Friday, December 7, 2012

Barack Obama’s Phony Mandate

by / Personal Liberty Digest

Barack Obama’s Phony Mandate

Let me see if I have this right. Earlier this year, while campaigning for re-election, Barack Obama said he wanted to raise taxes $800 billion on everyone making more than $250,000 a year. Republicans were virtually unanimous in shouting, “No way!”

Then what happened when the Spender in Chief wins the White House for another four years? He promptly doubled down. Now, he says he wants $1.6 trillion in new taxes over the next 10 years. And our “don’t call my bluff” President made it abundantly clear that he’ll play hardball to get it.

When he appeared on “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who is serving as Obama’s messenger boy to Capitol Hill, declared flatly: “There’s no path to an agreement that does not involve Republicans acknowledging that rates have to go up on the wealthiest Americans.”

In other words, it’s our way or the highway. So what did the Republicans do? Rather than sticking to their earlier promise, the leadership countered by agreeing to give Obama the $800 billion he originally asked for. Way to fight for principle, guys.

Of course, $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue isn’t all that the Democrats are after. Obama also wants $50 billion in new stimulus spending and another $30 billion to extend unemployment benefits. Plus, he wants the death tax to go back up to 45 percent on estates and family farms worth $3.5 million and more.

And it doesn’t end there. Geithner, a tax cheater, also says that it’s time to abolish the ceiling on the Federal debt. No more coming back to Congress, hat in hand, to increase the limit on how much money our bankrupt Federal government can borrow. No, if Team Obama gets its way, there will be no limits on how much deeper this country will go in debt. Isn’t that a lovely situation to contemplate?

What about cutting some spending? “We’ll talk about that sometime down the road” is the best Team Obama will offer. No wonder Charles Krauthammer said that the Democrats’ proposal is “not just a bad deal, this is really an insulting deal.” In fact, he added, “Robert E. Lee was offered easier terms at Appomattox and he lost the Civil War.”

What happens if House Republicans dig in their heels and just say no? Well, inaction might give the Democrats an even bigger victory. It would mean that the Bush tax cuts (which Obama extended in 2010) would expire on Jan. 1. Those increases, plus all the new taxes and fees that are part of Obamacare, will mean that our taxes will go up even more.

A lot of observers are convinced that Obama and his advisers will be only too happy to see the U.S. plunge over the much-hyped fiscal cliff. Either way, they get the tax increases they want. Plus, under the latter scenario, they get to blame the Republicans for not being willing to compromise. It’s a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose proposition, with the big spenders in Washington coming out ahead either way.

By the way, did you see what one top Obama supporter is doing to avoid paying a bunch of those new taxes? Jim Sinegal, the co-founder, director and former CEO of Costco, was so smitten by the job Obama is doing that he agreed to give a prime-time address at this year’s Democratic convention. So you’d think he’d be hunky-dory with the Obama tax increases, wouldn’t you?

Not on your life. This past week, Costco announced that it would pay a special dividend this month to all of its shareholders. It is doing it in December — and even borrowing the $3 billion it will cost — so shareholders won’t have to pay the higher tax on dividend income next year.

Since Sinegal owns 2 million shares of Costco stock, that’s $14 million he’ll get in this special dividend. At the current tax rate of 15 percent on dividends, he’ll have to fork over a little more than $2 million of it to Uncle Sam. But had Costco waited until January to pay the dividend, Sinegal’s tax rate would be 43.4 percent, or more than $6 million.

In other words, the former Costco CEO gets to pocket an extra $4 million that otherwise would have gone to the Internal Revenue Service. Merry Christmas!

So much for the “shared sacrifices” by Obama’s wealthiest supporters. Now, please allow me to puncture a few more holes in the Democrats’ balloon. Let’s turn to the myth that Obama got a huge mandate in the November elections.

Nonsense! Obama won 51 percent of the votes for President on Nov. 6. But only 60 percent of eligible voters even bothered to cast a ballot this year. Winning support from 30 percent of eligible voters is hardly an overwhelming mandate.

