Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Obama responds to turmoil in Egypt by giving Muslim Brotherhood government $213 million in taxpayer-funded F-16s

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer


These sure will come in handy when Egypt goes to war with Israel. And note the U.S. justifications for this at the end of the article: "The U.S.-Egypt defense relationship has served as the cornerstone of our broader strategic partnership for over thirty years." No recognition whatsoever that the situation in Egypt has radically changed, and is going to change further. "US sending 20 more F-16s to Egypt, despite turmoil in Cairo," by Maxim Lott for FoxNews.com, December 10 (thanks to Kenneth):
Instability in Egypt, where a newly-elected Islamic government teeters over an angry population, isn't enough to stop the U.S. from sending more than 20 F-16 fighter jets, as part of a $1 billion foreign aid package. 
The first four jets are to be delivered to Egypt beginning Jan. 22, a source at the naval air base in Fort Worth, where the planes have been undergoing testing, told FoxNews.com. The North African nation already has a fleet of more than 200 of the planes and the latest shipment merely fulfills an order placed two years ago. But given the uncertainty in Cairo, some critics wonder if it is wise to be sending more top gun planes....
The U.S. government ordered and paid for the fighter jets for Egypt's military as part of foreign aid for Egypt back in 2010, when Hosni Mubarak ruled. The fighter jets were supposed to be delivered in 2013, and delivery will go ahead as scheduled even though Hosni Mubarak has been removed from power and replaced by Mohamed Morsi, who led the Muslim Brotherhood before becoming Egypt's president.
Morsi was democratically elected, but last month attempted to seize dictatorial powers for himself. After widespread protests and violence in Egypt's capital of Cairo, Morsi backed off from his power grab. But he is pushing through a controversial new constitution for Egypt that would more strictly enforce Islamic Shariah law, and only recently said he reserves the right to have the military arrest protesters without charges.
"The Morsi-led Muslim Brotherhood government has not proven to be a partner for democracy as they had promised, given the recent attempted power grab," a senior Republican congressional aide told FoxNews.com.
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, (R-Fla.), who chairs the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, recently criticized U.S. military aid to Egypt:
The Obama administration wants to simply throw money at an Egyptian government that the president cannot even clearly state is an ally of the United States,” Rep. Ros-Lehtinen said.
The $213 million order, which is paid for by U.S. taxpayers and is part of Egypt's foreign aid package from America, had to be approved by lawmakers in Washington....
A Pentagon spokesman said the U.S. and Egypt have an important alliance that is furthered by the transfer.
"The U.S.-Egypt defense relationship has served as the cornerstone of our broader strategic partnership for over thirty years," said Lt. Col. Wesley Miller. "The delivery of the first set of F-16s in January 2013 reflects the U.S. commitment to supporting the Egyptian military's modernization efforts. Egyptian acquisition of F-16s will increase our militaries' interoperability, and enhance Egypt's capacity to contribute to regional mission sets."
Last month, State Department official Andrew J. Shapiro explained why the administration plans to continue military aid to Egypt:
“I know that the uncertainty over the Egyptian transition has prompted some in Congress to propose conditioning our security assistance to Egypt. The administration believes that putting conditions on our assistance to Egypt is the wrong approach, and Secretary Clinton has made this point strongly. Egypt is a pivotal country in the Middle East and a long-time partner of the United States. We have continued to rely on Egypt to support and advance U.S. interests in the region, including peace with Israel, confronting Iranian ambitions, interdicting smugglers, and supporting Iraq,” he said.
That was Mubarak's Egypt. Morsi's Egypt, even if it has to make tactical concessions now, will ultimately prove to be different.

World Begins to Heal with Taxes on Rich January 1st

The Age of Aquarius- long a goal for liberals- will begin in earnest on January 1st, 2013 when more of the planned tax increases on the wealthy created by Obamacare are implemented.

Here’s how it will work:

Finally, the low-down, dirty rich, who are responsible for all the world’s ills, including the short stature, pint-sized intellect and light caliber (pun intended) of Bob Costas, will start paying their fair share.

Time to cue the music from the play Hair:

“The 3.8% Net Investment Tax will be imposed against individuals, estates and trusts on their investment income,” croons TaxNews.com “and the 0.9% Additional Medicare Tax applies to an individual’s wages and self-employment income, that exceed threshold amounts.”

Try singing that to the Age of Aquarius.

Not surprisingly, “threshold amounts” of income under Obamacare are the same that Obama and Boehner are using to define the “rich” under the fiscal cliff tax increases demanded by Obama’s newest income tax dictates.

