Where is Al Sharpton ?

 

TALK ABOUT A DOUBLE-STANDARD, AS LONG AS ERIC HOLDER IS RUNNING THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT UNDER THE APPROVAL OF HUSSEIN OBAMA THIS SORT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WILL CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. LOOK AT THE ZIMMERMAN CASE - TALK ABOUT INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, THAT ALL WENT OUT THE WINDOW.  HOW CAN THE SHERIFF OF SANFORD, AN ELECTED OFFICIAL BE MADE TO STEP DOWN, AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, BECAUSE

HE IS DISLIKED BY A PARTICULAR GROUP. HOW COME THIS CASE WAS NOT HANDLED AS IT NORMALLY WOULD BE ? A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION PERFORMED BY THE AUTHORITIES, THEN

ALL THE FACTS PRESENTED TO A " GRAND JURY" TO SEE IF THE FACTS THEN WARRANT AN INDICTMENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL CHARGED. WHY WAS POLITICAL PRESSURE ACCEPTED AND CONDONED, AND ZIMMERMAN THEN PLACED UNDER ARREST ??

                IF THIS IS HOW THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS GOING TO WORK NOW IN THIS COUNTRY,

IT'S ALL OVER. THERE IS NO JUSTICE!! THE GROUP THAT YELLS THE LOUDEST AND THREATENS

THE PEACE AND TRANQUILITY OF THE COUNTRY, GET'S THEIR WAY. A COMPLETE SHAM & DISGRACE!! WAKE UP AMERICA !! BRING BACK THE MORALS AND STANDARDS THAT MADE THIS COUNTRY NUMBER ONE IN THE WORLD. KEEP THE FAITH !!!     BILL 

The animals pictured at the very bottom of this email car-jacked then raped Christopher Newsom, cut off his penis, set him on fire and fatally shot him several times while they forced his girlfriend, Channon Christian, to watch. An even more cruel fate awaited her!  

Channon Christian was beaten and gang-raped in many ways for four days by all of them, while they took turns urinating on her. They cut off her breasts and put chemicals in her mouth... and then murdered her. 

VICTIMS: 

PERPS:  

Knoxville  (WVLT) - The District Attorney General of Knox County   announced the list of charges facing now five suspects in the double murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom.

 

The District Attorney General Randy Nichols is not saying whether or not he will seek the death penalty, but he does say the State will seek conviction for all charges filed in a 24-page indictment from theKnox County Grand Jury. 
Lemaricus Davidson, 25  , faces a total of 46 charges.. 
Letalvis Cobbins, 24  , faces a total of 46 charges. 
George Thomas, 24  , faces a total of 46 charges. 
Vanessa Coleman, 18  ,  faces 40   Tennessee state charges . 

Eric Boyd, 24  , also arrested in connection with the fatal car jacking, only faces federal charges as an accessory after the fact.

 

SO!!!!!
Where's Al Sharpton, O and Jesse Jackson? Are they providing counsel and help to the families of the victims? 

Of course not - the victims were white!!! 

Why hasn't this received National coverage by the news media like the Duke 'rape' case? 

Oh, that's right - the victims were white 

Why hasn't the NAACP, ACLU, New York Times etc., called for an investigation? 

Must be cause the victims were white!!! 

Why hasn't the FBI been called in to investigate this as a hate crime? 

Oh, that's right - the victims were white!!! 

So, if a white radio shock jock uses the phrase 'Nappy headed', it gets 2 weeks of constant news coverage. 

If two white people are tortured, raped, and murdered by a group of black people, it barely gets a blip in the news. 

Pass this around, and maybe, just maybe, it will land in the hands of someone in the media or politics, that has the guts to stand up for the white people!!  Or don't because you don't have the guts either!!

 

__._,_.___

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity:

·         New Members 1

Visit Your Group

Report any problems, suggestions or abuse to Individual-Sovereignty-owner@yahoogroups.com

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.

__,_._,___

Free-lunch egalitarianism

 

Free-lunch egalitarianism

http://www.friendsoftheuschamber.com/article/free-lunch-egalitarianism

April 13, 2012
Washington Post
By Charles Krauthammer

Here we go again.

