Do you know anything about this?  Is the government really going to get away with this?

 

JANUARY 1, 2013, THE US GOVERNMENT WILL BE REQUIRINGEVERYONE TO HAVE DIRECT DEPOSIT FOR SS CHECKS. WONDER WHY? Subject: HR 4646 Be sure to read entire explanation Watch for this AFTER November elections; remember this BEFORE you VOTE, in case you think Obama is looking out for your best interest.  A 1% tax on all bank transactions is what HR 4646 calls for.  Do you receive a paycheck, or a retirement check from Social Security or a pension fund and have it direct deposit?? Well guess what ... It looks as if Obama wants to tax it 1% !!!  This bill was put forth by Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA). YES, that is 1% tax on all bank transactions - HR 4646, every time it goes in and every time money goes out. Ask your congressperson to vote NO. FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW! 1% tax on all bank transactions ~ HR 4646 - ANOTHER NEW OBAMA TAX SLIPPED IN WHILE WE WERE ASLEEP. Checked this on snopes, it's true! Check it out yourself ~ HR 4646. President Obama's finance team is recommending a one percent (1%) transaction fee (TAX). Obama's plan is to sneak it in after the November elections to keep it under the radar. This is a 1% tax on all transactions at any financial institution - banks, credit unions, savings and loans, etc. Any deposit you make, or even a transfer within your own bank from one account to another, will have a 1% tax charged. If your paycheck or your Social Security or whatever is direct deposit, it will get a 1% tax charged for the transaction. If your paycheck is $1000, then you will pay Obama $10 just for the privilege of depositing your paycheck in your bank. Even if you hand carry your paycheck or any check in to your bank for a deposit, 1% tax will be charged. You receive a $5,000 stock dividend from your broker, Obama takes $50 just to allow you to deposit that check in the bank. If you take $1,000 cash to deposit at your bank, 1% tax will be charged. Mind you, this is from the man who promised that, if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax. Keep your eyes and ears open, you will be amazed at what you learn about this guy's under-the-table moves to increase the number of ways you are taxed. Oh, and by the way, if you receive a refund from the IRS next year and you have it direct deposited or you walk in to deposit that check, you guessed it. You will pay a 1% charge of that money just for putting it in your bank. Remember, any money, cash, check or whatever, no matter where it came from, you will pay a 1% fee if you put it in the bank. Some will say, oh well, it's just 1%. Are you kidding me? It's a 1% tax increase across the board. Remember, once the tax is there, they can also raise it at will. And if anyone protests, they will just say, "Oh,that's not really a tax, it's a user fee"! Think this is no big deal? Go back and look at the transactions you made from last year's banking statements. Then add the total of all those transactions and deduct 1%. Still think it's no big deal? The following is copied from Snopes: 1. snopes.com <http://snopes.com/>;;<http://snopes.com/>; : Debt Free America Act... Is the U.S.government proposing a 1% tax on debit card usage and/or banking transactions?...It is true. The bill is HR-4646 introduced by US Rep Peter deFazio D-Oregon and US Senator Tom Harkin D-Iowa. Their plan is to sneak it in after the... ...moved beyond proposing studies and submitted the Debt Free America Act (H.R. 4646), a bill calling for the implementation of a scheme to pay down the... ...[2010] by Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.). His "Debt Free America Act" (H.R. 4646) would impose a 1 percent "transaction tax" on every financial transaction... Wed, 02 Nov 201111:27:37 GMThttp://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/debtfree.asp <http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/debtfree.asp>; <http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/debtfree.asp>

 

 Earthshaking Reversal
 

  

THE  WASHINGTON  POST HITS OBAMA Finally, the  Washington  Post and Newsweek speak out about Obama. This is timely and tough. As many of you know, the  Washington  Post and Newsweek have a reputation for being extremely liberal. The fact that their editors saw fit to print the following article about Obama and the one that appears in the latest Newsweek, makes this a truly amazing event, and a news story in and of itself. At last, the truth about our President and his agenda are starting to trickle through the “protective wall” built around him by the liberal media. ___________________________ I, Too, Have Become Disillusioned By Matt Patterson (columnist -  Washington  Post,  New York  Post, San Francisco Examiner) Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job? Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer;" a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president? Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of  America   like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest? Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves. Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is. And that is what  America  did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for  Columbia   despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the  US  Senate despite a mediocre record in  Illinois  ; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years. And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly? In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.

