Ron Paul thinks "friendship" will solve Iran crisis

Pseudo-conservative demagogue Ron Paul is floating around in fantasyland again, going soft on Iran:

GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul says "offering friendship" to Iran, not sanctions, would be a more fruitful to achieving peace with Tehran.

The Texas congressman says fears about Iran's nuclear program have been "blown out of proportion." He says tough penalties are a mistake because, as he says was the case in Iraq, they only hurt the local population and still paved a path to war.

When asked on "Fox News Sunday" what he would do to deter Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions, Paul said "maybe offering friendship to them."

Paul's remarks put him at odds with both the Bush and Obama administrations; U.S. policy has relied heavily on sanctions and diplomacy to try to convince Tehran to abandon its atomic program. Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful.

Some of those locals he mentions, unfortunately, are as anti-Israel as Ahmedinejad himself and even supported the Occupy Wall Street insanity. But let us be clear: these sanctions usually involve barring weapons and such from being shipped there, not food and drink, which Paul hasn't considered. His use of "maybe" shows he hasn't a clue how else to deal with Iran, and he's obviously making these statements because he's worried about the news that Israel may attack Iran's nuclear installations.

Since I've mentioned the Occupy subject, I think it would be best to bring up a related subject involving Ron Paul. First, let's take a look at what he says here when he stupidly slammed the mission to obliterate al-Awlaki. He said:

Speaking to an audience at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., the Republican presidential candidate roundly blasted Obama for approving last week's predator drone strike that killed al-Awlaki, the al Qaeda figure linked to two unsuccessful attacks on U.S.-bound airplanes.

Paul noted that another American, editor of online al Qaeda magazine "Inspire," Samir Kahn, was killed in the attack. Paul questioned whether the government has the right to kill journalists, as well as terrorists.

"Can you imagine being put on a [hit] list because you're a threat?" Paul told a crowd of sixty journalists and their guests. "What's going to happen if they come to the media? What if the media becomes a threat."

Paul, of course, refused to recognize that Khan, by joining the al Qaeda and editing their obscene propaganda, was just as abominable a creature as al-Awlaki and it was on those grounds that Khan was terminated. It's got nothing to do with his being a journalist.

Now, here's the part that needs sharp attention:

Paul took the opportunity in the same press dinner, however, to also express sympathy for the ragtags of the left, the budding Occupy Wall Street protest movement.

Paul said that he shared the frustration of the protesters currently occupying the Wall Street section of New York City, and said he felt the demonstrations are rooted in a host of economic woes brought on by fiscal irresponsibility and globalization.

"I think civil disobedience, if everyone knows what they're doing, is a legitimate effort," Paul said, according to CBS News. "It's been done in this country for many grievances... The solution is to get a healthy economy back."

Just how exactly are they supposed to do that when the whole real purpose of the Occupy movement has since proven itself to be more about socialism, racism, rape and anarchy? Why, their repulsive methods have just damaged business for a resturant (H/T: Betsy's Page). As this article tells, quite a few of the Paulbots have attended these OWS gatherings, and here's news of another supporter who was arrested for arson. Those concerned about the damage the OWS movement is causing would be strongly advised to pay careful attention.

Ron Paul's foreign policy outlook on regimes like Iran is bad, but then if he's going to support a movement as horrific as OWS, so is his domestic policy outlook.

I'm galled at Hayao Miyazaki

Past political stupidity time: Anime director Hayao Miyazaki wouldn't come to the 2003 Academy Awards ceremony, and 6 years later, he explained why:

“The reason I wasn’t here for the Academy Award was because I didn’t want to visit a country that was bombing Iraq,” he said. “At the time, my producer shut me up and did not allow me to say that, but I don’t see him around today. By the way, my producer also shared in that feeling.”

I would surmise his producer was embarrassed, and with good reason. Movie award ceremonies are no place for politics, personal or otherwise.

We'll let the following reader comment sum this all up:

I love Miyazaki and his films, and I couldn't be more excited to see Ponyo, but this was just a dumb thing to say. I still have respect for Miyazaki and his wonderful films, but it's a shame when it comes to this subject Miyazaki has no idea what he's talking about. It would be one thing f he was anti-war, but to say something like "I won't visit the country that's bombing Iraq" just comes off as ignorant and childish.
We saw a little anti-war theme in Howl's Moving Castle (unfortunately), but it didn't come off as offensive like this does.
Iraq was a country where woman were treated like dirt, and people found any excuse to stone them, it was a country where children were taut to hate everyone and everything that doesn't look and think like them. Iraq was a country that thrived on hatred and lived on intolerance. But now they are able to do things they once could never dream of, like vote. They have more freedom now then they ever did before the U.S.'s so called "invasion." So was it really that bad of a thing, the Iraq war? Not when you think of the progress Iraq has made.
I just hope a wonderful mind like Miyazaki's doesn't become one of those "politically obsessed" filmmakers who starts throwing in an agenda in his films, because if that were to happen, the world will have lost the grea**** wonder the world of film has seen since Walt Disney.

Well if you've ever read Marc Eliot's research (see also this article for more), you'll see why Disney wasn't exactly a big loss himself either. But looking back at the premises of some of Miyazaki's own anime films, including Princess Mononoke, they do seem to have a big problem with an inability to take sides, signaling Miyazaki's got a problem with moral equations.

