Obama took credit for dismantling the Taliban. Reality bites

U.S. Consulate in Benghazi Bombed Twice in Run-Up to 9/11 Anniversary

Oct 2, 2012 4:45 AM EDT

Jihadists twice set off explosives at the consulate prior to the incident that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, and announced threats on Facebook about escalating attacks on Western targets in the run-up to the 9/11 anniversary, according to whistleblowers reaching out to House Republicans.

Militant Link to Libya Attack

U.S. Tracks Egyptian Operative Freed From Prison in Wake of Arab Spring

HOUSE COMMITTEE: SECURITY REQUESTS DENIED IN LIBYA

The polls drive the news rather then reflecting reality

A pollster under oath

Making the incomprehensible more incomprehensible

Property Owners Face a New Surtax

The housing market may indeed be recovering, as many experts suggest, but investors are still struggling to understand what, if any, taxes they'll owe upon selling their homes.

At issue is how the new "Medicare tax" will apply to real-estate transactions.

Passed in 2010 to help fund the health-care overhaul, this 3.8% surtax kicks in next year on many forms of investment income—including some interest, dividends, rents and capital gains.

While its effect on home sales won't be as far-reaching as many fear, the Medicare tax could pack a punch for certain investors. It is not a sales tax. And it won't apply to home-sale gains excluded from income under current law. But it could affect investors with outsize gains or gains from the sale of a vacation home or investment property.

Determining whether you will be subject to the tax is no easy matter.

"The confusion lies in the fact that it's not a yes or a no," says Melissa Labant, director of tax for the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. "It's a sometimes or a maybe."

"We're waiting for guidance from the IRS on a lot of specific issues," she adds. "We don't have all of the answers yet."

Here's what we do know:

Enlarge Image

Sean Kelly

The new tax will hit individuals with more than $200,000 in adjusted gross income, and married couples with adjusted gross income above $250,000 ($125,000 for married taxpayers filing separately). These thresholds are not indexed for inflation, so more people may be affected over time.

Specifically, the tax will apply to either your net investment income or the amount that your adjusted gross income exceeds the threshold—whichever is less.

Moreover, any gain from the sale of a principal residence that is less than $250,000 (for individuals) or $500,000 (for married taxpayers filing jointly) will continue to be excluded from income, and anything that's excluded for income-tax purposes also is excluded for Medicare-tax purposes.

So, the Medicare tax will apply primarily to higher-income earners who realize gains that aren't sheltered by the exclusion amounts.

The National Association of Realtors provides these examples:

Primary residence

Say a married couple gets lucky and sells their principal residence for a $530,000 profit. Their taxable gain would be $30,000 ($530,000 minus $500,000). If their adjusted gross income, including the gain, is $180,000, they won't owe any surtax because their income falls under the $250,000 threshold.

If their adjusted gross income is $290,000, however, the surtax will be assessed on the $30,000 gain, because that is less than the $40,000 that their income exceeds the threshold ($290,000 minus $250,000).

What if their taxable gain on the sale of the house is $50,000? The surtax will be assessed on the $40,000 excess above the threshold, because $40,000 is less than $50,000.

Vacation home

Now say a couple has adjusted gross income of $225,000, before a $60,000 gain from the sale of a vacation home. Since the gain does not qualify for the income-tax exclusion (because it isn't from the sale of their principal residence), it pushes their adjusted gross income to $285,000, or $35,000 above the threshold.

"That's going to be a big one," says Ms. Labant of the impact of the Medicare tax on sales of vacation homes.

In this case, the surtax will apply to the couple's $35,000 "excess" income, since $35,000 is less than $60,000.

If the couple rents out the house for 14 or fewer days in a year, the rental income isn't taxable and, therefore, should not be subject to the surtax. But any gain from a sale could be.

If they rent it for more than 14 days, the rental income (minus expenses) is generally taxable and could be subject to the surtax, as could any sale profit.

Investment property

If the vacation home is solely a rental property, it is treated as an investment property for tax purposes. Here the rules for applying the Medicare tax are even more complex and somewhat unsettled.

In general, someone with a day job who collects rents on the side must include that income (net of expenses) in investment income, potentially subjecting it to the surtax, while someone whose sole occupation involves owning and operating real estate typically would not be subject to the tax. In either case, any profits from a sale could get hit with the surtax.

If you're planning to sell rental real estate or other investment property, run, don't walk, to a trusted tax expert.

