New IRS Bombshell: ‘Most Audacious Power Play Yet’

New IRS Bombshell: ‘Most Audacious Power Play Yet’ – WorldNetDaily

.
…………

.
It was the nearly silent bombshell of the IRS scandal, but it may have been one of the most significant.

That is especially true considering the target is primarily known as one of the fiercest critics of President Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton, the latter considered the Democrat’s leading presidential contender in 2016.

When the IRS stripped the Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, or PHC, of its tax-exempt status, it did not cause splashy headlines and a chorus of the nation’s leading conservatives did not howl in protest.

However, the IRS’ revocation of the center’s 501(c)(3) status may have been the most audacious power play yet by the left in its use of the department to wage war on conservatives.

The action indicates the IRS still feels free to pursue conservatives with impunity, even after all the adverse publicity it has received since former tax-exempt division chief Lois Lerner revealed last May that the department had improperly targeted conservative groups applying for 501(c)(3) status.

Additionally, the PHC is unique among the IRS’ recent known victims:

• The tea-party groups came to the IRS; the IRS went after the PHC. Unlike the delay tactics it used on tea-party groups when processing their tax-exempt applications, the IRS actively targeted the PHC as a group that already had 501(c)(3) status.

• The department applied the worst penalty at its disposal, by disallowing tax-exempt contributions to the organization.

• Unlike the tea-party groups, the PHC did not spring up after the 2008 election of President Obama, but has been around since the 1990s. It was approved in January 1998 as a 501(c)(3). Based in Manassas, Va., the center was founded by former FBI agent and best-selling author, Gary Aldrich, a ferocious critic of Obama and the Clintons.

• The IRS appeared to go out of its way to target and punish the center. It had to go back a decade to find a mere two instances of alleged transgressions committed by the PHC.

• And, as WND reported, the supposed violations of IRS rules are miniscule compared to the hyper-partisan articles published daily by the gargantuan, George Soros-financed and leftist 501(c)(3) website Media Matters.

Despite the brazenness of the IRS in giving its tax-exempt “death-penalty” to the PHC, the news was met with an almost deafening silence by conservatives. However, those conservatives who are speaking out are scathing in their criticism.

“Americans should be outraged at the banana republic intimidation tactics of this administration and Congress needs to take a hard look at the IRS’s abuses of power,” Scott Hogenson, communications director for Tea Party Patriots, the nation’s largest grassroots organization, told WND.

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, which has forced the IRS to reveal a series of incriminating documents, told WND, “The IRS can’t be trusted to impartially apply its own regulations or the law.”

“Liberals at the local, state and federal level are increasingly abusing the powers of government agencies to smear and attack conservatives. The time has come for Congress to rein in these attacks on free speech,” Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, told WND.

Floyd G. Brown, president of the Western Center for Journalism, told WND, “The IRS actions concerning the Patrick Henry Center are an outrage. The IRS has no jurisdiction to censor or control the speech of individuals involved in nonprofit work. The IRS has become the favorite tool of the political apparatchiks who run the Democratic Party. They use the IRS and other agencies to bully opponents until they are too tired to continue to fight.”

“The IRS political targeting of Gary Aldrich’s Patrick Henry Center is stunning in its brazenness,” said WND Editor Joseph Farah, who exposed the broad pattern of IRS political targeting during the Clinton administration and whose own organization was the focus of an audit at the time.

“This action by the IRS is a clear signal the Obama administration is out of control and in no way deterred by congressional investigations into the use of the IRS as an attack dog against domestic political enemies. The silence from Aldrich’s fellow conservatives is deafening and invites even more blatant abuse of this kind by the Obama administration,” added Farah.

Aldrich has been a target of the left stretching back to Clinton administration, in which he served.

He spent 26 years in the FBI and was a private investigator in the Clinton White House, vetting the backgrounds and character of the president’s choices for top-level government positions. Shocked by what he experienced, Aldrich left the White House in 1996.

In 1998, Aldrich wrote the New York Times’ bestseller “Unlimited Access,” a devastating critique and insider’s look at an administration he saw as run amok. Aldrich said he repeatedly rejected Clinton nominees as corrupt and/or unqualified, only to have the president ignore his findings and put those people in positions of authority.

Aldrich also considered the behavior of Hillary to be especially corrupt, vulgar and even obscene, describing her decorating the White House Christmas tree with sex toys and drug paraphernalia.