Plus, exit polls of the people who voted revealed that a majority of them didn’t want taxes increased on people earning $250,000 or more. Obama’s claim that the voters this year sent “a very clear message” that they favored higher taxes is a bunch of baloney.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that the problem in Washington isn’t too little revenue; it’s too much spending! If the Federal budget were reduced to what it was four years ago when Obama first took office, we wouldn’t need a nickel of new taxes to balance the budget.

In fact, if we held the line on spending and simply stopped increasing it every year, pretty soon Uncle Sam would enjoy surpluses once again. We could even start reducing the national debt, rather than see it go up more than $1 trillion a year.

Of course, there’s about as much chance of seeing this happen of a snowball surviving a trip through Hades.

While it’s not what we wanted or worked for, I’m afraid it is now a virtual certainty we will see higher taxes and fewer new jobs and more new bureaucrats, regulators, tax collectors and other Federal busybodies next year.

And after that, it could get even worse.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

10 Explanations Of How Conservatism Helps The Middle Class

By: John Hawkins / Townhall Columnist
10 Explanations Of How Conservatism Helps The Middle Class

There's a lot to be said for talking about the Constitution, economic theory and what's best for the country. However, one place we conservatives have slipped in recent years is framing our policies in a way that answers the very first question on the mind of most voters, "How does this benefit me?"

That needs to change.

Conservatism is an ideology that benefits everyone, but it's particularly helpful to middle class Americans. If we want to bring more of those voters to the Right, we have to do a better job of explaining to them exactly how we're going to make their lives better. Happily, if you're talking to someone with an open mind, it's an easy case to make.

1) If a robber breaks into your house in the middle of the night, you should be allowed to use a gun to defend your family. If a woman is being threatened by a rapist, she should be able to use a gun to protect herself. If a child molester is trying to kidnap your son, you have every right to keep him safe. If someone is threatening the President of the United States or a celebrity, we all accept that their bodyguards should be able to use force to save their lives. Well, those of us who aren't rich shouldn't be left defenseless just because we can't afford bodyguards. We should have just as much of a right to safeguard our lives, our homes and our families as anyone else.

2) We don't believe in low tax rates for the rich; we believe in low tax rates FOR EVERYONE. The more you tax the rich, the less they invest, the more the economy suffers and the fewer jobs are created for the middle class. After all, you're never going to have a homeless man give you a job. Furthermore, despite all the rhetoric you hear to the contrary, the government can squeeze a lot more tax revenue out of the middle class than the rich. Inevitably, once the government raises taxes on the relatively small number of wealthy Americans, it always moves on to looting the middle class. In that sense, the rich are a tripwire. As long as their tax rates aren’t exorbitant, the middle class doesn’t have to worry about getting soaked either.

3) Conservatives believe that the government should live within its means just like the average American family does. As a matter of fact, government deficits are actually much worse than a family overspending because the government is running up charges on YOUR credit card. For every last member of your family and every other family in America, from the newborn babe to the mother in the nursing home, the government has run up a debt of $51,925. The bigger that number gets, the higher your future tax burden will have to be, the more debt your children will owe, the greater chance there is that Social Security and Medicare will go belly-up and the more inflation will eat into the value of your savings. There is nothing more dangerous to the future prosperity of the middle class in America than the size of the debt.

4) Conservatives are believers in small government not just because we believe that you can take care of yourself better than the government ever could, but because you can have big government OR low taxes on the middle class, but over the long haul, you can't have both. You're much better off spending your money on your own behalf as you see fit than you are having the government take your money, waste most of it and then spend what's left over on programs you may not agree with in the first place.

5) We conservatives believe in clean water, clean air, clean soil and respecting nature, but we also put humans above animals. We don't want farmers who've spent a lifetime tilling the soil so they'd have something to give to their kids driven out of business because a rare cockroach is found on their land. Furthermore, we don't believe the average American should pay hundreds, if not thousands more per year in hidden costs because of lawsuits filed by environmental extremists who'd like to make everything from automobiles to air conditioning illegal.

