usbacklash.org
Mia Love Wikipedia Page Vandalized by Liberal Trash - Called a “House Nigger”, “Dirty Worthless Whore”

[caption id=”attachment_3183” align=”alignright” width=”350”]Mia Love Wikipedia Page Vandalized by Liberal Trash - Called a Mia Love Wikipedia Page Vandalized by Liberal Trash - Called a “House Nigger”, “Dirty Worthless Whore”[/caption]Democrats claim to care about women, but this is not necessarily true.
Democrats like women who share the same liberal disease, but the same vile liberal scum will brutally attack any woman who doesn’t believe the same idiotic liberal trash.

After Mia Love spoke at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, liberal pieces of shit vandalized the Mia Love WikiPedia page calling her everything from a “House Nigger” to a “dirty worthless whore”. The liberal trash also called Mia Love a “Aunt Tom” and said “she is a total sell-out to the Right Wing Hate Machine and the greedy bigots who control the GOP and love to see people like Mia Love be exploited like the House Nigger she truly is.”

If ANYONE is being exploited, it would be the idiots who have been brainwashed to support the same party that fought the Civil War to keep their ancestors in chains - and what have they received in return? Sky-High unemployment, and some government handouts which serve to keep them down longer.

[caption id=”attachment_3182” align=”alignnone” width=”528”]Mia Love Wikipedia Page Vandalized by Liberal Trash - Called a Mia Love Wikipedia Page Vandalized by Liberal Trash - Called a “House Nigger”[/caption]

It’s funny that the brain-dead writer speaks about the “Right Wing Hate Machine”, and in the same sentence calls Mia Love a “House Nigger”. Only the hypocrisy of a liberal would not catch the irony.

Tuesday night after rising GOP star Mia Love brought down the house with her inspiring convention speech, the stomach-turning Left labeled the black conservative a “token” and an “Aunt Tom.”

Meanwhile, revoltingly racist, woman-hating Wikipedia vandals were hard at work updating her entry with disgusting slurs like “House Nigger” and “dirty, worthless whore.” The page called her a “total sell-out to the Right Wing Hate machine and the greedy bigots who control the GOP.”

Glenn Reynolds reported the defacement of Love’s Wikipedia page last night.

Stand Up To Government Corruption and Hypocrisy - usbacklash.org

Unhinged Yahoo! Washington Bureau Chief David Chalian Says Mitt Romney “happy to have a party when black people drown”

[caption id=”attachment_3175” align=”alignright” width=”174”]Unhinged Yahoo! Washington Bureau Chief David Chalian Says Mitt Romney “happy to have a party when black people drown” Unhinged Yahoo! Washington Bureau Chief David Chalian Says Mitt Romney “happy to have a party when black people drown”[/caption]Unhinged Yahoo! Washington Bureau Chief, David Chalian, has been caught on an ABC webcast saying that Mitt Romney would be “happy to have a party when black people drown.”. He was trying to make the point that Mitt Romney and his wife would have no problem with African Americans suffering or drowning as a result of Hurricane Isaac.

This is especially funny when the Democrats have done nothing to help the plight of the African American community. Obama speaks well about helping African Americans, when reading off his poll-driven teleprompters, but in fact, under Obama’s non-leadership, the unemployment rate in the Black community has risen dramatically, and at 16.7% African American unemployment rate is the highest unemployment rate since 1984.

Democrats can’t talk about Obama’s dismal record, so this seems to be more the case of a piece of shit liberal, in the all-but-dead media, falsely playing the race card while trying to trash Mitt Romney.

Romney camp comments: “It hasn’t even been 24 hours after the primetime speech line up at the Republican National Convention last night, and you can already tell how successful and powerful of a night it really was by the complete and utter meltdown the mainstream media is experiencing today. … Most shockingly, Yahoo! Washington Bureau Chief David Chalian got caught on an ABC webcast saying that Mitt Romney would be “happy to have a party when black people drown.”

***UPDATE: ABC News reached out to Breitbart News to name the man heard mocking the Romneys during this ABC News livecast: David Chalian (pictured) of Yahoo! News. Chalian is a former political director with ABC News, but according to ABC News has no association with the network now. The headline has been changed to reflect this update, as has the story itself.

This is who the media is. This is what Romney and all Republicans are up against. In what atmosphere does a so-called reporter feel comfortable firing off this kind of vicious joke?

Well, the answer is easy: In an atmosphere where you’re surrounded in a bubble by elite, ignorant, hate-mongering, ideologically-bigoted leftists just like yourself.

The media cannot be reasoned with nor can a peace be brokered.

