Monday, May 27, 2013

Charlie Daniels Calls Obama a COWARD

Country-music legend Charlie Daniels isn't buying the White House line that President Obama simply “didn't know” about the scandalous actions plaguing his administration.

From the gun-running “Fast & Furious” debacle of 2011 to recent revelations the Internal Revenue Service has been targeting tea-party groups, Obama has denied knowledge of his underlings’ actions, even stating he only discovered the improprieties after the evening news reported them.

The ever-outspoken Daniels blasted the president’s “excuses.”

"If I had a drunk bus driver, for instance, and I told everybody, ‘Don’t tell me about that, I don’t want to know about it,’ and that way if we get sued I can say, ‘I didn't know it,’ basically that’s got to be what’s happened,” Daniels said. “[But] when you hide behind plausible deniability, that is not leadership. That is cowardice. You’re not leading the country, you’re misleading the country.”
Daniels further charged the blame-shifting is “pervasive” throughout the Obama administration.

“Look at the so-called attorney general, who should have been held to task a long time ago, for one thing, not prosecuting the Black Panthers standing in front of the polling place,” Daniels said. “Then we have Fast & Furious, then we have this thing in Benghazi, then we have the IRS thing – it’s one thing after another. This administration is out of control!"
“People have, with reason – regardless of whether they support the presidential administration or not – lost any kind of trust,” Daniels said. “If someone says something, you don’t know if it’s true, if they mean it, if they don’t mean it. As far as what’s going on right now, we don’t have a leader.”
And don’t even think about defending Obama by pointing back to George W. Bush.

“Going back and saying what Bush or Reagan – or for that matter George Washington – did is a total and complete waste of time,” Daniels told WND. “It makes no difference what they did. This guy was supposed to be in to fix the mistakes any president in front of him made, and he’s not doing it. Making excuses for him is not going to help him. He needs to be held to account, he needs to come clean. He needs to get that IRS woman to go back in front of Congress and tell the truth.”
The IRS scandal in particular, appears to have piqued Daniels’ ire.

“Somebody deserves some jail time out of this thing with the IRS,” Daniels told WND. “It’s like the Gestapo. It’s like having your own, private, secret police force to sick on people. It’s dirty.
“I am not comparing Obama to Hitler; I’m comparing politics to politics,” the singer explained. “In the 1920s and ’30s Germany erred in that direction, giving a little bit here, a little bit there, giving the government more and more until they had it all, then all of a sudden the government turns around and says you can’t have guns and you can’t do this, you can’t do that. … This is a dangerous, terrible situation we have going on in this country right now.”
Since the 1950s Daniels has been a country singer and famed fiddler, perhaps best known for his hit song “The Devil Went Down to Georgia.” He was inducted into the Grand Ole Opry in 2008.

But he also writes frequently on culture and politics, no stranger to bold statements in defense of God and country, and maintains a “soapbox” blog on his website, CharlieDaniels.com.

“I have never in my life seen the United States of America in the kind of shape it’s in right now,” Daniels told WND. “It’s time for somebody to do something to bring this country back together.”
But who’s that somebody, and what can they do?

Daniels decried that so many people in our country are unaware of the severity of the scandals rocking Washington and unwilling to be educated about their own government or the freedoms being slowly sapped from them by the very people they voted into office. Far too many, Daniels lamented, “don’t even know who the speaker of the House is” and “couldn't find New Jersey on a map.”

“How much more are we going to let stupid get away with?” Daniels asked. “The Bible says, ‘My people perish for lack of knowledge’ – it’s what’s going on in this country. If people knew what was happening, it would scare them to death. But they don’t know. They've got their head in the sand; they don’t want to know. It’s just like, ‘Send me my check every month and the h— with everything else.’
“Who are they going to vote for?” he asked rhetorically. “They’re going to vote for the guy that gives them the most.

So can anyone make a difference in Washington?

“The true power in this country is the House of Representatives. That’s our people,” Daniels said. “That’s the people that the people put in every two years. We need to put people there that hold people accountable. The Senate’s a d— lost cause. In my opinion the House of Representatives needs to hold everyone’s feet to the fire. … We need to get to the bottom of this thing.

“If the IRS gets off scot free, the Benghazi thing is let go and the Justice Department getting into these reporters’ lives is let go, we’re finished,” Daniels concluded. “I mean, it’s just gone: nothing going to be done about nothing, and they can do anything they want to and we’re just at their mercy.”
“I hope that this time he’s dug in deep enough that they’re not going to let it go,” Daniels said of Obama. “If people had any idea what they’re losing in this country, they would be doing something about it.”

Sunday, May 26, 2013

Two MORE Obama Administration Scandals

As you know, the whole nation is currently enraptured by three scandals – the Benghazi, IRS and DOJ/AP scandals.

But what most people don’t realize is that there are two more scandals that haven’t fully come to light yet.

Believe me, we’re on the verge of witnessing the greatest number of scandals ever seen in Washington – both at one period in time, and over the course of one presidency.

And that begs the question: When is enough, well, enough? It only took one scandal to dethrone Nixon.

Of course, the IRS, DOJ and Benghazi scandals have the nation in an uproar, but if those three can’t bury Obama, maybe these other two will put the nail in his coffin.

