Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (642845)	1/20/2012 9:50:38 AM
From: PROLIFE	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579106

LOL!!!! "he has done the math".... that is funny right there....

To: bentway who wrote (642845)	1/20/2012 9:57:39 AM
From: PROLIFE	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1579106

A GOP Candidate's Bitter Ex-Wife Receives More Coverage Than a Video of Obama Dining with Terrorist-Supporters By Lauri B. Regan As I watch the media circus surrounding Marianne Gingrich's interview regarding her relationship with her ex-husband and GOP candidate, Newt Gingrich, I am once again reminded of the double standard afforded to the Democrats and Barack Obama in particular. Coming on the heels of the Herman Cain melee in which the press had a field day parading one accuser after another before video cameras, it is difficult not to repeat the question of why the Democrats get a free pass. Why are calls for Mitt Romney to release his tax return not met with calls for Barack Obama to release his college transcripts -- something that is just as customary for presidential candidates? However, of greater importance in my view is the silence, save for a few journalists and pundits on the right, regarding exposing a videotape recorded in 2003 of Barack Obama at the farewell dinner for terrorist-supporting Palestinian Rashid Khalidi. News of the videotape's existence came to light while Obama was a candidate, and the free pass given to him by the mainstream media was only just beginning to come to light when the enamored Chris Matthews' shared news of the tingle up his leg. While the birthers' demands did draw some media attention, it was mostly negative and only made fun of the supposedly crazy loons on the far right who apparently were representative of all petty and irrational conservatives. No one seemed to notice that Obama had not written a single article while serving as editor of The Harvard Law Review, and no one pressed the issue of Obama's suppressed college and law school transcripts since it was a given that his brilliance was perhaps surpassed only by the likes of Albert Einstein. But there is a videotape sitting in the vaults of the Los Angeles Times, and every American should be screaming from the rooftops for its release. In light of the Arab Spring, Obama's endless attempts to bully Israel into succumbing to all sorts of unprecedented and unsafe demands in the hopes that he would go down in history as the POTUS who made peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, and the administration's ineptness in addressing Iran's nuclear program and military threats, exposing this videotape is of utmost importance. In April 2010, Roger L. Simon published an article on PajamasMedia entitled, "Why is the L.A. Times Burying the Obama/Khalidi Tape?" Of further consequence is why the media -- and Americans -- are not demanding that the L.A. Times immediately release the tape. Simon wrote: The Khalidi tape could be of tremendous significance in revealing the provenance of Obama's views on the Middle East and the degree to which the public was misled on those views during the presidential campaign[.] ... So what are we to think? We have an administration that not only ascribes most of the Middle East blame to Israel, but also has banned "Islamism" and all related words, even "Islam" and "jihad" from our national security documents. They're completely gone. Indeed, even the Fort Hood massacre, so clearly inspired by Islamic extremism, has now been shifted into the comfortable category of the lone, angry killer. Rashid Khalidi should be happy. And, in fact, he is. Sometimes I want to yell and scream. What is wrong with the Los Angeles Times? Are they a news organization or the propaganda wing of some leftover unit of the IWW? No wonder subscribers are deserting them in droves. While I am sure that Simon's questions were rhetorical, I will answer the obvious. Of course the paper is a propaganda tool. Were it not for the internet and cable television, true news organizations would no longer exist. It was recently reported that Jerusalem Post editor Steve Linde quoted Bibi Netanyahu calling The New York Times and Haaretz Israel's two main enemies because "they set the agenda for an anti-Israel campaign all over the world." Netanyahu denies making this exact statement, but there is no question that both papers' reporting reflects a bias that can be characterized only as anti-Israel propaganda. Taken a step further, there is no question that the mainstream media as a whole has become completely entrenched in propaganda, bias, anti-Israel and anti-American sentiment, and indoctrination based on liberal, progressive values that are completely out of the "mainstream." The public will never understand that the Islamists taking over the Mideast are not moderate, will not promote democracy, are not friends of the United States, and wish the ultimate destruction of the West if the public reads and relies upon only The New York Times, L.A. Times, MSNBC, or similar tools of the left for its "news" and information. Americans will not understand the implications of four more years of a pro-Islamist president if they do not understand what Islamism is all about. And they will not know who is sitting in the White House making policy decisions based on personal biases if the media continues to promote Obama's agenda rather than investigate and report. So why is the videotape of such paramount importance? Simon quotes from an article published in the L.A.Times discussing the tape and its contents: [A] young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace." One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology." Furthermore, rumors abound regarding additional messages that may or may not have been openly shared at the dinner in Obama's presence. Ted Belman reported at Israpundit that he has a reliable source that "the audio tape clearly picks up the toast 'death to Israel'." Did Obama drink to the death of an American ally that he has been actively intimidating, browbeating, and dissing since he phoned Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on his first day in office? Does Obama liken Israelis living in the West Bank to Osama bin Laden, whose death he claims as his greatest foreign policy accomplishment? Simon concluded his article with a request that readers send in suggestions on how to make the contents of the tape public. Apparently Donald Trump missed this request when he wasted the media's energy pushing for the release of Obama's birth certificate -- something with which Obama is still having fun as he mocked the birthers at the Golden Globe awards last week. But I highly doubt that the POTUS, who had his worldview formed while sitting in the pews of Israel-bashing Jeremiah Wright and at the dinner table of anti-Semite Khalidi, will be mocking people who care enough to properly vet his credentials by urging the release of the tape. And I venture a guess that if the videotape is released, Barack Obama will be packing his bags at the end of this year. But that is a big "if" because until the media stops obsessing over the infidelities of the GOP candidates and starts doing its job, Barack Obama's chances of a second term continue to scare the living daylights out of those who understand its implications. Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/a_gop_candidates_bitter_ex-wife_receives_more_coverage_than_a_video_of_obama_dining_with_terrorist_s.html#ixzz1k0i3IVa7

