Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Proposed New Tax on Checking Accounts

H. R. 4646

I have gone into THOMAS (Library of Congress) and printed out and read all 15 pages of this bill which has been given the "Short Title" of "Debt Free America Act."  It is the most socialistic thing I have ever read.  Just think, if you deposit $5,000.00 into your checking account or savings account the bank has to  take out 1% or $50.00 of that money and send it to Washington . Then, any checks or cash you take out of your bank they will deduct 1% from what is still in the bank and send it to Washington .  Total put in the Bank $5,000.00. $100.00 of that you give to Washington .

This bill, spells it out that everyone will pay the Government 1% of their gross income.

Page 9 states the House and Senate shall convene not later than November 23, 2010 and Page 11 states the vote on passage shall occur not later than December 23, 2010.

If you don't know who your Congressman or Senator is, go to Google, type in "(your state) Congressman email address".  When it comes up, click on "Complete E-mail address for Congress/House, Senate, Governors and get both e-mail and FAX info.

The bill is HR-4646 introduced by US Rep Peter DeFazio D- Oregon and US Senator Tom Harkin D-Iowa.  It is now in committee and will probably not be brought out until after the Nov. elections. Suggest that you pass this along and also to your state senator and representative and US Congressman and Senators.                                                           

One percent transaction tax is proposed
President Obama's finance team is recommending a transaction tax. His plan is to sneak it in after the November election to keep it under the radar. This is a 1% tax on all transactions at any financial institution i. e. Banks, Credit Unions, etc.. Any deposit you make, or move around within your account, i. e. transfer to, will have a 1% tax charged. If your pay check or your social Security or whatever is direct deposit, 1% tax charged. If you hand carry a check in to deposit, 1% tax charged, If you take cash in to deposit, 1% tax charged. This is from the man who promised that if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax. Keep your eyes and ears open, you will be amazed at what you learn. 
Some will say aw it's just 1%... remember once the tax is there they can raise it at will.
http://www.standard.net/node/44797

IMHO...

HR4646 is just one of many tax proposals targeted for the "Lame Duck" session right after the November election.  Unfortunately that congressional session is a very dangerous time, with reps who lost the election having one last chance to do whatever they want before leaving office, and newly (re-) elected reps having two years for the public to forget and be distracted about whatever they did.  Adding to the danger this year is the pending expiration of the Bush tax cuts, for which total inaction will mean a tax increase for nearly everyone.  Furthermore, the report of Obama's Deficit Reduction Committee will be released, which will also be an impetus to bring all these bills forward.
Concerning transaction taxes alone, proposals have ranged from .025% (targeting primarily high frequency traders) to HR4646's 1%.  Notable about HR4646 (and left out of the email below) is that the amount paid in transaction taxes would be creditable against income tax owed - meaning that unless you do a lot of transactions it is unlikely that the tax as proposed would result in a net increase in your total federal tax liability, BUT if the income tax goes up as well (see below) your total taxes could go up in a stealth manner.  History also says that both the percentage of tax and the allowable credit are likely to be "adjusted" in the future, and as all new taxes this one definitely warrants opposition.

The even more worrisome tax proposal to be aware of in the lame duck session is a Value Added Tax (VAT tax).  This would be a kind of national sales tax with a nominal range of 5% - 20%.  The left wingers are salivating all over this potential revenue source, as they have it in Europe and elsewhere and present it as just bringing America in line with the rest of the world.  A VAT tax is onerous, difficult to calculate, and inflationary but otherwise mostly invisible to the average person on the street because merchants would be required to simply roll it into the sales price of whatever they are selling.  I am far more concerned about the possibility of a VAT tax than a transaction tax.
All of these proposals are couched as offsetting a reduction, simplification, or elimination of the income tax.  I'm all for eliminating the income tax, or short of that at least simplifying and reducing it.  However, again looking at history if we allow a new tax without repealing the old tax AT THE SAME TIME IN THE SAME BILL, what we will end up with is both the new tax and the old tax.  And often what they have in mind is to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, thus increasing income taxes at the same time they introduce the new tax and make it creditable against the income tax - so it looks like you're paying the same or less income tax but you're also paying this new tax as well.  But they get to claim the new tax does not result in additional total liability, because it is fully creditable against the income tax. 

Very slimy (what else would you expect?)
Also bear in mind that the bill that passes will be far more dangerous than any of the bills currently out there you or I could look at, because it's almost certain that none of the bills in their current form will pass.  Instead, like Obama Care, lame duck tax reform is likely to be an enormous bill running hundreds of pages, introduced mere hours before it is voted in based on secret back room deals, about which we find the details weeks, months, or years later.

