Sunday, September 30, 2012

These are the Top 5 Worst Taxes ‘Obamacare’ Will Impose in 2013 

by


The Grover Norquist-founded Americans for Tax Reform, a 501(c)(4) lobbying group that opposes “all tax increases as a matter of principle,” on Friday released a list of what, they say, are the top five worst taxes The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (i.e. “Obamacare”) will impose on Americans in 2013.

Here they are [all block quotes via the report]:


Americans For Tax Reform Releases a List of the Top 5 Worst Taxes Obamacare Will Impose in 2013 
The ‘Obamacare’ Medical Device Tax

Tax Increase: $20 Billion
Medical device manufacturers employ 409,000 people in 12,000 plants across the country.  Obamacare imposes a new 2.3 percent excise tax on gross sales — even if the company does not earn a profit in a given year. In addition to killing small business jobs and impacting research and development budgets, this will increase the cost of your health care — making everything from pacemakers to prosthetics more expensive.

 

Americans For Tax Reform Releases a List of the Top 5 Worst Taxes Obamacare Will Impose in 2013 
The ‘Obamacare’ ‘Special Needs Kids Tax'

Tax Increase: $13 Billion
The 30-35 million American who use a Flexible Spending Account (FSA) at work to pay for their family’s basic medical needs will face a new government cap of $2,500 (currently the accounts are unlimited under federal law, though employers are allowed to set a cap).
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 several million 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 be used to pay for this type of special needs education. This Obamacare tax provision will limit the options available to these families.

 

Americans For Tax Reform Releases a List of the Top 5 Worst Taxes Obamacare Will Impose in 2013 
The ‘Obamacare’ Surtax on Investment Income

Tax Increase: $123 Billion
This is a new, 3.8 percentage point surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single).  This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income:


Americans For Tax Reform Releases a List of the Top 5 Worst Taxes Obamacare Will Impose in 2013
Courtesy Americans for Tax Reform
The table above also incorporates the scheduled hike in the capital gains rate from 15 to 20 percent, and the scheduled hike in dividends rate from 15 to 39.6 percent.

 

Americans For Tax Reform Releases a List of the Top 5 Worst Taxes Obamacare Will Impose in 2013 
The ‘Obamacare’ ‘Haircut’ for Medical Itemized Deductions

Tax Increase: $15.2 Billion
Currently, those Americans facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI).  This tax increase imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. By limiting this deduction, Obamacare widens the net of taxable income for the sickest Americans.  This tax provision will most harm near retirees and those with modest incomes but high medical bills.

 

Americans For Tax Reform Releases a List of the Top 5 Worst Taxes Obamacare Will Impose in 2013 
The ‘Obamacare’ Medicare Payroll Tax Hike 

Tax Increase: $86.8 Billion
The Medicare payroll tax is currently 2.9 percent on all wages and self-employment profits.  Under this tax hike, wages and profits exceeding $200,000 ($250,000 in the case of married couples) will face a 3.8 percent rate instead. This is a direct marginal income tax hike on small business owners, who are liable for self-employment tax in most cases. The table below compares current law vs. the Obamacare Medicare Payroll Tax Hike:

Americans For Tax Reform Releases a List of the Top 5 Worst Taxes Obamacare Will Impose in 2013
Courtesy Americans for tax Reform

Jerusalem Post: "Support the civilized man," Pamela Geller "has it right"

