Thursday, September 20, 2012

Useful Idiots (Oliver North on Obama, MSM & terrorists)

Creators Syndicate ^ | September 21, 2012 | Oliver North

WASHINGTON — Ever since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2012, the Obama White House has sought to lay blame for deadly and destructive anti-American attacks in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Lebanon, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and more than two dozen other countries on someone else. The O-Team — and the perpetrators — have had a lot of help from the "useful idiots" in the mainstream media. The disinformation campaign being waged by the Obama administration over the cause of this violence would be comedic but for the fact that six Americans have been killed and dozens have been injured.
From the perspective of many "covering this story," the global jihad we're witnessing is mostly the fault of an incompetent "filmmaker," and the "spontaneous outrage" is over a "provocative video." Notably, the same is being said about protests against French diplomatic posts in the Middle East because "obscene cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad" were published in a French magazine. What's really obscene is the way all of this has been covered by the potentates of the press — particularly the events in Cairo, Benghazi and Afghanistan.
The U.S. Embassy in Cairo was first off the block — issuing an apology for a poorly made Internet video titled "Innocence of Muslims." Though the video was shot in 2011 — not by an Israeli as first reported but by an Egyptian — it attracted almost no attention when brief segments first appeared on the Internet in July 2012. The Obama administration continues to tell us that the Muslim Brotherhood and a host of other Islamic radical groups in 30 countries just happened to come across the "offensive videos" on the 11th anniversary of the devastating 9/11 al-Qaida attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 of our countrymen.
(Excerpt) Read more at creators.com ...

Networks That Hyped Romney's 'Bombshell' Tax Tape Now Skip ObamaCare 'Penalties'

NewsBusters.org ^ | September 20, 2012 | Scott Whitlock

The same networks that have been hyping secret video of Mitt Romney talking about who pays taxes, hyperventilating about the Republican's "seismic" bombshell," have, thus far, completely ignored the revelation from the Congressional Budget Office that "significantly" more Americans will have to pay a "tax penalty" for being uninsured, many in the middle class.

All three evening newscasts on Wednesday and the morning shows on Thursday totally skipped this report. The Associated Press explained, "The new estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the administration, a reminder of what critics see as broken promises." Writer Ricardo Alonzo-Zaldivar added, "Nonetheless, in his first campaign for the White House, Obama pledged not to raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 a year and couples making less than $250,000."


GMA opted for more important topics, such as an amusement park mishap that caused several people to be stranded on a roller coaster for hours.

From the AP:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly 6 million Americans — significantly more than first estimated— will face a tax penalty under President Barack Obama's health overhaul for not getting insurance, congressional analysts said Wednesday. Most would be in the middle class.

...

"The bad news and broken promises from Obamacare just keep piling up," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, who wants to repeal the law.
Since Tuesday, however, the networks have hyped secretly recorded video of Romney talking about the 47 percent of Americans who don't pay taxes. Diane Sawyer called it a "political earthquake" and a "seismic day." GMA's Amy Robach insisted it was a "bombshell."

One would think that the same networks would be interested in an actual tax increase.
During the debate over ObamaCare, as study the Media Research Center found that journalist talked about the legislation in only the most fawning terms.

GM’s devil’s bargain

Real Clear Politics ^ | September 20,2012 | Charles Gasparino

The Obama campaign raves about how it “saved the auto industry” — that is, the government’s bailout mainly of General Motors — and so preserved millions of jobs.
But if it was such a success, why is the bailout losing so much money — and why do current GM managers want nothing to do with Washington as they try to save the company?
The answer: They know that with the lefties in the Obama administration breathing down their necks, their chances of ever restoring GM to its past glory are anywhere from slim to none. Of course, it’s hard to feel sorry for GM’s management, which news reports and my own sources say has been prodding the administration to sell off its remaining 26.5 percent stake in the company. GM’s bosses invited Uncle Sam in — tough luck for them that he doesn’t want to leave.
For way too long, the Big Three — GM, Ford and Chrysler — kept on cutting generous wage and benefit deals with their unionized workforce as if it was still the 1950s and ’60s, when foreign competition didn’t exist. By 2009, that heyday was long, long past — and the Great Recession brought their highly flawed business model crashing down. The $17 billion in loans from the Bush administration in its waning days wasn’t enough. GM and Chrysler came hat in hand to the President Obama for a little more hope and change.
An easy solution would have been to let the companies reorganize under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code. They’d have had a good chance to survive; plenty of other companies have restructured under bankruptcy protection and emerged later as viable businesses. American Airlines is doing it right now, and without major disruptions in service, or mass layoffs.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...