Unexposed Scandal #1: IRS-Like Targeting At the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Under the Obama administration, the IRS is now known as the Internal Revenge Service. An anonymous employee blew the whistle on how the whole system operates, and he made it perfectly clear that corrupt directives “come from the top.”

And it appears that holds true across several federal agencies. That’s why the EPA is currently involved in a similar scandal.

Supposedly, all federal agencies are required to distribute any requested documents as long as they don’t fall under certain specific exemptions. It’s part of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a federal law that gives the public the right to request federal agency records.

But like the IRS, the EPA has also been unfairly targeting conservatives while providing favorable treatment to liberal groups.

Recently, liberal groups requested 82 documents and conservative businesses requested 26.

Out of 82 requests, the EPA has waived fees for 75 major liberal environmental groups. If you don’t have your calculator on hand, that’s a 92% success rate.

On the flipside, conservative organizations have an abysmal 19% success rate. That’s right, 21 out of the 26 conservative groups’ FOIA requests were either rejected or completely ignored.

So there you have it… the EPA is blatantly conspiring with groups that share its same political agenda. This, along with the IRS scandal, confirms conservative fears of big government reign.

Unexposed Scandal #2: Obamacare Donor-Gate

Obamacare in and of itself is a scandal, mainly because of the sneaky way it was passed. And as the law has been slowly implemented, even more shameful behavior has come to light.

First of all, Sarah Hall Ingram – the woman in charge of the IRS division at the center of the recent scandal – is also heading up the division in charge of Obamacare tax regulation.

That should be plenty frightening on its own.

But if that weren’t enough, members from the House have sent a letter to Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Human and Health Services, questioning shady donor activity.

We already know that Sebelius has a history of bending the law to forward this administration’s agenda, and now we’re seeing the same behavior that’s gotten her in trouble before.

It turns out the HHS has been soliciting donations from nonprofit organizations involved with implementing Obamacare. Though the law states that department officials are prohibited from fundraising in their own professional capacity, Sebelius has been directly calling top executives in the health industry as well as community organizations and church groups to coerce them into donating to nonprofits tied to Obamacare.


This is the definition of “conflict of interest,” and even if they aren’t deemed illegal, they’re undoubtedly unethical and, at the very least, should lead to her resignation.


What the Government Could Learn From the Marine Corps

Written on Saturday, May 25, 2013 by 
and strongly approved by Steven Potts
In the aftermath of Barack Obama’s re-election, many mainstream Republicans are undergoing a crisis of conscience. Having lost two presidential elections in a row, the Republican Party is questioning the validity of its traditional values and principles. Some party professionals are even recommending a shift to the left in an attempt to appeal to what they view as the new American electorate. Some key decision makers in the Republican Party think the time has come to cast aside their opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, gun-control, and the immigration policies of the left. In other words, instead of changing how they do things some Republicans think they should change who they are.
The soul searching that is currently taking place in Republican circles reminds me of when I served in the United State Marine Corps. It was a time that is now widely acknowledged to among the worst years in the Marine Corps’ history. The Viet Nam War was in its worst and most unpopular phase. Anti-war, anti-military, and anti-America protests, demonstrations, and riots were the order of the day. The more conservative hairstyles and dress of the early 1960s had been replaced by long hair, dirty blue jeans, and tie-dyed tee-shirts. Spit-and-polish Marines with their high-and-tight haircuts stood out like a sore thumb in a society of hippies and flower children. Once admired universally for its strict adherence to a creed characterized by duty, honor, country, commitment, and courage, the Marine Corps found itself out of step with the society from which it drew its new recruits.
The youth of the late 1960s and early 1970s were into drugs, casual sex, and rejection of traditional American values, not the discipline and values held dear by the Marine Corps. In short, the socio-cultural trends were the antithesis of everything the Marine Corps stood for. In this new anti-establishment environment, the Marine Corps was considered passé. Some pundits even predicted the ultimate demise of this hallowed branch of the American military.
It is difficult to believe today that in the early 1970s there were those who thought the Marine Corps represented the past and needed to be replaced by a new branch of the military that comported more closely with current social trends. The attitudes of those who believed this were the antithesis of the Marine Corps’ traditions and methods. As a result, Marine Corps enlistments had dropped dramatically. In fact, recruiters had to scrape the bottom of the social barrel just to make their minimum enlistment numbers each month. Those who did join often complained that the training was too hard, the discipline too strict, the deployments too long, the marksmanship standards too stringent, and the expectations too high. As a result, discipline cases, unauthorized absences, brig time, and AWOLs were at the highest levels in the Corps’ history.
In view of all of the social upheaval in America at the time, some weak-kneed leaders in key decision-making positions had begun to question the Corps’ values and its methods as well as long-standing regulations concerning hair length, the uniform, and spit-shined shoes and so forth. In short, there were some who thought the answer to the recruiting problem would be found in diluting the very principles and values that had made the Marine Corps the proud and highly-respected organization it had been for almost 200 years. Some leaders in key positions of authority had come to doubt the values, methods, and principles that had made Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Inchon, and the Chosin Reservoir hallowed names in the Marine Corps’ illustrious history.
Fortunately, cooler heads eventually prevailed and the Marine Corps decided to change how it did what it did rather than who it was and what it stood for. Recruiting, training, and discipline standards were increased, not decreased. The Marine Corps focused on doing a better job of choosing it leaders and preparing them for the challenges they would face. Finally, they did a better job of communicating why their values, principles, and traditions were so important to America’s on-going national defense. As a result of these decisions, the Marine Corps emerged from the 1970s a better and stronger Corp. There is a lesson in this for the Republican Party of today.
Semper Fi

