Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Barack Obama is No Fool

Obama Personifies Cloward-Piven Strategy


By Wayne Allyn Root

Barack Hussein Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. On the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within. Barack Hussein Obama was my college classmate.(Columbia University, class of '83)

He is a devout Muslim; do not be fooled. Look at his czars... Anti-business anti-American. As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Barack Hussein Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University... they outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands.

Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a Socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival... And can be counted on to always vote for even bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.


Universal Health Care:

The Health Care bill has very little to do with healthcare. It has everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and healthcare workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesnt care that giving free healthcare to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?

Cap and Trade:

Like healthcare legislation having nothing to do with healthcare, Cap and Trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obamas biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama spread the wealth around.

Making Puerto Rico a state:

Whos asking for a 51st state? Whos asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers! But this has been Barack Hussein Obamas plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressmen and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.
(This will tip the balance of those living off the government to more than those who must pay for it; and we're done for.)

Legalize 12 million illegal Mexican immigrants:

Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free healthcare alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America. But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security. (see note above re: Puerto Rico)

Stimulus and bailouts.

Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues).


All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America. The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful.

The ends justify the means. Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama).

Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Barack Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition. With the acts outlined above, Barack Hussein Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.

Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Hussein Obama using the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

Last point: think about what this designed rule of the rabble will do to anyone successful and everyone receiving this is. What will your lives be like under Communism? The time to fight this abomination is now.

I hope each of you will forward to at least a dozen people.

Obama’s October surprise - exposed by Benghazi?

Iran, Valarie Jarrett, Nuclear Weapons, Iranian "Red Crescent" team

Author
- Doug Hagmann   Tuesday, October 30, 2012


As a veteran investigator, I’ve learned long ago to shed my blinders and look at the larger picture, or look at all of the dots to see if any might connect. In the realm of politics, it also seems reasonable to consider the quote attributed to Joseph Kennedy in 1960: “There are no accidents in politics.” Furthermore, it is important to reconstruct the actions of all suspects, or in this case, elected officials, to determine “motives and means” amid a hefty dose of theatrical diversions that would make an accomplished magician envious.

October surprise

The concept of an “October surprise,” or a news event with significant potential to influence the presidential election arose exactly forty years ago, when former National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger under then President Richard Nixon announced that an end of the Vietnam War was at hand.
Applied to the present day, what one comparable announcement could be made that would have the same impact in scope and influence favoring the incumbent Obama. Given all that we know, let’s postulate that it would be an agreement hammered out between Obama and Iran where Iran would agree to halt its nuclear ambitions. That certainly would appear to be an accomplishment worthy of domestic and international praise, in spite of any inherent fragility.
In the shadow of the events in Benghazi, let’s connect a few dots to see where they take us.

The Earl Warren of 2012

Barack Obama promised Americans that he is committed to investigate any intelligence and security failures in Libya. To this end, it was announced in the Federal Register on October 4, 2012, that Thomas Pickering would be the chairman of the U.S. State Department’s Accountability Review Board, a commission charged with investigating the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans on September 11, 2012, in Benghazi. But who is Thomas Pickering and why was he selected to head the investigation?
Summoning the ghost of Earl Warren, Pickering appears to be a logical choice to select if one were to have an interest in controlling the public disclosure. Pickering, it appears, has quite a cozy history with Iran as extensively documented by Matthew Vadum in his October 24, 2012 report.

The magic act continues

While the magician on stage activated the theatrical fog and diverted everyone’s attention elsewhere, the activities behind the scenes were in full swing. Concurrent with the appointment of Pickering to throttle the outflow of information about Benghazi, Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s Iranian-born Senior Advisor, jetted to the nation of Qatar. Although her activities were concealed by the magician’s accomplice - the dutiful Western media - it was reported by the Asia Times last week that Jarrett met with senior Iranian officials to negotiate a deal pertaining to Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions.
Talks about any such meetings or potential deal were quickly denied by the White House. What else would one expect, as premature disclosure would certainly ruin the outcome of the magic trick being performed right before our eyes.