Free healthcare, it turns out, is gonna be very expensive for those who have taken advantage of our free system and helped the US become the greatest, most benevolent, most generous country in the history of the world.

And now, to be fair, we have to stop those rich jerks from being so generous.
     
I don’t know about anyone else, but liberals are sick of those rich people in America who give away close to $300 billion to charity annually, or roughly half the country’s defense budget. The government could really use that money to fritter away on things like $115 million for the United Nations program on democracy that funds “Promoting Political Tolerance in Malawi,” while suppressing political tolerance in the Unites States.  

“The two new taxes are two of the ACA’s 47 tax or tax-related provisions, some of which are already in effect,” says TaxNews. “Other provisions include individual mandate and employer mandate taxes, restrictions on the use of Flexible Spending Arrangements and Health Savings Accounts, the new tax on medical devices, the health insurance premium subsidy and new requirements for tax-exempt hospitals and group health insurance plans.”

That’s a long list of things to pay for. Just wait until we have a chance to pay for these things in places like Malawi.

Because, if you think the healing is going to stop with the rich in the US, you just don’t realize how much the earth needs to heal. Or how expensive the global version of Obamacare will be for you once there are no rich left in the US.

That’s when the rest of us who have worked hard to create the most just, racially tolerant, freest and most mobile society ever, will have to do our part too, rather than just sucking off the hard work of the technocrats at the World Bank, the IMF, the United Nations, and the OECD-M-O-U-S-E.

Middle class jerks, all of us!

I don’t know about anyone else, but liberals are sick of a rich America that gives away only $53 billion in foreign aid annually. The world could really use more money to fritter away on things like Cap and Trade, a program that can help fund China’s development of cheaper, dirtier fuels through subsidies by US consumers.

It will only cost a lot more than $200 billion per year.

Because you see, in global perspective, everyone in the United States is really rich and is soaking everyone else around the world- by the very same economic logic liberals now use here at home.

Once we screw up government run healthcare, retirement, banking, autos and insurance domestically, the next excuse we can expect to hear is that global failures are a result of America being too rich. And now we are going to have to pay our “fair share” of the growing global burden for _____________ (insert need here).

We are in the process of transforming the greatest, most benevolent, most generous country in the history of the world into the world’s primary care physician who will be responsible for the health of the rest of the world.

The National Intelligence Council, a government think-tank made up of US intelligence communities, already warns us that we must accept the mantle of the world’s doctor in a recently released report. The NIC is supposed to write intelligence reports made up of the most up to date, unbiased, accurate information, regardless of the views of the administration. So of course, they adopted Obama’s views in their latest report.    

From RT.com

The “most plausible worst-case scenario,” the report adds, involves the risks of interstate conflict increasing to the point that “the US draws inward and globalization stalls.” From there, “megacities [will] flourish and take the lead in confronting global challenges.”

Another possibility, the writers suggest, is as “inequalities explode as some countries become big winners and others fail. … Without completely disengaging, the U.S. is no longer the ‘global policeman’” according to the Council. 
  
Catch the rhetoric about “inequalities” exploding? OMG, we have to do something.

I’m not sure megacities- under the leadership of a King Bloomberg, no less- are the trend of the future.We have seen more and more cities of the non-mega variety failing for decades. They can't even educate 20 percent of our children to GRADE LEVEL, but they are going to lead us globally?

I do know one thing for sure, however: You thought it was expensive to be the global policeman as we have the last seventy years?

Wait until we become the world’s doctor over the next seventy.

5 Myths Liberals Have Created About Themselves

Liberalism is like a restaurant with ugly decor, terrible food, overflowing toilets and roaches scurrying across the floor -- that stays packed every night. Sure, liberals may be sanctimonious, mean spirited and advocate policies that don't work, but you can't help but admire the excellence of their public relations network. They can laud themselves for courage because they take a stand everyone they know agrees with, pat themselves on the back for their compassion as they maliciously insult someone that disagrees with them and congratulate themselves for their charitable behavior as they give other people's money away. Liberal mythology is one thing, but what it actually looks like is a different beast entirely.

1) Liberals love science: As Ann Coulter says, "Liberals use the word science exactly as they use the word constitutional. Both words are nothing more or less than a general statement of liberal approval, having nothing to do with either science or the Constitution." The liberal commitment to science consists entirely of talking about how important science is when they believe they can use it to further the liberal agenda. On the other hand, when science shows that adult stem cells actually work better than embryonic stem cells, millions in Africa have died because liberals needlessly insisted on banning DDT or the evidence shows AIDS is never going to take off in Western, non-drug using heterosexuals, liberals have about as much interest in science as they do in supporting the troops.