At the beginning of his presidency, Barack Obama argued that the country’s spiraling debt was largely the result of exploding health-care costs. That was true. He then said the cure for these exploding costs would be his health-care reform. That was not true.

It was obvious at the time that it could never be true. If government gives health insurance to 33 million uninsured, that costs. Costs a lot. There is no free lunch.

Now we know. The Congressional Budget Office’s latest estimate is that Obamacare will add $1.76 trillion in federal expenditures through 2022. And, as one of the Medicare trustees has just made clear, if you don’t double count the $575 billion set aside for the Medicare trust fund, Obamacare adds to the already crushing national debt.

Three years later, we are back to smoke and mirrors. This time it’s not health care but the Buffett Rule, which would impose a minimum 30 percent effective tax rate on millionaires. Here is how Obama introduced it last September:

“Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a [higher] tax rate than Warren Buffett. . . . And that basic principle of fairness, if applied to our tax code, could raise enough money” to “stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade. . . . This is not politics; this is math.”

Okay. Let’s do the math. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this new tax would yield between $4 billion and $5 billion a year. If we collect the Buffett tax for the next 250 years — a span longer than the life of this republic — it would not cover the Obama deficit for 2011 alone.

As an approach to our mountain of debt, the Buffett Rule is a farce. And yet Obama repeated the ridiculous claim again this week. “It will help us close our deficit.” Does he really think we’re that stupid?

Hence the fallback: The Buffett Rule is a first step in tax reform. On the contrary. It’s a substitute for tax reform, an evasion of tax reform. In three years, Obama hasn’t touched tax (or, for that matter, entitlement) reform, and clearly has no intention to. The Buffett Rule is nothing but a form of redistributionism that has vanishingly little to do with debt reduction and everything to do with reelection.

As such, it’s clever. It deftly channels the sentiment underlying Occupy Wall Street (original version, before its slovenly, whiny, aggressive weirdness made it politically toxic). It perfectly pits the 99 percent against the 1 percent. Indeed, it is OWS translated into legislation, something the actual occupiers never had the wit to come up with.

Clever politics, but in terms of economics, it’s worse than useless. It’s counterproductive. The reason Buffett and Mitt Romney pay roughly 15 percent in taxes is that their income is principally capital gains. The Buffett Rule is, in fact, a disguised tax hike on capital gains. But Obama prefers to present it as just an alternative minimum tax because 50 years of economic history show that raising the capital gains tax backfires: It reduces federal revenue, while lowering the tax raises revenue.

No matter. Obama had famously said in 2008 that even if that’s the case, he’d still raise the capital gains tax — for the sake of fairness.

For Obama, fairness is the supreme social value. And fairness is what he is running on — although he is not prepared to come clean on its price. Or even acknowledge that there is a price. Instead, Obama throws in a free economic lunch for all. “This is not just about fairness,” he insisted on Wednesday. “This is also about growth.”

Growth? The United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. Now, in the middle of a historically weak recovery, Obama wants to raise our capital gains tax to the fourth highest. No better way to discourage investment — and the jobs and growth that come with it. (Except, perhaps, for hyperregulation. But Obama is working on that too.)

Three years ago, Obama promised universal health care that saves money. Today, he offers a capital gains tax hike that spurs economic growth. This is free-lunch egalitarianism.

The Buffett Rule redistributes deck chairs on the Titanic, ostensibly to make more available for those in steerage. Nice idea, but the iceberg cometh. The enterprise is an exercise in misdirection — a distraction not just from Obama’s dismal record on growth and unemployment but, more important, from his dereliction of duty in failing to this day to address the utterly predictable and devastating debt crisis ahead.

__._,_.___

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity:

Visit Your Group

27% OF OUR POPULATION IS 17 & UNDER..100% CONTROL OUR FUTURE 
All posts should be something you are not ashamed to show to your young people or your clergy. Suggestions, Complaints, Problems, Personal Criticisms and Subjects that could cause debates that could be controversial are to be kept out of sends to the whole alliance. Either send them personally to each other or directly to a ccpga moderator, or the owner at this address:  ccpga-owner@yahoogroups.com

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.