6) Conservatives believe in school choice because we don't think any child should be trapped in a failing public school. As we've seen in almost every other part of American life, giving people a choice of how to spend their money leads to better products, better prices and better customer service. Rich Americans already have the option of sending their children to a private school. Given the amount of taxes most middle class Americans pay for schools, why shouldn't they have the same choice? If it's good enough for the President of the United States, why shouldn't you have the same choice about where your child is educated?

7) The best way to protect the innocent is to be tough on the guilty. It's all well and good to talk about someone's hard life, the responsibility of "society" or the best way to rehabilitate him, but if you're beaten, your property is stolen or someone you love is taken away from you by a criminal, our first priority should be getting you justice, not doing what's best for the criminal. In fact, our second priority shouldn't even be doing what's best for the criminal; it should be making sure that he doesn’t harm anyone else. A society where we're tough on people drinking Big Gulps and soft on murderers is a society that is putting the interests of criminals ahead of law-abiding citizens.

8) Yes, conservatives do want to reform Medicare and Social Security because that's the only way to save both programs. The government has promised 100 trillion dollars more in benefits than it has money to pay for and unless we take steps now to make both programs sustainable, eventually many Americans who’ve worked hard and played by the rules will be hit with large cuts to their benefits after they're retired when they can least afford it. Conservatives are willing to take that politically dangerous position because we want to protect the American people from that catastrophe before it's too late to change course.

9) Conservatives believe in drilling ANWR, offshore drilling, opening up the keystone pipeline and taking advantage of clean coal technology, nuclear technology and exploiting this country's enormous natural gas reserves because that's one of the best ways to help middle class Americans put more money in their pockets. The less you pay to fill up your gas tank, heat your home and run your home appliances, the more money you'll have in your pocket at the end of the month.

10) We oppose illegal immigration because it's unfair and disrespectful to the immigrants who obeyed our laws and did things the right way to give citizenship to illegals. It's also unfair to all the people in the middle class who've seen their salaries driven down because they've had to compete for jobs with illegals who don't pay income taxes, health insurance, or car insurance. Additionally, with the economy in such bad shape, how do we justify allowing tens of millions of foreigners who didn't play by the rules to stay here and take jobs from middle class Americans who are struggling to take care of their families? Every illegal alien who's allowed to stay here and work means one more American without a job.

Hey, Fat Cat Unions: Pay Your "Fair Share"

By: Michelle Malkin / Townhall Columnist
Hey, Fat Cat Unions: Pay Your
Message for wealth-bashing millionaire actor Ed Asner: Man up and take responsibility for lying to America's schoolchildren.

Confronted by a producer for Fox News Channel's "The Sean Hannity Show" this week, the left-wing celebrity claimed he couldn't remember "a thing (he) said" on a vile propaganda video produced and published by the California Federation of Teachers. Asner narrated the unforgettable eight-minute anti-capitalist screed geared toward children.

Think Occupy Wall Street meets Sesame Street. "Things go downhill in a happy and prosperous land after the rich decide they don't want to pay taxes anymore," Asner warbles in a folksy grandpa voice. After education reform journalist Kyle Olson of blew the whistle on the film's vulgar cartoon depiction of a "rich" man urinating on the "poor," the teachers union whitewashed the animated images from the video.

While the Occupy-cheerleading teachers have to concoct such fantasy scenes, informed Americans remember that it was the Occupiers themselves who openly defecated in the streets. What's even more grossly comical is the sight of pampered Asner shilling for the "progressive" war on prosperity while ignoring Big Labor's own self-serving evasion of their "fair share" in taxes.

The California Federation of Teachers, an AFL-CIO affiliate that rakes in an estimated $22 million in coerced dues, enjoys nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(5) status. So does CFT's larger counterpart, the California Teachers Association, which collects a whopping $300 million in annual dues. While they burn through mountains of dues lobbying for everyone else to pay higher taxes, these Democratic partisan heavies pay nothing in either federal or state income taxes. Zero, zip, nada. In theory, the unions are entitled to this special status because their "primary" purpose is to "secure better working conditions, wages and similar benefits" for their members.