We must defeat these people because that’s what they intend to do to us. When you believe our nominee is happy to party while black people drown, you can only believe that we possess no humanity. You can’t reason with people who hate you. You just can’t.

ADDED: This is a sample of the media’s awful, racialist behavior towards Mitt Romney. Believe me, there’s plenty more. Here’s our rundown of yesterday’s media coverage of the convention; it’s a tale of bias and race-baiting. Here’s the story of how NBC News’s Chief White House Correspondent, Chuck Todd, race-baited while live on the air yesterday. Incredible stuff.

How are conservatives supposed to business with a media that considers them evil?

UPDATE FROM YAHOO!: “David Chalian’s statement was inappropriate and does not represent the views of Yahoo!. He has been terminated effective immediately. We have already reached out to the Romney campaign, and we apologize to Mitt Romney, his staff, their supporters and anyone who was offended.”

Stand Up To Government Corruption and Hypocrisy - usbacklash.org

Anti-Transparency Obama Administration Hides DNC Convention Donor List From Public

The Obama administration, who once upon a time said that they would run the most transparent administration in US history, must have made a mistake and used the word “most” instead of “least”.

[caption id=”attachment_3132” align=”alignnone” width=”570”]Anti-Transparency Obama Administration Hides DNC Convention Donor List From Public Anti-Transparency Obama Administration Hides DNC Convention Donor List From Public[/caption]

In a move that goes against the laughable DNC Transparency claim, Obama and the Democrat Culture of Corruption will be keeping the list of convention donors secret and hidden from the public.

The host committee for the convention, known as Charlotte in 2012, had published on its Web site its policy that donors would be disclosed online “on an ongoing basis.” And the contract that city officials signed with Democratic Party officials specified that “all contributions, monetary or in-kind, shall be disclosed publicly . . . within an agreed upon regular timeframe on the host committee’s website.”

The committee removed that language from its Web site last week after an inquiry from The Washington Post.

“just seems to run counter to the message that this is the people’s convention. You’d think transparency would be something celebrated, not reduced.” - Executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsible Politics - Sheila Krumholz

"In its marketing materials, the party promises that the “people’s convention,” set to begin Sept. 3 in Charlotte, will be the “most open and accessible ever.” But the names of donors, some of whom are giving up to $100,000, will remain secret"

Democratic Party officials say they will not release the names of donors to next month’s political convention before the event, despite an earlier pledge that they would regularly disclose the contributors.

In its marketing materials, the party promises that the “people’s convention,” set to begin Sept. 3 in Charlotte, will be the “most open and accessible ever.” But the names of donors, some of whom are giving up to $100,000, will remain secret until federal disclosure documents are filed Oct. 15, six weeks after the festivities have ended, when public attention will have shifted to Election Day.

Democrats have made transparency a central theme of the campaign, pushing for legislation requiring groups to disclose donors. In a recent e-mail to supporters, President Obama’s campaign manager, Jim Messina, asked for signatures on a petition calling for conservative interest groups to reveal the names of contributors.

“They have a vested interest in being able to spend millions anonymously to influence our elections,” Messina wrote.

The Obama campaign and its supporters also have called on Republican challenger Mitt Romney to release more tax returns, suggesting that he may be hiding information about his personal finances.

Four years ago, both parties voluntarily listed convention donors online and made regular updates to the information.

Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsible Politics, said the decision not to disclose donors until October “just seems to run counter to the message that this is the people’s convention. You’d think transparency would be something celebrated, not reduced.”

Democrats have had trouble raising money for the gathering largely because of a decision to ban corporate money. Corporations traditionally have provided much of the financing for both party conventions. But in a sign of their tight budget, Democratic organizers shortened the official convention schedule from four days to three.

The host committee for the convention, known as Charlotte in 2012, had published on its Web site its policy that donors would be disclosed online “on an ongoing basis.” And the contract that city officials signed with Democratic Party officials specified that “all contributions, monetary or in-kind, shall be disclosed publicly . . . within an agreed upon regular timeframe on the host committee’s website.”

The committee removed that language from its Web site last week after an inquiry from The Washington Post.

A spokeswoman for the committee, Suzi Emmerling, said in an e-mailed statement that the site “has not been updated for some time and is not consistent with our current policies. Our current policy is that we will file a report and make information available compliant with FEC guidelines.”

Emmerling said that the host committee and Democrats decided that the “regular timeframe” to disclose was by the date it was required by federal law.

Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt declined to comment.

Joanne Peters, a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Convention Committee, declined to comment about the disclosure of donors. She said in an e-mailed statement that “the DNCC has instituted the strongest and farthest-reaching rules ever established governing fundraising and special interest access at a convention.”

