Documents Continue To Prove What Lying Weasels Obama And His Toxic Administration Are In The Libya Attack

Barack Obama claimed that he referred to the Libya attack as an “act of terror” in a short speech he gave at the Rose Garden just before he flew off to do a fundraiser in Las Vegas.  It’s bullcrap, of course (and if memory serves, George W. Bush did NOT run off to do a fundraiser the day after the previous 9/11 attack), and as I document here, Obama HIMSELF – not to mention his entire administration – proves that he did NOT call the Libya attack a terrorist attack.

But just for the sake of argument, let’s say Obama DID call the worst terrorist attack on American soil since that last devastating 9/11 attack that the more recent one was timed to mock “an act of terror.”  You know, just before jetting off to do a fundraiser.  Let’s say that Obama DID call it an act of terror.  Then the jackass-in-chief instructed his Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice to go to all five major network political programs and repeatedly say the exact opposite.  And then Obama sent out his press secretary Jay Carney to say the exact opposite.  And then he sent out Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to say the exact opposite.  And then two weeks later after being asked on both The View and on Univision whether it was a terrorist attack Obama refused to answer the question that Obama now says he’d actually already answered and instead said, “We’re still investigating.”  As bizarre and as dishonest as that is, let’s say that Obama actually DID call the attack on sovereign US territory in Libya an “act of terror.”

How in the hell would that excuse him for his abject failure of leadership that resulted in the murder of the first United States ambassador since Jimmy Carter was screwing up the universe way back in 1979?  And just why the hell is it that two of the last three Democrat presidents have killed US ambassadors versus ZERO of the last three Republican presidents, anyway???

We now know for a fact that not only did murdered US Ambassador Chris Stevens ask for more security – only to have the inadequate security that he had CUT by Obama – but we now that in fact Ambassador Stevens was begging for more security at least forty days before his murder.  And in fact for SEVEN MONTHS prior to this attack security professionals were telling Obama there was a very big problem in Benghazi:

Documents show Stevens worried about Libya security threats, Al Qaeda before consulate attack
By James Rosen
Published October 19, 2012
FoxNews.com

Across 166 pages of internal State Department documents — released Friday by  a pair of Republican congressmen pressing the Obama administration for more  answers on the Benghazi terrorist attack — slain U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris  Stevens and the security officers assigned to protect him repeatedly sounded  alarms to their superiors in Washington about the intensifying lawlessness and  violence in Eastern Libya, where Stevens ultimately died.

On Sept. 11 — the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed — the  ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled “sensitive,” in which he noted  “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” on the  part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces.  These  forces the ambassador characterized as “too weak to keep the country secure.”

In the document, Stevens also cited a meeting he had held two days earlier  with local militia commanders.  These men boasted to Stevens of exercising  “control” over the Libyan Armed Forces, and threatened that if the U.S.-backed  candidate for prime minister were to prevail in Libya’s internal political  jockeying, “they would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi.”

Roughly a month earlier, Stevens had signed a two-page cable, also labeled  “sensitive,” that he entitled “The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya.”  Writing on Aug. 8, the ambassador noted that in just a few months’ time,  “Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent  incidents has dominated the political landscape.” He added, “The individual  incidents have been organized,” a function of “the security vacuum that a  diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”

“Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative  impunity,” Stevens cabled. “What we have seen are not random crimes of  opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks.” His final comment on  the two-page document was: “Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until  authorities are at least as capable.”

By Sept. 4, Stevens’ aides were reporting back to Washington on the “strong  Revolutionary and Islamist sentiment” in the city.

Scarcely more than two months had passed since Stevens had notified the  Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and other agencies  about a “recent increase in violent incidents,” including “attacks against  western interests.” “Until the GOL (Government of Libya) is able to effectively  deal with these key issues,” Stevens wrote on June 25, “the violence is likely  to continue and worsen.”

After the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi had been damaged by an improvised  explosive device, earlier that month, Stevens had reported to his superiors that  an Islamist group had claimed credit for the attack, and in so doing, had  “described the attack as targeting the Christians supervising the management of  the consulate.”

“Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya,” the  ambassador wrote, adding that “the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times  flying over government buildings and training facilities …”

The documents also contain evidence that the State Department’s denials of  requests for enhanced security in Benghazi in the months leading up to the  attack may have contributed to the ability of the attackers to plan their  assault on the consulate and annex grounds without being detected.