If there's any anime specialist we needn't make too big a fuss over, I guess it'd be Miyazaki. A shame he can't appreciate when a democratic country does its best to rid the world of autocratic tyrants like Saddam.

Hot Air:

It’s happening: Democratic lawmakers say Fast and Furious proof of need for harsher gun laws
posted at 6:25 pm on November 5, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Right on cue, Democratic lawmakers have begun to say the DOJ’s lethal and irresponsible Fast and Furious program underscores the need for stricter gun control laws:

“This hunt for blame doesn’t really speak about the problem,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein at a recent Senate Judiciary hearing while discussing Fast and Furious.

“And the problem is, anybody can walk in and buy anything, .50-caliber weapons, sniper weapons, buy them in large amounts, and send them down to Mexico. So, the question really becomes, what do we do about this?”

The ranking Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) have introduced a dedicated firearms trafficking statute, but it has stalled in the House Judiciary Committee.

Republicans rightly have pushed back against this narrative. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) put it best when he said simply, “I get it, I’d want to change the subject too if I were them. I’m happy to have a conversation about broader gun laws, but we’re going to do it after Fast and Furious.”

What’s most troubling about Democrats’ predictable call for tightening of regulations is that it does nothing to dispel the theory that Fast and Furious was orchestrated precisely to “prove” the need to clamp down on gun sellers and purchasers. Rather, it lends credence to the idea.

Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) recently explained:

This not only raises serious questions about your ability to serve as the head of the Justice Department, but also begs the question of why an anti-gun Administration would knowingly force licensed firearms dealers to sell guns to violent criminals. I raise this because Operation Fast and Furious — if the facts of this case had not come to light — would have been used by this Administration as another false argument to attack law-abiding American gun owners.

The American people deserve to know if your Department had any intent to link the legal purchase of firearms here in the U.S. to crimes committed near our southern border. Operation Fast and Furious funneled firearms legally purchased at gun shops in the U.S. to known criminal syndicates to prove these syndicates have access to legal purchased weapons. This is a deliberate attempt to vilify and attack the millions of gun owners in America who value our Second Amendment and have never broken the law.

Walsh made the assumption that the administration would not be able to use OF&F as a support for greater gun control because “the facts of this case [have] come to light.” But, unfortunately, the facts have reached only those who’ve consciously followed the case. Fast and Furious has still largely been ignored by the mainstream media — and, when news outlets like CNN do cover it, it’s frequently with an administration-friendly spin.

Reminder: This operation resulted in the deaths of at least 200 Mexicans and at least 11 violent crimes in the U.S. The program intentionally funneled firearms into the hands of straw purchasers, and the operation’s architects made no apparent attempt to track the weapons. Officials still can’t account for more than 1,000 weapons. We don’t need new gun control laws: We need responsible Justice officials who would never allow ideology and political purposes to tempt them to implement a dangerous and disastrous program.

Tico Tock TIck Tock TIck Tock

Newsmax:

Israel's Peres Warns Attack on Iran Getting 'Closer'
Sunday, 06 Nov 2011 12:31 PM

Israeli President Shimon Peres warned on Sunday that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely, days before a report by the UN's nuclear watchdog on Iran's nuclear programme is due.

"The possibility of a military attack against Iran is now closer to being applied than the application of a diplomatic option," Peres told the Israel Hayom daily.

"We must stay calm and resist pressure so that we can consider every alternative," he added.

"I don't think that any decision has already been made, but there is an impression that Iran is getting closer to nuclear weapons."

His comments came after he warned in an interview aired by Israel's privately-owned Channel Two television on Saturday that an attack on Iran was becoming "more and more likely."

"The intelligence services of the different countries that are keeping an eye on (Iran) are worried and putting pressure on their leaders to warn that Iran is ready to obtain the nuclear weapon," he said.

In France meanwhile, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe warned that an attack on Iran would be disastrous.

"We have imposed sanctions that continue to expand, we can toughen them to put pressure on Iran," Juppe told Europe 1 radio.

"We will continue on this path because a military intervention could create a situation that completely destabilises the region," he said.

"Everything must be done to avoid the irreversible."

In recent days, speculation in Israel has grown about the possibility of a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, with Haaretz newspaper reporting that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak were seeking cabinet support for an attack.

And the military last week carried out what Israeli media called a "ballistic missile" test, as well as a large-scale civil defence drill simulating the response to conventional and non-conventional missile attacks.

Officials said both events were long-planned, but they drove talk here about whether Israel is ramping up plans for an attack.

On Sunday, Haaretz reported that US officials had failed to secure a commitment from Israel that it would coordinate any attack plans with Washington.

Still, media reports suggested no final decision has been taken and that a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) nuclear watchdog on November 8 or 9 would have a "decisive effect" on decision-making.

Previous IAEA assessments have centred on Iran's efforts to produce fissile material -- uranium and plutonium -- that can be used for power generation and other peaceful uses, but also for the core of a nuclear warhead.

However the new update, which diplomats say will be circulated among envoys on Tuesday or Wednesday, will focus on Iran's alleged efforts to put the fissile material in a warhead and develop missiles to carry them to a target.

On Monday, Barak denied reports that he and Netanyahu had already decided to attack Iran over the opposition of military and intelligence chiefs.

