Where is the indignation?

[martinbsmithjr]

All we needed for proof of these so called mainstreamers being in the bag for Obama and the whole left wing agenda we now have.

[martinbsmithjr]

Sen. John Kerry skips town on sails tax

By Gayle Fee and Laura Raposa
Friday, July 23, 2010

Sen. John Kerry, who has repeatedly voted to raise taxes while in Congress, dodged a whopping six-figure state tax bill on his new multimillion-dollar yacht by mooring her in Newport, R.I.

Isabel - Kerry’s luxe, 76-foot New Zealand-built Friendship sloop with an Edwardian-style, glossy varnished teak interior, two VIP main cabins and a pilothouse fitted with a wet bar and cold wine storage - was designed by Rhode Island boat designer Ted Fontaine.

But instead of berthing the vessel in Nantucket, where the senator summers with the missus, Teresa Heinz, Isabel’s hailing port is listed as “Newport” on her stern.


Could the reason be that the Ocean State repealed its Boat Sales and Use Tax back in 1993, making the tiny state to the south a haven - like the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and Nassau - for tax-skirting luxury yacht owners?

Cash-strapped Massachusetts still collects a 6.25 percent sales tax and an annual excise tax on yachts. Sources say Isabel sold for something in the neighborhood of $7 million, meaning Kerry saved approximately $437,500 in sales tax and an annual excise tax of about $70,000.

The senior senator’s chief of staff David Wade denied the old salt was berthing his boat out of state to avoid ponying up to the commonwealth.

“The boat was designed by and purchased from a company in Rhode Island, and it’s based in Newport at the Newport Shipyard for long-term maintenance, upkeep and charter purposes, not tax reasons,” Wade told the Track.

And state Department of Revenue spokesguy Bob Bliss confirmed the senator “is under no obligation to pay the commonwealth sales tax.”

But back in 2006, then-gubernatorial candidate Christy Mihos took some flack for avoiding some $23,000 in Bay State sales tax and $1,320 in local excise taxes by berthing his motor yacht in Rhode Island. But Mihos paid just $475,000 for his 36-foot vessel Ashley and readily admitted that he used the boat at his West Yarmouth summer home.

However, according to Bliss, if Kerry berths the Isabel in Massachusetts waters within six months of purchasing the boat, there’s a “presumption of use” and the Heinz-Kerrys would have to walk the plank and pony up to the Bay State. After six months, should the boat change its berth to, say, Nantucket, then it’s up to the state to go after them for the taxes, Bliss added.

Yesterday, the Isabel, which lists Great Point LLC of Pittsburgh, Penn., as its owner, was getting a spruce-up at the Hinckley shipyard in Portsmouth, R.I. Sources say the senior senator is demanding that some warranty work be done.

Fontaine, a protege of legendary sailboat designer Ted Hood, was tight-lipped about the owners of Isabel but he did confirm the boat was built in New Zealand. According to Internet reports, Kerry was seen in Whangarei last December inspecting his new high-seas plaything.

[clover]

Now we find how so called main stream journalists plotted against Sarah Palin as soon as she was picked for VP.   

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/22/when-mccain-picked-palin-liberal-journalists-coordinated-the-best-line-of-attack/ 

"
But in many other exchanges, the Journolisters clearly had another, more partisan goal in mind: to formulate the most effective talking points in order to defeat Palin and McCain and help elect Barack Obama president. The tone was more campaign headquarters than newsroom.

The conversation began with a debate over how best to attack Sarah Palin. “Honestly, this pick reeks of desperation,” wrote Michael Cohen of the New America Foundation in the minutes after the news became public. “How can anyone logically argue that Sarah Pallin [sic], a one-term governor of Alaska, is qualified to be President of the United States? Train wreck, thy name is Sarah Pallin.”

Not a wise argument, responded Jonathan Stein, a reporter for Mother Jones. If McCain were asked about Palin’s inexperience, he could simply point to then candidate Barack Obama’s similarly thin resume. “Q: Sen. McCain, given Gov. Palin’s paltry experience, how is she qualified to be commander in chief?,” Stein asked hypothetically. “A: Well, she has much experience as the Democratic nominee.”



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/22/when-mccain-picked-palin-liberal-journalists-coordinated-the-best-line-of-attack/#ixzz0uPIScMxu

By Greg Sargent

Tucker Carlson: We will not publish full J-List emails
I just got done exchanging emails with Tucker Carlson, the editor in chief of the Daily Caller, and he confirms to me that the publication will not start publishing the full emails of Journolist members. This would have allowed readers to evaluate the full context and significance of these emails for themselves.

Liberal bloggers who have seen snippets of their emails published by the Daily Caller had challenged Carlson to publish full email chains rather than cherry-picked fragments out of context. But the Daily Caller isn't going to, and Carlson tells me he will explain why in an online posting tonight.

In case you haven't been following this flap, the Daily Caller has done a series of stories that purport to catch J-List members in all manner of consipracy. There's one alleging that J-List members coordinated the best line of attack on Sarah Palin; another alleging they plotted to close down Fox News; and so on.