In practice, of course, the unions are Democratic Party front groups that shovel hundreds of millions of dollars to liberal causes and candidates -- against the will of their rank-and-file members and often without their knowledge.

Mark Levin's ever-vigilant Landmark Legal Foundation has pressured the Internal Revenue Service for more than a decade to force national teachers unions to file proper federal reporting and IRS statements regarding their hidden political expenditures. (The overwhelmingly Democratic donations are not tax-exempt.) As a result of Landmark's investigative work, the Wisconsin Education Association admitted in 2006 that it had failed to pay more than $171,000 in federal taxes on Democratic political expenditures.

Given the immense difficulty that dissenting teachers across the country have had in challenging the abuse of their dues for political purposes, it's clear this is the tip of Big Labor's tax-evasion iceberg.

In addition, the national parent organizations of the CFT and CTA also benefit from widespread property tax exemptions on their ownership of lavish real estate used for union brass vacations and retreats. Fox Business Network reporter Elizabeth MacDonald's investigation of IRS records earlier this year shed light on several tax-sheltered, union-owned luxury hotels, golf courses and country clubs -- including the "swanky"

AFL-CIO-owned Westin Diplomat resort in Florida and the UAW's $33 million lakeside resort and golf club in Onaway, Mich.

"What the documents don't show," FBN noted, "is whether union members like teachers, firemen and cops get invited to these junkets -- or even approve of or know about the use of their dues to outright buy and run resorts, or spend on junkets, among other things."

Then there's the Obamacare Cadillac tax exemption for unions. Delivered behind closed doors and out of sight of C-SPAN cameras, the Obama White House cut a lucrative sweetheart deal with AFL-CIO, Service Employees International Union and other labor groups to shield them from the federal health care mandate's steep 40 percent excise tax on high-cost health care plans. The 90 percent of Americans who don't belong to unions and participate in these plans must pay their "fair share" beginning in 2013.

But Big Labor's cozy Cadillac tax escape clause is effective until 2018. Even after that deadline, union dental and vision plans will remain exempt. The cost? $60 billion in foregone tax revenue.

Who are the greedy, selfish, filthy-rich tax evaders pissing on the poor and politically unconnected now?
Allen's (Final) Newsletter

Dear Patriot,

Greetings to our constituents, fellow Floridians, and indeed all Americans, it is time to prepare our weekly update for dissemination.

Today is the 71st Anniversary of the attack on US Naval Base, Pearl Harbor which truly marked our entry into World War II. I can still remember my dad sharing with me his feeling when he heard about this attack on the radio. Of course, he would go forth and serve in the US Army during World War II in the European Theater of Operations (ETO).

Little did my dad realize at the time, that he was beginning a legacy of service to our nation that has now spanned four generations. My dad was a member of that “Greatest Generation” and today his grandson, my nephew, carries that honor to this day.

As with the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, America has, and always will, produce the caliber of men and women who stand as guardians for our nation’s honor. These are men and women who have answered the call then and continue to do so now.

Tomorrow many in our nation will watch the next generation of these men and women as “America’s Football Game” takes place, Army vs. Navy. I wonder how many of these young men and women have relatives who were at Pearl Harbor, or served in World War II?

I am proud to know that my own godson, Midshipman John Melvin Hendricks (that rascal who joined the Navy) will be taking that field tomorrow, his second year.

So as we remember Pearl Harbor today, let us never forget those who will stand and answer the call to arms to protect this Republic, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

And in speaking of those who serve, I was angered by the developments this week surrounding Army Major Nidal Hasan who three years ago shot 43 soldiers and Department of the Army Civilians, killing 13. An Army appellate court decision removed the current assigned judge from the case citing that he was not impartial. Furthermore, the court backed the assertion that Major Hasan did not have to be forced to shave his beard.