The host committee for the Republican convention in Tampa did not pledge to disclose donors and does not mention its individual contributors, but it does display on its Web site logos from 26 corporate sponsors, including Google and Wal-Mart.

“We display our sponsors because they’ve been supportive of our Tampa Bay community,” said Ken Jones, the head of the Tampa Bay Host Committee. “We’re proud to have them.”

The Charlotte host committee, in an agreement with the Democratic Party, banned direct corporate donations but accepts corporate donations of goods and services. City officials also have created a separate entity that accepts corporate money to fund events around the convention, including a welcoming party for journalists paid for by Time Warner Cable.

Some corporate help to the Democratic convention is known, but only because of the companies themselves. Officials from several of the corporations funding the Republican event have said the companies also would provide services to the Democrats. AT&T announced that it was the official “wireless and mobility provider” to the Democratic convention, bringing in temporary cell towers and other services. And Coca-
Cola, the “official recycler” of the GOP convention, said it would also help the Democratic convention.

Stand Up To Government Corruption and Hypocrisy - usbacklash.org

Obama Senior White House Adviser Valerie Jarrett Evades Taxes, Profits Off “Urban Despair” With Controversial Chicago Housing Deals

[caption id=”attachment_3126” align=”alignright” width=”268”]Obama Senior White House Adviser Valerie Jarrett Evades Taxes, Profits Off Obama Senior White House Adviser Valerie Jarrett Evades Taxes, Profits Off “Urban Despair” With Controversial Chicago Housing Deals[/caption]Obama’s Senior White House Adviser Valerie Jarrett has been profiting for years off of the “urban despair” created by a company she was a CEO of, while avoiding paying most of the taxes she should have paid.

The Kingsbury Plaza 46-story Chicago luxury apartment complex that Valerie Jarrett has an 11-percent equity interest in is worth around $27.2 million but since 2008 the property has been designated a “special commercial structure” which is taxed at a value of just $6.8 million, or 25 percent of the actual value.

In 2010 Valerie Jarrett valued her stake in Kingsbury Plaza at $250,001, and her 2011 financial disclosure form lists her investment value between $1 million and $5 million.

Just more “Above the Law” Chicagoland Democrats using shady or corrupt tactics to line their pockets and the pockets of their political cronies.

Senior White House adviser and long-time Obama confidant Valerie Jarrett’s role in a number of controversial Chicago housing developments has garnered her investments worth millions of dollars while highlighting the administration’s extensive business ties to presidential donors.

Before joining the Obama administration in 2009, Jarrett was president and chief executive officer of the Habitat Company, a real estate development firm founded by major Democratic donor Daniel Levin. Before that, she served three years as commissioner of the Chicago Department of Planning and Development under Mayor Richard Daley.

Jarrett currently owns an 11-percent equity interest in Kingsbury Plaza, a 46-story luxury apartment complex developed by Habitat between 2005 and 2007 at a cost of more than $100 million.

She valued the investment at between $1 million and $5 million on her 2011 financial disclosure form, up from $250,001 in 2010. A Jarrett spokesman told the Washington Times that the investment was “a direct result of her 13 years working for Habitat.”

Cook County records show the Kingsbury property is worth around $27.2 million, but thanks to a series of legal appeals beginning in 2003, the land and building are assessed at a much lower value for tax purposes. Since 2008, the property has been designated a “special commercial structure” and is taxed at a value of just $6.8 million, or 25 percent of the actual value.

Asked how such a property could enjoy such a low taxable value, an official with the Cook County Assessor’s Office told the Free Beacon that the property’s owners “must have good attorneys.”

In addition to Jarrett’s investment through her former employer, she received deferred compensation of more than $556,000 in January 2009, on top of her $302,000 salary the previous year.

Levin, the firm’s founder, has close ties to the Obama administration and the Democratic Party. Levin and his wife, Fay Hartog Levin, are long-time acquaintances of the president’s, and have personally donated nearly $1 million to Democratic candidates and committees since 1989, including about $25,000 each to Obama.

In 2009, President Obama appointed Hartog Levin ambassador to the Netherlands, a move that drew criticism from government accountability advocates. The president has a history of awarding top donors and fundraisers with ambassadorships and other administrations posts.

The Levins each hold personal stakes in the Kingsbury development worth at least $1 million as of 2011.

Jarrett’s involvement in Chicago real estate development between 1992 and 2009 was marred with controversy, much of which centered on Habitat’s role as the sole developer for “family public housing,” a status granted under a district court ruling in 1987.

Under Jarrett’s leadership, Habitat oversaw the development of a number of public housing projects, one of which, in the Cabrini Green neighborhood, was dubbed a “national symbol of urban despair.” Others became so run-down the city had to ask the federal government to intervene.

