Lake Mead property owners forced out until shutdown ends – www.ktnv.com

By Jacqui Heinrich

Las Vegas, NV (KTNV) — The government shutdown is being felt close to home for some locals. They say they’re being forced out of private homes on Lake Mead because they sit on federal land. 

Joyce Spencer is 77-years-old and her husband Ralph is 80. They’ve been spending most of their time in the family ice cream store since going home isn’t an option.

The Spencers never expected to be forced out of their Lake Mead home, which they’ve owned since the 70s, but on Thursday, a park ranger said they had 24 hours to get out.

“I had to go to town today and buy Ralph undershirts and jeans because I forgot his pants,” Joyce Spencer told Action News.

The Stewart’s Point home sits on federal land, so even though the Spencers own their cabin outright, they’re not allowed in until the government reopens.

Park officials said property owners can visit only to retrieve belongings; they sent Action News a statement which reads in part, “Unfortunately overnight stays are not permitted until a budget is passed and the park can reopen.”

Joyce Spencer said she’s alright in the meantime, staying with nearby family, but the move was a lot to handle as a senior citizen.

“I had to be sure and get his walker and his scooter that he has to go in,” Spencer said. “We’re not hurt in any way except it might cost me if I have to go buy more pants.”

The Lake Mead properties are considered vacation homes; one of the lease requirements to own a plot is people must have an alternative residence.

Regardless, the Spencers said it’s their property and they should be allowed in, shutdown or not.

Lake Mead property owners forced out until shutdown ends – www.ktnv.com

Harry Reid Fails again to come to the aid of Americans

October 2, 2013 2:31 pm

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) asked why Senate Democrats would want to fund the National Institutes of Health to “help one child who has cancer” Wednesday when asked that question by CNN reporter Dana Bash.

DANA BASH: You all talked about children with cancer unable to go to clinical trials. The House is presumably going to pass a bill that funds at least the NIH. Given what you’ve said, will you at least pass that? And if not, aren’t you playing the same political games that Republicans are?

HARRY REID: Listen, Sen. Durbin explained that very well, and he did it here, did it on the floor earlier, as did Sen. Schumer. What right did they have to pick and choose what part of government is going to be funded? It’s obvious what’s going on here. You talk about reckless and irresponsible. Wow. What this is all about is Obamacare. They are obsessed. I don’t know what other word I can use. They’re obsessed with this Obamacare. It’s working now and it will continue to work and people will love it more than they do now by far. So they have no right to pick and choose.

BASH: But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?

REID: Why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own. This is — to have someone of your intelligence to suggest such a thing maybe means you’re irresponsible and reckless –

BASH: I’m just asking a question.

CBO | The 2013 Long-Term Budget Outlook

 

Between 2009 and 2012, the federal government recorded the largest budget deficits relative to the size of the economy since 1946, causing federal debt to soar. Federal debt held by the public is now about 73 percent of the economy’s annual output, or gross domestic product (GDP). That percentage is higher than at any point in U.S. history except a brief period around World War II, and it is twice the percentage at the end of 2007. If current laws generally remained in place, federal debt held by the public would decline slightly relative to GDP over the next several years, CBO projects. After that, however, growing deficits would ultimately push debt back above its current high level. CBO projects that federal debt held by the public would reach 100 percent of GDP in 2038, 25 years from now, even without accounting for the harmful effects that growing debt would have on the economy (see the figure below). Moreover, debt would be on an upward path relative to the size of the economy, a trend that could not be sustained indefinitely.

Federal Debt Held by the Public Under CBO's Extended Baseline

Budget Projections for the Next 10 Years

The economy’s gradual recovery from the 2007–2009 recession, the waning budgetary effects of policies enacted in response to the weak economy, and other changes to tax and spending policies have caused the deficit to shrink this year to its smallest size since 2008: roughly 4 percent of GDP, compared with a peak of almost 10 percent in 2009. If current laws governing taxes and spending were generally unchanged—an assumption that underlies CBO’s 10-year baseline budget projections—the deficit would continue to drop over the next few years, falling to 2 percent of GDP by 2015. As a result, by 2018, federal debt held by the public would decline to 68 percent of GDP.

However, budget deficits would gradually rise again under current law, CBO projects, mainly because of increasing interest costs and growing spending for Social Security and the government’s major health care programs (Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and subsidies to be provided through health insurance exchanges). CBO expects interest rates to rebound in coming years from their current unusually low levels, sharply raising the government’s cost of borrowing. In addition, the pressures of an aging population, rising health care costs, and an expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance would cause spending for some of the largest federal programs to increase relative to GDP. By 2023, CBO projects, the budget deficit would grow to almost 3½ percent of GDP under current law, and federal debt held by the public would equal 71 percent of GDP and would be on an upward trajectory.

