Lesson 2: ‘Civilization Jihad’ in America
Lesson 2: ‘Civilization Jihad’ in America
By: Ed Morrissey of HotAir
Isn’t it funny what you can find out on Friday evening about what our executive branch does? For instance, Agence France-Presse reported last night that Barack Obama bypassed Congress to send $192 million to the Palestinian Authority, claiming that national security required the US to put money into Mahmoud Abbas’ pocket:
President Barack Obama has signed a waiver to remove curbs on funding to the Palestinian Authority, declaring the aid to be “important to the security interests of the United States.”
But in a memo sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, published by the White House, the president said it was appropriate to release funds to the authority, which administers the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
In signing the waiver, Obama instructed Clinton to inform Congress of the move, on the grounds that “waiving such prohibition is important to the national security interests of the United States.”
Congress deliberately froze those funds, and not just because of the statehood demand through UNESCO. Hamas, a terrorist organization, reconciled with Fatah and has rejoined the PA, which means we’re putting almost $200 million into the hands of a terrorist organization.
The language of the Palestinian Accountability Act could not be clearer: “[N]o funds available to any United States Government department or agency … may be obligated or expended with respect to providing funds to the Palestinian Authority.” Obama literally waived that statutory language off yesterday afternoon.
The Times of Israel reported on the official White House explanation of why Obama did so:
The AFP news agency quoted White House spokesman Tommy Vietor as saying the $192 million aid package would be devoted to “ensuring the continued viability of the moderate PA government under the leadership of [Palestinian Authority] President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.”
Vietor added that the PA had fulfilled its major obligations, such as recognizing Israel’s right to exist, renouncing violence and accepting the Road Map for Peace.
Have they? They certainly haven’t done so since Hamas rejoined the PA in February. Hamas has refused to change its charter to recognize Israel or renounce violence, and certainly they have rejected the Road Map for Peace, which has been lying dead for years thanks to the PA’s refusal to seriously implement it. When Hamas broadcasts its recognition of Israel in Arabic — something that the PA has never done, to my knowledge — then perhaps the Obama administration’s claims can be taken seriously.
Andy McCarthy calls this a “triple play,” and slams this claim by Vietor as fantasy:
In the real world, the very immoderate PA has reneged on all its commitments. In addition to violating its obligations by unilaterally declaring statehood, the PA has also agreed to form a unity government with Hamas, a terrorist organization that is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. The PA continues to endorse terrorism against Israel as “resistance.” Moreover, the PA most certainly does not recognize Israel’s right to exist. Back in November, for example, Adil Sadeq, a PA official writing in the official PA daily,Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, declared that Israelis:
“have a common mistake, or misconception by which they fool themselves, assuming that Fatah accepts them and recognizes the right of their state to exist, and that it is Hamas alone that loathes them and does not recognize the right of this state to exist. They ignore the fact that this state, based on a fabricated [Zionist] enterprise, never had any shred of a right to exist…”
In sum, everything Obama is saying about Palestinian compliance is a lie. Even if we were not broke, we should not be giving the PA a dime. To borrow money so we can give it to them is truly nuts.
The White House knows it, too — which is why we only found out through the Friday night news dump
The collection agency for the Federal Reserve known as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is working with legislators to gain control over the rights of Americans. Without the right to due process, the IRS can simply claim a citizen owes $50,000 dollars or more to their illegal operation. This accusation alone will give their agency the right to revoke American’s travel rights and even remove the right to own a firearm.
With the help of Representatives like Barbara Boxer of California, a bill rapidly working through Capitol Hill (passed through the Senate and is currently up for review in the House) will give the IRS power to:
“There is no requirement that the tax payer be guilty of or even charged with tax evasion, fraud, or any criminal offense — only that the citizen is alleged to owe the IRS back taxes of $50,000 or more,”reports the Daily Economist.
In essence, these blacklisted citizens would be remotely labeled “domestic terrorists” and treated as such.
Former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel bragged to the Brady Center that the ‘No Fly’ list. Emanuel proudly stated that those on the “no fly” list could not own a firearm because of their suspicious status.
Moreover, the IRS and this bill will suspend travel rights to more than “30,000 active-duty troops and a similar number of reserve-component members owe the Internal Revenue Service a collective $390 million in back taxes, according to IRS data,” reports WTLX.
And federal employees are not immune to this revoking of their rights. IRS figures show that in 2010, “98,000 federal employees owed a combined $1 billion in back taxes.” As well as a shocking amount of members of the Senate combined owe an estimated $2 million dollars in unpaid taxes.
As this move by the Federal Reserve, with support by our elected officials, empowers the IRS to bully all citizens of America into paying an unconstitutional tax, we can clearly see that the central banking cartels are in charge of the US and not any branch of US government; including their puppet Barack Obama.
This more toward suspicion without accusation is the slow and incremental tip-toe by the global Elite toward an encompassing takeover of our American Republic and transform it into a Fascist dictatorship. The Obama administration, through the NDAA, signing statements, and executive orders has continued the process started by certain previous Presidents. And this has all happened right under our noses. Without much resistance by the American public, our US Constitution is being shredded.