__,_._,___

NERO IN THE WHITE HOUSE

Obama, he lies because he is a liar. He doesn’t only lie to cover his
misdeeds - he lies to get his way. He lies to belittle others and to make
himself look presentable at their expense. He lies about his faith, his
associations, his mother, his father and his wife. He lies and bullies to
keep his background secret. His lying is congenital and compounded by
socio-psychological factors of his life.

http://www.wnd.com/2011/08/331497/

PLAY IT AGAIN, SAM

Nero in the White House
Exclusive: Mychal Massie says O's lying makes Nixon, Clinton look like
amateurs

Published: 08/08/2011 at 5:20 PM

Description: author-imageby Mychal
MassieEmail | Archive

Mychal Massie is chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black
Conservatives-Project 21 - a conservative black think tank located in
Washington, D.C. He was recognized as the 2008 Conservative Man of the Year
by the Conservative Party of Suffolk County, N.Y. He is a nationally
recognized political activist, pundit and columnist. He has appeared on Fox
News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, C-SPAN, NBC, Comcast Cable and talk-radio
programming nationwide. AMore ↓
Less ↑

Three significant historical events have been eclipsed by Obama: 1) Jimmy
Carter will no longer be looked upon as the worst president in American
history; 2) Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton will no longer be recognized as
the greatest liars in presidential history; 3) Clinton’s stain on Monica’s
dress, and what that did to the White House in general and the office of the
president specifically, will forever pale in comparison to the stain and
stench of Obama.

I need not spend much time on the failure of Obama as president. His tenure
has been a failure on every measurable level. So much so, in fact, that some
of the staunchest, most respected liberal Democrats and Democratic
supporters have not only openly criticized him - some even more harshly than
this essayist - but they have called for him to step down.

Richard Nixon’s words “I am not a crook,” punctuated with his involvement
in Watergate, and Bill Clinton’s finger-wagging as he told one of the most
pathetic lies in presidential history, in the aftermath of Obama, will be
viewed as mere prevarications.

Mr. Nixon and Clinton lied to save their backsides. Although, I would argue
there are no plausible explanations for doing what they did, I could
entertain arguments pursuant to understanding their rationales for lying.
But in the case of Obama, he lies because he is a liar. He doesn’t only lie
to cover his misdeeds - he lies to get his way. He lies to belittle others
and to make himself look presentable at their expense. He lies about his
faith, his associations, his mother, his father and his wife. He lies and
bullies to keep his background secret. His lying is congenital and
compounded by socio-psychological factors of his life.

Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such
dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure
I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential
predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using
Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.

As the stock markets were crashing, taking with them the remaining life
saving of untold tens of thousands, Obama was hosting his own birthday
celebration, which was an event of epicurean splendidness. The shamelessness
of the event was that it was not a state dinner to welcome foreign
dignitaries, nor was it to honor an American accomplishment - it was to
honor the Pharaoh, Barack Hussein Obama. The event’s sole purpose was for
the Pharaoh to have his loyal subjects swill wine, indulge in gluttony and
behavior unfit to take place on the property of taxpayers, as they suffer.
It was of a magnitude comparable to that of Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski’s $2
million birthday extravaganza for its pure lack of respect for the people.

Permit me to digress momentarily. The U.S. Capitol and the White House were
built with the intent of bringing awe and respect to America and her people.
They were also built with the intent of being the greatest of equalizers. I
can tell you, having personally been to both, there is a moment of awe and
humility associated with being in the presence of the history of those
buildings. They are to be honored and inscribed into our national psyche,
not treated as a Saturday night house party at Chicago’s Cabrini-Green.

The people of America own that home Obama and his wife continue to debase
with their pan-ghetto behavior. It is clear that Obama and family view
themselves as royalty, but they’re not. They are employees of “we the
people,” who are suffering because of his failed policies. What message
does this behavior send to those who today are suffering as never before?

What message does it send to all Americans who are struggling? Has anyone
stopped to think what the stock market downturn forebodes for those 80
million baby boomers who will be retiring in the next period of years? Is
there a snowball’s chance in the Sahara that every news program on the air
would applaud this behavior if it were George W. Bush? To that point, do you
remember the media thrashing Bush took for having a barbecue at the White
House?