(For details about CBO’s most recent 10-year baseline, see Updated Budget Projections: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023, May 2013. In July 2013, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) revised upward the historical values for GDP; CBO extrapolated those revisions for this report when projecting outcomes as a percentage of future GDP. Although CBO’s projections of revenues, outlays, deficits, and debt over the 2013–2023 period have not changed since the baseline projections issued in May, those amounts measured as a percentage of GDP are now lower as a result of BEA’s revisions.)

Budget Projections for the Long Term

Looking beyond the 10-year period covered by its regular baseline projections, CBO produced an extended baseline for this report that extrapolates those projections through 2038 (and, with even greater uncertainty, through later decades). Under the extended baseline, budget deficits would rise steadily and, by 2038, would push federal debt held by the public close to the percentage of GDP seen just after World War II—even without factoring in the harm that growing debt would cause to the economy.

By 2038, CBO projects, federal spending would increase to 26 percent of GDP under the assumptions of the extended baseline, compared with 22 percent in 2012 and an average of 20½ percent over the past 40 years. That increase reflects the following projected paths for various types of federal spending if current laws generally remain in place (see the figure below):

  • Federal spending for the major health care programs and Social Security would increase to a total of 14 percent of GDP by 2038, twice the 7 percent average of the past 40 years.
  • In contrast, total spending on everything other than the major health care programs, Social Security, and net interest payments would decline to 7 percent of GDP, well below the 11 percent average of the past 40 years and a smaller share of the economy than at any time since the late 1930s.
  • The federal government’s net interest payments would grow to 5 percent of GDP, compared with an average of 2 percent over the past 40 years, mainly because federal debt would be much larger.

Components of Total Spending Under CBO's Extended Baseline

Federal revenues would equal 19½ percent of GDP by 2038 under current law, CBO projects (see the figure below), compared with an average of 17½ percent over the past four decades. Revenues are projected to rise from 15 percent of GDP last year to 17½ percent in 2014, spurred by the ongoing economic recovery and changes in provisions of tax law (including the expiration of lower income tax rates for high-income people, the expiration of a temporary cut in the Social Security payroll tax, and the imposition of new taxes). After 2014, revenues would increase gradually relative to GDP, largely because growth in income beyond that attributable to inflation would push taxpayers into higher income tax brackets over time.

Total Spending and Revenues Under CBO's Extended Baseline

The gap between federal spending and revenues would widen steadily after 2015 under the assumptions of the extended baseline, CBO projects. By 2038, the deficit would be 6½ percent of GDP, larger than in any year between 1947 and 2008, and federal debt held by the public would reach 100 percent of GDP, more than in any year except 1945 and 1946. With such large deficits, federal debt would be growing faster than GDP, a path that would ultimately be unsustainable.

Incorporating the economic effects of the federal policies that underlie the extended baseline worsens the long-term budget outlook. The increase in debt relative to the size of the economy, combined with an increase in marginal tax rates (the rates that would apply to an additional dollar of income), would reduce output and raise interest rates relative to the benchmark economic projections that CBO used in producing the extended baseline. Those economic differences would lead to lower federal revenues and higher interest payments. With those effects included, debt under the extended baseline would rise to 108 percent of GDP in 2038.

Harmful Effects of Large and Growing Debt

How long the nation could sustain such growth in federal debt is impossible to predict with any confidence. At some point, investors would begin to doubt the government’s willingness or ability to pay U.S. debt obligations, making it more difficult or more expensive for the government to borrow money. Moreover, even before that point was reached, the high and rising amount of debt that CBO projects under the extended baseline would have significant negative consequences for both the economy and the federal budget:

  • Increased borrowing by the federal government would eventually reduce private investment in productive capital, because the portion of total savings used to buy government securities would not be available to finance private investment. The result would be a smaller stock of capital and lower output and income in the long run than would otherwise be the case. Despite those reductions, however, the continued growth of productivity would make real (inflation-adjusted) output and income per person higher in the future than they are now.
  • Federal spending on interest payments would rise, thus requiring larger changes in tax and spending policies to achieve any chosen targets for budget deficits and debt.
  • The government would have less flexibility to use tax and spending policies to respond to unexpected challenges, such as economic downturns or wars.
  • The risk of a fiscal crisis—in which investors demanded very high interest rates to finance the government’s borrowing needs—would increase.
The Consequences of Alternative Fiscal Policies

Most of the projections in this report are based on the assumption that federal tax and spending policies will generally follow current law—not because CBO expects laws to remain unchanged but because the budgetary implications of current law are a useful benchmark for policymakers when they consider changes in laws. If tax and spending policies differed significantly from those specified in current law, budgetary outcomes could differ substantially as well. To illustrate the extent of that difference, CBO analyzed the effects of some additional sets of fiscal policies.

