Italy and Spain are Collapsing

According to this in the FT, it sounds like the situation in Spain and Italy is pretty dire:

The Spanish and Italian commercial property markets have all but collapsed with the number of transactions in both countries falling more than 90 per cent in the three months to July as investors worry about the future of the eurozone.

Only three property transactions were registered in Spain during the second quarter, down from 58 deals in the previous quarter. In Italy the slide was even more pronounced, with just two buildings being traded during the period, down from 56, according to data from Real Capital Analytics.

...

The total value of transactions for offices, shops and industrial property in Spain was €67m for the second quarter, down 74 per cent from €260m in the first quarter. The inactivity meant Spanish property transactions were below those of neighbouring Portugal for the first time.

...

"There is no reality in how to price anything there at the moment. You have eight years of unsold supply sitting in the banks, so how do you put value on anything else?" the person added.

Obama Has Bankers Afraid of Retribution if they Challenge a Regulation

Jamie Dimon, former Obama supporter and CEO of JP Morgan made an interesting statement at the end of his New York Magazine interview:

"Everyone is afraid of retaliation and retribution. We recently had an event with a hundred small bankers here, and 85 percent of them said they can't challenge the regulation because of the potential retribution. That's a terrible thing. Okay? This is not the Soviet Union. This is the United States of America. That's what I remember. Guess what," he says, almost shouting now. "It's a free. Fucking. Country."

Guns N' Roses Full Show at the Ritz in 1988

They were such a great band:

Is the Obama Campaign is Lying About the "Romney Killed My Wife" Ad

Of course the answer is yes. Obama and his people are the biggest crooks in power since Nixon and they want to give Obama more time to mug the people of America:

Watch Paul Ryan Take Apart Obama and Obamacare

Watching this makes me happy he is the VP pick:

Fmr. Federal Prosecutor: Michelle Bachmann is Right about the Mulsim Brotherhood

Andrew McCarthy, a 25-year DOJ veteran and the guy who prosecuted the World Trade Center bombing case, recently gave a speech in which he enumerated how Islamists are a threat to this country and how Michele Bachmann was correct in raising questions about Muslim Brotherhood influence. You can watch the whole thing below, it's an hour long with another 40 minutes of Q&A and it's well worth the time:



You can also read the speech here. Here are some key excerpts (again, please read or watch the whole thing, McCarthy clearly knows what he is talking about):

 I don’t understand why more people in Washington, from both parties, have not rallied to the support of Congresswoman Bachmann and Congressmen Gohmert, Franks, Westmoreland and Rooney. At a time when government policy is being radically harmonized with the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood — meaning, policy has shifted in the direction of avowed enemies of the United States — what ought to shock people is that there is any controversy over a commonsense request. The five House members are simply asking that the inspectors general in pertinent government agencies conduct internal inquiries and report back to Congress about potential Islamist influences at those agencies.

Now, let me be clear about what I said and what I didn’t say. I said Islamist influences, I did not say Muslims.

...

When we talk about the influence of Islamists, we are referring to Muslims who are beholden to Islamic supremacism. Islamic supremacism is an ideology, not a religion. It is a totalitarian social system that would govern every aspect of life down to the granular level — economic, financial, social, political, military, familial, dietary, issues of crime-and-punishment, even matters of hygiene.

That is the sharia system. As interpreted by many of Islam’s most influential thinkers — including organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood and academics like the faculty of ancient al-Azhar University in Cairo — classical sharia rejects basic principles of American constitutional democracy.

In fact, it rejects first and foremost our foundational premise that people are free to determine their own destiny and their own laws — regardless of what sharia holds. Classical sharia rejects freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, economic liberty, equality between men and women, equality between Muslims and non-Muslims, and Western notions of personal liberty and privacy.  

It is the goal of all Islamists to impose sharia. That is why there is no such thing as a “moderate Islamist.” If you want to replace the American Constitution with sharia, and Western civilization with the Islam of the Middle East, you are not a moderate — however grateful we may be that you’re not looking to blow up a bridge in order to impose your desires.

 ...  

The movement’s intellectual leader is the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood is not a “largely secular” umbrella organization. It is not “moderate.” It is the vanguard of a ground-up, revolutionary, ideological mass movement. It is sophisticated, patient, and determined. It has spent almost 90 years building its reserves and biding its time.

...
And now that the Brotherhood is in the midst of a gradual triumph in Egypt and much of the Middle East, leading Brothers have become bolder in their public pronouncements.

For example, in October 2010, on the cusp of the revolt, the Brotherhood’s “supreme guide” in Egypt, a man named Mohammed Badi, gave a speech in which he expressly called for violent jihad against the United States.

Specifically, Badi urged his fellow Muslims to remember “Allah’s commandment to wage jihad for his sake with [their] money and lives, so that Allah’s word will reign supreme.”

Applying this injunction, Badi proclaimed that jihad “is the only solution” against what he called “the Zio-American arrogance and tyranny.” Not negotiation — jihad. Badi also took delight in noting that the United States had been badly wounded by jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan. From that, he predicted that  America “is now experiencing the beginning of its end, and is heading towards its demise.”

So, contrary to what increasingly seems to be popular belief here in Washington, Islamist influences are not benign. They are not something to yawn over. They are something we need to defend against.