A break in the magician’s fog

While the creation of an October surprise of this nature could be relegated to the historical dustbin of speculation, it is here that a seemingly random series of dots - or events - come into view and the magic trick becomes exposed to those looking for the clues.
It was on July 31, 2012, about a month before the September 11 attack in Benghazi that a mortar ripped into the wall of the CIA occupied military intelligence building (research into ownership suggests a possible UK connection), now apparently designated as “the consulate in Benghazi.” The explosion did not cause any deaths or injuries and consequently, it did not make many headlines.
It is here that I rely on my well-placed intelligence source to help me understand the magic trick onstage. According to my source, our intelligence operatives noticed something unusual near that building. Seven members of the Iranian Red Crescent were milling about, almost like they were inspecting the damage. It was as if they were looking to see if the walls were reinforced, and assessing the response to that facility. The next instant, they were gone.
It was reported that the seven member contingent of the Red Crescent were inexplicably kidnapped by “armed men.”
Fast forward to October 6, 2012, about the time when Valerie Jarrett was reportedly meeting with Iranian officials in Qatar. The kidnapped Red Crescent delegation was suddenly, inexplicably and unceremoniously released unharmed in Libya after 65 days in captivity.
Rumors inside the intelligence community suggest that the Jarrett “October surprise” meetings with Iran were contingent on the release of the Iranian Red Crescent workers.

Connecting the dots - exposing the magic trick

It is here that I needed to rely on my intelligence source to assist me in seeing through the clouded world stage. Do the dots connect?
Could it be that Obama’s “October surprise” was to announce that an agreement had been reached with Iran, that they would halt their nuclear ambitions much like the Kissinger “peace is at hand” announcement? If so, and if Iran had any involvement on a nation-state level in Benghazi, wouldn’t it seem logical that the truth about the attacks needed to be managed without any such mention of Iran? Who would be the best person to head such an investigation?  And if Iran was behind the pre-planned and sophisticated 9/11 murderous attacks in Benghazi, could it be that the July 31, 2012 mortar attack was a probe of that facility’s defenses in advance of a future attack? That would explain the curious disappearance of the 7 member Iranian “Red Crescent” team, and their equally mysterious reappearance, unharmed, 65 days later.
Has the magic trick been revealed?

Monday, October 22, 2012

Terrorists Radicals at the White House

A year-long investigation by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) has found that scores of known radical Islamists made hundreds of visits to the Obama White House, meeting with top administration officials.
Court documents and other records have identified many of these visitors as belonging to groups serving as fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and other Islamic militant organizations.
The IPT made the discovery combing through millions of White House visitor log entries. IPT compared the visitors' names with lists of known radical Islamists. Among the visitors were officials representing groups which have:
  • Been designated by the Department of Justice as unindicted co-conspirators in terrorist trials; Extolled Islamic terrorist groups including Hamas and Hizballah;
  • Obstructed terrorist investigations by instructing their followers not to cooperate with law enforcement;
  • Promoted the incendiary conspiratorial allegation that the United States is engaged in a "war against Islam"— a leading tool in recruiting Muslims to carry out acts of terror;
  • Repeatedly claimed that many of the Islamic terrorists convicted since 9-11 were framed by the U.S government as part of an anti-Muslim profiling campaign.
Individuals from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) visited the White House at least 20 times starting in 2009. In 2008, CAIR was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist money laundering case in U.S. history – the trial of the Holy Land Foundation in which five HLF officials were convicted of funneling money to Hamas.
U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis later ruled that, "The Government has produced ample evidence to establish the association" of CAIR to Hamas, upholding their designations as unindicted co-conspirators. In 2008, the FBI formally ended all contact with CAIR because of its ties to Hamas.

Friday, October 19, 2012

Obama Stops Releasing ‘Stimulus’ Reports

Ahead of Election, Obama Stops Releasing ‘Stimulus’ Reports

9:01 AM, Oct 19, 2012 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
The Weekly Standard

The $831,000,000,000 economic “stimulus” that President Obama spearheaded and signed into law requires his administration to release quarterly reports on its effects.  But “the most transparent administration in the history of our country” is now four reports behind schedule and has so far not released any reports whatsoever in 2012.  Its most recent quarterly report is for the quarter than ended on June 30, 2011.
Barack Obama speaks about national security 2009-05-21
One wonders how the administration would treat a private citizen who acted like such a scofflaw in response to one of Obama’s principal legislative initiatives.  It certainly appears that this administration, which is so very fond of regulating Americans’ lives — witness the 13,000 pages of Obamacare regulations it has already penned — doesn’t hold itself accountable to the same set of rules that it’s so eager to compel the American people to obey.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