Like Nero - who was only slightly less debaucherous than Caligula - with
wine on his lips Obama treated “we the people” the way Caligula treated
those over whom he lorded.

Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was
elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar,
a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies,
intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders.
He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement - while
America’s people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.

Living in Fear: Muslim Girls in the West Flee Islam

April 12, 2012

Living in Fear: Muslim Girls in the West Flee Islam

Here is a good article on what Muslim girls go through in the West to escape Islam. The fact that "islam" is never mentioned in the article gives you a good idea of just how difficult this journey is. If western media, political elites, and government officials are afraid to speak of it, what shot do these girls have? Remember the beating Rifqa Bary took in the media? They tried to destroy her, and why? Because she left Islam.

The culture must change. Join us for the Jessica Mokdad Human Rights Conference on Honor Killing.

(Spiegel) Bahar ran away early on a winter morning, one-and-a-half years after her mother was murdered. She helped her younger siblings get ready for school, and then she gave them a goodbye kiss on the forehead. Her uncle and her brothers were still sleeping. Bahar tiptoed out of the apartment in her socks, walked down the stairs and out the door. And then she ran for her life.

Today Bahar is 26 and likes to wear high-heeled shoes. She has chosen a popular café in a small city as a meeting point. She is wearing a modest amount of makeup, and her black hair is pulled back into a bun. She smiles tentatively and introduces herself, using the name in her

new passport, which, for her protection, cannot be used in this article.

Bahar's family came to Germany from Iraq in 1996. They lived in the eastern city of Halle an der Saale for the first two years, in an apartment in a high-rise building with a dingy kitchen. Her father felt that most jobs were beneath him, beat his wife and "put out cigarettes on her skin," says Bahar. The father would sometimes disappear for months at a time. Bahar suspects that he was involved in criminal activities. "Everything was always peaceful without him. We even had a picnic in the park once," says Bahar. She took along some of the photos from that day when she ran away, but she can't bear to look at them, she says.

During those happy times, when she was alone with her six children, Bahar's mother came to the conclusion that she wanted to separate from her despotic husband. She went to the local town hall with Bahar to get information about German divorce law. When the father found out about it, he took a knife and locked himself in the bedroom with his wife on a summer night in 2003. Bahar holds up her hands to show us two scars: the evidence of her attempt to save her mother.

With the mother dead and the father sentenced to life in prison, an uncle took control of Bahar and her five siblings. He managed to make a caring and thoughtful impression on the youth welfare office, but it was deceptive. He used to turn up the music before he began beating the children. Bahar used makeup to hide the bruises. "I wasn't allowed to read books, and I couldn't even go out on the balcony anymore," she says. "Just cook, do the laundry and clean."

Bahar endured her life as a virtual slave for a year and a half. "Then I knew that I would either kill myself or leave."

Living in Fear

Germany in the 21st century, almost 60 years after the first guest workers arrived, is a country in which hundreds of female immigrants like Bahar live in hiding from their families. They have left everything behind: their home, their friends and their relatives. They refuse to abandon hope and allow themselves to be broken by the incompatibility of their own wishes with the expectations of their family and social environment. They don't want to conform to the traditional values of the regions where their families come from. Instead, they want to live like women in Western societies: free, independent and emancipated.

Every year Papatya, a Berlin aid organization, takes in 60 girls and young women who have run away from their families because of cultural conflict, and who had faced the prospect of abduction, forced marriage or even death. The Rose Shelter in Stuttgart receives 80 applications a year from women who have suffered in these ways. The youth help organization Yasemin documents about 400 consultation visits, while the website Sibel receives more than 300 calls for help each year. The organization Peri e.V. claims to have helped about 50 girls and women run away from their families since 2008.

The list of the female immigrants' countries of origin is long. It includes Turkey, Kosovo, Albania, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and India. A few months ago, a man from Sri Lanka poured boiling water over his daughter in a town in Germany. She had refused to accept a forced marriage.

Bahar fled to a women's shelter, but she was still afraid. "I saw my uncle on every street corner," she says. If someone on the bus seemed suspicious to her, she would get off at the next stop, holding a can of pepper spray in her hand. Bahar has moved to four different places since she ran away, and today she lives in a small city. She finished high school and entered a vocational training program, and she is currently in the process of getting her driver's license.