Under one set of alternative policies, referred to as the extended alternative fiscal scenario, certain policies that are now in place but that are scheduled to change under current law would continue instead, and some provisions of current law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period would be modified. With those changes to current law, deficits (excluding the government’s interest costs) would be a total of about $2 trillion higher over the next decade than in CBO’s baseline; in subsequent years, such deficits would exceed those projected in the extended baseline by rapidly growing amounts. The harmful effects on the economy from the resulting increase in federal debt would be partly offset by lower marginal tax rates. Nevertheless, in the long run, output would be lower and interest rates would be higher under that set of policies than under the extended baseline. With those economic changes incorporated, federal debt held by the public would reach about 190 percent of GDP by 2038, CBO projects.

In a different illustrative scenario, deficit reduction would be phased in such that deficits excluding interest costs would be a total of $2 trillion lower through 2023 than in the baseline, and the reduction in the deficit as a percentage of GDP in 2023 would be continued in later years. In that case, output would be higher and interest rates would be lower over the long run than in the extended baseline. Factoring in the effects of those economic changes on the budget, CBO projects that federal debt held by the public would be 67 percent of GDP in 2038, close to its percentage in 2012. Under a third scenario, with twice as much deficit reduction—a $4 trillion reduction in deficits excluding interest costs through 2023—CBO projects that federal debt held by the public would fall to 31 percent of GDP by 2038, slightly below its percentage of GDP in 2007 (35 percent) and its average percentage over the past 40 years (38 percent).

Those different scenarios for fiscal policy would also have different effects on the economy in the short term. During the next several years—when the nation’s economic output will probably remain below its potential, or maximum sustainable, level—the spending increases and tax reductions in the alternative fiscal scenario (relative to what would happen under current law) would increase the demand for goods and services and thereby raise output and employment. The reductions in deficits under the other illustrative scenarios, by contrast, would decrease the demand for goods and services and thereby reduce output and employment.

The Uncertainty of Long-Term Budget Projections

Even if the tax and spending policies specified in current law continue, budgetary outcomes will undoubtedly differ from CBO’s current projections as a result of unexpected changes in the economy, demographics, and other factors. Because the uncertainty of budget projections increases the farther the projections extend into the future, this report focuses on the next 25 years.

To illustrate the uncertainty of those projections, CBO examined how altering its assumptions about future productivity, interest rates, and federal spending on health care would affect the projections in the extended baseline. Under those alternative assumptions—which do not cover the full range of possible outcomes—federal debt held by the public in 2038 could range from as low as 65 percent of GDP (still elevated by historical standards) to as high as 156 percent of GDP, compared with the 108 percent of GDP projected under the extended baseline with the economic effects of fiscal policy included. Those calculations do not address other sources of uncertainty, such as the risk of an economic depression or major war or the possibility of unexpected changes in birth rates, life expectancy, immigration, or labor force participation. Nonetheless, CBO’s analysis shows that under a wide range of possible assumptions about some key factors that influence federal spending and revenues, the budget is on an unsustainable path.

Choices for the Future

The unsustainable nature of the federal government’s current tax and spending policies presents lawmakers and the public with difficult choices. Unless substantial changes are made to the major health care programs and Social Security, those programs will absorb a much larger share of the economy’s total output in the future than they have in the past. Even with spending for all other federal activities on track, by the end of this decade, to represent the smallest share of GDP in more than 70 years, total federal noninterest spending would be larger relative to the size of the economy than it has been, on average, over the past 40 years. The structure of the federal tax code means that revenues would also represent a larger percentage of GDP in the future than they have, on average, in the past few decades—but not large enough to keep federal debt held by the public from growing faster than the economy starting in the next several years. Moreover, because federal debt is already unusually high relative to GDP, further increases in debt could be especially harmful. To put the federal budget on a sustainable path for the long term, lawmakers would have to make significant changes to tax and spending policies—letting revenues rise more than they would under current law, reducing spending for large benefit programs below the projected levels, or adopting some combination of those approaches.