Fast and Furious

Univision: Juarez drug cartel leader ‘El Diego’ was captured with Fast and Furious weapons

Foreign aid: still trying to buy friends

Obama Increased Foreign Aid 80%; Spent 76% More on Foreign Aid Than Border Security

(CNSNews.com) - From fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2011, according to the U.S. Treasury, the federal government increased spending on foreign aid by 80 percent and, in fiscal 2011, spent 76 percent more on foreign aid than it did securing the borders of the United States.

In fiscal 2008, the government spent a total of $11.427 billion in international assistance programs, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement. In fiscal 2011, according to the statement, it spent $20.599 billion—an increase of $9.172 billion, or 80 percent, from 2008.

Prior to President Obama taking office, international assistance spending had been trending down for three years, according to the Treasury. In fiscal 2005, it was $14.787 billion. In fiscal 2006, it dropped to $13.914 billion. In fiscal 2007, it dropped again to $12.764 billion. And, in fiscal 2008, it dropped yet again to $11.427 billion.

Since 2008, international assistance spending has increased each year. In fiscal 2009, it climbed to $14.827 billion. In fiscal 2010, it jumped to $20.038 billion. And, in fiscal 2011, it climbed again to $20.599 billion.

By the end of August, after the first eleven months of fiscal 2012, the federal government had already spent $20.058 on foreign aid in that fiscal year. That was well ahead of the $18.439 billion the federal government had spent on foreign aid through August of last year.  The Treasury has not yet published the final amount that was spent on foreign aid in fiscal 2012, which ended on Sunday.

While foreign aid spending has climbed over the past four years, spending on border security peaked in fiscal 2009 and has since declined. In fiscal 2008, the federal government spent $9.984 billion on customs and border protection, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement. In fiscal 2009, that increased to $12.122 billion. But, in fiscal 2010, that dropped to $11.376 billion. In fiscal 2011, it increased slightly to $11.698 billion—still less than the $12.122 billion spent on customs and border protection in fiscal 2009.

Through August of fiscal 2012, spending on customs and border protection was $11.259 billion, ahead of the $10.656 billion on customs and border protection spent through August of fiscal 2011.

The $20.599 billion spent on foreign aid last year was 76 percent more than the $11.698 billion spent on customs and border protection.

Included, among other things, in the $20.599 billion spent on foreign aid last year, according to the Treasury, was $5.717 billion for the Economic Support Fund, $5.322 billion for the Foreign Military Financing Program, $3.177 in multilateral assistance, $4.248 billion for the Agency for International Development (including $1.210 billion in operating expenses for AID), $395 million for the Peace Corps and $125 million for international monetary programs.

The foreign military sales program, which Treasury includes in its accounting of international assistance programs, took in $23.947 billion in fiscal 2011 and paid out $23.947 billion. Thus it had no impact on the net outflow of aid from the United States to foreign interests.

Below in billions of dollars is the annual spending on international assistance and customs and border protection over the past nine fiscal years. (The figures for fiscal 2012 include only the first eleven months of the fiscal year.)

..........................................Foreign Aid...Customs & Border

FY 2012 (first 11 months)..........$20.058          $11.259

FY 2011.....................................$20.599          $11.698

FY 2010.....................................$20.038          $11.376

FY 2009 ....................................$14.827          $12.122

FY 2008 ....................................$11.427          $9.984

FY 2007 ....................................$12.764          $7.948

FY 2006 ....................................$13.914          $7.069

FY 2005 ....................................$14.787          $6.278

FY 2004 ....................................$13.788          $6.660

This from a man who helps the FARC!

Hugo Chavez says rival's campaign gets drug trafficking funds

Your tax dollars squandered by government workers. An Obama appointee

Probe slams VA over $6M conference tab including parody video, official resigns

An Obama administration appointee has resigned in connection with another bombshell report detailing the waste of taxpayer money at feel-good conferences -- this time, at a pair of Veterans Affairs summits in Orlando that cost more than $6 million. 

John Sepulveda, who as assistant secretary for human resources and administration was the agency's top HR official, resigned just as the VA Office of Inspector General released its 150-page report on the conferences, held on his watch in July and August 2011. 

The report said he "abdicated his responsibilities" in overseeing the conferences, leading to "numerous examples of excessive costs, and unnecessary and unsupported expenditures." 

The resignation follows that of General Services Administration chief Martha Johnson, who stepped down following a report on a 2010 Vegas conference for GSA that cost taxpayers more than $800,000. 

