http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=S.W.A.T Mon, 20 May 2013 04:37:57 -0400 Liveleak http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2/logo.gif http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=S.W.A.T Fri, 17 May 2013 23:44:33 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5c6_1368848285 Detroit Iron By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ Published: May 16, 2013 The State Department, under Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton , created an arrangement for her longtime aide and confidante Huma Abedin to work for private clients as a consultant while serving as a top adviser in the department.Ms. Abedin did not disclose the arrangement - or how much income she earned - on her financial report. It requires officials to make public any significant sources of income. An adviser to Mrs. Clinton, Philippe Reines, said that Ms. Abedin was not obligated to do so. The disclosure of the agreement that Ms. Abedin made with the State Department comes as her husband, former Representative Anthony D. Weiner , a Democrat, prepares for a mayoral run in New York City. Politico reported the arrangement on Thursday afternoon. Ms. Abedin declined a request for an interview, but the picture that emerges from interviews and records suggests a situation where the lines were blurred between Ms. Abedin's work in the high echelons of one of the government's most sensitive executive departments and her role as a Clinton family insider. While continuing her work at the State Department, in the latter half of 2012, she also worked for Teneo, a strategic consulting firm, which was founded by Doug Band, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton. Teneo has advised corporate clients like Coca-Cola and MF Global, the collapsed brokerage firm run by Jon S. Corzine, a former governor of New Jersey. At the same time, Ms. Abedin served as a consultant to the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation and worked in a personal capacity for Mrs. Clinton as she prepared to transition out of her job as secretary of state. It is not clear what role Mrs. Clinton played in approving the arrangement. Some good-government groups have been critical of such situations, saying public employees' loyalty should be solely to the public and their government work, rather than private firms and figures. Ms. Abedin reached her new working arrangement in June 2012, when she returned from maternity leave, quietly leaving her position as deputy chief of staff and becoming a special government employee, which is essentially a consultant. A State Department official said that change freed her from the requirement that she disclose her private earnings for the rest of the year on her financial disclosure forms. Still, during that period, she continued to be identified publicly in news reports as Mrs. Clinton's deputy chief of staff. Officials in the State Department and Clinton circles seem especially sensitive about the arrangement, and no one would speak about it on the record. Earlier this month, Mr. Weiner released a copy of the couple's 2012 tax return showing that they had income of more than $490,000. But when pressed on the matter, Mr. Weiner declined to discuss what, if any, income Ms. Abedin derived from work done outside the State Department. An associate of Ms. Abedin's said on Thursday that the arrangement allowed her to work from her home in New York, rather than at the State Department's headquarters in Washington, and to spend more time with her child and husband. She earned approximately $135,000 from the department during 2012. It is not clear how much Ms. Abedin was paid by Mrs. Clinton privately, or from the Clinton Foundation and Teneo. The Clintons have described Ms. Abedin as a surrogate daughter to them. Ms. Abedin, who is one of Mrs. Clinton's most trusted advisers, ended her consulting practice in March, when she moved on to become director of Mrs. Clinton's transition office. Melanie Sloane, executive director of CREW, an ethics watchdog group, said the arrangement that Ms. Abedin had seemed unusual. "If she was being held out as a deputy chief of staff, it would be highly unusual for her to be a part-time employee or a consultant," she said. "Being a deputy chief of staff at the State Department is generally considered more than a full-time job." http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/nyregion/weiners-wife-huma-abedin-failed-to-disclose-consulting-work-done-while-a-state-dept-aide.html?_r=0 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5c6_1368848285 Detroit Iron Weiner's Wife Didn't Disclose Consulting Work She Did While Serving in State Dept. Ms. Abedin, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Anthony D. Weiner Fri, 17 May 2013 11:25:53 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f4b_1368804300 cajunmojo As TheBlaze blog pointed out yesterday - and many other stories covering President Barack Obama's press conference outside the White House showed - the Commander in Chief called in Marines to hold umbrellas over him and the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan as it began to rain during an outdoor press conference. But now the Internet is starting to buzz with an interesting angle: Was it actually out of Marine uniform protocol for the Marines to hold the weather-shielding items? "... hy don't we get a couple Marines - they're going to look good next to us - just 'cause I've got a change of suit but I don't know about, uh, our prime minister," Obama said, requesting the umbrellas while he answered questions regarding the IRS scandal. Some are pointing to the Chapter 3 of the MCO P1020.34F of the Marine Corps Uniform Regulations, which states: Female Marines may carry an all-black, plain standard or collapsible umbrella at their option during inclement weather with the service and dress uniforms. It will be carried in the left hand so that the hand salute can be properly rendered. Umbrellas may not be used/carried in formation nor will they be carried with the utility uniform. As can be noted here, female Marines are permitted to carry umbrellas while in service or dress uniforms. The Marines pictured holding umbrellas are in dress uniforms, but they are males and the Marine holding one above Obama is using his right hand. That seems pretty clear. But is there a caveat? Meaning: Would the president's request supersede military uniform protocol rules? The manual states that a commander "may interpret the provisions of this Manual to address specific concerns whenever necessary." A commander in the manual is defined as Marine officers titled as "Commanding General, Commanding Officer, Director, Officer in Charge or Inspector-Instructor." "Exceptions to this Manual are only granted in writing by the Commandant of the Marine Corps (Marine Corps Uniform Board)," it states. TheBlaze contacted the the Marines' and was also referred to Title 10 responsibilities of the United States Code, specifically this portion of the section (emphasis added): The Marine Corps, within the Department of the Navy, shall be so organized as to include not less than three combat divisions and three air wings, and such other land combat, aviation, and other services as may be organic therein. The Marine Corps shall be organized, trained, and equipped to provide fleet marine forces of combined arms, together with supporting air components, for service with the fleet in the seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and for the conduct of such land operations as may be essential to the prosecution of a naval campaign. In addition, the Marine Corps shall provide detachments and organizations for service on armed vessels of the Navy, shall provide security detachments for the protection of naval property at naval stations and bases, and shall perform such other duties as the President may direct. However, these additional duties may not detract from or interfere with the operations for which the Marine Corps is primarily organized. Given that the president is defined as the Commander in Chief "of the Army and Navy of the United States..." by the Constitution and that fact that the Marines' dress code protocol says "the Commandant or higher authority" can authorize "articles that are not authorized for wear as a part of a regulation uniform," is the president considered a commander with this ability? The spokesperson for the Marines said "certainly." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- king barry does not care about protocol nor does he like the military, he is a dedicator feeding the gullibles pints of kool aid and promising them free phones. . http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f4b_1368804300 cajunmojo WAS IT AGAINST UNIFORM PROTOCOL FOR THE MARINE TO HOLD OBAMA'S UMBRELLA? barry, obama, democrats, liberals, Marine's Tue, 14 May 2013 09:12:14 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9f6_1368536416 Detroit Iron The White House spokesman founders in front of a newly curious press corps. MAY 14, 2013 4:00 AM By Charles C. W. Cooke Thank you for that question," White House spokesman Jay Carney said feebly when, early in Friday's press conference, the issue of Benghazi was raised. And then he reflexively tried to recruit the questioner to his side. Look, Carney insisted, those darned Republicans are involved in an "ongoing attempt to politicize a tragedy that took four American lives." We're not going to fall into their trap and ask questions of the administration, are we? We're not like those other outlets that are engaged in a "pattern of spreading misinformation." Right, guys?Evidently, Carney had not yet realized that things had changed. What had been a fringe story had by now gone mainstream: The New Yorker had written that new evidence "seriously undermines the White House's credibility on this issue"; ABC News's Jonathan Karl had averred that developments "directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said . . . in November"; Thursday's Morning Joe panel had agreed that the news was troubling for the White House; and George Will was gearing up to go onto the Sunday shows and complain that the nation had been "systematically misled." Newly intrigued, the assembled press corps ignored Carney's ploy; so, too, his flippant, Obamaesque insistence that "efforts to re-fight the political battles of the past are not looked on kindly by the American people." Benghazi might well have "happened a long time ago," as Carney hilariously assured the media on May 1, but the fourth estate was now interested.Cutting short the dismissal, Jim Acosta of CNN inquired of Carney why the State Department had removed Anshar al-Sharia's name from the CIA's story, and what the discovery of this edit has done to the credibility of the White House. "References to that group are removed from the conversation and don't make their way into the talking points," Acosta argued. "That is not a stylistic edit. That is not a single adjustment as you said back in November. That is a major, dramatic change to the information." "I appreciate the question and the opportunity," Carney said, twitching slightly and starting to go red. But apparently he didn't appreciate it enough to answer it. Nor to take the opportunity to admit that his prior claim that "the CIA drafted these talking points and redrafted" them - and that only "stylistic and non-substantive" changes were made from outside - was demonstrably false. At the fork in the road, Carney once again chose the well-worn low way. Acosta was visibly unimpressed. Here it became clear that we were in it for the long haul. "Let me just follow up on this once and for all," he eventually asked. "Do you promise once and for all?" pleaded Carney. "Maybe not ," Acosta shot back. "You are comfortable with the way you characterized this back in November? That this was a single adjustment?" "I do. I do stand by it," Carney replied. "Jay, you told us that the only changes were stylistic," asserted ABC's Jonathan Karl, who earlier in the day had mainstreamed the yeoman's work of The Weekly Standard 's Stephen F. Hayes. (Hayes had blown the lid off the talking-points deception almost a week before, to little public thanks.) "Is it a 'stylistic' change to take out all references to previous terror threats in Benghazi?" Karl asked. "I appreciate the question again ," Carney answered, closing his eyes and twitching a little. "I accept that 'stylistic' might not precisely describe a change of one word to another . . . " Bristling, Karl interrupted, observing that the original talking points referred to al-Qaeda and to Anshar al-Sharia and had "extensive discussion of the previous threats of terrorist attacks in Benghazi." A new set of talking points, "based on input from the State department" was written, Karl added. It featured none of those things. "Do you deny that?" he jabbed. "I've answered this question several times now," Carney pretended. "I'm happy to answer it again if you'll let me?" he continued. Looking anything but happy to answer it, Carney started to list the branches of government involved in the draft. Then he moved back to blaming Republicans for creating a "distraction." Frequently, Carney attempted to assure the press that the government's talking points had been carefully put together in order to make "concretely for sure" that no mistakes were made. After all, he insisted, we weren't sure who did it, so the aim was "limiting the talking points to what we knew, as opposed to speculation about what may or may not have been, in the end, relevant to what happened in Benghazi." The message: Better "not include things we could not be sure of." Like blaming protests on a YouTube video, perhaps? The only thing that was inaccurate about his previous assertions, Carney insisted, was his claim that there were anti-video demonstrations outside the Benghazi compound on September 11 last year. Besides, he continued, Republicans are wrong to accuse the White House of "playing down an act of terror and an attack on the embassy," because "the president himself" took to the Rose Garden on September 12 and told the country that the attack was an "act of terror."This was quite an astonishing thing for Carney to repeat, not just because the CBS transcript is available to anyone who cares to look it up but also because Carney himself claimed on September 14 that the attack "was a response to a YouTube video." Worse, five days after that, he told the press: Our belief based on the information we have is it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo, and the video and the unrest in Cairo that helped - that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere. What other factors were involved is a matter of investigation. This line was repeated at least once by Hillary Clinton, many times by Susan Rice, and, on September 26, by President Obama in his speech to the United Nations. We are thus supposed to believe that the government was so " about the integrity of the investigation," to use Carney's peculiar words, that it removed all the suspects from public discussion while simultaneously blaming the attack on a video. Among their many claimed sins, Republicans also drew Carney's ire for "leaking" information "for political reasons." "That's their prerogative," he sniffed. But this disgust at leaks struck a false note, given that the White House had held a secret meeting just a few minutes earlier in which it passed - "for political reasons"? - unattributable information to reporters. Just a few minutes before Carney's on-air press conference, Politico 's Dylan Byers reported : The White House held a "deep background" briefing with reporters on Friday afternoon to discuss recent revelations about the Benghazi investigation, sources familiar with the meeting tell POLITICO. . . . I asked Earnest to explain the meaning of "deep background," as defined by the White House, for my readers. He emails: "Deep background means that the info presented by the briefers can be used in reporting but the briefers can't be quoted." At times, Carney veered into abject nonsense: The effort is always to, in that circumstance, and with an ongoing investigation and a lot of information, some of it accurate, some of it not, about what had happened and who was responsible, to provide information for members of Congress and others in the administration, for example, who might speak publicly about it that was based on only what the intelligence community could say for sure it thought it knew. Glad we got that cleared up, then. Until those damnable journalists got involved, May 10 had been billed by the White House as "Health Care Day" - a happy occasion on which the virtues of Obamacare were to be extolled. It was not to be. Six months late, curiosity about Benghazi finally intruded on the president's parade. "A throne," Napoleon held, "is only a bench covered with velvet." If the president is to ride this one out, Jay Carney is going to have to start nailing that velvet back down. - Charles C. W. Cooke is an editorial associate at National Review . http://www.nationalreview.com/article/348217/jay-carney%E2%80%99s-waterloo/page/0/1 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9f6_1368536416 Detroit Iron Jay Carney's Waterloo ojay carney Mon, 13 May 2013 20:36:06 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=16e_1368491413 Detroit Iron By DOUGLAS MACKINNON Posted 05:36 PM ET As a colonel I used to work with in the Pentagon was fond of saying: "Well, there's another blinding flash of the obvious never acknowledged or always denied." The recent admission from the IRS that they did in fact target conservative groups - no surprise to most conservatives and many liberals - underscoring his point. I have often said that many people tend to embrace the truth right up until the moment it reflects poorly upon them or their cause. There are few better examples of that than the numerous reporters who lean somewhat or way-left, denying that "blinding flash of the obvious." Scott Pelley, the anchor of the left-leaning CBS News recently - and rightly - criticized