But despite her new freedoms, Bahar is still being held prisoner by her family. She has to lie to people, even those close to her, including friends, neighbors and coworkers. Anyone who learns about her past and her real name could pose a threat to her. Bahar doesn't allow anyone into her "fortress," as she calls her apartment -- not even her German boyfriend.

"He was surprised that my parents are so tolerant, but that I never visit them. He sensed that I was hiding something," says Bahar, lowering her head. When she still refused to confide in him, after being together for six months, he ended the relationship.

Family Was Not Very Religious

While Bahar is alone with her secret, Mariam, a 28-year-old woman of Lebanese descent, can share hers with her boyfriend Thomas, 34. Three-and-a-half years ago, they fled from Mariam's family together, but today they live in constant fear of discovery and the likely consequences. "One of my relatives was shot by her husband, because she had left him," says Mariam. "My family felt that it was the right thing to do."

There is much more. Go.

Posted by Pamela Geller on Thursday, April 12, 2012 at 12:53 PM in Honor Killings: Islam Misogyny | Permalink

Reblog (0) | | Digg This | Save to del.icio.us | |

|

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c60bf53ef01630408b53f970d

 

Frequently Asked Questions on the Expiring Bush Tax Cuts

http://tinyurl.com/86dq84p

Frequently Asked Questions on the Expiring Bush Tax Cuts

Thursday, 12 April 2012 17:29 William Ahern and Nick Kasprak

The Tax Foundation has provided indepth insight into the looming expiration of the Bush tax cuts looming with billions of dollars in tax cuts are set to expire in January if nothing is done, and tax policy in Washington has been and will continue to be busy in 2012. With all of this action comes many questions about what is actually going on.

This page is designed to "set the scene" for the general public, policymakers, and media with unbiased information relating to the current state of the federal tax system and what is set to happen. If you have any questions that are not answered, e-mail us and we will consider adding them to the list. (Note: We do not answer specific personal tax questions.)

1.    How much did the Bush tax cuts cost the Treasury in foregone revenue?

2.    Who received the biggest tax savings from the tax cuts?

3.    Why were the tax cuts temporary (i.e. not made permanent) when they were passed in 2001 and 2003?

4.    What is going on with President Obama's tax cuts, specifically those in the so-called stimulus bill?

5.    How does this all interact with the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)?

6.    What are PEP and Pease, and how were they affected by the tax cuts?

7.    Can you provide a complete list of the tax provisions expiring at the end of this year (2010)?

8.    Do you have a chart showing how the various scenarios (tax cuts expiring, tax Cuts extended, and Obama's proposal) would affect key tax parameters like tax rates and brackets, the standard deduction, etc.?

9.    How does the recently passed health care bill interact with all this?

10. How can I figure out how much my own tax bill would change as a result of the Bush tax cuts expiring?

Fate of Bush Tax Cuts Uncertain As Expiration Approaches

by William Ahern and Nick Kasprak

In 2001 and 2003, Congress passed, and the President signed into law, significant tax reductions for nearly all taxpayers. These cuts included marginal rate reductions, the introduction of a new 10% tax bracket, an expansion of the child tax credit, and a variety of other provisions. Both bills were passed using a Senate procedure known as "reconciliation" - a tactic that lowers the threshold for cloture to a simple majority of Senators (as opposed to a 60-vote supermajority.) This procedure, under the Congressional Budget Act, is not allowed for any bill which affects budget deficits beyond a ten-year window, so these tax cuts included a "sunset" provision which caused them to automatically expire at the end of 2010, in order to bypass that requirement.

Throughout 2010, the President, and factions in Congress proposed various policy options to address the imminent expiration, ranging from letting them fully expire, to extending them partially for taxpayers under a certain income threshold, and full extending them. Finally, in December, a compromise was reached that extended them for an additional two years until the end of 2012.

Below, see a selected list of the tax increases that could occur on January 1, 2013. These are only the most well known provisions of the Bush tax cuts that, if allowed to expire, would come to the immediate attention of the nation's taxpayers.