Saturday, May 25, 2013

I am from the IRS, Please Cough Twice

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., probably summarized what Americans are facing with the Obama administration’s “marriage” of the Internal Revenue Service and its vast powers to punish people over their ideology to the soon-to-be-fully implemented Obamacare that essentially will determine who lives how long through its mandates and payment priorities:
“This is nuts.”
McConnell was recently addressing the storm cloud looming on the horizon over the Obama administration’s strategy that the tax-collecting arm of Uncle Sam be given the authority over people’s health care, too.
“The IRS is in charge of administering some of the most important elements of Obamacare. And, for many Americans, that’s going to mean submitting to probing questions about their health insurance,” McConnell said in a floor speech Thursday.
He pointed out that the law allows the agency itself to define what it means to not comply with its demands.
And that’s an agency that over the past week has been in the spotlight because of its own admissions that it used its vast and sweeping power to illegally target those with ideologies that disagreed with Obama’s.
But what will happen when the IRS not only is tied to your bank accounts and checkbook, but your medical records, prescriptions and doctors?
“When people realize that their most personal, sensitive, intimate, private health-care information is in the hands of the IRS that’s been willing to use people’s tax information against political opponents of this administration, then people have pause and they pull back in horror,” said U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.
She was horrified by the blatant use of raw governmental power against conservatives by the IRS under Obama.
“The IRS couldn’t do enough to part the waters to make sure that every progressive, left-wing leaning organization got their new tax-exempt status,” she said. “So they were able to get a favorable tax treatment, while Christians, pro-Israel, conservative, tea partiers, pro-growth, pro-job, pro-business, they were hurt.”
At the Washington Post, Michael Gerson was putting into words some of America’s fears.
“Let us stipulate that now might not be the best time – with IRS officials exposed for abusing power, caught in self-serving deceptions, invoking their constitutional right against self-incrimination – to dramatically expand the authority and size of their agency,” he wrote. “But this is what Obamacare requires.”
He said, “The largest tax law and social policy change in a generation will be imposed on a skeptical public by a government agency whose credibility is in ruins.”
He said the Obamacare law is “shoddy,” and its foundation is a “flimsy bureaucratic excuse.” And, the IRS is a “discredited mess.”
In an ABC report, Bachmann said it’s just that the Obama administration is using the power of the government to advance a political agenda.
Last week she said the best response is to repeal it, and she worked with other House members to take that vote. She said now it’s up to the Senate, and its chief, Obama advocate Harry Reid, to make sure that Americans are protected from the further abuse from the agency that already has established its willingness to violate constitutional rights.
For anyone who still thinks that the implementation of Obamacare’s requirements by the IRS will go smoothly for Americans, the IRS already has created eight offices with special “teams” to make sure the government’s will is done.
Paul Bedard at the Washington Examiner said the IRS is filling the eight Obamacare offices with 2,137 agents and officials to make sure citizens and companies comply – or pay a penalty.
Wynton Hall, wrting at Breitbart, noted there’s a developing attempt to separate the IRS from Obamacare.
“House and Senate Republicans have introduced bills to stop IRS involvement in implementing Obamacare,” he said.
Sen. John Corynyn, R-Texas, promoted “Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act of 2013″ in the Senate and Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., carried it in the House.
Cornyn said, “The official who oversaw the targeting of tea party groups is now in charge of implementing Obamacare at the IRS. Now more than ever, we need to prevent the IRS from having any role in Americans’ health care.”
The biggest changes in the health care are set to being over the time period of the next 10-12 months. And so far, Democrats in Congress have worked with Obama to make sure that the Big Brother agent looking over your income, savings, expenses, taxes and cash also will be looking over your health insurance provisions, requirements, allowances, deductibles and coverages.
A McClatchy report from Kevin G. Hall and David Lightman pinpointed the concern.
“The scandal over how the IRS granted tax-exempt status … has dented the perception that the agency operates as a neutral, nonpartisan player.”

“Are they competent to do it? Are they trustworthy enough?” Rep. Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn., openly wondered.

FBI Locks Up an Afghanistan Marine Veteran, Because He’s Nuts.

Written by Gary North on May 22, 2013

The FBI arrested a man because he posted inflammatory material on Facebook. They say he is crazy. They put him in a mental institution.

On whose word? A psychologist, who spent 15 minutes with him.

That is all it takes in America for the FBI to get you.

His mother started posting on Facebook about this. The posts went viral.

My friend John Whitehead, a Constitutional lawyer, intervened. He runs the Rutherford Institute. The Institute is named after Samuel Rutherford, the Scottish theologian who wrote Lex Rex, and who was part of the Puritan revolt against King Charles I.