his own profession in a speech at Quinnipiac University. Said Pelley: "These have been a bad few months for journalism. ... We're getting the big stories wrong, over and over again." One reason the major television and cable network news outlets get it wrong so often is because they sometimes would rather be first rather than right. Job one for these networks is to beat the competition. Even if it means failing the viewers or, worse, victims of tragedy. Another real reason they get so much wrong is because of their left-of-center bias. As we have seen time and again, the television news networks that lean left of center, such as CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, MSNBC, and CNN - there is not enough room to list all of the newspapers in the tank for the left - will give President Obama a pass for the exact same issues they targeted President George W. Bush. Be those issues golf outings, uttering factual mistakes or even foreign policy parallels. Some of it, while expected, is harmless. Some of it, however, can play a role in changing the outcome of an election. A glaring example of this being the last debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney before the 2012 election in which moderator Candy Crowley from left-leaning CNN decided to carry some water for President Obama on the subject of Benghazi. As we have all come to learn in the last number of days, the Obama White House and State Department were - prior to the election - in full-deception mode with regard to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2012, that took the lives of four American patriots. While it's always impossible to prove a negative, in retrospect, it may have been a successful deception that delivered the election to Obama. For those who forget - as in every political appointee in the White House and the State Department - most of that crucial last debate hinged on Romney challenging President Obama when he falsely claimed he immediately called the attack in Benghazi an "act of terror." Romney pounced on the claim. President Obama responded - a response dripping in arrogance - with, "That's what I said." With that, the following back and forth ensued: "You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?" "Please proceed, governor." "I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror." "Get the transcript." Again, many who were watching would have said, at that point, all the momentum was swinging to Gov. Romney. Until that is, Crowley took the bucket of water she was carrying for the president and threw it in Romney's face. "He did in fact, sir," Crowley interjected throwing the president a desperately needed life-line. The president instantly recognized that Crowley had just stopped Romney's momentum flat in its tracks and gleefully said, "Can you say that a little louder, Candy?" Of course, after the debate - and after the damage to Romney was inflicted in front of about 59 million potential voters - Crowley admitted that Romney was "right in the main." During his remarks in the Rose Garden right after the terrorist attack in Benghazi, President Obama - who usually goes out of his way to avoid calling terrorist attacks launched by Muslim fanatics "terrorism," actually 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 ... ." Soon after, when asked by a reporter if it was terrorism, the president danced around it yet again by saying: "We are still doing an investigation. There's no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn't just a mob action. Now, we don't have all the information yet, so we are still gathering it." In fact, almost two weeks later on the ABC program "The View," Obama was still falsely insisting that an anti-Muslim video was to blame for the Benghazi terrorist attack. Pelley - who now occupies a chair held by two previous anchors who seemed to have a strong bias against Republicans and conservatives - is correct when he says, "We're getting the big stories wrong over and over again." Next, maybe he will admit bias not only plays a large role, but is having a lasting and detrimental impact on the Democratic process. o MacKinnon is a former White House and Pentagon official and author of the memoir "Rolling Pennies In The Dark" (Simon & Schuster, 2012). Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/051313-655848-medias-many-mistakes-are-result-of-left-of-center-bias.htm#ixzz2TDs2gJxg Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=16e_1368491413 Detroit Iron Sorry Media Performance Of Late Is Largely Due To Left-Wing Bias Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-vi CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, MSNBC, NPR, and CNN Tue, 14 May 2013 19:08:53 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ca8_1368572679 dcmfox by Noah Rothman 11:32 am, May 14th, 2013 Julian Bond , chairman emeritus of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, joined anchor Thomas Roberts on MSNBC on Tuesday where he said that he did not believe the federal government was complicit in any wrongdoing given the news that the Internal Revenue Service singled out conservative groups for added scrutiny. He said that it is right of the government to look into the Tea Party, which he called "overtly racist" and the "Taliban wing of American politics." Bond made these comments after noting that his group was illegitimately targeted by the IRS in 2004. Bond said that his group was singled out by the IRS in 2004 after he delivered a political speech critical of President George W. Bush . Though his organization was later cleared, Bond said that his group was "unfairly targeted." However, Bond said that there are no parallels between that case and the charge that the IRS devoted undue scrutiny to conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. "I don't think there's a double standard at all," Bond said. "I think it's entirely legitimate to look at the tea party." "I mean, here are a group of people who are admittedly racist, who are overtly political, who tried as best they can to harm President Barack ] Obama in every way they can," Bond continued. "They are the Taliban wing of American politics and we all ought to be a little worried about them," Bond asserted. When asked if his assessment of the Tea Party was "a little harsh," Bond said that it was not. "The truth hurts," Bond insisted. Watch the clip below via MSNBC: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ca8_1368572679 dcmfox NAACP Chair Emeritus: 'Legitimate' For IRS To Target 'Admittedly Racist' Tea Party: 'Taliban Wing' Of Politics barack obama, George W. Bush, IRS, julian bond, Thomas Roberts Wed, 15 May 2013 16:54:21 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8f8_1368650659 journeyman083 A great injustice has been done to a German family that sought asylum in 2008. Thanks to the administration of Barack Obama, today the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Obama Administration's denial of asylum granted to Uwe and Hannelore Romeike and their six children. They fled Germany because they wanted to home school their children and it's against the law there. Asylum was granted in 2010 by Immigration Judge Lawrence O. Burman, but that grant was overturned by the Board of Immigration Appeals in 2012. Had this been someone from South America or Mexico, someone may of defended them. The Supreme Court of Germany declared that the purpose of the German ban on homeschooling was to "counteract the development of religious and philosophically motivated parallel societies." In other words, anyone that doesn't go with the flow and behave like a good sheep for indoctrination! Court upholds Obama Admin denial of asylum for German homeschool family by John-Henry Westen PURCELLVILLE, VA., May 14, 2013 ( LifeSiteNews.com ) - Today the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Obama Administration's denial of asylum granted to Uwe and Hannelore Romeike and their six children. The Romeikes fled Germany in 2008 when they were subjected to criminal prosecution for homeschooling. In Bissingen, district of Ludwigsburg, Baden-W"urttemberg , they faced exorbitant fines, forcible removal of their children, and possible imprisonment all for homeschooling their children. The Supreme Court of Germany declared that the purpose of the German ban on homeschooling was to "counteract the development of religious and philosophically motivated parallel societies." The family, currently residing in Tennessee, was granted asylum in 2010 by Immigration Judge Lawrence O. Burman, but that grant was overturned by the Board of Immigration Appeals in 2012. A three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit heard the Romeikes' appeal on April 23 in Cincinnati, and issued today's unanimous decision against the family. Uwe Romeike, a piano teacher, said that if the courts turned down their asylum completely, "it would mean they would send us back to Germany where we would face the same persecution as when we left." "We believe the Sixth Circuit is wrong and we will appeal their decision," said Michael