Fiscal Cliff: Democrats and Liberal Press Blame Republicans, Consider Unconstitutional Senate Bill
Benghazi-Gate Enters New Phase: The Cover Up of the Cover Up
Now other nations agree Obama’s birth certificate is fake
French Court Says 75% Tax Rate on Rich Is Unconstitutional
Posted on date: 12/26/2012
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The GOP has offered plan after plan, and the White House has rejected all of them. Obama, and the Senate Democrats, will not accept any economic plan that includes spending cuts, and does not raise taxes for Americans all the way down to those making at least $250,000 per year. Basically, the democrats are telling the republicans, “Either, you offer a plan that is everything we want, and nothing you want, or we go over the fiscal cliff.” Then, on queue, the liberal media is blaming the republicans, claiming it is the GOP that is blocking a fiscal cliff deal.
President Barack Obama is playing the voters like a fiddle, nailing down the “blame republicans” strategy by claiming to cut short his vacation so that he can try to convince the congressional republicans to stop standing in the way of a resolution in the U.S. Congress – and of course they are saying the GOP is doing it only to protect their rich friends from being taxed.
Essentially, Obama and the democrats are saying, “Soak the rich and let us keep spending a lot of taxpayer money, and be to blame. Or refuse to soak the rich and refuse to let us keep spending a lot of taxpayer money, which will result in the expiration of the Bush tax rates, then the taxes go up on everyone, the military gets slashed, and you still get blamed. Take a pick, republicans.”
By the way, if the GOP thinks there is any way out of getting blamed, remember that the media and the education system are completely ruled by the liberal left, so not only will the voters think it was the GOP’s fault, but so will history.
The democrats are indicating they also plan to shift their focus to the Senate for a deal – except all money bills have to originate in the House of Representatives as per Article I, Section 7 of the United States Constitution. In other words, a fiscal cliff deal originating in the Senate would be unconstitutional.
Not that the democrats give a damn about the Constitution.
The problem is that the spineless republicans have bought into the propaganda being put forth by the liberals that they are damaging the “fragile” economy, and that spending cuts and cutting taxes across the board will be damaging.
Call me crazy, but how about the republicans stand on conservative principles? Why not stand firm on what you believe? At least you will go down being true to yourselves, and this nation. . .
History has shown time and time again that heavy spending, massive and numerous government programs, and high taxes destroy nations. Economies cannot sustain themselves when faced with what the democrats are offering. In the end, the currency deflates, and the spending becomes unsustainable.
Nations die under liberal policies.
Greece is a grand example.
And death is coming because of lies, and games, because the democrats don’t care about any recovery, or economic growth. They care about their ideology, their power, destroying the Republican Party, and going down in history as the ones that finally made America a socialist nation.
The lives they are destroying, the futures they are discarding, and the nation they are dooming means nothing to them.
Posted on: 11/23/2012
It now looks as though the White House's excuse for the pre-election Libya cover-up is itself a cover up. Last week we were told by the Administration (and the compliant media) that during her now-infamous round robin of five Sunday news shows, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was only telling us what she was told by the intelligence community. We were also told that references to al-Qaeda were edited out of the talking points in order to avoid tipping off the attackers that we were on to them. According to a number of CBS News' sources, this simply isn't true.
As recently as yesterday, though, Rice doubled down on this defense: "I relied soley and squarely on the information provided to me by the intelligence community. I made clear that the information was preliminary and that our investigations would give us the definitive answers."
At first glance, Rice's comments might not appear to move the ball, but they do tell us that the Administration has found its defense and intends to stick to it -- that defense being that Rice was only parroting the false information she was given. But now, thanks to some good reporting from CBS News, we know things weren't that simple.
Let's back up just a little bit…
Last week, former CIA Chief Davis Petraeus testified that within a day he knew the assault on our consulate in Benghazi was a premeditated terrorist attack committed by a Libyan militia with ties to al-Qaeda. As a result, Petraeus authorized the release of this information to the public in talking points to be given to the White House and to lawmakers. CBS News reports that references to al-Qaeda were later removed by Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) -- an agency run by James Clapper, an Obama appointee. The FBI also made substantial edits.
But here's where the plot thickens.
DNI spokesman Shawn Turner told CBS News, "The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." He added that this classified information was shared with the White House. CBS News then quite correctly concludes that, as a member of Obama's cabinet, Susan Rice would would've known this. All cabinet members are given classified briefings.
The bottom line, then, is that during her Sunday show appearances, Rice knew the information she was spreading was false.
In reference to the edited talking points, another source told CBS News that… [emphasis added]
"The points were not, as has been insinuated by some, edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations, or play down that this was an attack," the official tells CBS News, adding that there were "legitimate intelligence and legal issues to consider, as is almost always the case when explaining classified assessments publicly."
"Most people understand that saying 'extremists' were involved in a direct assault on the mission isn't shying away from the idea of terrorist involvement," added the official. "Because of the various elements involved in the attack, the term extremist was meant to capture the range of participants."