Whitehead says that every year in the state of Virginia, 20,000 people are forcibly incarcerated for mental illness.

This is surely very good business for people running mental facilities. It’s guaranteed business.

A judge has granted him his freedom. If his mother’s Facebook posts had not gone viral, and if Whitehead had not intervened, he would still be locked up.

What does this tell me? That Facebook can beat the government. The FBI went after him because of Facebook, and the case blew up on them after his mother posted her articles on Facebook.

I searched Google for “Brandon Raub.” I got 97,000 hits.

The government gets more lawless, but technology is ahead of the government.

Can You Ask Him to Go Away?

Gun control is supposed to be about safety. Proponents argue that if only no one had guns, we’d all be better off. But as we all know, that only applies to those not inclined nor determined to commit crimes. It doesn’t apply to those that are bent on breaking the law.


In Oregon, the Joesphine County Police Department is facing budget cuts and are not able to be on call over the weekends. So, when an unidentified Josephine County woman called 911, her call was forwarded to the Oregon State Police. She was calling because her ex-boyfriend was breaking into her house, and she was sure that she was going to be assaulted. He had already put her in the hospital before, and she knew it was going to happen again. Here’s what the dispatcher told her:

 “Uh, I don’t have anybody to send out there. You know, obviously, if he comes inside the residence and assaults you, can you ask him to go away? Do you know if he’s intoxicated or anything?… Once again it’s unfortunate you guys don’t have any law enforcement out there.”

 I’m sure the woman felt quite reassured. She responded, “Yeah, it doesn’t matter, if he gets in the house I’m done.”

Sure enough, the guy broke in, choked the woman and sexually assaulted her.

This isn’t the police department’s fault. If they’re facing budget cuts and layoffs, there really isn’t anything they could have done. But would have they been there in time anyway if they weren’t facing budget cuts? When seconds count, police are minutes away. The only way they could have been there to help the woman is if there was an officer already close by patrolling the area. CBS reported:

“The sheriff’s department had to cut 23 deputies and the entire major crimes unit after it lost a multi-million dollar federal subsidy, according to Oregon Public Radio. There are now only six deputies left. The sheriff’s department even put out a press release warning domestic violence victims to ‘consider relocating to an area with adequate law enforcement services.’”

I’ll go ahead and state the obvious. If the woman had been armed, there likely would have been no assault and maybe even no break-in. She would have been safe. If she had shot the guy dead when he tried to hurt her, he would have never been a threat to her again. But liberals resort to calling on women to urinate or vomit on their assaulters. Or in the case of the police dispatcher, having the woman ask the guy to go away.

Friday, May 24, 2013

Fort Hood Shooter Still Getting Paid!

NBC-5 in Dallas reports that because of a legal technicality, Nidal Hasan – who “allegedly” stood up in a Fort Hood cafeteria and began shooting, killing 13 people and wounding 32 others while shouting “Allahu Akbar!” – is still collecting a salary on the taxpayers’ dime. The Military Code of Justice says his salary can’t be suspended until he’s found guilty. And his attorneys have dragged the trial out so long, over urgent issues like whether he has to shave his beard, that he’s collected $278,000 since the shootings.


Meanwhile, many of the victims are barely scraping by, unable to work or feed their families, and fighting for medical benefits. That’s because the government refuses to call this what it obviously was – a terrorist attack – and insanely classifies it as “workplace violence.” So the victims aren’t entitled to the benefits of military members wounded in combat. That’s right: wounded soldiers are denied medical benefits while the man who – “allegedly” – shot them is paid over a quarter million taxpayer dollars and counting. If anyone still thinks the Obama Administration’s refusal to call terrorism by its proper name is inconsequential, try telling that to the Fort Hood shooting victims. The attack was terrorism. The government’s reaction to it so far has been a “man-caused disaster.”

Thursday, May 23, 2013

I Couldn't Say It Better


When Did We Vote to Become Mexico?

Ann Coulter | May 22, 2013


At first I thought the IRS scandal was leaked to distract from the Benghazi scandal. But that didn't make sense because the IRS scandal is a more obvious abuse of power than the White House lying about the murder of four Americans in Libya.

Before I had resolved which scandal was distracting from which, we found out the Department of Justice was spying on The Associated Press -- not to protect national security, but to prevent the AP from scooping the White House. Then, this week, it broke that the Department of Justice was also spying on Fox News for reasons that remain unexplained.

Meanwhile, Sens. Marco Rubio, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham and John McCain are working feverishly to turn the country into Mexico
.
So now I think all the scandals are intended to distract from Rubio's amnesty bill.
For decades, Mexicans have been about 30 percent of all legal immigrants to the United States, while only a smidgen more than 1 percent come from Great Britain. Is that fair? Granted, their food is better, but why is it the norm is to have nearly 30 times as many Mexican as British immigrants?

We have been taking in more immigrants from Guatemala, the Dominican Republic and Colombia, individually, than from England, our mother country. There are nearly twice as many immigrants from El Salvador as from Canada, and 10 times as many as from Australia.