It just appears again that we are placating and playing the game of political correctness. It is horrific enough that we have classified this terrorist attack as “work place violence” but consider the continued disappointment of those who lost loved ones on that day… for them, it will always be a day which shall live in infamy.

This week we voted in the House of Representatives to remove the word “lunatic” from federal law. However, that does not mean there isn't plenty of lunacy going on in the workings of the federal government!

Further, I find it interesting when media pundits and talking heads ask the disturbing question, “What will America do if Bashar al-Asad uses chemical weapons in his people?” I would have hoped it would never get to the point of his feeling empowered to use those weapons. It just seems we continue to take a defensive posture reacting to events.

If we had done as military generals on the ground had suggested in Iraq and retained a viable and credible military presence in the region, we could have precluded this. Instead we now have Iran transiting across Iraq to support Asad… and continuing to support terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad.

The Obama Administration was in such a rush to demand former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak step down. Why not the same vigor when it comes to Mohammed Morsi?

I also recall the Obama Administration supporting a Marxist/Socialist President in Honduras and not supporting the movement in Iran against Mahmoud Ahmandinejad.

Confusing? Just imagine what our allies are thinking.

And what happened in Benghazi? America must never stop asking that question, regardless of what the mainstream media wants to hide. Losing an Ambassador, a Foreign Service officer, and two former US Navy SEALS must never EVER become the new normal.

Today, we received the monthly jobs report for November, with 7.7% unemployment and 146,000 jobs created. On the surface it is good news. However, one step beyond the superficial, we realize this is still an economy limping along.

First, the previous job creation numbers from the months of September and October were revised downward by 50,000 respectively. Second, the unemployment rate dropped due to another 350,000 Americans dropping out of the labor force. This means we still have a labor force participation rate hovering at 63.6%, which has and continues to be a record low. At this rate, we could theoretically achieve an unemployment rate of zero if everyone just quit working altogether.

Finally, our U6 computation rate remains dangerously high, due not only to 12 million unemployed Americans, but also a little over 8 million underemployed Americans.

Combined with a fragile economy where the US Federal Reserve is printing money in order to cover a monthly $40 billion mortgage debt, America is hardly out of the woods.

These simple facts just reinforce the need to have sound fiscal, tax, and regulatory policy -- not politics -- that will incentivize economic growth and wealth expansion. The last thing the private sector and job creators need worry about is more confiscatory economics masquerading as viable solutions to a serious fiscal problem.

Washington DC spends too much, and sending this Administration more American taxpayer dollars is not the answer. It is mathematically impossible to tax “the rich” enough to make a dent in our debt. We must be talking about where to reduce spending first. And why is it that only taxpayers, not the federal government, are expected to “share the burden?”

This is my final weekly update from our Congressional office, but it is by no means my final weekly update... When one door closes, another opens and we shall continue to advocate for truth, the restoration of this Republic, and promote Constitutional conservative principles in the New Year.

It has been my honor to serve as the Representative of the People of Florida’s 22nd Congressional District. The fight for our Constitutional Republic has truly begun and I will be on the frontline.

May everyone have a wonderful holiday season and may God bless the United States of America.