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Netanyahu’s Speech To The UN

Netanyahu's Speech
THIS SHOULD BE READ BY EVERYONE
How elegantly stated .  Hopefully , as a human of good conscience, you will read this in its entirety.   All of us must work continuously and diligently for peace
PM Netanyahu’s Speech at the UN General Assembly
Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland. I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people.
The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events. Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth. Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie.
Last month, I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee. There, on January 20, 1942 , after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people. The detailed minutes of that meeting have been preserved by successive German governments. Here is a copy of those minutes, in which the Nazis issued precise instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews. Is this a lie? A day before I was in Wannsee, I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Those plans are signed by Hitler's deputy, Heinrich Himmler himself. Here is a copy of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million Jews were murdered. Is this too a lie? This June, President Obama visited the Buchenwald concentration camp. Did President Obama pay tribute to a lie?
And what of the Auschwitz survivors whose arms still bear the tattooed numbers branded on them by the Nazis? Are those tattoos a lie? One-third of all Jews perished in the conflagration. Nearly every Jewish family was affected, including my own. My wife's grandparents, her father's two sisters and three brothers, and all the aunts, uncles and cousins were all murdered by the Nazis. Is that also a lie?
Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries. But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency? A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state. What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations! Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You're wrong. History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.
This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries. In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others. Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times. Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated. The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization. It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death. The primitivism of the 9th century ought to be no match for the progress of the 21st century. The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day. Ultimately, the past cannot triumph over the future. And the future offers all nations magnificent bounties of hope. The pace of progress is growing exponentially.
It took us centuries to get from the printing press to the telephone, decades to get from the telephone to the personal computer, and only a few years to get from the personal computer to the internet. What seemed impossible a few years ago is already outdated, and we can scarcely fathom the changes that are yet to come. We will crack the genetic code. We will cure the incurable. We will lengthen our lives. We will find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and clean up the planet. I am proud that my country Israel is at the forefront of these advances - by leading innovations in science and technology, medicine and biology, agriculture and water, energy and the environment. These innovations the world over offer humanity a sunlit future of unimagined promise.
But if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly weapons, the march of history could be reversed for a time. And like the belated victory over the Nazis, the forces of progress and freedom will prevail only after an horrific toll of blood and fortune has been exacted from mankind. That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction. The most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge? Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom? Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood? Will the international community thwart the world's most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism? Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world? The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side?
Ladies and Gentlemen, The jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging. Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims. That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted. For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks. We heard nothing - absolutely nothing - from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one. In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza . It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis. We didn't get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare. You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent.
Finally, after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was finally forced to respond. But how should we have responded? Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country's civilian population. It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II. During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties. Israel chose to respond differently. Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians - Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers. That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting explosives in ambulances. Israel , by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas. We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave. Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy's civilian population from harm's way. Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel . A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.
By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth. What a perversion of justice. Delegates of the United Nations, Will you accept this farce? Because if you do, the United Nations would revert to its darkest days, when the worst violators of human rights sat in judgment against the law-abiding democracies, when Zionism was equated with racism and when an automatic majority could declare that the earth is flat. If this body does not reject this report, it would send a message to terrorists everywhere: Terror pays; if you launch your attacks from densely populated areas, you will win immunity. And in condemning Israel , this body would also deal a mortal blow to peace.
Here's why. When Israel left Gaza , many hoped that the missile attacks would stop. Others believed that at the very least, Israel would have international legitimacy to exercise its right of self-defense. What legitimacy? What self-defense? The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us -my people, my country - of war crimes? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense. What a travesty! Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists? We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later. Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.
Ladies and Gentlemen, All of Israel wants peace. Any time an Arab leader genuinely wanted peace with us, we made peace. We made peace with Egypt led by Anwar Sadat. We made peace with Jordan led by King Hussein. And if the Palestinians truly want peace, I and my government, and the people of Israel , will make peace. But we want a genuine peace, a defensible peace, a permanent peace. In 1947, this body voted to establish two states for two peoples - a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews accepted that resolution. The Arabs rejected it. We ask the Palestinians to finally do what they have refused to do for 62 years: Say yes to a Jewish state. Just as we are asked to recognize a nation-state for the Palestinian people, the Palestinians must be asked to recognize the nation state of the Jewish people. The Jewish people are not foreign conquerors in the Land of Israel . This is the land of our forefathers. Inscribed on the walls outside this building is the great Biblical vision of peace: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. They shall learn war no more." These words were spoken by the Jewish prophet Isaiah 2,800 years ago as he walked in my country, in my city, in the hills of Judea and in the streets of Jerusalem . We are not strangers to this land. It is our homeland. As deeply connected as we are to this land, we recognize that the Palestinians also live there and want a home of their own. We want to live side by side with them, two free peoples living in peace, prosperity and dignity.
But we must have security. The Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves except those handful of powers that could endanger Israel . That is why a Palestinian state must be effectively demilitarized. We don't want another Gaza , another Iranian backed terror base abutting Jerusalem and perched on the hills a few kilometers from Tel Aviv. We want peace. I believe such a peace can be achieved. But only if we roll back the forces of terror, led by Iran , that seek to destroy peace, eliminate Israel and overthrow the world order. The question facing the international community is whether it is prepared to confront those forces or accommodate them.
Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the "confirmed unteachability of mankind," the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them. Churchill bemoaned what he called the "want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong."
I speak here today in the hope that Churchill's assessment of the "unteachability of mankind" is for once proven wrong.
I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history -- that we can prevent danger in time.
In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come. ###
________________________________
Although this may be lengthy, you owe it to yourself to read it.  Remember the phrase, "First they came for ___, and I didn't say anything, then they......".  The strongest part of his speech is towards the end.  Remember, once Iran has "the bomb", we are in almost as much jeopardy as Israel.  After Israel, who do you think that they'll want to next destroy?
Please  send this to many others all around the world. =

