred in the Arab world generally and in Egypt specifically, it would ruin the narrative of the Arab conflict with Israel.That narrative explains the roots of the conflict as frustrated Arab-Palestinian nationalism. It steadfastly denies any more deeply seated antipathy of Jews that is projected onto the Jewish state. The fact that the one Jewish state stands alone against 23 Arab states and 57 Muslim states whose populations are united in their hatred of Jews necessarily requires a revision of the narrative. And so their hatred is ignored.”

The problem is not that the media are antisemitic. Most aren’t. As Glick points out, there is an accepted narrative which argues that the reason for the conflict is that Israel hasn’t allowed the Palestinian Arabs to realize their national aspirations. This could be solved, therefore, by pressuring Israel to give them what they want. But if the cause is simply Arab racism, then it’s the Arabs that have to change. And that is not what the NY Times and the Obama Administration want to hear.
But there is more to it than this. Arab antisemitism is so blatant, so obvious, so much part of what makes them who they are, that it is hard to understand how any but the most cynically dishonest journalist could miss it. And yet they do.
It’s remarkable that the slightest whiff of racism in any other context often becomes a cause célèbre. There were Shirley Sherrod’s remarks that  got her fired from the Department of Agriculture, Trent Lott’s praise of Strom Thurmond that led to his resignation as Senate Minority leader, the police officer’s treatment of Henry Louis Gates that brought about the absurd ‘beer summit’ with President Obama, and the use of the word ‘Macaca’  (which doubtless very few Virginians had ever heard before) that caused Virgina Senator George Allen to lose his bid for re-election.
It seems to be a hair trigger reaction in most cases — except for Arab antisemitism. Here it’s entirely unexceptional. Because they are Arabs, it’s expected and accepted. Even in Europe, where a person can be jailed for denying the Holocaust, it’s business as usual when an Arab calls for another one.
Even many Israelis are desensitized. “What do you expect?” they say. Everyone, media, politicians, ordinary people, have gotten used to it.
But Arab racism is no more acceptable than western racism. Blood libels, demonization, vilification, Hitlerian imagery, scapegoating and all the rest are not acceptable, regardless of the source. No automatic exemption from the values of the civilized world should be given just because the racists happen to be Arabs or Muslims.
The Israeli leadership must understand this as well. How is it possible to negotiate with such as Yasser Arafat, Marwan Barghouti, Mahmoud Abbas, et al? Shouldn’t it be a requirement that the Palestinian authority agree that there is a Jewish people and it is not descended from monkeys and pigs before Israel agrees to talk about giving up part of the Jewish homeland to them?
It’s enough. We, the Jewish people, do not need to take this abuse. And the media, which are so ready to accuse and condemn westerners for racist speech, have a responsibility to call out Arabs and Muslims when they hear it from them.

via cifwatch.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Keep them Seperated

Did the Poor Cause the Crisis?

the answer to the "Title" is NO. The poor were not responsible. It was rich liberal minded Upper Middle Class self haters that were responsible. Those are the one's who make a witch hunt... and I doubt they will point the finger to themselves. They are the one's who force a person to plea in court for things they didn't do because they don't have the money to investigate. But they were all just hoping to say they were more egalitarian then the rest of us... so they won't get caught. Am I bitter? I've just been in jail