A 2003 Harvard Law Review article cited the decline of the Cabrini Green development as an embodiment of the negative consequence associated with the “privatization of public housing.”

“They are rapidly displacing poor people, and these companies are profiting from this displacement,” Matt Ginsberg-Jaeckle of Southside Together Organizing for Power, a Chicago community organization, told the Boston Globe in 2008.

Habitat and the Chicago Housing Authority in 2000 announced an ambitious, multi-million dollar “Plan for Transformation” in an effort to revitalize the city’s decrepit housing projects. The plan involved the establishment of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts, an accounting method through which state and local governments would subsidize redevelopment projects.

Such financing often leads to an increase in property values in surrounding areas, benefitting developers such as Habitat. The Kingsbury property in which Jarrett owns a stake lies just outside a TIF district.

The Cabrini Green neighborhood in 1997 was designated a “blighted” area, a portion of which was established as a TIF district. Thousands of families were displaced and many relocated to unsafe, unfinished housing projects elsewhere in the city. Experts questioned whether redevelopment resulted in a net benefit for the city.

The city’s transformation plan included an effort to establish a separate TIF district just south of Cabrini Green in the Kingsbury neighborhood, a relatively well-off area that did not initially meet the Chicago Community Development Commission’s (CCDC) requirements for TIF status.

The city ultimately approved the project on the grounds that the neighborhood was a “conservation area” and argued that its redevelopment would help revitalize the blighted Cabrini Green area.

The CCDC held a public hearing on February 29, 2000, regarding the Kingsbury development project, but it is unclear if Jarrett or other Habitat executives testified in favor of granting TIF status.

The transcripts of such hearings are typically turned over to the Chicago Municipal Library as a matter of public record. The transcript from that particular hearing, however, was never provided. A CCDC representative told the Free Beacon the document was unavailable but could be requested through the Freedom of Information Act.

The White House and the Habitat Company did not return requests for comment.

Stand Up To Government Corruption and Hypocrisy - usbacklash.org

Paul Ryan Picks Apart Obamacare Ponzi Scheme

Paul Ryan picked apart Obamacare before Obama and the Democrats crammed their socialized healthcare down our throats, but they didn’t listen.

"Hiding Spending Does Not Reduce Spending" - Chairman of the House Budget Committee Paul Ryan

Stand Up To Government Corruption and Hypocrisy - usbacklash.org

Obama’s Open Borders Policy: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Faces Suspension For Doing Job

[caption id=”attachment_2929” align=”alignright” width=”350”]Obama and the Democrat's Open Borders Policy: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Faces Suspension For Doing Job Obama and the Democrat’s Open Borders Policy: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Faces Suspension For Doing Job[/caption]Why is the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency not allowing ICE Agents to do their jobs?

Obama and the Democrats fight to keep our borders open to all illegal immigrants has spread to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency as well, as an immigration agent was threatened with suspension for arresting an illegal immigrant who also had an extensive record of traffic violations.

After arresting the illegal immigrant, his supervisors said that the illegal was not a “priority target”, and told him to release the illegal immigrant, or face a 3 day suspension. The illegal immigrant has since been released into the public to continue gaming and scamming our country and our citizens.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., is demanding answers after a report surfaced that a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent is facing punishment for arresting an illegal immigrant.

The unidentified agent could face a three-day suspension after he arrested a 35-year-old illegal immigrant from Mexico who had as many as 10 traffic violations.

The agent was ordered by supervisors to release the individual because he was not a “priority target.” When the officer balked, he was threatened with a three-day suspension and the illegal alien was let go.

"The actions that it appears were taken by your agency send a message to agents in the field that they will be punished for doing their duty and enforcing the law," Sessions wrote in an letter to ICE Director John Morton and obtained exclusively by Fox News.

Stand Up To Government Corruption and Hypocrisy - usbacklash.org

Obama’s Department of Labor Covering Up Mass Layoff Possibility After Auto Defense Cuts

[caption id=”attachment_2336” align=”alignright” width=”300”]Obama's Department of Labor Covering Up Mass Layoffs Just Days Before Election, After Auto Defense Cuts Kick In Obama’s Department of Labor Covering Up Mass Layoffs Just Days Before Election, After Auto Defense Cuts Kick In[/caption]Why is the Department of Labor telling defense companies that it would be “inappropriate” to notify their employees of the good possibility of massive layoffs that the Democrats are forcing on the American People after the automatic defense cuts kick into effect?

The WARN Act, which is a law that REQUIRES companies to give their employees at least 60 days notification before layoffs take place, is being politically manipulated by Obama and his cronies in the Department of Labor.