Friday, October 8, 2010

Obama “Smackdown” by High Court Coming?

Anthony G. Martin
Conservative Examiner

According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.

Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues.  Critics have complained that much if not all of Obama’s major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government.

Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.

The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, ‘That’s not true,’ when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court’s ruling.

As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government.  Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.

Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.  And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until ‘Obama is gone.’

Apparently, the Court has had enough.

The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven.  A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration.

Such a thing would be long overdue.

First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something.  And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim.  The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.

In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can ‘opt out.’

Second,  sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama’s history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President.  The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue.  This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii.  And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not the President himself, in hot water with the Court.  Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years.  Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.

In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ to sue the state of Arizona.  That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.

And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party.  The group is caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls.

A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies.

This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling–that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

October 2, 2010

    RBN     Web                

    Wednesday, October 6, 2010

    DOES THE PRESIDENT KNOW WHEN HE IS LYING'

    Obama says his father served in World War II and got "the services he needed" when he returned from the war.

    Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (Obama's father)  Born 4/4/36.  Died 11/24/82 at the age of 46. He was 5 years old when WW II started, and less than 9.5 years old when it ended.

    Lolo Soetoro (Obama's step father)  Born 1935,  Died 3/2/87 at the age of 52.  He was 6 years old when WW II started, and 10 years old when it ended.

    Were these guys the youngest Veterans ever or does the President lie so much he doesn't even know when he is lying? 

    Watch him in action, in this 18 second clip.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv4jnlkxOaw

    Tuesday, October 5, 2010

    Why Grandpa Carries A Gun

    Why Grandpa carries a gun
                                                           Why Carry a Gun?
    My old grandpa said to me 'Son, there  comes a time in
    every man's life when he stops bustin' knuckles   and
    starts bustin' caps and usually it's when he becomes too old            
    to take an ass whoopin.'
    I don't carry a gun to kill   people. I carry a gun to
    keep from being killed.
    I  don't carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun
    because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
    I  don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid. I carry a
    gun because there are real threats in the world.
    I don't carry a gun because I'm evil. I carry a gun 
    because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the
    world.
    I don't carry a gun because I hate the government. I
    carry a gun because I understand the limitations of
    government.
    I  don't carry a gun because I'm angry. I carry a gun so
    that I  don't have to spend the rest of my life hating
    myself for failing to be prepared.
    I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
    I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age
    in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow
    afternoon.
    I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy. I carry a gun
    because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a 
    cowboy.
    I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry
    a gun because men know how to take care of themselves
    and the ones they love.
    I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry
    a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am               
    inadequate.
    I don't carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun
    because I love life and the people who make it                
    meaningful to me.
                    *                 * * * * * * * * *
    Police protection is an oxymoron. Free citizens must
    protect  themselves.
    Police do not protect you from crime, they  usually just
    investigate the crime after it happens and then  call
    someone in to clean up the mess.