We are talking about a very determined movement that pulls no punches in braying that it means to destroy our country. The most important sharia authority in the world, Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi — the Muslim Brotherhood’s chief jurist — proclaims that Islam will “conquer America” and “conquer Europe.” And by the way, you’ll want to remember Sheikh Qaradawi’s name — we’ll be coming back to him shortly.

...

Having now spent a good deal of time weighing the competing claims, I am compelled to say that, when it comes to Ms. Abedin’s background, the five House members have actually understated the case.

Their letter to the State Department’s inspector general stated that Ms. Abedin “has three family members — her late father, her mother and her brother — connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations.” It turns out, however, that Huma Abedin herself is directly connected to Abdullah Omar Naseef, a major Muslim Brotherhood figure involved in the financing of al-Qaeda.

Ms. Abedin worked for a number of years at the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs as assistant editor of its journal. The Institute was founded by Naseef, who remained active in it for decades, overlapping for at least seven years with Ms. Abedin.

Naseef was also secretary general of the Muslim World League in Saudi Arabia, perhaps the most significant Muslim Brotherhood organization in the world. Under the auspices of the Muslim World League, he founded the Rabita Trust, which is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization under American law due to its support of al-Qaeda.
That is to say: Before you even start probing the extensive, alarming Brotherhood ties of her family members, Huma Abedin could easily have been disqualified from any significant government position requiring a high security clearance based on her own personal and longstanding connection to Naseef.

Islamists not only tell us that they intend to destroy us. They tell us, straight out, how they intend to do it: Not only by the intimidating, constant potential of violence, but by “sabotage” — their word, not mine. The will, they say, “destroy” us “from within.” They intend to insinuate themselves into our major institutions, including into the policy-making bodies of our government. They intend to compromise us from the inside, as well as from the outside.

A little more background: At the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, Ms. Abedin was assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. The journal was the Institute’s main product. It promotes the fundamentalist version of sharia championed by the Muslim Brotherhood, by Abdullah Omar Naseef, and by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi. Ms. Abedin was assistant editor from 1996 through 2008 — from the time she began working as an intern in the Clinton White House, until the time shortly before she took her current position as Secretary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff.

...

It is Congress’s responsibility to scrutinize executive branch policy, especially when the policy choices endanger the nation. Let’s consider just some of those policy choices in the last three-and-a-half years. Since 2009, the Obama administration has abandoned the federal government’s prior policy against dealing directly and formally with the Muslim Brotherhood. The State Department has not only been supportive of this dramatic shift; it has embraced a number of Muslim Brotherhood positions that undermine both American constitutional rights and our alliance with Israel. To name just a few manifestations of this policy sea change:

• The State Department has an emissary in Egypt who trains operatives of the Brotherhood and other Islamist organizations in democracy procedures. We’re helping them get elected.
• The State Department announced that the Obama administration would be “satisfied” with the election of a Muslim Brotherhood–dominated government in Egypt.
• The State Department has collaborated with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of governments heavily influenced by the Brotherhood, in seeking to restrict American free-speech rights in deference to sharia prohibitions against examination and negative criticism of Islam.
• The State Department has excluded Israel, the world’s leading target of terrorism, from its “Global Counterterrorism Forum,” a group that brings the United States together with several Islamist governments, prominently including its co-chair, Turkey. By the way, the Erdogan regime in Turkey now finances the terrorist organization Hamas, which is the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch. At the forum’s kickoff, Secretary Clinton decried various terrorist attacks and terrorist groups; but she did not mention Hamas or attacks against Israel. Transparently, this was in deference to the Islamist governments the administration has chosen to partner with — to the exclusion of Israel. Those government’s adhere to the Muslim Brotherhood’s position that Hamas is not a terrorist organization and that attacks against Israel are not terrorism.
• The State Department and the Obama administration waived congressional restrictions in order to transfer about $1.5 billion dollars in aid to Egypt after the Muslim Brotherhood’s victory in the parliamentary elections.
• The State Department and the Obama administration waived congressional restrictions in order to transfer millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinian territories notwithstanding that Gaza is ruled by the Hamas, which is a designated terrorist organization under American law — meaning that to provide it with material support is a serious federal crime.
• The State Department and the administration recently hosted a contingent from Egypt’s newly elected parliament that included not only Muslim Brotherhood members but a member of the Islamic Group (Gama’at al Islamia). The Islamic Group is the jihadist organization headed by the Blind Sheikh (Omar Abdel Rahman), who is serving a life sentence for his leading role in a terrorist campaign against the United States in the early Nineties. Like Hamas, the Islamic Group is a designated as a terrorist organization to which it is illegal to provide material support.
• On a just-completed trip to Egypt, Secretary Clinton pressured the ruling military junta to hand over power to the newly elected parliament, which is dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, and to the newly elected president, Mohamed Morsi, who is a top Brotherhood official. Secretary Clinton later met with Morsi, who has also been extended the honor of an invitation to visit the White House in September.

All this, despite the Muslim Brotherhood’s extensive record of hostility toward the United States, and despite the fact that Morsi, in his first public statement after being elected president, announced that one of his top priorities is to pressure the United States for the release of the Blind Sheikh.

