o'You have the blood of an American hero on your hands.' (U-T San Diego, We.31Oct12)

From: kd Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 Subject: 'Blood on your hands'

'You have the blood of an American hero on your hands'

"The Obama administration is covering up key details relating to the Sept. 11 murders of four Americans in Libya."

editorial source: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/oct/30/you-have-the-blood-of-an-american-hero-on-your/

by Steve Breen, Editorial Board Member, U-T San Diego, California, Tuesday, Oct 30, 2012

     What did President Barack Obama know and when did he know it?  Why has the Obama administration kept changing its story about how Ambassador Chris Stevens, security officials Tyrone Woods of Imperial Beach and Glen Doherty of Encinitas, and information officer Sean Smith, who grew up in San Diego, died on Sept. 11 in Benghazi, Libya?  Why won't the mainstream media treat the incontrovertible evidence of the White House's dishonesty and incompetence like the ugly scandal it obviously is?

     These are all questions that demand to be answered after revelations that demolished the tidy narrative the president has been offering about Benghazi.

"The White House's account changed - after leaks showed its dishonesty."

     Until last week, the White House had taken a moderate hit over the fact that for two weeks after it happened, officials had fostered the impression that the four Americans were killed Sept. 11 in a spontaneous protest triggered by a blasphemous anti-Islam video posted on YouTube – not by a coordinated terrorist attack on the 11th anniversary of 9/11.  But administration officials pushed back by saying the "fog of war" had left them uncertain about events, and that when White House press secretary Jay Carney and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice had cited the video, they were only repeating the best available information they had.  The president's repeated comments conveyed the impression that he wasn't aware of the attacks as they were unfolding, saying only that the next day, he ordered increased security for embassies in the area.

     But after a torrent of leaks of official emails and communiqués – likely coming from CIA officials who refuse to participate in a cover-up and/or who won't accept the role of scapegoat – the "fog of war" narrative looks like damage control: a determined attempt to keep the facts from the public until after the Nov. 6 election.  After the leaks, the president suddenly changed his story to say he was aware of the attacks as they unfolded and had quickly issued an order to "make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to."

     There was no "fog."  There was no spontaneous uprising.  Thanks to a drone and other surveillance technology, the White House's national security team knew in real time that the U.S. consulate and a "safe house" a mile away in Benghazi were under coordinated attack by a well-armed group, not from a protest that unexpectedly escalated.  Over a seven-hour span on Sept. 11, the besieged Americans made at least two urgent requests for help; the U.S. military has considerable assets in the area that could have been deployed to Benghazi.

     Who told the besieged Americans they were out of luck?

     After hints appeared in the media that it was the CIA's fault, the spy agency – obviously at the behest of CIA Director David Petraeus – put out a statement Friday that flatly denied it opposed coming to the rescue of Stevens, Young, Doherty and Smith.  At roughly the same time, in a TV interview, the president offered his new narrative of being aware of the crisis and taking decisive action, while refusing to answer the direct question of whether Americans in Benghazi requested help but were rejected.  A day later, however, the White House said in fact that it had never received requests for help.  This sets up the Pentagon to take the fall.

     On Monday, incredibly, Obama acted put-upon by the questions about his administration's integrity.  In a TV appearance, he said, "I do take offense with some suggestion that in any way, we haven't tried to make sure that the American people knew as the information was coming in what we believed."  Remember, the president made this statement only after leaks the previous week demolished his and his administration's dishonest, intentionally misleading Benghazi narrative.

     It has now been seven weeks since the terrorist attack.  We deserve to know the truth.  Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods, the former Navy SEAL from Imperial Beach, said it best in a Monday TV interview.

     "I can't imagine anyone with any heart that would watch a battle rage for seven hours knowing that heroes were there that were going to be slaughtered if you didn't have help sent in. ... Whoever it was that was in that room watching that video of my son dying, their cries for help, their order 'don't help them at all, let them die' ... you have the blood of my son, you have the blood of an American hero on your hands.  I don't know who you are, but one of these days the truth will come out."