    Personally,  I carry a gun because I'm too young to die
    and too old to take  an ass whoopin'.....author unknown
    (but obviously brilliant)
    **********************************************
    A LITTLE                 GUN HISTORY
    In 1929, the Soviet Union established
    gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million                
    dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and           
         exterminated.
      ------------------------------
    In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to
    1917, 1.5 million  Armenians, unable to defend
    themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
      ------------------------------
    Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939
    to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were
    unable to defend themselves were rounded up and
    exterminated.
                      ------------------------------
    China  established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to
    1952, 20 million  political dissidents, unable to defend
    themselves, were rounded  up and exterminated.
      ------------------------------
    Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to
    1981, 100,000  Mayan Indians, unable to defend
    themselves, were rounded up and  exterminated.
      ---- ------------- -------------
    Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to
    1979, 300,000  Christians, unable to defend themselves,
    were rounded up and exterminated.
      ------------------------------
    Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to
    1977, one million  educated people, unable to defend
    themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
      -----------------------------
    Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the                
    20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.  
    ------------------------------
    You won't see this data on the US evening              
       news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.            
    Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and                
    property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the          
          law-abiding citizens.
    Take note my fellow Americans,  before it's too late!
    The next time someone talks in  favor of gun control,
    please remind them of this history lesson.
    With guns, we are 'citizens'.  Without them, we are                
    'subjects'.
    During WWII the Japanese decided not to  invade America
    because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
    If you value your freedom, please spread this anti
    gun-control message to all of  your friends.
    The purpose of fighting is to  win.
    There is no possible victory in defense.
    The sword is more important than the shield, and skill
    is more important than either.
    The final weapon is the brain.
    All else is  supplemental. 
    SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
    SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE
    A RIFLE.
    SWITZERLAND HAS THE  LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF
    ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
    IT'S A NO BRAINER! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE
    MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW               
    ABIDING CITIZENS EASY TARGETS.
    I'm a firm  believer in the 2nd Amendment!
    If you are too, please forward.

    Sunday, October 3, 2010

    DO YOU KNOW WHO YOUR CZAR IS?

    Do you know who YOUR CZAR is?

    OBAMA'S "CZARS"-- Read who they are and

    realize what they want to do.

    Richard Holbrooke

    AfghanistanCzar

    Ultra liberal anti gun former Gov. Of New Mexico. Pro Abortion and legal drug use. Dissolve the 2nd Amendment

    Ed Montgomery

    Auto recovery Czar

    Black radical anti business activist.  Affirmative Action and Job Preference for blacks.  Univ of Maryland Business School Dean teaches U.S. Business has caused world poverty.  ACORN board member.  Communist DuBois Club member.

    Jeffrey Crowley

    AIDS Czar

    Radical Homosexual.. A Gay Rights activist. Believes in Gay Marriage and especially, a Special Status for homosexuals only, including complete free health care for gays.

    Alan Bersin

    Border Czar

    The former failed superintendent of San Diego . Ultra Liberal friend of Hilary Clinton. Served as Border Czar under Janet Reno - to keep borders open to illegals without interference from U.S.

    David J. Hayes

    California Water Czar

    Sr. Fellow of radical environmentalist group, "Progress Policy".  No training or experience in water management whatsoever.

    Ron Bloom 

    Car Czar

    Auto Union worker. Anti business & anti nuclear. Has worked hard to force U.S. Auto makers out of business. Sits on the Board of Chrysler which is now Auto Union owned.   How did this happen?

    Dennis Ross 

    Central Region Czar

    Believes U.S. Policy has caused Mid East wars.  Obama apologist to the world.  Anti gun and completely pro abortion.

    Lynn Rosenthal

    Domestic Violence Czar

    Director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence.  Vicious anti-male feminist. Supported male castration.Imagine?

    Gil Kerlikowske 

    Drug Czar

    Devoted lobbyist for every restrictive gun law proposal,  Former Chief of Police in Liberal Seattle.  Believes no American should own a  firearm.  Supports legalization of all drugs

    Paul Volcker   

    E conomicCzar

    Head of Fed. Reserve under Jimmy Carter when U.S. Economy nearly failed. Obama appointed head of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board which engineered the Obama economic disaster to U.S. Economy.  Member of anti-business "Progressive Policy" organization

    Carol Brower

    Energy and Environment Czar

    Political Radical Former head of EPA - known for anti-business activism.  Strong anti-gun ownership.