Steadfast and Loyal

U.S.-approved arms for Libyan rebels went to jihadis

From Joihad Watxch / Posted by Robert Spencer

Was the Obama Administration really as naive and trusting as this article makes out? Or did the Administration not really care if the U.S. was arming jihadis? Clueless or complicit seem to be the only choices here. "U.S.-Approved Arms for Libya Rebels Fell Into Jihadis’ Hands," by James Risen, Mark Mazzetti and Michael S. Schmidt in the New York Times, December 5:
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats. 
No evidence has emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi to the attack that killed four Americans at the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in September.
But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government.
The experience in Libya has taken on new urgency as the administration considers whether to play a direct role in arming rebels in Syria, where weapons are flowing in from Qatar and other countries.
The Obama administration did not initially raise objections when Qatar began shipping arms to opposition groups in Syria, even if it did not offer encouragement, according to current and former administration officials. But they said the United States has growing concerns that, just as in Libya, the Qataris are equipping some of the wrong militants
The United States, which had only small numbers of C.I.A. officers in Libya during the tumult of the rebellion, provided little oversight of the arms shipments. Within weeks of endorsing Qatar’s plan to send weapons there in spring 2011, the White House began receiving reports that they were going to Islamic militant groups. They were “more antidemocratic, more hard-line, closer to an extreme version of Islam” than the main rebel alliance in Libya, said a former Defense Department official....
The administration has never determined where all of the weapons, paid for by Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, went inside Libya, officials said. Qatar is believed to have shipped by air and sea small arms, including machine guns, automatic rifles, and ammunition, for which it has demanded reimbursement from Libya’s new government. Some of the arms since have been moved from Libya to militants with ties to Al Qaeda in Mali, where radical jihadi factions have imposed Shariah law in the northern part of the country, the former Defense Department official said. Others have gone to Syria, according to several American and foreign officials and arms traders....
As a result, the White House largely relied on Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, two small Persian Gulf states and frequent allies of the United States. Qatar, a tiny nation whose natural gas reserves have made it enormously wealthy, for years has tried to expand its influence in the Arab world. Since 2011, with dictatorships in the Middle East and North Africa coming under siege, Qatar has given arms and money to various opposition and militant groups, chiefly Sunni Islamists, in hopes of cementing alliances with the new governments. Officials from Qatar and the emirates would not comment.
After discussions among members of the National Security Council, the Obama administration backed the arms shipments from both countries, according to two former administration officials briefed on the talks....
Concerns in Washington soon rose about the groups Qatar was supporting, officials said. A debate over what to do about the weapons shipments dominated at least one meeting of the so-called Deputies Committee, the interagency panel consisting of the second-highest ranking officials in major agencies involved in national security. “There was a lot of concern that the Qatar weapons were going to Islamist groups,” one official recalled.
The Qataris provided weapons, money and training to various rebel groups in Libya. One militia that received aid was controlled by Adel Hakim Belhaj, then leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, who was held by the C.I.A. in 2004 and is now considered a moderate politician in Libya. It is unclear which other militants received the aid.
“Nobody knew exactly who they were,” said the former defense official. The Qataris, the official added, are “supposedly good allies, but the Islamists they support are not in our interest.”
No evidence has surfaced that any weapons went to Ansar al-Shariah, an extremist group blamed for the Benghazi attack....
Apollo 17 Launch
Forty years ago today also marked the end of our manned space program for today was the last time man would step foot on the Moon.

The huge, 363-feet tall Apollo 17 (Spacecraft 114/Lunar Module 12/Saturn 512) space vehicle is launched from Pad A., Launch Complex 39, Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Florida, at 12:33 a.m. (EST), Dec. 7, 1972.

Apollo 17, the final lunar landing mission in NASA's Apollo program, was the first nighttime liftoff of the Saturn V launch vehicle. Aboard the Apollo 17 spacecraft were astronaut Eugene A. Cernan, commander; astronaut Ronald E. Evans, command module pilot; and scientist-astronaut Harrison H. Schmitt, lunar module pilot. Flame from the five F-1 engines of the Apollo/Saturn first (S-1C) stage illuminates the nighttime scene. A two-hour and 40-minute hold delayed the Apollo 17 launching.
                  Never forget the Day of Infamy...                   
Honor those lost...may they Rest in Peace.

Massive fraud, cover-up by CAIR exposed in federal lawsuit

BY: CHRISTOPHER COLLINS / The Washington Examiner

Nihad Awad, CAIR Executive Director

Last Friday, the Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C. and the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) said that they filed a devastating legal brief supported by hundreds of pages of evidence, asking a federal judge to find the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) liable to five of its former clients for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In a release to the media today, AFLC stated:

“The legal brief demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that CAIR is a criminal organization that deceptively holds itself out to the public as the nation's largest Muslim-American civil rights organization."