From Jihad watch / Posted by Robert Spencer


At last, some common sense. "Support the civilized man," by Israel Kasnett in the Jerusalem Post, September 27 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
Pamela Geller, the executive director of the The American Freedom Defense Initiative, has it right. Her organization’s pro-Israel posters are in 10 New York City subway stations after a federal judge ruled that the city must put them up. The ads read: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.” 
New York’s MTA transportation agency barred the ads last year, citing “demeaning language.” However, a Manhattan federal court judge ruled in July that the MTA violated the First Amendment rights of AFDI, the group behind the ads.
Geller boldly fought for freedom of expression on CNN and blamed the network for being part of the problem.
“Your position is emboldening Islamic terrorism and emboldening extremism because you’re sanctioning it... you’re blaming the victim,” she told Erin Burnett.
Burnett attempted to push the interpretation of “jihad” as a “personal struggle,” implying that Geller is taking an extreme stance in her ads. What Burnett and, likely, most CNN viewers do not get, is that “jihad” today is used in the context of “holy war” against non-believers. It may have been intended to be used in a more peaceful context, but clearly Islam has changed....
Even more worrying is the West’s inability to gain a proper perspective and understanding of radical Islamic ideology. The West seems to believe that “most Muslims are peaceful” and, considering that there are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, this may just be the case. However, if just 10 percent of Muslims – 13 million people, that is – follow radical Islam, the world is in trouble. Put simply, radical Islam seeks to slowly take control of the world and bring it to submission.
THE LEVEL of hatred for the Western world, especially Israel, should be of great concern for all those who believe the Muslim world is changing for the better.
In August, numerous news outlets reported on the Egyptian show in which Arab celebrities and public figures had been invited under the pretense that they would appear on an Arabic-speaking German network.
When the deception began, the guests were unnerved after they were tricked into believing that the show airs on an Israeli channel.
The host fooled guests into believing she was of Jewish origin.
Some of the guests responded with anti- Israeli slurs and violence. When Egyptian actor Ayman Kandeel believed he had been tricked into appearing on an Israeli television network, he smacked the show’s producer and slapped the female host, throwing her into a corner.
And Morsy thinks the world should accept this “culture”? And CNN thinks jihadists aren’t savages? What culture maintains honor killings as a rightful practice? What culture becomes enraged by silly depictions of Muhammad but snores when thousands of innocent men, women and children are actually dying? Only a twisted, savage culture would operate in such a manner.
The world ignores wars fought between savages. Just look at Syria. Look at Africa.
IT IS this savage culture that the Western world is trying to appease. And it will fail....
As Geller says, any war on innocent civilians is savagery. The West needs to stop apologizing to the Muslim world, get behind Israel and defeat jihad.

Brava: House lawmaker blocks Obama's $450 million jizya payment to Muslim Brotherhood Egypt

From Jihad Watch


Long overdue, and not enough, but welcome nevertheless. "House lawmaker blocks $450M in US aid for Egypt," by Donna Cassata for the Associated Press, September 28 (thanks to all who sent this in):
The Obama administration's plan to transfer $450 million in cash to Egypt hit a roadblock Friday as a top House committee chairwoman blocked the move, saying it warrants further review. 
Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas, said the State Department had notified Congress of plans to move the money to the new government of President Mohammed Morsi as Cairo struggles economically. The money is part of the nearly $1 billion in debt relief that President Barack Obama had promised Egypt earlier this year.
"This proposal comes to Congress at a point when the U.S.-Egypt relationship has never been under more scrutiny, and rightly so," the chairwoman of the Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations said in a statement. "I am not convinced of the urgent need for this assistance and I cannot support it at this time. ... I have placed a hold on these funds."
The relationship between the United States and Egypt has been rocky since the overthrow of U.S. ally President Hosni Mubarak last year. The Egyptian government angered Washington when it cracked down on numerous democracy advocates and groups, including three U.S.-funded nongovernmental organizations, earlier this year.
More recently, demonstrators breached the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to protest an anti-Islam video, and some in Congress have called for cutting off aid. The United States provides Egypt with $1.55 billion annually - $250 million in economic aid and $1.3 billion in military aid....

Obama's Not Mr. Right 

By: Mark Baisley  / Townhall Daily / Columnist


About two years ago, Lori Gottlieb wrote a New York Times Bestseller that seemed to describe the entangled process that the Republican Party acts out every four years to arrive at its nominee for President of the United States.  Her book, entitled “Marry Him; The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough,” opens with a scene at the entrance of The Husband Store with a sign that reads, “You may visit the Husband Store ONLY ONCE.  There are six floors, and the value of the products increase on each successive floor.  The shopper can choose any item from a particular floor, or go up to shop on the next floor, but she cannot go back down except to exit the building.”