The Dollar Has Been Devalued by 98% Since We Went Off the Gold Standard 40 Years Ago

Here is a scary chart of the value of the dollar in terms of gold with 1970=100. As you can see, since we officially went off the gold standard (Nixon unilaterally took us off in 1971) the value of the dollar has plummeted by 98%. What's even more amazing is that by the end of 1979, the dollar had already depreciated by 95% versus gold. Looks like if you allow a government to print at will, it will:

Coincidentally, this money printing allowed almost unlimited deficit spending, in fact, as this graph shows (with the red line being the official real GDP growth rate and the blue line being real gdp with the annual increase in gross federal debt subtracted) around the time we went off gold was when we really stopped being able to grow without deficits.

Obama is in Trouble and Needs a Hail Mary to Win this Election

I realize it's only August and a lot can happen but at this point it looks like Romney's race to lose.  I realize the polls are very close and Obama tends to have a slight lead in most of them, though its not statistically significant.  But I think people are putting way too much stock in these polls.  Here are the key reasons why I think the current polls will turn out to be wrong:

• The party affiliations in many of them are assuming a big Democratic wave year like 2008 or even bigger (which is highly doubtful since we don't have a sitting two term Republican President who everyone was sick of nor do we have an incompetent GOP candidate).  In the Public Policy Polling poll of North Carolina, they are showing 12% more Democrats than Republicans today compared to 11% more Democrats than Republicans in 2008 exit polls.  Given this heavily Democratic weighting you would assume that Obama would be killing Romney in the poll.  Nope, he is only leading by 3%, within its margin of error, which I take as a sign that North Carolina will not be close at all and will go for Romney.  Now take a look at some of the CBS/NY Times/ Quinnipiac polls which show that Obama leads in Florida and Ohio.  In Florida, they show a 9% advantage for Democrats, despite the fact that in 2008 it was only 3% and in 2010 it was 0%.  No wonder they are showing Obama winning by 6%.  Ohio is a similar story, they show an 8% advantage for Democrats in line with 2008 though 2010 the party affiliation ran even.  Again, it shows Obama winning by 6%.  Many of these polls aren't worth the excel spreadsheets they were manufactured on.
• The Wisconsin exit polls were a great reminder how wrong polls can be.  Remember that they showed Walker tied with his opponent while in actuality he won by 7 whole points.  These polls were conducted the exact same day as the election and interviewed people as they were leaving the voting booth.  This means that you wouldn't get any skew due to people saying that they are likely voters when instead they are playing their PS3 on election day and yet it was still off by a whole 7 points!  If such polls can be wrong, what is the point of relying on a poll done months ahead of time?
• Look at history.  In 1980, the polls were showing a very close race between Reagan and Carter right up until the last minute.  Reagan won it by 10% with 489 electoral votes!

That said, even if the polls are a correct snapshot of what is happening right now, it seems likely that the momentum will swing towards Romney as the race gets closer for two main reasons:

• Romney has so far been heavily outspent by Obama and his cronies who have been going through money like a homeless person who just found a wad in his unwashed pants.  By my calculations Obama has spent a whopping 56.3% more than Romney through the end of July ($483 million vs. $309 million).  When you consider much of Romney's expenses came in his heated battle to defeat Republican primary opponents while Obama could just focus on bashing Republicans, the spending is even more in Obama's favor.  And despite all of this spending the race is still close.  Going forward thought the advantage seems to be Romney's.  The last couple of months he has raised about $207m while Obama has raised $146 million.  If this rate is maintained and given that Romney has more cash on hand right now ($186m versus something around $144m for Obama) Romney is likely to outspend Obama by about 36.6% heading into the final stretch when it really counts ($496m versus $363m for Obama). 
  
• Romney is probably going to get more of a boost coming out of the convention than Obama will.  Since Romney's VP is probably going to be a high quality Republican, like a Paul Ryan, and all Obama is likely to do is parade around the gaffe prone Joe Biden, it just seems likely that Romney is going to have a better August than Obama will, setting the tone for the final months when the undecideds make their decisions.
• The economy isn't getting any better and given the way things are now, it is signaling an Obama loss.  You can look at the charts here and here to see that based on various indicators and historical vote-shares, Obama is simply not going to pull this one out.  It's the economy, stupid!

I think Obama and his team are seeing what I am seeing and are started getting worried.  How else do you explain the ad where a steel worker blames Romney for his wife's death?  Even people like Wolf Blitzer and Mark Halperin were embarrassed by it.  Why else would they release such a desperate ad?  I realize it was sent out by a SuperPAC but its headed by an Obama insider and also the Obama campaign hasn't exactly distanced itself from it.