Aldrich wrote:

“[I] could not let these threats to national security and attacks on basic American values continue … With firsthand knowledge of the hardship facing those who dare to speak the truth in the face of corrupt power, [I] determined to make a difference by helping others. Thus was conceived a non-profit foundation to assist [other] whistleblowers and to protect their First Amendment rights.”

And what a whistleblower he found.

The very first client of his Patrick Henry Center was Linda Tripp, the Pentagon employee who instigated the impeachment of President Clinton by recording her calls with Monica Lewinsky.

Conservatives, understandably, might see that as a reason for top Democrats to hold a grudge.

When Aldrich began working with tea-party groups in 2010, Politico described “Unlimited Access” as a “widely discredited exposé of the Clinton White House.”

Aldrich related to WND how “Hillary Clinton called it a “pack of lies,” political fabrication that could not be believed … and Bill Clinton said he had no idea who I was or what I was saying, but it couldn’t be true. Then (former White House aide) George Stephanopoulous was the lead character who came on ABC News and declared to the nation that I was a pathological liar.”

However, the facts that have emerged ever since the book was published point to just the opposite, and indicate the author has been vindicated.

The book sounded the alarm about national security risks, security risks in the White House and the sexual escapades of President Clinton. In 2004, Aldrich explained, “The book was designed to alert the public in 1996, before the election, that Bill Clinton was soft on national security and… he had weakened the nation to the degree that I felt we were in danger of an attack.”

Aldrich told WND in 2000 that after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke in 1998, “I received a call from (NBC “Meet the Press” host Tim) Russert at my residence. Don’t know how he got my number. But he said, ‘Gary, congratulations. It looks like you’ve been fully vindicated. I don’t know anyone who could now claim your book wasn’t true.’”

Aldrich said another journalist who had publicly doubted his story, ABC’s Sam Donaldson, also told him he’d been vindicated.

As for former Clinton insider Stephanopoulos, who went on to host Donaldson’s old show, ABC’s “This Week,” Aldrich told WND, “The man’s a liar and he worked inside the Clinton White House and he knew what I wrote was true and yet he went on national TV and said I’m a ‘pathological liar.’ Who’s a pathological liar now?”

Aldrich told WND in 2000 that it was the sex scandal that the media fixated upon, but it was the risk the Clinton administration posed to national security that was the bigger threat:

“We didn’t clear anybody. They didn’t care about security. They just wanted to test the political loyalty of employees. There’s no provision in the law to allow for that. It’s nuts. It’s a misuse and an abuse. Early on in the staffing of the Clinton administration, they discovered that the FBI (background) investigations could be an impediment to the appointment of people they really wanted to have. And these people don’t want to be denied, frankly. Hillary Clinton in particular does not want to be told, ‘No,’ when she wants to bring somebody into the White House.”

By 2000, WND was reporting that slowly, with each new report of security lapses, Aldrich’s story of loose security and reckless conduct had been confirmed. At the White House, drug and gun smugglers were waved into fundraising coffees with the president and vice president. One Clinton donor with Beijing ties even managed to sneak a foreigner past the Secret Service using a bogus driver’s license.

Fearful fellow law-enforcement agents failed to back his story. But Aldrich did not call them out, even though he knew where the dirt was, having read their sensitive FBI “302″ reports while vetting them for jobs.

By 2010, PHC merged with Liberty Central, an advocacy group run by Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese serves on the center’s board.

But the center has never been very big, declaring less than $350,000 in revenues for the year 2012.

The IRS apparently had to strain to build a case against the small, obscure outfit, reaching back a decade to find just a mere two alleged transgressions.

USA Today reported last Monday that the PHC was among several organizations that had lost their tax-exempt status in February, after the IRS letter released a letter on April 18, explaining its reasoning.

The IRS cited a pair of articles on the center’s website: one Aldrich wrote in 2004 that was critical of presidential candidate John Kerry and one in 2005 which was critical of Hillary Clinton.

(Farah said he suspects the IRS didn’t use any of Aldrich’s criticisms of Obama in making its case because “that would have been unseemly and too obvious.”)

In 2004, Aldrich wrote, “Let’s see what happens when he brings his medals to the first presidential debate. I’m willing to bet George W. Bush will have no trouble dealing with this coward.” In a 2005 piece called “Stop Hillary Now!” Aldrich encouraged “Clinton haters” to get out the word on Hillary’s “atrocious conduct.”

