Sunday, September 23, 2012

The Gateway Pundit » Blog Archive » Busted!… State Department Scrubs Damning Memo From Website Following Deadly 9-11 Consulate Attacks

Busted!… State Department Scrubs Damning Memo From Website Following Deadly 9-11 Consulate Attacks

On Wednesday September 12, 2012 blogger Speak With Authority discovered that five days before 9-11, the US State Department sent out a memo announcing no credible security threats against the United States on the anniversary of 9-11.

The Overseas Security Advisory Council, who posted the memo, is part of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security under the U.S. Department of State.

Here is a screengrab of the memo at the OSAC website:

The OSAC memo said:

Terrorism and Important Dates

Global

9/6/2012

OSAC currently has no credible information to suggest that al-Qa'ida or any other terrorist group is plotting any kind of attack overseas to coincide with the upcoming anniversary of September 11. However, constituents often have concerns around important dates, holidays, and major events, Often times, these concerns are the result of increased media attention to the issue, rather than credible evidence of a terrorist plot.

But now it's gone.

The State Department scrubbed the letter from its OSAC website.

The damning memo is gone.

How convenient. They flushed the damning memo down the internet memory hole.

Dan Riehl has more.

We heard the reports about the chaos at the State Department.

But we had no idea they were scrubbing documents.

Related… Libyan Officials Claim US Was Warned 3 DAYS BEFORE Deadly Benghazi Consulate Attack

 2361

 2129

 171

Page 1 of 2 | Next page

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Chick-fil-A no longer will fund traditional-marriage groups - Washington Times

NOTE:  This is an example of liberal bullying to get what they want.  This is sad to see a private company not allowed to spend money where they choose in fear of being "illegally" barred from opening a restaurant in Chicago...


Chick-fil-A no longer will fund traditional-marriage groups

Chick-fil-A stopped funding traditional-marriage groups in an effort to open a new Chicago restaurant, but the company initially kept quiet about the decision, prompting gay rights groups to speculate that the company feared a backlash from conservative customers.

The Christian-rooted fast food restaurant agreed to stop funding groups such as Focus on the Family that oppose same-sex marriage in a meeting with the Chicago politician who had been blocking the company's move there. Chick-fil-A wrote a letter to Alderman Joe Moreno affirming this, according to his spokesman, Matt Bailey, but the company initially wouldn't allow his office to release the letter to the public. Three weeks later they relented.

"There was concern from them," said Anthony Martinez, executive director for the Civil Rights Agenda, the Illinois lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender group that negotiated with both Chick-fil-A and the alderman to stop funding for so-called anti-gay groups. "They really didn't want to announce it, really, but, of course, the alderman needed to clarify why he was changing his stance on them opening a restaurant within his ward."

Chick-fil-A did not returns requests for comment, and has previously said it will not discuss the issue with the media.

Mr. Martinez said Chick-fil-A told the alderman they will no longer fund groups that support traditional marriage through their charity arm, the WinShape Foundation, and will instead use that money toward educational programs and food donations.

"The WinShape Foundations is now taking a much closer look at the organizations it considers helping, and in that process will remain true to its stated philosophy of not supporting organizations with political agendas," Chick-fil-A wrote in the letter.

Chick-fil-A also sent an internal memo called "Chick-fil-A: Who We Are" stating the company will "treat every person with honor, dignity and respect-regardless of their beliefs, race, creed, sexual orientation and gender."

Mr. Moreno called it a win for gay rights.

"Prior to today, Chick-fil-A had a poor record when it came to acknowledging equal rights for all of our citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation," he said. "But today, we have a new path: For the first time, Chick-fil-A has changed their practices and promised the workplace protections that all of our citizens deserve. Instead of being a company that openly promotes discrimination, Chick-fil-A has vowed to move forward."

This could also help in other areas, such as Boston and San Francisco, where politicians vowed to oppose new Chick-fil-A restaurants.

The Civil Rights Agenda was also happy with the move, but said more needs to be done.