The first floor is labeled, “Men who have good jobs.”  The second floor reads, “Men who have good jobs and love kids.”  The attractiveness increases through the fifth floor with, “Men who have good jobs, love kids, are extremely handsome, help equally with the housework, and have a great sense of humor.”

The sixth floor reads, “You are visitor 42,213,602 to this floor.  There are no men on this floor.  This floor only exists to prove that women are impossible to please.”

The metaphor works well, especially since there are nearly 42,213,602 members of the Republican Party.

This campaign season promises to be the most negative in history.  This is because, in every traditional metric, the Obama Administration has nothing positive to boast.  With an embarrassing résumé of persistent unemployment, crisis-level gas prices, unfathomable debt, scandal cover-ups and international disrespect, Barack Obama hopes to keep his job by launching an all-out attack on challenger Mitt Romney. 

The Democratic Party tailor-designed a class warfare strategy for Mitt Romney well over a year ago.  And, it certainly has been a consistent message.  But a Democratic negative campaign aimed at a GOP defeat is no match for the Republican Party’s ability to fickle itself into a loss.

Unlike many other countries, the United States enjoys a two-major-party election system; Democrats versus Republicans.  Canada has three major parties.  England also has three, Russia has four, and Israel has six (Oy vey).  The advantage of America’s dyadic selection is that it avoids a popular vote split.  That is the case where the two most popular candidates divide, say 60% of the vote, where both lose to the third most popular candidate who receives just 40%.

This works fine in the General Election, which is all about party control.  But the primary election brings all of the algebraic challenges of having multiple candidates.  And for Republicans, much more than Democrats, choosing the nominee during primary season is all about ideology.

Let’s imagine the political spectrum as a one-dimensional, left/right sliding scale.  Now suppose the exact middle is labeled “zero” and would be the ideal descriptor for a moderate politician.  Then consider the furthest right point to be a positive number 2 and the furthest left point to be a negative number 2.  That would land Adolph Hitler at negative (-) 1.999 and Ron Paul at positive (+) 1.875.

It is the tendency of the members of the Democratic Party to quickly agree on the most popular candidate to represent their firebrand.  So long as he/she is to the left of zero, the rank and file dutifully fall in line; Republicans - not so much.

To the conservative American purist, the ideal position on the political scale would be the Golden Ratio of +1.618.  Every viable Republican candidate will be to the right (positive number) of zero and most will live within the neighborhood of +1.618.  However, if we were to measure every citizen member of the Republican Party, the average voter would fall somewhere around +1.350.  This reality works against selecting the next Ronald Reagan, who came in at precisely +1.603 (Yes, I am making up all these numbers).

The conservative guardians of American tradition have a tolerance threshold.  If the Republican nominee positions himself to the left of +1.300, party members will lose enthusiasm.  And if the figurehead moves to the left of +1.200, the party will begin to lose membership in response to the sense that basic principles are betrayed.

When campaigning for Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney marketed himself to the left of zero.  That was likely necessary to win in a New England state and anyone with access to YouTube can see the evidence.  So, while his presidential campaign has branded him much further to the right, Romney’s metric is barely within the acceptable range of GOP membership.  He has matured since his wild youth as a New England governor and seems ready to settle down.

So there is Mitt Romney, down on one knee and holding open a velvet ring box with a +1.250 carat diamond.  Anyone who has read my writings for any length of time will realize that I didn’t find Mitt Romney to be Mr. Right.  But our clock is ticking and the choices are to either marry Mr. Good Enough or continue living with that irresponsible Barack Obama who has depleted our bank account, mortgaged our children’s future, and left the Oval Office smelling of cigarette butts.