·         The two "marriage penalty elimination" provisions will expire, so that:

·         The standard deduction for married couples will fall, no longer double what it is for single filers; and

·         The ceiling of the 15% bracket for married couples will fall, no longer double what it is for single filers

·         The 10% tax bracket will expire, reverting to 15%

·         The child tax credit will fall from $1,000 to $500

·         The tax rate on long-term capital gains earned by middle- and upper-income people would rise from 15% to 20%

·         The tax rate on qualified dividends earned by middle- and upper-income people would rise from 15% to ordinary wage tax rates

·         The 25% tax rate would rise to 28%

·         The 28% rate would rise to 31%

·         The 33% rate would rise to 36%

·         The 35% rate would rise to 39.6%

·         The PEP and Pease provisions would be restored, rescinding from high-income people the value of some exemptions and deductions

The plan outlined in the Obama administration's budget is to allow only one of those 12 provisions to revert exactly to what it was in early 2001:

·         The top tax rate will revert from 35% to 39.6%

Four of those major provisions will change, but they won't go back to exactly what they were in 2001:

·         The rate on long-term capital gains will revert to 2001 law (rate of 20%) but only for couples with over $250,000 in AGI the year the gain is realized ($200K threshold for singles)

·         Dividends will be taxed as capital gains until AGI exceeds $250,000 ($200,000 for single filers)

·         The upper portion of the 33% tax bracket will revert to 2001 law (rate of 36%) and the income threshold where that bracket starts will shift up to $250,000 in AGI minus two personal exemptions and a standard deduction (couples), and $200,000 in AGI minus one personal exemption and a standard deduction (single filers), all indexed for inflation using 2009 as the base year.

·         The PEP and Pease provisions will be restored, rescinding from high-income people the value of some exemptions and deductions, but the income threshold where they start to pay more will shift up to $250,000 in taxable income (couples) and $200,000 for singles

The other major Bush tax cut provisions for individuals listed above will be preserved as enacted during the Bush years.

There are many other provisions that will expire, including EITC eligibility levels, education IRA provisions, and others, not to mention Obama's biggest tax cut, the making-work-pay credit, which was a one-year tax cut in 2009 that was renewed for 2010. See the complete roster.

See the full gallery on Posterous

Return of the Shining Path

Return of the Shining Path

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/return-of-the-shining-path7640773.html

Terrorist group kidnaps 40 workers less than a week after Peru's President

said it had been 'totally defeated'

Simeon Tegel

Less than a week after President Ollanta Humala declared Peru's Shining Path

rebel group "totally defeated", the terrorist group has reportedly demanded

a $10m (£6.3m) ransom for the return of around 40 gas workers kidnapped in

the Amazon.

A heavily-armed group burst into a hotel housing the workers in the remote

town of Kepashiato in the early hours of Monday morning. They used two

stolen pickup trucks to flee with their victims.The government has sent

around 1,500 soldiers to the area and declared a state of emergency in the

vast rainforest district of Echarate.

Peru's Ministry of Defence said the troops "will cordon off the zone with

the objective of isolating the narco-terrorist criminals". But relatives of

the victims – most of who were working for construction contractor Skanska –

appealed to the government to avoid a shoot-out.

"The government or the company should reach an agreement [with the Shining

Path]," said Vanessa Estrada, wife of one of the workers, Alberto Quispe

Luza, 35, a crane operator who had been working for Skanska for less than

six months. Speaking to the Peruvian newspaper La Republica, she added:

"They shouldn't send soldiers because that could lead to a confrontation in

which no one knows who will die. They should pay the $10m."

The Defence Minister, Alberto Otarola, is due to travel to Echarate and the

head of Peru's police force, Raul Salazar, is already believed to be there.

There are also unofficial reports that the government has sent a unit of

"sinchis", Peru's elite commando force, feared for its no-holds barred

approach to fighting terrorists – to the area.

Kepashiato is now in a state of lock-down, with soldiers and police

searching all vehicles passing through the town. Locals, meanwhile, were

making the most of the quiet before the gathering storm of likely army

action. "We are all scared because we are unprotected," one told the daily

newspaper El Comercio. "At any moment there could a confrontation and

deaths."

All eyes are now on President Humala, as pressure mounts over how he will

handle the terrorists' latest outrage. A former army major who saw armed

action against the Shining Path in the 1990s, he has previously vowed to

crush the surviving remnants of the terrorist group once and for all.

