Friday, November 16, 2012

Another Leftist Admits the Real Goal Is Taxing the Middle Class (The Truth is coming out) ^ | November 16, 2012 | Daniel J. Mitchell

Obama has staked out a very dogmatic and inflexible position on class-warfare tax hikes and he obviously wants all of us to think only the “rich” will be impacted.
I think it’s foolish to penalize investors, entrepreneurs, small business owners and other upper-income taxpayers. What nation, after all, has ever prospered by placing obstacles in front of those who create jobs? France? Don’t make me laugh.
But I’m also amazed that anyone believes Obama isn’t going to screw the middle class as well. The simple reality is that there aren’t enough rich people to finance big government.
There are some honest folks on the left who admit that they want ordinary people on the chopping block.
Now we can add another honest statist to the list. I debated some guy from a left-wing think tank and he wants Obama to push all of us off the fiscal cliff.Dan Mitchell Talking about the Fiscal Cliff and Tax HIkes on CNBC
I think this was a civilized debate, by the way. We both got equal time, and we both had a chance to make our points.
I’m hoping that viewers heard – and understood – these two points.
  1. We don’t need higher taxes since we can balance the budget merely by restraining government spending so that it grows by an average of 2.5 percent per year.
  2. The only budget deal that succeeded (as the New York Times accidentally admitted) was the one in 1997 that cut taxes rather than increasing them.
P.S. If I had to guess, I would say that Obama’s ultimate goal for hurting the middle class is a value-added tax. Notwithstanding the fiscal crisis in Europe, he actually said the VAT is “something that has worked for other countries.”

E-Mail Manners

It is important that whether for business or personal use that you follow the basics of email etiquette. This document covers for you the top tips for email etiquette that everyone needs to be aware of and follow. By doing so you will be a joy to communicate with while being perceived as a caring and intelligent human being.

    Sending Emails

  1. Make sure your e-mail includes a courteous greeting and closing. Helps to make your e-mail not seem demanding or terse.
  2. Address your contact with the appropriate level of formality and make sure you spelled their name correctly.
  3. Spell check - emails with typos are simply not taken as seriously.
  4. Read your email out loud to ensure the tone is that which you desire. Try to avoid relying on formatting for emphasis; rather choose the words that reflect your meaning instead. A few additions of the words "please" and "thank you" go a long way!
  5. Be sure you are including all relevant details or information necessary to understand your request or point of view. Generalities can many times cause confusion and unnecessary back and forths.
  6. Are you using proper sentence structure? First word capitalized with appropriate punctuation? Multiple instances of !!! or ??? are perceived as rude or condescending.
  7. If your email is emotionally charged, walk away from the computer and wait to reply. Review the Sender's email again so that you are sure you are not reading anything into the email that simply isn't there.
  8. If sending attachments, did you ask first when would be the best time to send? Did you check file size to make sure you don't fill the other side's inbox causing all subsequent e-mail to bounce?
  9. Refrain from using the Reply to All feature to give your opinion to those who may not be interested. In most cases replying to the Sender alone is your best course of action.
  10. Make one last check that the address or addresses in the To: field are those you wish to send your reply to.
  11. Be sure your name is reflected properly in the From: field. Jane A. Doe (not jane, jane doe or JANE DOE).
  12. Type in complete sentences. To type random phrases or cryptic thoughts does not lend to clear communication.
  13. Never assume the intent of an email. If you are not sure -- ask so as to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings.
  14. Just because someone doesn't ask for a response doesn't mean you ignore them. Always acknowledge emails from those you know in a timely manner.
  15. Be sure the Subject: field accurately reflects the content of your email.
  16. Don't hesitate to say thank you, how are you, or appreciate your help!
  17. Keep emails brief and to the point. Save long conversations for the old fashioned telephone.
  18. Always end your emails with "Thank you," "Sincerely," "Take it easy," "Best regards" - something!

    Formatting Emails

  19. Do not type in all caps. That's yelling or reflects shouting emphasis.
  20. If you bold your type, know you are bolding your statement and it will be taken that way by the other side - X10!
  21. Do not use patterned backgrounds. Makes your email harder to read.
  22. Stay away from fancy-schmancy fonts -- only the standard fonts are on all computers.
  23. Use emoticons sparingly to ensure your tone and intent are clear.
  24. Typing your emails in all small case gives the perception of lack of education or laziness.
  25. Refrain from using multiple font colors in one email. It makes your email harder to view and can add to your intent being misinterpreted.
  26. Use formatting sparingly. Instead try to rely on choosing the most accurate words possible to reflect your tone and avoid misunderstandings in the process.

    Email Attachments

  27. When sending large attachments, always "zip" or compress them before sending.
  28. Never send large attachments without notice! Always ask what would be the best time to send them first.
  29. Learn how to resample or resize graphics to about 600 pixels in width before attaching them to an email. This will greatly reduce download time.
  30. Never open an attachment from someone you don't know.
  31. Be sure your virus, adware and spyware programs are up to date and include scanning of your emails and attachments both incoming and outgoing.
  32. It is better to spread multiple attachments over several emails rather than attaching them all to one email to avoid clogging the pipeline.
  33. Make sure the other side has the same software as you before sending attachments or they may not be able to open your attachment. Use PDF when possible.

    To, From, CC, BCc, RR, Subject:

  34. Only use Cc: when it is important for those you Cc: to know about the contents of the email. Overuse can cause your emails to be ignored.
  35. Don't use Return Receipt (RR) on every single email. Doing so is viewed as intrusive, annoying and can be declined by the other side anyway.
  36. Include addresses in the To: field for those who you would like a response from.
  37. Include addresses in the Cc: field for those who you are just FYI'ing.
  38. Make sure your name is displayed properly in the From: field.
  39. Remove addresses from the To:, CC; and BCc: field that don't need to see your reply.
  40. Always include a brief Subject. No subject can get your email flagged as spam.
  41. Think about your motives when adding addresses to To:, CC:, BCc. Use your discretion.
  42. Never expose your friend's or contact's email address to strangers by listing them all in the To: field. Use BCc:!
  43. Make sure when using BCc: that your intentions are proper. To send BCc: copies to others as a way of talking behind someone's back is inconsiderate.

    Email Forwarding

  44. Don't forward emails that say to do so--no matter how noble the cause may be. Most are hoaxes or hooey and may not be appreciated by those you send to.
  45. If someone asks you to refrain from forwarding emails they have that right and you shouldn't get mad or take it personally.
  46. When forwarding email, if you cannot take the time to type a personal comment to the person you are forwarding to--then don't bother.
  47. Don't forward anything without editing out all the forwarding >>>>, other email addresses, headers and commentary from all the other forwarders.
  48. If you must forward to more than one person, put your email address in the TO: field and all the others you are sending to in the BCc: field to protect their email address from being published to those they do not know. This is a serious privacy issue!
  49. Be careful when forwarding email on political or controversial issues. The recipient may not appreciate your POV.

