SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : How Quickly Can Obama Totally Destroy the US? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Qualified Opinion who wrote (7185)1/9/2014 7:14:35 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Obama's “promise zones” another money laundering operation
1-9-14 | johnwk
Posted on Thursday, January 09, 2014 6:52:22 PM by JOHN W K







See: Obama to unveil “promise zone” economic initiative


”Joined by local leaders at the White House, Mr. Obama will officially announce the administration’s first five “promise zones” -- pockets of the country that will receive comprehensive federal assistance after being especially hard-hit by the recession. The five zones will be located in San Antonio, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Southeastern Kentucky and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. The administration aims to ultimately assist 20 such regions.”


Once again our President, instead of adopting national policies removing the iron fist of our federal government from America’s free enterprise system and its businesses and industries, he decides to usurp unconstitutional power and deliver “federal assistance” to meet his personal fancies, giving preferential treatment to his selected “promise zones” while ignoring our federal constitution’s legislative intent, e.g., No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear or pay Duties in another. Is it not clear by these words that our founders intentionally sought to prohibit federal power being used to favor one state over another or one community over another? And just what did one of our nation’s founders say which specifically addresses Obama’s “promise zones”?


"The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interest of the individual States than the encouragement which might be given to ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers.” Annals of Congress Feb 7th,1792 Representative Page


The best thing which could happen to rekindle America’s once thriving economic base would be to end all taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other incomes; move to taxing consumption to fill our national treasury as intended by our founders; end minimum wage law, and end regulations which have chased so many of America’s factories, manufactures and industries to foreign countries. How would this help? Investors would quickly take advantage of this new tax policy and start up new businesses. It would also immediately help millions of young adults who have dropped out of school who are now unemployed, because businesses in the trades, manufactures and industries could hire them as “trainees” starting them at a very low wage and increase wages as each becomes productive.

And of course, tens of thousands of jobs would immediately become available if our socialist in the White House would get out of the way so the Keystone pipeline could be built.

But instead of following sound policies giving a rebirth to America’s economic might, our usurper in the White House wants to redistribute revenue from our federal treasury and give preferential treatment to his chosen few who just happen to be part of his inner circle. Have we forgotten his green energy money laundering operation in which he plundered our national treasury of $ BILLIONS and 80% of Obama green jobs money went to Obama donors.?

Let us take a look at the list who have profited off working people‘s earned wages being transferred to them by Obama:


• Beacon Power Corp: Received $43 million in federal loan guaranteed in 2009 and also received $29 million in PA grants – Bankrupt in October 2011

• Ener1 (parent company of EnerDel): Received $118.5 million in federal loan guarantees — Bankrupt in January 2012 – has since exited bankruptcy

• Evergreen Solar: Received $58 million in MA loan guarantees (an undisclosed portion sourced from federal ARRA block grant) — Bankrupt in August 2011 with $485.6 million in debt

• Solyndra: Received $535 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009 and $25.1 million in CA tax credit — Bankrupt in August 2011

• SpectraWatt: Received $500,000 in federal loan guarantees in 2009 — Bankrupt in August 2011

• Babcock and Brown: Received $178 million in federal grants in December 2009 (4 months after it went bust) – Bankrupt in early 2009

• Mountain Plaza Inc.: Received $424,000 in federal grants through TN Department of Transportation in 2009 — Bankrupt in 2003 and again in June 2010

• Solar Trust of America (parent company: Solar Millennium): Received $2.1 billion loan guarantee in April 2011 – Bankrupt in April 2012
Other Subsidized Green Energy Companies in decline:

• A123: Received $300 million in federal grants and $135 million in MI grants — Declining orders and have forced multiple layoffs

• Amonix, Inc.: Received $5.9 million in federal tax credits in 2009 through ARRA — Laid off 2/3 of work force

• First Solar: Received $3 billion in federal loan guarantees — Biggest S&P loser in 2011, CEO fired

• Fisker Automotive: $529 million in federal loan guarantees — Multiple 2012 sales prediction downgrades for first car release, delivery and cash flow troubles; Assembling cars in Finland

• Johnson Controls: Received $299 million in federal grants in 2009 — Low demand caused cancellation of a new factory, operating at half capacity

• Nevada Geothermal: Received $98.5 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009 — Defaulting on long-term debt obligations, 85% drop in stock value

• Sun Power: Received $1.2 billion in federal loan guarantees — Debt exceeds assets; French oil company took over last fall

• Abound Solar: Received $400 million in federal loans in 2012 — ½ work force laid off

• BrightSource Energy: $1.6 billion federal loan approved in April 2012 – loan obtained through political connections with the administration; absent the loan, Brightsource’s solar power purchase would have fallen through.

see: Green Energy’s Bankruptcy Blackout



Bottom line is, if there is money involved you can bet it’s designed by Obama to fatten the fortunes of his inner circle pals.

