Prison Planet Earth

Obama proposes tax hikes to pay for jobs bill

MY NOTE:  Her we GO AGAIN….Let’s get this Globalist asshole out once and for all. He has ruined this Country! The Rich and  Big Corporations won’t pay more..we, the middle class WILL. He is a LIAR!!!!!

Stephen Collinson
AFP
September 13, 2011

US President Barack Obama signaled he would pay for his $447 billion dollar jobs plan by raising taxes on the rich and energy corporations and demanded that Congress pass it right away.

The president, seeking to reset his under-pressure presidency and slice away at 9.1 percent unemployment, sent the bill to lawmakers and warned Republicans on Monday not to slow it down with “political games” at a time of great national urgency.

But Obama, by deciding to finance the bill by ending tax breaks for oil and gas firms and individuals earning over $200,000, set up a new showdown with his political foes — who have already rejected such methods in the past.

Read more

CIA lawyer says Obama administration backed and continued virtually all Bush-era programs

MY NOTE: These two criminal twats are one and the same (Corrupt, lying, murdering Globalist puppets)..they both work for the scum murdering Globalists..WAKE UP PEOPLE!!
There is no two party system in this country anymore folks… Just the stinking scum Globalists running the planet….

J. D. Heyes
Natural News
Wednesday, September 7, 2011

As he campaigned for the presidency in 2007 and 2008, then Sen. Barack Obama made clear there would be no torturing of terrorism suspects on his watch, as had been done by the agency with White House and Justice Department approval during the Bush administration in the years following the 9/11 attacks.

And as it turned out, one of the first things Obama did after becoming president was sign an executive order that included a ban on the tortureof terror suspects.

That was in 2009, shortly after becoming president. But with the campaign over, now came the bitter reality of actually having togovern. As president, one of the things Obama, the new commander-in-chief, was expected to do was to continue successful prosecution of the so-called Global War On Terror begun Sept. 12, 2001. To do that would require action, not campaign promises. And action meant sticking with what worked.

That’s why, despite public protestations and campaign-like slogans of “change,” Obama used a presidential sleight of hand to disapprove torturingon U.S. soilwhile granting the CIA authority to continue the practice in countries whose record on human rights abuses was already well-known.

This is why the president, bowing the realities of office rather than the seductive sound bites of a campaign, agreed to allow the continuance of most other Bush-era anti-terrorism CIA tactics that may be distasteful to the well-heeled elite but that are vital to protect the integrity and national security of the world’s most powerful democracy.

In a soon-to-be released PBSFrontlinedocumentary John Rizzo, a top CIA lawyer, says the incoming Obama administration may have tut-tutted the agency’s anti-terrorism tactics on the campaign trail but went on to “endorse” nearly all of them when the time came to take over the reins of power.

“I was part of the transition briefings of the incoming Obama team, and they signaled fairly early on that the incoming president believed in a vigorous, aggressive, continuing counterterrorism effort,” Rizzo says in the documentary.

“Although they never said it exactly, it was clear that the interrogation program was going away. We all knew that,” he continued. “But his people were signaling to us, I think partly to try to assure us that they weren’t going to come in and dismantle the place, that they were going to be just as tough, if not tougher, than the Bush people.

“With a notable exception of the enhanced interrogation program, the incoming Obama administration changed virtually nothing with respect to existing CIA programs and operations,” he said. “Things continued. Authorities were continued that were originally granted by President Bush beginning shortly after 9/11. Those were all picked up, reviewed and endorsed by the Obama administration.”

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 
  

In truth, the covert warfare programs under the Obama administration have actually expanded since the Bush team left office. While Obama may not be casting as wide a net for terror suspects around the world, that has given way to more deadlier operations, as in, an increased use of CIA-owned drones to strike terror suspects in places like Pakistan. Consider it the modern-day equivalent of President Richard Nixon’s ordering of secret bombing campaigns in Cambodia during the Vietnam War.

The Obama administration should be commended for its efforts to protect the nation from the growing global terrorist threat. Having said that, it would be a refreshing change of pace for the current White House to not just admit the preceding administration’s hard-core strategy of doing what it took to prevent future 9/11′s was effective, but also worthy of repetition.

Sources:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics…

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2…

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/ap…

Coming soon: The IRS will do your taxes for you

MY NOTE: That’s all we need folks, the Stinking Nazi’s at the IRS doing our taxes for us.  They steal billions from us as it is! NO WAY!

Matt Lewis
Daily Caller
Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Imagine this scenario: The IRS may soon just do your taxes for you — and send you the bill.