Farris, HSLDA Founder and Chairman. "America has room for this family and we will do everything we can to help them." The court said that the Romeikes had not made a sufficient case and that the United States has not opened its doors to every victim of unfair treatment. Although the court acknowledged that the U.S. Constitution recognizes the rights of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children, it refused to concede that the harsh treatment of religiously and philosophically motivated homeschoolers in Germany amounts to persecution within our laws on asylum. "Germany continues to persecute homeschoolers," said Mike Donnelly, HSLDA Director of International Affairs. "The court ignored mountains of evidence that homeschoolers are harshly fined and that custody of their children is gravely threatened -- something most people would call persecution. This is what the Romeikes will suffer if they are sent back to Germany. HSLDA will appeal the Sixth Circuit's ruling. A White House petition to stop deportation of the Romeikes currently has 123,229 signatures and can be accessed here. http://www.hslda.org/legal/cases/romeike/petition.asp http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8f8_1368650659 journeyman083 Court upholds Obama Admin denial of asylum for German homeschool family German, Germany, Homeschooling, Christian, Christianity, Barack Obama, Administration, Immigration, Religious freedom, prosecution, persecution, Tennessee, Church, Christians Wed, 15 May 2013 12:54:15 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c78_1368636531 Cornholio1 This is the partial story of my friend Douglas (and he is going to be pissed when he sees this) you know him as (Smoothjc1) Douglas is and will always be (from now on, well sense 99 ) one of the biggest assholes you will ever meet, but he will also be one of your best friends, he would give the last dollar in his pocket, come and pick you up when you are stupid drunk and can't drive, he quit 5 yrs ago and it pisses him off when he has to do it, but the alternative for him is worse if you hit someone. Douglas is 50 yrs old, born 1962 and he had a normal childhood, Same one we all had in 70's & 80's We met when we were 16 and became drinking buddies (Yukon Jack) he was already losing his hair and had a mustache so he could buy and that he did for everyone that wanted to pay us in Yukon Jack. And for alooooong time that's what happened . You may wonder why he calls MOST motorcycle riders douche bags, That's because he was hit by a guy showing off for his girlfriend, he hit Doug and broke his leg in a couple places and he hasn't rode sense he's not afraid to, he just can't trust other people not to ride/drive like idiots he prefers a little steel around him now. He met his wife in 95 and for first time in a long time he was happy and they were married in 97, I was his best man, and she died in 99 ( she had kept a nasty little secret from him (Aids) and never told him about it untill about three months before she died ) That's when Doug's drinking and (drugging to the tune of $50.000 I three months (a female friend turned him on to crack) and he tried to blow up his heart using that shit) bloomed out of control, several drunk drivings and $ 75.000 dollars later he started sobering up, After losing his house and car and quite a few friends he had to move back to his parents house ( which turned out to be a blessing his dad his Parkinson's disease ) he watches his dad during the day while his mom works, then goes to work him self when she gets home. Douglas is one bitter mother fucker. but he is working on that with help from Bill. W. and new friends. You might wonder why says and does what he says and does, He doesn't like to be lied to and craves information can you blame him after his wife and female fucked him over so hard. If he smells or sees bullshit he is most likely to call you on it. But like I said he might be an asshole to people (everyone in fact) till he gets to know you, but he is one greatest friends you will ever find , He won't give a shit if you flame him with info I just gave you because he does not give a shit about you or the 99.9 % of the other people on this planet, but try and see where he comes from. Peace. Thomas Had too add a poll to post it does not matter. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c78_1368636531 Cornholio1 Smoothjc1 Best,Friends,asshole,???? Wed, 15 May 2013 12:07:17 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1e5_1368633297 m16carbine Extract from Damascus Courts the West: Syrian Politics, 1989-1991 , pp. 3-6, by Daniel Pipes. Today, the author of the 1991 article currently prefers Assad Jr. to his alternative. Hafez al-Assad vs. Saddam Hussein (1991) Hafez al-Assad and Saddam Hussein have much in common. They are about the same age (Saddam was born in 1937, Assad in 1930) and come from minority backgrounds. Both grew up in an impoverished countryside with a twentieth century tradition of exporting people to the cities. Both experienced Egyptian prisons and have effectively ruled their countries since about the same year (1972 for Saddam, 1969 for Assad). Both imposed an extreme centralization, to create a stable order where turmoil had previously prevailed. Both are far more interested in building their militaries than their countries. Each of them looked to Moscow for primary support, but on occasion wooed the U.S. government. Both rely extensively on the terrorist instrument. They have claimed to represent the Palestinians and sought to control weak neighbors. In personality, they share vaulting ambitions, a passion for secrecy, and a Manichean outlook that divides the world into agents and enemies. Both tend toward brinkmanship and a readiness to sacrifice the interests of their countries for personal and ethnic interests. Their political systems rely to a strikingly parallel degree on Ba'ath Party control, the pervasive use of informants, and brutality. (Middle East Watch found torture in Iraq to be "used routinely"; Amnesty International has termed the Syrian jails "almost a research center for torture.") Though life in Syria is an iota better,^ the two dictatorships in the Fertile Crescent are about as similar as any pair of governments on the planet. The two men also differ profoundly. Where Saddam revels in brutality for its own sake, Assad resorts to it as an instrument of power. The one kills with his own hands, the other keeps his distance from such unpleasantries. Saddam's ambitions know no limit: he seeks to become both the greatest leader in Iraqi history and a giant on the world stage; his dreams of glory distort practical decisionmaking. In contrast, Assad knows his limitations and acts within their parameters: the conquest of Lebanon and the perpetuation of Alawi rule are quite enough for him for now, thank you. Saddam's overt aggression makes him enemies everywhere; Assad's is cloaked in an ambiguity which allows hostile states the luxury of ignoring his trespasses. Both leaders follow policies which the outside world often finds difficult to understand, but while Saddam confuses observers through stupidity, Assad does so through subtlety. While Saddam and Assad both engage in international brinkmanship, only Assad can reliably locate the brink. Saddam displays an increasingly uncontrollable streak of impatience and has a terrible sense of timing (the invasion of Kuwait could not have occurred at a worse moment from the Iraqi point of view); Assad is infinitely deliberate and has a most refined timing (the seizure of Beirut in October 1990, fifteen years after Syrian military involvement in Lebanon began, was a political masterpiece). More broadly, Saddam Hussein showed in 1990-91 that he may be one of the worst strategists and tacticians of history; in contrast, Assad rightly prides himself on his skills as a military planner. Like his adopted namesake, the lion, Assad is a patient operator. He probes his opponents' weaknesses, waits for the right moment, chooses the most advantageous field of battle, and strikes. In this way, Assad has defeated one enemy after another-the Muslim Brethren, Lebanese militias, American troops in Beirut, Israelis in south Lebanon, and Iraqi armed forces. Observers are in agreement as to his impressive skills. Thus, Annie Laurent and Antoine Basbous see his main characteristics as "patience and a taste for secrecy." Dov Tamari concludes that "the Syrian regime has demonstrated patience and restraint on the one hand, persistence and stubbornness on the other." Imagine-to take this comparison one step further-that Assad ruled in Baghdad, and that he wanted to bring Kuwait, with all its wealth and coastline, under his control. What would he have done differently from Saddam? Everything. He would have prepared the way years ahead of time by hosting Kuwaiti dissident movements in Baghdad and laying repeated but elliptical claims to Kuwait. When the time was right, he would have solicited an invitation from bona fide Kuwaiti leaders to send Iraqi troops into Kuwait. Rather than seize the whole country, he would have taken only some slices of it (the Rumayla oil field, Bubiyan and Warba Islands) and worked to get his allies and agents into power. The outside world would surely have protested, but Assad's salami tactics would have allowed him to take Kuwait without sustained armed opposition. In the end, just as everyone acquiesced to his seizure of Lebanon, so they would have gone along with his control over Kuwait. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I also extracted an interesting 2005 interview with Der Spiegel where Bashar al-Assad discusses Saddam and the differences with his father. It's also interesting in showing the difficult situation Bashar inherited from his father, and his allusions to the Algerian Civil War (1991-2002) , which is similar to how he views his current crisis. SPIEGEL: Mr. President, there are tentative movements toward democracy here and there in the Arab world. But there is little evidence of that in Syria. Why not? Assad: Well, it just happens that the Arab states develop at different rates and under different historical conditions. Egypt, for example, has not experienced as many coups as Syria. Besides, Cairo signed a peace treaty with Israel, whereas we remain in neither a state of war nor a state of peace with Israel. Incidentally, our development only began a few years ago, so of course expectations will vary widely. But the main issue is that we in Syria have at least opened up a dialogue about it. SPIEGEL: But it's taking longer than many would like. Assad: The pace of our development depends upon the challenges that we must face, which we cannot always influence. For example, we have to deal with foreign powers meddling in our internal affairs. SPIEGEL: You mean the Americans' demands for more democracy and for putting an end to support for terrorists? Assad: The more meddling there is, the slower the pace of development in Syria. After all, the democratic process should pervade the entire country. Naturally, the unresolved Middle East conflict also slows down development. And then there is the question of what should be our greatest priority -- political development or economic growth. SPIEGEL: Are they mutually exclusive? Assad: There is a tremendous gulf between the two objectives. To promote growth, we urgently need help from the European Union. For many of the Syrians I meet, poverty is a far greater concern than the outlook for a democratic constitution. Besides, there is also terrorism, which stands in the way of democratic development. We simply have to act as quickly as possible to keep things moving forward. SPIEGEL: But you don't exactly make it easy for your fellow Syrians. Political parties are permitted, but they are immediately prohibited as soon as they form, while members of the opposition are arrested. Assad: But you've been talking to opposition leaders in our country. If we were to arrest them all, there wouldn't be enough space in our prisons. SPIEGEL: Most members of the opposition with whom we spoke have spent many years in prison. Assad: But now they're out again. You can't simply equate the situation in the West with the situation in our country. Take religion, for example. In Great Britain, an author published a book in which he claimed that Jesus Christ had children. Such statements don't trigger civil unrest and bloodshed in Europe. But write similar statements about Islam in Syria and you might see bloody uprisings. SPIEGEL: What does that have to do with real opposition in Syria? Assad: When we put someone on trial, we're not trying him as a person. Instead, what concerns us is that he does not attack the population's religious and ethnic structure. The umbrella of stability must not be damaged. We gave the go-ahead for the formation of parties two months ago, and we are currently taking a very close look at these parties. I certainly don't dispute the contention that we do not have a well-developed system of political parties yet. I simply wanted to show you where we have to be cautious. SPIEGEL: What exactly are you afraid of? Assad: Developments like those in Algeria since 1991. At that time, the government misjudged the people, and the Islamists threatened to assume power. To this day, the Algerians are paying the price for this miscalculation with their own blood. SPIEGEL: Look at the example of Riad Seif, a self-made businessman and member of the Syrian National Assembly. He criticized the omnipotence of the monopoly and was sentenced to five years in prison. Assad: He questioned the unity of the nation, and we happen to have a law that calls for penalties for those who assail the mosaic of the various ethnic and religious groups. SPIEGEL: Wasn't Seif merely questioning the distribution of power? Assad: No, no one is put on trial for attacking me personally. But assaulting the composition of Syrian society is simply too explosive. SPIEGEL: Journalists, too, are prevented from doing their work and sometimes even thrown in prison. When will you have true freedom of the press? Assad: We have never locked up anyone because of his personal opinion. SPIEGEL: A correspondent for a large Arab newspaper, Al-Hayat, was recently sent to prison for several months. Assad: That's a different issue. Under Syrian law, a journalist is not allowed to report on military matters. This may be wrong or right, but that's just the way it is. SPIEGEL: You said that fighting poverty is more important than democracy. Does this mean that you intend to emulate the Chinese model: economic liberalization without political reforms? Assad: When I say that the economy takes priority, it certainly doesn't mean that we relegate political reforms to the back seat. The economy may have taken priority in the last five years -- that's because it is important to improve the general standard of living. It's a dangerous thing when someone gets up in the morning and has nothing to eat. If I say to that person, "I intend to allow you to have political parties," how will he responsd? We don't care if this is the Chinese model or something else. Our actions reflect the needs of our country. SPIEGEL: When will there be a recognizable democratic multiparty system in Syria? Assad: It took us five years to achieve a societal dialogue. Now we are in the second phase, in which we begin discussing parties. It won't happen that quickly. For example, the same process took three years in Morocco. SPIEGEL: Will it happen before the 2007 general election? Assad: It's very likely, but you just can't make long-term predictions in our corner of the world. I cannot afford to make mistakes. Instead of jumping forward too quickly and possibly falling on our faces, we prefer to divide our tasks into smaller steps. SPIEGEL: How do you propose to prevent the Algerian model -- the formation of religious parties that are democratically elected, but then act undemocratically? Assad: Once again, we cannot apply Western standards to development in the Orient. In Germany, you may have a religious Christian party, the CDU (Christian Democratic Union), but it has effectively assimilated itself into the fabric of the country. In return, your history prevents you from having any large nationalist parties. Our experience has shown us that the situation in Syria became stable because the entire society is secular. We must preserve that. SPIEGEL: In many of his speeches, United States President George W. Bush has complained that freedom must all too often take a back seat to stability. Do you feel he is addressing you with these comments? Assad: Freedom and democracy are nothing but instruments, just like stability. The goal is called progress and growth. Anyone who puts freedom ahead of stability is hurting growth. Besides, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and Iraq aren't exactly models of freedom. SPIEGEL: Washington sees you as a sort of "Saddam-light." Assad: There were real hostilities between the regime of Saddam Hussein and that of my father. Fifteen thousand Syrians lost their lives in these conflicts. Whereas I involve people from outside the party in the decision-making process, Saddam only permitted his own opinion. If we had taken the approach Saddam took in Iraq, I wouldn't feel safe walking on the street with my wife and children. Saddam was constantly in hiding. The fact that there are people who criticize me doesn't mean that people hate me. SPIEGEL: Your father supported the first President Bush in the 1991 Gulf War. You, on the other hand, were a vocal critic of the war in 2003. Assad: The first war was about the liberation of an Arab people suffering under occupation. The more recent war led to the occupation of an Arab country. There's a huge difference. SPIEGEL: Do you sympathize with the insurgents who are fighting the occupation troops and the new government in Iraq? Assad: There are terrorist operations in Iraq that claim the lives of innocent people; those we reject categorically. But there is also a resistance movement, and that's a different issue altogether -- a completely normal issue. SPIEGEL: Are suicide attacks a legitimate weapon against the occupation forces? Assad: Even the religious scholars disagree on that question, but I have the impression that most are in favor of these attacks. But this is a hypothetical debate. A person who is absolutely determined to blow himself up isn't about to ask you or me for our opinion. This debate is a waste of time. SPIEGEL: The American government has accused you of facilitating access to Iraq through Syria for the insurgents. Assad: It also accused Saddam of having weapons of mass destruction. But seriously, if you ask Americans whether they've been successful at sealing the border with Mexico, they'll tell you that it's a very difficult proposition. We've made it very clear to the Americans that it's impossible to completely control our border with Iraq. But we also tell them that the war itself is what's causing the chaos. It's not exactly fair to make a mistake yourself and then start blaming others for it. SPIEGEL: The American government has classified Syria as a "rogue nation." Are you concerned that Washington plans to remove you from office? Assad: Look at the results of regime change in Iraq. You can't possibly claim that it was successful. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1e5_1368633297 m16carbine Hafez al-Assad vs. Saddam Hussein (1991 article) Assad, Syria, Syrian Civil War, Islamism, Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad, Hafez Wed, 15 May 2013 06:22:53 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f16_1368613017 omniradar US sinking down into the Syrian quicksand"...I think it is a mistake in Syria, even if we had intervened more significantly a year or six months ago. We overestimate our ability to determine outcomes." ...former Secretary of Defence, Robert Gates ... by Jim.W.Dean America sank down another foot this week into the Syrian quicksand. Israel is putting the next stage of the conflict's tactics on display, not only to the world but to the Syrian military with its last two strikes. As the rebel assault has ground to a halt, and the superior manpower of the Syrian army having shown it can conduct search and clear operations, the Free Syrian army is in a war of attrition it cannot win. It is much easier to recruit when you are winning and casualties not too bad than when the tide turns to stalemate and losing ground. The al-Nusra Front has been bleeding fighters away from the FSA. They are paying better and the AN brigades now have access to weapons the FSA does not. The al-Nusras had strategically focused on key infrastructure acquisition including some of the oil revenue prizes. Win or lose, Assad or no Assad, or even with a negotiated settlement, they aren't leaving. The West has been birthing another training ground in Syria for seasoned extremist Jihadis who will soon be looking for the next fight when Syria calms down. And it is just a matter of time before someone begins slipping them more powerful weaponry. But who will they using it on, next month, a year, or two years from now?Who is in whose crosshairs now? I fear that the West may now feel that the FSA could collapse if a stalemate continues and leave the al-Nusras the primary opposition force controlled by whom? Sure, the Saudis and Qatar warlords are supplying the payrolls and the weapons now, but new suppliers could always emerge, like Assad's stockpiles if there were a collapse. Libyan weapons and fighters are already in Syria with more said to be on the way. Is the CIA helping them hoping to kill two birds with one stone with two groups they want to get rid of fighting each other? And if Assad did fall and the FSA and al-Nusras began a civil war right away with the horrible civilian casualties that would be expected, who would carry that historical blood on their hands? So now we have 'enter stage left' the Israeli intervention. Why? Well, I think you all would agree that they don't view blood on their hands as much of a public relations problem. It never has been, so far. The story goes that the recent attacks were air launched 'stand off' weapons fired over Lebanon airspace at a safe distance from the Russian air defenses in Syria. I say they are Russia not only because of the origins of the missiles, but more importantly, they are manned by Russian air defense troops. None of the post attack analysis I have read so far has dared touch the red line no one will discuss, not even the Americans. What would the Soviets do if their forces who have remained neutral so far other than defending against air attacks, were themselves attacked? Already we see in the corporate press the last Israeli attack has paved the way for public discussion of an impending intervention to get the public use to hearing about it so it is less of a shock when it happens. Reuters was careful to refer to air defenses as Syrian, not Russian. The cover and deception for the latest Israeli strikes were the usual ghost missiles which can always be made to appear where needed to justify an attack. Hezbollah has plenty of missiles, and they are no threat to Israel whatsoever, unless Israel is planning to attack Lebanon. All military planners know this, just like they really know Iran is no offensive threat, but has to be painted as one to keep the American public paying for our forward deployment in that region. Everyone knows that Hezbollah has pulled together whatever it could for a deterrent. Regardless of what anyone might think about the political and ideological differences, once one party is attacked it has legal right to defend itself, as was done in the last Lebanon war. So the democratic West, which calls itself the free world, has besmirched that reputation by officially adopting the preemptive strike doctrine, a la NeoCon/Israeli Lobby madness. This has created a theater of the absurd where everyone knows that false flags will be staged to create the need for full scale response strikes. How is this done? Simple. You do attacks like Israel has just done which are a ploy of course to pull Iran into the quicksand party, too. And if Iran remains cool and does not take the bait (my bet) a false flag can be staged to blame you know who, with the motive being retaliation by the Iranians for the aforementioned pre-emptive attacks on the Syrians. The uniformed public would generally buy that scenario. But there is a problem. The public has had many years now to educate themselves about the rogue element operating behind the scenes in Western countries to trigger wars nowadays, and they take nothing on face value. When the weaker attack the stronger, everyone smells a setup. But keeping home country casualties low is critical to getting the public to accept aggressive military action with a smile. They already know when the bill comes due who is going to suffer the budget cutbacks, and it is not the defense contractors. If conventional Western military superiority is deceptively used in what is clearly wanton aggression, terrorism will be fueled by new generations, and the miniaturization of nuclear weapons will eventually find their way into their hands, where it will be payback time. The Israelis tested world reaction to their repeated invasions of Lebanese air space, and it was basically zero. The UN is beginning to understand that the more it condemns aggressions and is totally ignored, the weaker it looks and is held in contempt. The Lebanon incursions were just a warm-up to what they are doing now, and the world outrage has only gone up a slight notch as we get closer and closer to the big trap being sprung, which is giving the rebels heavy weapons and air cover to renew their offensive. A negotiated settlement has been totally rejected by the West, and a lot of innocent people will die for that poor judgment. The Israelis could never risk losing planes over Syria. Our Intel sources have confirmed that Israeli mobile 155mm howitzers forayed into Syria during the night to shell the Syrian army position with 70 to 80 rounds over a grid area. If you watch the YouTube video and turn the volume up you can hear and see them coming in as they sound like a train. The big explosion was an ammo dump or an Israeli bunker buster being tested out, sending a signal maybe to the underground Syria military high command that they can be struck. We heard soon after that depleted uranium had been used... bunker buster material and something not used against missiles in transport. The Russians have more advanced missiles, longer range, which can shoot down the Israeli planes over Lebanon. They can also strike Israeli airbases with their missile subs. Would the Russians do it if their air defense missile positions were attacked? I think so. How could they not respond? Such is the game of chicken that is being played here. If the NATO countries joined in a general air attack against Syria, would the Russians cut off their gas pipelines? And what would that do to the delicate financial position the EU is in now, being the house of cards that it is? And who would be blamed for the financial devastation that ensued, those defending themselves, or those who were clearly the aggressors? And if the respective publics then wanted their leaders heads on pikes, do the elites in their countries have ready plans to save themselves by triggering 'the big one' in terms of a huge terror attack in their own countries to blame on you know who? Would they really do that to save themselves? They have already done it... not to save themselves but purely out of greed, and they got away with it. If their survival were at stake they would kill their own people without hesitation. So the time folks to start raising holy hell about these bogus military threat scenarios is NOW. If we wait until afterward the damage will be done and most of our fellow citizens will probably be cowering in place. What they won't do now, they will not do later when they are poorer and weaker. The elites know that, and are betting on it. That is why they are playing with all of our lives like they are now. It's a supremacist thing with them. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f16_1368613017 omniradar US sinking down into the Syrian quicksand Syria Tue, 14 May 2013 22:21:08 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=493_1368584221 snoopAhLoop THE FIRST unmanned fighter jet has been launched from the deck of a United States Navy aircraft carrier. The robotic aircraft was catapulted from the USS George H.W. Bush in the Atlantic Ocean overnight Australian time. The advanced aircraft has launched into growing concerns over the legality of escalating drone surveillance and lethal strikes. Called the X-47B , the bat-winged robotic combat drone is considered particularly valuable because it's the first that is designed specifically to take off and land on an aircraft carrier, allowing it to be used around the world without needing the permission of other countries to serve as a home base. "I can confirm it was successfully launched at 11.18am (1518 GMT)," Navy Lieutenant Katie Cerezo told media. The aircraft carried out several low approaches to the carrier before landing in Maryland at the US naval air station at Patuxent River after a 65-minute flight, the Navy said. The test flight marked the first catapult launch of a robotic, unmanned plane from a carrier at sea, and Navy officers called it a "milestone". "This historic event challenges the paradigm of manned carrier landings that were first conducted more than 90 years ago," Rear Admiral Mat Winter, who oversees unmanned aviation for the Navy, wrote on the service's website. The experimental aircraft, which looks like a smaller version of the B-2 stealth bomber, is supposed to clear the way for a new line of drones that would carry out bombing raids from a carrier. There has been increasing pushback against the use of drones from some nations that say the strikes cause widespread civilian deaths and operate with only limited oversight, eroding the US image overseas. Navy officials say the drone will provide around-the-clock intelligence, surveillance and targeting capabilities. The X-47B took off successfully and made two low approaches to the ship before heading back toward land. The test aircraft isn't intended for operational use; instead, the military is using the information it gathers during these demonstrations to develop the drone program. The Navy already operates two other unmanned aircraft, the small, low cost ScanEagle , which does not carry weapons, and the armed Fire Scout which is built more like a helicopter. Both the military and the CIA use armed Predator and Reaper drones in surveillance and strike operations around the world. The military uses them routinely in Afghanistan and other warzones, while the CIA has conducted frequent strikes in the border region of Pakistan - most often secret operations that trigger sharp criticism from the government there. The X-47B can reach an altitude of more than 40,000 feet (12,000m), has a range of more than 2100 nautical miles (3400km) and can reach high subsonic speeds, according to the Navy. It is also fully autonomous in flight. It relies on computer programs to tell it where it to go unless a mission operator needs to step in. That differs from other drones used by the military, which are more often piloted from remote locations. Some critics have said the military's use of drones, furthered by Tuesday's tests, create concerns over the development of systems that could become weaponized and have less and less human control over launching attacks. Human Rights Watch has called for a pre-emptive prohibition of the development and use of any unmanned systems that carry weapons and are fully autonomous. While current models, like the X-47B, retain some level of supervision over decisions whether to use lethal force, the group predicts that fully autonomous weapons could be developed within decades that select and engage targets with no human intervention. Tuesday's tests show the trend toward greater autonomy "is not one that is going to be stopped," said Steve Goose, director of the arms division at Human Rights Watch. "For us, the question is where do you draw line?" Goose said. "We're saying you need to draw the line when you have a fully autonomous system that is weaponized. We're saying you must have meaningful human control over key battlefield decisions of who lives and who dies. That should not be left up to the weapons system itself." The Department of Defense issued a directive last year that said it would not pursue fully autonomous weapons, at least for the next few years . The US is the only country with such a directive, Goose said. Before the planes can become commonplace, however, the military has to prove they can operate in the harsh conditions aboard an aircraft carrier at sea. The aircraft used a steam catapult to launch, just like a traditional Navy warplane does. "These are exciting times for the Navy as we are truly doing something that has never been done before - something I never imagined could be done during my 29-year naval career," Rear Adm. Mat Winter, the Navy's program executive officer for unmanned aviation and strike weapons, wrote in a Monday blog post. While the tailless plane won't land on the aircraft carrier on Tuesday, the Navy plans to conduct those tests soon. Landing on a moving aircraft carrier is considered one of the most difficult challenges Navy pilots face. Following the test launch, the plane will make a series of approaches toward the aircraft carrier before landing at Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Maryland. Earlier this month, the Navy successfully conducted a landing at that air station where the X-47B used a tailhook on the aircraft to catch a cable and suddenly stop, just as planes landing on carriers have to do. In the 2014 fiscal year, the Navy plans to demonstrate that the X-47B can be refueled in flight. The program cost is $1.4 billion over eight years. Northrop Grumman was awarded the primary contract in 2007. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=493_1368584221 snoopAhLoop X-47b Carrier Launch X-47b, X47b, USA, UCAS-D, Carrier Launch, Unmanned Aircraft, Drone, UAV Tue, 14 May 2013 13:57:17 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b5c_1368552933 Detroit Iron by Noah Rothman 11:32 am, May 14th, 2013 Julian Bond, chairman emeritus of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, joined anchor Thomas Roberts on MSNBC on Tuesday where he said that he did not believe the federal government was complicit in any wrongdoing given the news that the Internal Revenue Service singled out conservative groups for added scrutiny. He said that it is right of the government to look into the Tea Party, which he called "overtly racist" and the "Taliban wing of American politics." Bond made these comments after noting that his group was illegitimately targeted by the IRS in 2004. Bond said that his group was singled out by the IRS in 2004 after he delivered a political speech critical of President George W. Bush . Though his organization was later cleared, Bond said that his group was "unfairly targeted." However, Bond said that there are no parallels between that case and the charge that the IRS devoted undue scrutiny to conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. "I don't think there's a double standard at all," Bond said. "I think it's entirely legitimate to look at the tea party." "I mean, here are a group of people who are admittedly racist, who are overtly political, who tried as best they can to harm President Barack ] Obama in every way they can," Bond continued. "They are the Taliban wing of American politics and we all ought to be a little worried about them," Bond asserted. When asked if his assessment of the Tea Party was "a little harsh," Bond said that it was not. "The truth hurts," Bond insisted. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/naacp-chairman-legitimate-for-irs-to-target-admittedly-racist-tea-party-taliban-wing-of-poltics/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b5c_1368552933 Detroit Iron NAACP Chair Emeritus: 'Legitimate' For IRS To Target 'Admittedly Racist' Tea Party: 'Taliban Wing' Of Politics naacp, julian bond Mon, 13 May 2013 23:41:55 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d25_1368502690 Detroit Iron By Juliet Eilperin and Zachary A. Goldfarb , Updated: Monday, May 13, 8:09 PMInternal Revenue Service officials in Washington and at least two other offices were involved with investigating conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, making clear that the effort reached well beyond the branch in Cincinnati that was initially blamed, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post. IRS officials at the agency's Washington headquarters sent queries to conservative groups asking about their donors and other aspects of their operations, while officials in the El Monte and Laguna Niguel offices in California sent similar questionnaires to tea-party-affiliated groups, the documents show. IRS employees in Cincinnati told conservatives seeking the status of "social welfare" groups that a task force in Washington was overseeing their applications, according to interviews with the activists. Lois G. Lerner, who oversees tax-exempt groups for the IRS, told reporters Friday that the "absolutely inappropriate" actions were undertaken by "front-line people" working in Cincinnati to target groups with "tea party," "patriot" or "9/12" in their names. In one instance, however, Ron Bell, an IRS employee, informed a lawyer representing a conservative group focused on voter fraud that the application was under review in Washington. On several other occasions, IRS officials in Washington and California sent conservative groups detailed questionnaires about their voter outreach and other activities, according to the documents. "For the IRS to say it was some low-level group in Cincinnati is simply false," saidCleta Mitchell, a partner in the law firmFoley & Lardner who sought to communicate with IRS headquarters about the delay in granting tax-exempt status to True the Vote. Moreover, details of the IRS's efforts to target conservative groups reached the highest levels of the agency in May 2012, far earlier than has been disclosed, according to Republican congressional aides briefed by the IRS and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration -(TIGTA) on the details of their reviews. Then-Commissioner Douglas Shulman, a George W. Bush appointee who stepped down in November, received a briefing from the TIGTA about what was happening in the Cincinnati office in May 2012, the aides said. His deputy and the agency's current acting commissioner, Steven T. Miller, also learned about the matter that month, the aides said. The officials did not share details with Republican lawmakers who had been demanding to know whether the IRS was targeting conservative groups, Republicans said. "I wrote to the IRS three times last year after hearing concerns that conservative groups were being targeted," Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Monday. "In response to the first letter I sent with some of my colleagues, Steven Miller, the current Acting IRS Commissioner, responded that these groups weren't being targeted." "Knowing what we know now," he added, "the IRS was at best being far from forth coming, or at worst, being deliberately dishonest with Congress." As new details emerged Monday, Democrats and Republicans alike decried the agency's actions as an unacceptable abuse of power. In a news conference Monday, President Obama said he learned of the investigating in media reports on Friday and has "no patience with it." "If in fact IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on, and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that's outrageous," Obama said. "And there's no place for it. And they have to be held fully accountable." White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Monday that the White House counsel's office learned of an upcoming IRS inspector general's report on April 22 as part of a routine notification but had not received access to the report. On Capitol Hill, two Senate panels - the Finance Committee and the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations - announced Monday that they will investigate. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Ways and Means Committee have been looking into reports of IRS attempts to single out organizations on the right for heightened scrutiny. Ways and Means has called IRS officials to testify Friday. "These actions by the IRS are an outrageous abuse of power and a breach of the public's trust," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.). "The IRS will now be the ones put under additional scrutiny." Separately, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) introducedcompanion bills Monday that would require the IRS to fire any employee found "willfully" violating "the constitutional rights of a taxpayer," according to statements by both lawmakers. The bills also would make them criminally liable for their actions. Even as Obama vowed that his administration "will make sure that we find out exactly what happened on this," however, the IRS offered no new information on how it selected which groups to single out for scrutiny. The White House is legally barred from contacting the IRS about a tax matter, under a prohibition adopted after the Watergate scandal. And although it can contact the Treasury Department about tax issues, neither Treasury nor the IRS can disclose specific taxpayer information. The IRS can release information about a petition for tax- exempt status only after it has been approved. Obama is not in a position to remove Lerner, a career official who can be terminated for cause only under normal civil service proceedings. The IRS has two political appointees: the commissioner, who serves a five-year term, and the chief counsel. As the IRS came under broader political attack Monday, more details surfaced on how the exempt-organizations division struggled to determine which nonprofits should receive "social welfare" status after the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling. That decision, which allowed corporations and unions to raise and spend un-limited amounts of money on elections, opened the door for groups to accept undisclosed contributions as long as their "primary purpose" was not politics. In a Jan. 9, 2012, letter to the Richmond Tea Party, IRS specialist Stephen Seok asked questions including "the names of the donors, contributors and grantors," as well as the size of the contributions and grants, and when they were given. Richmond Tea Party President Larry Nordvig, whose group applied for tax-exempt status in December 2009 and received it in July 2012, said the extended inquiry had "a very chilling effect" on how much money the group could raise because its donors preferred anonymity. The Wetumpka Tea Party of Alabama experienced a two-year delay after submitting its initial application. Becky Gerritson, a 44-year-old stay-at-home mother and the group's president, said the IRS sent a questionnaire asking for the names of all volunteers, donor identification and contribution amounts, the names of any legislators its members had communicated with directly or indirectly, and the contents of all speeches its members had made, among a long list of other details. "I was outraged," Gerritson said. "Being an election year, I felt like it was intimidation." The group did not provide the information. Approval came only after the group sought help from the American Center for Law and Justice, which threatened a lawsuit against the IRS, Gerritson said. Although some of the groups were explicitly labeled "tea party" or "patriot," others that came under intense scrutiny were focused on challenging the Affordable Care Act - known by many as Obamacare - or the integrity of federal elections. In a June 3, 2011, letter to the IRS, Mitchell questioned the agency's motivations for delaying recognition of one of her clients who had filed nearly two years earlier, writing, "Is the opposition to Obamacare and the takeover of America's healthcare system by the government the reason that this application has been held up and not approved?" Catherine Engelbrecht, president of the Houston-based True the Vote, first filed for tax-exempt status in July 2010. At one point, Engelbrecht - who is still awaiting a determination from the IRS regarding her voting rights organization and a separate tea party group, King Street Patriots - said an IRS employee informed her: "I'm just doing what Washington is telling me to do. I'm just asking what they want me to ask." The IRS did not respond to requests for comment Monday. Josh Hicks and Julie Tate contributed to this report. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-denounces-reported-irs-targeting-of-conservative-groups/2013/05/13/a0185644-bbdf-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story_2.html http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d25_1368502690 Detroit Iron IRS officials in Washington were involved in targeting of conservative groups IRS, Obama