The size of such changes would depend on the amount of federal debt that lawmakers considered appropriate. For example, bringing debt back down to 39 percent of GDP in 2038—as it was at the end of 2008—would require a combination of increases in revenues and cuts in noninterest spending (relative to current law) totaling 2 percent of GDP for the next 25 years. (In 2014, 2 percent of GDP would equal about $350 billion.) If those changes came entirely from revenues, they would represent an increase of 11 percent relative to the amount of revenues projected for the 2014–2038 period; if the changes came entirely from spending, they would represent a cut of 10½ percent in noninterest spending from the amount projected for that period.

In deciding how quickly to carry out policy changes to make the size of the federal debt more sustainable, lawmakers face other trade-offs. On the one hand, waiting to cut federal spending or raise taxes would lead to a greater accumulation of debt and would increase the size of the policy adjustments needed to put the budget on a sustainable course. On the other hand, implementing spending cuts or tax increases quickly would weaken the economy’s current expansion and would give people little time to plan for and adjust to the policy changes. The negative short-term effects that deficit reduction has on output and employment would be especially large now, because output is so far below its potential level that the Federal Reserve is keeping short-term interest rates near zero and could not lower those rates further to offset the impact of changes in spending and tax policies.

G20 ENDS ABRUPTLY AS OBAMA CALLS PUTIN A JACKASS

SEPTEMBER 6, 2013
POSTED BY ANDY BOROWITZ

ST. PETERSBURG (The Borowitz Report)—Hopes for a positive G20 summit crumbled today as President Obama blurted to Russia’s Vladimir Putin at a joint press appearance, “Everyone here thinks you’re a jackass.”
The press corps appeared stunned by the uncharacteristic outburst from Mr. Obama, who then unleashed a ten-minute tirade at the stone-faced Russian President.
“Look, I’m not just talking about Snowden and Syria,” Mr. Obama said. “What about Pussy Riot? What about your anti-gay laws? Total jackass moves, my friend.”
As Mr. Putin narrowed his eyes in frosty silence, Mr. Obama seemed to warm to his topic.
“If you think I’m the only one who feels this way, you’re kidding yourself,” Mr. Obama said, jabbing his finger in the direction of the Russian President’s face. “Ask Angela Merkel. Ask David Cameron. Ask the Turkish guy. Every last one of them thinks you’re a dick.”
Shortly after Mr. Obama’s volcanic performance, Mr. Putin released a terse official statement, reading, “I should be afraid of this skinny man? I wrestle bears.”
After one day of meetings, the G20 nations voted unanimously on a resolution that said maybe everyone should just go home.
Get the Borowitz Report delivered to your inbox.

Alexander Zemlianichenko/AP
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog….html?mobify=0

The feds are going to TAX your right to own guns and Ammo Forget about them trying to ban guns!

HR 3018 IH

113th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3018

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the excise tax and special occupational tax in respect of firearms and to increase the transfer tax on any other weapon, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

August 2, 2013

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois (for himself and Mr. PASCRELL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Natural Resources, the Judiciary, Energy and Commerce, and Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the excise tax and special occupational tax in respect of firearms and to increase the transfer tax on any other weapon, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ‘Gun Violence Prevention and Safe Communities Act of 2013’.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN EXCISE TAXES RELATING TO FIREARMS.

    (a) In General- Section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:

‘SEC. 4181. IMPOSITION OF TAX.

    ‘There is hereby imposed upon the sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of the following articles a tax equivalent to the specified percent of the price for which so sold:

      ‘(1) Articles taxable at 20 percent:

        ‘(A) Pistols.

        ‘(B) Revolvers.

        ‘(C) Firearms (other than pistols and revolvers).

        ‘(D) Any lower frame or receiver for a firearm, whether for a semiautomatic pistol, rifle, or shotgun that is designed to accommodate interchangeable upper receivers.

      ‘(2) Articles taxable at 50 percent: Shells and cartridges.’.

    (b) Exemption for United States- Subsection (b) of section 4182 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:

    ‘(b) Sales to United States- No firearms, pistols, revolvers, lower frame or receiver for a firearm, shells, and cartridges purchased with funds appropriated for any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States shall be subject to any tax imposed on the sale or transfer of such articles.’.

