Saturday, October 13, 2012

A laugh for today...

While the world is on fire, gas prices are rising, our economy sucks, Obama's lies and cover-ups abound...this is what he's concerned about...

WND / Exclusive 

Watch Iranians, they believe war is near, expert warns

Ex-CIA operative who worked inside Revolutionary Guards says bomb program needs monitoring

trinity_test2

A man whose sources inside Iran have revealed the existence of a special underground operation where scientists are working on nuclear bomb components says the world needs to be watching closely, because Iranians believe war is near.

The comments come from Reza Kahlili, a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and author of the award-winning book “A Time to Betray.” He currently serves on the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and the advisory board of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran.

He recently revealed in an exclusive WND report that a source said Iran would agree to a temporary halt to uranium enrichment before next month’s U.S. election in a move to save Barack Obama’s presidency.

The source, who remains unamed for security reasons, said a three-person delegation of the Obama administration, led by a woman, engaged in secret negotiations with a representative of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The delegation urged the Iranian leader to announce a halt to enrichment, even if temporary, before the Nov. 6 election, promising removal of some sanctions.

The source said the delegation warned that a Mitt Romney presidency would change the U.S. relationship with Iran regarding its nuclear program.


The U.S. representatives reminded the Iranians that President Obama has stood in front of Israel, preventing the Jewish state from attacking Iran over its illicit nuclear arms policy.

In a subsequent exclusive WND report, Kahlili revealed that his sources had confirmed that Iranian scientists are nearing completion of a nuclear warhead, having already successfully tested an implosion system and neutron detonator at a secret site while enriching uranium to weapons grade.

The information comes from Hamidreza Zakeri, formerly with the Islamic regime’s Ministry of Intelligence and National Security, or MOIS.

Zakeri previously testified at the federal district court in Manhattan in the Havlish v. bin Laden civil lawsuit, where he provided proof that Iran had materially aided and supported al-Qaida before and after 9/11.

Zakeri, who has in the past provided credible information on another site to Western intelligence agencies, said that after the revelation of the existence of the Iranian atomic research facility in Lavizan-Shian, the team of scientists moved to a secret location in 2003.

Kahlili’s sources said the new site is in the province of Isfahan on the outskirts of the small city of Najafabad. The report said to avoid suspicion, the site was built below the medicine factory, “Abu Reyhan.”

The report said the facility beneath the factory has three levels, with two underground entrances away from the facility.

Then, this week on the Wall Street Journal’s “Daily Wrap with Michael Castner,” Kahlili reported the revelation of the new nuclear program site “should be a serious concern,” and international nuclear regulators or others need to watch.

Listen to the report:  http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/watch-iran-they-believe-war-is-near-expert-warns/

“There are assets in Iran, I’m sure, who could monitor the place. The IAEA could ask for an inspection,” he said.

“Sources have verified fissile material being transferred [there],’ he said. And “Iranian officials are adamant that war is close.”

Kahlili said Iranians don’t believe the U.S. would attack, because of the actions and statements of Barack Obama, but they remain uncertain about Israel.

“They don’t think Israel will wait that long,” he reported.

Overview of medicine plant location (Google image)
The original report also said sources have reported seeing the transfer of equipment labeled “radiation warning” into the secret facility.

Did Gallup Just Cave to Liberal Pressure? 

By: Brandon Gaylord  / Townhall Daily / Columnist

For most of President Obama’s tenure in office, Gallup’s Presidential approval polls have shown the President performing at lower levels than most other pollsters. Their polls were often used by Republicans to support the narrative that the President and his policies were unpopular.

Throughout the summer of 2012 Obama’s approval numbers lingered in the mid-40s as he was locked in a dead heat with Mitt Romney. Despite overestimating Obama’s support by four points in 2008, Gallup came under fire from the left for being biased. When Gallup defied the polling consensus, some polling observers such as Mark Blumenthal complained that Gallup was missing potential Democratic voters because they were not sampling non-telephone households. In other words, Blumenthal thought Gallup’s polls were skewed towards Republicans.

The complaints about Gallup from the left reached a crescendo in August when the Department of Justice joined a former Obama staffer in filing a lawsuit against Gallup for overestimating costs on a government contract. Conservatives complained that this amounted to working over the refs. Coaches rough up the refs for one reason – it works. And sadly it appears that it worked on Gallup as well.