    Email and Perception, Privacy, Copyright

  50. Choose your email address wisely. It will determine, in part, how you are perceived.
  51. Try not to make assumptions when it comes to email. Always ask for clarification before you react.
  52. Posting or forwarding of private email is copyright infringement -- not to mention downright rude. You need permission from the author first!
  53. Even though it isn't right; emails are forwarded to others. Keep this in mind when typing about emotional or controversial topics.
  54. When there is a misunderstanding by email, don't hesitate to pick up the old fashioned telephone to work things out!
  55. Know that how you type, and the efforts you make or don't make will indicate what is important to you and if you are an educated courteous person.
  56. If you forward an email that turns out to be a hoax, have the maturity to send an apology follow up email to those you sent the misinformation to.
  57. When filling out a contact form on a Web site, do so carefully and with clarity so your request is taken seriously.
  58. If a friend puts your e-mail address in the To: field with others you do not know, ask them to no longer expose your address to strangers without your permission.

    Business Email

  59. Think of your business email as though it was on your business letterhead and you'll never go wrong!
  60. If you cannot respond to an email promptly, at the very least email back confirming your receipt and when the sender can expect your response.
  61. Emailing site owners about your product or service through the site form is still spam. Ask them if they want more info first!
  62. When replying to emails always respond promptly and edit out unnecessary information from the post you are responding to.
  63. Formality is in place as a courtesy and reflects respect. Assume the highest level of formality with new email contacts until the relationship dictates otherwise. Refrain from getting too informal too soon in your email communications.
  64. Never send anyone an email they need to unsubscribe from when they didn't subscribe in the first place!
  65. Be very careful how you use Reply to All and Cc: in a business environment. Doing so for CYA or to subtlety tattle can backfire and have your viewed as petty or insecure.
  66. When replying to an email with multiple recipients noted in the To: or Cc: fields, remove the addresses of those who your reply does not apply to.
  67. Never send business attachments outside of business hours and confirm that the format in which you can send can be opened by the other side.

    Chat, IM, Texting

  68. Went Texting or participating in IM and Chat, try not to be overly cryptic or your meaning can be misread.
  69. Use Instant Messaging (IM) for casual topics or informational briefs. IM is not the place for serious topics or confrontational issues.
  70. Start by always asking if the person you are IMing is available and if it is a good time to chat. Refrain from IMing during meetings or when your attention is required.
  71. Practice communicating briefly and succinctly.
  72. Always consider if calling the other party on the phone is better when Texting about sensitive topics.
  73. IMing is not an excuse to forget your grade school education.
  74. If you are not a smooth multi-tasker, do not continue multiple IM sessions and leave folks hanging while you communicate with others.
  75. Learn how to use the features of your IM program. Specifically your "busy" and "away" message features.
  76. Never IM under an alias to take a peek at friends' or associates' activities.
  77. Take into consideration who you are communicating with to determine the acronyms and emoticons that should be used - if at all.

    Social Media, Blogs and Forums

  78. Keep in mind when Tweeting, on Facebook or message boards that you are in a global arena.
  79. When discussions get out of control; don't stoop to name-calling or profanities. You are better than that!
  80. In forums, keep your signature file to no more than 2-3 lines.
  81. Keep commercialism to no more than a link at the end of your comment or contribution.
  82. Stay on topic and discuss issues only relative to the thread/topic in question.
  83. If new to a group or forum, "lurk" for awhile to get a feel for the community and personalities of the regulars before you post.
  84. Never give out personal information or specifics to your location on online -- nor should you give out the personal information of others!
  85. Keep in mind there will always be differences of opinion. Try to remain objective and not personalize issues.
  86. Don't fall for trolls. Trolls are folks who will post rude comments just to get a rise out of everyone.
  87. Be sure to down edit, or remove any part of the post you are replying to that is no longer necessary to the ongoing conversation.

    Email Considerations...

  88. Before getting upset because you perceive someone didn't respond, check to see if their reply was inadvertently deleted or sent to your Trash or Junk folder.
  89. With emotionally charged emails, wait until the next morning to see if you feel the same before clicking Send.
  90. Feel free to modify the Subject: field to more accurately reflect a conversation's direction.
  91. When it comes to your email communications, know who you can trust; trust only those you know.
  92. Take the time to review each email before clicking Send to ensure your message is clear and you are relaying the tone that you desire.
  93. Never use an old email to hit reply and start typing about an entirely new topic.
  94. Regardless of how noble a forwarded email may be, don't just forward without investigating its authenticity @
  95. Always add the email addresses of Web sites and new contacts immediately to your approved senders or address book so they get through Spam filters.
  96. Before completing a Web site's Contact form; make an effort to review the site to be sure the information you seek is not already available.
  97. Take a quick look at the e-mails in your Trash before you delete them just in case a good e-mail landed there by mistake.
  98. If any email states to forward to all your friends, or just 5 people -- do everyone a favor and just hit delete!
  99. Don't mass e-mail people who didn't ask to be on your personal "mailing list".
  100. Double check that your adware, spyware and virus programs are set to automatically update at least once each week so the software knows what to protect you from.
  101. And finally... Type unto others as you would have them type unto you!

Simpson-Bowles Say: Obamacare, Host of Other Programs Need Slashing

CNBC ^ | 11/16/2012 | Jeff Cox

CHICAGO — Americans interested in getting the national debt crisis under control likely will have to endure cuts to popular programs like defense, Social Security — and the nationalized health insurance program known as Obamacare.
That's the conclusion of Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, authors of the widely disseminated report commissioned to devise ways to unwind the $16 trillion national debt and $1 trillion-plus government budget deficits.
Speaking in stark terms and folksy language, the duo laid out the dire reality of the situation to 4,000 investors at the Charles Schwab Impact conference Thursday.
"Who the hell is kidding who on what this is going to cost?" Simpson, the former Wyoming senator, said of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare." "We haven't found any constituency yet who wants to cut anything back anywhere."
A persistent lack of support from Washington to get a handle on the debt and deficit problem took focus of much of the pair's remarks.
For Simpson, the problem is especially apparent in health care, which they identified as one of five key areas where debt-reduction has to focus. Congress in 2010 passed President Barack Obama's national health care plan that will go into effect fully in 2014. (Read More: Health Law Has States Feeling Tense Over Deadline)
"This baby is on automatic pilot," he said. "It can't possibly succeed. There is no cost containment in this baby until down the road, and we know what will happen down the road — nothing."
In addition to health care, the other four targeted areas are defense, the tax code — Bowles called it "the most ineffective, inefficient, globally anti-competitive tax code that any man could dream of" — Social Security and compound interest on the debt.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Another Four Years of Failed Obama Economy!

NewsBlaze ^ | 11/16/12 | Nurit Greenger

You voted for it, this is what you are going to live with and you have dragged the rest of the nation with you!

For edification, Marxism is the political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, later developed as the basis for communism. In this social format, the takers win, the government and its cronies, those who control the masses win.

Obama's America is heading toward economics, dictated from above, redistribution and allocation of wealth and resources according to the decisions of a committee of the elite with unified and tyrannical concepts, its members know better than anyone else what is good for the people, and more importantly - what will sustain these guys in power. But it may also yield good results, mainly for Israel, because the Jews now have Jewish homeland to where they can relocate!