Obama Continues to Snub Israeli Leaders, Refuses All NY Meetings

Arutz Sheva - Israel National News ^ | 9/20/2012, 3:26 PM | Rachel Hirshfeld

Tensions between Israel and the current U.S. administration further deteriorated last week when President Barack Obama refused to meet with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during his upcoming visit to New York, where he will address the UN General Assembly.

The White House insisted that the meeting would not take place due to the president’s pressing “campaign obligations” which would take him out of New York.

Obama has further snubbed Israeli leaders by refusing to meet with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who will also be in New York next week, WND news station reported.

(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...

Pastors pledge to defy IRS, preach politics from pulpit ahead of election

Fox News ^ | 09/20/2012 | Cristine Corbin

More than 1,000 pastors are planning to challenge the IRS next month by deliberately preaching politics ahead of the presidential election despite a federal ban on endorsements from the pulpit.
The defiant move, they hope, will prompt the IRS to enforce a 1954 tax code amendment that prohibits tax-exempt organizations, such as churches, from making political endorsements. Alliance Defending Freedom, which is holding the October summit, said it wants the IRS to press the matter so it can be decided in court. The group believes the law violates the First Amendment by “muzzling” preachers.
“The purpose is to make sure that the pastor -- and not the IRS -- decides what is said from the pulpit,” Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the group, told FoxNews.com. “It is a head-on constitutional challenge.” Stanley said pastors attending the Oct. 7 “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” will “preach sermons that will talk about the candidates running for office” and then “make a specific recommendation.” The sermons will be recorded and sent to the IRS.
“We’re hoping the IRS will respond by doing what they have threatened,” he said. “We have to wait for it to be applied to a particular church or pastor so that we can challenge it in court. We don’t think it’s going to take long for a judge to strike this down as unconstitutional.”
An amendment was made to the IRS tax code in 1954, stating that tax-exempt organizations are “absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”
“Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax,” in its online guide for churches and religious organizations seeking tax exemption.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

WHY DO REPUBLICANS SO FEAR THE TRUTH?

Obama facts Romney should be shouting but isn't
WorldNetDaily ^ | 09/20/2012 | Robert Ringer

Finally, last week, someone with star power and a large daily audience had the courage to say it: “If you can’t beat Barack Obama with this record, then shut down the party. Shut it down. Start new, with new people, because this is a gimme election – or at least it should be.”
Thank you, Laura Ingraham. It’s a welcome evolution from your past refusal to call Barack Obama a socialist when your pal, Bill O’Reilly (who continues to play it soft and fuzzy with the Marxmeister in the White House), gave you the opportunity to do so. And the next day, apparently feeling the heat, you asked your audience if it mattered whether Obama is called a socialist or a disaster.
You’re damn right it matters! And it’s not, as Mush McCain would say, “for others to decide.” This is war. It’s time for women to woman up and men to man up. It’s baffling why the truth is so scary to so many people. Baltasar Gracian, the wise and insightful 17th century Jesuit priest, nailed it when he said, “People do not love truth. Instead, they try to make true that which they love.”
And what Republicans love most is to believe that if they can be just a little kinder and gentler to radical progressives in the Democratic Party, those vile characters will respond in kind. Perhaps they should ask Charlie Brown how that kind of naïveté has worked out for him.
If I were advising Mitt Romney (heaven forbid) and his dumber-than-dumb campaign team how to go about defeating Der Fuhrbama, I would suggest they try something novel – like telling the truth. There are hundreds of truths Romney and his team should be conveying nonstop to the truth-starved public, but they are never even mentioned.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...

Will Dinesh D’Souza Save the World from Obama?