Gallup’s new polling procedures take three steps to further secure the Democratic base.
1. Gallup attempts to account for more minority voters by weighting their samples more heavily toward urban respondents. The logic being that urban areas are more densely populated and current geographic sampling leads to a rural bias. In addition, Mark Blumenthal noted happily that Gallup now appears to be polling non-telephone households, which should boost minority poll participation. 
2. Gallup added emphasis to include early voters in their likely voter sample. Although the history of early voting is still limited, the early voting trends thus far have leaned heavily Democratic.
3. Gallup is significantly increasing their cell phone samples. In the past Gallup favored landlines by a 60-40 margin. They will now split calls between landlines and cellphones evenly. Cellphone respondents lean noticeably Democratic.
I have no fault with Gallup’s reasoning on any of these changes. The range of respondents should always match actual demographics as closely as possible. No voter is more likely to vote than someone who has already cast a ballot –and it is a fair assumption to say that half the country uses a cell phone as their primary phone.

When taken individually Gallup’s new guidelines seem to make sense. The problem comes from Gallup locking in Democratic demographics and creating a floor of support for the Democratic candidate. Consider the following:
* The minority vote is weighted to at least 25% (actually exceeding 30% in some recent Gallup samples) and votes Democrats at about an 80% clip. · Early voters are given priority treatment in likely voter samples and vote Democrat by a roughly 60-40 margin.
* 50% of respondents are called on a cell phone and lean Democratic.
With these demographics locked in it will require some hard work for a Democratic candidate to actually have a bad poll.

Unfortunately, pollsters make no such consideration for Republican demographics. Pollsters have been under-polling evangelical Christians by as much as 50% without their consciences troubling them.

Gallup is now taking the approach, along with many other pollsters, that some samples are more random than other random samples. Apparently, the randomness only comes in after the Democratic base is safely counted.

What affect has this had on Gallup’s polls? In this past couple of weeks despite a national shift towards Mr. Romney and a disastrous debate performance, President Obama is reaching highs in approval last seen in 2010. According to Gallup, the President’s approval has been running in the low 50-percentile range. They are the only pollster to currently have the President’s approval above 50%. Within just a couple of months, Gallup went from being the harshest on the President to the most favorable.

The change in polling tactics, which coincided with the Department of Justice lawsuit certainly raises questions. The fact that these “tweaks” appear to have significantly shifted Gallup’s polling outlook in favor of the President appears even worse. If Gallup overestimates the Democratic support once again they will certainly damage the brand they have worked so hard to build.

Unemployment Set to Explode 

 Political  Calculations Political Calculations  / Townhall Daily / Finance

Now that the average price of gasoline in the United States is clocking in at all-time record levels for this time of year, especially in California, what effect will that factor have upon the official U.S. unemployment rate, which just clocked in at its lowest level since early 2009?

Unfortunately, that's the wrong question to be asking today, because it takes roughly two years for a major change in the price of oil and gasoline to play out and fully impact the U.S. unemployment rate. The right question to ask today is: "what was the price of gasoline doing two years ago that put the events in motion that are just now about to affect the U.S. economy?

The answer is revealed in our chart below, in which we've shifted the average price of motor gasoline in the United States forward in time by two years to visually correlate the price of gasoline with the recorded official U.S. unemployment rate for each month since January 1976 (or actually, since January 1978):

U.S. Unemployment Rate and Two-Years-Later Real Motor Gasoline Prices, Jan 1976 to Sept 2012, with Forecast through 2013

Here, we see that the U.S. unemployment rate has been tracking pretty closely with where the two-year time lagged price of gasoline in the U.S. would put it - including the "unexpectedly" low 7.8% unemployment rate that was just reported for September 2012.

The bad news is that if that correlation between the time-lagged price of gasoline and the U.S. unemployment rate continues, the U.S. is about to see a major spike upward in its unemployment rate, corresponding to the sustained surge in gasoline prices that began at the end of 2010.