The Veterans Affairs conferences were far costlier, with the planning described as "dysfunctional" by the IG report. 

And the IG report included allegations that Sepulveda made a false statement to investigators, and that other VA employees broke federal law and conduct policies by accepting improper gifts from hotels during the selection process. 

The conferences for the department's human resources employees included a litany of expenses covering everything from whimsical videos to karaoke to hors d'oeuvres, including artisan cheese displays. 

One of those expenses, a video parody of the movie "Patton" in which an actor pep-talked the audience about HR "mission imperatives" in the style of the original movie's opening scene, had already drawn lawmakers' attention earlier this year when the nearly $50,000 expense first surfaced. 

The IG report, though, documented another $16,500 video expense for a so-called "Happy Face Video." This was a daily video recap of the prior day's conference events, which according to the report was "improperly authorized." 

The report specifically flagged $762,000 in "unauthorized, unnecessary, and/or wasteful expenses" -- which included the "Patton" video, as well as $43,000 in awards paid to staffers "for their roles in the management of these conferences." 

The IG's office tallied $6.1 million in total costs, though acknowledged the full price tag could be even higher. 

Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, decried what he called a "lack of leadership" and called for accountability. 

"It is blatantly clear that VA does not know how much it spends on conferences," he said. "This sort of funny money accounting must stop, and will no longer be tolerated, especially in today's tight fiscal climate." 

The report further alleged that Sepulveda gave a "false statement" in claiming to investigators that he hadn't seen the Patton video until the first day of the conference. 

"However, several individuals testified that Mr. Sepulveda in fact viewed the videos before the conferences took place," the report said. The IG's office said the Department of Justice declined to prosecute the alleged false statement. 

The VA announced a series of departmental changes in response to the investigation. 

"While the IG report makes clear that 'VA held these conferences to fulfill valid training needs' and 'offered legitimate, substantive training courses at the conferences,' this does not excuse the misconduct of even a few individuals," the department said. "Misuse of taxpayer dollars is completely unacceptable. The actions cited in the report represent serious lapses in oversight, judgment, and stewardship." 

The VA said other employees will have allegations of wrongdoing reviewed for appropriate administrative action. Two employees, the VA said, were placed on administrative leave pending review. 

"Employees who have misused taxpayer dollars or violated VA standards of conduct will be held accountable," the department said. 

The IG report also found 11 department employees in charge of managing the conference "improperly accepted gifts from contractors seeking to do business or already doing business with VA." These ranged from lodging to meals to helicopter rides to massages. 

Further, the report said one unnamed employee tried to get Marriott to give him and his family "additional lodging benefits."

When did it become operational procedure for government workers to go to opulent events? Do they think they are movie stars?

Six million dollars while wounded troops have to beg for adequate treatment. 

Obama and the left: By any means necessary

Is Barack Obama a Compulsive Liar?

By Steve McCann

Barack Obama has lied about the terrorist attack on the American Consulate in Libya for over 15 days, even going so far as to overtly imply that this attack was prompted by an obscure internet movie trailer in his speech at the United Nations two weeks after it was confirmed the White House knew it was an Al Qaeda sponsored attack.   Additionally, during the current campaign the lies and obfuscations about Mitt Romney and the Republicans have been so fast and furious that it is nearly impossible to keep up with them. 
The administration's reaction to what went on in Libya is not a surprise, as reliance on prevarications and the attendant dishonesty is part and parcel of Obama's normal behavior.  There rarely has been a speech or an off the cuff comment since he entered the national stage that does not contain some deliberate or insinuated falsehood.  This tendency is exemplified in his recent interview with Univision wherein Obama lied about why he never introduced immigration reform and when the ill-fated Fast and Furious program was raised, he began blaming the Republicans and George Bush respectively.
There is now a near universal mistrust of Obama among world leaders as well as many members of Congress who candidly admit they cannot deal with Barack Obama, as he has proven himself to be untrustworthy and unbelievable -- particularly as he refuses to accept any responsibility for the outcome of his actions and policies.  The diminished status of the United States around the globe and the greatly eroded standard of living for the vast majority of Americans are testament to these character flaws.
At times even the most diehard of his sycophants in the mainstream media are forced to report on this disturbing trait in their hero.  This past spring the Washington Post ran a lengthy front page article on Obama's machinations during the debt ceiling debate.  The highlight of the piece: Barack Obama deliberately lied to the American people concerning the intransigence of the Republicans in the House of Representatives.   It was an amazing admission for a pillar of the sycophantic mainstream media to write a story claiming that their hero lied.   A further example of the media's awakening to the deceit and fabrications of the Obama administration is the recent reporting on the Libyan scandal which is actively pursuing the lies and cover-up.
However, there has been five years of outright lies and narcissism that have been largely ignored by the media, including some in the conservative press and political class who are loath to call Mr. Obama what he is in the bluntest of terms: a liar and a fraud.  That he relies on his skin color to intimidate, either outright or by insinuation, those who oppose his agenda only adds to his audacity.  It is apparent that he has gotten away with his character flaws his entire life, aided and abetted by the sycophants around him; thus he is who he is and cannot change.
In an earlier column I asked the question is Barack Obama a compulsive liar or a sociopath?   (h)
A Sociopath:

A sociopath is typically defined as someone who lies incessantly to get their way and does so with little concern for others.  A sociopath is often goal-oriented (i.e., lying is focused--it is done to get one's way).  Sociopaths have little regard or respect for the rights and feelings of others.  Sociopaths are often charming and charismatic, but they use their talented social skills in manipulative and self-centered ways.

A compulsive liar:

A compulsive liar is defined as someone who lies out of habit.  Lying is their normal and reflexive way of responding to questions.  Compulsive liars bend the truth about everything, large and small.  For a compulsive liar, telling the truth is very awkward and uncomfortable while lying feels right.  Compulsive lying is usually developed in early childhood, due to being placed in an environment where lying was necessary.

While Barack Obama exhibits traits from both categories, it is becoming increasingly clear that he is primarily a compulsive liar.  How else to explain the lies and obfuscations that so easily come forth regardless of whom he may be talking to or the subject matter.   His sociopathic skills come to the fore in his ability to manipulate others to join him in his these prevarications, or to exploit the celebrity culture that has overwhelmed a deliberately ill-educated American society.
In the United States there is great deference paid to the occupant of the White House.  Justifiably so, as that person is the chief operating officer of the country, but more importantly he or she is the head of state representing the nation around the globe.  The President's actions and demeanor set the tone for not only the political class but the country as a whole.  Over the centuries there have been many exceptional but also a few inept men to hold the office of President.
Today so much power is vested in the Office of President that honor and integrity must be a hallmark of a president's character.  It is not with Barack Obama; he is perhaps the most dishonest and disingenuous occupant of the oval office in history, and has the potential to do more long-term damage to the United States than all his predecessor combined.
His failings can no longer be excused by this historical deference or timidity fostered by race with the euphemisms of spin or politics as usual being used to avoid the truth.  It is extraordinarily difficult to run against someone such as Barack Obama -- a stranger to truth and integrity willing to do anything to win -- but Mitt Romney must do so by candidly admitting who he is dealing with.
While the future of the country depends on dramatically altering the economic and governing landscape, it cannot do so unless the opposition politicians and average citizens recognize and forcefully challenge the lies and machinations of Barack Obama and his allies without fear of what may be said about them or to them by either the Obama machine or their sycophants in the media.

Two socialists? No, two totalitarians

Chavez to Obama: I'd vote for you, and you for me

Sun, Sep 30 2012

* Both men seeking re-election in imminent ballots

* Socialist Chavez has kind words for U.S. leader

* Political ties remain strained despite oil trade

By Helen Murphy

CARACAS, Sept 30 (Reuters) - With both presidents facing tight re-election fights, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez gave a surprise endorsement to Barack Obama on Sunday - and said the U.S. leader no doubt felt the same.

"I hope this doesn't harm Obama, but if I was from the United States, I'd vote for Obama," the socialist Chavez said of a man he first reached out to in 2009 but to whom he has since generally been insulting.

Chavez is running for a new six-year term against opposition challenger Henrique Capriles, while Obama seeks re-election in November against Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Venezuela's election is next weekend.

"Obama is a good guy ... I think that if Obama was from Barlovento or some Caracas neighborhood, he'd vote for Chavez," the president told state TV, referring to a poor coastal town known for the African roots of its population.

Chavez is one of the world's most strident critics of Washington and his 14 years in office have been characterized by diplomatic spats and insults at the White House.

He called former U.S. President George W. Bush a "drunk" and the "devil." After an initial overture to Obama came to nothing, he said the new president had disappointed progressives the world over and was the "shame" of Africans.