Why can't the country be more or less the ethnic composition that it always was? The 50-1 Latin American-to-European ratio isn't a natural phenomenon that might result from, say, Europeans losing interest in coming here and poor Latin Americans providing some unique skill desperately needed in our modern, technology-based economy.

To the contrary, it's result of an insane government policy. Teddy Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act was designed to artificially inflate the number of immigrants from the Third World, while making it virtually impossible for anyone from the nations that historically provided our immigrants to come here.

Pre-1965 immigrants were what made this country what it was for a reason: They were the pre-welfare state immigrants. From around 1630 to 1966, immigrants sank or swam. About a third of them couldn't make it in America and went home -- and those are the ones who weren't rejected right off the boat for being sick, crippled or idiots.

That's why corny stories of someone's ancestors coming here a half-century ago are completely irrelevant. If their ancestors hadn't succeeded, their great-grandchildren wouldn't be here to tell the story because no one was given food stamps, free medical care and housing to stay. (And vote Democrat.)

Now we're scraping the bottom of the barrel by holding ourselves out as the welfare ward of the world and specifically rejecting skilled immigrants.

As Milton Friedman said, you cannot have open borders and a welfare state. The reason a country's average immigrant matters is that the losers never go home -- they go on welfare. (Maybe if they had to work, immigrants wouldn't have as much time to build bombs.) Airy statements about wanting to end welfare aren't going to change that implacable fact.

It should not come as a surprise that a majority of recent immigrants are following a path that's the exact opposite of earlier immigrants. The immigrant story of lore is that the first generation is poor but works hard, then the second, third and fourth generations soar up the socioeconomic ladder.

But innumerable studies have shown that Mexican first-generation immigrants work like maniacs -- and then the second, third and fourth generations plunge headlong into the underclass.

By now, Mexicans are the largest immigrant group in America, with about 50 million Hispanics living here legally.

Marco Rubio's amnesty bill will soon make it 80 million. First, there are at least 11 million illegal immigrants, a majority from Mexico, who will be instantly legalized. Then we'll get their entire extended families under our chain migration system.

I wouldn't want that many Japanese! I wouldn't want that many Dutch (not that there are that many Dutch)! Why do we have to become a different country? Was there a vote when the country decided to turn itself into Mexico? No other country has ever just decided to turn itself into another country like this.

The nation's plutocrats are lined up with the Democratic Party in a short-term bid to get themselves cheap labor (subsidized by the rest of us), which will give the Democratic Party a permanent majority. If Rubio's amnesty goes through, the Republican Party is finished. It will be the "Nancy Pelosi Democratic Party" versus the "Chuck Schumer Republican Party."

When that happens, the cover-up of murder in Benghazi, a little IRS abuse or governmental spying on journalists will be a good day for civil liberties.
A majority of Americans still do love this country -- including, one hopes, legal immigrants who thought they were leaving Mexico. But a policy that will change America forever is about to slip through under the cloak of endless scandals from the corrupt Obama administration.

Monday, May 20, 2013

Political Speak


Steven Miller's Marching Order (IRS Infamy)

Feign indignation and object to their definitions. Substitute nonjudgmental, inaccurate alternatives. Miller seems highly offended by the word TARGET. He feels it is...what's the adjective...? PEJORATIVE! In point of fact it is not. "DumbA$$" is pejorative. It's derogatory and not logical. "Target" is neither. Target is the exact correct term.

He, like other LIBERAL WORDSMITH HACKS prefer soft phrases, preferably non accusatory ones like "mistakes were made." (presumably by unnamed third parties) And by the way, a MISTAKE is an error without intent. It commonly describes an effort to do something specific which falls short. It's failing to carry the one, not insisting that 5+5 equals 9. Obviously a purposeful action or decision to break the rules or commit a crime is a "mistake" ONLY in the eyes of one caught.

Progressives often use "misspoke" instead of LIE. Makes it sound like putting the accent on the wrong syllable or mispronouncing a word with no intent to deceive... An example of misspoke to a Liberal is "we dodged sniper fire on the tarmac."

We must ask Ms. Clinton if assuring a grieving mother that her dead son "will receive justice when the filmmaker responsible is punished" is another example of "misspoke?"

To make the truth seem more palatable, Democrats love euphemisms: "revenues" means "taxes," "invest" means "spend," "AstroTurf" means "grass roots." "undocumented worker" means "illegal alien," "recused myself" means "avoiding perjury," "I don't recall that" means "avoiding perjury" and "I don't have a factual basis to answer that question" means "avoiding perjury."

A particular favorite is "inappropriate" in lieu of WRONG. Using your knife to eat peas is inappropriate. Targeted harassment and intimidation by the federal government is not "inappropriate." It's criminal discrimination. If Progressives were being targeted I'm sure it would also be RACIST.

"Bad or horrible customer service" generally means the service provider failed to make the experience pleasant, to be polite, provide follow-up support and and honor promises. If you order a pizza and the delivery man brings you a cold, burnt pizza, it's "bad customer service." If he is rude and overcharges you too, it's "horrible customer service." If he arrives with no pizza, forces his way inside, assaults and robs you...it's criminal. I might also point out that we are not "customers" of the IRS. We are their employers! -

Friday, May 17, 2013

Noooo ... The White House had nothing to do with the IRS Scandal ... LOL





By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Was the White House involved in the IRS's targeting of conservatives? No investigation needed to answer that one. Of course it was.