Now I'm not saying that Romney is guaranteed a victory, I think there are still a couple of things that Obama can do to win, though he will probably only do these if he is desperate:

1.  Replace Biden with Hillary.  This would do two things. First, it would take the wind out of the sales of Romney's pick.  What do you think the media would rather cover, another white guy or a white guy being dumped for Hillary Clinton?  Instead of talking about the Ryan plan or whatever you are going to see tons of interviews of Biden ("how do you feel being brushed aside?" "Did you know beforehand?"), women ("how does it feel to have a woman as a potential VP?") and even Bill Clinton ("so will you be the second Gentleman?" to which he will respond "we all know I'm no gentleman").  Second, it will reinvigorate one of Obama's core constituencies, women and make sure they come to the ballot box.
2.  Help Israel attack Iran.  Again this would do a couple of things.  First, one of the arguments against Obama is that he doesn't stand by our allies and he hates Israel.  Providing such strong evidence against both those arguments right before the election will go a long way to getting more Jews and Independents to vote for him.  Heck, militarily defending Israel alone probably gets him Florida.  Second, Americans tend to rally to the flag when there is a conflict, at least initially.  Its only if the conflict is long and drawn out that Americans sour.  If Carter was able to get a 20 point boost in the polls from the Iranians taking Americans hostage, Obama should get at least that.  Of course there is always a chance that it becomes a larger regional war and makes oil prices completely skyrocket (especially if Iran goes after the Saudi oil fields) but there probably won't be enough time between the attack (likely in October, if it happens at all) and election day to erode the bump Obama will receive.  Sure Obama's instincts are probably to keep Israel from going forward but I think his desire to win will trump those.

Hizbullah MP: Iranian Nukes Meant to Finish Off the "Zionist Enterprise"

Here is a reminder of what all the hullabaloo about Iran is about. It is about the survival of the State of Israel. Anyone telling you differently is either an idiot or doesn't like Israel of Jews particularly much in the first place:

Romney: I don't give the bus driver credit because a child makes the honor roll

Attack on Iran Coming in October?

That seems to be the word for now, though if that is the word, my guess is that it could come in September.  Anyway, the war drums seem to be getting louder.  First, Michael Oren, the brilliant Israeli Ambassador to the United States wrote today that "Time is Short for Iran Diplomacy":

Nearly two decades ago, Israel started alerting the world about Iran's nuclear program. But the world ignored our warnings, wasting 10 years until the secret nuclear enrichment plant at Natanz was exposed in 2002. Then eight more invaluable years were lost before much of the international community imposed serious sanctions on Iran.

Throughout that time, the ayatollahs systematically lied about their nuclear operations, installing more than 10,000 centrifuges, a significant number of them in a once-secret underground facility at Qom. Iran has blocked International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors from visiting its nuclear sites, refused to answer questions about the military aspects of its program, and rejected all confidence-building measures. Iran has tested long-range missiles capable of reaching any city in the Middle East and, in the future, beyond.

...

In their first round of talks with Iranian officials, late in 2009, the P5+1 demanded the suspension of all enrichment activities in Iran and the transfer of its stockpiles, then enriched to 3.5%, abroad. Iran rejected those conditions and escalated its enrichment process to 20%, which can be enhanced to weapons-grade in a matter of weeks.

Iran now has amassed roughly 225 pounds of 20% uranium and 11,000 pounds of 3.5%, sufficient for almost five nuclear bombs. Rather than stand by its initial demands, however, the P5+1 is now seeking merely the cessation of Iran's 20% enrichment, the removal of its 20% stockpile, and the closure of the facility at Qom. Arguably, this would be the first stage in the phasing out of Iran's nuclear program. But Iran has rejected even this preliminary gesture.

Iran will continue to drag out the negotiations while installing more centrifuges. These, according to the IAEA, are spinning even faster. The sanctions, which have dealt a blow to Iran's economy, have not affected the nuclear program. Meanwhile, more of Iran's expanding stockpile will be hidden in fortified bunkers beyond Israel's reach.

...

Time is dwindling and, with each passing day, the lives of eight million Israelis grow increasingly imperiled. The window that opened 20 years ago is now almost shut.

And now there are reports of preparations for an October attack.  Personally I think it would be fitting if Israel attacks on Yom Kippur, which starts the evening of September 25th.  Make the Iranians learn the real meaning of the Day of Atonement.  Though it would probably be too suspicious to have any Israeli military activity on a day where the country usually shuts down completely:

U.S. intelligence analysts watching for indicators of Israeli military action recently reported that there are signs the Jewish state plans an attack against Iran in October.

...

One veteran Israeli journalist, Channel 2's Ehud Yaari was quoted July 28 as saying he was told the most likely date for an Israeli military strike is October.

"I will give you an impression, and this is just an impression, but it is a strong impression, after conversations with the people one needs to talk with about this matter," Yaari said.

"My impression is that the Americans are convinced that there is very high chance that Israel will decide to attack in Iran before the elections in the U.S."

"The date that they are talking about — they say that the prime minister will have to make a decision around October," he said. "They are getting ready for a possibility like that in the sense that they have to decide what they will do if there is one response or another by Iran, in the follow-up stage."

"But when you talk to them, they talk about [an Israeli strike] almost as a given—as a clear, unassailable fact."

The sensationalist Israeli newsletter DEBKAfile reported July 29 that its sources in Washington report "October is often mentioned these days in the White House, the Pentagon and top military command as the month to watch."

The report said Persian Gulf states would prefer a U.S. attack rather than an Israeli strike. The July 29 report said senior Saudi officials recently told western officials that they have been assured by the United States that the Israelis will be the first to attack and that U.S. forces would later join in. The Saudis also were told that the Obama administration has been pressing the Israelis to hold off from conducting an attack but that Washington cannot be certain that Israel will wait.

The Untied States currently has two aircraft carrier strike groups in the region.