The Muslim Agent Who Pulls Obama’s Strings

A lot has been said — in the press, by the president, by others –about President Obama’s affinity for the Muslim world.
From his promise that “I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction” to his description of the Muslim call to prayer as one of the prettiest sounds on Earth to his bowing before the Saudi king, Obama’s actions have convinced many people that the president is a Muslim, despite his protestations and claims to the contrary.
What hasn’t often been asked but should be, given recent evidence of infiltration by the Muslim Brotherhood in most if not all levels of government, is whether there is a Muslim agent working in the White House to manipulate the president.
One of Obama’s few actions that has shown any willingness to combat Muslim terrorism in defense of the U.S. has been his much-ballyhooed decision to order Navy SEALs to kill Osama bin Laden.
Now, U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely has issued a report based on an insider intelligence source that says Obama actually was clueless about the effort to get Osama, deliberately kept out of the loop by some of his senior Cabinet officers.
According to the report, Director of Central Intelligence Leon Panetta was the key player who made the call to get bin Laden, with the assistance of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Adm. Bill Mullen and Gen. David Petraeus.
Obama was not told about the effort until the SEAL team was already in Pakistani air space. The president was on the golf course when he was informed.
The reason for the sneaking about was that Panetta and the other staffers were tired of Obama nixing their efforts to take out the leader of al-Qaida. According to the report, Obama had rejected three kill missions earlier in the year.
In his book “Leading From Behind,” author Richard Miniter wrote that adviser Valerie Jarrett was the voice who kept urging Obama not to kill bin Laden.
Jarrett is a powerful figure at the White House, an Obama family friend who has an unexplained hold over the president and first lady.
Jarrett was born in Iran to American parents and lived there until about the age of 5. As a child, she spoke Persian and French. She and her parents spent one year in London, then came back to Chicago.
Her father-in-law is journalist Vernon Jarrett, who worked closely with Communist Party member and Obama mentor Frank Marshall Davis. Valerie Jarrett headed Obama’s transition team and personally vetted communist Van Jones and all the other extremists Obama has appointed.
In his book “The Amateur,” Edward Klein points out that Jarrett is the power behind the throne who sits in on every meeting, decides who gets to see the president and monitors who is loyal to Obama and who needs to be gotten rid of. The president reportedly doesn’t make a move without her, and she was the single roadblock to getting bin Laden.
Her religious leanings are not clear. The media either have not asked or have not gotten an answer. Many have speculated and others have denied that she, like Obama, is a closet Muslim.
What is clear is that she not only has communist contacts but she is a point man for the Administration in meetings with Muslim activists. She was named Iranian of the Day in August 2008 by Iranian.com.
She has been associated with the Obamas since their early days in Chicago, and those familiar with her background say that she provided crucial financial backing that helped Obama raise his national profile.
Our secretary of state has a chief aide who is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood in Huma Abedeen. Could Obama’s chief adviser, the woman who has been described as co-president, be a Muslim ringer as well?
The brief article on Iranian.com says Jarrett is Shirazi, but it is unclear whether the writer means that she was born in Shiraz, Iran, or that she is a member of the Swahili subgroup called Shirazi. The article calls her “African-American and Chicago royalty.” Links in the article to further information go to a blank page.
To a large extent, the woman pulling the strings at the White House is as much a mystery as the president himself.

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

BEST SUMMATION OF BARACK AND MICHELLE EVER! This should go VIRAL!


Profile image
474
0
By BARRACUDA (Reporter)

  • Posted by Paul Scolaro on September 30, 2012 at 2:14pm in Tea Party
  •  

  • This Reporter has (((NAILED IT))) This should go VIRAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    BEST SUMMATION OF BARACK AND MICHELLE EVER!
    Mychal Massie is a respected writer and talk show host in Los Angeles.
    The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn’t like the Obama’s? Specifically I was asked: “I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama’s? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family picture.”
    The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I’ve made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don’t like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.
    I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.
    I don’t like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress.
    I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people.
    The Reagan’s made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. Obama’s arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?
    Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama’s have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.
    I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to not being able to be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world.
    Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.
    I have a saying, that “the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide.” No president in history has spent millions of dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.
    And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother’s death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father’s military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today.

    Obama 'destroying records' in 'cyber bonfire'

    WND EXCLUSIVE

    Claim: Breaking law in organized effort to 'avoid leaving any trails'

