Archive for the ‘Liberal Agenda’ Category

White House Insider: Obama Hesitated – Panetta Issued Order to Kill Osama Bin Laden

Friday, May 6th, 2011

“What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him –and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound.”


Note: This update came some 24 hours after our longtime Washington D.C. Insider first outlined shocking details of an Obama administration having been “overruled” by senior military and intelligence officials leading up to the successful attack against terrorist Osama Bin Laden.  What follows is further clarification of Insider’s insights surrounding that event.
_______

Q: You stated that President Obama was “overruled” by military/intelligence officials regarding the decision to send in military specialists into the Osama Bin Laden compound.  Was that accurate?

A: I was told – in these exact terms, “we overruled him.” (Obama)  I have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president’s “persistent hesitation to act.”  There appears NOT to have been an outright overruling of any specific position by President Obama, simply because there was no specific position from the president to do so.  President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an absentee president.

I was correct in stating there had been a push to invade the compound for several weeks if not months, primarily led by Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper.  The primary opposition to this plan originated from Valerie Jarrett, and it was her opposition that was enough to create uncertainty within President Obama.  Obama would meet with various components of the pro-invasion faction, almost always with Jarrett present, and then often fail to indicate his position.  This situation continued for some time, though the division between Jarrett/Obama and the rest intensified more recently, most notably from Hillary Clinton.  She was livid over the president’s failure to act, and her office began a campaign of anonymous leaks to the media indicating such.  As for Jarrett, her concern rested on two primary fronts.  One, that the military action could fail and harm the president’s already weakened standing with both the American public and the world.  Second, that the attack would be viewed as an act of aggression against Muslims, and further destabilize conditions in the Middle East.

Q: What changed the president’s position and enabled the attack against Osama Bin Laden to proceed?

A:  Nothing changed with the president’s opinion – he continued to avoid having one.  Every time military and intelligence officials appeared to make progress in forming a position, Jarrett would intervene and the stalling would begin again.  Hillary started the ball really rolling as far as pressuring Obama began, but it was Panetta and Petraeus who ultimately pushed Obama to finally act – sort of.  Panetta was receiving significant reports from both his direct CIA sources, as well as Petraeus-originating Intel.  Petraeus was threatening to act on his own via a bombing attack.  Panetta reported back to the president that a bombing of the compound would result in successful killing of Osama Bin Laden, and little risk to American lives.  Initially, as he had done before, the president indicated a willingness to act.  But once again, Jarrett intervened, convincing the president that innocent Pakistani lives could be lost in such a bombing attack, and Obama would be left attempting to explain Panetta’s failed policy.  Again Obama hesitated – this time openly delaying further meetings to discuss the issue with Panetta.  A brief meeting was held at this time with other officials, including Secretary Gates and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but Gates, like Panetta, was unable to push the president to act.  It was at this time that Gates indicated to certain Pentagon officials that he may resign earlier than originally indicated – he was that frustrated.  Both Panetta and Clinton convinced him to stay on and see the operation through.

What happened from there is what was described by me as a “masterful manipulation” by Leon Panetta.  Panetta indicated to Obama that leaks regarding knowledge of Osama Bin Laden’s location were certain to get out sooner rather than later, and action must be taken by the administration or the public backlash to the president’s inaction would be “…significant to the point of political debilitation.”  It was at that time that Obama stated an on-ground campaign would be far more acceptable to him than a bombing raid.  This was intended as a stalling tactic, and it had originated from Jarrett.  Such a campaign would take both time, and present a far greater risk of failure. 

The president had been instructed by Jarrett to inform Mr., Panetta that he would have sole discretion to act against the Osama Bin Laden compound.  Jarrett believed this would further delay Panetta from acting, as the responsibility for failure would then fall almost entirely on him.  What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him –and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound.  Basically, the whole damn operation was already ready to go – including the specific team support Intel necessary to engage the enemy within hours of being given notice.  Panetta then made plans to proceed with an on-ground assault. This information reached either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates first (likely via military contacts directly associated with the impending mission) who then informed the other.  Those two then met with Panetta, who informed each of them he had been given the authority by the president to proceed with a mission if the opportunity presented itself.  Both Gates and Clinton warned Panetta of the implications of that authority – namely he was possibly being made into a scapegoat. 