It's only a coincidence that this surge in unemployment would appear set to take place just as the U.S. government approaches its self-created "fiscal cliff", where the ongoing failure of the Obama administration to negotiate government spending reductions in good faith with the U.S. Congress threatens to push the U.S. directly into recession in early 2013!

To start getting a feel for what the real forces are behind the relationship between oil and gasoline prices and the U.S. unemployment rate, let's turn to the San Francisco branch of the U.S. Federal Reserve's Dr. Econ for an explanation:

What effects do oil prices have on the "macro" economy?

I've just explained how oil prices affect households and businesses; it is not a far leap to understand how oil prices affect the macroeconomy. Oil price increases are generally thought to increase inflation and reduce economic growth. In terms of inflation, oil prices directly affect the prices of goods made with petroleum products. As mentioned above, oil prices indirectly affect costs such as transportation, manufacturing, and heating. The increase in these costs can in turn affect the prices of a variety of goods and services, as producers may pass production costs on to consumers. The extent to which oil price increases lead to consumption price increases depends on how important oil is for the production of a given type of good or service.
Oil price increases can also stifle the growth of the economy through their effect on the supply and demand for goods other than oil. Increases in oil prices can depress the supply of other goods because they increase the costs of producing them. In economics terminology, high oil prices can shift up the supply curve for the goods and services for which oil is an input.
High oil prices also can reduce demand for other goods because they reduce wealth, as well as induce uncertainty about the future (Sill 2007). One way to analyze the effects of higher oil prices is to think about the higher prices as a tax on consumers (Fernald and Trehan 2005). The simplest example occurs in the case of imported oil. The extra payment that U.S. consumers make to foreign oil producers can now no longer be spent on other kinds of consumption goods.
Despite these effects on supply and demand, the correlation between oil price increases and economic downturns in the U.S. is not perfect. Not every sizeable oil price increase has been followed by a recession. However, five of the last seven U.S. recessions were preceded by considerable increases in oil prices (Sill 2007).

Alan A. Carruth, Mark A. Hooker and Andrew J. Oswald connect the macro-economic dots then between yesterday's oil and gasoline prices and today's unemployment rates in their 1998 paper:

Intuitively, the mechanism at work is the following. An increase in, for example, the price of oil leads to an erosion of profit margins. Firms lose money, and begin to go out of business. To restore a zero-profit equilibrium, some variable in the economy has to alter. If labor and energy are the key inputs and interest rates are largely fixed internationally, it is labor's price that must decline.
But there is only one way in which this can happen. If wages and unemployment are connected inversely by a no-shirking condition, equilibrium unemployment must rise, because only that will induce workers to accept the lower levels of pay necessitated by the fact that the owners of oil are taking a larger share of the economy’s real income.
The same kind of process follows any rise in the real rate of interest. When capital owners' returns increase, the new zero-profit equilibrium requires workers’ returns to be lower. In a world where the level of unemployment acts as a "discipline device," higher real input prices lead to lower wages and greater unemployment rates.

This effect is what Obama administration officials are after in part when they state their political objective that the price of fuel must "necessarily skyrocket", as it gives the administration a target to scapegoat (capital owners) while simultaneously increasing their client base of unemployed individuals who will become dependent upon government-provided welfare for their income.

Or maybe they're just a bunch of screwups where all this can all be chalked up to "bad luck"....

Saudi Arabia calls for new international body to censor Internet of content critical of Islam

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

“Any reasonable person would know that this film would foment violence and, indeed, many innocent persons have died and been injured with this film as a root cause.” No. Any reasonable person would address the madness of reacting violently to this film, and would address the core beliefs that lead to that behavior.