Father of Slain SEAL: Who Made the Decision Not to Save My Son? On meeting Obama: “Could not look me in the eye … like shaking hands with a dead fish.” 6:18 PM, Oct 25, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, who was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attack at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, reveals details of meeting Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at the publicly broadcast memorial service for the slain Americans at Andrews Air Force Base only days after the attack. And, in a recent radio appearance, Woods publicly questions who made the call not to send in back-up forces to possibly save his son’s life, as well as the three other Americans killed in Benghazi (which includes the American ambassador to Libya). “When [Obama] came over to our little area” at Andrew Air Force Base, says Woods, “he kind of just mumbled, you know, ‘I’m sorry.’ His face was looking at me, but his eyes were looking over my shoulder like he could not look me in the eye. And it was not a sincere, ‘I’m really sorry, you know, that your son died,’ but it was totally insincere, more of whining type, ‘I’m sorry.’” Woods says that shaking President Obama’s hands at his son’s memorial service was “like shaking hands with a dead fish.” “It just didn’t feel right,” he says of his encounter with the commander in chief. “And now that it’s coming out that apparently the White House situation room was watching our people die in real time, as this was happening,” Woods says, he wants answers on what happened—and why there was no apparent effort to save his son’s life.   “Well, this is what Hillary did,” Woods continues. “She came over and, you know, did the same thing—separately came over and talked with me. I gave her a hug, shook her hand. And she did not appear to be one bit sincere—at all. And you know, she mentioned that the thing about, we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video. That was the first time I had even heard about anything like that.”   Woods continues: “Apparently even the State Department had a live stream and was aware of their calls for help. My son wasn’t even there. He was at a safe house about a mile away. He got the distress call; he heard them crying for help; that’s why he and Glen risked their lives to go that extra mile just to take care of the situation. And I’m sure that wasn’t the only one received that distress call—you know, come save our lives … I’m sure that other people in the military, in the State Department, in the White House, received that same call that he would receive. And I’m sure that most military people would jump at the chance … to protect that life [and] not leave anyone behind.” Woods made clear that he isn't "mad," but that he wants to the "truth" to be told because he feels " abandoned." Woods says he was told by military officials that the military could have "come above [the area] and completely carpeted area," and therefore saved the officials in Benghazi, Libya. But that someone gave the command for the American military not to save the lives of the Americans under attack. "When I heard, you know, that there's a very good chance that the White House as well as other members of the military knew what was going on and obviously someone had to say, don't go rescue them. Because every person in the military--their first response [would be], we're going to go rescue them. We need to find out who it was that gave that command--do not rescue them." Woods told his story to radio host Lars Larson. Here’s the full interview.

This terse note is from a friend who has voted Democrat most of his 82 years.

For those of you backing Obama I would like for you to explain to me why he deserves another four years.

He has just brought the office of the presidency to a new low with his remark yesterday about his opponent; Romney, calling him a bull s'er (using the full term) in public before a large audience.  His cover up of the Libya debacle with the aid of all major media is frightening.  The  use of the press to cover up his  deceit and just plain lies about the Libya tradgedy is unforgiveable. 

Nixon had to resign because of a cover up and lying (good riddance) but no one was killed----Libya cost us an ambassador and three brave lives ----yet it has disapeared from the major news coverage.  If you still believe this was caused by a You Tube TV stunt then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

This man does not deserve another term ---his degrading of the truth and lack of basic ethics is reason enough to turn him out of  office.

Hal xxxxxxx

Unbelieveable!! WH tells protectors of Ambasador Stevens to "STAND DOWN"!!

 

BREAKING AND DISTURBING NEWS FROM THE FATHER* OF FORMER NAVY SEAL TY WOODS WHO RUSHED TO PROTECT OUR AMBASSADOR ON SEPT 11, 2012 WHEN TERRORISTS ATTACKED OUR EMBASSY IN LIBYA.  THE LIES COMING FROM THE WHITE HOUSE IN THE FACE OF THE FACTS ARE TREASONOUS.  YOU WILL NOT HEAR THIS FROM THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA AS THEY TRY TO KEEP OBAMA IN THE WHITE HOUSE.  WHY ARE THEY ALL COVERING FOR HIM?????