“I’ve been placed in a very difficult spot,” said Eric A. Nordstrom, the  regional security officer who testified before a House hearing last week, in a  Feb. 12 email to a colleague, “when the ambassador (Gene Cretz, at that time)  that I need to support Benghazi but can’t direct MSD (a mobile security  detachment) there and been advised that DS (Diplomatic Security) isn’t going to  provide more than 3 agents over the long term.”

“DS is hesitant to devout (sic) resources and as I indicated previously, this  has severely hampered operations in Benghazi,” wrote Karen Keshap, a State  Department manager, to main State in Washington the day before. “That often  means that DS agents are there guarding a compound with 2 other DOS (Department  of State) personnel present.  That often also means that outreach and  reporting is non-existent.”

Earlier that day, Feb. 11, a colleague of Keshap’s, Shawn P. Crowley, had  apologized to her and other officials in an email for “being a broken record” on  the subject of inadequate security in Benghazi.  Crowley added: “(T)omorrow  Benghazi will be down to two (DS) agents. … This will leave us unable to do  any outreach to Libyan nationals … and we will be extremely limited in the  ability to obtain any useful information for reporting.”

These exchanges followed a dire report to top DS officials a few days earlier  from Nordstom.  In a Feb. 1 memorandum, the officer warned that “Al-Qaida  affiliated groups, including Al-Qaida In the Islamic Magreb (AQIM), and other  violent extremist groups are likely to take advantage of the ongoing political  turmoil in Libya.  The U.S. Government remains concerned that such  individuals and groups … may use Libya as a platform from which to conduct  attacks in the region.”

By Feb. 20, Nordstrom was noting the easy access that neighborhood militias  enjoyed to “military grade weapons, such as RPGs and vehicle mounted,  crew-served machine guns or AA weapons (23mm),” as well as “AK-47s, heavy  weapons, and vehicle mounted weapons.”

In the days leading up to Sept. 11, warnings came even from people outside  the State Department.  A Libyan women’s rights activist, Wafa Bugaighis,  confided to the Americans in Benghazi in mid-August: “For the first time since  the revolution, I am scared.”

The documents were released by two lawmakers who have been active in probing  the Benghazi case, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the chairman of the House  Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah.   In a letter to President Obama, dated Oct. 19 and accompanied by the  documents, the lawmakers faulted the administration both for providing  inadequate security before Sept. 11, and for allegedly obfuscating the nature of  the events on Sept. 11.

“Multiple warnings about security threats were contained in Ambassador  Stevens’ own words in multiple cables sent to Washington, D.C., and were  manifested by two prior bombings of the Benghazi compound and an assassination  attempt on the British ambassador,” the congressmen wrote.  “For this  administration to assume that terrorists were not involved in the 9/11  anniversary attack would have required a willing suspension of disbelief.”

State Department spokesman Mark Toner said, in response to the latest  documents: “An independent board is conducting a thorough review of the assault  on our post in Benghazi. Once we have the board’s comprehensive account of what  happened, findings and recommendations, we can fully address these matters.”

At the State Department briefing Friday, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland declined  to comment on published reports alleging that an official working for the  Central Intelligence Agency had informed the Obama administration on Sept. 12  that the Benghazi murders were an act of terrorism.

Oh, yeah, that statement from the CIA station chief in Libya WITHIN HOURS OF THE ATTACK ON THE CONSULATE that it was IN FACT A TERRORIST ATTACK.  Keep in mind that Obama had instructed his administration to blame US intelligence for his administration’s lying to the American people for more than two weeks.  Note that the VERY FIRST SENTENCE utterly refutes the White House lies that were told to the American people over and over and over again:

CIA Found Militant Links A Day After Libya Attack By Kimberly Dozier – Associated Press     Friday, October 19, 2012

WASHINGTON — The CIA  station chief  in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of  last  month’s deadly attack on the U.S.  Consulate that there was evidence it  was carried out by militants, not a  spontaneous mob upset about an  American-made video ridiculing Islam’s Prophet  Muhammad, U.S. officials  have told The Associated Press.

It is unclear who, if anyone, saw  the cable outside the CIA  at that point and how high up in the agency  the information went. The Obama  administration maintained publicly for a  week that the attack on the diplomatic  mission in Benghazi that killed  U.S. Ambassador Chris  Stevens and three other Americans was a result of  the mobs that staged  less-deadly protests across the Muslim world around  the 11th anniversary of the  9/11 terror attacks on the U.S.

Those  statements have become highly charged political fodder as the   presidential election approaches. A Republican-led House  committee  questioned State  Department officials for hours about what GOP  lawmakers  said was lax security at the consulate, given the growth of extremist   Islamic militants in North Africa.