I think that it’s time to do what any respectable girl would do in this situation.  I say that we appreciate all the fine qualities that the averaged Republican electorate saw in Mitt Romney and accept his proposal -- Then set out to change him.  Four years from now, we had better be one happy wife.

And for the future, let’s figure out how to attract that brilliant and responsible suitor who loves all kids, knows how to motivate others, and won’t retreat from big dreams.

Another Push for Global Taxation from the United Nations 

By: Daniel J. Mitchell  / Townhall Daily / Finance

I spoke at the United Nations back in May, explaining that more government was the wrong way to help the global economy.

But I guess I’m not very persuasive. The bureaucrats have just released a new report entitled, “In Search of New Development Finance.”

As you can probably guess, what they’re really searching for is more money for global redistribution.

But here’s the most worrisome part of their proposal. They want the U.N. to be in charge of collecting the taxes, sort of a permanent international bureaucracy entitlement.

I’ve written before about the U.N.’s desire for tax authority (on more than one occasion), but this new report is noteworthy for the size and scope of taxes that have been proposed.

Here’s the wish list of potential global taxes, pulled from page vi of the preface.



Here’s some of what the report had to say about a few of the various tax options. We’ll start with the carbon tax, which I recently explained was a bad idea if imposed inside the U.S. by politicians in Washington. It’s a horrible idea if imposed globally by the kleptocrats at the United Nations.
…a tax of $25 per ton of CO2 emitted by developed countries is expected to raise $250 billion per year in global tax revenues. Such a tax would be in addition to taxes already imposed at the national level, as many Governments (of developing as well as developed countries) already tax carbon emissions, in some cases explicitly, and in other cases, indirectly through taxes on specific fuels.
Notice that the tax would apply only to “developed countries,” so this scheme is best characterized as discriminatory taxation. If Obama is genuinely worried about jobs being “outsourced” to nations such as China (as he implies in his recent attack on Romney), then he should announce his strong opposition to this potential tax.

But don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

Next, here’s what the U.N. says about a financial transactions tax.
A small tax of half a “basis point” (0.005 per cent) on all trading in the four major currencies (the dollar, euro, yen and pound sterling) might yield an estimated $40 billion per year. …even a low tax rate would limit high-frequency trading to some extent. It would thus result in the earning of a “double dividend” by helping reduce currency volatility and raising revenue for development. While a higher rate would limit trading to a greater extent, this might be at the expense of revenue.
This is an issue that already has attracted my attention, and I also mentioned that it was a topic in my meeting with the E.U.’s Tax Commissioner.

But rather than reiterate some of my concerns about taxing financial consumers, I want to give a back-handed compliment the United Nations. The bureaucrats, by writing that “a higher rate…might be at the expense of revenue,” deserve credit for openly acknowledging the Laffer Curve.

By the way, this is an issue where both the United States and Canada have basically been on the right side, though the Obama Administration blows hot and cold on the topic.

Now let’s turn to the worst idea in the U.N. report. The clowns want to steal wealth from rich people. But even more remarkable, they want us to think this won’t have any negative economic impact.
…the least distorting, most fair and most efficient tax is a “lump sum” payment, such as a levy on the accumulated wealth of the world’s richest individuals (assuming the wealthy could not evade the tax). In particular, it is estimated that in early 2012, there were 1,226 individuals in the world worth $1 billion or more, 425 of whom lived in the United States, 90 in other countries of the Americas, 315 in the Asia-Pacific region, 310 in Europe and 86 in Africa and the Middle East. Together, they owned $4.6 trillion in assets, for an average of $3.75 billion in wealth per person.21 A 1 per cent tax on the wealth of these individuals would raise $46 billion in 2012.
I’ll be the first to admit that you can’t change people’s incentives to produce in the past. So if you steal wealth accumulated as the result of a lifetime of work, that kind of “lump sum” tax isn’t very “distorting.”