President Obama and Co. are in full deniability mode, noting that the IRS is an "independent" agency and that they knew nothing about its abuse. The media and Congress are sleuthing for some hint that Mr. Obama picked up the phone and sicced the tax dogs on his enemies.
But that's not how things work in post-Watergate Washington. Mr. Obama didn't need to pick up the phone. All he needed to do was exactly what he did do, in full view, for three years: Publicly suggest that conservative political groups were engaged in nefarious deeds; publicly call out by name political opponents whom he'd like to see harassed; and publicly have his party pressure the IRS to take action.
Mr. Obama now professes shock and outrage that bureaucrats at the IRS did exactly what the president of the United States said was the right and honorable thing to do. "He put a target on our backs, and he's now going to blame the people who are shooting at us?" asks Idaho businessman and longtime Republican donor Frank VanderSloot.
At the White House, President Obama addresses the IRS scandal, May 15.
Mr. VanderSloot is the Obama target who in 2011 made a sizable donation to a group supporting Mitt Romney. In April 2012, an Obama campaign website named and slurred eight Romney donors. It tarred Mr. VanderSloot as a "wealthy individual" with a "less-than-reputable record." Other donors were described as having been "on the wrong side of the law."
This was the Obama version of the phone call—put out to every government investigator (and liberal activist) in the land.
Twelve days later, a man working for a political opposition-research firm called an Idaho courthouse for Mr. VanderSloot's divorce records. In June, the IRS informed Mr. VanderSloot and his wife of an audit of two years of their taxes. In July, the Department of Labor informed him of an audit of the guest workers on his Idaho cattle ranch. In September, the IRS informed him of a second audit, of one of his businesses. Mr. VanderSloot, who had never been audited before, was subject to three in the four months after Mr. Obama teed him up for such scrutiny.
The last of these audits was only concluded in recent weeks. Not one resulted in a fine or penalty. But Mr. VanderSloot has been waiting more than 20 months for a sizable refund and estimates his legal bills are $80,000. That figure doesn't account for what the president's vilification has done to his business and reputation.
The Obama call for scrutiny wasn't a mistake; it was the president's strategy—one pursued throughout 2012. The way to limit Romney money was to intimidate donors from giving. Donate, and the president would at best tie you to Big Oil or Wall Street, at worst put your name in bold, and flag you as "less than reputable" to everyone who worked for him: the IRS, the SEC, the Justice Department. The president didn't need a telephone; he had a megaphone.
The same threat was made to conservative groups that might dare play in the election. As early as January 2010, Mr. Obama would, in his state of the union address, cast aspersions on the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, claiming that it "reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests" (read conservative groups).
The president derided "tea baggers." Vice President Joe Biden compared them to "terrorists." In more than a dozen speeches Mr. Obama raised the specter that these groups represented nefarious interests that were perverting elections. "Nobody knows who's paying for these ads," he warned. "We don't know where this money is coming from," he intoned.
In case the IRS missed his point, he raised the threat of illegality: "All around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates . . . And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation."
Short of directly asking federal agencies to investigate these groups, this is as close as it gets. Especially as top congressional Democrats were putting in their own versions of phone calls, sending letters to the IRS that accused it of having "failed to address" the "problem" of groups that were "improperly engaged" in campaigns. Because guess who controls that "independent" agency's budget?
The IRS is easy to demonize, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It got its heading from a president, and his party, who did in fact send it orders—openly, for the world to see. In his Tuesday press grilling, no question agitated White House Press Secretary Jay Carney more than the one that got to the heart of the matter: Given the president's "animosity" toward Citizens United, might he have "appreciated or wanted the IRS to be looking and scrutinizing those . . ." Mr. Carney cut off the reporter with "That's a preposterous assertion."
Preposterous because, according to Mr. Obama, he is "outraged" and "angry" that the IRS looked into the very groups and individuals that he spent years claiming were shady, undemocratic, even lawbreaking. After all, he expects the IRS to "operate with absolute integrity." Even when he does not.

Once is Not Enough: Why Contact a Tax Pro After April 15


Have you visited your doctor for your annual physical? Have you seen your dentist once or twice in the past year? Your financial health is as important as your physical health. To stay healthy, you must monitor your health and be aware of any changes. Your financial health needs to be monitored in the same way. Even though you see your licensed tax professional once a year, you may need to have another meeting or checkup during the off-season. Your tax professional can keep you on the right track, but only if he or she knows what’s going on. Many times, there is little that can be done come tax time to fix an unpleasant tax situation that occurred earlier in the year. Here are some examples of situations that warrant an off-season visit or communication with your tax professional.

Events such as marriage, divorce or remarriage result in a change in marital status, but can also result in a change in tax status. The exemptions claimed on your W-4 may need to be adjusted to prevent an unexpected tax bill. If you are going through a divorce, discussing the ramifications of dependents, alimony, childcare or division of property before signing anything is extremely helpful. Divorce decrees often contain wording that has a different tax result than what was intended. Call on your tax professional for a review.