"The brief and supporting evidence were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in two companion cases, Saiyed v. CAIR and Lopez v. CAIR, in which David Yerushalmi is lead counsel. The brief and supporting evidence overwhelmingly demonstrate that CAIR was involved in a massive criminal fraud and cover-up that injured numerous client-victims who had looked to CAIR for legal assistance, yet the CAIR "attorney" allegedly handling their cases was in fact not an attorney.”

Yerushalmi, who is also Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, commented, "The evidence has long suggested that CAIR is an organization set up by the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas to further its aims of stealth Jihad in the United States," referring to the fact that CAIR was named by the federal government as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial.

"According to the facts that are carefully laid out in our legal brief and fully supported by the record evidence," Yerushalmi explained, "CAIR has engaged in a massive criminal fraud in which numerous CAIR clients have been victimized, and because of the CAIR cover-up many still don't realize it. The fact that CAIR has victimized Muslims and non-Muslims alike demonstrate that it is only looking out for itself and its ongoing efforts to bilk donors out of millions of dollars of charitable donations thinking they are supporting a legitimate organization."

AFLC went on to say that five former clients of CAIR filed the two lawsuits in federal court alleging common law and statutory fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against CAIR.
These two lawsuits followed an earlier lawsuit which had also alleged that CAIR's fraudulent conduct amounted to racketeering, a federal RICO crime. In that case, the court dismissed the RICO counts, concluding that CAIR's conduct as alleged was fraudulent but not a technical violation of RICO. The two civil lawsuits were filed by Yerushalmi on January 6, 2010, and because they arise out of the same facts, the cases were consolidated.

AFLC stated, “The supporting evidence, which was compiled after more than a year and a half of contentious discovery that involved numerous document requests, motions to compel the production of documents that CAIR was concealing, and multiple depositions of high-ranking CAIR officials, shows that Morris Days, the "Resident Attorney" and "Civil Rights Manager" at the now defunct CAIR-MD/VA chapter in Herndon, Virginia, was in fact not an attorney and that he failed to provide legal services for clients who came to CAIR for legal representation.

The evidence also shows that CAIR knew of this fraud and purposefully conspired with Days to keep the CAIR clients from discovering that their legal matters were being mishandled or not handled at all. While Yerushalmi and AFLC represent the five plaintiffs in these two lawsuits, three of whom are Muslim Americans, according to CAIR's internal documents; there were many more victims of the CAIR fraud scheme.”

“As set forth in the court filings, CAIR knew or should have known that Days was not a lawyer when it hired him. But, like many organizations accused of wrongdoing, things got worse when CAIR officials were confronted with clear evidence of Days' fraudulent conduct. Rather than come clean and attempt to rectify past wrongs, CAIR conspired with Days to conceal and further the fraud. To this end, CAIR officials purposefully concealed the truth about Days from the clients, law enforcement, and the media. When CAIR did receive calls from irate clients about Days' failure to provide competent legal services, CAIR fraudulently deceived them about Days' relationship with CAIR, suggesting that he was never actually employed by CAIR.”

Robert Muise, co-counsel in the lawsuit and Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, commented, "The overwhelming evidence marshaled in this case will finally put to rest the myth fabricated by CAIR's PR machine and perpetrated by a complicit media that this is a legitimate Muslim-American civil rights organization.”


“This lawsuit strips away CAIR's veil of legitimacy."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its sister organization, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), have been controversial over the years and recently were systematically involved in the 2012 presidential elections in getting American Muslims out to vote for President Obama in the swing states of Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Those states election results became controversial due to voter irregularities and allegations of voter fraud in favor of President Obama.
Rep. West Statement on Anniversary of Attack on Pearl Harbor
(WASHINGTON)---Congressman Allen West (R-FL) released this statement today regarding the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor:

"One quiet Sunday morning 71 years ago, a brazen and surprise attack on our shores shocked and galvanized our nation more forcefully than any other single event had ever done.  More than 2,400 Americans were killed and more than 1,100 were wounded. The Pearl Harbor attack sank four United States Navy battleships and damaged four more. It also damaged or sank three cruisers, three destroyers, one minelayer, and damaged 188 aircraft.