But he said "situations could arise in the Middle East under which Israel must defend its vital interests independently, without having to rely on regional or other forces."

Haaretz said a majority of the 15 members of Israel's security cabinet were still against an attack on Iran, and a poll published by the newspaper found Israeli public opinion divided, with 41 percent in favour, 39 percent opposed and 20 percent undecided.

Israel has consistently warned all options remain on the table when it comes to Iran's nuclear programme, which the Jewish state and Western governments fear masks a drive for nuclear weapons.

Iran denies any such ambition and insists its nuclear programme is for power generation and medical purposes only.

In comments published on Sunday, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi accused the IAEA of "political" behaviour and said its report would be "baseless."

"I believe that these documents lack authenticity. But if they insist, they should go ahead and publish. Better to face danger once than be always in danger," several Iranian dailies quoted Salehi as saying.

"We have said repeatedly that their documents are baseless. For example one can counterfeit money, but it remains counterfeit. These documents are like that," Salehi said.

Newsmax:

IAEA: Iran on Brink of Having Nuclear Weapon
Monday, 07 Nov 2011 06:16 AM

(Reuters) - Intelligence provided to the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency shows that Iran has mastered the critical steps needed to build a nuclear weapon, The Washington Post reported Sunday.

According to the intelligence, Iran appears to have received crucial technical assistance from foreign experts, the newspaper reported, citing Western diplomats and nuclear experts briefed on the findings by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The IAEA report, to be issued this week, is expected to be its most detailed yet on research in Iran seen as geared to developing atomic bombs and is expected to spur Western powers to press for more sanctions on Iran.

The Washington Post said the report's findings provide new details on the role played by a former Soviet weapons scientist who allegedly tutored Iranians on high-precision detonators of the kind used to trigger a nuclear chain reaction.

The report says the intelligence also supports concerns that Iran continued to conduct weapons-related nuclear research after 2003, when U.S. intelligence agencies believed Iran halted the research in response to international pressure.

Western powers believe Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian nuclear energy program. Tehran denies wanting atom bombs, saying it is enriching uranium only to power reactors for electricity generation.

The United States, the European Union and their allies have imposed economic sanctions on Tehran for refusing to halt its uranium enrichment program. The United States and Israel have repeatedly hinted at the possible use of force against Iranian nuclear sites, eliciting threats of fierce retaliation from the Islamic Republic.

New disclosures in the IAEA report provide details on an apparent secret research program that was more ambitious, more organized and more successful than commonly suspected, The Washington Post said.

The Post quoted David Albright, a former IAEA official who reviewed the agency's findings, as saying that based on the intelligence the U.N agency has concluded that Iran "has sufficient information to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device" using highly enriched uranium as its fissile core.

Albright described some of the highlights at a private conference of intelligence professionals last week, the newspaper said, adding that it had obtained slides from the presentation and a summary of Albright's notes.

Ten Long Years In Afghanistan

And even Afghan lawmakers are in despair:

Afghans: Obama wasting time talking to terrorists

A group of senior Afghan lawmakers says the Obama administration is wasting its time in trying to make peace with the Haqqani Network, a Pakistan-based terrorist group U.S. officials have accused of killing Americans and attacking the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan.

Washington should instead increase pressure on Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency to cut its ties to the Haqqanis, withhold millions of dollars of aid to Islamabad and attack the militants in their safe havens, the lawmakers told The Washington Times this week.

The Haqqani Network, which is led by Sirajuddin Haqqani and operates from Pakistan's North Waziristan province, is supported by the ISI, according to Afghan and Western officials. Pakistani officials deny these accusations.

The Afghan lawmakers said the United States should use a combination of sanctions and travel bans against top ISI officers and the Pakistani military to break their support for the Haqqani Network.

The group of 10 lawmakers is in Washington for meetings at the Pentagon and State Department and on Capitol Hill.

U.S. officials met with representatives of the Haqqani Network over the summer.

In congressional testimony late last month, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton defended the Obama administration's strategy of "fight, talk and build" while dealing with the terrorists. She said part of the reason for the administration's approach is to test whether the terrorist groups "have any willingness to negotiate in good faith."

The Afghan lawmakers were pessimistic about the prospects of such an approach....

The rest HERE.

Ten long years of our blood and treasure, and the final result is going to be a complete loss as far as I can see.

Jeff Lorber
Hudson

THE INHUMANE OCCUPIERS

As one whose spouse is wheelchair bound, I find the following action by the Occupiers disgusting (hat tip to Conservative Hideout 2.0):


More information about the "Occupods" HERE at Conservative Hideout 2.0. As Matt points out:

In essence, is this not illegal restraint? They are blocking the doors, and not allowing people to leave. And, isn’t blocking the exits to a building illegal? What if there was a fire, or other emergency?...

And what about a non-emergency? Anyone who travels via the paratransit system we have here in the Washington, D.C. area and who misses the return ride home is trapped in such a situation. Miss the ride home, and you're stuck for hours, possibly overnight, where you are.

Today, Mr. AOW will be using his scooter, a machine that we cannot transport with our sedans, to travel today via the paratransit system. The Occupiers are forcing Mr. AOW and others using MetroAccess to consider whether or not to go on local outings because of the disruptive actions of Leftist loons? OUTRAGE!