And in their debate on Tuesday,  President Barack Obama and Republican  challenger Mitt Romney argued  over when Obama first said it was a terror  attack. In his Rose Garden  address the morning after the killings, Obama said, “No acts of terror  will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that  character  or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”

But  Republicans say he was speaking generally and didn’t specifically call   the Benghazi attack a terror attack until weeks later, with the  president and  other key members of his administration referring at first  to the anti-Muslim  movie circulating on the Internet as a precipitating  event.

Now congressional intelligence committees are demanding  documents to show  what the spy agencies knew and when, before, during  and after the attacks.

The White House now says the attack   probably was carried out by an al Qaida-linked  group, with no public  demonstration beforehand. Secretary of State Hillary  RodhamClinton blamed the “fog of  war” for the early conflicting accounts.

The  officials who told the AP about the CIA  cable spoke anonymously because  they were not authorized to release such  information publicly.

Congressional  aides say they expect to get the documents by the end of this  week to  build a timeline of what the intelligence community knew and compare   that to what the White House was telling the  public about the attack.  That could give Romney ammunition to use in his  foreign policy debate  with Obama on Monday night.

The two U.S. officials said the CIA  station chief in Libya compiled intelligence  reports from eyewitnesses  within 24 hours of the assault on the consulate  that indicated militants  launched the violence, using the pretext of  demonstrations against U.S.  facilities in Egypt  against the film to cover their intent. The report  from the station chief was  written late Wednesday, Sept. 12, and reached  intelligence agencies in  Washington the next day, intelligence  officials said.

Yet, on Saturday of that week, briefing points  sent by the CIA  to Congress said “demonstrations in Benghazi  were  spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S.  Embassy in Cairo and  evolved into a direct assault.”

The briefing points, obtained by  the AP, added: “There are indications that  extremists participated in  the violent demonstrations” but did not mention  eyewitness accounts that  blamed militants alone.

Such raw intelligence reports by the CIA  on the ground would normally be sent first to analysts at the  headquarters in  Langley, Va., for vetting and comparing against other  intelligence derived from  eavesdropping drones and satellite images.  Only then would such intelligence  generally be shared with the White  House and  later, Congress, a process that can take hours,  or days if the  intelligence is coming from only one or two sources who may or  may not  be trusted.

U.S. intelligence officials say in  this case the delay  was due in part to the time it took to analyze various  conflicting  accounts. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity because  he  wasn’t authorized to discuss the incident publicly, explained that “it  was  clear a group of people gathered that evening” in Benghazi, but that  the early  question was “whether extremists took over a crowd or they  were the crowd,” and  it took until the following week to figure that  out.

But that explanation has been met with concern in Congress, from both political parties.

“I  think what happened was the director of intelligence, who is a very  good  individual, put out some speaking points on the initial  intelligence  assessment,” said Senate intelligence committee chair  Dianne Feinstein,  D-Calif., in an interview with local news channel CBS 5  in California this  week. “I think that was possibly a mistake.”

“The  early sense from the intelligence community differs from what we are   hearing now,” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said. “It ended up being  pretty far  afield, so we want to figure out why … though we don’t want  to deter the  intelligence community from sharing their best first  impressions” after such  events in the future.

“The intelligence  briefings we got a week to 10 days after were consistent  with what the  administration was saying,” said Rep. William Thornberry,  R-Texas, a  member of the House Intelligence and Armed Services committees.   Thornberry would not confirm the existence of the early CIA  report but  voiced skepticism over how sure intelligence officials, including CIA  Director David Petraeus, seemed of their original  account when they  briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

“How could they be so certain  immediately after such events, I just don’t  know,” he said. “That raises  suspicions that there was political  motivation.”

National  Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment. The  Office of  the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to requests for  comment.

Two officials who witnessed Petraeus‘ closed-door  testimony to lawmakers in the week after the attack said that  during  questioning he acknowledged that there were some intelligence analysts   who disagreed with the conclusion that a mob angry over the video had  initiated  the violence. But those officials said Petraeus did not  mention the CIA’s  early eyewitness reports. He did warn legislators that  the account could change  as more intelligence was uncovered, they said,  speaking on condition of  anonymity because the hearing was closed.

Beyond  the question of what was known immediately after the attack, it’s  also  proving difficult to pinpoint those who set the fire that apparently   killed Stevens and his communications aide  or launched the mortars that  killed two ex-Navy SEALs who were working as  contract security guards at  a fallback location. That delay is prompting  lawmakers to question  whether the intelligence community has the resources it  needs to  investigate this attack in particular or to wage the larger fight   against al-Qaida in Libya or across Africa.