But here’s a news flash for the nitwits at the United Nations. Rich people aren’t stupid (or at least their financial advisers aren’t stupid). So you might be able to engage in a one-time act of plunder, but it is deliberate naiveté to think that this would be a successful long-run source of revenue.

For more information, I addressed wealth taxes in this post, and the argument I was making applies to a global wealth tax just as much as it applies to a national wealth tax.

Now let’s conclude with a very important warning. Some people doubtlessly will dismiss the U.N. report as a preposterous wish list. In part, they’re right. There is virtually no likelihood of these bad policies getting implemented at any point in the near future.

But the statists have been relentless in their push for global taxation, and I’m worried they eventually will find a way to impose the first global tax. And if you’ll forgive me for going overboard on metaphors, once the camel’s nose is under the tent, it’s just a matter of time before the floodgates open.

The greatest threat is the World Health Organization’s scheme for a global tobacco tax. I wrote about this issue back in May, and it seems my concerns were very warranted. The bureaucrats recently unveiled a proposal – to be discussed at a conference in South Korea in November – that would look at schemes to harmonize tobacco taxes and/or impose global taxes.

Here’s some of what the Washington Free Beacon wrote.
The World Health Organization (WHO) is considering a global excise tax of up to 70 percent on cigarettes at an upcoming November conference, raising concerns among free market tax policy analysts about fiscal sovereignty and bureaucratic mission creep. In draft guidelines published this September, the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control indicated it may put a cigarette tax on the table at its November conference in Seoul, Korea. …it is considering two proposals on cigarette taxes to present to member countries. The first would be an excise tax of up to 70 percent. …The second proposal is a tiered earmark on packs of cigarettes: 5 cents for high-income countries, 3 cents for middle-income countries, and 1 cent for low-income countries. WHO has estimated that such a tax in 43 selected high-/middle-/low-income countries would generate $5.46 billion in tax revenue. …Whichever option the WHO ends up backing, “they’re both two big, bad ideas,” said Daniel Mitchell, a senior tax policy fellow at the Cato Institute. …Critics also argue such a tax increase will not generate more revenue, but push more sales to the black market and counterfeit cigarette producers. “It’s already huge problem,” Mitchell said. “In many countries, a substantial share of cigarettes are black market or counterfeit. They put it in a Marlboro packet, but it’s not a Marlboro cigarette. Obviously it’s a big thing for organized crime.” …The other concern is mission creep. Tobacco, Mitchell says, is easy to vilify, making it an attractive beachhead from which to launch future vice tax initiatives.
It’s my final comment that has me most worried. The politicians and bureaucrats are going after tobacco because it’s low-hanging fruit. They may not even care that their schemes will boost organized crime and may not raise much revenue.

They’re more concerned about establishing a precedent that international bureaucracies can impose global taxes.

I wrote the other day about whether Americans should escape to Canada, Australia, Chile, or some other nation when the entitlement crisis causes a Greek-style fiscal collapse.

But if the statists get the power to impose global taxes, then what choice will we have?

Morsi denial of Copt persecution just Shariah-speak

'A classic example of the Islamic inversion of reality'


morsi3
Amid eyewitness accounts and press reports that Copts are leaving their homes after being threatened, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi denies there is anti-Copt persecution.

In an article in AllAfrica.com, Morsi said, “Persecution does not exist on Egyptian soil. We are all people of the homeland.”

An Egyptian citizen who lives in Cairo who asked not to be named for security purposes says the denial is because of how Morsi defines persecution.

“Morsi denies outright the Copts are persecuted in Egypt,” the Cairo resident said. “Morsi is not lying because he sincerely believes what he is saying.”

“The Western definition of persecution differs to Morsi’s understanding of persecution because Morsi is following the Islamic meaning,” he explained.

Islam analyst and Jihad Watch, publisher Robert Spencer agrees, saying the difference is perspective is an “inversion” of reality.