"We're very pleased with this move," Mr. Martinez said. "We think it is a big step forward."

The group would also like to see Chick-fil-A include an anti-discrimination policy in the company's employee handbook. He said companies in many states are still allowed to discriminate against gay and transgender people, so a company policy would help prevent that.

"In the state of Illinois, it is part of the law," Mr. Martinez said. "But in many parts of the South, sexual orientation is not protected. There are over 20 states still that you can be fired for being gay, and there are over 30 states that you can be fired for being transgender. A lot of people don't know that."

The restaurant's decision comes less than two months after Chick-fil-A sparked a nationwide controversy when President Dan Cathy told a Christian news outlet that he supported traditional marriage. Gay advocacy groups took that to mean that he was anti-gay. They also pointed to the company's funding for groups that oppose same-sex marriage. Many called for a Chick-fil-A boycott, while others joined in a gay "kiss-in" at the restaurants. Some politicians, including Mr. Moreno, said the restaurant was not welcome in their communities.

But religious supporters fought back, turning out for "Chick-fil-Appreciation Day," which happened to be the most successful day of business in company history.

© Copyright 2012 The Washington Times, LLC.




$1.8 trillion shock: Obama regs cost 20-times estimate | WashingtonExaminer.com


$1.8 trillion shock: Obama regs cost 20-times estimate

Current federal regulations plus those coming under Obamacare will cost American taxpayers and businesses $1.8 trillion annually, more than twenty times the $88 billion the administration estimates, according to a new roundup provided to Secrets from the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute.

And it could grow, warned the author of the report, Clyde Wayne Crews, a CEI vice president.

Complying with Health and Human Services Department requirements alone, he revealed, costs $184 billion a year, yet regulators are still drafting the rules for the 2,400-page Obamacare law that kicks into gear in 2014.

Crews has made a working project of his "Tip of the Costberg" report which he regularly updates. In it, he compares the cost of regulations estimated by federal agencies to a much broader list of estimates from multiple federal and independent sources. And even then, he said, it doesn't include hard-to-calculate costs associated with antitrust intervention, regulation of electricity networks, or the cost of constrained access to natural resources.

"While OMB officially reports amounts of only up to $88.6 billion in 2010 dollars," said Crews, "the non-tax cost of government intervention in the economy, without performing a sweeping survey, appears to total up to $1.806 trillion annually."

But, he added, "according to back of the envelope surveys and roundups, with gaps big enough to fit the beltway through, that up to $1.806 trillion annually and in many categories perhaps even considerably more, is a defensible assessment of the annual impact on the economy."

His estimate is close to the $1.7 trillion estimate from the Small Business Administration which the White House distanced itself from. For comparison, the total U.S. GDP is $15 trillion.

The wave of Obama regulations has become a huge sore point in the business world with groups as large as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce down to the International Franchise Association crying for fewer rules. The administration, however, argues that the rules and regulations pushed out under the president have made products and workplaces safer.

Below are some of the estimates from Crews' report:

- A Baseline for Aggregate Annual Economic Regulation Costs: $373 Billion.

- A Baseline for Aggregate Annual Social Regulation Costs: $406 Billion.

- Additional Executive Agency Major Rule Costs Presented by OMB (But Not Tallied): $22.3 Billion.

- Independent Agencies' Annual Regulatory Costs: $4.58 Billion.

- Other Independent Agency Paperwork Costs: $21.56 Billion.

- Dep't of Agriculture: $9.05b

- Dep't of Commerce: $1.801b

- Dep't of Education: $3.032b

- Dep't of Energy: $9.089b

- Dep't of Health & Human Services: $184.805b

- Dep't of Homeland Security: $55.331b

- Dep't of Housing & Urban Development: $1.827b

- Dep't of the Interior: $5.321b

- Dep't of Justice: $1.253b

- Dep't of Labor: $121.987b

- Dep't of Transportation: $64.226b

- Dep't of the Treasury: $$1.32b

- Environmental Protection Agency: $352.997b

- U.S. Access Board (ATBCB): $851mil.