Intelligence officials  say the leading suspected culprit is a local Benghazi  militia, Ansar  al-Shariah. The group denies responsibility for the attack but  is known  to have ties to a leading African terror group, al-Qaida  in the Islamic  Maghreb. Some of its leaders and fighters were spotted by Libyan  locals  at the consulate during the  violence, and intelligence intercepts show  the militants were in contact with  AQIM militants before and after the  attack, one U.S.  intelligence official said.

But U.S. intelligence  has not been  able to match those reported sightings with the faces of  attackers caught on  security camera recordings during the attack, since  many U.S.  intelligence agents were pulled out of Benghazi in the  aftermath of the  violence, the two U.S. intelligence  officials said.

Nor  have they found proof to back up their suspicion that the attack was   preplanned, as indicated by the military-style tactics the attackers  used,  setting up a perimeter of roadblocks around the consulate and the  backup compounds, then  attacking the main entrance to distract, while  sending a larger force to  assault the rear.

Clear-cut answers may  prove elusive because such an attack is not hard to  bring about  relatively swiftly with little preplanning or coordination in a   post-revolutionary country awash with weapons, where the government is  so new  it still relies on armed militants to keep the peace. Plus, the  location of  U.S. diplomat enclaves is an open secret for the locals.

You had to be a brain-dead dumbass (i.e., even DUMBER than a regular garden variety dumbass) not to immediately conclude that an murderous attack from three sides utilizing heavy weapons on the anniversary of 9/11 was NOT a planned terrorist attack.  And there is absolutely zero question that the White House did not want to acknowledge the disaster that they had just presided over, which is why they lied their asses off and are STILL lying their asses off.

The Watergate cover-up led to President Nixon resigning from office.  And this is so much worse than Watergate it isn’t even funny.

I am preserving here another report from ABC on the damning Stevens memos that indict and convict Barack Obama and his entire administration:

Oct 19, 2012 3:22pm
Documents Back Up Claims of Requests for Greater Security in Benghazi
By Jake Tapper

Republicans on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have released new documents backing up claims by security personnel previously station in Libya that there was a shortage of security personnel in Benghazi.

The documents contain previously unreleased cables from Ambassador Stevens and his staff reflecting concerns about safety in the country.

The U.S. State Department did not have an immediate comment.

One signed by Stevens and titled “LIBYA’S FRAGILE SECURITY DETERIORIATES AS TRIBAL RIVALRIES, POWER PLAYS AND EXTREMISM INTENSIFY,” dated June 25, 2012, assess the increase in violence. ”From April to June, Libya also witnesses an increase in attacks targeting international organizations and foreign interests,” Stevens wrote, describing attacks on a United Nations official in Benghazi, International Committee for the Red Cross buildings in Benghazi and Misrata, and IED at the mission in Benghazi, and RPG fired at the British Ambassador’s convoy, and an attack on the consulate of Tunisia.

A Libyan government national security official told Stevens “that the attacks were the work of extremists who are opposed to western influence in Libya. A number of local contacts agreed, noting that Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya and that the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities in Derna,” a village to the east in Benghazi. Other contacts disagreed with that assessment, however.

Another cable from Stevens, titled “The Guns of August; security in eastern Libya” and dated August 8, 2012, states “Since the eve of the (July) elections, Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape during the Ramadan holiday.” Stevens describes the incidents as “organized, but this is not an organized campaign.” The Supreme Security Council, the interim security force, he says, “has not coalesced into a stabilizing force and provides little deterrence.”

Stevens wrote that the people of Benghazi want a security apparatus but “inherently fear abuse by the same authorities. This debate, playing out daily in Benghazi, has created the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”

A cable signed by Stevens on the day of his murder, September 11, described a meeting with the Acting Principal Officer of the Supreme Security Council in Benghazi, commander Fawzi Younis, who “expressed growing frustration with police and security forces (who were too weak to keep the country secure)…”

The documents also included an “ACTION MEMO” for Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy dated December 27, 2011, and written by US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman. With the subject line: “Future of Operations in Benghazi, Libya,” the memo states: “With the full complement of five Special Agents, our permanent presence would include eight U.S. direct hire employees.”