“This is a classic example of the Islamic inversion of reality. In the Muslim view, Islamic law – Shariah – is synonymous with justice and fairness, even though from our perspective it oppresses women and non-Muslims,” Spencer said. “Thus when the Copts are persecuted in accord with its dictates, that is, from the Muslim perspective, not persecution, but justice.”

The Cairo resident believes the issue goes deeper. He says Morsi believes Copts are second-class citizens.

“As a member of the Brotherhood, Morsi subscribes to the Islamic tenets of treating non-Muslims as second-class citzens. They must be subdued, they are not equals with Muslims, they do not enjoy equal status with Muslims,” he said.

The Cairo resident added that Islam believes all non-Muslims are “fair game.”

“They are fair game. Islam teaches this is not persecution, the Quran refers to non-Muslims in the derogatory terms, kaffir, non-believer, infidel, people of the book,” he said adding Morsi believes the Copts are receiving normal treatment by Islamic standards.

“At the end of the day Morsi is telling us, this is not persecution. This is normal, this is fair, there is no problem,” the Cairo resident said.

The concept that persecution of non-Muslims is normal is a part of Islamic Law. Spencer adds that the perspective on the issue would be different if Muslims were receiving the same treatment as the Copts.

“If Muslims were persecuted, that would be persecution, as it would not be in accord with Shariah,” Spencer said.

“However, Copts being persecuted is just the way things are ordered, according to Shariah, and so it is justice, not persecution,” Spencer said.

The Cairo citizen believes there will be no reversal for the status of the Copts.

“Morsi believes that nothing needs to change, so nothing will change. The status quo will remain and persecution of the Copts as taught in Islam will continue under Muslim Brotherhood rule,” he said.

WND reported that Egyptian human rights activist and writer Wagih Yacoub said Copts are being forced to leave Rafah and armed militants are firing at their businesses.

“We’ve seen it today. People are going to the Sinai, shooting at Christian’s shops. They’re telling the people to leave their homes,” Yacoub said. “It’s especially because they are Christians.”

“The Copts are being evicted from Rafah in Sinai and have been evicted from Basshur, and the government has done nothing at all,” Yacoub said.

Court Reveals Iranian Operatives In Charge Of Obama’s Iran Policy Since 2009

Iran flag SC Court reveals Iranian operatives in charge of Obama’s Iran policy since 2009

A ruling handed down on September 13th by the D.C. District Federal Court has finally made clear what many have known for years–that the Obama Administration’s Iran policy was initiated and advanced by a group with illicit, hidden ties to the Iranian Regime and financed by the U.S./Israel- hating George Soros.

In 2009, Barack Obama turned over virtually all responsibility and authority for foreign policy negotiations with Iran to Trita Parsi and his National Iranian American Council (NIAC).  Founded by Parsi in 2003, the Washington-based NIAC is a powerful lobbying group that is “…widely considered the de facto lobby for the Iranian Regime in America.”

Like too many organizations that claim to represent the best interests of the nation of Iran and Iranian-Americans, the NIAC is tightly connected with and known to be funded at least in part by the George Soros empire.  Small wonder NIAC advice on dealing with Iran was replete with claims that Israeli propaganda was responsible for the negative image imposed on otherwise peace-loving, misunderstood Iranian mullahs. Not exactly a friend of Israel is George Soros.

And how did the reputedly “non-partisan” NIAC suggest the Obama Administration proceed with negotiations? Simple. The Council “…opposes sanctions on Iran, soft-pedals any controversial events in Iran, and counsels “patience” regarding Iran’s stance towards its nuclear program.”
 

What better way for NIAC representatives to serve their hidden masters in Tehran than by promoting a policy of “peaceful coexistence” between the US and Iran. And to the NIAC, peaceful coexistence meant “…acceptance of [the] Iranian government, accepting Iranian hegemony in the Gulf and its place in other parts of the Middle East, removal of sanctions and pressure against Iran, abandon of assistance to the Iranian people’s resistance against the regime and etc.”