Mr. AOW and I can only hope that nothing happens on his outing today, an outing planned and arranged over a week ago. He will be traveling alone, but after I do the grocery shopping, I'll be coming along later in my own car to assist Mr. AOW with his bathrooming. More worries today for both of us: that I might not be able to get inside to assist him or that he'll miss his paratransit ride back home!

Gerald Veasley
Do You Remember

52% of the Unemployed ARE NO LONGER COUNTED AS BEING SO

Not by the way BLS keeps stats, anyway.

Despite it being an AP report through MSNBC (Obama's Network!) we'll start out by taking this report at face value.

If only 48% of the unemployed are receiving U.C. Benefit checks, that means, of course, 52% are not.

Now, recall that Friday's unemployment number was 9.0% ("that's not great but it does show some glimmer of hope for the future").

Recall also that the "official" unemployment number as calculated by the BS BLS includes ONLY THOSE STILL COLLECTING BENEFITS

THEN

doing the backwards math I learnt in Real Estate school

the true unemployment number is a WHOPPING 18.75%!

And that does NOT include the underemployed, those working at a job far below their level but not collecting benefits anymore.

So, we'll leave them out of this for now, though not out of or thoughts by any means.

So, if the COUNTED number of unemployed is 14,000,000

THEN

using the same backwards Real Estate math

the TRUE number of totally unemployed in this country is

29,166,167!

30 million Americans who cannot find work.

Now add in all those underemployed whose numbers we do not know.

And consider these numbers may not include those who were "fired" and unable to ever collect U.C., or college students and high school grads trying to find that first job.

And consider, if this is what AP/MSNBC/Obamaco is admitting to, then the situation is likely far more grave.

The levels may approach or exceed 30%.

During the worst of The Great Depression in America the unemployment level was 33%.

Again and Again I've said the plight of the 99ers is a dire threat to the stability of our society. They will be marginalized and uncounted, unheard. And as their numbers rise, the admin will report unemployment is improving.

It's all bullshit.

That someone actually admitted it in print means there will probably be at lest one more to add to the ranks of unemployed tomorrow.

And it should come as no surprise this was released on a Saturday night so it can be forgotten by Monday morning.

NOV 2012 WILL BE TOO LATE FOR TOO MANY

MSNBC:

Most of the unemployed no longer receive benefits
Nearly one-third of America's 14 million unemployed have had no job for year or more
By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER

WASHINGTON — The jobs crisis has left so many people out of work for so long that most of America's unemployed are no longer receiving unemployment benefits.

Early last year, 75 percent were receiving checks. The figure is now 48 percent — a shift that points to a growing crisis of long-term unemployment. Nearly one-third of America's 14 million unemployed have had no job for a year or more.

Congress is expected to decide by year's end whether to continue providing emergency unemployment benefits for up to 99 weeks in the hardest-hit states. If the emergency benefits expire, the proportion of the unemployed receiving aid would fall further.

The ranks of the poor would also rise. The Census Bureau says unemployment benefits kept 3.2 million people from slipping into poverty last year. It defines poverty as annual income below $22,314 for a family of four.

Yet for a growing share of the unemployed, a vote in Congress to extend the benefits to 99 weeks is irrelevant. They've had no job for more than 99 weeks. They're no longer eligible for benefits.

Their options include food stamps or other social programs. Nearly 46 million people received food stamps in August, a record total. That figure could grow as more people lose unemployment benefits.

So could the government's disability rolls. Applications for the disability insurance program have jumped about 50 percent since 2007.

"There's going to be increased hardship," said Wayne Vroman, an economist at the Urban Institute.

The number of unemployed has been roughly stable this year. Yet the number receiving benefits has plunged 30 percent.

Government unemployment benefits weren't designed to sustain people for long stretches without work. They usually don't have to. In the recoveries from the previous three recessions, the longest average duration of unemployment was 21 weeks, in July 1983.

By contrast, in the wake of the Great Recession, the figure reached 41 weeks in September. That's the longest on records dating to 1948. The figure is now 39 weeks.

"It was a good safety net for a shorter recession," said Carl Van Horn, an economist at Rutgers University. It assumes "the economy will experience short interruptions and then go back to normal."

Weekly unemployment checks average about $300 nationwide. If the extended benefits aren't renewed, growth could slow by up to a half-percentage point next year, economists say.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that each $1 spent on unemployment benefits generates up to $1.90 in economic growth. The CBO has found that the program is the most effective government policy for increasing growth among 11 options it's analyzed.

Jon Polis lives in East Greenwich, R.I., one of the 20 states where 99 weeks of benefits are available. He used them all up after losing his job as a warehouse worker in 2008. His benefits paid for groceries, car maintenance and health insurance.

Now, Polis, 55, receives disability insurance payments, food stamps and lives in government-subsidized housing. He's been unable to find work because employers in his field want computer skills he doesn't have.

"Employers are crying that they can't find qualified help," he said. But the ones he interviewed with "weren't willing to train anybody."

From late 2007, when the recession began, to early 2010, the number of people receiving unemployment benefits rose more than four-fold, to 11.5 million.

Using up benefits
But the economy has remained so weak that an analysis of long-term unemployment data suggests that about 2 million people have used up 99 weeks of checks and still can't find work.

Contributing to the smaller share of the unemployed who are receiving benefits: Some of them are college graduates or others seeking jobs for the first time. They aren't eligible. Only those who have lost a job through no fault of their own qualify.