Pajamas Media ^ | 09/20/2012 | Roger Simon

Has the world turned into a giant promo for Dinesh D’Souza’s film 2016: Obama’s America?
I would assume so since the events of the last week or so appear almost constructed to prove the key point of his movie — that Barack Obama’s foreign policy, indeed his basic value system, is motivated by a rehash of 1960s-1970s era anti-colonialism with the USA as perpetual bogeyman.
That anti-colonialism is the true dream of Obama’s father and also the ideology he had drilled into him from all sides nearly until adulthood.
In D’Souza’s conception, that’s the core of Obama’s being. And it’s beginning to look as if the author and now filmmaker is right.
How else to explain the extraordinary seeming naïveté with which our evidently agnostic president has treated the Islamic world from the outset, acting as if completely oblivious, or more likely willfully oblivious, to the headlong plunge back into the Dark Ages being taken by countries as disparate as Egypt and Turkey. Iran had already taken the plunge back in 1979, but our president wanted to negotiate with them, still does apparently.
And he surrounds himself with shills for this reactionary worldview, pushing forward, or allowing Valerie Jarrett to push forward, the hapless Susan Rice to flog the nonsensical propaganda that the recent disturbances were all about an abysmal video nobody saw, thus discrediting the UN ambassador as either a moron or a liar.
If not for the mainstream media, Obama himself would be a laughing stock at this point. Even the great myth of multiculturalism would not be able save him.
And isn’t it interesting that since 9/11 so few “liberals” or “progressives” in that media (and elsewhere for that matter) evince a serious interest in Islam? It’s hard to find one who knows much substantive about it. Few even know what taqiyya or dhimmi law are. I have had many blank stares from otherwise intelligent people when asking even rudimentary questions.
I think the reason for this is a convenient and largely deliberate ignorance. Liberals know if they scratch the surface of Islam all the misogyny and homophobia will come pouring out, not to mention the tenets of Sharia with its attendant superiority of religious law to state law and the consequent abolition of the separation of church and state — all values and goals supposedly anathema to the liberal mind. Trying to reconcile those things with the policies of their hero-president would make their heads explode, so better not to know about them.
Or pretend that Third World poverty (caused by some version of American imperialism, of course) trumps medieval religious fascism, a proposition that is becoming increasingly laughable, if it ever made the slightest sense.
So D’Souza, it turns out, has made an important film, its message made all the more necessary by recent events. The horrifying terror attack in Benghazi could be his trailer.
What was once an election driven entirely by the economy (or the ignoring of it) suddenly has been upended by a situation that has been lurking for years not far beneath the surface — the War on Terror, the War on Islamism, call it what you will (I certainly prefer the latter), has never been resolved.
It has just been wished away with the inanity that all is well since Bin Laden was killed. Meanwhile, the demonstrators scaling the embassy walls in Cairo were screaming “Obama, Obama, we are all Osama.”
But sooner or later this war will be resolved. And, for the sake of ourselves, our children and grandchildren, it better be in our favor.
D’Souza’s movie might help just a little bit, but will it be seen by enough of the electorate to make an impact, to move the dial? So far it’s been doing rather well and is the second highest grossing political documentary of all time behind Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11.
To put that in perspective, however, as of last weekend, 2016 had a cumulative box office gross just over 30 million dollars. That may seem like a lot but the cumulative gross of The Bourne Legacy — an apparently wretched remake of a remake — was 107 million, The Dark Knight Rises 441 million.
So comparatively speaking, not that many folks have seen 2016, not enough anyway. It’s up to all of us to rectify that. If you haven’t seen it, go and go soon. But most importantly, bring a liberal or independent friend. If you don’t know one, find one. I can promise you — they’re out there.

It is Obama, not Romney, who dislikes America!

Hot Air ^ | September 20, 2012 | Howard Portnoy

In the opening of a column in Thursday’s Washington Post, liberal commentator E. J. Dionne shares an anecdote. “The most incisive reaction to Mitt Romney’s disparaging comments about 47 percent of us,” he writes, “came from a conservative friend who emailed: ‘If I were you, I’d wonder why Romney hates America so much.’”
As debating strategies go, this tactic is pretty weak. Dionne is citing as support for his argument one anonymous voice out of a vast chorus of opponents that he claims agrees with him.
Actually, Dionne doesn’t fully agree with his source. He goes on to suggest that the comment is “a bit strong,” which makes you wonder why he mentioned it in the first place.
Nevertheless, Dionne’s key argument, which is encapsulated in the article’s title—“Does Romney Dislike America?”—is never borne out. He draws on innuendo (Romney “speaks as if hardworking parents who seek government help to provide health care for their kids are irresponsible”), non sequiturs (“if President Obama wanted a ‘government-centered nation,’ the stock market wouldn’t have doubled”), and straw men (“Romney said not a word about all the redistribution upward in a tax code that favors investment over labor income”). But ultimately, the house of cards Dionne builds collapses of its own weight.
Interestingly, he never takes Romney to task for promising to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” That would be because Romney never identified that as his overarching intention if elected. The candidate who did say it in 2008 went on to become president and has held that office for the past three-plus years.
A fundamental makeover of a nation is not the goal of a man devoted to his country and all that it stands for. But evidence that Barack Obama has never much liked America abounds. Would a man who loves his country have maintained a close twenty-year relationship with a black nationalist minister who delivered hate-filled anti-American screeds from his pulpit?
Since being elected in 2008, Obama has made his dislike of the nation repeatedly. In 2009, his first year in office, he broke with a tradition honored among all 43 of his predecessors and verbally assaulting his own country on foreign soil. In Paris, he prostrated himself and the nation, telling a French president hostile to American interests that America “has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward Europe. When asked by a British reporter that same year whether he thought the United States was uniquely qualified to lead the world, Obama replied, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” Short answer: no.
On CBS’s The Late Show with David Letterman two nights ago, Obama said, “One thing I’ve learned as president is that you represent the entire country.” (He’s learned that only since becoming president?) But his scornful open-mic comment in 2008 about people in “small towns in Pennsylvania” who “get bitter” and “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” suggests he represents some Americans more than others. He has been equally critical of the wealthy (whose interests he also represents as president), calling them selfish and greedy and demanding that they “do their fair share” by “paying a little more” when they are already carrying the vast majority of America’s tax burden.
Finally, would a man who loves his country fly in the face of its system of checks and balances as often as has Obama, who has passed a record number of executive orders? Would a man who represents all Americans have been party to the passage of a game-changing health care law that was forged by one party only and behind closed doors? Should he cling to the law desperately when a majority of Americans want to see it repealed and the law’s own chief architect insists the law will raise, not reduce, health insurance premiums.
These are not the actions or thoughts of a man who loves his country. They are, however, the thoughts and actions of a man who loves himself.