JWK







"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [a working person’s earned wage] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Obama’s Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).





To: Qualified Opinion who wrote (7185)1/10/2014 11:41:21 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
DoJ puts Obama donor in charge of IRS investigation [The Fox Guards the Hen House]

..........................................................................
Hotair ^ | 01/10/2014 | Ed Morrissey





To: Qualified Opinion who wrote (7185)1/10/2014 11:50:36 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Deval Patrick should do Chris Christie dance



To: Qualified Opinion who wrote (7185)1/10/2014 2:35:59 PM
From: joseffy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
"Obama Administration to Probe Christie Scandal"

Really? You mean like they "probed" the Black Panthers voter intimidation case? Will they apply the same enthusiasm with which they have "probed" Eric Holder for Fast & Furious? The same dogged determination with which they've investigated the Benghazi atrocity?



To: Qualified Opinion who wrote (7185)1/11/2014 9:39:09 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
OBAMA'S NEXT SECRETARY OF STATE




To: Qualified Opinion who wrote (7185)1/11/2014 9:40:17 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
OBAMA CABINET MEETING AFTERMATH




To: Qualified Opinion who wrote (7185)1/13/2014 2:06:40 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
REPORT: Obamacare Bailout Planned for Insurance Companies...




To: Qualified Opinion who wrote (7185)1/14/2014 10:02:13 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Cage Rattler

  Respond to of 16547
 
5 Disasters Yet To Come With Obamacare
...................................................................................
Townhall.com ^ | January 14, 2014 | John Hawkins


Obamacare had the worst debut since the Titanic. The website was non-functional for weeks, the back-end still isn't fully built out, whole states have had minimal numbers of people signing up, countless Americans have been cut back from full-time work to part-time, millions lost their insurance, and Obama has been illegally changing the law every other day like some sort of banana republic dictator. In other words, Obamacare has been a rolling train wreck that has shown Barack Obama's promises about the law to be nothing but lies while proving the conservatives who said the Affordable Care Act was a disaster 100% right.

Now, here's the really scary thing: as you're about to see, the worst is yet to come.


1) Skyrocketing Insurance Prices: You think your insurance is expensive now? Well, just wait, because Obamacare is going to send the cost of medical care shooting into the sky like a rocket out of a trampoline factory. How could it be otherwise? People are now forced to buy more insurance than they need. Are you an 80 year old woman? Sorry, but Barack Obama still thinks you need maternity care and that costs more money. Moreover, it costs a lot of money to pay for the new regulations and massive federal bureaucracy that has been put in place for the law. After all, somebody has to pay the salary of the IRS agents who'll now be harassing you about your medical bills. Furthermore, that alcoholic junky who needs a liver transplant and round the clock care after he got high on meth and slammed his head into a cement wall? He's paying the same rate as you are now, which means both of you pay a lot more. Guess who got the better of that deal? Hint: If you're reading this, there's about a 99.9% chance it's not you.


2) Insurance Company Bailouts: While Democrats were telling the Occupy Wall Street crowd to support Obamacare in order to stick it to the insurance companies, Obama was actually giving those same companies the sweetheart deal of a lifetime behind the scenes. In return for supporting Obamacare, they got to charge more, Obama promised to use the IRS to force more Americans to sign up for their services, and best of all, he promised them a bailout if something goes wrong. In other words, if they don't make a killing off of all the new customers Obama is forcing to buy their service, Obama will make up the difference with your tax dollars. So now that Obamacare looks like a money loser for the insurance companies, Democrats are preparing to pay off the insurance companies directly with your tax dollars. How did we end up in a world where the same liberals who incessantly complain about fatcat insurance companies are now demanding that we give them billions of dollars because they made bad business decisions?


3) The Employer Mandate: There's a reason Barack Obama delayed the employer mandate and will probably delay it again next year. Depending on the estimates you believe, somewhere between 25-80 million Americans are going to lose the health insurance they have through their employer once it goes into effect. Now you're probably saying, "Holy 'if you like your plan, you can keep it,’ Batman, that's horrible,” but to liberals, that's ultimately a feature of the plan, not a bug. The more people who lose their health care, the more people who will want to sign up for the Obamacare exchanges and the more likely it is that the law is to be viable long term. Ultimately, Barack Obama is fine with lying to the American people; he just doesn't want them to find out they were deceived right before an election.