The proportion of the unemployed receiving benefits usually falls below 50 percent during an economic recovery. Many have either quit jobs or are new to the job market and don't qualify.

Today, the proportion is falling for a very different reason: Jobs remain scarce. So more of the unemployed are exhausting their benefits.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has noted that the long-term unemployed increasingly find it hard to find work as their skills and professional networks erode. In a speech last month, Bernanke called long-term unemployment a "national crisis" that should be a top priority for Congress.

Lawmakers will have to decide whether to continue the extended benefits by the end of this year. If the program ends, nearly 2.2 million people will be cut off by February.

Congress has extended the program nine times. But it might balk at the $45 billion cost. It will be the first time the Republican-led House will vote on the issue.

========================

C'mon -- show your solidarity with us unwashed uncounted unemployed heathen and turn this up LOUD

FUCK YER HOPE N CHANGE.

Private memorials held for Fort Hood murder victims

The families of the soldiers murdered by Nidal Hasan in Fort Hood are holding private memorials for the victims. Among the things we learn here are:

No public memorials were planned at Fort Hood to mark the second anniversary of the worst mass shooting on a U.S. military installation.

Is that because the PC crowd doesn't want this to be remembered or known about? Don't be surprised if it is.

"The thing I've heard a lot of families who've lost people in Iraq and in Afghanistan (say) is that they just don't want people to forget," Kerry Cahill said. "People don't bring it up because they don't want to remind you—well, I remind myself every day. I don't want people to forget that it happened, and I don't want people to forget my father."

On that sunny autumn day two years ago, a gunman wearing an Army combat uniform stood near the front door of a Fort Hood medical building where deploying and returning soldiers received vaccines and other tests. He shouted "Allahu Akbar!"—which means "God is great!" in Arabic—and opened fire, witnesses said. Some soldiers thought it was a training exercise.

He rapidly fired, pausing only to reload, shooting at soldiers hiding under desks and those fleeing the building, according to witnesses. Capt. John Gaffaney was fatally shot after throwing a chair at the gunman. Spt. Jason Dean "J.D." Hunt, Staff Sgt. Justin DeCrow and Pfc. Michael Pearson died while trying to protect several nurses at the back of the building. The others who died, most in the front area, were Capt. Russell Seager, Sgt. Amy Krueger, Spc. Frederick Greene, Pfc. Aaron Nemelka, Pfc. Kham Xiong and Pvt. Francheska Velez, who was pregnant.

Some witnesses identified the gunman as Maj. Nidal Hasan, an American-born Muslim who was scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan the following month. His trial is set for March. If convicted of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder, he faces the death penalty or life in prison without parole.

And we must hope he receives the former punishment, since he really deserves it.

YES!

The Blaze:

Meet the Oakland Developer Who Used a Shotgun to ‘Discourage’ Occupy Rioters
Posted on November 4, 2011 at 2:10pm by Becket Adams

Although some businesses have been targeted and vandalized by Occupy Oakland protesters, there is at least one businessman who refuses to be intimidated.

Phil Tagami is a well-known Oakland developer. Late Wednesday night, instead of going over paperwork or brokering deals, he was forced to defend a downtown building where he personally oversaw $50 million worth of renovations.

He also has an office there.

“We had people who attempted to break into our building,” the landmark Rotunda Building on Frank Ogawa Plaza outside City Hall, Tagami said. According to comments he made to the San Francisco Chronicle, Tagami grabbed a shotgun that he usually keeps at home, went down to the ground floor and “discouraged them.”

Although they didn’t get inside the building, vandals did scrawl graffiti on the outside walls during the post-midnight riot that broke out after Occupy Oakland’s daylong general strike, writes the Chronicle.

“I was standing there and they saw me there, and I lifted it – I didn’t point it – I just held it in my hands,” Tagami said. “And I just racked it, and they ran.”

The Rotunda Building wasn’t the only business targeted by the protesters.

“Graffiti was spray-painted on many buildings along Broadway from 14th to 16th streets. Masked vandals shattered windows, started fires and threw objects at police, including lit flares and powerful M-1000 firecrackers,” reports the Chronicle.

When the riots subsided, Oakland business owners started cleaning up the damage. Owners of Tully’s Coffee shop boarded up shattered windows. The owners of Genji, a Japanese restaurant in the City Hall plaza, spent their morning scrubbing graffiti from the facade of their business. Rite Aid and Walgreens drugstores were also tagged by protesters.

Rachel Konte, owner of Oakllectiv, said her designer clothing shop had its plate glass window smashed and hundreds of dollars of T-shirts stolen (despite the fact that, according to Konte, some protesters attempted to protect her store), writes the Chronicle.

The city estimates that it will cost up to $25,000 to replace broken windows at city buildings.

Of course, Mayor Jean Quan called the rioters “a small and isolated group.”

“It shouldn’t mar the overall impact of the demonstration and the fact that people in the 99 percent movement demonstrated peacefully and, for the most part, were productive and very peaceful,” Quan said.

Tagami wholeheartedly disagreed, saying that Occupy Oakland protest is “basically concealment and cover for anarchists who are doing this to our city.”

“We’re very concerned that a group of people can be allowed to do this type of destruction to our town and to our image without any repercussions,” Tagami said. “They need to be held accountable.” He rejected assertions that the anarchists were a small minority, saying, “No, you can’t have it both ways.”

