New Wikileaks Release Reveals Saudi Arabian Royal Debauchery

from YID With LID by Jeff Dunetz


New Wikileaks Release Reveals Saudi Arabian Royal Debauchery: "

Included in today's release of State Department Cables is an item that was classified only because it could possibly embarrass the Saudi royal family. Since the document is already public and there is no loyalty here to the Saudi Royals (or the Kansas City Royals for that matter) I decided to pass along this story of hypocritical Wahhabi debauchery.



The Saudi Wahhabi version of Islam is pretty heavy duty. There are the usual prohibitions against alcohol, western music, mixing of the sexes, etc., that is prevalent in Middle Eastern Islamic countries, but in the Saudi Kingdom the religious police are particularly zealous. Sometimes their rulings seem as if they came out of some sort of parody or a bad imitation of a Monty Python movie. Like that ruling that banned Barbie Dolls because they were part of a Zionist plot to bring promiscuity to Saudi Arabia. Pokemon faced a similar ruling. Then there was the business woman who was sent to the pokie by the Saudi Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. Her 'lewd' crime was having a cup of coffee with a male colleague in a very public Starbucks.



According to the cable released today, many of the Saudi Royals are conservative in public, but in private they do their best to ignore the rulings of the 'Ministry of Silly Sharia Laws' This cable sent on 11/18/09 was sent by the US Consul General Martin R. Quinn, describes a very un-Wahhabi-like Halloween party.

Summary: Behind the facade of Wahabi conservatism in the streets, the underground nightlife for Jeddahâ elite youth is thriving and throbbing. The full range of worldly temptations and vices are available -- alcohol, drugs, sex -- but strictly behind closed doors. This freedom to indulge carnal pursuits is possible merely because the religious police keep their distance when parties include the presence or patronage of a Saudi royal and his circle of loyal attendants, such as a Halloween event attended by ConGenOffs on.

To be honest, I am not sure whether it is legal to celebrate Halloween in Saudi Arabia. I know that Christmas is banned, if people want to have a tree in their houses they have to keep it in a room without windows so the religious police don't find out.

Over the past few years, the increased conservatism of Saudi Arabia’s external society has pushed the nightlife and party scene in Jeddah even further underground. End summary. Elite party like the rest of the world, --------------------------------------- just underground -----------------

Along with over 150 young Saudis (men and women mostly in their 20's and early 30's), ConGenOffs accepted invitations to an underground Halloween party at PrinceXXXXXXXXXXXX residence in Jeddah on XXXXXXXXXXXX. Inside the gates, past the XXXXXXXXXXXX security guards and after the abaya coat-check, the scene resembled a nightclub anywhere outside the Kingdom: plentiful alcohol, young couples dancing, a DJ at the turntables, and everyone in costume. Funding for the party came from a corporate sponsor, XXXXXX U.S.-based energy-drink company as well as from the princely host himself. Royalty, attended by xxxxx keep religious police at bay

Religious police/CPVPV (Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice) were nowhere to be seen and while admission was controlled through a strictly-enforced guest list, the partygoers were otherwise not shy about publicizing the affair. According to a young Saudi from a prominent Jeddah merchant family, the Saudis try to throw parties at princes houses or with princes in attendance, which serves as sufficient deterrent to interference by the CPVPV. There are over 10,000 princes in the Kingdom, albeit at various levels and gradations

How wild are these parties? We are talking booze, drugs and hookers.

Alcohol, though strictly prohibited by Saudi law and custom, was plentiful at the party's well-stocked bar, well-patronized by Halloween revellers. While top-shelf liquor bottles were on display throughout the bar area, the original contents were reportedly already consumed and replaced by sadiqi. On the black market, a bottle of Smirnoff can cost 1,500 riyals when available, compared to 100 riyals for the locally-made vodka. It was also learned through word-of-mouth that a number of the guests were in fact working girls, not uncommon for such parties. Additionally, though not witnessed directly at this event, cocaine and hashish use is common in these social circles and has been seen on other occasions.

You see in Saudi Arabia rank has it's privileges, as long as you are rich and know a prince you get to enjoy social freedom, intoxicants, indulge in fleshly pursuits behind closed doors.

Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list.
Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com

"

Wind Industry Warns Congress of Massive Layoffs Without New Handouts

from The Gateway Pundit by Jim Hoft


Wind Industry Warns Congress of Massive Layoffs Without New Handouts: "

It’s been a rough year for the government-sponsored wind industry.

In March a FOIA request revealed that the Obama Administration asked George Soros and wind energy lobbyists to hide European wind energy program failures. This was after the Obama administration had learned that “green jobs” are a massive economic drain, costing 570,000 Euros apiece.



(Positively Minnesota)

Now the government-sponsored wind industry is warning that thousands of jobs will be lost if wind companies do not get more handouts.

ABC News reported:

The wind industry urged Congress on Tuesday to extend a cash grant program for production of renewable energy, claiming tens of thousands of jobs are at stake.

Meanwhile, a bird advocacy group, the American Bird Conservancy, cautioned lawmakers to limit grant recipients to those who take steps to protect wildlife — arguing that such protections are needed to prevent avoidable bird fatalities at windmills.

The flurry of lobbying came as Congress took up a tax package that includes President Barack Obama’s compromise with Republicans on tax cuts.

The American Wind Energy Association wants the package to include renewal of the cash grant program for development in wind, solar and other renewable energy. The program, created by the federal stimulus law, is set to expire at the end of this month.

The wind group said that tens of thousands of Americans could lose their jobs or not get called back from layoffs unless the program is extended. It joined with trade groups representing the solar, geothermal, biomass and hydropower industries in a letter to congressional leaders Tuesday warning of a renewable energy slowdown.

In its own letter to Senate leaders this week, the bird group urged that any extension of the program include language that requires grant recipients to site projects in a way that minimizes harm to birds; employs the best technology to avoid such harm; and compensates for bird impacts, through new habitat, for example. The group also wants recipients to comply with laws like the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

According to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid, for every new job sustained by subsidized renewable energy at least 2.2 are lost in other industries. If Obama was really serious about creating jobs maybe he’d invest in fossil fuels.

"

HOUSE DEMOCRATS PASS $6.2 BILLION DREAM ACT AMNESTY BILL

from The Gateway Pundit by Jim Hoft

HOUSE DEMOCRATS PASS $6.2 BILLION DREAM ACT AMNESTY BILL: "

Forget spending cuts–

The democrats in the House just passed their DREAM Act.

The bill will add another $6.2 billion to the budget.

Democrats narrowly passed their DREAM Act amnesty bill tonight.

LA Now reported:

In a last-ditch showdown on immigration relief for illegal migrants, the Democratically-controlled House of Representatives on Wednesday narrowly approved the so-called DREAM Act that would offer a pathway to citizenship for undocumented young people who attend college or serve in the military.

The House passed the bill 216 to 198.

The Senate is scheduled to vote on the bi-partisan legislation, which would potentially legalize hundreds of thousands of young people, on Thursday. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada), majority leader, is not expected to have the 60 votes needed for passage.

Republican leaders said the bill is just another form of “amnesty”, one that is too costly to taxpayers and will only invite more illegal border crossings.

With a comprehensive overhaul of the immigration system dead, Democrats and immigrant advocates believe the Dream Act is the last best chance to win legal status for at least some illegal migrants before Republicans take control of the House in January.

"

CRAZY… Pelosi Compares DREAM Act to Founding Fathers Winning Independence (Video)

from The Gateway Pundit by Jim Hoft


CRAZY… Pelosi Compares DREAM Act to Founding Fathers Winning Independence (Video): "

What a horrible woman.

Speaker Pelosi compared passing the DREAM Act tonight to our Founding Fathers winning their independence.

The bill will cost the American taxpayers another $6.2 billion. The DREAM Act will afford some federal education benefits to illegal immigrants, including federally backed student loans and work study programs. The bill will also give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, including those with criminal records.

Does Pelosi think our Founding Fathers were criminals?

Via Real Clear Politics



That’s nuts.