This is important because if the talking points were not edited "to minimize the role of extremists," that, then, was a decision Susan Rice made all on her own (with likely prompting from the White House ). The same goes for White House spokesman Jay Carney and the President himself, both of whom would spend nearly two weeks spinning this same false narrative.
This false White House narrative, which only sharpened over time, was all about a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video that turned into a deadly riot. But if the edited talking points were not meant to "diminish terrorist affiliations, or play down that this was an attack," that was a decision the White House made, and one that conflicts entirely with the excuse that they were simply telling us what they were told by the intelligence community.
And it wasn't just the fact that the White House chose to focus on the YouTube video. Time and again, for nearly two weeks, Rice and Carney would go the extra mile in this deception by telling the media that there was absolutely no evidence the assault on our consulate was premeditated.
Finally, the primary defense for the editing of al-Qaeda out of the talking points is this ridiculous notion that we didn't want the group responsible for the attack to know we were after them. That never came close to passing the smell test, and now the intelligence community is pushing back against that nonsense:
[A]n intelligence source tells CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan the links to al Qaeda were deemed too "tenuous" to make public, because there was not strong confidence in the person providing the intelligence.
In other words, the removing of the al-Qaeda references wasn't about tipping anyone off; it was about making sure it was this particular al-Qaeda affiliated militia. There was never any doubt the attack was a premeditated terror attack, but amongst all the extremists in Libya, we just weren't sure which one was responsible.
So, if what CBS is reporting is true, this is what we know now:
1. At the time, Susan Rice knew the information she repeated five times on five Sunday shows wasn't true.
2. The edited talking points were never meant to deceive and conceal the fact that what happened in Libya was a terror attack. And yet, that's exactly what Rice and the White House did for nearly two weeks.
3. Contrary to what the White House and media told us, the talking points were not edited to keep the group responsible for the attack from knowing we were on to them. Therefore…
4. We were lied to for reasons that had nothing to do with national security.
5. The media's going to allow the Obama Administration to get away with this. (Why else would CBS play down its own story the way they did this one?)
Everything goes back to the motive for this cover up, which, apparently, was to run out the clock to Election Day with a Narrative meant to hide the fact that on Obama's watch there was a successful terror attack that resulted in the murder of an American ambassador and three other Americans. And let's also not forget that, just a few days before the attack, at his nominating convention, Obama bragged before the whole world that "al-Qaeda is on the path to defeat."
The American people understand that deception is sometimes necessary in the name of national security. But no one believes that's the case here.
This cover up, which the media has happily become a co-conspirator to, was only about winning Obama a second term.
And now the cover up of the cover up is in full swing.
Posted on 9/11/2012
by Doc Vega | September 11, 2012
How long must this corruption and lawlessness go on in the White House?
It has been since April 28, 2011 that the White House disclosed President Obama’s supposed real long form birth certificate. Once this document had been divulged to the country almost immediately experts began testing its authenticity. Such people as Doug Vogt, a document scanning expert pointed out that there were signature halo effects on particular letters and dates that proved the White House version of Obama’s COLB certificate of live birth had been electronically altered.
International doubt develops
Officials from both Germany and Russia commented that the American government was conducting a fraud upon its own people. The phony COLB came at a time when Hawaii under the demand of many requests by investigators for Obama’s birth certificate stiffened its laws and actually made it more difficult to get one unless stringent actions were taken slowing the process down to weeks. Even Neil Abercrombie, newly elected Governor of Hawaii, could not find Obama's birth certificate. Yet, Obama said in a public statement that he had made special arrangements with the Hawaiian State Health Department to have a copy speeded up and sent to the White House. Many people smelled a rat!
Cold case posse investigates
After 6 months of thorough investigation, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County Arizona unveiled the results of his cold case posse’s findings. This group of volunteer veteran law enforcement personnel proved that the White House version of Obama’s supposed birth certificate was indeed a fake and had been generated in a computer. They even identified that it was generated in a White House computer to within 20 minutes of the creation date of the document. Arpaio and his people have not stopped there, they have continued their investigation uncovering other lies and inconsistencies that I will mention in another article. Despite liberal attacks that complained that Arpaio’s team was a waste of tax payer’s money, which it wasn’t as the team was providing their services for free, I find it tragically laughable that liberals will waste money on anything to support their cause, but verifying the eligibility of their own president!
University in Israel examines Obama birth scandal
The latest to have a look at the phony White House Obama birth certificate have been Israelis scientists who are now convinced that the Obama administration is committing fraud. Making a statement that President Obama being the leader of the most powerful nation in the western world being at the center of this continuing controversy must surely be a source of concern. As a result, they have employed the efforts of Professor Hanukoglu of the Department of Molecular Biology at Ariel University Center in Ariel, Israel.
They have dedicated a website to the research that went into verifying whether or not the White House document was authentic or not. Their findings were born out of two particular programs easily available to the public Foxit Reader version 4.3.1 or another program Inkscape graphics software version 0.48.1. Both of these programs detected anomalies, inconsistencies in fonts, numbering sequence problems, and super imposed numbering that all prove alteration, and criminal fraud!