*CHARLES WOODS IS A FORMER JUDGE AND THROUGH HIS CAREER HE LEARNED HOW TO TELL WHEN PEOPLE WERE LYING.  HE CLAIMS THE PRESIDENT AND SEC OF STATE CLINTON WERE LYING TO HIS FACE REGARDING HIS SON'S DEATH. 

---

NAVY SEALS TOLD TO "STAND DOWN" AFTER CALLING FOR HELP TO SAVE AMERICANS, INCLUDING THE AMBASSADOR, DURING THE BENGHAZI ATTACK.  THE PRESIDENT KNEW!  THE WHITE HOUSE WATCHED WHILE GOOD AMERICANS DIED AND THEY DID NOTHING.

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was one of four Americans killed in the terrorist assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya on Sept. 11. (Image source: ABC News) 

The father of one of the former Navy SEALs killed in the terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya says President Barack Obama wouldn’t even look him in the eye and Vice President Joe Biden was disrespectful during the ceremony when his son’s body returned to America. He also says the White House’s story on the attack doesn’t pass the smell test.

Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods, called into “The Glenn Beck Program” on TheBlazeTV Thursday and recounted his interactions with the president, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Biden at the ceremony for the Libya victims at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. He told host Glenn Beck that what they told him, coupled with new reports that indicate the Obama administration knew very good and well, almost immediately, that a terrorist attack was occurring in Benghazi, make him certain that the American people are not getting the whole truth.

Vice President Biden, as he has become known to do, reportedly made a wildly inappropriate comment to the father who had just lost his hero son.

Woods said Biden came over to his family and asked in a “loud and boisterous” voice, “Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?”

“Are these the words of someone who is sorry?” said Woods.

The grieving father also described his brief encounter with President Obama during the ceremony for the Libya victims.

“When he finally came over to where we were, I could tell that he was rather conflicted, a person who was not at peace with himself,” Woods said. “Shaking hands with him, quite frankly, was like shaking hands with a dead fish. His face was pointed towards me but he would not look me in the eye, his eyes were over my shoulder.”

“I could tell that he was not sorry,” he added. “He had no remorse.”

Beck said he wanted to give the president “the benefit of the doubt,” and asked Woods how he could be sure that Obama wasn’t just uncomfortable or nervous during their conversation. Woods said it was Obama’s “demeanor.”

Hillary Clinton’s comments to Woods raise even more questions about the White House’s official story on the Benghazi attack, which has already been extremely inconsistent.

After apologizing for his loss, Woods said Clinton told him that the U.S. would “make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”

Obviously, Clinton was referring to the anti-Muslim YouTube video that the Obama administration spent nearly two weeks blaming for the attack. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, Clinton and the president himself all blamed the video at various points. Beck pointed out that the White House is now trying to claim that it has always considered terrorism as the cause of the attack.

“When she said that, I could tell that she was not telling me the truth,” Woods said about Clinton.

Reading another State Department email that further calls into question the U.S. response to the attack, Beck revealed that the U.S. government was made aware that the compound in Benghazi was under attack by “mortar fire,” hardly a sign of a spontaneous protest.

“The question that I had in my mind,” Woods replied, “was why did we not do something to protect our forces?”

“We didn’t even dispatch anybody,” Beck lamented.

“You released the information that the White House within minutes of the attack, watched in real time the events unfolding,” Woods told Beck earlier in the program. “They denied the pleas for help and they watched my son die.”

Woods went on to read the following statement, in honor of his son:

“I want to honor my son, Ty Woods, who responded to the cries for help and voluntarily sacrificed his life to protect the lives of other Americans. In the last few days it has become public knowledge that within minutes of the first bullet being fired the White House knew these heroes would be slaughtered if immediate air support was denied. Apparently, C-130s were ready to respond immediately. In less than an hour, the perimeters could have been secured and American lives could have been saved. After seven hours fighting numerically superior forces, my son’s life was sacrificed because of the White House’s decision. This has nothing to do with politics, this has to do with integrity and honor. My son was a true American hero. We need more heroes today. My son showed moral courage. This is an opportunity for the person or persons who made the decision to sacrifice my son’s life to stand up.”

Cash-strapped Europe nations are not shy about taxing the rich - latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-europe-wealthy-tax-20121026,0,6359339.story

Obama plans to take US there!

Average GDP Growth Less than Half of What Obama Predicted

Average GDP Growth Less than Half of What Obama Predicted