I think the timing does make general sense.  Ramadan ends on August 18 and we know Israel wouldn't want to be accused of violating some else's holy days.  Then we have Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur coming in September and it might be hard to disguise activity on those days given usually there isn't much militarily.  So that leaves the very end of September and October as November might be too late due to the rains that usually come to the area around then (negatively impacting visibility and armor mobility, if it comes to that).

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood: The Mossad is Behind the Attack on Israel

Seriously, these people are nuts.  They are cuckoo for cocoa puffs.   And thanks to Obama they are now in charge of a nation of 80 million people and advanced American weaponry including M-1 tanks.  Which is really scary given the fact that the terrorists were able to get one mile into Israel with just one vehicle despite the fact that the IDF was alerted before it even crossed the border.  Israel needs to beef up its Southern Front and fast.  Anyway, here is what the Muslim Brotherhood said:

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood said on its website that the attack "can be attributed to Mossad" and was an attempt to thwart Islamist President Mohamed Morsy.

...

According to the Brotherhood statement, the Mossad "has been seeking to abort the revolution since its inception and the proof of this is that it gave instructions to its Zionist citizens in Sinai to depart immediately a few days ago." The group added: "(It) also draws our attention to the fact that our forces in Sinai are not enough to protect it and our borders, which makes it imperative to review clauses in the signed agreement between us and the Zionist entity."

The truth of the matter is that Israel did have intelligence that something was about to happen and they dutifully shared it with the Egyptians who seemed to do absolutely nothing, either because of laziness, incompetence or because they wanted an attack to happen.  Israel also publicly warned its citizens of an impending attack, urging all tourists to leave the Sinai immediately just before the attack.  Once again, culture shows.  With the same intelligence about a terrorist attack, one country does nothing and sees 16 of its soldiers killed, while the other makes preparations so that none of their innocent civilians are killed and is able to stop the terrorists before they hit their target (though obviously it would have been better if they were stopped at the border and not 1 mile into Israel).
 

Obama to Sheldon Adelson: Nice Casino, Shame if Anything Happens to It

Sheldon Adelson, one of Romney's biggest SuperPAC donors, who was seen about a week ago with Romney at a fundraiser in Israel, suddenly finds his company under investigation in a case of rather suspicious timing for money laundering.  The crime?  Letting a couple of wealthy individuals (who were later arrested) gamble in his casinos back in the mid-2000's.  Of course, the US Attorney in this case is an Obama appointee.  Obama and his cronies are nothing but a bunch of bullying thugs looking to make an example out of anyone who stands in their way.  Don't forget the IRS harassment of Tea Party groups or the Obama campaign's harassment of another Romney SuperPAC donor.  Also, note that this isn't the first time the Democrats have tried to besmirch Sheldon Adelson.  The DCCC recently had to publicly apologize to Adelson for insinuating that he profited from Chinese prostitution (he threatened to sue and they apologized because they didn't have any evidence to back it up).

Richard Landes: Romney is Right on Culture

A great defense of Romney's comments from Richard Landes, whose father wrote the excellent "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations":

In making his brief case, Mr. Romney cited two books: "Guns, Germs and Steel," by geographer Jared Diamond, and "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations," by economist David Landes (my father). As in other fields of social "science," economists argue about whether development derives from cultural advantages or from natural ones such as resistance to disease and access to primary resources. Prof. Diamond, whose book focuses on societies' natural advantages, last week wrote an op-ed in the New York Times emphasizing both culture and nature and trying to draw Prof. Landes in with him.

But Israel (which neither book examined) and the Arab world (which only the Landes book examined) illustrate the primacy of culture as both necessary and sufficient for economic development. Israel, a country with no natural resources, an economic backwater even in the Ottoman Empire, rose to the top of the developed world in a century on culture alone. The Arab nations, on the other hand, illustrate the necessity of a certain kind of culture: Even those with vast petrodollars still have among the least productive economies in the world.
...

Even the huge influx of petrodollars did not change the basic contours of Arab economies: Rather than fueling economic development that benefited all, it bloated corrupt and opaque elites. Oil-rich countries like Libya and Iraq have social structures akin to those of oil-bereft Egypt and Syria. Change may occur, but it is hindered by an authoritarian culture that fears it. Such societies impoverish the masses, while elites thrive on their debasement.

Strikingly, Palestinian culture compares favorably with that of other Arabs. Palestinians have higher education, a strong work ethic and successful entrepreneurs. Much of that comes from their close association with the Zionists, who (unlike Western imperialists) settled the land without conquest, by dint of making everyone more prosperous.
From the late 19th century, Arab populations grew and prospered where Jews settled (Tel Aviv, Hebron, Jerusalem) and remained stagnant and poor where they didn't (Gaza, Nablus, Nazareth). Many Arabs found the presence of Jews a great advantage. Thus the Palestinian diaspora is among the best-educated and most competent in the Arab world—and under Israeli rule (the notorious "occupation") the West Bank was one of the 10 fastest-growing economies in the world in the 1980s.