For the U.S., the consequences of this game of intrigue played by the Administration’s hand-picked, Iranian representatives are summed up in this statement by Barack Obama:  “I’ve made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not interfering with Iran’s affairs.”  And indeed, this is the path Barack Obama has followed. Not exactly reassuring words from a president charged with keeping the American public safe from a nuclear-bound administration of religious fanatics dedicated to our demise.

And it is thanks to an ill-advised lawsuit that proof of the NIAC’s wrongdoing has finally been placed before the American public. In 2008, Trita Parsi and his organization filed a defamation suit against perpetual critic Seid Dai. Dai had publicly accused Parsi of secretly working with the ruling Iranian Regime against the interests of the United States and the Iranian people. But when Parsi filed suit hoping to silence-through-intimidation such potentially lethal criticism, it opened the floodgates of legal discovery allowing Dai to demand internal NIAC documents and emails that eventually “… confirmed [Parsi’s] ties to the [Iranian] mullahs…”

Not only did recovered emails reveal that Parsi had held “…numerous secret meetings with top level IRI [Islamic Republic of Iran] officials,” “Court documents show the NIAC was guilty of: lying to members of Congress, fraudulent membership numbers, tax law violations and evasions, Lobbying Disclosure Act violation, the Foreign Agents Registration Act violations, foreign bank accounts, defrauding of federal funds, bribing of eye witnesses, etc…”

And so egregious were NIAC attempts to duck its legal responsibilities of discovery that Judge John Bates dismissed the Parsi defamation suit, ordered sanctions against Parsi for his failure to comply with discovery, and ordered Parsi to pay significant percentages of Dai’s costs and fees.

This is an immensely important story, not surprisingly “missed” in its entirety by the mainstream media.

But why has the Romney campaign not demanded Obama’s rationale for handing the foreign policy decisions of the United States and the security of the American people over to representatives of the Iranian government itself? Could voters be pleased upon finding the president had placed America’s safety from possible nuclear attack in the hands of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Black clouds and black flags over Obama

To my blog followers:
I found this quite interesting in explaining the islamic mindset. While I personally don't really buy into the religious aspects of all this I do find the historical aspect quite interesting.
Black clouds and black flags over Obama
Explaining islamic symbol appearing amid global riots 
By: Joel Richardson

It was in 2004, when American businessman Nicholas Berg's brutal execution by beheading was widely shown all over the Internet, that most Americans caught their first glimpse of the black flag of Islam. Hung on the wall behind Berg and his murderous executioners was a black banner with Arabic writing in white.

Since the murder of Nicholas Berg, in numerous al-Qaida videos posted online, the same black flag has been observed hanging prominently behind the speaker.

And now the same black flag is proudly flying high over the U.S. Embassy in Tunisia and is waving across the world. Welcome to Obama's so-called "Arab Spring."

Over the past few days, the black flag has been observed amidst the protests and riots in Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Nigeria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Indonesia, India, Turkey, Jerusalem, Gaza and even Germany, Australia and England. Across the world, Muslims of every race, tribe and nation are marching under the same black banner.

While many commentators have been referring to this banner as the flag of al-Qaida, this does not convey its full meaning and history. What exactly what does the black flag of islam truly symbolize?

According to islamic history and tradition, during the career of muhammad, the "prophet" and founder of Islam, his forces carried a large black banner known as ar-Rāya into battle. The first black banner was said to be made from a large piece of cloth once wrapped around the head of his child-bride, Aisha. When muhammad and his men attacked a convoy, or village, it was this black flag that would herald their approach and lead them into battle.

When the Muslim forces returned to Mecca in conquest after a prolonged expulsion to Yathrib (Medina), enforced by the powerful Qurayshi tribe, this marked a major turning point in the expansion and victory of the Muslims over the region. Prominently leading the muslim armies was muhammad's black flag. It is for this reason, namely the military conquests of muhammad, that some versions of the flag today have a silhouette of the sword of Muhammad running along its lower half. Another name for the flag in Arabic is al-Ùqāb, and is sometimes referred to as "the Eagle" or alternately as "the Punishment." Since the time of muhammad's original military victories, the black flag has represented the unified and ever-expanding Islamic movement or government, and is a reminder of the expansionist conquests of Muhammad and his armies.