     The senior Woods is correct.  Inevitably, there will be a bipartisan fact-finding commission into this terrible tragedy and its cover-up.

     Unless the mainstream media stops abetting the cover-up and the facts come out without a commission wielding subpoena power.

     Isn't this a story – a gigantic story?

     Of course.  But we fear that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post will only choose to realize how obvious this is after Nov. 6.  Then it will come to them – spontaneously, we're sure.

---

     Steve Breen was born in Los Angeles in 1970 and attended the University of California at Riverside.

Steve has been the editorial cartoonist for The San Diego Union-Tribune since 2001. His work is nationally syndicated by Creators News Service and regularly appears in USA Today, The New York Times and Newsweek.

     Steve is a two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize for editorial cartooning (1998, 2009).

He is also the recipient of the 2007 Berryman Award for editorial cartooning given by the National Press Foundation, The 2009 Thomas Nast Award given by The Overseas Press Club and the 2009 National Headliner Award.

     In his spare time, Steve writes and illustrates picture books for Penguin including Stick (2007) Violet The Pilot (2008) and The Secret of Santa's Island (2009).

     Steve lives in San Diego with his wife and four children. He enjoys reading, running, playing the guitar and piano and watching old movies on cable.

Steve Breen's submissions for the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning.

[print copy] © Copyright 2012 The San Diego Union-Tribune, LLC.

---

o'screw Texas & Iowa - o'u.n. says observers have immunity!

Texas and Iowa to o'one-worlder and his U.N. election observers,

"Stand back or go to jail!"

---

What authority does the executive branch have over State's voting procedures?  What "enabling act" authority?  Is this o'der leader's neo-1933?  -- rfh
http://godfatherpolitics.com/7785/obama-administration-un-election-observers-immune-to-state-laws/
     The Obama Administration made it clear that Texas better not arrest any UN election observers.  They claim these observers have full immunity, regardless of state laws.  This was in response to a statement Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot issued to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) telling them that their international election-observing representatives will be subject to criminal prosecution if they are found within a hundred feet of a polling place.  The State Department's spokesman (is that word sexist?) 
     Victoria Nuland explained:

"I'm not going to get into any kind of hypothetical situations or predict where this is going to go other than to say we have every expectation that this will be worked out and to state the fact, which is that under U.S. law they are eligible for immunities…[I]f there are concerns that Texas authorities have, they have an opportunity through the direct dialogue that's now going on in Texas with OSCE observers to take up their concerns.    But the mandate of the OSCE is designed to be absolutely and completely impartial, and that's what we plan on when we participate and that's what we'd expect here."

     Sure, OSCE is "absolutely and completely impartial."  There's nothing to worry about.  They're just going to be making sure no "voter suppression" is going on.  They want to make sure that we have "free and democratic elections" where everybody gets to cast a vote for Obama, whether you're an American citizen or not.
     Reporters weren't able to get the spokesman to confirm or deny whether the State Department was forcing Texas not to arrest UN election observers, only saying that they are "eligible for immunities."  These government officials have to leave their words as vague as possible so as to keep the national media away.  If they dared be more specific or forthright, it might turn into a national story, and the Obama Administration doesn't want any attention over this.
     It doesn't take a lot of reading between the lines to figure out that these international election observers will not be subject to state laws.  At least that's what the Obama Administration has dictated.  I still think Texas should arrest these UN agents and hold them until after Election Day.  It's not like they have to bring charges against them, or have evidence or probable cause.  Thanks to the Patriot Act and the NDAA, people can be detained indefinitely without probable cause by government officials who ignore the Fourth Amendment.   Our own government is immune to the laws that it enforces.  So, Texas and all other states should "unlawfully" arrest these UN officials and detain them indefinitely.  It doesn't mean that they will be prosecuted under the respective state laws.  It just means that police will hold them in custody.  You can be immune and still get arrested.  And if that happens, the State Department can blame themselves for not being specific enough.

---

o'watched'em die - Vote him out of office before more are killed by his incompetence & lying!