    In 2008, President Obama excoriated the Bush administration for its lack of transparency, and he vowed to lead the most open administration in U.S. history.  Not only has that promise failed to materialize, but the Obama White House is among the most secretive in history and routinely breaks federal laws to keep damaging information from coming to light.
    Christopher Horner is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute specializing in energy and environmental issues, although he studies other issues as well. He has filed scores of Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, requests to procure documents from the past three administrations.
    Horner told WND’s Greg Corombos that the Obama administration has routinely tried to squelch his requests by forwarding them to the wrong agencies, claiming he would have to pay huge fees for the documents to be processed or just flatly ignored.  Several times, Horner has been forced to sue the government for the requests to be honored.
    As frustrating as that bureaucratic  maze can be, Horner said the administration is also guilty of intentionally breaking the law.
    In his new book, “The Liberal War on Transparency,” Horner details how multiple officials, including former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina, conducted business on private email accounts so those communications would never end up on the public record.  Messina, who is now manager of the Obama re-election effort, used a personal email account to negotiate with the drug industry and bring them on board the push to pass Obamacare in exchange for $4 billion in incentives.
    Horner said those emails were deleted, despite federal law demanding that all government business be preserved and done through official means of communication.  He warned that this is just the tip of the iceberg.
    “I’ve got an affidavit, which I reveal in the book for the first time, from an official in the government acknowledging that they’ve got essentially a cyber bonfire going on at all times in the administration,” said Horner, who said the “bonfire” is tasked with “destroying records, using nongovernmental computers to access governmental servers.”
    He explained, “They’ve got this system rigged whereby that destroys all traces of the record on the government system, and because they’re using a private computer very deliberately there’s no government computer you can then find the trace of the record on.  If they did what they were supposed to do, you would leave these electronic footprints everywhere.  It’s a very organized government-wide systemic effort to avoid leaving any trails.  The problem is, that’s against the law.”

    Tuesday, October 2, 2012

    New Obama ad: More promises, more Bolshevik


    By HERMAN CAIN - Obama figures most voters don't pay that much attention. Is he right?
    When a candidate for office produces a campaign ad, he can say anything he wants. It doesn’t even have to be true. It should be true. But if voters are willing to take what a candidate says at face value without questioning it, I guess you have to figure a candidate who cares about nothing but electoral success will let fly with the whoppers.
    And that’s what President Obama has done in his most recent ad.
    A few days ago, I took it apart bit-by-bit in a piece for CainTV. It has a little bit of everything. He starts by lying about what caused the financial meltdown of 2008, and about the condition of the war in Iraq at the time he took office.
    He then goes on to make wild promises – creating 1 million manufacturing jobs, doubling exports, reducing oil imports by 50 percent, reducing tuition increases by 50 percent – that might as well have been promises to give everyone a pony.
    And he ends with this award-winner: By ending the war in Afghanistan, he will save enough money that he’ll be able to “pay down the debt” with half of it. The war in Afghanistan is costing us $132 billion this year. Half of that won’t even pay for the next time Obama wants to extend unemployment benefits, let alone “pay down the debt.”
    So a candidate for office – in this case, the sitting president of the United States – airs an ad that can only be described as a two-minute-long cacophony of Bolshevik. Facts that are not factual. Promises he can’t possibly keep. And to cap it all off, a mathematical proposition from which we can only conclude that he really doesn’t think you’re paying much attention to what he’s saying.
    And that, I fear, may be the real problem here. Obama isn’t going to put out a load of nonsense like this if he thinks the average voter really knows the facts, or is listening critically to his words. And he isn’t going to put out an ad like this if he thinks the major media will put their vaunted “fact checkers” on the case to scrutinize what he says.

    Obama's illegal moves on defense layoff notices to change votes

    Sen. Graham: Obama move on defense layoff notices 'patently illegal'

    By Jeremy Herb, The Hill - 10/01/12 02:45 PM ET
    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) says that he will do anything he can to block the Obama administration from reimbursing defense contractors for severance costs if the firms don’t send layoff notices to employees.
    The Obama administration issued guidance Friday that said defense firms’ costs would be covered if they have to layoff workers due to canceled contracts under the across-the-board cuts set to take effect Jan. 2.

    The layoff notices have become a politically charged issue because they could have come just four days ahead of the election because of a 60-day notice required by federal law for mass layoffs.Graham and other Republicans were livid after the Obama administration issued the guidance on Friday telling contractors that their legal costs would be covered due to canceled contracts under sequestration, but only if they did not issue layoff notices before sequestration occurs — and before the November election.
    “I will do everything in my power to make sure not one taxpayer dollar is spent reimbursing companies for failure to comply with WARN Act,” Graham told The Hill in a phone interview Monday. “That is so beyond the pale — I think it’s patently illegal.”