This would seem to suggest that Undersecretary Kennedy had approved a plan for five permanent security agents in Benghazi, but that never happened. It should be noted that there were ultimately a total of five Diplomatic Security Agents in Benghazi that night since there were two stationed at the Benghazi compound, and three escorted Ambassador Chris Stevens to the compound.

In a letter to President Obama, House Oversight Committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chair of the Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense, and Foreign Operations, note the Obama administration response that “two extra DS agents would have made no difference. This misses the point. These agents would have provided the added cover to fully evacuate all personnel from the compound – not just those who survived.”

One of the key conversations in the documents begins on February 11, at 5:29 pm, when Shawn Crowley, a foreign service officer at the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, writes: “Apologies for being a broken record, but beginning tomorrow Benghazi will be down to two agents…We have no drivers and new local guard contract employees have no experience driving armored vehicles…”

On February 11, 1:13 pm, Regional Security Officer of the Libyan Embassy Eric Nordstrom emails State Department officials, cc-ing then-Ambassador Gene Cretz, saying he’ll try to send personnel from the Security Support Team to Benghazi. “I’ll speak with our SST personnel to se if they can free up 1 or 2 bodies for Benghazi….While the status of Benghazi remains undefined, DS” – Diplomatic Security – “is hesitant to devout (sic) resources and as I indicated previously, this has severely hampered operations in Benghazi. That often means that DS agents are there guarding a compound with 2 other DOS personnel present. That often means that outreach and reporting is non-existent.”

Norstrom notes that the British have “a 5 person team assigned to just their head of mission, so they have made a commitment to maintain a larger presence in Benghazi than the USG,” the U.S. government.

At 8:53 pm. James Bacigalupo, the Regional Director Near East Asia Bureau of Diplomatic Security DSS for the State Department, emails Nordstrom, “Call me, I am surprised at your statement that ‘DS is hesitant to devote resources as I (you) have indicated previously that has severely limited operations in Benghazi.’”

Norstrom responds on Sunday, February 12: 8:58 pm “we have had multiple times previously had no movements in Benghazi because we had only 2 DS agents on the ground. Havingno movements for upwards for 10 days severely limits operations in Benghazi. I’ve been placed in a very difficult spot when the Ambassador tells me that I need to support Benghazi but can’t direct MSD” – Mobile Security Detachment – ” there and been advised that DS isn’t going to provide more than 3 DS agents over the long term.”

Get more pure politics at ABCNews.com/Politics and a lighter take on the news at OTUSNews.com

Nordstrom adds at 9:00 pm: “the last time we had only 2 agents at post, suspending outside movements for approximately 10 days.”

Meanwhile, security on the ground became increasingly precarious.

A March 2012 memo (mistakenly cited as 2011) from the Research & Information Support Center titled “Progress Elusive in Libya,” based on open-source reporting, states that in late December 2011 “reports indicated that al-Qa’ida leadership in Pakistan had sent ‘experienced jihadists to Libya to build a new base of operations in the country. Between May and December 2011, one of these jihadists had recruited 200 fighters in the eastern part of the country. Documents seized in Iraq indicate that many foreign fighters who participated in the Iraqi insurgency hailed from eastern Libya. This small batch of fighters would have been dealt with quickly by a central authority, were it in place. Until a stronger national army or guard force is developed, rural Libya will remain fertile territory for terrorist groups such as al-Qai’da in the Islamic Maghreb.”

The committee also released some photographs of the Benghazi compound, before and after the attack.

Issa and Chaffetz say they’ve “been told repeatedly” that the Obama administration not only “repeatedly reject(ed) requests for increased security despite escalating violence, but it also systematically decreased existing security to dangerous and ineffective levels,” and did so “to effectuate a policy of ‘normalization’ in Libya after the conclusion of its civil war.”

This “normalization,” the GOP congressman write, “appeared to have been aimed at conveying the impression that the situation in Libya was getting better, not worse. The administration’s decision to normalize was the basis for systematically withdrawing security personnel and equipment – including a much-needed DC-3 aircraft – without taking into account the reality on the ground. In an interview with Mr. Nordstrom, he maintained that the State Department routinely made decisions about security in early 2012 without first consulting him.” The congressmen submit ten questions for the president to answer.

-Jake Tapper

.

Joe The Plumber Right On Socialism, Soaring Taxes On Small Businesses Under Obama

It’s not like Barrack Obama didn’t promise the American people that he would lead them into socialism.  You might remember the famous encounter with Joe “the plumber”:

Wurzelbacher said he planned to become the owner of a small plumbing business that will take in more than the $250,000 amount at which Obama plans to begin raising tax rates.

“Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the blue-collar worker asked.

After Obama responded that it would, Wurzelbacher continued: “I’ve worked hard . . . I work 10 to 12 hours a day and I’m buying this company and I’m going to continue working that way. I’m getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream.”

“It’s not that I want to punish your success,” Obama told him. “I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success, too.

Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.

“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

“Spread the wealth around,” Obama said.  From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Joe the Plumber famously answered, “That sounds like socialism.”

And how the liberals howled.  Pieces like Mc Clatchey Newspapers’ “Obama plan isn’t ‘socialism’; it’s traditional progressive taxation” by David Lightman and William Douglas abounded:

“It wouldn’t qualify as socialism.

“The answer is clearly no, Senator Obama is not a socialist,” said Paul Beck, a professor of political science at Ohio State University. “We’ve had a progressive tax system for some time, and both Republicans and Democrats have bought into it.”

Socialism involves state ownership of the means of economic production and state-directed sharing of the wealth. America’s democratic capitalist system is neither socialist nor pure free market; rather, it mixes the two, and it has at least since the progressive income tax was introduced 95 years ago. Under it, the wealthy pay higher income tax rates than those who are less fortunate do. It’s a form of sharing the wealth.”

Now, of course, I read that last paragraph and I’m just rolling on the floor laughing at how ignorant and dishonest these liberals were – and are.

Let me just say two words:  “Auto industry.”  Let me say two more: “banking industry.”  Let me add a few others: “Obama fires GM CEO.”  And, “Government forcing GM board out,” And, “Obama won’t allow banks to repay bailout loans.”  And, “Government, UAW Own 89% of GM In Restructuring.”  And, “Government Power and Control: The One Trillion Dollar Takeover Of Health Care.”  And, “Obama’s cap-and-trade plan a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”  And, most frightening and revealing of all: “Financial Rescue Nears GDP as Pledges Top $12.8 Trillion.”

“Let’s move it along, folks.  Move it along.  No socialists to see here.”

Sorry, mainstream media: Obama is as socialist as the sun is hot.  The fact that you were too blatantly dishonest and corrupt and incompetent to do your job during the campaign is just one more case in point that we are now under the thrall of totalitarian propaganda.

As the February 16, 2009 issue of Newseek gleefully trumpeted:

That pretty much makes it official: Obama and the Democratic Party lied to us: they were socialists all along, and too dishonest and too corrupt to honestly and legitimately represent themselves.

I also have to point out the fact that the VERY WORST ELEMENTS OF SOCIALISM – right out of the playbook of the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” or the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” – were used to attack Joe Wurzelbacher simply for asking a candidate for president a couple of questions right outside his house.  The media and the Democrat machine went after him with everything they had, including snooping through his private records in a very KGB-like manner in hopes of dredging up dirt on him.

You know, kind of like what Obama and his Democrat lynch mob are doing to Bush administration officials even as we speak in 1) releasing memos selectively targeted to make Bush look like a torturer while refusing to release any memos that would show how Bush’s actions kept America safe; and 2) threatening to prosecute Bush officials for their part in 1) in what would amount to a show trial.  How quintessentially totalitarian of them.

All this said, our socialist – and frankly fascist – president is now about to come after small business owners EXACTLY as Joe Wurzelbacher feared he would to pay for his socialist Statist agenda:

Small Businesses Brace for Tax Battle
Under Obama Plan, Some Entrepreneurs’ Bills Would Soar
By Lori Montgomery and V. Dion Haynes
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, April 27, 2009

Gail Johnson doesn’t think of herself as wealthy. The former pediatric nurse has spent 20 years building a chain of preschools and after-school programs that accommodate sick children so working parents can keep their jobs.

But, like most small-business owners, Johnson reports her profit on her personal tax return. In a typical year, she and her husband make more than $500,000, according to her accountant, a figure that throws them squarely into the ranks of the richest Americans — and makes them a prime target for the Obama administration’s tax policy.

Since last year’s campaign, President Obama has vowed repeatedly not to increase taxes for families making less than $250,000 a year. That pledge, while politically popular, has left him with just two primary sources of funding for his ambitious social agenda: about 3 million high-earning families and the nation’s businesses.

Johnson, with her company, falls into both categories. If Obama’s tax plans are enacted, her accountant estimates that her federal tax bill — typically, around $120,000 a year — would rise by at least $23,000, a 19 percent increase.