    Joshua DuBois

    Faith Based Czar

    Political Black activist-Degree in Black Nationalism.  Anti gun ownership lobbyist. WHAT THE HELL DOES A FAITH BASED CZAR DO???????????

    Cameron Davis 

    Great LakesCzar

    Chicago radical anti-business environmentalist.  Blames George  Bush for "Poisoning the water that minorities have to drink." No experience or training in water management.  Former ACORN Board member (what does that tell us?)

    Van Jones

    Green Jobs Czar

    (since resigned)..  Black activist Member of American Communist Party and San Francisco Communist Party  who said Geo. Bush caused the 911 attack and wanted Bush investigated by the World Court for war crimes.  Black activist with strong anti-white views.

    Daniel Fried

    Guantanamo Closure Czar

    Human Rights Activist for Foreign Terrorists.  Believes America has caused the war on terrorism. Believes terrorists have rights above and beyond Americans.

    Nancy-Ann DeParle.   

    Health Czar

    Former head of Medicare / Medicaid.   Strong Health Care Rationing proponent.  She is married to a reporter for The New York Times.

    Vivek Kundra 

    Information Czar

    Born in New Delhi , India .  Controls all public information, including labels and news releases.  Monitors all private Internet emails. (hello?)

    Todd Stern   

    International Climate Czar

    Anti-business former White House chief of Staff- Strong supportrer of the Kyoto Accord. Pushing hard for Cap and Trade. Blames U.S. Business for Global warming. Anti- U.S. Business prosperity. 

    Dennis Blair

    Intelligence Czar

    Ret. Navy.  Stopped U.S. Guided missile program as "provocative".  Chair of ultra liberal "Council on Foreign Relations" which blames American organizations for regional wars.

    George Mitchell

    Mideast Peace Czar

    Fmr. Sen from Maine Left wing radical.  Has said Israel should be split up into "2 or 3 " smaller more manageable plots". (God forbid) A true Anti-nuclear anti-gun & pro homosexual "special rights" advocate

    Kenneth Feinberg 

    Pay Czar

    Chief of Staff to TED KENNEDY.   Lawyer who got rich off the 911 victims payoffs. (horribly true)

    Cass Sunstein 

    Regulatory Czar

    Liberal activist judge believes free speech needs to be limited for the "common good".  Essentially against 1st amendment. Rules against personal freedoms many times -like private gun ownership and right to free speech. This guy has to be run out of Washington !!

    John Holdren 

    Science Czar

    Fierce ideological environmentalist, Sierra Club, Anti-business activist. Claims U.S. business has caused world povertyNo Science training.

    Earl Devaney 

    Stimulus Accountability Czar

    Spent career trying to take guns away from American citizens. Believes in Open Borders to Mexico .  Author of  statement blaming U.S. gun stores for drug war in Mexico .

    J. Scott Gration   

    Sudan Czar

    Native of Democratic Republic of Congo . Believes U.S. does little to help Third World countries.  Council of foreign relations, asking for higher U.S. taxes to support United Nations

    Herb Allison 

    TARP Czar

    Fannie Mae CEO responsible for the U.S. Recession by using real estate mortgages to back up the U.S. stock market. Caused millions of  people to lose their life savings.

    John Brennan

    Terrorism Czar

    Anti CIA activist.  No training in diplomatic or gov. affairs. Believes Open Borders to Mexico and a dialog with terrorists and has suggested Obama disband U.S. military   A TOTAL MORON !!!!!

    Aneesh Chopra   

    Technology Czar

    No Technology training.   Worked for the Advisory Board Company, a health care think tank for hospitals. Anti doctor activist.  Supports Obama Health care Rationing and salaried doctors working exclusively for the Gov. health care plan

    Adolfo Carrion Jr..

    Urban Affairs Czar

    Puerto Rican born Anti American activist and leftist group member in Latin America . Millionaire "slum lord" of the Bronx , NY.  Owns many lavish homes and condos which he got from "sweetheart" deals with labor unions.  Wants higher taxes on middle class to pay for minority housing and health care

    Ashton Carter 

    Weapons Czar

    Leftist.  Wants all private weapons in U.S. destroyed.  Supports UN ban on firearms ownership in America ..  No Other "policy"

    Gary Samore

    WMD Policy Czar

    Former U.S. Communist.   Wants U.S. to destroy all WMD unilaterally as a show of good faith.  Has no other "policy".



    How lucky are we that these are the people who are helping President Obama in the RUNNING of our country and the White House?

    ARE YOU MAD YET?  Please pass this on and EDUCATE your family, friends and neighbors!