4) Doctor Shortages: According to a survey done by the Doctor Patient Medical Association, 83% of doctors, "have considered leaving their practices over President Barack Obama’s health care reform law." Some of them are going to quit while others will merely cut back their hours or refuse to see new patients. Whatever the case may be, it means that even if you have health care, it may be difficult to find a doctor to treat you. If and when you do, you're going to find doctors who have even less time to spend per patient, nurses doing tasks doctors used to handle, foreign doctors with inferior training who've been brought in to fill the gap, and dramatically increased waits for surgeries. There will be people who would get surgery for painful, but non-life threatening injuries within a week today who will spend months waiting in agony down the road. If there were any justice, they would all be people who voted for Obama, but unfortunately the rest of us will have to pay the same excruciating price for their gullibility.


5) Death Panels: Liberals have moved from claiming that death panels don't exist to admitting that they're built into the law and saying that they're a good thing. As Time Magazine's senior political analyst Mark Halperin admitted, "It's built into the plan. It's not like a guess or like a judgment. That's going to be part of how costs are controlled." So, yes, there are going to be Americans who die because it's cheaper than spending the money needed to save them. What was it Barack Obama said again? Oh, yes, "Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller." The scary thing about that is unelected bureaucrats who are indifferent to whether you live or die -- not you or your doctor-- will be the ones deciding whether an expensive treatment makes you "better off."



To: Qualified Opinion who wrote (7185)1/18/2014 3:24:24 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Secrets of Katyn Forest: What's Really Buried There?
.........................................................................................................
Diana West ^ | January 17, 2014 | Diana West


The power of history to speak to us depends on our ability to hear it. When we are deaf to its secrets, or too confused or conditioned to decipher them, we miss the opportunity to be empowered by them. We thus fail to overcome the propaganda our own government, like the dictatorships we revile, has all too often deceived us with.

I am struck by this aura of static around a sensational new discovery. Researcher and author Krystyna Piorkowska, the Associated Press reported this week, has unearthed a “lost” U.S. document, dating back to 1945, known as the Van Vliet report on the Katyn Forest Massacre. Few Americans are familiar with the World War II-era massacre, let alone with U.S. Army Lt. Col. John H. Van Vliet, so what is history telling us?

Its message is one that we as a people are deeply conditioned to reject. It concerns decades of U.S. appeasement, support and collusion regarding the USSR, and even in some of the evil empire’s worst atrocities. In American Betrayal I re-examine this terrible pattern, long obscured by false narratives of the “good war” that I learned along with everybody else, for evidence of Soviet agents’ influence on U.S. strategy. Equally important is the corrosive impact this subversion has had on our nation’s character. Nowhere is this moral impact more evident than at Katyn.

This chapter of the story begins when Van Vliet and other prisoners of war held by Nazi Germany were brought by German officials to the Katyn Forest near Smolensk, Russia, to watch the exhumation of thousands of executed Poles, mainly officers, from mass graves discovered there in 1943. The evidence Van Vliet saw convinced him he was looking at a Soviet atrocity of colossal proportions. As part of Stalin’s diabolical plans to Sovietize Poland, the Soviets liquidated 20,000 Polish POWs in 1940, a time when this region was under USSR occupation following the Soviet invasion of Poland in tandem with Nazi Germany in 1939.

By 1943, however, the U.S. and Great Britain had struck a military alliance with the communist dictatorship against the Nazi dictatorship. At the time of the massacre’s discovery, Stalin instantly blamed Hitler. Much more importantly, so did FDR and Churchill. Did they know the truth about their murderous ally (Stalin) against their murderous enemy (Hitler)? Did they want to know the truth?

We know that a British diplomat named Owen O’Malley was dispatched to study the war crime in the spring of 1943. O’Malley wrote a remarkable report for the British government concluding the Soviets were guilty. We know Churchill gave this report to Roosevelt that same summer. Former Pennsylvania Gov. George H. Earle, Roosevelt’s personal emissary, would testify that he presented evidence of Soviet guilt at Katyn to Roosevelt personally in 1944. FDR wasn’t buying it.

Meanwhile, “we mustn’t offend the Russians,” went the internal government mantra, confounding truth, morality and, I argue, U.S. strategy. As a result, both the U.S. and Great Britain would peddle Soviet lies about Katyn throughout the war. The Office of War Information, a wartime U.S. government agency we now know was riddled with Soviet agents, was a strong arm for this propaganda.