"Anti-Islam film prompts Saudi call for net censorship body," from the Telegraph, October 11 (thanks to all who sent this in):
Saudi Arabia has called for a new international body to censor the internet, in the wake of the anti-Islam YouTube clip that recently sparked violence in the Middle East. 
In a submission to forthcoming international talks on internet governance, the Gulf state said “there is a crying need for international collaboration to address ‘freedom of expression’ which clearly disregards public order”.
During the controversy over a 14-minute clip posted on YouTube and purportedly a trailer for a feature film called “The Innocence of Muslims”, Google resisted pressure, including from the White House, to remove it.
"This video - which is widely available on the web - is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube," Google said last month.
The Saudi government has now told the World Telecommunications Policy Forum, a UN body, that the incident was “an obvious example” of the need for greater international cooperation to restrict content online.
“Any reasonable person would know that this film would foment violence and, indeed, many innocent persons have died and been injured with this film as a root cause,” the Saudi submission said.
The amateurish clip, produced on tiny budget by Nakoula Nakoula, a 55-year-old Egyptian Coptic Christian resident in the United States, depicts the Prophet Mohammad as a fool and sexual deviant.
In the uproar surrounding it, there were violent protests in across the Middle East and North Africa, coinciding with an attack by extremists on the American Embassy in Benghazi. The Ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three other officials were killed.
Following the attack Google did restrict access to “The Innocence of Muslims” clip in Egypt and Libya on account of “the very difficult situation”, but maintained its refusal to delete it. The governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan meanwhile ordered internet providers to completely cut off access to YouTube.
The Saudi government called for greater international cooperation to censor such material at the source, comparing it to outlawed content such as images of child abuse and malicious software.
“This behaviour, along with other malicious and criminal activities such as child pornography,identity theft, spam, denial of service attacks, and malware aimed at destroying or crippling businesses, inter alia, must be addressed by states in a collaborative and cooperative environment and strongly underscores the need for enhanced cooperation,” it said.
The submission highlights increasing interest in internet governance discussions from nations that do not share Western liberal values, as access to and the influence of the web grows.

Arutz Sheva Speaks to Pamela Geller

"The 60-year campaign of terror against the Jews is savage", says transit ads initiator. And "Obama has greatly emboldened Jew-haters".

By Fern Sidman, A7 NY Correspondent


Defeat Jihad ad in New York subway

Defeat Jihad ad in New York subway

As the controversy continues to escalate over the placement of ads in New York City subways that call for a moral outcry against jihad and the jihadist deeds of radical Islamists around the world, Arutz Sheva sat down with Pamela Geller, co-founder of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, the organization that has spearheaded this ad campaign.

If Ms. Geller's name sounds familiar, it is because she has been at the forefront of championing causes that have to do with democracy, freedom, liberty and justice through her role as a leading blogger at "Atlas Shrugs", a co-founder of "Stop the Islamization of America" and a prolific writer on the subject of the threat to the American value system that she feels is represented by insidious encroachment of Sharia law in the Western world.

Her latest book, "The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America," which she co-authored with Robert Spencer of "Jihad Watch," speaks to these very issues.

Ms. Geller was an early driving force and an outspoken opponent of the proposed construction of Park51, also known as the "Ground Zero mosque," which was to have been located only two blocks from the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan. Ms. Geller inspired the "Campaign Offensive: Stop the 9/11 Mosque!" and other protests.

A7: The anti-Jihadist ads placed by the American Freedom Defense Initiative on New York City subways have generated much controversy. Your ad says, ""In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad". They also appeared in the San Francisco Rapid Transit System as well and were defaced, while disclaimers were placed on buses by the Rabbis for Human Rights. Why, at this time, did you decide to place these ads and what message are you trying to communicate?

PG: I first attempted to place these ads in 2011 when an anti-Israel ad campaign was running in the New York City subway system. There was no controversy or opposition to those anti-Semitic ads. Our ad campaign was hung up by legal battles. Anti-Jewish ads are okay; anti-jihad ads are "offensive."
Once I won my First Amendment rights, the ads finally went up. I intended the ads as a response to the anti-Israel ad campaign.

The message is clear. Any war on innocent civilians is savage.  The war on Israel is a war on innocent civilians.
The relentless 60-year campaign of terror against the Jewish people is savage.
The torture of hostage Gilad Shalit was savage.
The bloody hacking to death of the Fogel family was savage.
The Munich Olympic massacre was savage.
The unspeakable torture of Ehud Goldwasser was savage.
The tens of thousands of rockets fired from Gaza into southern Israel (into schools, homes, etc.) are savage. The vicious Jew-hatred behind this genocide is savage. The endless demonization of the Jewish people in the Palestinian and Arab media is savage. The refusal to recognize the state of Israel as a Jewish state is savage. The list is endless.