But as Matthew Yglesias, Ezra Klein and others have been pointing out, these stories are highly misleading and based on very selective publication of J-List emails. And indeed, it's really hard to grasp the justification for not publishing fuller chains, particularly since the Daily Caller apparently views these emails as so newsworthy. Perhaps publishing them would make it tougher to paint J-Listers as a secretive and omnipotent political cabal, rather than just a bunch of geeks and eggheads venting and arguing about politics.

Carlson doesn't want to be exposed as Breitbart was!!!!!

So much for conspiracy

[martinbsmithjr]

Eleven years ago, like every citizen elected to serve in Congress or any person appointed to any federal position, I swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic."
I've always thought it significant that the Founders included domestic enemies in that oath of office. They thought liberty was as much at risk from threats within our borders as from outside, and French political thinker and historian Alexis de Tocqueville agreed with that warning.
In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the greatest threat to our nation was clear - and foreign. While Islamic terrorism still represents the greatest external threat to America and American lives, the avowed program of the Obama regime has changed the picture in a fundamental way.
For the first time in American history, we have a man in the White House who consciously and brazenly disregards his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. That's why I say the greatest threat to our Constitution, our safety and our liberties, is internal. Our president is an enemy of our Constitution, and, as such, he is a danger to our safety, our security and our personal freedoms.
Barack Obama is one of the most powerful presidents this nation has seen in generations. He is powerful because he is supported by large majorities in Congress, but, more importantly, because he does not feel constrained by the rule of law. Whether he is putting up the weakest possible defense of the Defense of Marriage Act despite the Justice Department's legal obligation to support existing law; disenfranchising Chrysler and GM bondholders in order to transfer billions of investor dollars to his supporters in the United Auto Workers; or implementing yet a third offshore oil-drilling moratorium even after two federal courts have thrown out two previous moratoriums, President Obama is determined to see things done his way regardless of obstacles. To Mr. Obama, the rule of law is a mere inconvenience to be ignored, overcome or "transcended" through international agreements or "norms."
Mr. Obama's paramount goal, as he so memorably put it during his campaign in 2008, is to "fundamentally transform America." He has not proposed improving America - he is intent on changing its most essential character. The words he has chosen to describe his goals are neither the words nor the motivation of just any liberal Democratic politician. This is the utopian, or rather dystopian, reverie of a dedicated Marxist - a dedicated Marxist who lives in the White House.
Because of the power he wields over budgets, the judiciary, national defense and even health care, his regime and his program are not just about changing public policy in the conventional sense. When one considers the combination of his stop-at-nothing attitude, his contempt for limited government, his appointment of judges who want to create law rather than interpret it - all of these make this president today's single greatest threat to the great experiment in freedom that is our republic.
Yes, Mr. Obama is a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda. We know that Osama bin Laden and followers want to kill us, but at least they are an outside force against whom we can offer our best defense. But when a dedicated enemy of the Constitution is working from the inside, we face a far more dangerous threat. Mr. Obama can accomplish with the stroke of his pen what bin Laden cannot accomplish with bombs and insurgents.
Mr. Obama's actions, not just his words, show the threat he poses. A level of government deficit spending unheard of since World War II and trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see represent an unacceptable threat to our economic security and our children's future. Mr. Obama could be the first president to guarantee that the next generation of Americans has a lower standard of living than their parents.
Mr. Obama's most egregious and brazen betrayal of our Constitution was his statement to Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, that the administration will not enforce security on our southern border because that would remove Republicans' desire to negotiate a "comprehensive" immigration bill. That is, to put it plainly, a decision that by any reasonable standard constitutes an impeachable offense against the Constitution. For partisan political advantage, he is willfully disregarding his obligation under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution to protect states from foreign invasion.

There is no higher duty of the federal government and our elected representatives than to protect our nation from invasion. Multiple reports and testimony before Congress by U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officials have stated that a porous border with Mexico is "a path" terrorists will use if they can. Some would-be terrorists, including at least one associated with Hezbollah, already have. Recent reports of contacts between Hezbollah and Mexican drug cartels make it all but certain that terrorists intent on destroying us will come across our southwestern border. Therefore, it is of utmost importance for the administration to do everything in its power to keep Americans safe. Our safety is not a bargaining chip for another amnesty - or for any other political objective whatsoever.
Mr. Obama's refusal to live up to his own oath of office - which includes the duty to defend the United States against foreign invasion - requires senators and representatives to live up to their oaths. Members of Congress must defend our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Today, that means bringing impeachment charges against Mr. Obama.
Tom Tancredo is a former member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and five-term member of Congress from Colorado. He serves as chairman of the Rocky Mountain Foundation.

[clover]

Hint:  If you didn't write that tell us who did....and if you're real kind...where you got the article.


Poor Tom
A song from the rest of us
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak8suW-JBzE

[martinbsmithjr]

Something got lost in the cut and paste. It is Tom Tancredo who is referred to at the bottom and it was in the Wasington Times. Just couldn't figure out how to copy it correctly because it was on two pages and some of the banners were getting in the way.