Other Palestinians, however, found Jewish economic leadership an unbearable blow to their pride. Said one to the British Peel Commission in 1936: "You say we are better off: you say my house has been enriched by the strangers who have entered it. But it is my house, and I did not invite the strangers in, or ask them to enrich it, and I do not care how poor it is if I am only master of it."
Sooner rule in hell than share in heaven. These actors have dominated Palestinian political culture, and terrorized Israeli and Palestinian alike, for generations.
In calling Mr. Romney's remarks "racist" and blaming Palestinian economic difficulties on Israel's "occupation," Mr. Erekat illustrated one of David Landes's major points: Blaming others for one's own failures prolongs failure. Even though his own government daily chooses a culture of death, not life, Mr. Erekat wants to blame Israel for Palestine's woes; no admission here that he and his colleagues might have some role in the suffering of their own people.

The Iranian Diplomatic Quagmire

Seriously, the negotiations with Iran are going nowhere fast.  It seems the next step is for the head EU negotiator and the Iranian negotiator to be "in touch".  It's also pretty laughable how the spokesman keeps saying that everyone is "on the same page" with the Obama administration except of course when they are not. Here is an exchange at the State Department Press Briefing from last week:

QUESTION: On Iran, could you update us? Is there anything new with the engagement of Iran about the program?

MR. VENTRELL: Engaged with Iran about what?

QUESTION: Is there anything new in the engagement process with Iran on the nuclear program?

MR. VENTRELL: Right. Well, as you know, Said, yesterday the White House announced an increase in pressure. As you know, in our two-track strategy the pressure will continue until the Iranian regime fundamentally decides to change their calculus. We're not there yet. Where we are technically in the process is that we've had the deputies – both of the Iranian deputy and the EU deputy on behalf of the P-5+1 had discussions. The next step is for Lady Ashton and Jalili to be in touch, and then we'll see if we're at a place where we can have another meeting. But that's sort of where we are from a technical standpoint.

But the wider issue is that Iran has not yet come in – made the strategic decision or come to the table with a proposal that is workable. What I would say is that as this pressure continues it's all designed to get them to change their calculus. It's had an impact on their economy. It's obviously had an impact on their procurement of some of these sensitive items. So the sanctions are absolutely having an impact, and we'll continue to ramp them up as we can – we're all united in the – among the P-5+1 – to get the Iranians to the table. And there's a window for diplomacy, but it's just not indefinite.

QUESTION: Okay. On that particular point, on the window, the Israelis are saying that the window for a military action is closing. And it has been suggested that the United States is going to take some measures to widen that window, to assure the Israelis that the window for military action is a little bigger than it is going to be, so giving some sort of a calendar and so on. Could you share any information with us on that front?

MR. VENTRELL: Well, all I can say is that it's – actually what's narrowing is the window for diplomacy. We're still at a point where we think there is room to make this diplomacy work. It's not an indefinite window, but there is room for the diplomacy to work. Beyond that, obviously, the Israelis are in lockstep with us in terms of their desire to keep the pressure on to get the Iranians to change their behavior. So we're in agreement on that.

QUESTION: Following up on that, the Chinese have reacted pretty angrily to the sanctions against their Bank of Kunlun and are actually calling for the sanctions to be revoked, and planning – and say that it violates the norms of international relations. What is the U.S. reaction to that?

MR. VENTRELL: Well, I'd just say, Jo, first of all, that we made very clear yesterday that this action was taken in response to the conduct of one financial institution. It was not taken against China, nor does it change the fundamental nature of our cooperation with China or Iran – with China on Iran, excuse me. (Laughter.) And that's because the U.S. and China, we've been on the same page in the P-5+1 about preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. So we're very much on the same page in terms of that. And we had, obviously, beforehand were in a discussion with the Chinese both here and in Beijing about this and continue to coordinate closely and keep the channels of communication open with China on the Iran account.

QUESTION: Did they contact you directly, though, after the sanctions were announced yesterday?

MR. VENTRELL: I'm not aware that, other than their public statement, they've been in touch with us directly.

QUESTION: If you're on the same page as China when it comes to countering a nuclear-armed Iran, why is it the responsibility of the United States to sanction Chinese banks? Why not let the Chinese Government take those actions against unhelpful institutions?

MR. VENTRELL: Well, again – and the White House did a call yesterday that was lengthy and very precise about a lot of this, so of course refer you to that, but we've been clear that the financial institutions, wherever they are, when it comes to the CISADA sanctions in particular, we'll apply U.S. law and that there are sanctionable activities from financial institutions in a number of different places. With China, we're in the P-5+1 process, on the same page, in our unified presentation to the Iranians.

QUESTION: So you're all on the same page, but it's up to the United States to police everyone's actions when it comes to Iran?

MR. VENTRELL: This was an action taken against a financial institution, not against any country.

QUESTION: But it --

Another Dismal Unemployment Report, Real Unemployment Rate Jumps to 11.5%

It is really shocking how 3 years after the official end of a recession we have made almost zero progress in reducing unemployment.  Already people are calling this the worst recovery in history and it seems they are right.  Take a look at this updated chart which tracks the number of unemployed and adds back those that have dropped out of the labor force:

Looking at this chart, it's pretty clear that none of Obama's policies worked.  Not the $862 billion stimulus, not the massive transfer of "Obama money" to the undeserving.  We still have 18 million people out of work, either desperately looking for a job or not because they have given up and/or are collecting disability in lieu of a paycheck (more Americans are now going on disability than finding jobs).  Just take a look at the labor force participation rate which is pretty close to a multi-decade low:

Remember it's this horrific deterioration in the participation rate and not Obama's policies that is decreasing the official unemployment rate. When you add back all those people who have dropped out, our unemployment rate increased in July from 11.3 to 11.5%! That is just 0.3% lower than the peak.  See the chart below where the red line is the official unemployment rate and the blue line is the real one:

Anyone who thinks that they want another four years of this should get a lobotomy.