Obama's "social justice" won.

Barack Hussein Obama returned triumphantly to the White House after defeating his opponent Mitt Romney in the elections. You cannot blame Romney for not foreseeing the future and his possible defeat. With today's socio- politics data, the way the Republican party conservative values are presented they do not appeal to the American nation. The Republican Party has failed to explain why its values are better for every American so the majority supports and votes for it. Now it is official. The productive America, the innovative, the one full of initiative that encourages those who invest and venture their capital - lost, big time. America's socialism, the labor unions, the suppression of entrepreneurship and innovation and the dependence on welfare systems - won, big time.
Obama's healthcare flagship is a national health system; the pole at the top of this mast is the redistribution of wealth and

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Latino and Black Americans - For God's Sake, WAKE UP!

JEFFHEAD.COM ^ | Nov 15, 2012 | Jeff Head

The pivotal election of 2012 is over. The most liberal, progressive candidate in the history of American politics, with the worst record on the economy in his first term, Barack Hussein Obama, won re-election to a second term by 1.5-2.0% of the vote.
The over-riding segments of the population that enabled his victory were the Black vote (who voted for him by over 90%) and the Latino vote (who voted for him by over 70%).
And they did so, absolutely against their own best interest. Oh, in the short term it can certainly be argued that Obama's campaign of "social justice," and equalizing the playing field from his perspective...which perspective is a socialist, redistribution of wealth perspective at best, and a marxist perspective at worst, is appealing to voters who find themselves as a group in the lower echelons of the American public in terms of employment, family stability, poverty, and crime rates.
When a politician promises specifically to "right these wrongs," and to give these voting blocks "stuff," be it contraceptives, food stamps, a portion of richer people's income, free school loans, easier housing, etc., etc. one can see why people would be tempted to vote for them. And make no mistake, that is exactly what the progressive left is doing, as they have done for decades. Dangling entitlements and free "stuff," in front of people in an effort to buy their vote.
But everything has a we shall see, the cost is horrific for those whose life styles, livelihoods, and social positioning are adversly impacted.
Despite it being hard to look beyond the entitlements and hand-outrs, it is all the more important to examine the record of the politicians promising such things. Pewrhaps they do so to hide their actual record. What they have actually done (or not done) for these constituencies, is critical to determine before making a decision as to who should lead this nation and address ts economic and social problems.
This nation spends over a trillion dollars on welfare every year. Since the inception of "Great Society" under Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s, this nation has spent tens of trillions of dollars at the behest of the progressive left to try and "equalize," things by "giving" away money, perqs, food stamps, house loans, school loans, etc., etc.
Have things improved?
No, they have not.
By abandoning the time honored and proven methods of hard work, personal accountability and responsibility, advancement due to merit, and the natural competiveness and reward of the free market, these socialist policies have and are failing here in the United States...and failing miserably...just like they have every where else on earth they have been attempted.
The ultimate outcome will be less for all, poverty for more and more, bankruptcy for the nation, and less and less wealth in the hands of the people as a whole, and more and more wealth and power in the hands of progressive government politicians and appoitnees who will live like kings and queens as they "govern" the rest of us. For example, take Barack and Michelle Obama. As President and the 1st Lady, in 2011, their upkeep, outside of official duties in the office of the Presidnecy cost the US taxpayers 1.4 billion dollars alone!.
And while they live like royalty (which Americans fought to gain their independence from in the 1770s and 1780s), here are the brutal statistics for Latinos and Blacks regarding major demographics that they experience day in and day out in the society created by the progressive liberal left:


Blacks: 14.3%
Latinos: 10.0%
Whites: 7.0%

Blacks: 27.3%
Latinos: 25.6%
Whites: 9.8%

DIVORCE RATES: (1st time marriages) (3)
Blacks: 30.1 %
Latino: 18.1%
Whites: 16.3%

CRIME RATES: (Commission) (4)
Blacks: 1.33%
Whites: 0.47%

CRIME RATES: (Victim) (5)
Blacks: 2.30%
Latinos: 2.00%
Whites: 1.10%

Blacks: 31%
Latinos: 47%
Whites: 13% Asian/Other: 9%
Thjese are the results of what Barack Hussein Obama has presided over. A man who took a wholly preventable and manufactured economic crisis in 2008...which crisis was predominantly a result of these same failed policies...and then made it worse between 2008 and 2012.
All of this simply goes to show the abject failure of the progressive, leftists policies that Obama has presided over, and which he will increase in his next four years. The very policies the Black and Latino populations are suffering under...and which they voted for in overwhelming numbers.

Like a watchman on the wall, the the warning bell must be tolled. Yes, "WAKE UP FELLOW AMERICANS!" Do not succumb to the promise of free "stuff," and social equalization promised by politicians who have failed to improve the lot and standard of living and way of life for the very people they claim to help. They have no intention of "helping," they have every intention of "controlling." They want to ensure permanent voting blocks, taking advantage of people in these bad circumstances...which circumstances they themselves have created and then continually promises to "fix"...a fix which never comes.
They never intend for it to. In fact, the only "fix" is that the "fix is in."
Awaken to your dilema and divorce yourselves from the Pied Piper mentality these leftist politicians and race baiters, and divisive, class envy promoters are peddling!
Instead, hold fast to the time honored traditions and values we all hold dear as Americans...depending on our God and ourselves to provide as best we can for ourselves, and depending on families, our churches, and private charitable organizations to help when in need...and not a government and politicans who want to use the needy for their own ends. No longer listen to or give credence to the absolutely misleading, illogic of the progressive left.
Faith in God, strong families, hard work, personal responsibility, honesty, integrity, the free market, and a reliance on our unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the keys. No one can "give you," happiness. You must use these fundamental values and then pursue and find it for yourselve! THAT is the promise of America...that you are free to do so.
...and this does not even begin to discuss the 100% moral turnaround this President made on marriage, the most critical and imporant institution in our society, the destruction and demeaning of which adversely impacts every one of those demographich measurements mentioned (and a lot more) listed above. President Barrack Obama stated as the President of the United States, that marirage should be defined as including two men or two women instead of the Biblically revealed and clear principle that marriage, ordained of God, is between a man and a woman.
Beware any man or woman or party that promises a quick fix for you on the backs of others. Or promises that your "special interests," no matter how perverse, will be included as the norm for society. Such politicians are snake oil salesmen of the worst sort and their attempts to use class envy, a promise of free stuff, and thier power in government to force these things are nothing but a deceit and lie to empower themselves at your expense.
God bless America, and God bless her people to turn to Him and His time-honored and proven moral and societal values for our hope and for our success!
Remember, 2014 and then 2016 are coming! How and who you vote for makes a difference...a real difference that has impact beyond the rhetoric and platitudes. Vote for an impact that will allow YOU tp improve your life and that of your children and grandchildren. Vote for self determination, for personal responsibility and accountability, and for real promise...promise that leads to success and your own personal improvement and that of your family, neighbors and friends...and away from this endless captivity and morass.
Jeff Head
Emmett, Idaho
  1. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Oct. 2012, Summary Table A
  2. US Census Bureau Report, Nov. 2012, Table 3
  3. Science Daily News, Dec. 2011
  4. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners 2010, Appendix Tbl 15, Dec 2011, Updated Feb 2012.
  5. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization 2011, Appendix Tbl 5, Oct 2012
  6. FBI GAng Member Statistics, April 2012 Update

See Also:

Liberated Iraq calls on Arab states to use oil as 'weapon' against U.S.