The time has come to stop complying with this system.
The global Elite will not stop until they have their One World Government. There is no negotiating. They demand total submission of the populations of all nations and countries.
We out number them dramatically.
We can stop them once we unilaterally stop complying with their takeover.
Attribution: Tom Tancredo
I’ll give you an ‘I’ word…IDIOT!
From Hope Yen of the AP:
WASHINGTON — A Senate bill aimed at saving the U.S. Postal Service would make it harder to close thousands of low-revenue post offices and end Saturday mail delivery, even though the struggling agency says those moves are just what’s needed to reduce its massive debt and become profitable again.
The measure takes steps to help the agency avert bankruptcy as early as this fall, through a cash infusion of $11 billion to pay off debt and reduce costs by offering retirement incentives to 100,000 employees. But the bill sidesteps decisions on postal closings, buying time for lawmakers who would rather avoid the wrath of voters in an election year.
The Senate planned to vote quite soon on a final bill, after considering amendments that could restrict the Postal Service from further cuts to first-class mail delivery. During debate, lawmakers agreed to hold off closing rural post offices for a year, give communities new ways to appeal, prevent any closings before the November elections but also shut five of the seven post offices on the Capitol grounds.
The final bill was expected to pass the Senate but faces an uncertain future. The House has not taken up its own version, which would create a national commission with the power to scrap no-layoff clauses in employee contracts.
“This of course kicks the can down the road,” complained Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who unsuccessfully pushed for a commission in the Senate bill. He said the current proposal failed to address longer-term fixes and delayed major decisions. “We’ll be on the floor in two years addressing this issue again, because it is not a solution.”
Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe also has criticized the Senate bill as a short-term answer. Noting that more people every year are switching to the Internet to send letters and pay bills, he has called the Postal Service’s business model “broken.” The agency has estimated that the Senate bill would only provide it enough liquidity to continue operating for two years or three years.
At stake are more than 100,000 jobs, part of a postal cost-cutting plan to save some $6.5 billion a year by closing up to 252 mail-processing centers and 3,700 post offices. The agency, $12 billion in debt, says it needs to begin closings this year. At the request of Congress, Donahoe agreed to delay closings until May 15 to give lawmakers time to pass legislation.
The Senate bill proposes cutting about half the mail processing centers the Postal Services wants to close, from 252 to 125, and allowing more areas to maintain overnight first-class mail delivery for at least three more years. Beyond the one-year freeze on closing rural post offices, the Postal Service would face additional layers of approval before closing any mail facility.
The Postal Service on Tuesday circulated a smaller list of mail processing centers that probably would close under the Senate bill; many in more rural or small states would be spared. For instance, centers would survive in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Missouri and Vermont, whose senators were sponsors of the postal bill or pushed amendments, according to the preliminary list obtained by The Associated Press. A facility in Easton, Md., also would stay open. Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., previously attempted to block the postal bill in protest of that specific closure.
Also surviving were all four mail processing centers in Nevada, home to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, as well as all eight centers in Colorado and all five centers in Utah.
The Postal Service would get an infusion of roughly $11 billion, which is basically a refund of overpayments made in previous years to a federal retirement fund. The money could pay down debt and finance buyouts to 100,000 postal employees.
The agency could make smaller annual payments into a future retiree health benefits account, gain flexibility in trimming worker compensation benefits and find additional ways to raise postal revenue under a new chief innovation officer.
An amendment approved Tuesday would bar the Postal Service from closing post offices for one year if they are in areas with fewer than 50,000 people, unless there was no significant community opposition.
After one year, the agency would have to take rural issues into special consideration. Post offices generally would be protected if the closest mail facility was more than 10 miles away.
“Our post offices are the lifeblood for towns across our state and a source of good-paying jobs in areas hard-hit by the economic downturn,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who co-sponsored the amendment. “This amendment protects rural post offices, with a realistic eye toward the future.”
Lesson 1: The Threat Doctrine of Shariah & The Muslim Brotherhood
No doubt, most of us have probably seen or at least heard of the demonstration of EPA civility. If you have, it bears another look. If you haven’t, this article is a good synopsis of events. As you read and watch, just imagine if this were the Bush adminstration and Inhofe was maybe, Chuckie Schumer. Imagine the theatre, the spectacle, the wailing and nashing of teeth by every news outlet in the land. We all assume this administrator was speaking metaphorically, but with bunch, who knows.
From Craig Bannister at CNS News:
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) took to the Senate floor today to draw attention to a video of a top EPA official saying the EPA’s “philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies – just as the Romans crucified random citizens in areas they conquered to ensure obedience.
Inhofe quoted a little-watched video from 2010 of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, admitting that EPA’s “general philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies.
In the video, Administrator Armendariz says:
“I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting, but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said:
“It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them.
“Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”
“It’s a deterrent factor,” Armendariz said, explaining that the EPA is following the Romans’ philosophy for subjugating conquered villages.
Soon after Armendariz touted the EPA’s “philosophy,” the EPA began smear campaigns against natural gas producers, Inhofe’s office noted in advance of today’s Senate speech:
“Not long after Administrator Armendariz made these comments in 2010, EPA targeted US natural gas producers in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming.