Egypt's new president keeps useful idiot Obama on Muslim Brotherhood leash!

Coach is Right ^ | 9/20/2012 | Doug Book

Barack Obama’s Arab Spring is being celebrated in a big way in Egypt as the former American ally and 30 year peace partner of Israel becomes a full-fledged Islamic theocracy and property of the ruling Muslim Brotherhood. “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet,” said Brotherhood founder al-Banna, a devout believer in the role of Islamic Jihad as the proper means of carrying out “…the precepts of the Qur’an.” (1)
And there could be no better guy to advance that Brotherhood agenda of world domination than Mohammed Morsi, longtime Brotherhood member and Egypt’s newly elected president by virtue of the U.S. State Department-led overthrow of the America supporting Hosni Mubarak. Morsi has made his own allegiance to the precepts of Islamic rule clear enough even for a mainstream American media which refuse to report it.
During a May campaign speech to the people of Egypt, Morsi said:
“The shari’a, then the shari’a, and finally, the shari’a. Rejoice and rest assured that...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...

Obama Incompetence in Mid-East Rivals Carter’s in Iran!

Townhall.com ^ | September 20, 2012 | Bob Barr

Despite repeated, self-serving claims by Obama officials that the Administration did everything it could to head off and then respond appropriately to the violence against American facilities in Libya and Egypt last week, their blunders in policy, intelligence and security illustrates an incompetence every bit as profound as exhibited by the administration of Jimmy Carter in Iran 33 years ago. It appears nothing has been learned in more than three decades; despite significant gains in technology available to the U.S. government during those intervening years.
In 1979, the Carter Administration precipitously abandoned the Shah of Iran, Washington’s long-time and loyal ally in Tehran, once widespread dissatisfaction with his regime surfaced. In the melee that ensued, and which accompanied the return from exile of the radical Ayatollah Khomeini, student groups led a successful assault on the huge American Embassy compound. Washington, believing the insurgent forces could be placated by throwing the Shah under the bus, failed completely to heed warning signs in the build-up to the storming of the diplomatic compound, and was caught flat-footed.
Once in control of the American facility, the radicals gained access to innumerable classified documents and microfilm cards (which standard operating procedures dictated were supposed to have been destroyed earlier) containing sensitive intelligence information. Additionally, because other security protocols had not been followed, certain individuals taken hostage were identified to the radicals as intelligence personnel, and subjected to “harsh interrogation techniques” during their long months in captivity.
As a direct result of the fall of the embassy in Tehran, the U.S. lost access to invaluable technological facilities, including some in northern Iran that provided unique electronic listening posts for then-Soviet missile ranges. Perhaps even more disastrous, was the compromising of the identities of numerous cooperating agents in Iran and elsewhere in the region; many of whom were subsequently tracked down and killed. The loss of such resources continues to be felt to this day.
Fast forwarding to last year’s mis-named “Arab Spring,” the Obama Administration found itself in much the same situation as did its predecessor in 1979 -- and appears to have engaged in just as serious a misperception. Apparently believing that popular uprisings against unpopular regimes in the Middle East, including Egypt and Libya, signaled an embrace of Jeffersonian Democracy in the Arab World, Washington again let down its guard – this time with immediate tragic results.
In the broadest sense, policy makers in Washington fail to understand the deep-seated religious zeal through which many Middle Easterners – including some of those educated in the West -- view their society and the world. They also appear not to comprehend that allegiances among many Arabs are based not so much on notions of political solidarity, profession, or the many other indices of “identity” familiar to us in western countries, but rather on tribal customs and background. The nature and use of violence – while well-known to virtually every culture in the world -- occupies a peculiar place in Arab culture that must first be understood and then forcefully and consistently defended against.
In a more focused sense, the Obama Administration seems to have made almost every mistake capable of being made, on the ground in Libya. Everything went wrong – from the failure to properly evaluate and disseminate relevant intelligence data (not “actionable” but “relevant” intelligence) to the physical aspects of knowing where your people are and maintaining communication with them during an emergency. With all the technology available to the United States of America, in Libya or anywhere else on the face of the earth, imagine “losing” an Ambassador inside a building controlled by our own government.
In fact, imagine an American ambassador placing himself – or allowing his staff to place him -- in such a situation in an area in which violence is clearly predicted and should have been expected, and then being taken to a “safe” house which location and layout was already known to well-armed assailants.
It is not difficult to chronicle numerous other mistakes made by our government in assessing the prelude to the violence last week in Cairo and Benghazi, and then elsewhere. Why, for example, do we rely still in such countries as these on local security personnel to provide the “first line” of defense? Why do we not anticipate violence ensuing from actions almost identical to earlier episodes that precipitated violence – does Washington really believe Arab culture has changed in the months since an idiot “preacher” in Florida threatened to stage a Quran burning? Why apparently did we not equip a “safe house” in an area known to harbor violent extremists, with the basic back-up generators and individual gas-mask protection devices now required in virtually every major federal government building in our country?
The list goes on and on. And all this Administration does is send its emissaries out to blame a film maker in California; hoping that by avoiding accountability it will avoid defeat at the polls. And as Washington dithers, families mourn and the world burns.