- Federal Acquisition Regulation: $1.356b

- Independent Agency and Certain Sectoral Regulatory Costs Antitrust: $2.34b

- Federal Communications Commission: $141.58b

- Financial Services: $102.46b

- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (paperwork): $336mil.

- Federal Trade Commission (paperwork): $2.85b

- Consumer Product Safety Commission: $193mil.

- EEOC: $122mil.

- Nuclear Regulatory Commission, plus paperwork: $414mil.

- E-gov (paperwork): $380mil.

- NASA (paperwork): $107mil.

- Nat'l Science Foundation (paperwork): $231mil.

- Small Business Admin (paperwork): $43mil.

- Social Security Admin (paperwork): $1.06b.

- Privacy Regulation: $1b.

- Immigration Restrictions: $12b








Obama calls for ‘democracy with a small d’


OBAMA CALLS FOR 'DEMOCRACY WITH A SMALL D'

WND Exclusive

Unearthed video reveals politician pushing society based on collectivism, 'common good'

NEW YORK – A 1995 video depicts Barack Obama calling for "democracy with a small 'd,'" while pushing a society based on collectivism and "common good."

In the video unearthed by KleinOnline, Obama hails unions and collective bargaining as encapsulating the societal "common good" of which he speaks.

Obama urges society to collectively move "forward" – a word that would later serve as his 2012 campaign slogan.

Obama was speaking in an Aug. 11, 1995 interview pushing his just published book, "Dreams From My Father." At the time, Obama was a community organizer planning to launch a political career.

Obama tells the interviewer the "best part" of the dream of his "African father and white American mother," was the "notion that we collectively can decide on our fate."

He continued: "That things like technological change, things like mass media, things like the market are all subject to our control. That we can make decisions for better or for worse and continue to move forward and progress."

Get your personally autographed copy of the New York Times bestseller "Fool Me Twice" exclusively from WND!

Obama was asked whether the collective meant "us" or "those of us who own the major media and other corporate entities."

He replied, "You know, I think in the end it does have to be a broad us. It has to be democracy with a small 'd.'"

Obama explained what he meant by democracy, laying out a "common good" that includes unions.

"I think that recapturing the spirit that existed not just in the civil-rights movement but in the union organizing movement, in the populous movement. I think there is a running thread; one of the better angels of our nature in this country which has been the notion that, you know, we can sit around the table and find common ground and make democracy work in the way that it should be working."

He continued, "It's not popular right now to say that, and to believe in sort of a common good, but I think that notions of a common good are the glue that hold our society together and make democracy possible."

The interviewer then asked Obama whether he is "willing to stake your political career on your common ground?"

"That's the core of my faith," Obama replied.


The Associated Press: Tax penalty to hit nearly 6M uninsured people


Tax penalty to hit nearly 6M uninsured people

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press – 13 hours ago 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly 6 million Americans — significantly more than first estimated— will face a tax penalty under President Barack Obama's health overhaul for not getting insurance, congressional analysts said Wednesday. Most would be in the middle class.

The new estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the administration, a reminder of what critics see as broken promises.

The numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are 50 percent higher than a previous projection by the same office in 2010, shortly after the law passed. The earlier estimate found 4 million people would be affected in 2016, when the penalty is fully in effect.

That's still only a sliver of the population, given that more than 150 million people currently are covered by employer plans. Nonetheless, in his first campaign for the White House, Obama pledged not to raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 a year and couples making less than $250,000.

And the budget office analysis found that nearly 80 percent of those who'll face the penalty would be making up to or less than five times the federal poverty level. Currently that would work out to $55,850 or less for an individual and $115,250 or less for a family of four.

Average penalty: about $1,200 in 2016.

"The bad news and broken promises from Obamacare just keep piling up," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, who wants to repeal the law.