    (c) Availability of Funds From Increased Taxes-

      (1) ALLOCATION- Amounts in the general fund of the Treasury by reason of section 3(a) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (as amended by paragraph (2) of this subsection) are hereby appropriated and shall be available, as follows:

        (A) 35 percent of such amounts shall be available for community-oriented policing services grants for the hiring and rehiring of additional career law enforcement officers under section 1701(b) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd(b)). States using funds for school resource officers shall include training, protections, and monitoring to ensure that school resource officers are used to improve school safety and climate, and promote positive reform in student suspensions, expulsions, and referrals to the juvenile or criminal justice systems.

        (B) 35 percent of such amounts shall be available for the Project Safe Neighborhoods, as authorized by sections 101 through 104 of the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (Public Law 110-5) and Public Law 109-108 (119 Stat. 2290, 2302).

        (C) 10 percent of such amounts shall be available for the Centers for Disease Control National Center for Injury Prevention and Control for purposes of research on gun violence and its prevention.

        (D) 5 percent of such amounts shall be available for the National Criminal History Improvement Program authorized under section 302(c) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3732(c)).

        (E) 5 percent of such amounts shall be available for the NICS Act Record Improvement Program authorized under section 301 of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007.

        (F) 5 percent for the Community-Based Violence Prevention Field-Initiated Research and Evaluation Program of the Department of Justice.

        (G) 5 percent of such amounts shall be available for the Secretary of Education to provide directed grants and technical assistance to schools eligible for or receiving grants under part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to develop and implement comprehensive, evidence-based local or regional strategies (such as positive behavior interventions and supports, social and emotional learning, and restorative justice programs) to improve school climate, reduce the use of exclusionary school discipline, and decrease the number of youth entering the juvenile and criminal justice systems.

      (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3(a) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669b(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: ‘There shall not be covered into the fund the portion of the tax imposed by such section 4181 that is attributable to any increase in amounts received in the Treasury under such section by reason of the amendments made by section 2 of the Gun Violence Prevention and Safe Communities Act of 2013, as estimated by the Secretary.’.

    (d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to sales after December 31, 2013.

SEC. 3. SPECIAL TAX AND LICENSING RELATING TO FIREARMS.

    (a) Increase in Tax-

      (1) GENERAL RULE- Subsection (a) of section 5801 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986–

        (A) in paragraph (1) by striking ‘$1,000’ and inserting ‘$2,000’, and

        (B) in paragraph (2) by striking ‘$500’ and inserting ‘50 percent of the dollar amount applicable under paragraph (1) for the taxable year’.

      (2) SMALL IMPORTERS AND MANUFACTURERS- Paragraph (1) of section 5801(b) of such Code is amended by striking ‘substituting ‘$500’ for ‘$1,000’ and inserting ‘substituting ‘50 percent of the dollar amount applicable under such paragraph for the taxable year’ for ‘$2,000’.

      (3) ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION- Section 5801 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

    ‘(c) Adjustment for Inflation- In the case of any taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 2014, the dollar amount in subsection (a)(1) shall be increased by an amount equal to–

      ‘(1) such dollar amount, multiplied by

      ‘(2) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, determined by substituting ‘calendar year 2013’ for ‘calendar year 1992’ in subparagraph (B) thereof.

    If any increase under paragraph (1) is not a multiple of $10, such increase shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $10.’.

    (b) Increase in Transfer Tax on Firearms-

      (1) IN GENERAL- Subsection (a) of section 5811 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended–

        (A) by striking ‘$200’ and inserting ‘$500’, and

        (B) by striking ‘$5’ and inserting ‘$100’.

      (2) ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION- Section 5811 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

    ‘(d) Adjustment for Inflation- In the case of any taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 2014, each dollar amount in subsection (a) shall be increased by an amount equal to–

      ‘(1) such dollar amount, multiplied by

      ‘(2) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, determined by substituting ‘calendar year 2013’ for ‘calendar year 1992’ in subparagraph (B) thereof.

    If any increase under paragraph (1) is not a multiple of $5, such increase shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $5.’.

    (c) Certain Semiautomatic Pistols Chambered for Cartridges Treated as Firearms- The first sentence of section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended–

      (1) by striking ‘and’ before ‘(8)’,

      (2) by striking ‘device.’ and inserting ‘device, and’, and

      (3) by adding at the end the following: ‘(9) a semiautomatic pistol chambered for cartridges commonly considered rifle rounds, configured with receivers commonly associated with rifles and capable of accepting detachable magazines.’.

    (d) Effective Dates-

      (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided by paragraph (2), the amendments made by this section shall take effect on July 1, 2014.

      (2) TRANSFER TAX- The amendment made by subsection (b) shall apply to transfers after December 31, 2013.