Palestinians Don't Want Peace with Israel and Mitt Romney was Correct to Say So!

American Thinker ^ | 09/20/2012 | Neil Snyder


The Palestinian and Hamas charters call for Israel's destruction. Mahmoud Abbas (a.k.a. Abu Mazen), President of the Palestinian Authority, wrote a doctoral dissertation titled The Connection between the Nazis and the Leaders of the Zionist Movement 1933 - 1945 that he later published as a book titled The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism. Both of them can rightly be called Holocaust denial manifestos. At this moment, Palestinian Authority leaders are considering revoking the Oslo Peace Accords which coincidentally led to the creation of the Palestinian Authority in 1993. Palestinian television stations air programs for children similar to The Muppets and Captain Kangaroo during which they call upon Palestinian kids to become martyrs for the radical Islamist faith. Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist organization that is "governing" in the Gaza Strip, is responsible for thousands of unprovoked rocket and mortar attacks against innocent Israeli civilians. Between 2001 and 2009, they fired more than 8,600 rockets at Israel, and those attacks continue unabated to this day.
Speaking to an Arab audience on the day that the Oslo Peace Accords were signed in Washington, D.C., Yasser Arafat, the first Palestinian Authority president, said,
"Since we cannot defeat Israel in war we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel." (Yasser Arafat speaking on Jordanian television, September 13, 1993)
Arafat also said,


(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Congressionally censured tax cheat tells Romney ‘Americans pay their taxes, unlike you.’!