One of the many emails I have received in support of the ads was from the parent of a young victim in the massacre at Mercav HaRev Yeshiva in Jerusalem. Unimaginable inhumanity. Anyone who has a heart understands. The world media and political elites aligned with the jihad force, and whitewashed this horror. The objective of the campaign is to increase awareness of this unspeakable evil among good and decent people.

A7: Many anti-Israel ads have been placed in subway systems and buses throughout the nation, yet the first amendment rights of free speech were granted to the groups that sponsored them. Can you tell us about your legal battles for free expression with the NYC MTA and the Washington, DC subway system? And what is your reaction to Donna Lieberman's statements at the ACLU? Has the Washington, DC system agreed to place the ads?

PG: The NYC MTA refused the ads on the pretext that they were "demeaning." This was struck down on First Amendment grounds. Obviously the idea that my ads are "demeaning", but the anti-Israel ads weren't, was politically motivated.

Civilized men do not sanction jihad or the Islamic Jew-hatred that is  commanded in the Koran as interpreted by Islamists. The response to our ads by anti-Israel and self-hating Jewish groups is expected. The silence of Zionist and pro-Israel organizations is enormously disappointing.


In D.C., they wanted to delay the ads for fear of violence from jihadists. But this, too, failed in court: in America we do not censor ourselves to kowtow to savages. Donna Lieberman said the ads were "patently offensive." In reality, they're offensive only to jihadist savages and their useful idiot non-Muslim defenders.

Yes, D.C. has agreed to run the ads, and they are running.

A7:I understand that a female Egyptian blogger has embarked on a crusade to deface the ads in the NYC subway. Do you have any information about this person and do you know if she is being sponsored by CAIR, or groups of that nature?

PG: Mona Eltahawy is a frequent analyst for CNN and Reuters. She is noted for having criticized Islam's mistreatment of women in an article several months ago. Also, she was sexually assaulted in Tahrir Square last year by men she termed "beasts." But now she is displaying full-on Stockholm Syndrome, identifying with her oppressors and furthering their agenda. Maybe she was trying to get back into the good graces of her Muslim Brotherhood friends who were angry about her article.

Hundreds of anti-Israel ads have run in every major city across this country. Not one was defaced. Ten little anti-jihad ads go up, and every one of them is destroyed. This is a physical manifestation of the entire conversation, or lack thereof. Anyone who speaks about jihad and Sharia is attacked, defamed, destroyed – just like these ads.

This is exactly what’s happening in the media regarding jihad coverage in general. Anti-American, anti-Israel, pro-Sharia hate is all over the airwaves, but anyone who dares to speak the truth about Islam and jihad in the media is immediately smeared and defamed. You can’t have this conversation in the media, any more than I can present these pro-Israel ads and receive any semblance of fair treatment.

A7: Rep. Mike Honda (D) of California has taken a leading role in condemning your ad campaign. He asserts that he is an outspoken supporter of free speech and feels that the answer to "bad speech" is more speech. He has called for a boycott of WMATA. What are your thoughts on his position and why do you feel that he is wrong?

PG: Honda is a stooge of Islamic supremacist forces in the U.S. He has appeared with Islamic supremacist leaders and harshly criticized the King hearings on jihad activity in the United States.

We are facing opposition from elected officials who have aligned themselves with the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S., and with those who would undermine national security. I hope Honda's constituents realize on election day how he is carrying water for Islamic supremacist enemies of free speech.

A7: Your call for support for Israel in the face of the burgeoning movement of radical Islam seems to be the most disturbing part of your ad for those who oppose it. Do you feel this is the just the latest display in the campaign to demonize Israel and is this anti-Israel sentiment, in your view, being fostered by the strain in relations between the Obama administration and Israel?

PG: Yes, certainly. Obama has greatly emboldened leftists in their Jew-hatred. But it is more than that. It is the norming of Jew-hatred in the culture. The annihilationist rhetoric of Islamic supremacists is very much a part of the media and academic narrative.

A7: For those wishing to support Israel over savagery, as your ad suggests, how would you recommend that they go about it?

PG: Support Israel's Prime Minister. Vote out Obama and the Democrats. Act against anti-Israel propaganda in your local area. And contribute to our ad campaign as it goes national.