To: bentway who wrote (642845)	1/20/2012 11:29:36 AM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579106

Canada Pledges to Sell Oil to Asia After Obama Rejects Keystone Pipeline Q By Theophilos Argitis and Jeremy Van Loon - Jan 19, 2012 2:14 PM ET Thu Jan 19 19:14:30 GMT 2012 Enlarge image Obama’s Keystone Pipeline Rejection Sets Up Campaign Battle Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg Laborers' International Union of North America hold up signs in support of the Keystone XL pipeline during a rally in Washington, D.C. Laborers' International Union of North America hold up signs in support of the Keystone XL pipeline during a rally in Washington, D.C. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg Play Video Q Jan. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Chris Huntington, partner at New Energy Advisors, and Sabrina Willmer and Jeff Green of Bloomberg News talk about President Barack Obama's decision to deny a permit for TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL Pipeline. They also talk about the prospects for a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. private-equity fund dedicated to energy. They speak with Pimm Fox on Bloomberg Television's "Taking Stock." (Source: Bloomberg) Enlarge image Obama’s Keystone Denial Prompts Canada to Look to China Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper expressed disappointment with President Barack Obama's decision to reject a permit for TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline. Photo: Pete Marovich/Getty Images Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper expressed disappointment with President Barack Obama's decision to reject a permit for TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline. Photo: Pete Marovich/Getty Images President Barack Obama’s decision yesterday to reject a permit for TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL oil pipeline may prompt Canada to turn to China for oil exports. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in a telephone call yesterday, told Obama “Canada will continue to work to diversify its energy exports,” according to details provided by Harper’s office. Canadian Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver said relying less on the U.S. would help strengthen the country’s “financial security.” The “decision by the Obama administration underlines the importance of diversifying and expanding our markets, including the growing Asian market,” Oliver told reporters in Ottawa. Currently, 99 percent of Canada’s crude exports go to the U.S., a figure that Harper wants to reduce in his bid to make Canada a “superpower” in global energy markets. Canada accounts for more than 90 percent of all proven reserves outside the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, according to data compiled in the BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Most of Canada’s crude is produced from oil-sands deposits in the landlocked province of Alberta, where output is expected to double over the next eight years, according to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. “I am sure that if the oil sands production is not used in the United States, they will be used in other countries,” Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said in an interview before a speech at Imperial College in London today. ‘Profound Disappointment’ Harper “expressed his profound disappointment with the news,” according to the statement, which added that Obama told Harper the rejection was not based on the project’s merit and that the company is free to re-apply. Canada this month began hearings on a proposed pipeline by Enbridge Inc. to move crude from Alberta’s oil sands to British Columbia’s coast, where it could be shipped to Asian markets. Environmentalists and Canadian opposition lawmakers welcomed the Obama administration’s decision. Megan Leslie, a lawmaker for the opposition New Democratic Party, said the Keystone pipeline project was harmful to Canada’s energy security. “What I’m opposed to is continuing the unchecked expansion of the oil sands,” Leslie said by telephone. New Flashpoint Enbridge’s pipeline may now become the new flashpoint between Harper and the opposition. Harper has said building the capacity to sell the country’s oil to Asian markets is in the national interest, and the government will review regulatory- approval rules for new energy projects so they can be done more quickly. Harper has also said he will look more closely into complaints that “foreign money” is being used to overload the regulatory process. “We have to have processes in Canada that come to a decision in a reasonable amount of time, and processes that cannot be hijacked,” Harper said at a press conference Jan. 6 in Edmonton. The Keystone decision is the latest of several U.S. moves that have irked Canadian policy makers. Canada objected to “Buy American” provisions in the Obama administration’s $447 billion jobs bill that was blocked by Republicans in Congress, as well as the restoration of a $5.50 fee on Canadian travelers arriving in the U.S. by plane or ship. Approval of Keystone is a “no-brainer,” Harper said in a Sept. 21 interview with Bloomberg. Cornerstone of Development Yesterday’s rejection “certainly introduces new uncertainties into the economic relationship,” said David Pumphrey, deputy director of the energy and national security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “This is a cornerstone of economic development for the country.” The denial came before a Feb. 21 deadline set by Congress after Obama postponed a decision in November. TransCanada said the 1,661-mile (2,673-kilometer) project would carry 700,000 barrels of crude a day from Alberta’s oil sands to refineries on the U.S. Gulf coast, crossing six U.S. states and creating 20,000 jobs. “I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my administration’s commitment to American-made energy,” Obama said today in a statement. “We will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security.” Canadian policy makers said they remain optimistic TransCanada will eventually be able to proceed. Still Supporting Alberta Premier Alison Redford said in a press conference in Edmonton that it is still “entirely possible” the pipeline will be built and said it was good news that TransCanada planned to apply again. Canada will continue to support TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s plans to build the Keystone XL pipeline, Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird said, adding that it is in the best interests of both Canada and the United States. “We strongly believe that Keystone’s in the best interests of both countries,” he said. “We’ll continue to be an active supporter of the project.”