      (3) ALL TAXPAYERS TREATED AS COMMENCING IN BUSINESS ON JULY 1, 2014- Any person engaged on July 1, 2014, in any trade or business which is subject to an occupational tax by reason of the amendment made by subsection (b) shall be treated for purposes of such tax as having first engaged in a trade or business on such date.

Hillary Makes Huge 2016 Blunder, Bashes America, Says Our TV Should Be More Like Al Jazeera

 

08/22/13

.

No doubt that American mainstream media has turned to *#%. But Hillary goes so far as to say Al Jazeera is the real news.

From ABC News:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made it clear today that she is worried the United States is losing what she calls the “information war” abroad.

China and Russia, she says, have started English-language networks that push their message overseas and even the Taliban controls the airwaves in Afghanistan.

And in the Arab world? Al Jazeera is king, and Clinton says she can see why.

“Al Jazeera has been the leader in that are literally changing people’s minds and attitudes. And like it or hate it, it is really effective,” she said.

“In fact viewership of al Jazeera is going up in the United States because it’s real news. You may not agree with it, but you feel like you’re getting real news around the clock instead of a million commercials and, you know, arguments between talking heads and the kind of stuff that we do on our news which, you know, is not particularly informative to us, let alone foreigners,” she added.

I guess this means Hillary wants to see American news be more like Al Jazeera than say, Glenn Beck TV. Hmmmm.

How close is this Administration to the Muslim Brotherhood!

On Wednesday evening, GBTV unveiled a powerful documentary, “Rumors of War III,” exposing how radical Islamists, including the Muslim Brotherhood, are infiltrating American government at its highest levels. Above is a video clip from the program outlining some of the key players involved.

The following is an overview of each of the Islamist figures who have found their place — in some way, shape or form — at the Obama administration’s table.

(Related: Want to Know More About the Islamist Group Exposed in Rumors of War III?)

Want to Know Just How Close the Muslim Brotherhood Is to the Obama Admin?Arif Alikahn, Former Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Policy Development: Now a Distinguished Visiting Professor of DHS and Counterterrorism at the National Defense University, Alikahn also served as Deputy Mayor for Public Safety for the City of Los Angeles where he reportedly derailed the LAPD’s efforts to monitor the city’s Muslim community — particularly its radical mosques and madrassas where certain 9/11 hijackers were said to have received support. He is affiliated with MPAC, which has called the terrorist group Hezbollah a “liberation movement.”

Salam al-Marayati, Founder and Executive Director of Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC)Want to Know Just How Close the Muslim Brotherhood Is to the Obama Admin?: Marayati is an Iraqi immigrant who drew national attention over a decade ago when then-House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt nominated him to serve on the National Commission on Terrorism. Backlash over al-Marayati’s defense of Hezbollah and other Islamic groups prompted a withdrawal of the nomination. The Center for Security Policy reports that MPAC was formed in 1986 as the Political Action Committee for the Islamic Center for Southern California, one of the largest Wahhabi mosques in the country. While MPAC later fractioned-off, one of the founders of the Islamic Center, Hassan Hathout, was a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood who also spent time in Egyptian prison.

<a href=”http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/prnd/prn-theblaze;prntype=web;prngenre=conservative_talk;prnpage=interior;pos=bottom;sz=300×250;u=prntype*web!prngenre*conservative_talk!prnpage*interior!pos*bottom!sz*300×250;ord=123456789?&#8221; target=”_blank”><img src=”http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/prnd/prn-theblaze;prntype=web;prngenre=conservative_talk;prnpage=interior;pos=bottom;sz=300×250;u=prntype*web!prngenre*conservative_talk!prnpage*interior!pos*bottom!sz*300×250;ord=123456789?&#8221; border=”0″ alt=”” /></a>

Mohamed Elibiary, Homeland Security Advisory Committee MemberWant to Know Just How Close the Muslim Brotherhood Is to the Obama Admin?: He is the former president of the Freedom and Justice Foundation, which was billed to ”promote a Centrist Public Policy environment in Texas by coordinating the state level government and interfaith community relations for the organized Texas Muslim community.” He spoke at a 2004 conference in Dallas praising the “Great Islamic Visionary” Ayatollah Khomeini. Most recently he is famous for leaking highly sensitive intelligence documents to a media outlet in Texas.