"

After Adding $5 Trillion to US National Debt… House Dems Pass Bill That Freezes Federal Budgets

from Gateway Pundit by Jim Hoft

After Adding $5 Trillion to US National Debt… House Dems Pass Bill That Freezes Federal Budgets: "

Now we know why democrats get laughed at when they talk about freezing spending.

Just like Obama did in his State of the Destruction Union Address:



Obama promised to freeze spending in February of this year after increasing the budget by 6% from the previous year.

After tripling the national deficit and adding $5 Trillion to the national debt since Pelosi became Speaker, democrats voted to freeze the budgets of most Cabinet departments tonight. But, of course, they stuffed the legislation with their new costly food safety bill.

The AP reported:

Democrats controlling the House muscled through legislation Wednesday night that would freeze the budgets of most Cabinet departments and fund the war in Afghanistan for another year.

The bill would cap the agencies’ annual operating budgets at the $1.2 trillion approved for the recently finished budget year — a $46 billion cut of more than 3 percent from President Barack Obama’s request.

It includes $159 billion to prosecute the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq next year.

The 423-page measure, opposed by Republicans, conservative Democrats and some anti-war lawmakers, narrowly passed by a 212-206 vote. The budget-freeze bill wraps a dozen unfinished spending bills into a single measure.

The bill, combined with a massive measure to extend the Bush-era tax cuts, extend unemployment benefits and cut the payroll tax, represents the bulk of Congress’ unfinished work as the lame-duck session approaches its close.

A widely backed food safety bill is hitching a ride on the legislation. The measure passed the Senate by a 73-25 vote last week but got caught in a snag because it contained revenue provisions that, under the Constitution, must originate in the House.

It was there way of flipping off America on the way out the door.

"

Reagan Recovery vs. Obama Recovery in Pictures

from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. by Conn Carroll


Reagan Recovery vs. Obama Recovery in Pictures: "

According to The National Bureau of Economic Research, the Great Recession began in December 2007, lasted 18 months, and ended in June 2009. The last recession that lasted this long began in July 1981, lasted 16 months, and ended in November 1982.

No two recessions are the same. And no two recoveries are going to be exactly the same either … especially when the presidents that preside over them have diametrically opposed philosophies about what government can or should do. But as Ronald Reagan once said: “Shouldn’t we expect government to read the score to us once in a while?”

As the chart to the right shows, the stark reality is that the economic recovery under President Barack Obama has been much weaker than the recovery under President Ronald Reagan. At this stage of the Reagan recovery, unemployment had fallen more than three full points, from 10.8% to 7.7%. By contrast, under the Obama recovery unemployment has actually risen almost a half a percent from 9.4% to 9.8%.

So why was the Reagan Recovery so strong and why is the Obama Recovery so weak?

• President Reagan cut marginal tax rates. President Obama is still flirting with the largest tax hike in American history.


• President Reagan reined-in government union power by firing striking air traffic controllers. President Obama bailed-out state government unions, hired more federal government union members, and even bought a car company for the very same union that ran it into the ground in the first place.


• President Reagan simplified and reduced telecommunications and anti-trust regulations. President Obama expanded and complicated regulations in the health and financial sectors.


• President Reagan returned power to the states by reducing the percentage of state expenditures that come from the federal government. President Obama, through both the failed $862 billion stimulus and the trillion dollar health care plan, has made the states more dependent on Washington than ever.

These policies reflect the different governing philosophies of these two presidents. In his First Inaugural Address, President Reagan said: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. … In the days ahead, I will propose removing the roadblocks that have slowed our economy and reduced productivity.”

President Obama, however, sees a much larger role for the federal government. As he said on the campaign trail in 2008: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

As the still-unemployment rates shows, even with a recovering economy, President Obama’s wealth-distribution efforts are not good for anybody.

"

How attacks on the ‘wealthy’ will hurt the middle class and the poor

from USACTION NEWS by Editor

How attacks on the ‘wealthy’ will hurt the middle class and the poor: "

This parable explains how our ‘progressive’ income tax system works. See how it applies to our tax debate.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
”Since you are all such good customers”, he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”
”Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”
”That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two?