Natural born citizen requirement
Why is this so important? What questions are we to glean from all this? The US Constitution demanded that the President of the United States of America be a natural born citizen having been born on US soil of two parents who were both citizens of this country. Why? Our framers of the Constitution wanted to insure that any executive of the oval office was raised in a home that was completely faithful to the cause of America and whose allegiance was unquestioned.
If President Obama were legitimate
If President Obama were a legal citizen of the United States of America, he wouldn’t have had to spend millions in suppressing laws suits that question his eligibility, he wouldn’t have had to influence the Supreme Court to refuse to hear perfectly valid legal challenges, and he shouldn’t have had to fabricate illegal and fraudulent documents to prove his eligibility, but the evidence is clear. President Obama has broken the law. It is a criminal violation to forge federal documents. It is a crime of high treason to occupy the office of the presidency under false pretense. It is treasonous for that person to have witnessed classified and highly secret intelligence information that is paramount to national security, but Barack Hussein Obama is guilty of everyone of these counts and many more.
The truth about corruption in the White House
This is a despicable testament to the inherent corruption within the US government that has condoned and sanctioned fraudulent actions and has obstructed justice in the process. In addition to President Obama, members of Congress, and the Supreme Court have been complicity in the conspiracy to commit fraud and perpetrate this travesty of justice over the American people. When authorities from other nations can easily see what Obama’s supporters refuse to acknowledge, you can bet this country is in deep trouble and our government has indeed been compromised!
Posted on 12/29/2012
President Francois Hollande’s 75 percent millionaire-tax is unconstitutional because it fails to guarantee taxpayer equality, France’s top court ruled today.
The tax, one of Hollande’s campaign promises, had become a focal point of discontent among entrepreneurs and other wealth creators, some of whom have quit French shores as a result. The ruling comes as the president seeks to cut France’s public deficit to 3 percent of gross domestic product next year from a projected 4.5 percent this year.
“Politically, this has an impact because it was a symbol for French public opinion, and was considered abroad as the emblem of French tax excess, of French tax hell,” said Dominique Barbet, senior economist at BNP Paribas SA in Paris. “In deficit terms, it’s truly negligible.”
The court said Hollande’s plan would have added extra levies of 18 percent on individuals’ incomes of more than 1 million euros ($1.32 million), while regular income taxes and a 4 percent exceptional contribution for high earners would have been based on household income, an e-mailed statement shows.
As a result, two households with the same total revenue could end up paying different rates depending on how earnings are divided among members of those households. That runs counter to a rule of equal tax treatment, the Paris-based court said.
Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said in an e-mailed statement that the government “takes note” of the court decision on the 75 percent tax band and “will present a new proposal in line with the principles laid down by the Constitutional Court.” The ruling doesn’t call into question deficit targets or the path set out to get there, Ayrault said.
The court’s decision will lower tax revenue by less than 500 million euros in 2013, according to a spokeswoman for the prime minister’s office who declined to provide her name.
French billionaire Bernard Arnault, chief executive officer of LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton SA (MC), filed an application for Belgian nationality in September. While he promised to continue paying taxes in France, the action prompted fierce criticism from Hollande and his supporters.
Movie star Gerard Depardieu, 64, said he was leaving France “because you consider success, creativity, talent, anything different are grounds for sanction.”
The decision could be positive for France’s bond market because it shows there is a limit to the government’s ability to raise taxes on the wealthy and may decrease the flight risk of more rich French citizens, Barbet said.
The constitutional court lowered a series of other tax increases, calling them excessive or saying they also violated equality of treatment for taxpayers. The tax rate on stock options and free shares was lowered to a maximum of 64.5 percent from a rate of as much as 77 percent. The marginal tax rate on a type of private retirement benefit, known as “retraites chapeau,” was cut to a maximum of 68.34 percent from a planned rate in 2013 of 75.34 percent.
Looking at France’s wealth tax, the court said that unrealized gains couldn’t be included in assessing the tax because it ignores the requirement to take into account a payer’s ability to meet his obligations.
Hollande called on the “patriotism” of the country’s rich to do their part during Europe’s more than three-year-old financial crisis.
A new tax proposal will be presented next year and will apply to earnings for 2013 and 2014, Finance Minister Pierre Moscovici said on BFM television.
Former President Nicolas Sarkozy’s opposition Union for a Popular Movement political party had asked the court earlier this month to overturn the measure.
The tax, which Hollande said would be in place for two years, is part of the 2013 budget law and would have gone into effect starting on Jan. 1.
Hollande’s 2013 budget relies on 20 billion euros in additional taxes: 10 billion euros from companies and 10 billion euros from individuals. In addition to the millionaire tax, Hollande has added new charges on capital gains, an increased tax on wealth, a boost to inheritance charges and an exit tax for entrepreneurs selling their companies. His government has also created a new 45 percent tax bracket for incomes exceeding 150,000 euros per year.