Want to Know Just How Close the Muslim Brotherhood Is to the Obama Admin?Rashad Hussain, State Department Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation: The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report uncovered that Hussain spoke at a conference sponsored by the Muslim Brotherhood affiliate, the Association of Muslim Social Scientists. An internal Brotherhood document dubbed the Social Scientists as one of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” Hussain also spoke at the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding of Georgetown University, which reportedly receives Saudi funding and is directed by Muslim Brotherhood advocate, John Esposito. In 2004, Hussain also participated in the Muslim Students Association’s annual conference, a group founded by the Muslim Brotherhood and known as one of its front-groups. The report also asserts that many of the Student Associations’ nearly 600 college chapters “have engaged in extremism and the group closely collaborates with the other Brotherhood fronts.”

Other Brotherhood sympathizers involved in the administration but who tend to travel beneath the radar include:

Want to Know Just How Close the Muslim Brotherhood Is to the Obama Admin?

Imam Mohamed Magid, Homeland Security Countering Violent Extremism Working Group Member : He is a Sudanese-born president for the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) with alleged ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. ISNA’s parent is the Muslim Student Association. ISNA completed a $21 million headquarters in Indianapolis using funds raised in part from Muslim Brotherhood.

Want to Know Just How Close the Muslim Brotherhood Is to the Obama Admin?

Eboo Patel, Obama Administration Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships: Patel spoke at a Muslim Students Association and ISNA convention, appearing on a panel alongside Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the Muslim Brotherhood’s founder, and Siraj Wahhaj, who was named as a possible co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and has defended the convicted WTC bombers. Wahhaj allegedly advocates the Islamic takeover of America.

Want to Know Just How Close the Muslim Brotherhood Is to the Obama Admin?

Huma Abedin, Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: Perhaps most famous for being wife of the disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner, Huma Abedin appears to have family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. In an interview with FrontPageMag, anti-Islamist author Walid Shoebat explained that Huma’s mother, Saleha Abedin, is involved with the Muslim Brotherhood and that Huma’s brother, Hassan, sits in on the board of the Oxford Centre For Islamic Studies (OCIS) where he is a fellow and partners with other board members including “Al-Qaeda associate, Omar Naseef and the notorious Muslim Brotherhood leader Sheikh Youssef Qaradawi; both have been listed as OCIS Trustees.”

A Homeland Security Chief In Bed With Islamists?

Posted 07/30/2013

Jackson-Lee: Voice of reason? AP View Enlarged Image
Cabinet: Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee reportedly is vying to replace Janet Napolitano as Homeland Security secretary. It would be hard to find a choice worse than the gonzo Houston Democrat.
Jackson-Lee has the backing of the Congressional Black Caucus, which has been aggressively lobbying President Obama to diversify his Cabinet.
Given Obama’s radical second-term picks — from Thomas Perez to Mel Watt — we can’t be sure he’ll pass on the recommendation, nutty as it is.
According to the Houston Chronicle, the head of the Black Caucus last week in a letter to Obama praised Jackson-Lee as a “voice of reason” for Homeland Security, giving a whole new meaning to “reason.”
Jackson-Lee’s outrageous remarks over the years — including her comment that welfare entitlements are “earned,” and famously asking where she could find photos of our flag planted on Mars — have made her a laughingstock.
Still, the letter asserts, “Rep. Jackson-Lee would serve as an effective DHS secretary because she understands the importance of increasing border security and maintaining homeland security.”
Yes, Jackson-Lee currently serves on a homeland security subcommittee. But she’s never run any organization, certainly not one as big and critical as DHS.
And Jackson-Lee actually voted against the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which created the DHS.
More concerning is Jackson-Lee’s free association with people DHS is supposed to protect us from. She’s in the pocket of Islamist groups who support terrorism.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, she is among the top 10 recipients of Arab-Muslim cash and has helped unindicted terrorist co-conspirators raise cash.
At one annual fundraiser for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, she presented the terror-tied group with a congressional recognition award — even though the FBI has banned the group from outreach meetings.
“How proud I am to have been associated with CAIR’s legislative work,” she said at a 2007 CAIR event. “We need CAIR and we need all of you supporting CAIR.”
That same year, she placed at least one CAIR worker in her office, according to “Muslim Mafia.”
This isn’t someone who should be running an agency dedicated to protecting us from Islamic terrorists.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor…amist-ties.htm

In Support of Edward Snowden

As any skilled technician (Systems Administrator, Systems Programmer) knows they have total control and access to the system and all levels of security (In most facilities, at least in all the ones I have worked at) This total access DOES give them the ability to do just about anything that someone else can do, usually it is needed so these highly skilled people can evaluate and debug the systems. From firsthand experience of working with a BIG Phone provider we know we collect data from phone companies thru a company’s “Raw Call Data” from the switches installed at company owned sites. In the case of cell phones it would data from cell towers passed thru to the central sites for processing. This data contains “Metadata”, this is usually data in highly compacted format that can contain; caller ID, caller’s ESN of a mobile number, calling number, GPS position of originating caller, roaming location, call duration, calling number GPS location when call is connected, call duration as well as many other items in this “Metadata”.