WASHINGTON, DC – The United States continues to be riven by heated debate about the causes of the 2007-2009 financial crisis. Is government to blame for what went wrong, and, if so, in what sense?
In December, the Republican minority on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), weighed in with a preemptive dissenting narrative. According to this group, misguided government policies, aimed at increasing homeownership among relatively poor people, pushed too many into taking out subprime mortgages that they could not afford.
This narrative has the potential to gain a great deal of support, particularly in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election. But, while the FCIC Republicans write eloquently, do they have any evidence to back up their assertions? Are poor people in the US responsible for causing the most severe global crisis in more than a generation?
Not according to Daron Acemoglu of MIT (and a co-author of mine on other topics), who presented his findings at the American Finance Association’s annual meeting in early January. (The slides are on his MIT Web site.)
Acemoglu breaks down the Republican narrative into three distinct questions. First, is there evidence that US politicians respond to lower-income voters’ preferences or desires?
The evidence on this point is not as definitive as one might like, but what we have – for example, from the work of Princeton University’s Larry Bartels – suggests that over the past 50 years, virtually the entire US political elite has stopped sharing the preferences of low- or middle-income voters. The views of office holders have moved much closer to those commonly found atop the income distribution.
There are various theories regarding why this shift occurred. In our book 13 Bankers, James Kwak and I emphasized a combination of the rising role of campaign contributions, the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington, and, most of all, an ideological shift towards the view that finance is good, more finance is better, and unfettered finance is best. There is a clear corollary: the voices and interests of relatively poor people count for little in American politics.
Acemoglu’s assessment of recent research on lobbying is that parts of the private sector wanted financial rules to be relaxed – and worked hard and spent heavily to get this outcome. The impetus for a big subprime market came from within the private sector: “innovation” by giant mortgage lenders like Countrywide, Ameriquest, and many others, backed by the big investment banks. And, to be blunt, it was some of Wall Street’s biggest players, not overleveraged homeowners, who received generous government bailouts in the aftermath of the crisis.
Acemoglu next asks whether there is evidence that the income distribution in the US worsened in the late 1990’s, leading politicians to respond by loosening the reins on lending to people who were “falling behind”? Income in the US has, in fact, become much more unequal over the past 40 years, but the timing doesn’t fit this story at all.
For example, from work that Acemoglu has done with David Autor (also at MIT), we know that incomes for the top 10% moved up sharply during the 1980’s. Weekly earnings grew slowly for the bottom 50% and the bottom 10% at the time, but the lower end of the income distribution actually did relatively well in the second half of the 1990’s. So no one was struggling more than they had been in the run-up to the subprime madness, which came in the early 2000’s.
Using data from Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, Acemoglu also points out that the dynamics of the wage distribution for the top 1% of US income earners look different. As Thomas Philippon and Ariell Reshef have suggested, this group’s sharp increase in earning power appears more related to deregulation of finance (and perhaps other sectors). In other words, the big winners from “financial innovation” of all kinds over the past three decades have not been the poor (or even the middle class), but the rich – people already highly paid.
Finally, Acemoglu examines the role of federal government support for housing. To be sure, the US has long provided subsidies to owner-occupied housing – mostly through the tax deduction for mortgage interest. But nothing about this subsidy explains the timing of the boom in housing and outlandish mortgage lending.
The FCIC Republicans point the finger firmly at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other government-sponsored enterprises that supported housing loans by providing guarantees of various kinds. They are right that Fannie and Freddie were “too big to fail,” which enabled them to borrow more cheaply and take on more risk – with too little equity funding to back up their exposure.
But, while Fannie and Freddie jumped into dubious mortgages (particularly those known as Alt-A) and did some work with subprime lenders, this was relatively small stuff and late in the cycle (e.g., 2004-2005). The main impetus for the boom came from the entire machinery of “private label” securitization, which was just that: private. In fact, as Acemoglu points out, the powerful private-sector players consistently tried to marginalize Fannie and Freddie and exclude them from rapidly expanding market segments.
The FCIC Republicans are right to place the government at the center of what went wrong. But this was not a case of over-regulating and over-reaching. On the contrary, 30 years of financial deregulation, made possible by capturing the hearts and minds of regulators, and of politicians on both sides of the aisle, gave a narrow private-sector elite – mostly on Wall Street – almost all the upside of the housing boom.
The downside was shoved onto the rest of society, particularly the relatively uneducated and underpaid, who now have lost their houses, their jobs, their hopes for their children, or all of the above. These people did not cause the crisis. But they are paying for it.