“In all three of these cases, EPA initially made headline-grabbing statements either
insinuating or proclaiming outright that the use of hydraulic fracturing by American energy producers was the cause of water contamination, but in each case their comments were premature at best – and despite their most valiant efforts, they have been unable to find any sound scientific evidence to make this link.”
In his Senate speech, Sen. Inhofe said the video provides Americans with “a glimpse of the Obama administration’s true agenda.”
That agenda, Inhofe said, is to “incite fear” in the public with unsubstantiated claims and “intimidate” oil and gas companies with threats of unjustified fines and penalties – then, quietly backtrack once the public’s perception has been firmly jaded against oil and natural gas.
I recall speaking to some folks a few years ago about the possible confiscation of peoples retirement as the government runs out of money. I also recall, everyone I spoke with called me a crazy person. Well, here we are a few years later and looky, looky. They aren’t proposing full confiscation yet, but it’s a start.
By GREGORY BRESIGER
Uncle Sam, in a desperate attempt to fix its $16 trillion-plus deficit, is leering over Americans’ retirement nest egg as its new bailout fund.
Capitol Hill politicians are assessing tax changes that could let the Internal Revenue Service lay claim to a portion of the $18 trillion sitting in 401(k) accounts and other tax breaks used by middle-class workers, including cutting the mortgage tax deduction.
A commission looking for ways to close the deficit, and, noting the extent of 401(k) tax breaks, recommends an examination of the system as one way to prevent government bankruptcy.
Besides 401(k)s, other possibilities include the mortgage-interest deduction on second homes, as well as benefits from employer-provided health insurance, which are untaxed now.
Under current 401(k) rules, total employee/employer contributions can’t exceed $50,000. In the proposed rule change, employer/employee contributions would be limited to 20 percent of the employee’s compensation, with a maximum of $20,000, the so-called 20/20 proposal.
Another proposal being discussed in Congress says all tax deductions on 401(k)s and IRAs to be replaced with an 18 percent credit. The credit, according to a proposal that has been endorsed by economist William Gale, would be placed directly in a person’s retirement account.
“Unlike the current system,” Gale told Congress, “workers’ and firms’ contributions to employer-based 401(k) accounts would no longer be excluded from income and would be subject to taxation, contributions to IRAs would no longer be tax-deductible and any contributions to a 401(k) plan would be treated as taxable income.”
In other words, the employee and employer would no longer get a deduction under the Gale plan, they would qualify for a credit. And the credit would “increase [government] revenues by about $458 billion,” Gale says.
Last week a group of retirement industry experts went to Capitol Hill to criticize these proposed changes in retirement-plan rules. “These changes could have unintended consequences,” warns Lynn Dudley of the American Benefits Council (ABC).
Testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee about the proposals, Randolf Hardock, of ABC’s board of directors, said, “[The idea] could seriously undermine the retirement savings system.”
Jack VanDerhei, research director of Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), believes either of the two proposed 401(k) changes under review would have a “catastrophic” effect on the current retirement saving system.
The 20/20 plan provisions curtailing non-taxable contributions would freeze out many higher-paid employees from signing up for a 401(k), which could lead some companies, according to critics, to question if plans would still be worth offering employees.
Reducing retirement-plan contributions for those at the higher end of the wage scale will inevitably have a bad effect on those in the middle and at the bottom, ABC’s Dudley says.
Lesson 10: “The Recovery of the Constitution”
Statesmanship, for Franklin D. Roosevelt, entailed the “redefinition” of “rights in terms of a changing and growing social order.” Fulfilling the promise of Progressivism, President Roosevelt’s New Deal gave rise to unlimited government. In contrast to Franklin D. Roosevelt and his ideological successors, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, Ronald Reagan sought the restoration of limited government. Today, our choice is clear: Will we live by the principles of the American Founding, or by the values of the Progressives?
Franklin D. Roosevelt announced his campaign for the presidency in 1932 by emphasizing the Progressive understanding of history and by calling for the “redefinition” of the old idea of rights. His “New Deal,” a series of economic programs ostensibly aimed at extricating America from the Great Depression, vastly enlarged the size and scope of the federal government. Unelected bureaucratic agencies—“the administrative state”—became a fact of American life.
Roosevelt’s call for a “Second Bill of Rights” sought to add “security” to the rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Describing the “old rights” of life and liberty as “inadequate” without underlying economic security, Roosevelt called for new economic rights for all, including the right to a job, a home, a fair wage, education, and medical care. With these rights guaranteed, Roosevelt argued, real political equality finally could be achieved.
Following President Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy’s “New Frontier” and Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society” continued the transformation of the relationship between the American people and their government. President Johnson redefined the government’s role by redefining equality itself: equality must be a “result” rather than a “right.” Expanded federal control over education, transportation, welfare, and medical care soon followed.
Announcing that “with the present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem,” Ronald Reagan appealed to the principles of the American Founding in seeking to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Maintaining that Progressivism and the consent of the governed are incompatible, Reagan called for a return to individual self-rule and national self-government.