Hotair ^ | 09/20/2012 | MARY KATHARINE HAM

Chutzpah, thy name is Charlie Rangel:
"Nothing can be further from the truth than Gov. Romney's ridiculous remarks that nearly half of American people do not pay federal income taxes, they pay other federal and state taxes. The 47 percent figure cited by the Republican presidential candidate covers only the federal income tax and ignores the fact that people may pay a higher percentage of their income on a wide variety of taxes.
Everyone pays taxes. Lower income persons pay state and local, property, excise and sales taxes. In fact, when all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account, the bottom fifth of households pays about 16 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average. The second-poorest fifth pays about 21 percent. This is higher than what the Governor has paid in income taxes. He has absolutely no moral authority to accuse nearly half of the American people of being irresponsible and freeloaders."
Speaking of "absolutely no moral authority," let’s go over Rangel’s record, who was censured by the House of Representatives for a multitude of tax and ethics violations made while he was in charge of writing the nation’s tax policy as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
Rep. Charlie Rangel amended his financial disclosure forms under pressure in 2009 to show “that he had omitted an array of assets, business transactions and sources of income. They include a Merrill Lynch Global account valued between $250,000 and $500,000; tens of thousands of dollars in municipal bonds; and $30,000 to $100,000 in rent from a multifamily brownstone building he owned on West 132nd Street.” That wasn’t all. “The latest filings come on top of an amendment to Mr. Rangel’s 2007 disclosure form reported this week showing that he had failed to list at least $500,000 in assets.” The new disclosures doubled Rangel’s net worth.
Rep. Charlie Rangel rented several apartments in Harlem at suspiciously below-market rates from a big campaign donor, combining several to create his home while using one of them as a campaign office. That was a violation of rent-control laws, which require rent-controlled apartments to be used as residences.
Rep. Charlie Rangel parked his Mercedes for free in a Congressional parking space for about five years, never declaring the approximate $300 monthly fee on his taxes, as IRS rules require. Luckily, the House Ethics committee determined that he didn’t violate any rules because they only apply rules about parking to staff, not members.
Rep. Charlie Rangel used Congressional letterhead to solicit donations for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York from companies that might have significant interests in the policy making of his committee, a move ethicists said “crossed the line.” He’d already funneled federal earmarks for the center.
Later, one of the big donors to the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service benefitted richly when Rangel changed his position on closing a tax loophole.
Rep. Charlie Rangel failed to report $75,000 in rental income or pay taxes on a Dominican villa he owned, causing the New York Times to call for him to step down from his Ways and Means Chairmanship.
In 2008, Rep. Charlie Rangel was forced to pay back taxes on rental income on his villa in the Dominican Republic— a property he was advised to buy by one of his donors and for which he later received preferential treatment when the interest rate on his mortgage was waived.
Rep. Charlie Rangel took the “Property Homestead Deduction Act” tax break on his Washington, D.C. residence for five years, despite the fact that he maintained his primary residence in New York for electoral reasons. Lawmakers who maintain a residence in D.C. but must also maintain a primary residence in their districts are not eligible for the homestead break, tax lawyers told the NY Post.
Rangel is one of the most demonstrably corrupt manipulators of the tax code in Washington, and his longtime position as the guy who wrote tax code for the rest of us makes the corruption all the more despicable.
The headline on his press release should have been, "Americans pay their fair share in taxes, unlike me."


CHARLES RANGEL IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

The Very Thin Red Line.

skipmaclure.us ^ | September 20 2012 | Skip MacLure

Barack MaoBama is standing on Israel’s last nerve. Having abrased his way through all the goodwill the Israelis can muster, he’s really barking up the wrong tree. The Israelis, unlike our Mr Obama, are not deluded by anything this worst president in American history, or his lackeys, have to say. Stark realism is always at the root of the Israeli soul. It’s been deeply ingrained in them by centuries of pogroms suffered during the long diaspora, culminating in the ovens of Auschwitz, Chelmno, Belzec… or any of the names which are associated with the holocaust.
MaoBama has read the Israelis wrong from day one. Have you noticed any of the pics of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with the Anointed One? Netanyahu doesn’t take his eyes off of Obama for a split second. His gimlet-like stare is like somebody watching a venomous snake in the grass around camp. This is the face of a man who has seen the real Obama and is not impressed. Benjamin Netanyahu knows exactly who and what Barack Hussein is.
He also knows what we of the American Tea Party Patriots have known all along. MaoBama is a pathological sociopath, a man with a fractured past and not one shred of conscience. The Israeli prime minister realizes that his country is alone in facing an increasingly bellicose and dangerous Iran, and her surrogates throughout the region.
That Israel has seen this time coming, and has been preparing for it for years, makes the reality no less poignant. The rosiest scenario would be if Israel were to strike and the rest of the western nations would be pulled in by virtue of self-interest, if for no other reason.
Iran is going to have to be defeated… period. Iran’s radical theocratic leadership will not be swayed from their course of war, conquest and death. I’m not sure what it is about the occidental mind that can not grasp the simple concept that, to Islam and Moslems, we are the antithesis of everything the ‘Death Cult’ espouses with such barbaric savagery. You won’t get them to play nice… Ask MaoBama.
Yes, it’s a Thin Red Line. “Never again” and “Never forget” are deeply ingrained in the soul of every Israeli. Remember the determination on Benjamin Netanyahu’s face, as he confronted the Anointed One’s lackey State Department clown? Israel will attack Iran, and soon. The only thing I can think of to say is ‘Godspeed’.
Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis
© Skip MacLure 2012

Obama's Score: Fundraising 100, National Security 0

Townhall.com ^ | September 20, 2012 | John Ransom

I hope you felt safe on the anniversary of 9/11. I know I did. And for that I have to thank about 500,000 dedicated national security professionals, reservists, regular airman, sailors and soldiers.
Some we now know were not so lucky.