If this sounds farfetched, it’s not.

With a new congressional “super committee” tasked with finding $1.5 trillion in cuts by November, creative ways to find additional revenue are in high demand. And allowing the IRS to prepare you taxes could be one solution.

The idea has been around for a while, but has been picking up steam in recent years. In 2006, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) argued it would close a $345 billion annual difference between what the government believes taxpayers owe them and what the IRS actually collects, which he calls the “tax gap.”

“I think the solution [to the tax gap problem] is to get rid of the middle-man and no fees required,” he said.

Obama’s former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers Austan Goolsbee made a strong case for it in a 2006 New York Times op-ed, explaining, “… the revenue service could send you a tax form already filled out with the information it has for you — a Simple Return — rather than a blank tax form. You would simply check the numbers against your W-2 and 1099 and then sign it.”

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 
  

But this isn’t just an idea floated by senators and presidential advisers. While running for president, then-Sen. Barack Obama touted it during a 2007 speech at the Tax Policy Institute: “The government already collects wage and bank account information,” he said, “so there’s no reason the IRS can’t send Americans pre-filled tax forms to verify.”

While the notion of allowing government to encroach on yet another aspect of our lives might sound like a hard sell, members of the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) believe this is a very real threat.

Full article here

Negative View of Federal Government Hits New High in Gallup Poll

MY NOTE: WHAT A SHOCKER…We don’t trust our evil, corrupt, criminal Government? Tell me it’s not true!! AT LAST, MAYBE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ARE FINALLY WAKING UP!!!

Terence P. Jeffrey
CNSNews
Tuesday, August 30, 2011

CNSNews.com) – The percentage of Americans telling the Gallup poll they have a negative view of the federal government has hit a new high, Gallup reported today.

In a survey conducted Aug. 11-14, Gallup asked American adults whether their overall view of the federal government was very positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative or very negative.

A total of 63 percent said they had a negative view of the federal government, including 34 percent who said they had a somewhat negative view and 29 percent who said they had a very negative view.

That is the highest negative rating the federal government has received since Gallup starting asking people to rate their view of the government in an August 2003 survey. Gallup has asked the same question about the federal government every August since then.

Full story here.

Report On Man Who Faces Life Sentence for Recording Cops

My Note: I am so sick and tired of this CORRUPT Court System, CORRUPT Cops and our stinking lying GOVERNMENT!! Take OUR COUNTRY BACK…

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
August 30, 2011

For the crime of recording police during a citation and taking a tape recorder into the courtroom, 41-year old mechanic Michael Allison faces a life sentence in prison. The state of Illinois has charged Allison with five counts of wiretapping, each punishable by four to 15 years in prison.

The case reveals how far the authorities will go in their efforts to squelch the rights of citizens and prevent them from documenting the abuses of police and other government officials.

The above news report aired in June. It appeared on YouTube last week.

As Radley Balko noted on his blog in June, the report filed by a Terre Haute news station is riddled with misinformation:

The report gets a few things wrong, most notably the assertion recording cops is “illegal in a dozen states”.  A dozen states require all parties to consent before you can record a conversation, but all except Illinois and Massachusetts have an “expectation of privacy” provision that the courts to this point have ruled does not apply to on-duty police officers (or anyone in a public setting). That hasn’t stopped police from arresting people in those states (and others) anyway. But the charges don’t hold up in court.

This isn’t a distinction without a difference. When a media outlet reports that recording cops is “illegal” in these states (and the Terre Haute station is not the first to do so), it adds to the public perception that doing so is, in fact, illegal. This makes it more difficult to hold police officers accountable when they disregard the law. In order to overcome a police officer’s qualified immunity in a lawsuit for wrongful arrest, you have to show that a reasonable person (not a reasonable police officer) should have known that the arrest was in violation of clearly established law. When media outlets continue to incorrectly report that recording cops is illegal in these states, they contribute to public confusion about the law—and thus make it more difficult for people who have been wrongly arrested to argue in court that a reasonable person should have known that the arrest was illegal.

The reporter’s characterization of his amusing confrontation with a deputy in the courthouse is also incorrect. The reporter says they were advised by attorneys not to air the audio of the conversation because of the same law under which Allison is being prosecuted. But if they did make a recording of their interaction with the deputy, they’d be subject to prosecution regardless of whether or not they actually aired the audio.

Still, points for effort. This is a seven-and-a-half minute report from a local news station about an important issue that takes a skeptical view of law enforcement. That’s pretty rare.