But he quicky found time to post a picture of himself in the 'situation room' wearing his chartreuse socks trying to imitate a president saving the northeast after the hurricane! - rfh

---

Obama Watched Attack on Benghazi and Did Nothing to Help Them source: http://godfatherpolitics.com/7813/obama-watched-attack-on-benghazi-and-did-nothing-to-help-them/
     It seems that every day there is new information that is coming to light in the September 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.  In the latest news update, sources are saying that President Barack Obama watched much of the attack on a live broadcast as it was taking place and just sat there doing nothing to help the Americans.
     When you hear the latest information on how Obama failed to act to save the Americans, it could be seen to lend a little more credibility to the conspiracy theory that the attack was actually a pre-arranged kidnapping attempt set up by Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood.  They were supposed to kidnap Ambassador Stevens so that Obama could exchange him for the Blind Sheik just before the election to make Obama look like a hero and allow the Muslim Brotherhood to get their Blind Sheik back.
     Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, Retired Army, has told several news media that his sources that he trusts informed him that Obama was in the White House during the time of the attacks and that he watched it unfold in real time.  Shaffer told Fox News :

     "This was in the middle of the business day in Washington, so everybody at the White House, CIA, Pentagon, everybody was watching this go down."
     "According to my sources, yes, [President Obama] was one of those in the White House Situation Room in real-time watching this."

     Other than placing drones overhead to watch the massacre of four Americans, the President did not issue any orders to send in anyone to help protect them.  According to new information contained in the video below, there is evidence that the attack was prolonged and that some of those killed had managed to stay alive for the first six hours of the ordeal.  Six hours was plenty of time for Obama to have sent a strike team to Benghazi to help defend the Ambassador and others, but he did nothing but watch.
     Col. David Hunt, who serves as a military analyst for Fox News said that this was the fourth embassy to be attacked in a twenty-four hour period and that everyone in Washington was closely watching what was happening.  He also said that had Obama given an order that U.S. warplanes could have reached the compound within twenty minutes and that a Delta Force strike team could have been at the sight within two hours.

     Considering that some survived for six hours before being killed forces the question of why Obama did not try to save them.  His impotence to act reminded me of another spineless Democrat some 33 years ago.  When 52 Americans were taken hostage in in Tehran, Iran and held for 444 days, then President Jimmy Carter did nothing to free them.
     I have a close friend who was in special forces at the time.  For over a year, he and his squad of commandos sat on a ship off the coast of Iran waiting for orders to rescue the hostages.  He told me that they knew where the hostages were kept every day and they could easily have gone in and freed them without loss of American lives, but Carter never gave the order.  He also told me that everyone there knew the helicopter rescue mission Carter did launch was certain to fail and that it was done (and those on the helicopters were sacrificed) just to help silence the mounting criticism Carter was getting from all of America.  My friend said that every single military personnel involved with the Tehran hostage situation had no respect for Carter and called him a coward.
     In the case of Obama and Benghazi, was he a coward afraid to attack his so-called Muslim friends who were killing fellow Americans?  Why didn't he do something to help them?  Help could have arrived in time to save the four Americans, but Obama sat there and watched them die.  Was it because the attack was supposed to be a kidnapping that went wrong when the former Navy SEALS fought back?  Then he has the gall to tell the families of the victims that he's sorry for their loss, an apology that the father of one and mother of another both say was empty and meaningless.
     To sit by and do nothing to help our countries representatives in a dangerous situation, to me is not only cowardice but could be considered an accessory to the fact which in turn would make him a traitor to the United States.  But since he has qualified as a traitor on other occasions and nothing's ever been done, he'll probably walk away from this unscathed and unpunished.
     If I had one wish right now, I think I would wish I was the U.S. Attorney General.  Then I would use the full power of the Justice Department to bring a mile long list of charges against a man who isn't even legally eligible to hold the office.  If I was unable to secure a death penalty for his high crime of treason on multiple accounts, I would definitely make sure that he was locked away in one of the darkest and nastiest prisons in the country and never let him see the light of day.  Yep, that's what I would wish for.