Phone companies process this “Raw Call Data” through various billing programs while preparing billing statements. This now becomes the company’s “Billing Record Data” that IS kept for year’s offline and is required for audits and legal access by law enforcement purposes.

We have known for years that phone companies have “Hubs” around the country where access has been granted to the federal government to install “Line filters & scanners” that scan ALL data that is going thru any hub for certain so called “Security Risk wording” this is nothing new and has been around now for years here in America. The thought that “Only” calls “Outside” America are looked at is crazy, all data is scanned and filtered by these hub locations in the network.

Now with the new home appliances that are “Smart Appliances” & connected to your home network that connects to the Internet it is possible that some appliances like the new smart TV’s that are voice and visually operated could be hacked into and remotely be turned into a surveillance device without your knowledge, also some smart phones can also be turned on remotely even if powered off and be used as a remote microphone or video monitor. Think about what we have today, smart phones that can access our devices at our homes while we are away, a good hacker can also access these devices and break your encryption if there is any.

Also if a “Sane” person thinks a little and thinks that his or her “Text” messages do not get filtered they would be in for a shock, that same data “SMS Data” passes thru all switches also!

Just because the large companies like Verizon, Google, Facebook are saying that they have “No Direct Links to NSA” DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS NOT A INDIRECT LINK! Remember this; the detail is in how these companies word the responses to avoid being caught in the web of misleading all of us and to forgo legal matters with confidential agreements made with this government and its agencies and bills that provide legal protection for them. Any response that includes “Authority “ in a response must be challenged by do you or your agency have the “ABILITY” because technically we know that systems people DO have the ability!

This is not made up information, talk to engineers who work on switches, talk to systems administrators; look at what Metadata has in its format.

IRS SUPERVISOR ADMITS PERSONALLY HANDLING DOZENS OF TEA PARTY CASES


by TONY LEE 16 Jun 2013
An IRS supervisor who oversaw over 200 agents in the Cincinnati office admitted that she personally reviewed applications from conservative and Tea Party groups for tax-exempt status. Her statements contradict assertions by other IRS officials that “rogue” agents were solely responsible for the targeting.
The Associated Press reports that Holly Paz (pictured), “a top deputy in the division that handles applications for tax-exempt status,” told congressional investigators that she personally reviewed “20 to 30 applications.”
According to ABC affiliate WCPO, Paz worked at the Cincinnati office as a manager while the “systematic scrutiny of conservative groups” occurred but now serves as “the director of the office rulings and agreements for the IRS in Washington, D.C.”
Paz is a registered Democrat who donated $4,000 to the Obama campaign in 2008 and is currently on administrative leave, according to her lawyer.
IRS officials have insisted that “rogue” agents in the Cincinnati office were responsible for the targeting, even though workers in the office like Elizabeth Hofacre have insisted there were so many checks in place that it was virtually impossible for them to “go off the reservation.”
Paz seems to have confirmed Hofacre’s objections, telling investigators that “Tea Party” applications were forwarded to her from Cincinnati, and she then sent those applications to legal experts in D.C. She also admitted “dozens of tea party applications sat untouched for more than a year while field agents waited for guidance from Washington on how to handle them.”
Paz reportedly told investigators last month that she thought “Tea Party” was shorthand for all political groups, since the first case she reviewed in D.C. in 2010 happened to be a Tea Party case. According to USA Today, Paz told investigators that she thought “Tea Party” could refer to a liberal or conservative organization, just like “‘Coke’ is used as a generic term for soda” and people “refer to tissues as ‘Kleenex.'”
Yet Hofacre, the paper notes, “told investigators that she kicked out any progressive groups that other agents tried to put in with the Tea Party cases” and “understood the term to mean conservative or Republican groups.”
“I was tasked to do Tea Parties, and I wasn’t — I wasn’t equipped or set up to do anything else,” she reportedly told investigators. USA Today also found that IRS data showed “dozens of liberal groups received tax-exempt approval in the 27 months that Tea Party groups sat in limbo, even though the liberal groups were engaging in similar kids of activity.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/16/IRS-Supervisor-in-DC-Obama-Donor-Reviewed-Tea-Party-Applications