Obama’s Department of Labor (DOL) is now telling defense companies that the WARN Act does not apply to defense companies, so it would be “inappropriate” to give the proper 60 day notification before hundreds of thousands of jobs are lost just days before the next election.

The Obama administration is trying to hide the fact that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, just days before the next election, and because he actually does want the defense cuts, he designed the “Super Committee” to fail so the cuts would be the end result, and Obama himself could deny responsibility for the cuts.

The truth is that Obama wants the defense cuts to happen, but doesn’t want the American People to know that his administration will be killing a huge number of additional jobs, just days before the election, which besides the lost jobs, will also make our country much less safe.

The federal law requiring worker notification of mass layoffs doesn’t apply to defense companies and other government contractors affected by the possibility of across-the-board budget cuts beginning early next year, the U.S. Department of Labor said.

In guidance posted today on its website, the Labor Department said it would be “inappropriate” for companies to send 60-day notices to their employees given the uncertainty about whether the reductions will occur or which jobs will be cut.

Legal notice “to employees of federal contractors, including in the defense industry, is not required 60 days in advance of Jan. 2, 2013, and would be inappropriate, given the lack of certainty about how the budget cuts will be implemented and the possibility that the sequester will be avoided before January,” the department said.

Companies led by Lockheed Martin Corp., the world’s largest defense contractor, have said federal and state laws may require them to issue notifications of potential job cuts days before the Nov. 6 election unless President Barack Obama and Congress act to avert automatic defense reductions of $500 billion over a decade that would start on Jan. 2.

The department was clarifying requirements under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, also known as the WARN Act.

Partisan Fight Brewing

The Labor Department guidance, prepared for state agencies that aid laid-off workers under the law, comes as a partisan fight is building over the defense reductions, with Democrats insisting that Republicans agree to some tax increases to avert the cuts. The cuts stem from last year’s clash over raising the debt limit, with the automatic cuts employed as a fallback if both parties couldn’t agree on a broad debt-reduction package.

Companies and industry groups, such as the Aerospace Industries Association, are also demanding more clarity from the White House and Pentagon over how the cuts will be implemented. The defense cuts amount to about a 10 percent reduction.

In a statement, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard P. “Buck” McKeon accused Labor Secretary Hilda Solis of participating in a political gambit, and said Obama should focus on ending the budget impasse with Congress.

‘Politically Motivated’

“As it stands, the only certainty we are dealing with is that dramatic cuts will force huge job losses,” McKeon said in a statement. “And as a result of Secretary Solis’ politically motivated guidance, people will still get laid off because of the president’s irresponsibility, but they won’t have the notice to protect themselves and their families.”

Republican Senators John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, in a joint statement, likewise criticized the Labor Department’s action as a “deliberate political effort from the White House to skirt the law” and use national security as “a partisan bargaining chip.”

Disputing that, Representative Adam Smith of Washington, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, commended the Labor Department for “an important and correct interpretation of the law” that avoids actions that would “needlessly alarm hundreds of thousands of workers when there is no way to know what will happen with sequestration.”

The Labor Department’s move could boost prospects the cuts will occur, Byron Callan, a defense industry analyst with Capital Alpha Partners LLC, said in a note to clients.

“The guidance could marginally increase the probability of sequestration as an absence of layoff notices might entail less constituent pressure for Congress to act,” he said.

WARN Act

The federal WARN Act, which became law in 1988, requires most employers with 100 or more workers to give 60 days’ notice of plant closings or “mass layoffs” — labor cutbacks affecting 500 or more workers, or at least 33 percent of the workforce for companies with fewer than 500 employees.

Stand Up To Government Corruption and Hypocrisy - usbacklash.org

Brain-Dead MSNBC Nut-Jobs Say Romney Purposefully Got Booed by Racist NAACP To Attract Votes

[caption id=”attachment_2705” align=”alignright” width=”350”]Brain-Dead MSNBC Nut-Jobs Say Romney Purposefully Got Booed by Racist NAACP To Attract Votes Brain-Dead MSNBC Nut-Jobs Say Romney Purposefully Got Booed by Racist NAACP To Attract Votes [/caption]At the biggest joke of a news station, (if you can call them a news station) Lawrence O’Donnell and other brain-dead MSNBC hacks, try and claim that Mitt Romney purposefully said things to be booed by blacks during his NAACP speech, in order to attract votes ‘in certain racist precincts’ from racist Republicans.

We have said it before and we will say it again… IF ANY ONE GROUP CAN BE CONSIDERED RACIST, IT IS THE DEMOCRATS!
Democrats are the ones to enslaved Black People and kept slavery going until Republicans ended slavery in the Civil War.