---

o'der leader - o'bamanomics explained (audio)

Vote'm all out! -- rfh

article source: http://www.mises.org/media/7662/Audio-Mises-Daily-gtgt-Hitlers-Economics

Hitler's Economics

The audio version of the Mises Daily article for June 28, 2012. [8:52] Narrated by Harold Fritsche.  Music by Kevin MacLeod.

From: Audio Mises Daily , Monday, July 02, 2012 by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

Available for listening as a downloadable Mp3 audio file at:

http://library.mises.org/media/Audio%20Mises%20Daily/Hitlers%20Economics%20Llewellyn%20H%20Rockwell%20Jr.mp3

Click the play button below to listen now.  If the player does not appear in this email, click on the .mp3 link above to hear the audio.

The Quotable Mises

Ludwig von Mises: "Man is not, like the animals, an obsequious puppet of instincts and sensual impulses.  Man has the power to suppress instinctive desires, he has a will of his own, he chooses between incompatible ends." - The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science

---

Quiz - Are you a liberal or conservative? "As for me...I am Conservative."

http://harrold.org/polls for Tu.Nov. 6th/Mo.Dec. 17th

Quiz: Are you a Conservative or a Liberal?  Discover your political alignment at: http://www.people-press.org/political-party-quiz/

     Answer 12 questions that were part of a national survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, and find out where you fit on the partisan political spectrum.

Me: Based on my responses, I am right of the 'Tea Party'  toward 'very conservative.'…  (I consider myself a paleoconservative.)

Take this other quick poll: You will vote for whom on Nov. 6? Post Your Choice Here. (Results, began Tu.9Oct12)

Quiz: Find Candidate With Your Values (Summary) and there is an  alternate quiz at the bottom of WP's page

Issues: Romney versus Obama + View/Print A Chart of the 5 Principal Candidates' Positions

List of All 14 Presidential Candidates
"Believe It Or Not: Biden Romney's VP? plus A Strange Possibilty!"

Politifact's "Truth-O-Meter and Flip-O-Meter" 
Presidential Election Fact Checks: Campaign Claims
Pants on Fire
Obamameter and Romney meter

Quiz: Are you a Conservative or a Liberal?  Discover which political party you align with. and NewsMax Presidential Poll Results

At http://harrold.org/polls find: Polling Data - Election Background Data -• Election Graphs, Charts and Data Tables -• Issues •- Take Action -• Voter Guides •- Register to Vote/Check Status -• Find/Contact Officials and Compatriots• - American Heritage/Documents

---

Your Vote Is Very Important!:

"There have been 12 Presidential elections that were decided by less than a 1% margin; meaning if less than 1% of the voters in certain states had changed their mind to the other candidate the outcome of the entire election would have been different, e.g. year 2000: Margin: less than 1%, only a few hundred votes in one state and e.g. year 1960: Margin: less than 1%.

(sources: http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections.html and http://www.infoplease.com/spot/closerace1.html)

---

Are you and friends registered to vote?

---

The Election:

17 Days

"Elections Are Not Won by Who Voted, They are Lost by Who Did Not" ~ rfh

"Arm your self with the ballot, while you still have arms." -- rfh

California Gun Owners Voting Guides

GOC VOTER GUIDES ARE AVAILABLE!

ATTENTION! Our candidate ratings for both the State Assembly and the Senate are available, along with our recommended positions on the Statewide Ballot Measures! 
Candidate Ratings:
STATE ASSEMBLY: http://www.gunownersca.com/images/PDF/Scorecard/Assembly_Candidates_2012_General_Election_Ratings.pdf
STATE SENATE: http://www.gunownersca.com/images/PDF/Scorecard/2012_California_General_Election_Senate_Candidate_Ratings.pdf
CALIFORNIA BALLOT MEASURES: http://www.gunownersca.com/images/PDF/Scorecard/November_2012_Statewide_Ballot_Measures_GOC_Positions.pdf

---

"The sun hangs low on the horizon." -- GB (2009)

2nd Amendment: • Safety and Training • Games/Diversions • Reference and Reading

"Arm your self with the ballot, while you still have arms." -- rfh

---

1. 1. The Resurrection of the 'Assault Weapons' Ban

      
      

      National Review Online (blog)‎ - 8 hours ago

      It seems to have been lost in the fog that, last night, President Obama appeared to put his weight behind a new assault-weapons ban. 