A top Iraqi diplomat urged Arab states to “use the weapon of oil” against the United States because of its alliance with Israel, raising more questions about the Middle Eastern nation's allegiance to the nation that freed it from a ruthless dictatorship.
The shocking statement from a democratic government in power only after the U.S. and allies ousted murderous dictator Saddam Hussein in a costly and bloody war laid bare the Middle Eastern nation’s true allegiance.
"Iraq will invite (Arab) ministers to use the weapon of oil, with the aim of asserting real pressure on the United States and whoever stands with Israel," Qais al-Azzawy told reporters in Cairo on Friday.

"Iraq will invite (Arab) ministers to use the weapon of oil, with the aim of asserting real pressure on the United States and whoever stands with Israel."
- Iraqi diplomat

"The economic weapon is the strongest one to be put into effect now, to assure of standing by the Palestinian people, in light of there being no military power that can stand in the face of Israel at the present time,” he added.
The U.S. ousted Hussein, ending his bloody, 30-year reign in 2003 in the midst of a controversial and costly war. Nearly 4,500 American service members were killed and more than 32,000 wounded in a war that has cost U.S. taxpayers at least $750 billion. That figure could top $1 trillion given future health costs incurred by veterans injured in the fighting.
The oil-rich nation has by some measures the world’s third-largest reserves and, along with Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia and Libya, provides the U.S. only about 13 percent of its oil, according to the Energy Information Administration. But Arab oil producers wield tremendous influence on world prices through OPEC.
Iraq is standing with Hamas and Palestinians in the ongoing strife between them and Israel. The fighting accelerated after Israel launched its operation “Pillar of Defense” last week, aimed at stopping frequent rocket attacks that rain down from Gaza. At least 422 rockets from Gaza have been fired at Israel, whose Iron Dome defense system has intercepted 130, according to the Israel Defense Forces said. The al-Qassam Brigade, Hamas' military arm, said on its Twitter feed that it had shot 527 projectiles at Israel in that time.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has at times been critical of the U.S., and has in recent years raised alarms over his increasingly close relationship with Iran.
The sharp words from the Iraqi diplomat came just as Iraq released a commander of the Lebanese terror group Hezbollah, despite assurances to U.S. it would not do so.
Florida Rep. Gus Bilirakis, (R-Fla.), who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the statement shows the U.S. must stand by Israel while working toward energy independence.
“As sirens sound over Israel, we must not forget the millions of Israelis who live under the constant threat of rocket attacks from Gaza. Israel’s right to defend itself is fundamental, and U.S. policy must continue to support this," Bilirakis said. "I have long advocated for energy independence in the United States, and I firmly believe this to be more true now than ever before.”

Read more:

Intel officials unable to say who changed CIA talking points on Libya, lawmaker says!

Former CIA Director David Petraeus stoked the controversy over the Obama administration's handling of the Libya terror attack, testifying that references to "Al Qaeda involvement" were stripped from his agency's original talking points -- while other intelligence officials were unable to say who changed the memo, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told Fox News that intelligence officials who testified in a closed-door hearing a day earlier said they did not know who changed the talking points. He said they went out to multiple departments, including the State Department, National Security Council, Justice Department and White House.
"I'd say it was somebody in the administration had to have taken it out," King told Fox News. "That to me, has to be pursued."
Watch the full interview with King on Fox News at 2:30 p.m. ET.
Petraeus left Capitol Hill around noon, after testifying in private hearings before the House and Senate intelligence committees.
In his wake, Republicans and Democrats battled over whether his testimony should raise more suspicions about the administration's handling of the attack.
King and other Republicans indicated they still have plenty of questions about the aftermath of the strike.
"No one knows yet exactly who came up with the final version of the talking points," he said.
Petraeus' testimony both challenges the Obama administration's repeated claims that the attack was a "spontaneous" protest over an anti-Islam video, and according to King conflicts with his own briefing to lawmakers on Sept. 14. Sources have said Petraeus, in that briefing, also described the attack as a protest that spun out of control.
"His testimony today was that from the start, he had told us that this was a terrorist attack," King said, adding that he told Petraeus he had a "different recollection."
Still, the claim that the CIA's original talking points were changed is sure to stoke controversy on the Hill.
"The original talking points were much more specific about Al Qaeda involvement. And yet the final ones just said indications of extremists," King said, adding that the final version was the product of a vague "inter-agency process."
Further, King said a CIA analyst specifically told lawmakers that the Al Qaeda affiliates line "was taken out."
Lawmakers are focusing on the talking points issue because of concern over the account U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice gave on five Sunday shows on Sept. 16, when she repeatedly claimed the attack was spontaneous -- Rice's defenders have since insisted she was merely basing her statements on the intelligence at the time.
The suggestion that the intelligence was altered raised questions about who altered it, with King asking if "the White House changed the talking points."
One source told Fox News that Petraeus "has no idea what was provided" to Rice or who was the author of the talking points she used.
"He had no idea she was going on talk shows" until the White House announced it one or two days before, the source said.
While Petraeus resigned last Friday over an extra-marital affair, his testimony Friday was expected to focus on Libya as opposed to personal matters. King said it barely came up, and only when Petraeus was asked if the affair and investigation had any impact on his testimony on Libya. "He said no," King said.
The pressure was on Petraeus to set the record straight, after other top intelligence officials struggled a day earlier to explain why their initial talking points after the Libya attack minimized the role of militant groups.
Lawmakers on the House and Senate intelligence committees heard testimony Thursday in private meetings with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Acting CIA Director Mike Morell. But Fox News was told there were heated exchanges on the House side, particularly over the talking points that administration officials relied on in the days after the Sept. 11 strike.
Fox News was told that neither Clapper nor Morell knew for sure who finalized that information. And they could not explain why they minimized the role of a regional Al Qaeda branch as well as the militant Ansar al-Sharia despite evidence of their involvement.
Further, Fox News was told Morell was pushed to explain why, during a Sept. 14 briefing, Petraeus seemed wedded to the explanation that the attack was in response to an anti-Islam video. Morell apparently said he wasn't at that briefing and had nothing further to add.
Lawmakers continue to express concerns on several fronts -- on whether warnings in the months preceding Sept. 11 were ignored, and on why the administration first insisted the attack was a "spontaneous" act.
Rice has been the focal point of that criticism. Obama, though, in his first post-election press conference Wednesday, called the criticism "outrageous" and told those lawmakers to "go after me" instead.
California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff also came to Rice's defense Thursday, saying after the House intelligence committee hearing that Rice was given the intelligence community's "best assessment" at the time.
"Those who have suggested that Ambassador Rice was politicizing the intelligence or misrepresenting what the intelligence community was putting forward as its best assessment are either unfamiliar with the facts, or willfully disregarding them," he said.
Fox News' Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.