Simon Johnson, a former chief economist of the IMF, is co-founder of a leading economics blog, http://BaselineScenario.com, a professor at MIT Sloan, and a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. His book, 13 Bankers, co-authored with James Kwak, is now available in paperback.

via intermexfreemarket.blogspot.com

so nice to be extradited by a Liberal State for a misdemeanor. glad I could put their guilt at rest

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Wikileaks: Saudi oil reserves overstated by 40%?

WikiLeaks cables suggest the amount of oil that can be retrieved has been overestimated. Photograph: George Steinmetz/Corbis via guardian.co.uk 

Saudi oil refinery. Cables released by Wikileaks report that Saudi oil reserves may be overstated by as much as 40%.

The US fears that Saudi Arabia, the world's largest crude oil exporter, may not have enough reserves to prevent oil prices escalating, confidential cables from its embassy in Riyadh show.
The cables, released by WikiLeaks, urge Washington to take seriously a warning from a senior Saudi government oil executive that the kingdom's crude oil reserves may have been overstated by as much as 300bn barrels – nearly 40%.
The revelation comes as the oil price has soared in recent weeks to more than $100 a barrel on global demand and tensions in the Middle East. Many analysts expect that the Saudis and their Opec cartel partners would pump more oil if rising prices threatened to choke off demand.
However, Sadad al-Husseini, a geologist and former head of exploration at the Saudi oil monopoly Aramco, met the US consul general in Riyadh in November 2007 and told the US diplomat that Aramco's 12.5m barrel-a-day capacity needed to keep a lid on prices could not be reached.
According to the cables, which date between 2007-09, Husseini said Saudi Arabia might reach an output of 12m barrels a day in 10 years but before then – possibly as early as 2012 – global oil production would have hit its highest point. This crunch point is known as "peak oil".
Husseini said that at that point Aramco would not be able to stop the rise of global oil prices because the Saudi energy industry had overstated its recoverable reserves to spur foreign investment. He argued that Aramco had badly underestimated the time needed to bring new oil on tap.
One cable said: "According to al-Husseini, the crux of the issue is twofold. First, it is possible that Saudi reserves are not as bountiful as sometimes described, and the timeline for their production not as unrestrained as Aramco and energy optimists would like to portray."
It went on: "In a presentation, Abdallah al-Saif, current Aramco senior vice-president for exploration, reported that Aramco has 716bn barrels of total reserves, of which 51% are recoverable, and that in 20 years Aramco will have 900bn barrels of reserves.
"Al-Husseini disagrees with this analysis, believing Aramco's reserves are overstated by as much as 300bn barrels. In his view once 50% of original proven reserves has been reached … a steady output in decline will ensue and no amount of effort will be able to stop it. He believes that what will result is a plateau in total output that will last approximately 15 years followed by decreasing output."
The US consul then told Washington: "While al-Husseini fundamentally contradicts the Aramco company line, he is no doomsday theorist. His pedigree, experience and outlook demand that his predictions be thoughtfully considered."

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

if you like plastic and petroleum jelly then drill here and drill now

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

BDS Bieber

this one was worse then the Lady Gaga Lesbians from Princeton University

How Did Palestine Get It's Advocates To Have Such Tacky Taste? The lesson is obvious here. If you support people who kill Jews behind Trees because they think it is written to do so... then you probably don't have the best taste.  Why is it they keep on putting the butch lesbians up to embarrass themselves for a culture that is intolerant to gays?

Media Manufactures Fake Democracy Egyptian Movement

 ....at least Richard kind of gets it

...the Obama administration had a detailed, if cockamamie, plan for Israeli-Palestinian peace but seemed stunned that Egypt went haywire. Where was that plan?

via Richard Cohen of washingtonpost.com 

meanwhile Obama blames the CIA for his lack of knowledge

Caught totally unprepared for Egypt's uprising, the Obama administration has offered a series of excuses. It was, officials claim, quietly supporting reform all along. The CIA never warned that Egypt might blow up. No one could have anticipated what has happened in Cairo since Jan. 25.