The only reason why people actually believe the Democrat lies that Republicans are racist, is because they have no brains, and cannot think for themselves. If the sheep could think for themselves, they would do some research into slavery, racism in America, and who fought and gave their lives to end slavery. I’ll give them a hint.

Democrats fought to keep Black people in slavery, and Republicans gave their lives fighting to end slavery.

Obama doesn’t care about Black people, other than getting their vote.
What is the unemployment rate in the Black community? If Obama cared about Black people, maybe the unemployment rate in the Black community wouldn’t be twice as high as it is for White people, and maybe Obama wouldn’t be pushing as many people as they can to start using food stamps. He would be pushing them to get an education and then get a good job instead.

The Romney campaign has been accused of deliberately getting the Republican presidential candidate booed by black people during his NAACP speech to attract votes ‘in certain racist precincts’, by MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell.

Romney was booed for 15 seconds at the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People conference in Houston on Wednesday when he stated he would ‘eliminate’ unnecessary programmes like the Obamacare health reform.

Democrats united in saying that Romney planned to get booed to appeal to his conservative base. But O’Donnell and his guests went a step further by saying that Romney was making a play for white racists.

Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader in the House of Representatives, told Bloomberg Television: “I think it was a calculated move on his part to get booed at the NAACP convention.’

Discussing the speech on his ‘Last Word’ show with Goldie Taylor, a liberal writer and commentator, O’Donnell highlighted ‘the Southern strategy that Republicans have used since [President Richard] Nixon and started a little bit before that, where there`s actually an almost overt sometimes appeal to racial and racist voting.’

He then asked: ‘And tell me, Goldie, if I`m being too cynical, to think that the Romney campaign actually went in that room today with the hope of getting booed, at least three times, because they want the video of their candidate being booed by the NAACP to play in certain racist precincts where that will actually help them?’

Taylor responded that ‘I don`t think you`re being too cynical at all’, adding that Romney ‘used a word like “Obamacare,” which is a derisive term for the Affordable Care Act’.

O’Donnell then brought up Romney’s Mormon faith. Romney had told the NAACP that if Americans had been told ‘in the 1950s or 1960s that a black citizen would serve as the 44th of the United States, we would have been proud and many would have been surprised.’

The MSNBC host noted that the Mormon church did not allow black men to become persists until 1978. ‘And so it would have been even more shocking and surprising to say to him, in the 1960s, a black citizen might become the president of the Mormon Church. That`s even more far-fetched.’

This comment was echoed by the writer and television host Toure, another guest, who added: ‘This is a classic Republican strategy that we saw today. Using black people to score points with white people, as we`ve said already, the real audience was not in the room. He`s talking to white people.’

Toure also opined: ‘He wants to get booed. It makes him either look tough and strong to the white people watching, or make him look sympathetic to the white people watching.’

Romney, who had said that he ‘expected’ a negative response at the NAACP conference, told donors in Montana on Wednesday evening: ‘I don’t give different speeches to different audiences, alright. I gave them the same speech. When I mentioned I am going to get rid of Obamacare they weren’t happy, I didn’t get the same response.

'That's OK, I want people to know what I stand for and if I don't stand for what they want, go vote for someone else, that's just fine.'

Vice President Joe Biden addressed the NAACP on Thursday morning in what amounted to a rebuttal of Romney’s controversial speech.

President Barack Obama decided at the last minute not to attend, citing a ‘scheduling conflict’.

Romney knew he would be facing a potentially hostile crowd at the NAACP conference – more than 95 per cent of blacks voted for President Barack Obama four years ago.

But he seemed briefly stunned by the booing and catcalling from the audience and departed from his prepared remarks to argue that Obama’s healthcare reform would cause businesses to shed jobs.
Nancy Pelosi called the booing ‘calculated’

Nancy Pelosi called the booing ‘calculated’

The former Massachusetts governor’s reception was initially polite, even warm at times. But that changed when he said: ‘I’m going to eliminate every non-essential expensive programme I can find, that includes Obamacare.’

Abandoning his script, he quelled the boos by saying: ‘You know, there was a survey of the Chamber of Commerce, they carried out a survey of their members, about 1500 were surveyed.

'And they asked them what effected that Obamacare would have on their plans and three-quarters of them said it would make them less likely to hire people.

'So I say again if our priority is jobs and that's my priority that's something I'd change and I will replace with something that provides people something they need in healthcare, which is lower cost, good quality , a capacity to deal with people who have pre-existing conditions and I'll put that in place.'

Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist, told CNN that the crowd was ‘right to boo’ because ‘Obamacare’ was ‘derogatory terminology used by an intolerant group of Americans’.