A change in family size with the birth or adoption of a child can affect your tax return. And, as children get older, you may lose certain credits.

A career change might affect your tax situation. If you have pension opportunities that you are not sure about or excludable benefits such as cafeteria plans and dependent care benefits to choose from, your tax professional can help you evaluate your options. A career change might also increase income, shifting you into a higher tax bracket or changing the work-related deductions available, making a change in withholding a possibility.

If you find yourself in financial trouble, bankruptcy may be the option you choose. If so, there are tax implications you should be aware of and options that may be available, so contact your tax professional. Time is of the essence if you are in a bankruptcy situation.

Did your company present you with an early retirement proposal or are you considering an early retirement? This event definitely changes your life and your tax situation! It’s better to discuss the options before you act rather than face a large tax bill because you didn't.  Know the tax implications of your decision: check with your tax professional to make sure you are not triggering an early withdrawal penalty or causing Social Security to be taxable.

While you probably use care in choosing a doctor, do you apply the same care in choosing a tax professional? The person doing your taxes should be registered with IRS, have passed testing on taxation, and be required to complete continuing education to keep up with the ever-changing tax code. Enrolled agents meet these criteria.

Last, but not least, if you receive a letter from the IRS, call your enrolled agent! Do not ignore it or toss it in a drawer hoping it will disappear. Putting off action only creates more letters and possibly, larger penalties.

The key word is communication: keep your tax professional informed of any changes in your life because they may change your tax situation.

10 Staging Tips to Help Your Home Sell


Posted By susanne On March 18, 2010 @ 3:50 PM
RISMEDIA, March 19, 2010—(MCT)—Want to sell your home? Get out the bucket, mop and Mr. Clean. The key to making a positive first impression is simple, said Sandra Rinomato, host of HGTV’s popular “Property Virgins” show.

“Get it clean, clean, clean,” said Rinomato. “If your house isn’t clean, it instantly sends up negative thoughts that the home is not well maintained. If your house is spotless, you’re ahead of the game,” she said.

But don’t stop there, advised Rinomato. To increase your chances of making a sale, “stage” the house to make it as attractive as possible. Until recently, “Staging meant pulling out all the stops—setting the dining table with your best china and crystal, arranging flowers, lighting candles,” she said. “Now we take the minimalist approach. Basically, you want to strip the house to its bare essentials, depersonalize it so potential buyers can superimpose themselves and their lifestyle on the house.”

Rinomato offered the following tips for staging a home:

1. Visit model homes and examine shelter magazines for inexpensive decorating ideas. Always keep in mind you are not decorating for yourself but for the general public.

2. Start with the outside. Give the house a fresh coat of paint, add shiny hardware to the front door and plant a few flowers to send a subliminal message the house is loved and well cared for.

3. Declutter every room to make it look larger. Get rid of family pictures, trophies and knickknacks. Closets and drawers should be no more than 30% full.

4. Invest in eco-friendly but bright lights. Open the drapes or remove them completely. “Light, bright rooms give the impression this is a happy place—and everyone wants to move into a happy place,” said Rinomato.

5. Feature only a few pieces of furniture with mainstream appeal. Pull pieces away from walls to make rooms look bigger.

6. Make sure a room’s primary use is obvious. A bedroom should look like a bedroom, not an office, hobby center or gym.

7. Bedrooms and kitchens are difficult to stage because they are in daily use, but make the effort. Clear everything off the counters and nightstands, roll up the rugs and hide the laundry hamper. Buff the cabinets with car wax and clean under the sinks. Invest in pristine white bed linens and towels.

8. Minimize the “pet effect.” Remove food bowls and litter boxes to the utility room. Deodorize thoroughly.

9. Organize the utility room and garage. Hang up the bicycles, roll up the hose. Renting a storage locker is worth the cost if it helps you sell faster and for a higher price.

10. Once your house is staged, invite your friends or Realtor over and walk them through to get an objective opinion.

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Above politics, above partisanship and dirty tricks -- Really?



by L. Brent Bozell III

The Obama scandals started piling up on top of each other in the last few days. The civil servants who testified on Benghazi were heart-breaking. Then the IRS admitted a punitive agenda against tax exemptions for groups with “Tea Party” in the name, or groups which “educate about the Constitution.”

Then Eric Holder’s Justice Department was revealed to be wiretapping the Associated Press in April and May of 2012 to nail a leaker. President Obama is not a “victim” of a “second-term curse.” This is the corrupt first term beginning to smell, it is his administration, and even the media cannot deny the odor of malfeasance.

Most liberal pundits are no longer lecturing the conservatives about how they should dump the Benghazi probe, as is their clarion call after every Democratic scandal. Too much damaging information is coming out, not to mention the stonewalling, not to mention Obama’s continuous and blatant lying, such as his thuggish insistence he called this a terrorist act from the get-go, which he did not – period.

The growing collection of the Obama scandals paints a larger picture of a president who appears comfortable with an IRS that harasses his enemies, a State Department that lies to the world, and a Justice Department that’s wiretapping AP reporters on their home phones. That’s not exactly the image of Hope and Change that the press – including the Obama pals at AP -- sold us in 2008.