      
      

      A new assault weapons ban? Washington Post (blog)‎ - 21 hours ago

      Obama calls for reintroducing assault-weapons ban Wall Street Journal‎ - 21 hours ago
2. Obama Calls for Renewal of Assault Weapons Ban - ABC News

   abcnews.go.com/.../obama-calls-for-renewal-of-assault-weapo...

   20 hours ago – President Obama tonight said he's interested in seeing an assaultweapons ban reintroduced, breaking his silence on the legislation, which ...
3. Obama's Gun Ban List Is Out

   rense.com/general85/obs.htm

   Gun-ban list proposed. Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush ...

---

o'toon - VP Debate

From: jj Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 Subject: VP Debate

---

o'tax'n spend - 47% is correct. "We're Broke!"

     Romney is absolutely right...approximately 47% of people in the U.S. do not pay federal income taxes.  It is a fact.  It is not meant to disparage anyone.  It simply states the obvious -  someone (taxpayers) and by some means - government benefits (earned or not) are paid by government monies.  If the government does not have enough money to pay its obligations it can only default, borrow more, raise more taxes, or print 'fiat money'.
    A fiscal disaster is looming that can not be swept under the rug with a cavalier attitude by 'he who grins like a cheshire cat' as he jaunts around the America on Air Force One campaigning on your dime.

     o'tax'n spend's answer:  a) Raise taxes on nearly everyone, b) increase the number who don't pay taxes and c) lie to the so-called 'middle income' brackets' voters in order to convince them that they won't pay increased federal taxes, d) have the Federal Reserve print more money, or e) use bookkeeping tricks to hide the problem or worse yet f) destroy the capitalist free enterprise system and replace it with a communist state.
     Chart numbers eight and nine (#8 and #9 below) clearly show that those who do pay taxes, who o'pander is trying to fool, comprise 80% of all tax payers.  o'robin hood's plan to add eight trillion dollars of taxes by 1) eliminating the Bush tax cuts and 2) raising taxes on the remaining 20%, and 3) hiding new taxes in o'scamcare which won't raise enough revenue to offset more than about 98 days of government spending.  o'keynesian would not reduce the deficit.  It is now heading toward $17 trillion dollars - nor would he lower the interest being paid against the debt.  America will continue falling into bankruptcy under o'Marxist's 'redistribute the wealth' plan.  In fact, o'massah's plantation state agenda would not affect, by even a scintilla, the 'unfunded debt' which is now approaching $122 trillion dollars!

     The estimated population of the United States is 314,584,741+ so your personal share of deficit is $51,544.38.  If you factor in the 'unfunded debt', your personal share is over $189,000 and increasing daily.  "That reality is very simple.  We're broke.  Mr. President, are you paying attention?", quote from: Michael D. Tanner,  NY Post, 29Jan12.

     The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $3.88 billion per day since September 28, 2007!

     Every day, the o'bamanomic's regime takes in $6 Billion and spends $10 Billion!

     Under any real debt reduction plan, spending must be cut dramatically, across the board including most all of the 'so-called' entitlement programs.  For he'who lies- he is not serving our country. -- rfh

source: http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/01/02/every-day-obama-regime-takes-6-billion-and-spends-10-billion

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/18/who-doesnt-pay-taxes-in-charts/

source: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_V5KvB19adtZ9fXbLNGMaRO

source: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

source: http://harrolds.blogspot.com

source: http://www.usdebtclock.org

Click Here for videos, graphs, movie & U.S. National Debt totals.  