The incident is the most serious involving Shining Path since 2003, when the

group kidnapped 70 workers for Argentine oil firm Techint. They had also

been working on the Camisea gas project, one of Peru's largest ever

infrastructure projects, which is projected to provide the country with

cheap gas for decades to come. The hostages were released unharmed within 24

hours after Techint privately negotiated with the terrorists.

Rather than represent a resurgence of activity by the Shining Path, the

kidnapping of the Skanska workers appears to be a desperate response to the

arrest in February of Florindo Eleuterio Flores, alias "Comrade Artemio".

Flores was Shining Path's most senior commander still at large from the

group's murderous heyday in the 1980s and 1990s. He had been leading a small

group of rebels as they continued to attack police and military patrols,

occasionally even downing a helicopter, from their jungle hideout.

The days when the group effectively laid siege to Lima by detonating bombs

in the city centre, are long gone, as is the revolutionary fervour that once

marked the Shining Path and motivated its Khmer Rouge-style scorched earth

tactics.

For most of the past decade, the Shining Path has been divided into two

small groups operating in the remote cocaine hotspots of the Huallaga Valley

and the Valley of the Apurimac and Ene Rivers (VRAE), where it charges the

drugs cartels for protection.

Nevertheless, the group refuses to die and Victor Quispe Palomino, known as

"Comrade Jose", who commands the VRAE faction, is said to have a fortune of

$100m at his disposal to spend on arms including AK-47 machine guns and

anti-aircraft missiles.

Timeline: Shining Path

Late 1960s Abimael Guzman, nicknamed Comrade Gonzalo, founds the group with

the aim of imposing "new democracy" in Peru.

1980 Group launches its first military operation, burning ballot boxes.

1983 Slaughters 69 people, including 15 children, in Ayacucho. This marks

the start of a new trend of killings.

July 1992 A huge bomb explodes in downtown Lima, killing 25 people.

September 1992 Guzman is captured and paraded in front of the world's media

in a prison jumpsuit.

2012 Comrade Artemio, the group's leader, is captured after a shoot-out.

==========================================

(F)AIR USE NOTICE: All original content and/or articles and graphics in this

message are copyrighted, unless specifically noted otherwise. All rights to

these copyrighted items are reserved. Articles and graphics have been placed

within for educational and discussion purposes only, in compliance with

"Fair Use" criteria established in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.

The principle of "Fair Use" was established as law by Section 107 of The

Copyright Act of 1976. "Fair Use" legally eliminates the need to obtain

permission or pay royalties for the use of previously copyrighted materials

if the purposes of display include "criticism, comment, news reporting,

teaching, scholarship, and research." Section 107 establishes four criteria

for determining whether the use of a work in any particular case qualifies

as a "fair use". A work used does not necessarily have to satisfy all four

criteria to qualify as an instance of "fair use". Rather, "fair use" is

determined by the overall extent to which the cited work does or does not

substantially satisfy the criteria in their totality. If you wish to use

copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you

must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS

PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

The Democrats' Fear of Romney's Little Housewife

The Democrats’ Fear of Romney’s Little Housewife

Posted By Arnold Ahlert On April 13, 2012

On Wednesday, when CNN’s Anderson Cooper noted that “women are seeing jobs come back much more slowly than men are” and wondered whether there was anything wrong with the Romney campaign reaching out to women on economic issues, political strategist and mouthpiece for the Democratic Party establishment Hilary Rosen couldn’t resist taking a shot at both Romneys. First up was Ann. “Guess what?” said Rosen. “His wife has never worked a day in her life” and therefore she was unqualified to champion women’s economic concerns. Rosen hysterically linked this to Mitt being “so old-fashioned when it comes to women” that “he doesn’t really see us as equals.”

Ms. Rosen doubled down on her derision Thursday when she initially refused to apologize for her remark, even as she attempted to cover herself by resorting to the Obama administration’s primary re-election strategy: fomenting class warfare. “This is not about Ann Romney,” Rosen contended. “This is about the waitress in a diner somewhere in Nevada who has two kids whose day care funding is being cut off because of the Romney-Ryan budget and she doesn’t know what to do…”

Leaving aside Rosen’s lunatic hyperbole, the faux pas, a direct denigration of stay-at-home mothers, descended into a PR meltdown. In an informal poll by the Washington Post asked whether Rosen was out of line because raising a family is a lot of work, or if Ann Romney was out of touch with the economic issues facing working women. 97 percent thought raising a family is a lot of work.