The wealthy get all the breaks!”
”Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

This parable has been circulated around the internet and has no confirmed author

"

Taxpayers subsidizing almost half of ethanol costs

from USACTION NEWS by Editor


Taxpayers subsidizing almost half of ethanol costs: "

Already wasting over $21 billion the ethanol corporate welfare needs to stop.

The Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit: History and Current Policy

From Taxpayers for Common Sense

The Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) is the largest subsidy to corn ethanol, the most common biofuel in the U.S. The tax credit is worth 45 cents per gallon of ethanol blended with gasoline, costing U.S. taxpayers $5.16 billion in 2009. Congress began subsidizing ethanol during a fuel shortage in the late 1970s by exempting gasoline blended with ethanol from gasoline excise taxes and establishing a tax credit for ethanol use. In 2004, the American Jobs Creation Act implemented the VEETC to replace these two historical subsidies as a combined excise tax exemption and tax credit.

This subsidy does not go to corn farmers or ethanol refiners, but to fuel blenders. Blenders, often large oil and gas companies such as Shell Oil, count the tax credit against income tax payments to the U.S. Treasury, costing U.S. taxpayers $21.56 billion in forgone tax revenues since 2006 (see table). With the VEETC set to expire at the end of 2010, Congress is currently debating if the tax credit is still needed to stimulate biofuel production.

Ethanol and the VEETC

Ethanol has never been economical to turn into a commercial product, and ethanol subsidies have significant economic, agricultural and environmental implications. Because subsidies to ethanol blenders create demand for corn from farmers, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that subsidies are responsible for a 28-47% rise in the price of corn. Since corn is a main ingredient in livestock feed and many consumer food products, ethanol subsidies raise the price of food to consumers.

The inflated value of corn also encourages large-scale agriculture that may not be environmentally sustainable. In addition, ethanol refineries use large amounts of fossil fuels to distill ethanol and turn it into a usable product, making ethanol’s ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions questionable.

Despite its significant financial and environmental drawbacks, the government has mandated the purchase of more corn ethanol. Under the recently enacted Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS), the U.S. is required to blend 36 billion gallons of biofuels with gasoline by 2022, up to 15 billion gallons of which can come from conventional corn ethanol.

VEETC Does Not Encourage Ethanol Production

Because of the impacts of the Renewable Fuels Standard, various government agencies agree that the VEETC is no longer needed to encourage ethanol production. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has indicated that the RFS will increase demand for ethanol. Accordingly, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concludes that since the RFS guarantees a market for corn ethanol, taxpayers no longer need to support ethanol through the VEETC.

Based on current ethanol production levels, GAO projects that the VEETC does not stimulate ethanol production beyond the government mandate. The CBO supports this conclusion, finding that the RFS mandate determines production levels and so the VEETC no longer increases production. As a result, removing the VEETC would not lower demand for corn ethanol, the income of corn growers or the income of ethanol refiners—the main party affected would be large oil companies that blend ethanol with gasoline. Furthermore, GAO concludes that subsidies cannot be legitimized to establish or expand the ethanol industry, which has already invested in production facilities and is capable of meeting RFS requirements. GAO notes that many economists now agree that the VEETC should be phased out or eliminated altogether.

It’s Time to Let VEETC Expire

The VEETC subsidizes large oil and gas companies who blend ethanol with gasoline. Ethanol producers and blenders already benefit from government mandates and small producer credits; the VEETC only adds to the layers of subsidies for corn ethanol. If the VEETC is not phased out or eliminated, the GAO estimates it will cost taxpayers $6.75 billion a year by 2015, when the RFS mandates that up to 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol be blended with U.S. gasoline. Congress should stop the bottomless pit of subsidies for the ethanol industry and not renew the VEETC when it expires at the end of 2010.