Panetta admitted that possibility, but felt the opportunity to get Bin Laden outweighed that risk.  During that meeting, Hillary Clinton was first to pledge her full support for Panetta, indicating she would defend him if necessary.  Similar support was then followed by Gates.  The following day, and with Panetta’s permission, Clinton met in private with Bill Daley and urged him to get the president’s full and open approval of the Panetta plan.  Daley agreed such approval would be of great benefit to the action, and instructed Clinton to delay proceeding until he had secured that approval.  Daley contacted Clinton within hours of their meeting indicating Jarrett refused to allow the president to give that approval.  Daley then informed Clinton that he too would fully support Panetta in his actions, even if it meant disclosing the president’s indecision to the American public should that action fail to produce a successful conclusion.  Clinton took that message back to Panetta and the CIA director initiated the 48 hour engagement order.  At this point, the President of the United States was not informed of the engagement order – it did not originate from him, and for several hours after the order had been given and the special ops forces were preparing for action into Pakistan from their position in Afghanistan, Daley successfully kept Obama and Jarrett insulated from that order.

Top 10 ways to tell if you might be a member of public-sector union

Friday, March 25th, 2011

10.  You take a week off to protest in Wisconsin and your office runs better.
9.  On a snow day when they say “non-essential” people should stay home you know whom they mean.
 8.  You get paid twice as much as a private sector person doing the same job but make up for it by doing half as much work.
7.  It takes longer to fire you than the average killer spends on death row.
6.  The worse you do your job the more your boss avoids you.
5.  You think the French are working themselves to death.
4.  You know by having a copy of the Holy Koran on your desk your job is 100% safe.
3.  You spend more time at protest marches than at church.
2.  You have a Democratic congressman’s lips permanently attached to your butt.
1.  You pay more in union dues than you do for your healthcare insurance.

AFL-CIO Supports Somali Pirates

Monday, February 28th, 2011

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and his entourage are on their way to Somalia to organize the Pirates. Trumka has stated that “These poor hardworking Somalis are victims of repression and deserve union representation. We must bring economic justice to the Somali workplace. The capitalist/infidels invading Somalia are reprehensible and must be met with union solidarity.”Trumpka met with President Obama on Friday in the Oval Office to discuss foreign military aid options for the Somali Pirates.

High School Principal Takes a Bold Stand

Monday, November 1st, 2010

This is a statement that was read over the PA system at a football game at Roane County High School in Kingston, Tennessee  by school Principal, Jody McLeod … The speech was later read into the Congressional Record by Representative Zach Wamp of Tennessee.

Even that left wing leaning arm of socialism snopes.com confirms this one:  http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/mcloud.asp

“It has always been the custom at Roane County High School football games, to say a prayer and play the National Anthem, to honor God and Country.”

Due to a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, I am told that saying a Prayer is a violation of Federal Case Law. As I understand the law at this time, I can use this public facility to approve of sexual perversion and call it “an alternate life style,” and if someone is offended, that’s OK.

I can use it to condone sexual promiscuity, by dispensing condoms and calling it, “safe sex.” If someone is offended, that’s OK.

I can even use this public facility to present the merits of killing an unborn baby as a “viable! means of birth control.” If someone is offended, no problem…

I can designate a school day as “Earth Day” and involve students in activities to worship religiously and praise the goddess “Mother Earth” and call it “ecology..”

I can use literature, videos and presentations in the classroom that depicts people with strong, traditional Christian convictions as “simple minded” and “ignorant” and call it “enlightenment..”

However, if anyone uses this facility to honor GOD and to ask HIM to Bless this event with safety and good sportsmanship, then Federal Case Law is violated.