In 2006, reporters suggested Bush might be impeachment fodder for “domestic spying” – when the National Security Agency was listening to phone calls between Americans and Muslim radicals abroad. If the media can’t summon a stronger sense of outrage when the “domestic spying” is on their journalistic colleagues, then you’ll know (again) they’re completely in the tank.

In 2011 and 2012, a disturbing number of Obama’s media coddlers tried to suggest he was miraculously free of any Obama scandals. Forget Fast and Furious. Who ever heard of Solyndra? One of Obama’s top Democratic fundraisers ran MF Global into the ground. Who knew? Tingly Chris Matthews said Obama was “perfect” and “clean as a whistle” and has “never done anything wrong.”

Some journalists still care more for Obama’s image than they do about the truth. Time assistant managing editor Rana Foroohar greeted the IRS scandal by announcing on MSNBC that “What’s so sad about it is the president has been very rightfully proud of the lack of scandal in his administration so far.”

That could be a Jay Leno punch line.

On NPR’s “Morning Edition,” anchorman Steve Inskeep sounded like he’d been asleep like Rip Van Winkle for two years. He asserted to Cokie Roberts that “this administration has been described -- I don't even know how many times- - as remarkably scandal-free. But when you get into the second term of an administration, there's often some dirty laundry that comes out.”

This is the same Steve Inskeep who gave Obama campaign manager David Axelrod a nine-minute interview on October 11, one month after Benghazi....and never raised the consulate murders at all. Thanks to NPR, the “dirty laundry” stayed under the bed until Obama could be re-elected.

Apparently, he buried it so well, even he forgot the Benghazi scandal existed. Inskeep wrapped up the interview by comparing Obama to Lincoln in his reluctance to whack his opponent. “Abraham Lincoln, as historians have noted, had a habit of getting upset with someone, writing them a letter that might be a very strong letter, and then sticking it in a desk -- never sending it,” Inskeep stated. “I'm interested if metaphorically, the president has been sticking a lot of letters in the desk?”

Now we know it was more along the lines of “Hello? IRS?”
Insert vomiting sound effects here. This is how NPR flagrantly demonstrates its mockery of the Public Broadcasting Act’s long-ignored language about “objectivity and balance in all programming of a controversial nature.” To them, Obama should be chiseled into Mount Rushmore even as he engages in breath-taking corruption to destroy his enemies. 

If the media had acted like professionals in 2012, more of this new information would be old news by now. Voters could have made a decision between Obama and Romney with a fuller picture of how corrupt this administration truly is. By refusing to reveal that corruption, they brought that stain of corruption on themselves.

Some reporters in this moment are sounding like professionals. But too many reporters are spending too much time pining about how scandals may harm Obama’s “legacy.” Journalists shouldn’t be demonstrating great care for Obama’s historical reputation, like they’re the White House weed-whackers.

Obama’s legacy is becoming apparent. He laughably claimed to be above politics, above partisanship and dirty tricks – when the facts are proving he’s really the dirtiest pool player in today’s politics. It’s Chicago-style politics, day and night.

Sunday, May 12, 2013

Farmers, and you, do not have the right to eat what you want!


The judge wrote:

The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, which means the following:

(1) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a diary (sic) herd;
(2) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;
(3) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;
(4) no, the Zinniker plaintiffs’ private contract does not fall outside the scope of the state’s police power;
(5) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice; and
“(6) no, the DATCP did not act in an ultra vires manner because it had jurisdiction to regulate the Zinniker plaintiffs’ conduct.

CBS Reporter Challenged Bosses, White House to Air Benghazi Stories


Posted on May 11, 2013 by Tad Cronn

I have a new favorite journalist, Sharyl Attkisson of CBS.

It’s been years since you could find any respectable journalists who do their jobs, most of the media talking heads and reporters having gone over to the White House stable.

Working in that culture is what makes Attkisson’s accomplishment all the more important and impressive.

While us conservative blogger types have gone after the Obama Administration whenever it does something underhanded, which is pretty much every day, we’re just a dime a dozen.

Attkisson is in that rarified circle of TV journalists, and yet she has risked her reputation and probably her career to report the Benghazi coverup, stories that now have finally begun to break through the wall of denial and are being taken up by ABC, BBC and even CNN.

While it’s well-known that high-level media operators and owners mingle in political circles and most of them are contributors to the Obama regime, Attkisson had to do her job under the thumb of CBS News President David Rhoades.

Rhoades is not only an Obama sympathizer, but he is the brother of Obama national security adviser Ben Rhoades. According to ABC, Ben Rhoades was one of the figures involved in rewriting the CIA talking points on Benghazi to cover up the fact that the Administration knew al-Qaida was involved from the beginning.

The incestuous relationship between the CBS upper echelon and the Administration certainly helps explain the leaks coming from the CBS newsroom about Attkisson’s difficulties in getting her stories aired and her bosses expressing their desire to send her packing.

Attkisson is also among the select club of journalists singled out by the Administration for being “advocates” — meaning reporting the truth rather than the Obama version of reality.

Attkisson may not have much longer at CBS, but her persistence has started something by forcing open the gates around the Administration’s fortress of lies on Benghazi. It’s now up to the handful of remaining ethical journalists to charge in and get to the truth.