U.S. support for the Big Lie about Katyn, however, continued long after the war – which is where the Van Vliet report comes in.

At war’s end, newly liberated Van Vliet sped home with his eyewitness account of Soviet guilt. On May 22, 1945, Van Vliet presented what he knew directly to the head of military intelligence, Gen. Clayton Bissell. The general tagged the report Top Secret, and, as Van Vliet later told Congress during its investigation of Katyn in the early 1950s, “then dictated the letter directing me to silence.”

Silence. When we see the past as a struggle between silence – which includes cover-up – and revelation, a new pattern of understanding takes shape. Why was the truth of Soviet guilt at Katyn suppressed until Congress ferreted it out in 1952? What impact did this have on the advance of communism in the world? What or whose cause did silence serve? Not the causes of truth or freedom, to be sure. Meanwhile, it is this silenced American eyewitness account of Soviet guilt at Katyn that became known as the Van Vliet report.

From the moment congressional investigators began looking for it in the early 1950s until now, the report has been missing.

In fact, that same report Van Vliet dictated on May 22, 1945, is still missing. What Krystyna Piorkowska discovered is a sworn deposition by Van Vliet dated May 10, 1945. As the testament of America’s most famous witness to Katyn’s toll, this document found by Piorkowska, author of English-Speaking Witnesses to Katyn, is highly significant.

Van Vliet was not the only important American witness at Katyn. Army Capt. Donald B. Stewart was there, too, and, according to declassified documents Piorkowska uncovered last year, Stewart sent a coded message in 1943 to military intelligence indicating that he and Van Vliet believed the Soviets were guilty of the massacre. In other words, U.S. brass received eyewitness information in real time.

It gets worse. In 2012, writing about Piorkowska’s earlier Katyn findings, the AP reported: “The newly discovered documents also show Stewart was ordered in 1950 – soon before the congressional committee began its work – never to speak about a secret message on Katyn.”

History is telling us that more than Polish bodies are buried there.



To: Qualified Opinion who wrote (7185)1/23/2014 9:33:13 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
IRS targets conservative group -- in Hollywood...
..............................................................................................
Leaning Right in Hollywood, Under a Lens
By MICHAEL CIEPLY and NICHOLAS CONFESSOREJ AN. 22, 2014









LOS ANGELES — In a famously left-leaning Hollywood, where Democratic fund-raisers fill the social calendar, Friends of Abe stands out as a conservative group that bucks the prevailing political winds.

A collection of perhaps 1,500 right-leaning players in the entertainment industry, Friends of Abe keeps a low profile and fiercely protects its membership list, to avoid what it presumes would result in a sort of 21st-century blacklist, albeit on the other side of the partisan spectrum.

Now the Internal Revenue Service is reviewing the group’s activities in connection with its application for tax-exempt status. Last week, federal tax authorities presented the group with a 10-point request for detailed information about its meetings with politicians like Paul D. Ryan, Thaddeus McCotter and Herman Cain, among other matters, according to people briefed on the inquiry.

The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the organization’s confidentiality strictures, and to avoid complicating discussions with the I.R.S.



The actors Gary Sinise, left, and Jon Voight are among the few whose affiliation with Friends of Abe is public knowledge. Those people said that the application had been under review for roughly two years, and had at one point included a demand — which was not met — for enhanced access to the group’s security-protected website, which would have revealed member names.

Tax experts said that an organization’s membership list is information that would not typically be required. The I.R.S. already had access to the site’s basic levels, a request it considers routine for applications for 501(c)(3) nonprofit status.

Friends of Abe — the name refers to Abraham Lincoln — has strongly discouraged the naming of its members. That policy even prohibits the use of cameras at group events, to avoid the unwilling identification of all but a few associates — the actors Gary Sinise, Jon Voight and Kelsey Grammer, or the writer-producer Lionel Chetwynd, for instance — who have spoken openly about their conservative political views.

The I.R.S. request comes in the face of a continuing congressional investigation into the agency’s reviews of political nonprofits, most of them conservative-leaning, which provoked outrage on the right and forced the departure last year of several high-ranking I.R.S. officials. But unlike most of those groups, which had sought I.R.S. approval for a mix of election campaigning and nonpartisan issue advocacy, Friends of Abe is seeking a far more restrictive tax status, known as 501(c)(3), that would let donors claim a tax deduction, but strictly prohibits any form of partisan activity.

