Visit Counter

Thursday, February 5, 2015

Brian Williams forced to admit he was NOT shot down in the Iraq War:


First Hillary and now Williams

Liberal Déjà vu

Lies...It runs in their blood


Hillary Clinton describing her 1996 Bosnia visit: 

"When we arrived in Bosnia on March 25, 1996, I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

Several news outlets disputed the claim and a video of the trip, showed Clinton walking from the plane, accompanied by her daughter.


They were greeted by a young girl in a small ceremony on the tarmac and there was no sign of tension or any danger.

In 2008 when she was running against Barry she said, "I did make a mistake in talking about it, you know, the last time and recently," Clinton told reporters in Pennsylvania where she was campaigning before the state's April 22 primary. She said she had a "different memory" about the landing.

"So I made a mistake. That happens. It proves I'm human, which, you know, for some people, is a revelation."

My revelation is this. How in the f---could anyone POSSIBLY make a mistake as to whether or not you were shot at?

Congrats to Williams for joining the Liars Club. Can't say I'm surprised.

------------------------------------------------


Brian Williams forced to admit he was NOT shot down in the Iraq War: NBC anchor apologizes after angry soldiers reveal he LIED in Nightly News about 2003 helicopter ambush story



On Friday Brian Williams claimed during a news item that he was aboard a helicopter that was hit during the 2003 invasion of Iraq

Soldiers who were present during the incident have denied that the NBC anchor was anywhere near the aircraft

In fact Williams arrived about an hour later on another helicopter after the crippled craft had made an emergency landing

'Sorry dude, I don't remember you being on my aircraft,' responded one ex-soldier on the Nightly News' Facebook page

Another man, who claimed to be on Williams' aircraft said he had been 'calling him out on this for a long time with no response'

Williams has been quick to deny that he is attempting to 'steal anyone's valor' and has blamed the 'fog of memory over 12 years' for his mistake

He apologized on the air during Wednesday's program and called his mistake a 'bungled attempt' to honor a soldier

This isn't the first time Williams has lied about the incident - in 2013 he told Letterman that he was on one of two helicopters that were hit 

By David Mccormack For Dailymail.com

Published: 17:45 EST, 4 February 2015 | Updated: 06:32 EST, 5 February 2015

NBC news anchor Brian Williams has been forced to admit that he wasn't aboard a helicopter hit and forced down by enemy fire during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The Nightly News anchor has often repeated the war story over the past 12 years about how the aircraft he was on was forced down by enemy fire. 

During a report on Friday, Williams went further and said that the aircraft he was on had actually been hit - a claim that quickly prompted denials from soldiers who were present.

On Wednesday, Williams apologized during his NBC Nightly News bulletin and said that he was 'mistaken'. Later that evening he didn't seem too worried about the furor as he enjoyed a New York Rangers game with his good friend Tom Hanks.










Share/Bookmark

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

The only one missing in this story is Friar Tuck






In new budget, Robin Hood proposing 14 percent tax on overseas profits to fund infrastructure projects







Nothing new here. 
His whole budget is based on taking money from those that do and giving it to those that don’t. This is the same guy who promised to cut the deficit in half during his first term. Based on his own projections (lies) it is now damn near quadruple from what he said he was going to be. And now he wants to spend even more!

Ryan said it best:

"What I think the president is trying to do here is to, again, exploit envy economics," Ryan said. "This top-down redistribution doesn't work."


BTW…if they allow Barry to put a tax on overseas profits how long do you think it would stay at 14%? This is a can of worms better left unopened.


Seriously there’s just no end to the amount of money the government can spend. Let’s start with the WH.


The White House includes: six stories and 55,000 ft² (5,100 m²) of floor space, 132 rooms and 35 bathrooms, 412 doors, 147 windows, twenty-eight fireplaces, eight staircases, three elevators, five full-time chefs, a tennis court, a (single-lane) bowling alley (officially called the Harry S. Truman Bowling Alley), a movie theater (officially called the White House Family Theater), a jogging track, a swimming pool, and a putting green. 


I know, I know...Barry's can't be held accountable for the WH. But just to site an example lets say this administration wanted all new doorknobs in the WH. Do you think they’re going to call Lowes or Home Depot? Of course not. The first thing they’re going to ask is….are these people unionized? Then they would promptly pay 10 times the amount they should have. Now magnify this small-scale example every time the government spends money.

The insidious nature of liberals is truly astounding if not intoxicating to many Americans. They use their own greed against them. ... If you don't have money its because the rich took it from you. You're the causality in all this... It's not your fault... Let us work for you to get it back... 

It works every time.

-----------------------------------------------------------




President Obama will on Monday give Congress his $4 trillion spending plan for fiscal 2016 that includes a request for billions of dollars in much-needed public works projects -- an idea that has bipartisan support but little backing for the proposed tax increases to fund such efforts.