This appears to be inconsistent at best, and at worst, diabolical. Apparently, we are to be tolerant of everything and anyone, except GOD and HIS Commandments.

Nevertheless , as a school principal, I frequently ask staff and students to abide by rules with which they do not necessarily agree. For me to do otherwise would be inconsistent at best, and at worst, hypocritical. I suffer from that affliction enough unintentionally. I certainly do not need to add an intentional transgression.

For this reason, I shall “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s,” and refrain from praying at this time.

” However, if you feel inspired to honor, praise and thank GOD and ask HIM, in the name of JESUS, to Bless this event, please feel free to do so.. As far as I know, that’s not against the law—-yet.”

One by one, the people in the stands bowed their heads, held hands with one another and began to pray.

They prayed in the stands. They prayed in the team huddles. They prayed at the concession stand and they prayed in the Announcer’s Box!

The only place they didn’t pray was in the Supreme Court of the United States of America- the Seat of “Justice” in the “one nation, under GOD.”

Somehow, Kingston , Tennessee Remembered what so many have forgotten. We are given the Freedom OF Religion, not the Freedom FROM Religion. Praise GOD that HIS remnant remains!

Are You Liberal or Conservative?

Thursday, October 28th, 2010

If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that the talk shows they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative reads this, he’ll share it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will close the browser because he’s “offended.”

Ground Zero Tolerance? Sure, Why Not?

Wednesday, October 27th, 2010

I am shocked, absolutely shocked, that so many Americans are standing up in opposition to the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero in New York. We are a nation of tolerance - We should allow it, right?

In keeping with that theme, and in order to promote tolerance, I propose the following:

A gay nightclub should be opened next door to the mosque to promote tolerance amongst its members. We could call it “The Turban Cowboy” or “You Mecca Me Hot”.

Next door on the other side, we should have a butcher shop that specializes in pork. One that makes a nice lunchtime pulled pork sandwich.

Then across the street, a very daring lingerie store, called ” Victoria Keeps Nothing Secret”.

And of course, what area wouldn’t be complete without a “three girl nudie” car wash called “The Three Mosqueteers”.

And what neighborhood would be complete without skin headed white supremacists, renting a store front tattoo parlor just above the butcher shop?

And don’t forget the Armed Forces Recruiting Office, which would be just a step or two from the VA administration office.

To make the neighborhood and street complete I also propose that we build the largest Southern Baptist Church in the country that could share its parking lot with the mosque, which would have to allow use of their parking lot for old fashion tent revivals.

You know….just to promote that whole “tolerance thing”!

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, the Hell’s Angels are looking for a new location for a NY clubhouse. Are you thinking what I’m thinking? Yep, I know the perfect area.

I am certain that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf would relish this opportunity to demonstrate and promote tolerance in the good ole U.S. of A. He and his muslim buddies should embrace these suggestions with the greatest of enthusiasm!

If you agree, pass this along!

*This message was made in America without harming any cats, or dogs, or fish, or horses, or cows, or chickens, or ferrets.

PS. Did I mention that the women from P.E.T.A. would be standing naked on the adjacent street corners to raise awareness regarding the evils of wearing fur?

God I love this country… I wish everybody did.

The Word is Democrat!

Monday, October 25th, 2010

dem·o·crat·ic , adj. defined as “Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy”.

Based on the fundamental definition of “democratic”, I would ask why on earth would we associate the Democrat party with that word? Why do people continuously misuse the word democratic? The Democrats would certainly be flattered to be referred to as Democratic. To most of us, this makes little sense.

Time and time again, those things pertaining to Democrats are referred to as Democratic. If referring to the Democrat Party, even right leaning pundits refer to it as the Democratic Party. What is democratic about Democrats? The misuse of this work inappropriately attributes democratic characteristics to a party that is clearly not democratic.

Call it what it is … Can you say Democrat?

Whose Budget Is It?