Read more:

"The List", Obama Voter Fraud! ^ | 11/15/2012 | Nachum

Obama Voter Fraud

Obama’s war on energy is a war on jobs: Natural gas gives the economy much-needed boost!

The Washington Times ^ | November 15, 2012 | William C. Triplett II

Three hours west of Washington, D.C., U.S. Route 50 emerges from the West Virginia forest in a gentle curve. On the south side of the highway rises an enormous natural gas drilling rig. To its left and slightly behind it is a gas separation plant under construction. This is the “wet gas” portion of the Marcellus shale-gas play that underlies Appalachia. The separation plant will divide the wet gas into propane, pentane, butane and the like. In front of the rig and closest to the highway is a kind of filling station with color-coded fittings instead of hoses on the pumps. When it’s completed, 40 tanker trucks a day will pull up and load the various gases for delivery to plants up the chemistry food chain.
Watching over this process was a man about 50 years old in a new but dusty white pickup. He’s the site-preparation foreman, there to make certain everything is squared away properly. Natural gas drilling is a second career for him. He worked for many years in the aluminum plant in Ravenswood, W.V., until it closed. He’s visibly tired because he’s been working hard, probably with a lot of overtime, but for once in his life, he is making excellent wages and benefits. During the summer, he got a little time off and took his wife deep-sea fishing off Myrtle Beach, S.C.
Since the end of World War II, there have been three economic revolutions: the jet engine, integrated circuits (modern electronics) and the Internet, all of them either invented by or developed by Americans. A monthlong, 5,000-mile journey by four-wheel-drive pickup through the back roads of the Marcellus in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio, the Bakken in northern North Dakota and the Eagle Ford in South Texas...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama's Jonestowns

The American Thinker ^ | November 16, 2012 | Jack Cashill

At first, the numbers seemed too absurd to be true: did Mitt Romney really receive zero votes in 59 Philadelphia voting districts? Did Barack Obama really outpoll him by a combined 19,605 to 0 votes cast in these 59 districts.

.......Obama was producing nearly comparable numbers in inner-cities throughout America, especially those in contested states.

Worse than fraud is the process that turned nearly 20,000 black Philadelphians -- and millions of inner-city dwellers throughout the country -- into automatons. Hope does not produce this kind of regimentation. Fear does. In looking at these numbers, in fact, one can begin to see how, 34 years ago this Sunday, in the jungles of Guyana, Jim Jones was able to persuade 918 of his followers, most of them poor and black, to drink their lethal Kool-Aid. Fear can do that.
Not surprisingly, it was while at college -- Indiana U -- that Jim Jones got his first injection of Marx, and he was hooked from the beginning. Given that promoting communism in 1950's Indianapolis held about as much promise as promoting traditional marriage in contemporary San Francisco, Jones took another tack. "I decided how can I demonstrate my Marxism," he would recount years later. "The thought was 'infiltrate the church.'"
In 1955 he and his wife Marceline did just that, opening the Peoples Temple Christian Church in Indianapolis. Here, Jones embarked on a second strategy, this one a proven winner in Communist circles: exploit America's Achilles heel, racial injustice. This he did as well, recruiting hundreds of Christian blacks and then subtly shifting their focus from Jesus to Marx, all the while reinforcing their fear of White America. In 1965, he moved the whole shebang to Ukiah, about 100 miles north of San Francisco up Highway 101.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

There's A Lot More To The Stock Market Sell-Off Than The Fiscal Cliff

TBI ^ | 11-16-2012 | Comstock Partners

While the fiscal cliff problem has absorbed almost all of the financial media comment since the election, there's a lot more to the stock market decline that has virtually gotten lost in the discussion. The market actually topped on September 14th and has trended down ever since. Most importantly, the U.S. economy was a lot weaker than the consensus believes before Hurricane Sandy became a factor. In addition Fed policy is becoming increasingly ineffectual, earnings forecasts are coming down, Europe is officially in recession and China, as well as the other BRIC nations, is slowing down.
Although nobody knows the outcome of the fiscal cliff situation, it is likely to be settled, if not before year-end, then in the first part of 2013. However, even if this happens, the solution will probably entail some combination of lower government spending and increased revenues----in other words, a tightening of fiscal policy. While a solution is surely better than a continuation of confrontation, a tightening of fiscal policy creates further headwinds for the economy in the shorter term. Moreover, an agreement on the fiscal cliff does not solve all of the other serious problems facing the economy and the market.
Most serious of these problems is the U.S. economy itself. Although it may be doing better than most other countries, that is damning it with faint praise. Specifically, the highly-touted consumer recovery, when examined closely, is built on quicksand. Yes, after lagging earlier in the year, real consumer expenditures has jumped by 0.9% over the last three months. However, during that period real disposable income actually declined by 0.2%.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

On the bright side...

Posted Image

Loving vs. Hateful

Posted Image

Hot News

Posted Image

True Love

Posted Image

Doing the DOUGIE!

Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image

All Clear!

Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image

No Body Died...

Posted Image

So Moral

Posted Image

The Real Threat

Posted Image

Too Much?

Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image

Superman Reporter

Posted Image

No Big Deal!

Posted Image

Going Out Of Business

Posted Image

How's That Obamacare Waiver Workin' Out for Ya? ^ | November 16, 2012 | Michelle Malkin

Exactly two years ago this week, the Obama administration announced it had issued more than 100 waivers en masse to a select group of companies, unions and other health insurance providers seeking relief from the onerous federal health care law. The Obamacare waiver winner's club now totals 2,000. Where are they now?

Answer: In the same miserable boat as every other unlucky business struggling with the crushing costs and burdens of the mandate.

Among the first and most prominent recipients of the Obamacare waivers for favors were large restaurant chains that provide low-wage, seasonal and part-time workers with low-cost health insurance plans called "mini-med" plans. An estimated 1.7 million workers benefit from such plans.

Obamacare forced companies carrying such coverage to raise their minimum limits on coverage to no less than $750,000 annually. Another Obamacare provision forces all employers to spend at least 80 percent to 85 percent of their premium revenue on medical care.

The social justice Democrats' goal was to dictate insurance provider spending not just on coverage amounts, but also on executive salaries, marketing and other costs. The regulation punished companies with mini-med plans whose high administrative costs were due to frequent worker turnover and relatively low spending on claims -- not "greed." Complying with the provision would have meant tens of thousands of low-income workers would lose their benefits altogether.