Back in March, however, the Obama campaign fully embraced the term Obamacare, formerly mainly the preserve of conservative critics of Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, sent out an email saying: ‘I like Obamacare. I’m proud of it — and you should be, too. Here’s why: Because it works. So if you’re with me, say it: “I like Obamacare.”’

Stand Up To Government Corruption and Hypocrisy - usbacklash.org

CBO: Wealthy People Pay More than Their Fair Share of Taxes - Fair Tax Needed

Obama and the Democrat Culture of Corruption continue trying to rise taxes on job makers to try and make a dent in his out-of-control spending tab, and and say that wealthy people need to “pay their fair share”, when it is well known to people who care that the top 20% of wealthy people pay nearly 70 percent of the federal taxes our government takes in.

[caption id=”attachment_2674” align=”alignright” width=”350”]CBO: Wealthy People Pay More than Their Fair Share of Taxes - Fair Tax Needed CBO: Wealthy People Pay More than Their Fair Share of Taxes - Fair Tax Needed[/caption]This is shocking! When tax burden is figured in, the top 1% of wage earners only were allowed to keep 11.5% of their income - the other 88.5% of their income was taken by the government as taxes.

CBO analysis shows that the Democrats have been lying to the American People about who pas their fair share of taxes, and reveals the truth is that wealthy people actually do pay far more than their fair share of taxes in the United States. We need a fair tax!

Wealthy Americans earn about 50 percent of all income but pay nearly 70 percent of the federal tax burden, according to the latest analysis Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office — though the agency said the very richest have seen their share of taxes fall the past few years.

CBO looked at 2007 through 2009 — the latest years data are available, but enough to include the early effects of the last recession — and found the bottom 20 percent of American earners paid just three-tenths of a percent of the total federal tax burden, while the richest 20 percent paid 67.9 percent of taxes.

The top 1 percent, whom President Obama has made a target during the presidential campaign, earned 13.4 percent of all pre-tax income but paid 22.3 percent of taxes in 2009, CBO said. When tax burden is figured in, the top 1 percent took in only 11.5 percent of income.

But the richest 1 percent’s share of the total tax burden did drop 4.4 percentage points from 2007 to 2009 — a figure likely to bolster Mr. Obama’s calls for them to pay more by letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire.

The big losers over the past few years were the rest of the well-off — those in the 60th percent to 99th percent of earnings — who saw their tax burdens go up.

“Specifically, between 2007 and 2009, the share of taxes paid fell for the bottom three income quintiles, was close to flat for the fourth quintile, but rose for the highest quintile,” CBO said. “Within the top quintile, however, the shift was uneven; the share paid by the top percentile fell, and the share paid by the rest of the top quintile rose.”

In terms of actual earnings, the top 1 percent suffered the most in the recession, with their average earnings dropping from $1.9 million to $1.2 million. The lowest 20 percent saw their incomes drop from $23,900 to $23,500 during that time.

CBO included a wide range of measures of income including wages, employer-paid health insurance premiums and capital gains.

CBO said the top 1 percent earned an average of 1.9 million in pre-tax income in 2009, while the top 20 percent as a whole averaged $273,000. The fourth quintile averaged $98,400, the middle quintile averaged $67,600, the second quintile averaged $45,600, and the lowest quintile averaged $23,900 in income.

Mr. Obama has called for households making $250,000 a year or more to pay higher income tax rates, though he has proposed extending the Bush-era rates for those making less.

Republicans have countered that they want a one-year extension of all current rates in order to have breathing space to tackle a broader overhaul of the tax code.

CBO, the non-partisan agency that serves as Congress’ official scorekeeper, said the current tax code is progressive chiefly because of the income tax structure. On average, the lowest 40 percent of earners actually get money back through the income tax code because of refundable tax credits.

Actual changes to the tax code between 2007 and 2009 benefited the lowest earners, CBO said.

Stand Up To Government Corruption and Hypocrisy - usbacklash.org

Brad Pitt’s Mom Receiving Death Threats From Unhinged Democrats & Liberals

We always hear the hypocrite jackasses on the left talking about how “compassionate” Democrats are towards people, but the crazies on the left are only compassionate towards the people who share their wacko liberal views. If someone says anything that these liberal pieces of shit don’t like, they call for the person to be hurt or even murdered.
[caption id=”attachment_2652” align=”alignnone” width=”632”]Brad Pitt's Mom Receiving Death Threats From Unhinged Democrats & Liberals Brad Pitt’s Mom Receiving Death Threats From Unhinged Democrats & Liberals[/caption]

Take Brad Pitt’s Mom for example.. “Brad Pitt’s mom, die” is one of the less vulgar and violent twitter messages left for Mrs. Pitt after she came out and said some true but negative things about same sex marriage and abortion.