Obama will propose a six-year, $478 billion public-works program for highway, bridge and transit upgrades, with half of it to be financed with a one-time, 14 percent tax on U.S. companies' overseas profits.

The tax would be due immediately. Under current law, those profits are subject only to federal taxes if they are returned, or repatriated, to the U.S., where they face a top rate of 35 percent. Many companies avoid U.S. taxes on those earnings by simply leaving them overseas.

The tax is part of a broader administration plan to cut corporate tax breaks and increase taxes on the country's highest wage-earners to pay for projects to help the middle class.

Members of the GOP-controlled Congress and other fiscal conservatives have dismissed the overall plan since elements of it were announced several weeks ago -- part of a White House strategy to win support prior to the president's State of the Union address, in which more details were released, and a campaign-style tour in several states ahead of Monday's release.

Wisconsin GOP Rep. Paul Ryan, the new chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, told NBC's "Meet the Press," as he has said in recent weeks, that he was willing to work with the administration to see if both sides can "find common ground on certain aspects of tax reform."

However, he disapproved on the president's budget plan.

"What I think the president is trying to do here is to, again, exploit envy economics," Ryan said. "This top-down redistribution doesn't work."

Obama's budget proposal for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 will offer an array of spending programs and tax increases that Republicans now running Congress have already dismissed as nonstarters.

White House officials were not authorized, by name, to discuss the budget, but described the proposal to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity.

The proposal improves on an idea that the administration has pushed since the summer of 2013. The administration's budget last year proposed a smaller four-year bridge-and-highway fund. While it paid for it by taxing accumulated foreign earnings, it did not specify a formula.

This time, the budget will call for the one-time tax on the up to $2 trillion in estimated U.S. corporate earnings that have accumulated overseas. That would generate about $238 billion, by White House calculations. The remaining $240 billion would come from the federal Highway Trust Fund, which is financed with a gasoline tax.

The former chairman of the House Ways and Means, now-retired Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., proposed a similar idea last year with a lower mandatory tax, but the plan did not make headway in Congress.

At issue is how to get companies to bring back some of their foreign earnings to invest in the United States. The current 35 percent top tax rate for corporations in the United States, the highest among major economies, serves as a disincentive and many U.S. companies with overseas holdings simply keep their foreign earnings abroad and avoid the U.S. tax.

Under Obama's plan, the top corporate tax rate for company profits earned in the U.S. would drop to 28 percent. While past foreign profits would be taxed immediately at the 14 percent rate, going forward new foreign profits would be taxed immediately at 19 percent, with companies getting a credit for foreign taxes paid.

Most U.S. companies and Republican lawmakers prefer a "territorial" tax system employed by most developed countries, in which companies are taxed only on income earned within a country's borders. That difference could be a major hurdle to a broad overhaul of corporate taxes.

Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., have proposed paying for highway and bridge fixes by letting companies voluntarily pay taxes on foreign earnings at a one-time low rate of 6.5 percent. The White House opposes such voluntary "tax holidays," however, and critics say that without broader tax fixes, such holidays simply encourage companies to park their foreign profits overseas.

Other lawmakers have proposed boosting the Highway Trust Fund with a higher gasoline tax, an idea considered more palatable now that gas prices are low. However, the president is opposed to that idea.

The Obama plan proposes a 75 percent increase in funding for projects such as light rail and other public transportation systems. It also would nearly double spending on grants for local road, rail, transit and port projects. Since 2009, Congress has approved more than $4.1 billion for the competitive grants; the budget asks for $7.5 billion over six years.

Obama is releasing his budget as the federal deficit drops and his poll numbers inch higher. Though Republicans will march ahead on their own, they ultimately must come to terms with the president, who wields a veto pen and has threatened to use it.

Obama is proposing to ease painful, automatic cuts to the Pentagon and domestic agencies with a 7 percent increase in annual appropriations. He wants a $38 billion increase for the Pentagon that Republicans probably also will want to match. But his demand for a nearly equal amount for domestic programs sets up a showdown that may not be resolved until late in the year.

Another centerpiece of the president's tax proposal is an increase in the capital gains rate on couples making more than $500,000 per year. Obama wants to require estates to pay capital gains taxes on securities at the time they are inherited. He also wants to impose a fee on the roughly 100 U.S. financial companies with assets of more than $50 billion.

Obama would take the $320 billion that those tax increases would generate over 10 years and funnel them into middle-class tax breaks, expanded child care and a free community college program.

Altogether, the White House calculates that Obama's tax increases and spending cuts would cut the deficit by about $1.8 trillion over the next decade, according to people briefed on the basics of the plan. For 2016, the Obama budget promises a $474 billion deficit, about equal to this year. The deficit would remain less than $500 billion through 2018, but would rise to $687 billion by 2025 -- though such deficits would remain manageable when measured against the size of the economy.







Share/Bookmark

Al-Qaeda, Hamas, ISIS, Boko Haram are terrorist organizations....