The group is not currently designated tax-exempt, but it behaves as a nonprofit and has almost no formal structure, people briefed on the matter said. The I.R.S. review will determine whether Friends of Abe receives tax-exempt status that would provide legal footing similar to that of the People for the American Way Foundation, a progressive group fostered by the television producer Norman Lear and others. If not, Friends of Abe could resort to the courts, or it might simply operate as a nonprofit, but it would be unable to receive tax-deductible contributions.

Jeremy Boreing, executive director of Friends of Abe, declined on Wednesday to discuss details of the tax review, but said the group would continue regardless of outcome.

“Certainly, it’s been a long process,” he said.

“Friends of Abe has absolutely no political agenda,” he added. “It exists to create fellowship among like-minded individuals.”

People for the American Way, Mr. Lear’s group, stands as something of a liberal counterpart to Friends of Abe, though the organization is far larger, with an affiliate that spends millions of dollars a year on issue advocacy in Washington and beyond.

But the entertainment industry has been crisscrossed by progressive groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, which maintains a tax-exempt educational adjunct under the 501(c)(3) provision, and includes the producer Laurie David and the actor Leonardo DiCaprio among its trustees. Another, the American Foundation for Equal Rights, is a nonprofit that supports marriage rights for gay people and counts the producer Bruce Cohen and the writer Dustin Lance Black among its founders.

In the request last week, tax officials combined broad questions about membership criteria and social events, according to the people briefed on the matter, with pointed queries about meetings with a Los Angeles mayoral candidate, Kevin James, and Republican politicians like Mr. Ryan, Mr. Cain and Rick Santorum.

Officials particularly wanted to know why a speech introducing Mr. Cain at a Friends of Abe event in November 2011 — when he was a presidential candidate — should not be regarded as potentially prohibited political campaign support.

While tax-exempt groups are permitted to invite candidates to speak at events, it is not uncommon for the I.R.S. to scrutinize such activities to determine whether they cross the line into partisan election activity. One issue is whether the organization invites all the qualified candidates.

“The I.R.S. would say that if you are inviting only conservative candidates, that’s a problem,” said Marcus S. Owens, a former director of the I.R.S.’s exempt organizations division. “But it’s never really been litigated.”

Ofer Lion, a lawyer representing Friends of Abe in its application for tax-exempt status, declined to comment.

Friends of Abe began about nine years ago as little more than an email chain linking conservative stars, filmmakers and other Hollywood figures who were generally reluctant to openly discuss their views. The name is a take on Friends of Bill, the circle of loyalists who have adhered to Bill Clinton over the years.

Mr. Sinise was a leading voice among thosewho in early 2005 gathered at Morton’s Steakhouse here for an informal dinner that members have since identified as the group’s closest approach to an actual founding moment.

As Friends of Abe grew, however, Mr. Sinise withdrew from active leadership, and Mr. Boreing, a film producer and director, took charge.

Membership has been defined mostly by access to a private website (there are no dues, but enhanced online access requires a small fee), and attendance at a growing number of events that have included meetings with political operatives like Karl Rove and Frank Luntz; politicians like Michele Bachmann and John Boehner; and media figures like Ann Coulter, Dennis Miller and Mark Levin.

The recent I.R.S. query did not mention the earlier request for access to the names of members, people briefed on the query said.

But a remaining question is whether at least some of the group’s politically oriented encounters will be interpreted as campaign activity, and weigh against its bid for tax exemption as a 501(c)(3) organization, devoted to educational or charitable work.

A spokesman for the I.R.S. on Wednesday said it was prohibited from commenting on specific taxpayer activity.

Tax officials and congressional overseers have been embroiled in a debate over the enforcement of rules that restrict campaign activity by tax-exempt groups since last year, when an I.R.S. official acknowledged that officers had improperly targeted Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny. But most of those groups were seeking recognition as so-called 501(c)(4) groups, whose ability to conduct a limited amount of campaign activity is governed by a vague patchwork of rules and standards. In November, in an effort to make the process both more transparent and more rigorous, the I.R.S. announced that it would begin formulating new rules.



To: Qualified Opinion who wrote (7185)1/24/2014 10:47:08 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Aetna could be forced out of Obamacare: CEO (cause it's not attracting the uninsured)

.......................................................................................
CNBC ^ | January 22, 2014 | Matthew J. Belvedere




To: Qualified Opinion who wrote (7185)1/25/2014 10:42:08 AM
From: joseffy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
Exclusive: Bank of America's trading practices have been probed, filing shows

Saturday, January 25, 2014
Reuters via Yahoo Finance ^