The element of black seen today in many of the national flags of Islamic countries is a hearkening back to muhammad's original black flag.

Last week, in the midst of the fierce anti-American rioting and protesting, there were even attempts to hoist the black banner over the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.

islam's black flag is most often emblazoned with white Arabic writing. The phrase in Arabic, lā ʾilāha ʾillà l-Lāh, Muḥammadur rasūlu l-Lāh translates into English as, "There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God." This is the creed and very heart of Islamic theology. This phrase is known as the "Shahada." The Shahada affirms not only the exclusive and singular claim to deity of Allah, the god of Islam, but also the supreme role of muhammad as the final messenger of this god to mankind. If one wishes to convert to Islam, this is the phrase that one must recite. When every muslim child is born, the first phrase they will hear are these words whispered into his ears by his father.

While some in the Western media have claimed that the symbol of the black flag belongs exclusively to radical terrorist groups, in fact, the flag is also used by Hizbut-Tahrir, an international islamic group whose goal is to reestablish the Caliphate, though it claims to reject all violence or terrorism.

The restoration of the Caliphate, a goal shared by jihadist groups such as al-Qaida, as well as moderate activist groups such as Hizbut Tahrir is a vision to unify the entire Islamic world into one Islamic superstate, called the Caliphate, led by a single leader, known as the Caliph. The Caliph is the pope, president and general of the Islamic world, bringing the religious, governmental and military offices all under one head. At virtually every Hizbut Tahrir rally, it is the black flag that will be the most prominent symbol on display.

Finally, beyond symbolizing the return to a unified Caliphate/Islamic superstate, there is a very important eschatological dimension to the symbol of the black flag as well.

According to Islamic prophecies, Muslims believe that the emergence of Muslim armies carrying black flags is powerful sign of the end times, heralding the coming of the Mahdi, the Islamic blaislamic messiah figure. muslims believe that the Mahdi will unify the Islamic world, conquer Israel and cause islam to gain victory over the non-muslim peoples and religions of the world as the Caliph of islam. One version of the prophecy of black flags, as relayed by Suyuti, commands all muslims to join this army:

"The black banners will come from the East and their hearts will be as firm as iron. Whoever hears of them should join them and give allegiance, even if it means crawling across snow."

Another version of the prophecy as recorded by Tirmidhi, has the armies marching from the east and placing their flags on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, as the seat of the coming unified Islamic superstate under the Mahdi/Caliph:

"Armies carrying black flags will come from Khurasan. No power will be able to stop them and they will finally reach Eela, (Baitul Maqdas, "The Holy House" in Jerusalem) where they will erect their flags."

Christian theologians have highlighted the similarity between the Islamic vision of their Mahdi with the warnings of Jesus and Paul who saw the biblical Antichrist setting himself up on the Temple Mount as the demonic claimant to world leadership:

So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel – let the reader understand – then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
– Matthew 24:16

He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple.
– 2 Thessalonians 2:4

To Christians who still recognize the warnings of biblical prophecy, it is clear that the Islamic Caliphate, or the "Mideast Beast" is on the way (Daniel 2, 7, Revelation 13, 17). Of course, even if one rejects the words of Jesus and Paul, it is clear that there is a powerful movement swirling throughout the Islamic world with strong apocalyptic or eschatological threads running throughout. But God knows that it is not a matter of if, but when the apocalyptic volcano that is the Middle East will explode. As we all anxiously watch the events unfold in the Middle East, it is time for Christians and unbelievers both to prepare their hearts and lives for all that lies ahead. For whether we like it or not, there are dark clouds, and black flags, gathering on the horizon.