2) Liberals care about education: If you define "education" as doing as much as humanly possible to toss plums to the teachers’ unions who help fund and elect Democrats, liberals love education. Alternately, if you define education as the rest of us do, making sure our kids learn as much as possible and are prepared for the working world, liberals don't care about education at all. They fight merit pay, oppose firing bad teachers and try to kill even effective school choice programs. Any time there's a divergence between what's best for the teachers’ unions and what's best for the kids, the kids ALWAYS lose with liberals.

3) Liberals are tolerant: In a very real sense, liberals don't understand tolerance. To them, tolerance is promoting whatever position they happen to hold while excluding all competing views. So, if a conservative speaker shows up on a college campus, liberals try to shout him down. Liberals have tried to censor conservative talk show hosts with an Orwellian "Fairness Act." They work tirelessly to try to silence Fox News, which is the one center right network up against ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC. They block professors for their conservative views, blacklist conservative actors and lock conservatives out of almost every major newspaper in America. That's not open-minded; it's a level of dogmatic intolerance that could rival the most radical cult.

4) Liberals don't moralize: Liberals believe in allowing children to have abortions over the protests of their parents, they want to force churches to perform gay weddings that violate their Christian beliefs and they demand that the Catholic Church provide abortion and birth control over its strenuous moral objections, but then they turn around and deny that they're moralizing. Getting beyond that, they couch their arguments about tax rates, government programs and economics in distinctly moral terms. After all, what is the term "fair share" if not an appeal to morals? If liberals are going to continue to pretend that they don't moralize, at least they should admit that they’re morally inferior to conservatives.

5) Liberals love the poor: For both philosophical and practical reasons, conservatives believe in helping the poor escape poverty. We agree wholeheartedly with Ben Franklin's words of wisdom,
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
On the other hand, liberals "love" the poor like a cat loves mice. The cat gets fat off the mice and liberals get elected off of sadistically keeping as many Americans mired in poverty as they can. Then, they can give the poor just enough money to get by on while railing against those mean old conservatives who're claiming the destitute can have better lives when any "compassionate" person would realize food stamps and welfare are the best most of these people can ever do. That's not love; that's a gang of pushers trying to hook as many customers as possible.

More Phony Employment Numbers

by / Personal Liberty Digest

More Phony Employment Numbers
PHOTOS.COM
Statistician John Williams (shadowstats.com) calls the government’s latest jobs and unemployment reports “nonsense numbers.”

There are a number of ongoing problems with the released numbers. For example, the concurrent-seasonal factor adjustments are unstable. The birth-death model adds non-existent jobs each month that are then taken out in the annual downward benchmark revisions. Williams calculates that the job overstatement through November averages 45,000 monthly. In other words, employment gains during 2012 have been overstated by about 500,000 jobs. Another problem is that each month’s jobs number is boosted by downside revision of the previous month’s jobs number. Williams reports that the 146,000 new jobs reported for November “was after a significant downside revision to October’s reporting. Net of prior-period revisions, November’s seasonally-adjusted monthly gain was 97,000.”

Even if we believe the government that 146,000 new jobs materialized during November, that is the amount necessary to stay even with population growth and therefore could not be responsible for reducing the unemployment rate from 7.9 percent to 7.7 percent. The reduction is due to how the unemployed are counted.

The 7.7 percent rate is known as the “headline rate.” It is the rate you hear in the news. Its official designation is U.3.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has another official unemployment rate known as U.6.

The difference is that U.3 does not include discouraged workers who are not currently actively seeking a job. (A discouraged worker is a person who has given up looking for a job because there are no jobs to be found.) The U.6 measure includes workers who have been discouraged for less than one year. The U.6 rate of unemployment is 14.4 percent, about double the headline rate.

The U.6 rate does not include long-term discouraged workers, those who have been discouraged for more than one year. John Williams estimates this rate and reports the actual rate of unemployment (known as SGS) in November to be 22.9 percent.

In other words, the headline rate of unemployment is one-third the actual rate.

The drop in the November headline rate of unemployment from 7.9 percent to 7.7 percent is due to a 20.4 percent increase in the number of short-term discouraged workers in November. In other words, unemployed people rolled out of the U.3 measure into the U.6 measure.

Similarly, a number of short-term discouraged workers roll out of the U.6 measure into Williams’ measure that includes all of the unemployed. Williams reports that “with the continual rollover, the flow of headline workers continues into the short-term discouraged workers (U.6), and from U.6 into long term discouraged worker status (a ShadowStats.com measure), at what has been an accelerating pace. The aggregate November data show an increasing rate of individuals dropping out of the headline (U.3) labor force.” In other words, the headline rate of unemployment can drop even though the unemployed are having a harder time finding jobs.