The IRS said the PHC served as an “action organization” in promoting those articles by issuing alerts, and had “shown a pattern of deliberate and consistent intervention in political campaigns” and made “repeated statements supporting or opposing various candidates by expressing its opinion of the respective candidate’s character and qualifications.”

Those who know Aldrich well strongly doubt that he would endanger the viability of his organization by crossing the line.

“I know Gary Aldrich personally, Judicial Watch has worked with him in the past, and, in my experience, he is a stickler for the rules,” Judicial Watch’s Fitton told WND.

“I’ve known Gary Aldrich for 20 years,” said Farah. “He knows the law. Few people are more cautious about observing every jot and tittle of the law in their political activism than Gary Aldrich. If Obama’s IRS can suspend his organization’s tax-exempt status in the midst of their own high-profile scandalous abuse of the IRS, the First Amendment is gravely threatened. In fact, it appears Obama is trying to suspend not just the tax-exempt status of his political enemies, but the First Amendment itself.”

Even if the PHC truly violated IRS rules, the two actions done nearly a decade ago are dwarfed by the vast number of hyper-partisan political articles published everyday by the extreme liberal website Media Matters, as documented by WND. Media Matters is also a 501(c)(3) but operates with little apparent interference from the IRS.

Farah noted the discrepancy, observing, “Meanwhile, left-wing partisan tax-exempt groups like Media Matters run rings around their conservative counterparts with impunity. America will never be the same kind of free-and-open society we have known when people with different points of view are treated so unequally by the government. We are one short step away from police-state totalitarianism.”

Hogenson added, “This is symptomatic of the on-going IRS targeting of people and organizations with whom President Obama disagrees. Once again, the IRS is targeting a conservative group while turning a blind eye to the questionable activities of left-wing organizations that share the same tax status as the Patrick Henry Center.”

Rep. Stockman told WND, “Not only did the Patrick Henry Center never engage in any activity that actually intervened in any campaign, what they are accused of is standard operating procedure for leftist groups. Nothing in the report rises to the level of an activity that disqualifies the Center from tax-exempt status. This appears to be yet another case of liberal officials using government agencies to defame and harass conservative activists. Their goal is simple. They want to intimidate and silence those who differ with their agenda.”

The Western Journalism Center’s Brown said, “For the IRS to revoke the tax exempt status of an independent foundation for comments the organization’s president, Gary Aldrich wrote in a column on the independent news website TownHall.com only increases the outrage.”

Fitton implied the punitive action did not come out of the blue, but is part of the same conflict going back to Aldrich’s time with the Clintons.

“In many ways, this is the culmination of the ‘long war’ against Gary that began with the whistleblowing on corruption in Washington, D.C., nearly 20 years ago.”

It also appears to be part of a larger pattern of targeting conservatives.

In addition to the targeting of tea-party groups, the IRS is apparently going after even the few conservatives in Hollywood, as the New York Times reported in January:

“A collection of perhaps 1,500 right-leaning players in the entertainment industry, Friends of Abe keeps a low profile and fiercely protects its membership list, to avoid what it presumes would result in a sort of 21st-century blacklist, albeit on the other side of the partisan spectrum.

“Now the Internal Revenue Service is reviewing the group’s activities in connection with its application for tax-exempt status. Last week, federal tax authorities presented the group with a 10-point request for detailed information about its meetings with politicians like Paul D. Ryan, Thaddeus McCotter and Herman Cain, among other matters, according to people briefed on the inquiry.”

Conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza is even facing prosecution on campaign-finance charges that many believe are payback for his film “2016: Obama’s America.”

Gerald Molen, the producer of D’Souza’s two full-length feature film documentaries, characterized D’Souza’s criminal indictment as a Soviet-style “political prosecution.”

In turn, D’Souza told WND that Molen also was harassed by the Obama administration for his role producing D’Souza’s full-length feature film documentaries.

“Right after ’2016′ came out, Molen got a call from the IRS,” D’Souza said.

Republican Sens. Charles E. Grassley, Jeff Sessions, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee are among the lawmakers who have signed a letter to the FBI demanding details of the D’Souza investigation, saying it smacks of “selective prosecution.”