Darden Restaurants, the Florida-based parent company of Olive Garden, LongHorn Steakhouse, Red Lobster and other chains, was a member of the Obamacare waiver early bird special. Their get-out-of-Obamacare card helped spare the company's health insurance benefits for nearly 34,000 employees. Breathing a sigh of relief that it would allow chains to continue offering all employees access to affordable health insurance, Darden said in a statement in the fall of 2010 that "the waiver allows us to continue to do that as the various phases of the health care law are implemented."
Fast-forward to 2012. Darden announced last month that it would begin shifting full-time workers to part-time status to save money, cut health costs and circumvent Obamacare's coverage mandate scheduled for full implementation in 2014. The move would reduce full-time employees' hours to less than 30 hours a week; part-time workers are exempt from the insurance mandate. McDonald's, another big Obamacare waiver recipient, is considering the same move.
In fact, a survey of members of the Chain Restaurant Compensation Association (CRCA) conducted last year by Hay Group reported that a whopping 77 percent of "quick serve" restaurant operators said they were considering reducing employee hours to change their status from full-time to part-time. At least one Denny's restaurant franchise owner in Florida is cutting hours and has openly contemplated an Obamacare surcharge. Jimmy John's and Papa John's are also slashing work hours. Applebee's is mulling a freeze on both hiring and expansion.
"There's no such thing as a free lunch" is a race-neutral truth. But economically illiterate Obama supporters have now called for boycotts of these businesses and accused them of vengeful "racism" against the president. Instead of sympathy and gratitude for private businesses trying to do right by their workers, customers and shareholders, the corporate-bashers inundated Twitter this week with profanity-laced condemnations of the restaurant service industry. One protester tweeted: "@Applebees Your CEO is a racist piece of (redacted), he not hiring because Obama was elected...U WILL LOSE CUSTOMERS."
"Red Lobster, Olive Garden (are) using Obama re-election as an excuse to deny employees benefits and living wages," Jon Marquis fumed.
Twitter user Daphine Walker sent unhinged, ungrammatical messages to Red Lobster and Olive Garden in all-caps: "I WILL NEVER SPEND ANOTHER CENT ON THIS RACIST COMPANY WHO DOESNT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THEIR EMPLOYEES."
The CEO of Red Lobster and Olive Garden is black. But no matter. Regardless of the actual facts, economic realities and entirely predictable and inevitable consequences of command-and-control government mandates, it's always about identity politics for the Obama grievance mob. In good times and bad, the left never grants waivers from the race card.

Where to Adjust, Where to Stand Firm ^ | November 16, 2012 | Mark Davis

The proper path for the Republican party lies somewhere between changing our entire agenda and standing steadfastly on everything. Opinions will differ on the best way forward, as we have seen in the week and a half since the sucker punch of Election Day.
Most conservatives seem to be coping well. We spent a lot of time during the campaign wondering if America as we recognize it would survive a second Obama term. Ever the pragmatists, we now seem committed to doing our part to minimize the damage.
But as we seek to mitigate the harmful effects of Obama 2.0 on our nation, we simultaneously look inward, for answers on how to win back the White House on Election Day 2016 (which is November 8, but who’s counting?)
Does that involve moderating our positions? Surrendering our core values? Or simply repackaging the positions we have always taken?
I believe it depends on the issue.
Let’s begin with the complete folly of cashing in the chips of conservatism. There are plenty of moderates in the party who would love nothing more than to see the whole Republican structure move toward them, zipping its lips on social issues, tossing the belief that America can be a force for good around the world and softening that harsh notion that spending and taxes are abhorrently high.
I believe parties should stand for something. I don’t see Democrats wringing their hands in extended introspections about moving toward the middle. Especially in this era, the left doubles down on its ideology and dares opponents to prove them wrong at the ballot box.
I confess a grudging respect for this-- not ideologically, but strategically. Centrist Democrats have a choice: find a way to back a party that recognizes its job is the purveyance of liberalism, or go be Republicans.
I would make the same offer to any Republican bellyaching about how far right the party has tacked. Are they kidding? After FDR and LBJ twisted the national rudder toward the expansionism that still poisons us, it will take three Reagans to turn it back around.
The ascendancy of the tea party-- or, as it should now be known, consistent conservatism-- is just the beginning of what will be necessary fort generations if we are to ever return to the size and scope of government the founders would smile on.
The only way to walk that path, of course, is to actually win elections. This is achieved by crafting an agenda that is attractive to a majority of voters, and hitching that agenda to candidates who give it a voice that attracts new adherents while repelling as few as possible.
The cruel reality of the election of 2012 is the millions of voters who agree with many Republican ideas but voted for Obama anyway, or did not vote at all. Success is found in compelling these people to vote for us.
Many are already socially conservative, especially in minority communities. The message of protecting the unborn and standing up for heterosexual marriage is a winner, not only in conservative America, but in middle America.
It is crazy that we actually have to teach Civics 101 to millions of people, but if we do, we do. So get ready to spend four years telling people that while our candidates are going to be socially conservative, abortion and gay marriage are properly settled in the states, not the Oval Office, and from abortions to contraception, their availability is not a White House issue, but who pays for it is. Then we pivot to things that are a President’s daily concern.
National security and the economy are at the top of that list. It is impossible to know how war-weary America will be in 2016, but we can never mitigate our high ground as the party that seeks to speak truth to evil around the world. I pray it will not take an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel or another 9/11 to open our eyes to the dangers of losing our focus in this regard.
There can always be thoughtful debate over where to mobilize American troops and how to maximize the deterrent effect of our defense spending. But there should be no doubt that our party, and our 2016 nominee, will have no more of “leading from behind” or further mortgaging the American leadership role which has made the world safer for well over a century.
While that is a message seasoned over the passage of years, we face a fast-approaching economic turnstile which could define the party for most of the days until the off-year vote of 2014, if not the entire remaining Obama presidency.
Amid all the shrill talk of fiscal “cliffs,” clarity is vital: Republicans either are, or are not, willing to cave in to people who say some of us are not taxed enough and we do not spend enough.
We must say no to such obscenity. We can talk all day, or all year, about how to package this so that women or voters of color or the youngsters will grasp why we do this, but along the way we simply cannot compromise on this. Pollster and word maven Frank Luntz will tell you that “wasteful Washington spending” is a term that will get three-quarters of America to nod in approval. It is about time we find a way to skillfully connect with those people.
So is there no issue that is ripe for reconsideration? Is our entire mission to stay the course ideologically, but repackage?
Apparently not.
There is a growing choir in American conservatism that is changing a few pages in the hymnal. We are realizing that on the issue of immigration, the familiar strains of mass deportation are getting us clobbered.
Much of the criticism is grossly dishonest. From strong borders to deporting lawbreakers to refusing to invite further illegals with the DREAM Act or guest worker programs, there is not one shred of hostility toward Hispanics or immigrants in general.
Conservative opposition has been based on the rule of law. We have turned our heads as millions have streamed illegally into a country that cannot afford to absorb them. Forgiving and forgetting are hard under such circumstances.
But that is apparently what large majorities want to do, and they are not all liberal. From a business community that values the labor force, to a broad slice of the public that cannot stomach banishing those who have come here for a better life, America clearly wants to find a way to allow illegals to work and raise families along a path to citizenship.
So we have a choice. If we stick with the idea of rounding up every illegal alien and shipping them back to their mother countries, complete with their America-loving teenagers with 4.0 grade-point averages, we will commit electoral suicide.
But this is not like the morally-based social issues, where laxitude is out of the question, or economic issues, where to compromise is to slit the nation’s fiscal throat.
As a nation, we can have whatever immigration laws we like. I have spent years backing serious consequences for violating America’s borders, and I do not easily give ground on that view.
But there is a deal I am willing to strike.
My opposition to guest worker programs and the DREAM Act and various other gifts to illegals has been the certain magnet they will create for future millions who will follow in their footsteps.
Only one thing will stop that. Only one thing can allow principled conservatives to seek common ground on a path to accommodate illegals who are already here.
That is a border that actually means something.
This is a tall order. It may require vast increases in border patrol, or long miles of walls, real or virtual. We can start talking about that right now.
But if the talk is serious, and unencumbered by the nonsense that even strong borders are somehow anti-Hispanic or anti-immigrant, maybe we can find consensus on what to do with the illegals who are here already.
For too long, we have ignored our immigration laws to curry favor with Latinos and liberals of every other race. If we want to change those laws so that they can be respected again, let the process begin with a border that does what borders are supposed to do.
Once we achieve this, we may well want to make it easier to immigrate legally. If we are actually beginning to stem the tide of new illegals, that is well worth considering, as long as we are making clear that the path to citizenship for past illegals will involve some consequences, some taxes or penalties and an obligation to assimilate through English proficiency.
This complete package creates a landscape of laws that can be widely respected and actually enforced. And it could be part of a message that will open the door for millions of voters of every race and age and sex, to consider Republicans they would otherwise reject.