The U.S. government simply lowers the unemployment rate by not counting all of the unemployed. We owe this innovation to the Administration of Bill Clinton. In 1994, the Clinton Administration redefined “discouraged workers” and limited this group to those who are discouraged for less than one year. Those discouraged for more than one year are no longer considered to be in the labor force and ceased to be counted as unemployed.

If the U.S. government will mislead the public about unemployment, it will also
mislead about Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen, Lebanon, Palestine, Russia, China and 9/11. The government fits its story to its agenda.

A government that wants to cut the social safety net doesn’t want you to know that the unemployment rate is 22.9 percent. A government that wants to cut the social safety net when between one-fifth and one-fourth of the workforce is out of work looks hard-hearted, mean-spirited and foolish. But if the government reports only one-third of the unemployed and presents that rate as falling, then the government can present its cuts as prudent to avoid falling over a “fiscal cliff.”

If the “free and democratic” Americans cannot even find out what the unemployment rate is, how do they expect to find out about anything?
Op-ed:

The US economy...sadly driven by debt and taxes
By: Diane Sori



Let's cut right to the chase...our government hasn't had any 'real money' in almost 80 years...ever since the days of FDR, when on March 9, 1933, Roosevelt declared the US federal government was bankrupt and insolvent. This led our country to begin dealing in debt...with only the type of payment terms varying.

Our monetary descent into today's $16+ TRILLION deficit started that day in 1933, and leads right up to today's fact that in NO way is there really a fiscal cliff for us to go over...there's only an extension of the payment plan to those we owe our country's financial survival to.

And what's making it worse is the fact that 41 years ago President Nixon officially took the United States off the Gold Standard. That in a nutshell contributed to the problems we face today for the bills currently being printed have no 'treasure' to back them up with...just worthless paper being used by 'We the People' to purchase things we really can't afford. And while Nixon felt he had to do this to protect the country and the US dollar against speculators, the truth be known was that at that time the US had incurred major deficits that couldn’t be financed through direct taxation of the people.

Direct taxation...the bane of every taxpaying American.

But to understand the concept of direct taxation on 'We the People' it first must be understood that our Founding Fathers did not trust government, let alone big government, to tax or do anything. They knew that government was, as Thomas Paine said in Common Sense, “a necessary evil and in its worst form an intolerable one.” So if government was a necessary evil it had to be as limited as possible without becoming anarchy, and if government was to be limited as was the intent of our Founders, then why would we need high taxes or direct taxes burdening the people? Think about it...too much money in the treasury would allow the exact opposite of limited, checked government because it would give the government too much power over the people. And our Founders wanted our government to use the least amount of money necessary to do what was supposed to be its limited functions NOT burden the people with so many taxes as to make their lives hard and unyielding.

And this is exactly what is happening today under this administration. Remember, when our country was founded the Founding Fathers espoused 'external taxation' (a tax placed on items coming into the colonies) to eliminate national deficits. Only when external taxation' failed to eliminate the deficit did 'internal taxation' (a direct tax added on to the price of goods purchased by the colonists) become authorized by Congress. And when such taxing of the people became necessary, they were taxed only as long as it took to eliminate the debt. Important also to know is that the people did NOT pay the federal government directly...they paid the states who in turn paid the taxes for them.

In fact, when James Madison discussed giving Congress the power to lay and collect taxes he stated, when “. . . a national revenue must be obtained; the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue, it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”

'NOT oppressive to the constituents'...hear that Obama...NOT oppressive...

And while throughout our nation's history our government has always spent money in ways our Founders never intended, it's 'We the People' that have always had to finance their spending through taxation that has indeed been oppressive. But NOTHING in our history has ever compared to the out-of-control spending done by the Obama administration with the worthless bills being printed and repaying IOUs to countries that are NOT really our friends just so they'll lend us more money, which makes NO sense at all.

And his solution to this is to tax 'We the People' even more.

And with Republican leaders like Speaker of the House John Boehner, who will probably capitulate on the issue of raising taxes (remember it's NOT just the rich who will have their taxes raised), “We the People' will be screwed even worse than we are now.

So I say lets stay in what amounts to bankruptcy, let our economy collapse, and lets rightfully lay it at the feet of Barack HUSSEIN Obama for this will be his legacy...'the man who raised taxes, destroyed the economy, saddled our children with an unpayable debt, and broke the spirit of the American people.'

-------------------------------------
 Thanks, Joseph.  :)