Jared Diamond Attempts to Correct Romney But Instead Proves Him Right

Jared Diamond wrote a piece in the New York Times today trying to criticize Romney's remarks (some of which he seemed to take personally as it summarized Diamond's own work) but in the process really seems to actually prove Romney right and Diamond wrong.

A different set of factors involves geography, which embraces many more aspects than the physical characteristics Mr. Romney dismissed. One such geographic factor is latitude, which has big effects on wealth and power today: tropical countries tend to be poorer than temperate-zone countries. Reasons include the debilitating effects of tropical diseases on life span and work, and the average lower productivity of agriculture and soils in the tropics than in the temperate zones.

I didn't realize that Israel and the Palestinian territories have different climates as they are both adjacent to each other and also too small to straddle different latitudes.

A second factor is access to the sea. Countries without a seacoast or big navigable rivers tend to be poor, because transport costs overland or by air are much higher than transport costs by sea.

You can't think of Israel without thinking of the Jordan river, unfortunately, by most standards, the Jordan is more of a stream than a real river and is not what most would call navigable.  Also, Egypt, right next door and in the same latitude, does have a major navigable river, the Nile.  So why does it have a GDP per capita about 20% the level of Israel's? 

A third geographic factor is the history of agriculture. If an extraterrestrial had toured earth in the year 2000 B.C., the visitor would have noticed that centralized government, writing and metal tools were already widespread in Eurasia but hadn't yet appeared in the New World, sub-Saharan Africa or Australia. That long head start would have let the visitor predict correctly that today, most of the world's richest and most powerful countries would be Eurasian countries (and their overseas settlements in North America, Australia and New Zealand).

Since Jews and Arabs both originated in the same place with a similar agricultural history, this again doesn't explain the disparities.

More importantly, Diamond even admits culture's significance:

That is not to deny culture's significance. Some countries have political institutions and cultural practices — honest government, rule of law, opportunities to accumulate money — that reward hard work. Others don't. 

So what was Jared Diamond's point again?  Wasn't that Romney's point?  That Israel's relatively honest government, rule of law and opportunities to accumulate money reward hard work?  How exactly is Romney wrong about his explanation of the differences of GDP per capita between Israel and the Palestinian territories?  Looks like he wasn't.  

Another Example of Something Not In Israeli/Jewish Culture: Palestinians Arrested for Eating during Ramadan

Once again the facts prove Romney right.  Note that in Israel, there are no criminal penalties for eating pork or lobster despite the fact that both are very clearly non-kosher:

The official Palestinian daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadidah reported earlier this week that five Palestinian men were arrested in the city of Nablus for "desecrating the holiness of the month of Ramadan" by eating in public during the day. A sixth man was reportedly arrested the following day in the city of Jericho for the same offense.

Fasting from sunrise to sunset during the lunar month of Ramadan is one of five tenets of Islam.

Breaking the fast is prohibited in many Arab and Muslim countries, with legal penalties varying from fines to short prison terms. According to article 274 of the Palestinian penal code, citizens who violate Ramadan by eating or smoking in public risk up to one month in prison or a fine of 15 Jordanian dinars ($21).

A number of men were arrested in the West Bank for eating in public during Ramadan last year as well. In August 2011 the PA daily Al-Ayyam reported that three men in Nablus and two in Hebron were apprehended by police for eating on the street and "cursing God."

Sheikh Yusuf Ida'is, chairman of the Supreme Court for Shariah Law, told Palestinian TV on July 22 that Ramadan offenders should be jailed until the end of Ramadan as a warning to others.

"I call upon others to be considerate of Muslims' feelings," Ida'is added, asking non-Muslim Palestinians to refrain from eating in public as well.

An Example of Something Not in Israeli or Jewish Culture

From Reuters:

A Sudanese woman accused of adultery has been sentenced to death by stoning and is being held shackled with her six-month-old baby in jail, activists said on Wednesday, in the second such sentence in the past few months in the country.

President Omar Hassan al-Bashir said last month that Sudan would adopt a "100 per cent" Islamic constitution, prompting concerns the country would apply Islamic law more strictly after the secession of mostly non-Muslim South Sudan a year ago.

A court in the capital Khartoum sentenced 23-year-old Laila Ibrahim Issa Jamool on July 10 to death by stoning for adultery, said Sudanese human rights activist Fahima Hashim who has been following her and other such cases.

...

The baby is in poor health it said, without giving further details.

Thomas Friedman: I like Anti-Semites. Rich Jews and Romney? Not so much.

There was a time that Thomas Friedman provided insightful and honest commentary.  Unfortunately, that time is long past, as he seems to be more in love with his viewpoint than with the truth.  Let's take a look at his latest, which is essentially the Palestinian position published in the New York Times:

The question is this: Since the whole trip was not about learning anything but about how to satisfy the political whims of the right-wing, super pro-Bibi Netanyahu, American Jewish casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, why didn't they just do the whole thing in Las Vegas? I mean, it was all about money anyway — how much Romney would abase himself by saying whatever the Israeli right wanted to hear and how big a jackpot of donations Adelson would shower on the Romney campaign in return.