“You hear ‘tax the rich,’ and you think, ‘I don’t make that much money,’ ” said Johnson, whose Rainbow Station programs are headquartered near Richmond. “But then you realize: ‘Oh, if I put my business income with my wages, then, suddenly, I’m there.’ ”

Across the nation, many business owners are watching anxiously as the president undertakes expensive initiatives to overhaul health care and expand educational opportunities, while also reining in runaway budget deficits. Already, Obama has proposed an extra $1.3 trillion in taxes for business and high earners over the next decade. They include new limits on the ability of corporations to automatically defer U.S. taxes on income earned overseas, repeal of a form of inventory accounting that tends to reduce business taxes, and a mandate that investment partnerships pay the regular income tax rate instead of the lower capital gains rate.

‘A Permanent Target’
Business groups say they’re bracing for even more battles with the administration.

“They’re desperate for revenue. And therein lies the concern of the broader business community,” said R. Bruce Josten, chief lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

“We’re going to be a permanent target, and we understand that,” added Catherine Schultz, vice president for tax policy at the National Foreign Trade Council. “The way they see it, corporations don’t vote.”

[Read the rest of the article]

Many small business owners file individual income tax returns.  Their “incomes” do not merely go into their pockets; rather, they use their profits to pay their employees and reinvest in their businesses:

Johnson declined to say whether she voted for Obama. But she said she ignored his tax plans until her husband, who handles real estate and construction for the schools, mentioned it one day. “I’ve since talked to my accountant,” she said. “And, oh, my gosh!”

The accountant, Carroll Hurst, said Johnson is unlikely to owe any federal taxes this year due to accounting changes that confer a one-time tax benefit. But in a typical year, he said, Johnson and her husband earn about $515,000 from various entities related to the schools. They claim around $90,000 in deductions — much of it contributions to charity — reducing their taxable income to around $425,000. Johnson said the sum they take home in wages is “substantially less.”

In a typical year, Johnson’s federal tax bill would be about $120,000. But starting in 2011, the higher marginal rates would add about $13,000 a year, Hurst said. Capping the value of itemized deductions at 28 percent would add another $10,000, for a total increase of $23,000.

And Johnson’s tax bill stands to grow dramatically if Obama were to revive a plan to apply Social Security tax to income over $250,000 instead of capping it at the current $106,800. Because Johnson is an employee and an employer, she would have to pay both portions of the tax, Hurst said, tacking another $30,000 onto her bill.

Johnson said such an increase would force her to consider scaling back operations.

“You can try to pass it on to consumers. But if you raise tuition, you put pressure on family budgets,” she said. “For us, we’re caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.”

Other business owners are also nervous. Jim Murphy, president of EST Analytical in Fairfield, Ohio, which sells analytical instruments to environmental testing labs and pharmaceuticals, said his company is struggling in the sluggish economy. But if profit returns to pre-recession levels — about $455,000 — Murphy said his accountant estimates that Obama’s proposals could add $60,000 to his $120,000 tax bill.

“The misconception is that guys like me take [our profits] and put it into our pockets,” said Murphy, who employs 47 people. “But the money the company earns in a given year is used to buy additional inventory so we can grow and hire.” A 50 percent tax increase, he said, would be “really painful.”

So let’s review the basic facts: Barack Obama IS a socialist, just as Joe the Plumber intuitively understood even as liberal “intellectuals” loudly howled with all the outrage they could muster.  There’s no question of that fact any longer.  In fact, he is essentially a fascist, just as progressives such as Woodrow Wilson and even FDR were before him.  And Obama IS coming after small businesses and their owners, just as Joe the Plumber rightly feared.  And, furthermore, the Obama White House and the mainstream media alike will apply any tactic to attack and demonize their opponents for political purposes just like the worst socialist regimes in world history.

CIA Memos: Obama Releases What Makes Us Look Bad, Conceals What Makes Us Look Good

President Obama released legal memos revealing our interrogation methods of terrorists, essentially referring to the Bush years following 9/11 as a “dark and painful chapter in our history.”

Thus we found out that:

Prisoners could be kept awake for more than a week. They could be stripped of their clothes, fed nothing but liquid and thrown against a wall 30 consecutive times.

In one case, the CIA was told it could prey on one prisoner’s fear of insects by stuffing him into a box with a bug. When all else failed, the CIA could turn to what a Justice Department memo described as “the most traumatic” interrogation technique of all, waterboarding.

What Obama refused to allow the American people to learn was that these things worked and kept us safe.