But Chavez was back in a conciliatory mood in a TV interview with friend and former vice president Jose Vicente Rangel.

"After our triumph and the supposed, probable triumph of President Obama, with the extreme right defeated here and there, I hope we could start a new period of normal relations with the United States," he said.

"Obama recently said something very rational and fair ... that Venezuela is no threat to the interests of the United States," he added.

Since coming to office, Chavez has projected himself as the head of a global "anti-imperialist" movement inspired by his friend and ideological mentor Fidel Castro of Cuba.

Relations with Washington improved briefly after Obama took office in January 2009 and promised more engagement with Latin America. Chavez toned down his tirades against the "Yankee empire" and shook hands with the new U.S. leader at a summit.

But months later, he accused Obama of sticking to Bush's foreign policies and capitalist agenda, and the tirade against the United Sates began again.

Despite the ideological gulf between Washington and Caracas, both sides take a pragmatic approach when it comes to business, with OPEC member Venezuela remaining the United States' fourth biggest crude supplier.

Follow the link in the headline for a slideshow. Both Obama and Chavez love their cult of the personality roles.

Fast and Furious: more fallout

Univision report connects Operation Fast and Furious scandal to murders of Mexican teenagers

The Spanish language television news network Univision unleashed a bombshell investigative report on Operation Fast and Furious Sunday evening, finding that in January 2010 drug cartel hit men slaughtered students with weapons the United States government allowed to flow to them across the Mexican border.

“On January 30, 2010, a commando of at least 20 hit men parked themselves outside a birthday party of high school and college students in Villas de Salvarcar, Ciudad Juarez,” according to a version of the Univision report in English, on the ABC News website.

“Near midnight, the assassins, later identified as hired guns for the Mexican cartel La Linea, broke into a one-story house and opened fire on a gathering of nearly 60 teenagers. Outside, lookouts gunned down a screaming neighbor and several students who had managed to escape. Fourteen young men and women were killed, and 12 more were wounded before the hit men finally fled.”

Citing a Mexican Army document it obtained and published, Univision reported that “[t]hree of the high caliber weapons fired that night in Villas de Salvarcar were linked to a gun tracing operation run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).”

That operation was Fast and Furious.

The “massacre,” as Univision described it, was not the only bombshell the network unveiled in its Sunday evening report.

“Univision News identified a total of 57 more previously unreported firearms that were bought by straw purchasers monitored by ATF during Operation Fast and Furious, and then recovered in Mexico in sites related to murders, kidnappings, and at least one other massacre,” the Univision report reads.

Watch:

The network also uncovered another Fast and Furious weapons “massacre.” On September 2, 2009, 18 young men were killed at  “El Aliviane, a rehabilitation center in Ciudad Juarez,” according to the report.

Univision found many of these victims through “access to the list of serial numbers for weapons used in Fast and Furious” and the “list of guns seized in Mexico,” according to English subtitles on the Spanish-language video.

“After cross-referencing them both lists, it became clear that a least a hundred of them were used in crimes of all kinds,” the subtitles read. “We found 57 weapons that were not mentioned in [the U.S.] Congress’ investigation.”

Though Univision tracked many more victims down, it said that “the death toll that this free flow of weapons authorized by ATF had in Mexico has not been tallied.”

Univision held nothing back in its broadcast, airing images and video of bloodied, dead bodies. The network showed the faces of the dead and walked viewers through how cartel operatives hunted their victims down with the weapons President Barack Obama’s administration allowed straw buyers to traffick to them.

One photo, for instance, showed pools of blood in the streets of a Mexican town after a “massacre” committed by murderers armed with Fast and Furious weapons. Video footage showed where some of the victims were killed and how the cartels chased their helpless victims to their deaths.

The Univision broadcast implicitly suggested that Americans have no regard for the victims of violence American policy helps fuel — that is, until one of those victims ends up being an American.

It wasn’t until U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry’s murder prompted whistle-blowers to come forward to Congress to publicly voice concerns about ]he program that the Obama administration stopped allowing firearms to flow into Mexico.

One victim’s father, Mexican poet Javier Sicilia, told Univision he thinks “Americans are not often moved by the pain of those outside [their country].”

“But they are moved by the pain of their own,” Sicilia added.

“Well, turn around and watch the massacres.”

Continue to page 2

 http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/01/univision-report-connects-operation-fast-and-furious-scandal-to-murders-of-mexican-teenagers/#ixzz283w00pWx