That's because the actual count was 500,000 national security pros minus one amateur.
The amateur has been missing more often than not.
While our defense/intelligence community has been fighting the wars on terrorists, America’s been at the mall.
And the amateur? He has been busy taking out a $5 trillion mortgage for a remodeling project he favors in the US of A. Oh, and raising money for his reelection campaign.
Obama- yes, that amateur- the guy who thinks the constitution should force us to accept anything the federal government is willing to give a grateful citizenry? THAT Obama has ignored his one undisputed constitutional duty as commander in chief by skipping his daily intelligence briefings 62 percent of the time this year, according to Marc A. Thiessen, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
“The Government Accountability Institute,” writes Thiessen in the Washington Post, “a new conservative investigative research organization, examined President Obama’s schedule from the day he took office until mid-June 2012, to see how often he attended his Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) — the meeting at which he is briefed on the most critical intelligence threats to the country. During his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his PDB just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent.”
Now we know how Obama “got” Bin Laden. He just played hard to get.
Actually, he continued playing "fantasy president" and he let the professionals do their proper job.
At the time that Obama was hosting a presidential-record 100 fundraisers, extrapolation of the GAI numbers tells us that he only showed up for 49 of the 130 regularly scheduled intelligence briefings - that’s 38 percent for non-finance types.
But that’s probably good news.
Because let’s just say that Obama’s had some problems keeping intelligence sources and methods secret.
“Security officials and members of both parties in Congress have sharply criticized leaks about classified operations under Mr. Obama,” writes the New York Times “and some Republicans have complained about news briefings on the Bin Laden raid and assistance to filmmakers making a movie about the operation.”
Obama’s tried to parlay the Bin Laden raid into a compelling reelection strategy by intimating that Romney wouldn’t have had the guts to give the order to “get” Bin Laden.
“The military and intelligence people found this terrorist and killed him,” writes the Baltimore Sun on its editorial page, rebutting the president’s paltry, petty argument. “All this president did was give the OK. Any rational American would have done the same.”
Even worse, Rep. Peter King, chair of the Homeland Security Committee has raised questions about whether officials from the Obama administration fingered one of the principle human intelligence sources that fingered Bin Laden for American military forces.
From Fox News:
"This has been handled very poorly right from the time of the raid," King told FoxNews.com.
Dr. Shakil Afridi ran a vaccination program for the CIA to collect DNA and verify bin Laden's presence at the compound in the town of Abbottabad where U.S. commandos killed the Al Qaeda chief in a May 2011 raid.
The operation outraged Pakistani officials, who portrayed it as an act of treachery by a supposed ally.
King, R-N.Y., said administration officials talked about the doctor and his DNA sampling.
"They put him out there," said King, who made clear he didn't know the exact details about what, if anything, the administration may have done to get the doctor out of Pakistan or otherwise protect him. "I'm focused on that they disclosed his identity."
Ironically, over the weekend, newly minted defense secretary Leon Panetta blasted those who would betray intelligence secrets for petty partisan or financial gain.
“How the hell can we run sensitive operations here that go after enemies if people are allowed to do that?” said Panetta on an interview with CBSNews.
Panetta however wasn’t talking about the president. Instead, he was talking about an account of the raid by a Navy SEAL who participated in the Bin Laden operation. The secretary missed the irony that once again we have a case where the president doesn’t have to follow law or even common sense. The president, you see, can release any information he wants for any reason he wants, even sources and methods of intelligence gathering if it can help his campaign.
Now the task is to just get Obama to skip the briefings all together and only concentrate on fundraising.
Oh, yes.
That happens in January 2013, when the new campaign for the Obama Presidential Library starts in earnest.
That's my fantasy.

The Blamer in Chief

Townhall.com ^ | September 20, 2012 | Michael Reagan

He and his administration spent last weekend blaming the explosion of violence against America in the Middle East on a moronic anti-Muhammad video that’s been on YouTube for months.
His United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice made the rounds of the Sunday morning news shows, where she made an absolute idiot of herself.
Apparently auditioning for the secretary of state job in -- God forbid -- a second Obama administration, Rice insisted that the “spontaneous” Islamic rage that killed our ambassador in Libya and three other Americans was caused not by the failures of her boss but by an amateur movie made by some nut in California.
This tragic episode once again proves that the incompetence of this president is not limited to the home front, where the economy stagnates and deficits and gas prices soar.
In the Middle East, Obama and his Chicago Gang have confused our friends and emboldened our enemies with a foreign policy that has been a mix of ineptness, appeasement and naiveté.
Remember when Obama boasted in Cairo that the Muslim world was going to fall in love with the USA because it had just elected a president who had generations of Muslims in his ancestry?
Boy, the Muslims in Libya and Egypt sure have a strange way of showing their love for America.
Obama’s cowering reaction to the Middle East crisis -- and his refusal to man-up and act like the president of the United States -- begs the question: “What would Ronald Reagan do?”
My dad knew how good the nuts in California were at making bad movies. But he certainly would never have blamed a motion picture or a trailer on YouTube for what’s going on in the Middle East.
When the Marine barracks were blown up in Lebanon in 1983, Ronald Reagan didn’t blame it on anyone else.
He accepted responsibility for the Marines dying. But he also used the event to come on TV and talk to the American people and explain why it was so important for us to be in the Middle East.
What did this president do when our invaluable Libyan ambassador Chris Stevens was assassinated in a well-planned attack by Muslim extremists? He went to Vegas for a fundraiser event and made another political speech.
Being president of the United States is not about being a good guy to play hoops with, or to have a cold beer with -- it’s about being able to take a position of leadership when trouble comes.
It means standing up for American values like freedom of speech, not apologizing for them. And it means standing up for our policies in the Middle East, not throwing them overboard whenever they are challenged.
President Obama is a glaring sign of the absolute weakening of America. You might call what he has been doing “The Wussification of the White House.”
But blaming what happened in Libya and Egypt on a YouTube trailer is not just cowardly, it’s absurd. Next week Obama will be blaming the 1992 Disney movie “Aladdin” for inciting Muslim mobs to burn down KFC stores or kill Americans.
Mr. President, when trouble came our way my father manned up. It’s time for you to do the same. "Let's roll."