    Property Owners Face a New Surtax


    The housing market may indeed be recovering, as many experts suggest, but investors are still struggling to understand what, if any, taxes they'll owe upon selling their homes.
    At issue is how the new "Medicare tax" will apply to real-estate transactions.
    Passed in 2010 to help fund the health-care overhaul, this 3.8% surtax kicks in next year on many forms of investment income—including some interest, dividends, rents and capital gains.
    While its effect on home sales won't be as far-reaching as many fear, the Medicare tax could pack a punch for certain investors. It is not a sales tax. And it won't apply to home-sale gains excluded from income under current law. But it could affect investors with outsize gains or gains from the sale of a vacation home or investment property.
    Determining whether you will be subject to the tax is no easy matter.
    "The confusion lies in the fact that it's not a yes or a no," says Melissa Labant, director of tax for the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. "It's a sometimes or a maybe."
    "We're waiting for guidance from the IRS on a lot of specific issues," she adds. "We don't have all of the answers yet."
    Here's what we do know:

    image
    imageSean Kelly
    The new tax will hit individuals with more than $200,000 in adjusted gross income, and married couples with adjusted gross income above $250,000 ($125,000 for married taxpayers filing separately). These thresholds are not indexed for inflation, so more people may be affected over time.
    Specifically, the tax will apply to either your net investment income or the amount that your adjusted gross income exceeds the threshold—whichever is less.
    Moreover, any gain from the sale of a principal residence that is less than $250,000 (for individuals) or $500,000 (for married taxpayers filing jointly) will continue to be excluded from income, and anything that's excluded for income-tax purposes also is excluded for Medicare-tax purposes.
    So, the Medicare tax will apply primarily to higher-income earners who realize gains that aren't sheltered by the exclusion amounts.
    The National Association of Realtors provides these examples:
    Primary residence
    Say a married couple gets lucky and sells their principal residence for a $530,000 profit. Their taxable gain would be $30,000 ($530,000 minus $500,000). If their adjusted gross income, including the gain, is $180,000, they won't owe any surtax because their income falls under the $250,000 threshold.
    If their adjusted gross income is $290,000, however, the surtax will be assessed on the $30,000 gain, because that is less than the $40,000 that their income exceeds the threshold ($290,000 minus $250,000).
    What if their taxable gain on the sale of the house is $50,000? The surtax will be assessed on the $40,000 excess above the threshold, because $40,000 is less than $50,000.
    Vacation home
    Now say a couple has adjusted gross income of $225,000, before a $60,000 gain from the sale of a vacation home. Since the gain does not qualify for the income-tax exclusion (because it isn't from the sale of their principal residence), it pushes their adjusted gross income to $285,000, or $35,000 above the threshold.
    "That's going to be a big one," says Ms. Labant of the impact of the Medicare tax on sales of vacation homes.
    In this case, the surtax will apply to the couple's $35,000 "excess" income, since $35,000 is less than $60,000.
    If the couple rents out the house for 14 or fewer days in a year, the rental income isn't taxable and, therefore, should not be subject to the surtax. But any gain from a sale could be.
    If they rent it for more than 14 days, the rental income (minus expenses) is generally taxable and could be subject to the surtax, as could any sale profit.
    Investment property
    If the vacation home is solely a rental property, it is treated as an investment property for tax purposes. Here the rules for applying the Medicare tax are even more complex and somewhat unsettled.
    In general, someone with a day job who collects rents on the side must include that income (net of expenses) in investment income, potentially subjecting it to the surtax, while someone whose sole occupation involves owning and operating real estate typically would not be subject to the tax. In either case, any profits from a sale could get hit with the surtax.
    If you're planning to sell rental real estate or other investment property, run, don't walk, to a trusted tax expert.
    investingbasics.wsj@gmail.com

    It's about time ----A poll about polls

    Poll: Plurality say polls biased for Obama

    By Justin Sink, The Hill - 10/02/12 08:30 AM ET
    A plurality of Americans and more than seven in 10 Republicans say pollsters are intentionally skewing results to benefit President Obama, according to a new poll released Tuesday.
    Some 42 percent of voters surveyed by Daily Kos and SEIU believe pollsters were manipulating their sample sizes to benefit the incumbent president, while 40 percent do not. An additional 18 percent said they were not sure. That's evidence that Republican claims that Democrats and minority voters are being oversampled in national polls could be resonating — and potentially undermining the momentum of the president's early lead.
    Some Republicans — most prominently among them strategist Dick Morris — began questioning the sampling of some polls last week when surveys showed President Obama opening up a sizable lead in swing states, including Ohio and Florida. Republicans have charged that the polls oversample minority voters, while polling firms say the sampling percentages reflect the electorate's changing demographics.
    But Republicans are particularly likely to believe that the polls are unfair, reporting by a 71-13 percent that polls are biased against their candidate. Members of the Tea Party suspect intentional skewing by a remarkable 84-5 percent margin.
    Independents are less likely to believe polls have been intentionally manipulated, with 45 percent of respondents saying they see deliberate tampering with the results. Four in 10 independents say they believe the polls are accurate.
    Democrats do not feel as passionately as their Republican counterparts about the validity of the polls. Of the Democrats surveyed, 65 percent said pollsters are not tampering with the results, versus 14 percent of Democrats who believe their candidate is earning an advantage.