But the Taliban is not? What is there to be gained by making this distinction/deception? We all know they're corrupt, terrorist, son-of-bitches. Wasn't it the Taliban who refused to turn over Bin Laden after 911? 




Eric Shultz WH liar...I mean spokesman.















Share/Bookmark

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

A split America




On a tip from my brother Gary




(This is one of the best articles I ever read)




 VERY PROFOUND… AND TRUE… Lou Holtz nails it

The Democrats are right, there are two Americas. The America that works and the America that doesn’t. The America that contributes and the America that doesn’t. It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society and others don’t. That’s the divide in America .

It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country.

That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.

The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just. That is the rationale of thievery.

The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat. That is the philosophy that produced Detroit. 

It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America. It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal.

The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victim-hood and anger instead of ability and hope. The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful–seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices. Because, by and large, income variations in society are a result of different choices leading to different consequences. 

Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure.

Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income. You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college – and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education.

You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course. Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.

My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an in equality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant. He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine. Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes. 

It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure. The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy. Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and short sighted decisions.

Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort.

The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get.”

Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society. Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity. He and his party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts.

It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.

What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow. Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand. 

“Life is ten percent what happens to you and ninety percent how you respond to it.”

Lou Holtz

Leo “Lou” Holtz (born January 6, 1937) is a retired American football coach, and active sportscaster, author, and motivational speaker.




Share/Bookmark

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Bowe Bergdahl WILL be charged with desertion



We all saw it coming.

Still this is unbelievable even for Barry! He doesn't do or say anything unless he stands to benefit. He thought parading the parents around like their worthless son was the second coming of Pat Tillman was going to pay dividends. He was sadly mistaken. Even from his warped perspective where did he see an upside in all this? The fact is we gave up 5 high ranking terrorists for a scumbag deserter, paid him $350,000 in back pay while Tahmooressi was left to rot in a Mexican jail, and then charge him with desertion so he could be put in jail! Where is the logic in this? What am I missing? They knew this long before the election and just like I said wouldn't announce it until after. Why? 



1. Because they knew it was a dumbass idea from the word go.


2. They counted on the "Gruber principle" but this time it backfired. 

The new precedent has been set...we don't negotiate with terrorists...until we do. It also goes to show you how this administration views the military. In short... they despise it. Bergdhal a deserter, was a higher priority then the decorated vet Tahmooressi.   

It boggles the mind! 

------------------------------------------


Bowe Bergdahl WILL be charged with desertion

Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl fled without permission in Afghanistan in 2009 
He was then captured by the Taliban who held him captive for five years
The soldier was freed in 2014 in exchange for five Taliban prisoners
His attorney has been given a charge sheet detailing the violations 

By Steve Hopkins for MailOnline

Published: 06:36 EST, 27 January 2015 | Updated: 08:18 EST, 27 January 2015

An American army sergeant that was released by the Taliban last year in exchange for five prisoners is to be charged with desertion, it has been claimed.

Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl has been handed a charge sheet listing out the articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice he has violated, retired Lieutenant Colonel Tony Shaffer has revealed.

The soldier was held captive by the Taliban-aligned Haqqani network in Afghanistan from June 2009 until May 2014, before being exchanged for Taliban members being held at Guantanamo Bay. 


Released US Sergeant Bergdahl to be charged with desertion





U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, who was released by the Taliban last year in exchange for five prisoners is to be charged with desertion

Retired Lieutenant Colonel Tony Shaffer said Sgt. Bergdahl's attorney had been handed a charge sheet detailing the articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice that have been violated

Mr Shaffer, who now works for the London Center for Policy Research, said the decision had been confirmed to him by a number of sources.

Speaking on Fox News's The O'Reilly Factor, he said: 'His attorney was given what we call a charge sheet. A charge sheet is results of the investigation listing out the articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice that have been violated. The key violation is desertion. And this has been done. The decision has been made. Let me be very clear. As a corporate entity, the Army has decided that they want to pursue Bergdahl for this violation.'

Sgt. Bergdahl was captured by the Taliban after he left his unit without permission in 2009. 

After his much criticized exchange the army launched an investigation which they concluded several months ago. 

Sgt. Bergdahl spent about two weeks recuperating at a U.S. military hospital in Germany after his release before being sent to Brooke Army Medical Center at Fort Sam Houston on June 13.

He was then said to have been put on administrative duties at the base, awaiting the conclusion of the case.

Bergdahl 'desertion' was the ultimate betrayal says his comrades.

Mr Shaffer went on to accuse the Obama administration of trying to keep the results of the investigation into Sgt. Berghal secret. 


He told the program: 'This is shaping up to be a titanic struggle behind the scenes,' he said. 'Believe me, the Army here wants to do the right thing … And the White House, because of the political narrative, President Obama cozying up to the parents and because he, President Obama, releasing the five Taliban … The narrative is what the White House does not want to have come out.'



Share/Bookmark