The Audacity of 51% -Get ready for higher taxes and no spending reform!

WSJ ^ | 11-16-12 | james taranto

Dennis Van Roekel, president of the teachers union that styles itself the National Education Association, told the network: "I brought the message that, number one, it's important that we let the Bush tax cuts disappear for the wealthiest 2%. As we're looking for a $1.2 trillion solution, $829 billion takes us a long way there."

Do you see the problem here? The annual budget deficit has been running at around $1.2 trillion. (The Hill reports the deficit for October alone was $120 billion.) Raising taxes on "the wealthiest 2%," it is estimated, would increase government revenues $829 billion over a DECADE. When Van Roekel says the tax hike "takes us a long way there," he's off by an order of magnitude.

The president's answer is still more massive, job-killing tax increases:

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama vows not to forget storm victims rebuilding [Lying sack o' crap alert]

Houston Chronicle ^ | November 16, 2012 | Matthew Daly

President Barack Obama vowed Thursday to stick with New Yorkers still struggling 17 days after Superstorm Sandy "until the rebuilding is complete" after getting an up-close look at devastated
neighborhoods rendered unlivable.
Obama brought the spotlight to people still without heat or electricity and hugged many of those trying to rebuild their lives. He also delivered a postelection message of unity, nine days after a closely divided America gave him a second term.
"During difficult times like this, we're reminded that we're bound together and we have to look out for each other," Obama said from a Staten Island street that was demolished by the storm. "And a lot of the things that seem important, the petty differences, melt away."
Obama announced that Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan, a former chief of a New York housing agency, will be his point person to oversee long-term redevelopment in the region.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Sen. Coburn's Report Exposes DOD's Wasteful, Non-Defense Spending

The New American ^ | 11/15/2012 | Bob Adelmann

Following his office’s publishing of his annual Wastebook last month, Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has now released another oversight report, this one exploring waste and “non-defense” spending in the Department of Defense (DOD), entitled the “Department of Everything.”

In his Wastebook Coburn concluded that “all the outrageous and wasteful contents of this report were made possible by either the action or lack of action of Congress, earning it the well-deserved but unwanted distinction as the biggest waste of taxpayer money in 2012.” Right behind the Congress, however, is the Department of Defense, which has been spending taxpayer monies on projects, programs, and plans not related to the DOD’s primary function: defending the Republic.
Although he thinks potential savings could exceed $70 billion over the next 10 years if all of his suggestions were implemented, he also says that his report has just skimmed the surface, and savings could be much larger. He stated,
I prepared this report because the American people expect the Pentagon’s $600 billion annual budget to go toward our nation’s defense.
That isn't happening. Billions of defense dollars are being spent on programs and missions that have little or nothing to do with national security, or are already being performed by other government agencies. Spending more on grocery stores than guns doesn’t make any sense. And using defense dollars to run microbreweries, study Twitter slang, create beef jerky, or examine Star Trek does nothing to defend our nation.
These are actual programs he and his staff uncovered by asking three simple questions:
• Does the mission of this program or agency directly relate to the mission of the Department of Defense?
• Does another federal agency or government or private entity already provide the services provided by this program or agency?
• Could these resources be better targeted towards higher priority defense needs, such as taking care of troops on the front lines or reducing our $16 trillion national debt?
What he and his staff found was merely a smattering, a skimming, a “starting point for reviewing Pentagon spending that is unnecessary, wasteful or simply not related to defense.” He calls this wasteful spending a “rising tide of the red [ink] menace.” Here is some of what they uncovered:
$6 billion spent on non-military research and development. These are research projects that have little or nothing to do with national defense, according to the report.
$15.2 billion spent on education. These include programs to educate children of military families in the US, as well as programs that duplicate the work of the Department of Education and local school districts. It also includes college funding for military members on active duty and duplicates the work of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
$700 million spent on developing “alternative energy.” This includes duplicative and unnecessary alternative energy research being done by the Department of Energy.
$9 billion spent on supporting stateside grocery stores. This includes Pentagon-run grocery stores here in the United States.
$37 billion spent on “overhead, support and supply service” unrelated to the DOD’s primary purpose. This includes more than 300,000 members of the military service performing civilian-type jobs.
For example, the DOD invested part of its budget in more than 100 renewable energy-related projects in 2010, even more than the Department of Energy itself, and with similar results: “Many of these DOD renewable energy projects were so poorly planned, they failed to be cost effective or even produce [any] power, wasting millions of national security dollars.”
The DOD duplicated work done by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), doing research “into the very same diseases already being studied by [them].”
The DOD also duplicated work done by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). From the report:
For example, the Navy recently funded research examining what the behavior of fish can teach us about democracy while also developing an app to alert iPhone users when the best time is to take a coffee break.
The Air Force Office of Scientific Research funded a study last year examining how to make it easier to produce silk from wild [silkmoth] cocoons in Africa and South America.
Both the Navy and the Air Force funded a study that concluded people in New York use different jargon on Twitter than those living in California.
And the DOD is willing to share its “expertise” in naming streams, mountains, hills, and plains across the country. Officials from the department are serving on the Board of Geographic Names, with one of them serving as vice-chairman.
It also is making sure that local school children are getting their fruits and vegetables:
The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) has provided fresh fruits and vegetables to local schools in coordination with the Department of Agriculture through a program called DOD Fresh for nearly twenty years, spending more than $66 million in Fiscal Year 2010 [alone].
And the DOD sponsored a “Grill It Safe” cooking video featuring two “Grill” sergeants illustrating their own special “delicious recipes suitable for cooking outdoors.”
It goes on: The DOD owns and operates its own microbreweries and liquor stores and sponsors motivational talks such as “The Everest Challenge” where outside speakers bring messages “about how to overcome the obstacles in life.” There’s a “ropes” course designed to foster “communication, trust and social/emotional learning skills,” and “Adventure Dynamics,” a one-day class at Camp Murray which “fosters the development and understanding of three important human skills: commitment, self-confidence and teamwork.”
While it may be argued that such training might be helpful in some way for members of the military, these courses were for state and local police officers. Said the report: “It is not clear why the Department of Defense should use its resources to pay for…non-military local law enforcement.”
As outrageous some of these programs may be, what’s particularly annoying is that, even if each of these programs were reined in or eliminated altogether, the savings would only amount to about one percent of the DOD’s budget. Who knows what else could be cut if empire-building wars were ended and troop deployments (still in place 68 years after the end of the Second World War) were returned home? As recently as the year 2000, the DOD budget was half what it is today. Bringing it back into line would free up $300 billion annually to apply against the national debt.
Maybe Coburn’s report will begin the conversation about just what the DOD’s role ought to be.