Tagami added, “I support a peaceful protest. But it was a siege situation last night, and quite frankly, I’m glad we were here. But I never want to have to do that again.”

On a side note, guess what happened to at least one business, Men’s Wearhouse, that pledged its support for the “99%?”

It didn’t escape destruction either.

“Windows at the Men’s Wearhouse, which closed Wednesday and put up signs of support, were shattered,” reports the San Francisco Chronicle.

Broken glass is shown at a Men's Warehouse building in downtown Oakland, Calif., Thursday, Nov. 3, 2011 after a Occupy Wall Street protest earlier. Graffiti is covering a number of businesses in the immediate area around Frank Ogawa Plaza . . . Some windows also are broken, and debris is littering the street (Image: AP)

Mark Tapson on Frank Miller's Holy Terror

Mark Tapson at Front Page Mag has written about Frank Miller's anti-jihad graphic novel Holy Terror, and how sympathisers with Islamofascism have predictably savaged the book, with the UAE based paper The National providing lip service for every vicious dissenter they can fit in, and even smearing patriotism as "jingoism". How predictable of them.

And of course, the problem they pose also lies within some corners of the comics-based press too. Speaking of which, I hadn't thought of it initially, but as I noted in this earlier post, I think Miller was making a kind of ironic joke when he said he could tell you "squat" about Islam but more about al Qaeda. Yet that's not what leftist Comics Alliance wanted anyone to think, choosing instead to make Miller out to sound like a goof. It's too bad that they've chosen to be so pathetic, but fortunately, it didn't undermine sales for Miller's new graphic novel.

Ireland Closes It's Vatican Embassy Because "It Yields No Economic Return"

From Reuters:

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Catholic Ireland's stunning decision to close its embassy to the Vatican is a huge blow to the Holy See's prestige and may be followed by other countries which feel the missions are too expensive, diplomatic sources said on Friday.

The closure brought relations between Ireland and the Vatican, once ironclad allies, to an all-time low following the row earlier this year over the Irish Church's handling of sex abuse cases and accusations that the Vatican had encouraged secrecy.

Ireland will now be the only major country of ancient Catholic tradition without an embassy to the Vatican.

"This is really bad for the Vatican because Ireland is the first big Catholic country to do this and because of what Catholicism means in Irish history," said a Vatican diplomatic source who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

He said Ireland informed the Vatican shortly before the announcement was made on Thursday night.

Dublin's foreign ministry said the embassy was being closed because "it yields no economic return" and that relations would be continued with an ambassador in Dublin.

The source said the Vatican was "extremely irritated" by the wording equating diplomatic missions with economic return, particularly as the Vatican sees its diplomatic role as promoting human values.

Diplomats said the Irish move might sway others to follow suit to save money because double diplomatic presences in Rome are expensive.

It was the latest crack in relations that had been seen as rock solid until a few years ago.

DAMNING REPORT

In July, the Vatican took the highly unusual step of recalling its ambassador to Ireland after Prime Minister Enda Kenny accused the Holy See of obstructing investigations into sexual abuse by priests.

The Irish parliament passed a motion deploring the Vatican's role in "undermining child protection frameworks" following publication of a damning report on the diocese of Cloyne.

The Cloyne report said Irish clerics concealed from the authorities the sexual abuse of children by priests as recently as 2009, after the Vatican disparaged Irish child protection guidelines in a letter to Irish bishops.

While Foreign Minister Eamon Gilmore denied the embassy closure was linked to the row over sexual abuse, Rome-based diplomats said they believed it probably played a major role.

"All things being equal, I really doubt the mission to the Vatican would have been on the list to get the axe without the fallout from the sex abuse scandal," one ambassador to the Vatican said, on condition of anonymity.

Pakistan Carts Its Nukes Around In Delivery Vans, To Avoid Abduction (not by Jihadists) By The U.S.

From Will at The Other News:

(Wired).Pakistan is taking nuclear paranoia to a horrifying new low. And it’s making the world a vastly more dangerous place in the process. Freaked out about the insecurity of its nuclear arsenal, the Pakistani military’s Strategic Plans Division has begun carting the nukes around in clandestine ways. That might make some sense on the surface: no military wants to let others know exactly where its most powerful weapons are at any given moment. But Pakistan is going to an extreme.

The nukes travel “in civilian-style vehicles without noticeable defenses, in the regular flow of traffic,” according to a blockbuster story on the U.S.-Pakistan relationship in The Atlantic. Marc Ambinder and Jeffrey Goldberg write that tactical nuclear weapons travel down the streets in “vans with a modest security profile.”

Somewhere on a highway around, say, Karachi, is the world’s most dangerous 1-800-FLOWERS truck.Tom Clancy should be suing Pakistani generals for ripping off the basic idea behind The Sum Of All Fears. You’ll recall that  

Pakistan is home to al-Qaida, a particularly fearsome version of the Taliban, the leadership of the old-school Taliban, its friends in the Haqqani Network and a host of anti-Indian terrorist groups that the Pakistani intelligence service employ as proxies. Sometimes the Pakistani military helps these terrorist and insurgent groups attack U.S. troops in Afghanistan. 