Year	Escalating Cost of VEETC to Taxpayers
2006	$2,570,000,000
2007	$3,320,000,000
2008	$4,410,000,000
2009	$5,160,000,000
2010	$6,100,000,000
Total cost of VEETC since 2006	$21,560,000,000

Reposted by permission

RELATED ARTICLES:

End Wasteful Ethanol Subsidies

Why the Government Should Stay Out of Green Energy

More corporate welfare – sugar subsidies

Thanks to Congress, Ethanol and Biofuel Mandates Cause Food Prices to Soar

Al Gore presidential aspirations cost US $16 billion in worthless ethanol subsidies and caused world’s poor to pay more for food

Time to end the mother of all corporate welfare: ethanol subsidies

"

Even Jon Stewart sees through Bernanke’s lies

from USACTION NEWS by Editor


Even Jon Stewart sees through Bernanke’s lies: "

Sadly Stewart’s viewers are probably laughing but not getting that the joke is on them as their money becomes worth less and less the more money the Fed ‘creates’ either by printing or just adding a computer entry on an account.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
The Big Bank Theory
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor The Daily Show on Facebook

Fact, Fiction & Finally the Fix

Why is the ‘Fed’ so secret and so powerful?

The Fed is lying about inflation

“Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth.” – Alan Greenspan

"

Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay Recognize Palestinian State

from USACTION NEWS by Editor

Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay Recognize Palestinian State: "

Last Friday Brazil took the first step and injected itself in the Middle East peace process by announcing that it recognized the state of Palestine with its borders as they were before the war of 1967.

The Americano

Last Friday Brazil took the first step and injected itself in the Middle East peace process by announcing that it recognized the state of Palestine with its borders as they were before the war of 1967.

Then on Monday it was Argentina who did the same. Uruguay already has announced it will follow suit.

The decision was a blow to Israel and to American foreign policy both in the Middle East and in Latin America. Brazil has made it clear that it has its own independent foreign policy, and is willing to exercise it by recognizing the state of Palestine or by trying to mediate against U.N. sanctions against Iran.

The announcement by the three South American nations brought an immediate response from the government of Israel and from U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R – FL.) the ranking Republican in the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

“It is incomprehensible that these nations who seek to be viewed as responsible stakeholders in world affairs would take a unilateral action like this which undermines the prospects for true, lasting peace in the Middle East,” said Ros-Lehtinen. “These nations have afforded the Palestinian Authority the biggest concession of all without demanding that they swear off violence against the Jewish people and recognize Israel’s right to exist as a democratic, Jewish state.”

Ros-Lehtinen, a leading cosponsor of House Resolution 1734, which reaffirms Congressional opposition to unilateral measures to recognize a Palestinian state, added: “It is especially disconcerting that Argentina and Uruguay would make this move given their own growing problems with Islamist extremism on their borders. Their unilateral, unconditional recognition of Palestinian claims will only serve to embolden others worldwide who use violence to advance their agendas.”

The Florida Republican said that “recognizing a Palestinian state instead of requiring the Palestinian Authority to meet any of its commitments is not a choice that a responsible nation would make, and the decision by Brazil and Argentina to do so will negatively affect their respective efforts to join the UN Security Council.”

“I would hope that other nations in the Western Hemisphere refrain from following this misguided approach and, instead, ask that the Palestinian Authority adhere to its international commitments and obligations and unconditionally return to direct negotiations with Israel,” Ros-Lehtinen said.

At the same time, Israel reacted directly. Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said unilateral recognition was “counterproductive” to peacemaking.

Israel officially expressed disappointment Tuesday with Argentina’s recognition of a Palestinian state in territories Israel occupied in 1967, saying they undercut American-led efforts to create such a state through negotiations with Israel.

“This disappointing and damaging decision is contrary to the existing Israeli-Palestinian agreements,” which call for the establishment of a Palestinian state as part of a peace treaty, Palmor said.

Peacemaking efforts ground to a halt in late September, just three weeks after they began, when Israel resisted U.S. and Palestinian efforts to extend a moratorium on housing starts in West Bank settlements.

Palestinians say they won’t return to the negotiating table unless Israel halts all settlement construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war. Palestinians want both territories, along with the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, for a future state.

Argentina said its move, announced Monday just days after Brazil took a similar step, reflected the country’s deep frustration with gridlocked peace efforts.

Israel’s deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, played down the significance of the actions by Brazil and Argentina, telling Army Radio that the two nations are “distant” countries that “don’t realize the diplomatic mistake they made.” He said the declarations have no practical meaning.

The Americano / Agencies

"