Further evidence that the IRS targeting of Aldrich is not happening in a vacuum came to light after an investigation by WND that revealed the agency contracts with an avowedly “progressive” organization supported by George Soros to process data filed by smaller tax-exempt groups.

The IRS sends details contained in the annual filings for organizations with $50,000 in annual receipts or less to the Urban Institute, which is funded, at least in part, by contributions from far-left activist Soros.

A tax form page directs groups to file with the Urban Institute, although apparently other providers also can file the Form 990 documentation (postcard), which is required of every nonprofit, small and large.

“The organization that fails to file required e-Postcards… for three consecutive years will automatically lose its tax-exempt status,” the IRS warns.

The supposedly nonpartisan organization’s employees have a record of donating nearly 100 percent of their political contributions to Democrats, and officially, the Urban Institute advocates for totally socialized medicine, carbon taxes and amnesty for illegal aliens.

The institute’s president, Sarah Rosen Wartell, is the co-founder of the Center for American Progress, widely considered ground zero for the development of many of the Obama administration’s progressive policies.

As for Aldrich, when news of his targeting broke it didn’t cause the kind of sensational headlines as when America learned the IRS had been demanding tea-party groups report what prayers they had been saying and which books they had been reading.

But this latest development may indicate, somewhere along the way, a turning point had been reached, one in which the IRS went from defense to offense, and instead of just stalling applications, went on the attack.

That seemed to be what Lois Lerner and the Justice Department had in mind, when it was recently revealed how they plotted how to prosecute conservatives for merely exercising their rights to free speech.

Even more ominously, the order to have the IRS dig up information to prosecute conservatives was given to the Justice Department’s director of the Election Crimes Branch of the Public Integrity Section by “someone” higher up in the chain of command.

That means the orders either came from someone in a position of top authority at the Justice Department, or, someone at the White House.

As Floyd Brown told WND, “The authoritarianism of the federal government should frighten every American. The new slogan of big government has changed from ‘we won’t listen,’ and it has become ‘you can’t speak.’”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

77 Percent Of Jobs Added During Obama Presidency Low-Paying, Part-Time Jobs

Confirmed: Most Of Jobs Added During Obama Years Are Low-Paying, Part-Time Jobs – Gateway Pundit

It’s an Obama world.

Of 953,000 Jobs Created In 2013, 77%, Or 731,000 Were Part-Time.

.

(Zero Hedge)
.

And it’s likely to get worse…

Obamacare will kill off at least two percent of the US full-time workforce.

.

.
Obamacare is accelerating the US towards a part-time nation.

Even far left Think Progress reported today that most of the jobs added since the recession are low paying jobs.

Via Politomix:

Six years after the Great Recession began, job growth has returned to is original peak level. But the kinds of jobs that have been added don’t pay well. Low-wage jobs have accounted for most of the employment growth even though they weren’t the majority of jobs lost during the recession, according to a new report from the National Employment Law Project (NELP).

Four years into the recovery, low-wage industries have accounted for 44 percent of job growth, but they only made up 22 percent of the losses during the recession. These jobs pay between $9.48 and $13.33 an hour – even that higher wage is only about $27,000 a year. At the same time, mid-wage industries saw 37 percent of the job losses but have only made up about a quarter of employment growth. High-wage industries accounted for 41 percent of the losses but have only seen 30 percent of the recovery’s gains. In all, low-wage industries employ 1.85 million more people than when the recession began, while the other two groups have lost nearly 2 million jobs.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* AlfonZo Rachel – Obamacare: So Good, President Obama Lies About It


.

Corruption Update: Federal Government Spent $26.2M On Medicare Advantage For Illegal Aliens

Feds Spent $26.2 Million On Medicare Advantage For Illegal Immigrants – Daily Caller

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has improperly paid millions of dollars to Medicare Advantage organizations on behalf of illegal immigrants.

.

.
In a new report released Friday, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General (OIG) revealed that for calendar years 2010 through 2012, CMS provided $26.2 million in improper payments to Medicare Advantage organizations for 1,600 “unlawfully present beneficiaries” – or nearly $16,375 per illegal immigrant.

According to the OIG, CMS did not have policies in place to notify the Medicare Advantage organizations about the legality of potential beneficiaries. Without such data, illegal immigrants were able to enroll with Medicare Advantage organizations.