Despite the lies the left has been using to brainwash stupid people, people on the right are FAR more accepting and forgiving of people’s differing views and beliefs than most people on the left.

If I were Brad Pitt, I would disown the Democrat party, who have been openly calling for his Mother’s murder, and join the party that his Mother belongs to, and believes in.

Jane Pitt, mother of actor Brad Pitt, has been scared into silence by the hate-filled, vulgar and even violent reaction to her public assertion that Barack Obama is “a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage.”

Pitt has even been the subject of death threats following her letter to the editor of Missouri’s Springfield News-Leader in which she asserted failure to vote for Republican presumptive presidential candidate Mitt Romney constituted a vote for Obama.

WND spoke briefly with Pitt and asked about the media assault against her for her comments as a private citizen supporting Mitt Romney. With inflections in her voice that conveyed fear and despair, she quietly and politely said she was not interested in talking to anyone in the media about the incident.

When she was told WND supported her right to speak her mind and is appalled by the threats against her life, Pitt expressed gratitude to WND for being one of the few news agencies doing so. Even her thank you, however, was said in a subdued manner laden with heaviness of heart.

Pitt had every reason to be frightened. Following her letter to the editor in her local newspaper, the mainstream media have painted her comments in a vilifying light.

The Hollywood Reporter published a story headlined, “Brad Pitt’s mother pens anti-gay, anti-Obama letter to local newspaper.” The New York Daily News went further, penning an article originally titled, “Brad Pitt’s mom unleashes anti-gay, anti-Obama fury in letter.”

She Knows Entertainment reported that Pitt actually “hates Obama, ‘gay’ people.”

These slants on the story, however, are mild compared to comments posted on Twitter.

Editors of the Twitter-scouring news site Twitchy exclaimed sarcastically, “Time for the left’s self-proclaimed arbiters of tolerance to teach her a lesson with their hateful, misogynist slurs and death wishes.”

Twitchy then spotlighted some of the tweets it found.

“Brad Pitt’s mom, die,” wrote Twitter-poster Sandy Kownacka.

A tweet from “I Bleed Gaga” echoed similar sentiments, saying, “Brad Pitt’s mom wrote an anti-gay pro-Romney editorial. Kill the b—-.”

Other comments included, “F— you, brad pitt’s mom, the gay community made your kid a star, you whacko,” and, “Brad Pitt’s mom is a dumb c—.”

Many of the comments told her to commit vulgar sexual acts with the commenter.

These statements stand contrary to Pitt’s own statements about his mother. In January, Pitt told the Hollywood Reporter that his mother was a very loving person.

“She’s very, very loving – very open, genuine, and it’s hilarious because she always gets painted in the tabloids as a she-devil,” the actor said. “There’s not an ounce of malice in her. She wants everyone to be happy.”

Jane Pitt originally penned her letter to the editor responding to another reader, Richard Stoecker, who stated that Christians should not vote for Romney based on his Mormonism.

In her rebuttal letter, she acknowledged that there were doctrinal differences between Mormonism and Christianity, but she took issue with the rest of Stoecker’s reasoning.

Pitt wrote, “I think any Christian should spend much time in prayer before refusing to vote for a family man with high morals, business experience, who is against abortion and shares Christian conviction concerning homosexuality just because he is a Mormon.”

Pitt went on to say, “Any Christian who does not vote or writes in a name is casting a vote for Romney’s opponent, Barack Hussein Obama – a man who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for years, did not hold a public ceremony to mark the National Day of Prayer and is a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage.”

Her statements on Obama’s record, however, are not opinions, but established facts. Obama himself has come out and said he supports the rights of homosexuals to marry. He has repeatedly backed legalized abortion. While he was a state senator in Illinois, Obama opposed a bill that would have required medical care to be given to infants who survived an abortion.

Unlike his mother, Hollywood actor Brad Pitt has taken a strong stand for same-sex marriage and supports Obama.

Brad Pitt has a long history of support for homosexual causes. He once famously declared he would refuse to marry Angelina Jolie until same-sex marriages were made legal in America in every state.

Following New York’s legalization of same-sex marriage, Pitt said, “It is each American’s constitutional right to marry the person they love, no matter what state they inhabit. No state should decide who can marry and who cannot.”

In 2008, he donated $100,000 to help fight passage of Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment in California that recognized marriage as being between one man and one woman. In March, he portrayed homosexual Judge Vaughn Walker in “8,” a play that re-enacted the trial where Walker overturned the amendment.

Stand Up To Government Corruption and Hypocrisy - usbacklash.org