Today we remember those who lost their lives on that day, and honor those who valiantly fought on. With courage, sacrifice and selfless dedication, these veteran heroes helped protect our country and preserve our freedoms.

We believed we would most likely never again see an attack of this type on our shores, but we were wrong.
As the events of September 11, 2001 have demonstrated, those who wish to engage the United States on the 21st Century battlefield will devise ever more nefarious ways to kill Americans in order to disrupt and harm our way of life.

We must remain vigilant, we must always be prepared, and we must ensure we have the resources to appropriately and adequately respond to those who seek to extinguish our beacon of freedom in the world.

We owe a debt to those who perished at Pearl Harbor, we owe a debt to those who fought on and to those who continue to fight courageously for our country today, and we must remain steadfast for our children and grandchildren so they may live freely and peacefully in this blessed land."

Hate and the media on a small town scale
By: Diane Sori

"All politics is local" said former Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill. Basing it on the assumption that a politician's success (or failure) is directly tied to his ability to understand and influence the issues of his constituents, the phrase has come to represent the best and worst of politicians and is a microcosm of the vacuous leadership of those who are 'supposedly' held to a higher standard than 'We the People.'

And while we're all aware of the worst of politicians on the national level, I have now seen Speaker O'Neill's words filter down to the local level here in my own small bedroom community as an insinuation of racism has been leveled against us in the media. So sad indeed for it was one politician's words alone that cast poorly on that of our entire citizenry.

And like hungry wolves descending on its prey, the media is here to fuel those words instead of separating the city from the actions of this one man. But in all fairness, when insinuations of racism are involved it must be understood that this spiral towards racial hatred has been fueled by a president who has played the race card against 'We the People' every chance he gets...a man who has set back race relations 50 years or more...a man who has reopened the long healed wounds. And people feel this hatred in the air, and so it was only a matter of time before a duly elected official crossed the line and added their own special brand of fuel to the racial fire.

So with that said, it's common knowledge around our city that one of our sitting commissioners suffers from a severe case of Joe Biden 'Foot-in-Mouth' disease. The man who loves to hear himself bloviate while calling himself 'the champion of the people' has yet once again (yes he's done this before) cast a bad light on our city...on our city known as 'Someplace Special'...making us 'special' in ways NO city wants to ways that is garnering us that very national attention NO city needs, for this man's words have cast us as racists because he deliberately used his official title in a racially charged Facebook post. And the media is ready to paint the 'all' in the same light as the 'one' allowing a despicable Facebook post done by this one man alone to have negative ramifications for our entire city and its residents.

Our elected officials, whether national or local, do indeed publicly reflect the supposed attitudes of those who elected them for they were elected by the majority but now have the responsibility to represent even those who did NOT vote for them as well. It's just too bad that their actions, especially their bad actions, are used as media fodder while the media conveniently overlooks the good most others do just to draw ratings numbers because lets face it...hate sells and sells big.

And when you have a post receiving 19 'likes' and six comments supporting that racist statement in a matter of minutes you know the haters are out, prowling, and spreading their special breed of hate all over NOT only Facebook but on the internet as well...spreading hate about our city overlooking the fact that the hate came from one man alone.

So while the post in question was removed from Facebook within hours, the damage was done, our city's reputation again dragged through the mud by a man who is the epitome of everything that is wrong with some of our elected officials today. And even sadder is the fact that like those in DC who defame and dishonor those they represent NOTHING will be done to him for the higher standards our elected officials are supposed to be held to are nothing but empty words having NO substance behind them...just bloviations on paper to give those they are supposed to call to task ammunition they can use to defend their despicable actions against the very people they were elected to represent.

So sad indeed.