“In contrast to its fee-for-service (FFS) program, CMS did not have policies and procedures to notify the MA organizations of the unlawful-presence information in its data systems. Had CMS provided this information to the MA organizations, they would have been able to prevent enrollment and to disenroll beneficiaries already enrolled,” the report reads. “CMS would then have been able to recoup any improper payments.”

Illegal immigrants are barred from obtaining federal health-care benefits. Last year, the OIG revealed that from 2009 to 2011, Medicare payments to health care providers for services rendered to illegal aliens totaled more than $91.6 million.

In its April report, OIG recommended that CMS recover the $26.2 million in improper payments on behalf of illegal immigrants, adopt policies to notify the organizations about unlawful-presence information, and recoup improper payments made after the audit period.

The OIG report noted that CMS partially agreed with the recommendations – concurring with OIG’s second recommendation, but said it was unable to agree to the specific OIG estimate because it said it could not confirm the amount.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Report: Obama “Switched Sides In The War On Terror”; Directly Armed Al-Qaeda-Linked Benghazi Terrorists

Report: Obama Directly Armed The Benghazi Terrorists – Conservative Tribune

.

.
A year and a half later, we’re still looking for answers on Benghazi, and we’re not getting them from the Obama administration. They continue, with the help of the media, to cover up exactly what happened and who in the administration knew what and when regarding the attack.

The Citizens’ Committee on Benghazi is a group of ex-CIA officers, former top military officials, and policy experts who are searching for answers about the attack, and the report they just released on why Benghazi happened is just disturbing.

They allege that Obama was actually arming the affiliates of al-Qaeda in Libya during their attempt to overthrow Gaddafi, and the attack could’ve been prevented had the US not “switched sides in the War on Terror.”

Via Dailymail:

‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.

She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.

‘Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,’ Lopez claimed. ‘They were permitted to come in… [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed.

‘The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.’

The weapons were intended for Gaddafi but allowed by the U.S. to flow to his Islamist opposition.

‘The White House and senior Congressional members,’ the group wrote in an interim report released Tuesday, ‘deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler [Muammar Gaddafi] who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress al-Qaeda.’

The report claims that Gaddafi was willing to step down from his position of power and offer a truce with the rebels, but Obama would not allow the Pentagon to pursue a peace deal.

‘We had a leader who had won the Nobel Peace Prize,’ Kubic said, ‘but who was unwilling to give peace a chance for 72 hours.’ [...]

Gaddafi wanted only two conditions to step down: permission to keeo fighting al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), and the lifting of sactions against him, his family, and those loyal to him.

The Obama administration’s unwillingness to help broker a peaceful exit for the Libyan strongman, ‘led to extensive loss of life (including four Americans)’ when al-Qaeda-linked militants attacked U.S. diplomatic facilities in the city of Benghazi,’ the commission told reporters.

The report calls out Hillary for her negligence and betrayal of our personnel in Benghazi, and says that the claim that armed forces couldn’t have made it in time is patently false:

Lyons also said U.S. claims that it lacked the resources to mount a counterattack in time to save lives is false.

‘I’m going to tell you that’s not true,’ he said. ‘We had a 130-man unit of forces at Sigonella [AFB in Italy]. They were ready to go.’

‘The flight time from Sigonella to Benghazi is roughly an hour.’ [...]

‘They believed they were going to be saved, that they were going to be rescued, but they weren’t,’ Simmons said of the four Americans who died.

‘I know who made the decision, in my heart of hearts, to leave our war fighters there and be blown up. And then to have one of the most powerful politicians in our country sit there and say, “What difference does it make?” – should be an alarm bell for all Americans.

‘It haunts me,’ Simmons said. ‘I play that line over, and over, and over, and over in my mind.’

It’s important that we not take any of this information for granted, as these claims do go pretty far beyond what we know for sure up to this point and what Congress has been able to uncover about the attack. What’s clear is that Obama and Hillary were negligent in securing the embassy and responding promptly with force, and they lied for weeks about the nature of the attack, saying that it wasn’t an act of terrorism. Those are impeachable offenses.

If anything, this report should cause us to ask more questions and demand more answers from Obama. If the media would do its job and seriously investigate Benghazi, we might get to the bottom of this thing once and for all. We need a full select congressional committee with subpoena power to force administration officials to give us answers.