So why take on Ann Romney? Because the 62-year-old mother of five is considered a “wild card” by Obama strategists fearful that her winning personality and command of the issues could sway millions of American women to vote for her husband. They are equally worried she could “humanize” her husband, who is often seen as cold and aloof.

Thus, it was no surprise that Mrs. Romney defended both herself and her husband with a graceful ease that set her off from Rosen and a Democratic Party that must stay in attack mode to deflect the election conversation away from the Obama administration’s dismal record. “My career choice was to be a mother,” Mrs Romney told Fox News. “And I think all of us need to know that we need to respect choices that women make. Other women make other choices to have a career and raise family, which I think Hilary Rosen has actually done herself. I respect that, that’s wonderful. But you know, there are other people that have a choice, we have to respect women in all those choices that they make.”

And she was quick to defend her husband against charges of inequality. “Now that bothers me,” she said, noting that her husband has had top female advisors going back to his days as the governor of Massachusetts.

She then took on the first of what will undoubtedly be numerous attempts to portray both her and her husband as the out-of-touch elitists Democrats and the Obama campaign need them to be. “I can tell you and promise you that I’ve had struggles in my life,” she said. “And I would love to have people understand that Mitt and I have compassion for people that are struggling. That’s why we’re running,” she added. What struggles? Ann Romney is a breast cancer survivor currently suffering from multiple sclerosis. Hilary Rosen is undoubtedly aware of that as well, which makes her attack–in the “age of civility” demanded by Democrats following the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords–all the more unseemly.

It was an unseemliness that continued on Twitter following the Fox interview. “I’ve nothing against @AnnRomney. I just don’t want Mitt using her as an expert on women struggling $ to support their family. She isn’t,” Rosen tweeted. She followed that with “@AnnDRomney Please know, I admire you. But your husband shouldn’t say you are his expert on women and the economy.”

By early yesterday afternoon, Rosen’s gaffe had reached critical mass among Democrats, who apparently realized they had overplayed their war on women strategy. “I could not disagree with Hilary Rosen any more strongly,” tweeted Obama campaign manager Jim Messina. “Her comments were wrong and family should be off limits. She should apologize.” Top Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod echoed Messina. “Also Disappointed in Hilary Rosen’s comments about Ann Romney. They were inappropriate and offensive.”

Not nearly as offensive as a pro-Obama Super PAC, Priorities USA, keeping a one million dollar Obama campaign contribution from HBO host Bill Maher, despite the fact that Maher referred to former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin as a “dumb twat” and a “c**t.” Axlerod was given the chance by CNN host Erin Burnett to demand that Maher’s donation be returned. He dodged the issue completely, even as he contended conservative radio host’s Rush Limbaugh’s characterization of activist Sandra Fluke as a “slut” was a far more egregious slur against women. Thus, Axlerod’s “disappointment” is disingenuous at best.

Finally, late yesterday afternoon, Rosen herself apologized. ”I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended,” she said in statement. “Let’s put the faux ‘war against stay at home moms’ to rest once and for all. As a mom I know that raising children is the hardest job there is. As a pundit, I know my words on CNN last night were poorly chosen.”

A faux war? Rosen might want to alert the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. They’re running an online petition titled “Stop the Republican War on Women!” She might want to alert Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as well. In an online blast Wednesday by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), Pelosi asked for donations in order “to send a clear message that we will not tolerate or stand by while Republicans wage war on women’s rights.”

It is a war they’ll have to wage with Ann Romney on the other side. The quiet dignity she demonstrated in the midst of an unwarranted attack suggests that she knows how to handle herself on the campaign trail. 42 years of marriage to the same man suggests a stability and loyalty unlikely to be ruffled by Democrats, no matter how hard they attack. They got their taste regarding her depth of character yesterday.

It won’t be their last.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

---

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/04/13/the-democrats-fear-of-romneys-little-house...