[ragman]

That's my Congressman, god help us....

Rep. Barney Frank causes scene demanding discount
Last Updated: 1:54 AM, July 27, 2010

Posted: 12:38 AM, July 27, 2010

Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank caused a scene when he demanded a $1 senior discount on his ferry fare to Fire Island's popular gay haunt, The Pines, last Friday. Frank was turned down by ticket clerks at the dock in Sayville because he didn't have the required Suffolk County Senior Citizens ID. A witness reports, "Frank made such a drama over the senior rate that I contemplated offering him the dollar to cool down the situation." Frank made news last year when he was spotted looking uncomfortable around a bevy of topless, well-built men at the Pines Annual Ascension Beach Party. Frank's spokesperson confirmed to Page Six that his partner, James Ready, asked the ticket office for a regular ticket for himself and a senior ticket for Frank, "but was turned down because Frank didn't have a resident ID."

[azbob]

Jim, it just amazes me how idiots keep getting elected.  I just don't understand it, but we all seem to have one or two we can say that about! 

[ragman]

Bob, Can you imagine the mentality of a Congressman who may not be rich but isn't exactly poor making a scene over a $1 discount.     I wish he would be more fugal with my money.    Oh, that is different.

[clover]

A little Indian fable about politicians:

The little boy was walking down a path and he came across a rattlesnake. The rattlesnake was getting old. He asked, "Please little boy, can you take me to the top of the mountain? I hope to see the sunset one last time before I die." The little boy answered "No Mr. Rattlesnake. If I pick you up, you'll bite me and I'll die." The rattlesnake said, "No, I promise. I won't bite you. Just please take me up to the mountain." The little boy thought about it and finally picked up that rattlesnake and took it close to his chest and carried it up to the top of the mountain.

They sat there and watched the sunset together. It was so beautiful. Then after sunset the rattlesnake turned to the little boy and asked, "Can I go home now? I am tired, and I am old." The little boy picked up the rattlesnake and again took it to his chest and held it tightly and safely. He came all the way down the mountain holding the snake carefully and took it to his home to give him some food and a place to sleep. The next day the rattlesnake turned to the boy and asked, "Please little boy, will you take me back to my home now? It is time for me to leave this world, and I would like to be at my home now." The little boy felt he had been safe all this time and the snake had kept his word, so he would take it home as asked.

He carefully picked up the snake, took it close to his chest, and carried him back to the woods, to his home to die. Just before he laid the rattlesnake down, the rattlesnake turned and bit him in the chest. The little boy cried out and threw the snake upon the ground. "Mr. Snake, why did you do that? Now I will surely die!" The rattlesnake looked up at him and grinned, "You knew what I was when you picked me up."

[ragman]

The Naivete of the American Public and Barack Obamaby Andrew Mellon
Suddenly the American public is shocked.  Perhaps there is no economic recovery.  Perhaps the One really does favor Islam.

Democrats and Republicans shake their heads and wonder, how could our President pursue such divisive and unpopular policies?  What is the rationale for his decisions?  Is he incompetent?  Is he naive?

The answer is none of the above.
http://biggovernment.com/amellon/2010/08/25/the-naivete-of-the-american-public-and-barack-obama/

[rykat]

Have you recently viewed msnbc from 4 pm till 10 pm EDT? Tuned in for my weekly visit yesterday just to keep up with the propaganda - Holy shit!  INCREDIBLE!
Difficult to say who is worst but Ed and Kieth are about as vitriolic as humans can be!

[martinbsmithjr]

Olberman is human excrement! And that his good quality!

[ragman]

Can you imagine if a few years ago this was brought up in the Bush administration?    It would be all over every paper in the USA and many of my lefty friends on this board and else wise would be screaming in outrage.    There would be riots in the streets! 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-cybersecurity-bill-gives-obama-power-to-shut-down-companies.html

The implementation of the cybersecurity apparatus would represent another huge expansion of the federal government, creating an Office of Cyber Policy within the executive branch and also “A new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) within the Department of Homeland Security, led by a separate director who would enforce cybersecurity policies throughout the government and the private sector.”

Lawmakers have indicated that they intend to push through the bill before the end of the year, though with Congress set to leave Friday amidst deadlock on a number of issues, cybersecurity looks like it will have to wait until mid-November, providing its opponents with extra time to point out the inherent threats the legislation poses to free speech and free enterprise

[clover]

In the working draft, critical infrastructure such as financial networks, electrical providers and the petroleum industry would be alerted if the federal government learns of a threat and told how best to protect themselves. For example, they may be told to block all Internet traffic from China or Romania.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6885MF20100909

Aside from the fact that this bill was brought by Lieberman and Snowe........not a Democrat, does not dissuade those rabble rousers from finding any reason to say "no" as long as Obama lives in the White House.

First of all we wouldn't have the Department of Homeland Security without your buddy

We wouldn't have the Patriot Act without your buddy

And we wouldn't have this great verbalization of the relevance of the Constitutuion without your buddy

Imagine what the right wing would say if Obama had said this.  There would be riots in the streets

http://www.rense.com/general69/paper.htm