Cheney Calls For More CIA Reports To Be Declassified
Mon Apr 20 2009 16:20:53 ET

In a two part interview airing tonight and tomorrow night on FOX News Channel’s Hannity (9-10PM ET), former Vice President Dick Cheney shared his thoughts on the CIA memos that were recently declassified and also revealed his request to the CIA to declassify additional memos that confirm the success of the Bush administration’s interrogation tactics:

CHENEY: “One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn’t put out the memos that showed the success of the effort. And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified.”

“I formally asked that they be declassified now. I haven’t announced this up until now, I haven’t talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country.”

“And I’ve now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was, as well as to see this debate over the legal opinions.”

In short, Obama wanted to release only the stuff that made America and the Bush administration look bad. He DID NOT want to release the stuff that made America and the Bush administration look good. And that should really bother you.

Mind you, we shouldn’t have released ANYTHING.

WASHINGTON – Four former CIA directors opposed releasing classified Bush-era interrogation memos, officials say, describing objections that went all the way to the White House and slowed release of the records.

Former CIA chiefs Michael Hayden, Porter Goss, George Tenet and John Deutch all called the White House in March warning that release of the so-called “torture memos” would compromise intelligence operations, current and former officials say. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity in order to detail internal government discussions.

The Obama mentality seems to be that the terrorists aren’t our enemy; George Bush is the real enemy, and anything that discredits him – even if it provides aid to terrorists and allows them to be more successful in the future even as our own ability to stop them is undermined – is worth pursuing.

Former CIA Director General Michael Hayden – a career intelligence professional unlike the career political hack Obama appointed to head the CIA – offered the following in an op-ed entitled, “The President Ties His Own Hands On Terror“:

[On the impact of the CIA as an institution]: “The release of these opinions was unnecessary as a legal matter, and is unsound as a matter of policy. Its effect will be to invite the kind of institutional timidity and fear of recrimination that weakened intelligence gathering in the past, and that we came sorely to regret on Sept. 11, 2001.”….

[On the ability of the terrorists to resist American interrogations in the future]: “[P]ublic disclosure of the OLC opinions, and thus of the techniques themselves, assures that terrorists are now aware of the absolute limit of what the U.S. government could do to extract information from them, and can supplement their training accordingly and thus diminish the effectiveness of these techniques as they have the ones in the Army Field Manual.”….

[On the morale and effectiveness of our CIA officers in the future]: “The effect of this disclosure on the morale and effectiveness of many in the intelligence community is not hard to predict. Those charged with the responsibility of gathering potentially lifesaving information from unwilling captives are now told essentially that any legal opinion they get as to the lawfulness of their activity is only as durable as political fashion permits. Even with a seemingly binding opinion in hand, which future CIA operations personnel would take the risk? There would be no wink, no nod, no handshake that would convince them that legal guidance is durable.”…

The money quote of the Hayden piece has got to be this:

“fully half of the government’s knowledge about the structure and activities of al Qaeda came from those [harsh] interrogations.”

In short:

WASHINGTON (AFP) – A former head of the US Central Intelligence Agency insisted Sunday that harsh interrogation techniques widely condemned as torture had succeeded in battling Al-Qaeda and saving American lives, something he characterized as “an inconvenient truth.”

Michael Hayden, who was replaced as CIA chief earlier this year by President Barack Obama, assailed Obama’s decision last week to release “Top Secret” memos detailing the interrogation techniques as “really dangerous” for US intelligence efforts.

We had darned good reason for waterboarding terrorists such as Abu Zubaydah. Our guys washed the defiance right out of those murderers’ hair.

I demand that Barack Hussein address the nation and assure us that the comfort of a terrorist is more important to him than an American city, and that he would rather that ten million Americans perish in a terrorist attack than that one terrorist with “ticking time bomb” knowledge be waterboarded. Let’s lay it on the line. Let’s allow the American people to decide, “Our lives and the lives of our families aren’t worth the ‘torturing’ of a terrorist. The president is right.” Or NOT.

But that won’t be the kind of honesty we’ll get. We won’t get any real honesty at all. Rather, in the guise of “openness,” and “transparency,” Obama will only let us have enough information to lead us to a false conclusion that America and George Bush really were evil.

Finally, if we are attacked again, I further demand that Barack Hussein be impeached and removed from office for refusing to uphold his sworn Constitutional duty to defend and protect America. I demand that he be held personally responsible for his dismantling of our intelligence capability. And I demand that he – rather than the officials who tried to protect us following the worst attack in American history – be criminally prosecuted for depraved indifference by abandoning measures that successfully protected the citizens of this country in favor of political ideology.