And any one of these groups would love a chance to wield a nuclear weapon. Except that Pakistan isn’t trying to safeguard its nukes from them. It’s trying to safeguard its nukes from us. The Navy SEAL raid in Abbottabad that killed Osama bin Laden has made important Pakistani generals think that the U.S. military’s next target is Pakistani nukes.  

So off the vans go, along what Ambinder and Goldberg term “congested and dangerous roads,” trying to throw off the scent of the U.S., with little more than hope to protect them from an adventurous highwayman. The irony is that the U.S. isn’t planning to steal Pakistan’s nukes — but Pakistan’s cavalier attitude toward nuclear security is making the U.S. think twice about whether it should revise some worst-case-scenario contingency planning.  

Should any of the nukes go missing, an “Abbottabad redux” would likely occur, Ambinder and Goldberg report. An anonymous military official tells the pair that the Joint Special Operations Command “has units and aircraft and parachutes on alert in the region for nuclear issues, and regularly inserts units and equipment for prep.”

Seizing Pakistani nukes during or after a military coup is a much harder mission, but the reporters consider it doable. “[I]t’s wise for the U.S. to try to design a plan for seizing Pakistan’s nuclear weapons in a low-risk manner,” Goldberg and Ambinder advise, placing a lot of rhetorical freight on the words “low-risk.”That is, if the U.S. actually knows where the nukes are.

“Anyone who tells you that they know where all of Pakistan’s nukes are is lying to you,” ex-national security adviser Jim Jones allegedly said. The Econolines of Doom make that knowledge even more uncertain.

All of which points to the self-reinforcing downward spiral of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. U.S. cash continues to go into the Pakistanis’ pockets, and from there into the hands of anti-American terrorists.

There is, for many justified reasons, absolutely no trust between either side’s security services and militaries. There is also no alternative to the toxic relationship that anyone cited in the Atlantic piece is willing to contemplate. (When I recently suggested that the U.S. cut off aid and continue the drone war until Pakistan reins in terror groups, I got blasted on Twitter as a warmonger.)

“There is no escaping this vexed relationship,” Ambinder and Goldberg conclude, reflecting the conventional wisdom in Washington and Islamabad. Which sinks the U.S. into the nadir of absurdity. It funds a terrorist-sponsoring state while conducting a massive undeclared war on part of that state’s territory. It wants that state’s assistance to end the Afghanistan war while that state’s soldiers help insurgents wage it.

And seeking a world without nuclear weapons while its “Major Non-NATO Ally” drastically increases the probability that terrorists will acquire a the most dangerous weapon of all. 

Read and see the full story here.

Yes, we must guard against Islamophobia, right?

Never any different.

2500 years from Xerxes adviser Haman, the son of Amalekite kings.

Ignorance is king.

A nationwide survey of the American people released today by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) found that anti-Semitic attitudes have risen slightly in America, demonstrating once again that “anti-Semitic beliefs continue to hold a vicegrip” on a small but not insubstantial segment of America.

The ADL survey (.pdf) found that 15 percent of Americans – nearly 35 million adults – hold deeply anti-Semitic views, an increase of 3 percent from a similar poll conducted in 2009, and matching the levels of anti-Semitic propensities recorded in the U.S. in 2005 and 2007. Over the last decade, the highest level of anti-Semitic attitudes was reported in 2002, when an ADL poll found 17 percent of Americans harbored anti-Jewish attitudes.

The 2011 Survey of American Attitudes Toward Jews in America, a national telephone survey of

1,754 adults, was conducted October 13-23 by Marttila Strategies of Washington, D.C. and Boston. The margin of error is +/-2.8 percent.

“The fact that anti-Semitic attitudes have increased significantly over the past two years is troubling and raises questions about the impact of broader trends in America – financial insecurity, social uncertainty, the decline in civility and the growth of polarization – on attitudes toward Jews,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. “It is disturbing that with all of the strides we have made in becoming a more tolerant society, anti-Semitic beliefs continue to hold a vicegrip on a small but not insubstantial segment of the American public.”

I’d say, you have to be kidding me, right? But obviously, I cannot.

I grew up in the Bronx in the 1950’s. In my memory the neighborhood near 1832 Bryant Ave, just off the Cross Bronx Expressway where it crossed Boston Rd, was about 30% white, 30% black, and 30% puerto rican. NOBODY THOUGHT SHIT ABOUT IT. The white population was about half jewish, and the remainder was about evenly split between italian and everybody else.

We learned about the Holocaust in history about 4-5th grade. I thought it was over and we’d never have to face anything like that again. Integration was starting as Selma and civil actions began, and frankly, in my neighborhood, in my family our imaginations saw another kind of future.

HUMANS HAD LEARNED ONE STUPID THING, AT LEAST.

But now, with a 62nd birthday looming, it’s obvious that human nature is in the way.

15% of Americans hold deeply antisemitic views?

Impossible to comprehend. About 1 of every 6 people?

If that is so, imagine the rest of the world.

Then, Israel must survive.

Or one day, jews will not.

_____________________________________________________________________

• Fourteen percent (14%) agreed with the statement that "Jews have too much power in the U.S. today," an increase from 13 percent in 2009.

• Fifteen percent (15 %) agreed that Jews are "more willing to use shady practices," up slightly from 2009.

• Sixteen percent (16%) agreed that Jewish "business people are so shrewd, others don't have a chance," up from 13 percent in 2009.