Tuesday, October 5th, 2010

The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly, a lot of people swallow this nonsense. So once more, a short civics lesson:

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress. And guess what? The party that has controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party. Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009 as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. They then of course passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets..

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Senate that con tributed to all of these massive spending bills. Additionally, he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let’s remember what the deficits looked like during that period …

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is “I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th”.

January 2011 - Largest Tax Hikes in America’s History

Monday, August 9th, 2010

In just less than six months from now, on January 1, 2011, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect. They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves.

On January 1, 2011, here’s what happens:

First Wave:

Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief

In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families.

These will all expire on January 1, 2011.

Personal income tax rates will rise.

The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed).

The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent.

All the rates in between will also rise.
Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates.
The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

* The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
*
* The 25% bracket rises to 28%
*
* The 28% bracket rises to 31%
*
* The 33% bracket rises to 36%
*
* The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

Higher taxes on marriage and family.

The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income.
The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child.
The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level.
The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.
The return of the Death Tax.

This year only, there is no death tax. (It’s a quirk!) For those dying on or after January 1, 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes, a business, a retirement account, could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones. Think of the farmers who don’t make much money, but their land, which they purchased years ago with after-tax dollars, is now worth a lot of money. Their children will have to sell the farm, which may be their livelihood, just to pay the estate tax if they don’t have the cash sitting around to pay the tax. Think about your own family’s assets. Maybe your family owns real estate, or a business that doesn’t make much money, but the building and equipment are worth $1 million. Upon their death, you can inherit the $1 million business tax free, but if they own a home, stock, cash worth $500K on top of the $1 million business, then you will owe the government $275,000 cash! That’s 55% of the value of the assets over $1 million! Do you have that kind of cash sitting around waiting to pay the estate tax?

Higher tax rates on savers and investors.

The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011.

The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011.

These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.

Second Wave:

Obamacare
There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include:

The “Medicine Cabinet Tax”

Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).
The “Special Needs Kids Tax”

This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children.

There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education.

Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington , D.C. ( National Child Research Center ) can easily exceed $14,000 per year.

Under tax rules, FSA dollars can not be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

The HSA (Health Savings Account) Withdrawal Tax Hike.

This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.


 

Third Wave:

The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and Employer Tax Hikes

When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they’ll be in for a nasty surprise-the AMT won’t be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired.

The major items include:

The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year.

According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress’ failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families-rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.

Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear.

Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or “depreciate”) equipment purchases up to $250,000.

This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can currently expense half of their purchases of equipment.

In January of 2011, all of it will have to be “depreciated.”
Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses.

There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the “research and experimentation tax credit,” but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.
Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced.

The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available.

Tax credits for education will be limited.

Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses.

Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut.

Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed.

The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.
Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed.

Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA.

This contribution also counts toward an annual “required minimum distribution.” This ability will no longer be there.

PDF Version - Read more: http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171##ixzz0sY8waPq1

And worse yet?

Now, your insurance will be INCOME on your W2’s!

One of the surprises we’ll find come next year, is what follows - - a little “surprise” that 99% of us had no idea was included in the “new and improved” healthcare legislation . . . the dupes, er, dopes, who backed this administration will be astonished!

Starting in 2011, (next year folks), your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that’s a private concern or governmental body of some sort.

If you’re retired? So what… your gross will go up by the amount of insurance you get.

You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen. Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That’s what you’ll pay next year.

For many, it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it’s even worse.

This is how the government is going to buy insurance for the15% that don’t have insurance and it’s only part of the tax increases.

Not believing this??? Here is a research of the summaries…..

On page 25 of 29: TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS-(sec. 9001, as modified by sec. 10901) Sec.9002 “requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employees gross income.”

- Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters. - Go to Kiplingers and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you. Number 3 is what is above.

The Danger to America

Wednesday, June 16th, 2010

This quote was proportedly translated into English from an article appearing in the Czech Republic, as published in the Prager Zeitung April 28 2010:

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.  It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.”

“The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America .  Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.”

The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”