When Attacked Expect Israel To Implement The Limbaugh Doctrine!

The Ignorant ^ | November 15, 2012 | DJP I.F.

When the present world in which we are living in is becoming extremely more hostile and aggressive towards Israel - especially of late with Egypt and Iran breathing threats and her border enemies following suit - DO NOT expect to see Israel idly stand by and let the world decide their fate and eradicate them from off of the face of the earth. Israel is a military might in that region with nukes and is armed to the teeth. They have one of the best armies in the world and have been veterans since 1948. As the world continues its anti-Semitic agenda they will one day choose to look the other way and allow Israel’s enemies in that region to grossly cross the line with Israel. It will BE THEN that Israel - in the reaction of self defense and national survival – WILL FINALLY strike back with great fury and military might. It will be at this time that Israel will TOTALLY institute the "Limbaugh Doctrine" against their border enemies and absolutely secure their borders. They will obliterate and wipe out their border enemies unto the point that they will achieve finally complete safety and security (Ezek. 38:8, 11-12). Israel will bring about their “own” peace - for a short while until the rise of the Anti Messiah (Zech. 13:8-9, Rev. 12, 13) and the world at that time will be forced to recognize it (Ezek. 38:8,11-12). .
It will be at this time that Israel will TOTALLY institute the "Limbaugh Doctrine" against their border enemies and absolutely secure their borders.
It will be after Israel's application of the "Limbaugh Doctrine" that a man from Europe will rise up, broker a deal and lend his might to a covenant (peace treaty) on behalf of Israel’s greatly DEFEATED enemies. This European leader will enter into a seven year covenant with Israel not from a position of dominance but rather from a position of weakness (Dan. 9:27, Rev. 6:2). The prophetic wheels are in motion to the point of fulfillment. As we look out of our "present day" window, all is being set around us to bring in these fulfilling “End Time" events.
As we look out of our "present day" window, all is being set around us to bring in these fulfilling “End Time" events.
As we draw closer to that FINAL HOUR, expect Israel’s demonic wrathful psychotic enemies to continue to rage and fight AGAINST Israel and their right to existence in the world (Zech. 12:2-4,14:2-4, Luke 4:5-6, Eph. 2:1-3, Rev 12, 16;13-16), all the while knowing that Israel can NEVER be eradicated - (2 Sam. 7:24, 1 Chr. 17:22, Jer. 31:35-36, Rom. 9-11) and driven out of their land again, even when the Anti Christ wages his ALL OUT war on Israel and establishes his seat there - in the last 3 ½ years called the GREAT tribulation - yet he will still fail, but Israel will abide FOREVER (Dan. 11:45, Zech. 12:2-4,14, 2 Thess. 2:8, Rev. 19:19-20)!
The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!

Best Foot Forward? ^ | November 16, 2012 | Mona Charen

Our large cruise ship sailed within view of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as a gathering of conservatives sponsored by National Review magazine considered the wreckage of the 2012 election. Most of the writers and commentators on board agreed with Ralph Reed of the Faith and Freedom Coalition that the last thing conservatives need to do now is to form a "circular firing squad." But lessons must be learned.
Was Mitt Romney, as some suggested, "our best foot forward" -- a highly intelligent, photogenic, generous, public-spirited, articulate man of great integrity whose loss can only be chalked up to the poor judgment of 2012's voters? Or was he, as Midge Decter described him, "the sort of person you'd love to have as your next door neighbor," but who couldn't inspire political passion?
Certainly Romney lacked the common touch. Exit polls showed that voters gave him high marks for "leadership" and for having a vision for the future. Yet on the question "cares about the problems of people like me," he was crushed by 81 to 18. Even Republican-leaning voters were influenced. The secretly recorded "47 percent" video will likely go down in history as the most consequential tape since Watergate -- sealing as it did Romney's image (already unscrupulously distorted by the Obama team) as a cold elitist.
The Romney campaign, moreover, seemed dazed and deflated by the 47 percent episode, unable to recover and offer damage control. Romney might have responded, for example, with a speech emphasizing that in Obama's economy, dependence on Food Stamps and disability insurance had reached all-time highs, while good jobs with benefits were disappearing. Or he might have showcased actual Americans who got off welfare due to the business promotion of Bain Capital. Surely among the thousands of employees of Office Depot and Staples, some could be found who fit that profile.
Democrats, many in attendance on the NR cruise, noted bitterly, suffer no penalty for being wealthy. Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Obama himself, among many others, aren't penalized politically for being rich because they favor broadly redistributionist policies. There are two ironies here. First, the very rich, which includes all the previously named, along with Warren Buffett, who did so much to propagate the falsehood that "the rich" pay fewer taxes than their secretaries, can easily afford an increase in tax rates. But the definition of those who must, to satisfy Mr. Obama's sense of "fairness," surrender more of their incomes, includes everyone earning more than $200,000. For them, a tax increase can be personally painful, especially if they have children in college.
The deeper irony, however, was touched on by National Review's Jay Nordlinger, namely that the redistributionist policies so beloved of Democrats actually make the middle class poorer. The rich don't need better jobs, schools that actually teach and Social Security and Medicare that do not go bankrupt. The Kennedys of this world don't send their kids to the neighborhood school or look for work at the oil and gas company in town. The reforms so essential to the well-being of the broad middle-class in America were championed by Romney and Ryan. Obama stood firmly against reform and for a status quo that already has diminished the welfare of the poor and middle class and threatens to further immiserate the nation.
"Was Romney a throwback to another era?" one panelist asked. Too reticent and dignified for the emotionally exhibitionistic world we inhabit? It's possible, and no political party that fails to change with the times will survive. But Romney's reluctance to offer arguments instead of personal credentials ("I'm a business guy.") was probably more important.
Conservatives and Republicans do not object to tax increases because they favor the rich, but because they believe strongly that the government already spends way too much. The election has settled the issue, for now, in Obama's favor. Republicans who still hold national power in the House might want to consider one idea that will help their image and expose Obama's deception in a single blow -- agree to raise taxes only on the truly rich, those earning more than 5 million annually. That's a tax that will be shouldered almost entirely by Obama donors and supporters -- those insulated from the real economy.