The claim on reform is easily dismissed. Anyone who has been following Egypt for the past two years knows the administration's record of coddling President Hosni Mubarak, cutting funds for Egyptian democracy programs and eschewing criticism of the regime's repression.

But another part of the record also needs clearing up: The White House was warned, publicly and repeatedly, that Egypt was approaching a turning point and that the status quo was untenable - not by an intelligence agency but by a bipartisan group of Washington-based experts who pleaded, in vain, for a change of policy.

via washingtonpost.com

but for the most part the T.V. says....

"It's in our interest to remove Mubarak because dictatorships breed terrorism"

Then how do you explain all the Islamic terrorists who were born in the United States and the UK. Or why  Lebanon is overrun with terrorists, but Turkmenistan isn't. Why are English Muslims more radicalized than some Muslims in the Middle-East?

via sultanknish.blogspot.com

According to the Pew Research Center -- one of the most outstanding organizations in America: apolitical, purely scientific, and beholden to no group --84% of Egyptians believe that people who leave the Muslim faith should receive the death penalty. 77% of them believe that it is fine to cut off the hands of thieves. 82% of Egyptians believe that people who commit adultery should be stoned. This data, if anybody wonders, was not gathered in the year 1810 but in 2010.
With these numbers in hand, the question is: What democracy are we fighting for? What should we expect from elections? Will the West be more content, and our media happier, when thieves lose their hands? Will the atheists of the West be content at the sight of dead ex-Muslims? Will Secretary Clinton be pleased when people are stoned for adultery? And, by the way, none of us knows the exact definition of "adultery. In some countries, being seen with a man not a relative or guardian is adultery. In some countries, being raped is adultery." Is kissing "adultery" too? Maybe.
Speaking of democracy at et-Tahrir Square: Bands of youth were standing at the entrance to the square to make sure that no Hosni Mubarak supporters would "sneak" in. That is called democracy, Egyptian style, and we are supposed to support it. Why? Because, we are told, those who support Mubarak are supporters of torture chambers, which are definitely not democratic. Being democratic means, as we are learning, having the right to stone adulterers, kill converts, and cut limbs. This is what we are fighting for. Join the revolution! Long live democracy!

via hudson-ny.org

Suspected US spy drone 'crashes in Yemen'

A suspected US spy drone crashed near the south Yemen town of Loder on Tuesday before Al-Qaeda gunmen made off with the wreckage, a police official and witnesses said.

Predator drones have been widely used by the US in Afghanistan and Pakistan

via google.com

guess where the technology for that was designed?

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Palestine Against Trees?

Palestine on an institutional level is more interested in burning people and the land of Israel down then actually saving it:

More than a year ago, I reported that the Fatah was upset over a donation of 3,000 trees by the Jewish National Fund to the new 'Palestinian' city of Rawabi (you know - the one that is boycotting 'settlement' products and labor). 

Fatah wasn't upset about taking the donation - only that it had been publicized. I wrote that I was upset that the Jewish National Fund was donating trees to the 'Palestinians' at all.  Uri Davis, a Jew who is a member of the 'Palestine National Council' (we have all types here), has now criticized the 'Palestinian Authority' for accepting the trees. He's now calling Rawabi a 'Zionist project.'  

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

If building homes for Jews is an atrocity like Obama and his ass hat's in Washington think,imagine what a tree is perceived to do for a Jew: 
Salaam, Came across something interesting. Was talking to someone and they said that the Jews are planting a certain type of tree all over Israel.  It reminded me of this Hadith:  "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews  

(killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The 

stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, 

come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (a certain kind of  

tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the 

Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).  

via ummah.com

Makes one wonder how Abu Mazen could have made the argument for global warming at the U.N. and the rest of us did not call him out on his bullshit.  I notice Al Gore was quiet on this issue