I'm sorry, since when is Sheldon Adelson a kingmaker in the GOP?  He was a big supporter of Newt and Newt still lost.  Sure Sheldon Adelson has a lot of money but he has already given Romney the Romney SuperPAC $10 million even before the Israel trip.  Adelson would probably give the same amount to just about any GOP candidate who is more pro-Israel than Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan given Obama's obvious animosity to the State of Israel.

In recent years, the Republican Party has decided to make Israel a wedge issue. In order to garner more Jewish (and evangelical) votes and money, the G.O.P. decided to "out-pro-Israel" the Democrats by being even more unquestioning of Israel. This arms race has pulled the Democratic Party to the right on the Middle East and has basically forced the Obama team to shut down the peace process and drop any demands that Israel freeze settlements. This, in turn, has created a culture in Washington where State Department officials, not to mention politicians, are reluctant to even state publicly what is U.S. policy — that settlements are "an obstacle to peace" — for fear of being denounced as anti-Israel.

Settlements are an "obstacle" to piece?  Didn't Israel essentially already offer to dismantle almost all the settlements when they offered to give back 93% of the West Bank on two separate occasions since 2000? Can any objective observer say that 93% in a negotiation over disputed territory is too little?  It seems that the Palestinians are the obstacle, not the Israelis.

While Romney had time for a $50,000-a-plate breakfast with American Jewish donors in Jerusalem, with Adelson at his elbow, he did not have two hours to go to Ramallah, the seat of the Palestinian Authority, to meet with its president, Mahmoud Abbas, or to share publicly any ideas on how he would advance the peace process.

Oh those damn deep pocketed elders of Zion.  It's all their fault.  Also, it's funny that Friedman doesn't mention two very important points.  First, Romney met with the Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad who is fighting the heavy corruption in the Palestinian Authority.  Friedman trying to imply that Romney ignored the Palestinians completely is just false.  Second, if Romney is wrong for not going to Ramallah isn't Obama also wrong for not going to Israel, despite being in the area on multiple occasions during his presidency?  Why doesn't Friedman mention that?

He did have time, though, to point out to his Jewish hosts that Israelis are clearly more culturally entrepreneurial than Palestinians. Israel today is an amazing beehive of innovation — thanks, in part, to an influx of Russian brainpower, massive U.S. aid and smart policies. It's something Jews should be proud of. But had Romney gone to Ramallah he would have seen a Palestinian beehive of entrepreneurship, too, albeit small, but not bad for a people living under occupation. Palestinian business talent also built the Persian Gulf states. In short, Romney didn't know what he was talking about.

Palestinian talent built the Persian gulf states?  The Gulf states would be nowhere without oil and who discovered the oil?  The US and UK did.  In Saudi Arabia, oil was discovered by a joint venture (later to become Saudi Aramco) between Standard Oil of California and Texaco.  In Kuwait, BP and Gulf Oil were behind the country's riches.  Oil in the UAE was discovered by the Iraq Petroleum Company which was a consortium of various American, British and French companies.  In Qatar, it was BP.  Essentially without the accident of geography and the help of the west, the Persian Gulf states would still be dirt (or sand) poor.  You can see that from the GDP per capita levels of the not-so-resource rich states in the area.  According to the latest data from the IMF, Israel has a GDP per Capita of $30,975, the neighbor with the closest level of GDP per capita is Lebanon with $15,523, which benefits from large and relatively wealthy christian minority.  Egypt has a GDP per capita of $6,540, Jordan's is at $5,900 and Syria's pre-civil war tally is at $5,041.  Turkey, which is a member of NATO, only has a GDP per capita of $14,517.

It seems Romney knows much more of what he is talking about than Friedman.

On peace, the Palestinians' diplomacy has been a fractured mess, and I still don't know if they can be a partner for a secure two-state deal with even the most liberal Israeli government. But I do know this: It is in Israel's overwhelming interest to test, test and have the U.S. keep testing creative ideas for a two-state solution. That is what a real U.S. friend would promise to do.

Wait, if the Palestinians are a mess and possibly not even a partner for peace why should Israel keep trying?  Especially after offering almost 100% of what the Palestinians wanted?  Should they start offering 110%?

And here is what I also know: The three U.S. statesmen who have done the most to make Israel more secure and accepted in the region all told blunt truths to every Israeli or Arab leader: Jimmy Carter, who helped forge a lasting peace between Israel and Egypt; Henry Kissinger, who built the post-1973 war disengagement agreements with Syria, Israel and Egypt; and James Baker, who engineered the Madrid peace conference. 

It's interesting that he picks two known anti-semites (Carter and Baker) to laud and adds Kissinger in there for balance I guess. Carter has a long history of hostility to the Jewish State, including a book in which he blames the Israelis were everything.  And his achievement of peace with Egypt may now be coming undone as the Muslim Brotherhood has taken over that country.  And Jim "F*ck the Jews" Baker?  And what did the Madrid Conference achieve other than giving land to terrorists who then used it as a staging ground to murder Jews?  Was that a good thing in Friedman's opinion?

Seriously, I feel like the old Tom Friedman has been brainwashed and is now just radicalized self-hating Jew.