New Obama Flag Looks Eerily Like Blood-Stained Walls at Benghazi Consulate

Gateway Pundit ^ | 9-20-2012 | Jim Hoft

Talk about poor timing…
The Obama Campaign recently released their perfected version of the US flag.

You can purchase your O-flag at the Obama Campaign website for $35.
If the image looks familiar it could be because the red stripes resemble the bloody Benghazi hand prints. The bloodstained walls at the US consulate revealed that the US officials were dragged to their death by peaceful protestersterrorists.

Grim scene: Bloodstains at the main gate believed to be from one of the American staff members of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. (Daily Mail)
It’s hard to know what’s more offensive… That they desecrated the flag, or that they’re pushing a product that reminds Americans of the slaughter in Benghazi?

Tax penalty to hit nearly 6M uninsured people!

AP via Yahoo News ^ | Sept 20, 2012 | RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly 6 million Americans — significantly more than first estimated— will face a tax penalty under President Barack Obama's health overhaul for not getting insurance, congressional analysts said Wednesday. Most would be in the middle class.

The new estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the administration, a reminder of what critics see as broken promises. The numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are 50 percent higher than a previous projection by the same office in 2010, shortly after the law passed. The earlier estimate found 4 million people would be affected in 2016, when the penalty is fully in effect.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...

Out of line?

Posted Image

Attend what?

Posted Image

Briefing?

Posted Image

Prohibition

Posted Image

Unavailable

Posted Image

Take a number!

Posted Image

Another Empty Chair for Biden!

Posted Image

I'm Sorry!

Posted Image

An F-ing Fool!

Posted Image

Wonder what it says!

Posted Image

Yo! Libya!

Posted Image

Pretty Sound?

Posted Image

Not the cause...

Posted Image

Just Think...

Posted Image

Crisis

Posted Image

Empty Chair, AGAIN!

Posted Image

Better Off Today?

Posted Image

MSM Assembles for Obama!

Posted Image

For the Kids?

Posted Image

The Obama you don't know!

washingtonexaminer.com ^ | 9/9/2012 | Mark Tapscott

In an effort to get a clearer picture of Obama -- his shaping influences, his core beliefs, his political ambitions and his accomplishments -- The Washington Examiner conducted a four-month inquiry, interviewing dozens of his supporters and detractors in Chicago and elsewhere, and studying countless court transcripts, government reports and other official documents.
Over the years and in two autobiographies, Obama has presented himself to the world as many things, including radical community organizer, idealistic civil rights lawyer, dynamic reformer in the Illinois and U.S. senates, and, finally, the cool presidential voice of postpartisan hope and change.
With his air of reasonableness and moderation, he has projected a remarkably likable persona. Even in the midst of a historically dirty campaign for re-election, his likability numbers remain impressive, as seen in a recent AP-GFK Poll that found 53 percent of adults have a favorable view of him.
But beyond the spin and the polls, a starkly different picture emerges. It is a portrait of a man quite unlike his image, not a visionary reformer but rather a classic Chicago machine pol who thrives on rewarding himself and his friends with the spoils of public office, and who uses his position to punish his enemies.
Peter Schweizer captures this other Obama with a bracing statistic in his book "Throw Them All Out," published last year. In the Obama economic stimulus program's Department of Energy loans, companies owned and run by Obama contributors and friends, like Solyndra's George Kaiser, received $16.4 billion. Those not linked to the president got only $4.1 billion. The Energy Department is far from the only federal program in which favoritism has heavily influenced federal grants.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...