Please share this article on Facebook and Twitter if you think Obama and Hillary need to finally answer for what happened in Benghazi.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Obama’s VA To Vets: If You’re Late Paying Your Bills, We’ll Declare You Incompetent And Take Your Guns Away

VA To Veterans: If You’re Late Paying Bills, We Will Prohibit You From Ever Owning A Firearm – Michael Connelly

.

.
Since I wrote the article titled “Disarming America’s Heroes” I have been inundated with emails and phone calls from veterans and the families of veterans. The horror stories I am hearing are proof that the VA and the Obama administration have launched an all out assault on the Constitutional rights of our nation’s wounded warriors and other veterans.

Veterans are being declared incompetent not because they have a serious mental illness that makes them a danger to themselves or others, but because they have a physical disability resulting from their service in the armed forces or because they simply let their spouses pay the family bills.

If veterans have minor issues with PTSD, have expressed that they are depressed sometimes, or even in the case of Vietnam veterans admit that they are getting older and sometimes forget to pay their bills on time, the bureaucrats at the VA will seek to declare them incompetent. (I am a 65 year old veteran and often forget where I put my car keys, does that make me incompetent to handle my own financial affairs and even worse mean that I can’t own a firearm?) According to the VA it apparently does.

All of this has resulted in America’s heroes being declared incompetent by a process that blatantly violates their rights to due process under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Then, for reasons that have not been explained these same veterans are also being denied their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Many of the veterans I have heard from were initially both scared because of what was happening to them, and hurt because it is their own government that is causing this fear. After all, when they joined the military they signed a blank check to their country to defend it and its Constitution even if it cost them their lives. Yet, now their own government is turning on them and taking from them the very Constitutional rights they fought to preserve.

However, now something else is happening; the fear and betrayal that these veterans felt is turning to anger. Their training and instincts as warriors is coming forth and they are once again prepared to fight for their rights and the rights of other Americans. I think that the Obama administration has picked a fight with the wrong dog. Veterans are fighting back.

As Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation (www.usjf.net) I am committed to helping these veterans and protecting their Constitutional rights. We are putting together a top notch legal team that is already exploring several potential avenues including administrative procedures and a class action lawsuit.

It will be a huge undertaking since we have veterans who have just received the letter telling them that the VA is considering declaring them incompetent, veterans who have already been declared incompetent and lost their Second Amendment Rights, and even veterans who have gotten the incompetence ruling reversed, but are still blacklisted when it comes to buying firearms. There will be no charge to any veterans or their families that we represent. We will raise the money to finance our efforts from private sources.

There are those detractors who claim that the letter from the VA is not real even though several reporters have contacted me and said they have talked to representatives of the VA and it is confirmed that it is sending out these letters. The VA apparently downplays this by saying it is not a big deal. I suggest that to the veterans who are losing their rights it is a very big deal and we intend to join them in the fight.

If you are a veteran or have a friend or family member who is a veteran and has received one of these letters or already been declared incompetent, please contact me and the USJF. We intend to come out swinging. Our veterans deserve nothing less.

Michael Connelly, Constitutional Attorney and United States Army Veteran

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

A Simple Graph: Comparing The ‘Recoveries’ Of Obama And Reagan

This Simple Graph Compares Reagan’s And Obama’s ‘Recoveries’ – Independent Journal Review

How often have you heard a Democrat prattle on and on about how well Barack Obama has done with the economy, given the mess he inherited? Usually, it’s some version of, “Things are getting better, but the economy the President started with was so awful, so he’s done as well as anyone could expect.”

When Ronald Reagan took over from Jimmy Carter in ’81, things were actually worse economically compared to when Obama took over from George W. Bush in ’08.

Consider these three important comparisons of economic indicators, then and now:

- Unemployment was at 10.8% versus 7.7%

- Inflation (Consumer Price Index) was at 13.5% versus 2.7%

- Interest rates (prime rate) was at 21.5% versus 3.25%

In other words, Reagan inherited a bigger mess. Yet, there’s this chart of job growth:

.

.
Yes, you read that right: net job growth has declined under Obama. And by the end of the second year of their terms as President, economic growth under Reagan averaged 7.1% , under Obama an anemic 2.8%.

So, how did Reagan manage it? Across-the-board tax cuts, non-defense spending cuts, a restrained monetary supply, and deregulation.

What’s Obama done? Tax increases, spending increases, a massive money-supply increase through “quantitative easing,” and an explosive increase in regulations.

Game, set, and match to Ronald Reagan – and a sound, conservative economic policy.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.