---

Who doesn't pay taxes, in eight charts

reposted from an article written by Brad Plumer , Washington Post, on September 18, 2012

article source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/18/who-doesnt-pay-taxes-in-charts/

     A leaked fundraising video caused a stir Monday [17Sep12] when it showed Mitt Romney taking a rather caustic view of Obama supporters.
     In particular, Romney bemoaned the fact that nearly half the country doesn't pay federal income taxes: "These are people who pay no income tax.  Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax.  So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. … [M]y job is not to worry about those people.  I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

     So why don't many Americans pay income taxes?  And what taxes do they pay?  Let's try to do a comprehensive breakdown in — yes — charts:

1) About 46.4 percent of U.S. households didn't pay federal income taxes in 2011.  Mitt Romney's right about that.

(Tax Policy Center)

2) That number is abnormally high right now in part due to the recession and slow recovery.  When people lose their jobs or see their paychecks drop, they tend to pay fewer income taxes as well.  (That's why the budget deficit tends to increase in a bad economy.)  Additionally, Congress has passed a slew of tax cuts as part of its stimulus efforts.  So that's skewed the number of nonpayers.  When the economy's at full employment, as it was in 2007, it's usually only about 40 percent of U.S. households that aren't paying income taxes:

(Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)

3) The vast majority of households that don't pay federal income taxes are either elderly or paying payroll taxes.  As you can see below, 60 percent of those who don't pay income tax are still working and paying taxes for Social Security and Medicare.  Their tax liability is just too low to qualify for the income tax.  Another 22 percent of non-payers are retirees.

     Only about 7.9 percent of households are not paying any federal taxes at all.  That's usually because they're either unemployed or on disability or students or are very poor.

(Tax Policy Center)

4) Many low-income workers don't pay federal income taxes thanks, in part, to a series of tax cuts endorsed by Republicans over the years.  The graph below from the Tax Policy Center shows why so many workers who do earn income don't have to pay the income tax.  They're exempt under various provisions of the tax code.

     For instance, most (though not all) elderly households are excluded from paying taxes on their Social Security benefits.  And low-income workers with children can qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit or the Child Tax Credit.  As Keith Hennessey explains, the latter was a major GOP initiative during the 1990s and 2000s, and conservatives used to tout them as vital poverty-reduction measures:

5) The number of people who don't pay federal income taxes tends to jump every time there's a big tax cut bill, as after the 1986 tax reform or the 2001 Bush tax cuts.  There's a reason why George W. Bush was boasting, in 2004, about moving 5 million taxpayers "off the rolls."  He didn't think he was creating an army of Obama voters.  He thought it was good policy:

(Heritage)

6) About 30 percent of workers had a negative income tax in 2011, thanks to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which gives them a big refund.  But these beneficiaries tend to leave the program fairly quickly.  Many low-income workers actually receive extra money through the tax code, thanks to the EITC.  Again, this is an anti-poverty program long supported by Republicans.

     What research has shown, however, is that most EITC recipients only get the credit for two consecutive years or less.  Many of them soon move up the income ladder and start paying taxes back into the system.  One paper found that, over their lifetime, these EITC recipients pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits:

(Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)

7) Over their full lifetime, the vast majority of workers end up paying income taxes and federal taxes.  As this graph  from the Hamilton project shows, it's mainly the very young and the very old who aren't paying income taxes.  The vast majority of workers pay income taxes during their prime years, and an even higher percentage of Americans pay into Medicare and Social Security throughout their lives:

8) Federal taxes are just part of the picture. Most Americans also pay state and local taxes, such as sales taxes.  These tend to be more regressive and hit lower-income groups harder.  Here's what the system looks like when you add up all taxes:

(Citizens for Tax Justice)

---

#9 - Who Pays Income Taxes and How Much?
(source: http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html)

Tax Year 2009 

Percentiles Ranked by AGI	AGI Threshold on Percentiles	Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%	$343,927	36.73
Top 5%	$154,643	58.66
Top 10%	$112,124	70.47
Top 25%	$66,193	87.30
Top 50%	$32,396	97.75
Bottom 50%	<$32,396	2.25
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income Source: Internal Revenue Service

---