• Thirty percent (30%) believe that Jews are "more loyal to Israel than to America," a percentage that has remained virtually unchanged since ADL's benchmark survey in 1964, despite the changing makeup of the U.S population.

• Nearly half of all respondents agreed with the statement that Jews "stick together more than other Americans, and 33 percent said they believe Jews "always like to be at the head of things."

• A surprisingly large number of Americans continue to believe that "Jews were responsible for the death of Christ." Thirty-one percent (31%) of Americans agreed with that statement. One-quarter of Americans believe that Jews "still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust."

Unions and #OccupyWallStreet Reveal Their Hidden Agenda: A Worldwide Financial Tax 

From Will at The Other News:

If there’s one thing about the Marxists controlling today’s unions, it is that they are predictable. If you watch them long enough, the pattern is always the same: Demand the extreme with something attainable in mind as the fallback position.In labor relations, the making of outrageous demands is a classic negotiating tactic at the bargaining table because union negotiators know company negotiators will only agree to what they are willing to based on business economics.  

In politics, however, the union tactic is an absolute winner because their prey (politicians, many of whom are bought by unions anyway) always fall for it and, besides, it’s only the taxpayers who are stuck with the tab.

One thing though, whether at the bargaining table or in politics, unions always reveal their hidden agenda—eventually.In the case of the #OccupyWallStreet, union bosses were eager to capitalize on a slick ad campaign and some miscreant professional protesters to create a “movement” to aid their own sagging fortunes.

Despite the multiplerapes, the assaults and drug dealing, open sex, public masturbation, anti-American rants, and violence, from the beginning, unions were eager to jump on board with the Neo-Communist squatters, their anti-Semites and their useful idiots in lower Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park.

Since then, unions have paid for protesters, water, food, legal fees, advertising and, in West Virginia, the AFL-CIO has even offered its property to use as a new “occupy” site.

Despite their more ambitious young allies who have called for the seizing private property and the “de-privatization of everything,” however, unions have known that their movement wouldn’t lead to a fully Marxist nation (yet) and, as a result, have had a more attainable goal in mind from the beginning. In addition, with winter approaching, union bosses know they need to being this movement to a close sometime soon and, up until now, they haven’t formally issued their real demands.

On Thursday, the #OccupyWallStreet and union movement will be taking is carnival show on the road to the U.S. Treasury building in Washington, D.C. What is their agenda? To protest for a worldwide tax on all financial transactions involving the purchase or sale of stocks, bonds, commodities, unit trusts, mutual funds, and derivatives such as futures and options. They call it the “Robin Hood Tax.”

Via The Hill: Organizers estimate more than 1,500 union members from more than 20 labor groups, including the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of County, State and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the Communications Workers of America (CWA), will be outside the Treasury Department Thursday to call for what has become known as the “Robin Hood Tax.” 

Occupy Wall Street protesters also are being bused in from New York by National Nurses United (NNU) — yet another example of the evolving relationship between labor and the protesters that have targeted the financial sector. 

Karen Higgins, co-president of the NNU, told The Hill that instituting a financial transactions tax could help fund social programs that are under threat. 

“This is actually the first step to do something concrete and beneficial and not harm others by taking money out of social programs that help people survive,” Higgins said. “It is only reasonable that Wall Street contributes its fair share.” 

Never mind the fact that the “social programs” that are bankrupting Europe and America with insurmountable debt are largely union driven, the union solution is to raise more revenue through a global tax. 

It’s actually not a new idea. In fact, AFL-CIO boss, Richard Trumka, has been talking with the European socialists for over a year about it, has kept it in his dialogue throughout his support of the #OccupyWallStreet movement, and is now in Europe at the G-20 Summit protesting for it.

From the AFL-CIO: One key part of the plan global [union] leaders will be calling for is a global financial speculation tax. In the U.S., a tiny tax on financial transactions could raise hundreds of billions in revenue that could fund education and create jobs rebuilding our country, while discouraging speculation and encouraging long-term investment.

Both Warren Buffett and Pete Peterson have urged Congress to consider a financial speculation tax. At the G-20 meeting, Bill Gates will be making proposals about financing for development.While international labor leaders push for a speculation tax during the G-20, the AFL-CIO will join working people from the area, participants from Occupy Wall Street and the National Nurses Union at a rally in Washington, DC on November 3 to call on U.S. elected officials to support the global movement for a financial transaction tax to help heal global economies.

It’s likely been part of #OccupyWallStreet’s grand plan all along, as the originator, adbusters’ Kalle Lasn mentioned in a Salon piece on October 4th and again on October 18th which, coincidentally, the National Nurses’ United also mentioned it on the same day in a press release supporting the Worcester, Massachusetts occupation. 

Incidentally, Bill Gates (referenced above), Warren Buffet and George Soros (of Zuccotti Park ownershipfame) are all supporting the Robin Hood Tax.So, for those #OWS empathizers on the Right who thought this is just a movement of frustrated, out-of-work Americans: As usual, you’ve been played by better tacticians and negotiators from the Left.Of course, there is one thing you can be certain of: Regardless whether unions fail at achieving the Robin Hood Tax during America’s fall, the weather will warm up by April and they will be back in the streets through next November. [You can take that one to the bank...so to speak.]

Read the full story here.

Mohammed Hebdo

Thanks to Alexander Munch