Starting in 2014, virtually every legal resident of the U.S. will be required to carry health insurance or face a tax penalty, with exemptions for financial hardship, religious objections and certain other circumstances. Most people will not have to worry about the requirement since they already have coverage through employers, government programs like Medicare or by buying their own policies.

A spokeswoman for the Obama administration said 98 percent of Americans will not be affected by the tax penalty — and suggested that those who will be should face up to their civic responsibilities.

"This (analysis) doesn't change the basic fact that the individual responsibility policy will only affect people who can afford health care but choose not to buy it," said Erin Shields Britt of the Health and Human Services Department. "We're no longer going to subsidize the care of those who can afford to buy insurance but make a choice not to buy it."

The budget office said most of the increase in its estimate is due to changes in underlying projections about the economy, incorporating the effects of new federal legislation, as well as higher unemployment and lower wages.

The Supreme Court upheld Obama's law as constitutional in a 5-4 decision this summer, finding that the insurance mandate and the tax penalty enforcing it fall within the power of Congress to impose taxes. The penalty will be collected by the IRS, just like taxes.

The budget office said the penalty will raise $6.9 billion in 2016.

The new law will also provide government aid to help middle-class and low-income households afford coverage, the financial carrot that balances out the penalty.

Nonetheless, some people might still decide to remain uninsured because they object to government mandates or because they feel they would come out ahead financially even if they have to pay the penalty. Health insurance is expensive, with employer-provided family coverage averaging nearly $15,800 a year for a family and $4,300 for a single plan. Indeed, insurance industry experts say the federal penalty may be too low.

The Supreme Court also allowed individual states to opt out of a major Medicaid expansion under the law. The Obama administration says it will exempt low-income people in states that opt out from having to comply with the insurance requirement.

Many Republicans still regard the insurance mandate as unconstitutional and rue the day the Supreme Court upheld it.

However, the idea for an individual insurance requirement comes from Republican health care plans in the 1990s.

It's also a central element of the 2006 Massachusetts health care law signed by then-GOP Gov. Mitt Romney, now running against Obama and promising to repeal the federal law.

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said Wednesday the new report is more evidence that Obama's law is a "costly disaster."

"Even more of the middle-class families who President Obama promised would see no tax increase will in fact see a massive tax increase thanks to Obamacare," she said.

Romney says insurance mandates should be up to each state. The approach seems to have worked well in Massachusetts, with virtually all residents covered and dwindling numbers opting to pay the penalty instead.

Copyright © 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.


Monday, August 13, 2012

In 2011 Clip, Former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles Praises Paul Ryan Budget, Criticized President Obama - ABC News

In 2011 Clip, Former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles Praises Paul Ryan Budget, Criticized President Obama - ABC News

Erskine Bowles - who co-chaired President Obama's Deficit Commission and previously served as chief of staff for President Clinton - didn't think much of Mitt Romney's budget proposal.

"His reform plan leaves too many tax breaks in place and, as a result, does nothing to reduce the debt," Bowles wrote in the Washington Post this month.

But Bowles, at least in this clip from last year, had kind words to say about Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal. And not so nice words to say about President Obama's.

WATCH:

"Have any of you all met Paul Ryan?" Bowles asked. "We should get him to come to the university. I'm telling you this guy is amazing.

"I always thought that I was okay with arithmetic, but this guy can run circles around me.

"And he is honest, he is straightforward, he is sincere. And the budget that he came forward with is just like Paul Ryan. It is a sensible, straightforward, serious budget and it cut the budget deficit just like we did, by $4 trillion…

"The President came out with his own plan and the President as you remember, came out with a budget and I don't think anybody took that budget very seriously. The Senate voted against it 97 to nothing.

"He, therefore, after a lot of pressure from folks like me, he came out with a new budget framework and, in that new budget framework, he cut the budget deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years. And, to be candid, this $4 trillion cut was very heavily back-end loaded. So, if you looked at it on a 10 year basis and compared apples-to-apples, it really was about a two and a half trillion dollar cut."

Hat tip to Hot Air.

-Jake Tapper

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