Volunteers working for tea party challenger Chris McDaniel in Mississippi say they have already found 20 percent of the invalid double-votes they need to cancel Sen. Thad Cochran’s business-funded runoff victory.
“We’re finished with Hinds County, and we’re up to 1,500” invalid votes, said Noel Fritsch, Daniel’s press aide.
That’s critical because McDaniel can force another runoff if he can find more invalid votes than Cochran’s roughly 7,000-vote margin-of-victory on June 24. Votes are invalidated if voters cast ballots in both the Democrats’ June 3 primary and the GOP’s run-off on June 24.
However, McDaniel can also force another election even if he can’t find 7,000 invalid ballots, said Fritsch.
“We don’t have to prove that we have 7,000 [invalid] votes… all there needs to be is enough doubt about the election, and we’re confident about that,” he said.
That “cancel by doubt” strategy gives the McDaniel campaign an incentive to collect evidence about possible vote-buying and other potentially unethical behavior by Cochran’s campaign.
So far, there are many reports about shady outreach to Democratic voters supposedly undertaken by Cochran and his allies, particularly done by relatives of former Gov. Haley Barbour.
For example, The Daily Caller reported that Henry Barbour, the head of the Mississippi Conservatives PAC and the nephew of Haley Barbour, paid Democratic operative Mitzi Bickers “to make paid calls to potential Cochran supporters.” Those calls may have spurred many loyal Democrats to cast invalid votes.
In the search for improper votes, GOP officials who are affiliated with Cochran’s campaign are trying to block McDaniel’s search for invalidated votes that are recorded in the poll books, Fritsch said.
“They’re stalling in at least half of the counties across the state,” he said.
Some are “asking for large fees, and throwing up every roadblock you can imagine to stop us from seeing the poll books,” Fristch stated.
That resistance “tells us they don’t want us to see the poll books,” he added.
Roughly 84,000 voters cast ballots in the Democratic primary. To find 7,000 invalid votes, more than 8.5 percent of the 84,000 people who cast votes in the Democratic Primary would also have to have cast votes in the GOP runoff.
However, 19,000 absentee voters cast ballots in the GOP run-off, and many of those votes may be improper, say McDaniel’s allies.
“We haven’t gotten into them yet, but we’re confident that is where a lot of their effort was concentrated, and that’s where we’ll find a lot more ineligible votes,” Fritsch said.
The 1,500 invalid votes already detected were found in Hinds County, which is a heavily populated and predominately Democrat county. That’s because – in a state where partisan loyalties are particularly polarized by race – 69 percent of its large population is African American.
There are many other counties with mostly Democratic and African-American populations, but they’re much smaller than Hinds County.
Citizen journalist James O’Keefe from Project Veritas was on The Kelly File last night to discuss his latest undercover video released Tuesday. James was reporting from the Cannes Film Festival in France where he held a press conference today.
O’Keefe told Megyn Kelly he was contacted by members of Congress regarding his latest anti-fracking report.
James O’Keefe: I think the nefarious thing about this film we did was they’re trying to stop our energy independence. And those Hollywood figures Ed Begley Jr., Mariel Hemmingway are OK with that and what’s worse is they’re using non-profit groups and (C)(3) groups to cover up from where the funding is coming from. Is that illegal? I know the senate has been investigating that very issue. So there are some serious issues here about the coverup of the funding and about how many movies in Hollywood are funded by these mystery groups.
Megyn Kelly: You tweeted out today that a senate committee has reached out to you over possible non-profit participation and coverup of this video. Is that true have you been reached out to by lawmakers?
James O’Keefe: I have been reached out to by lawmakers. I’m not allowed to give too much information at this point.
India may be at a historic turning point, as voters delivered a sweeping victory to the BJP party led by Narendra Modi, as predicted on these pages more than 2 weeks ago. This represents a repudiation of the Congress Party, the heir to the Gandhi-Nehru semi-socialist political machine that has ruled India virtually since independence.
While the American mainstream media has virtually ignored this embrace of free markets and anti-jihadism, the Obama administration will soon be forced to back-peddle and deal with a man it has barred from receiving a visa to visit the United States.
Modi’s party has achieved an absolute majority in the Indian parliament, and will have the support of some other parties as well, and thus will be able to govern the world’s largest democracy and implement a reform agenda.
As governor of the state of Gujarat, Modi compiled an excellent record of reform and economic growth, so his party’s taking control of the national government bodes well for India turning around its faltering economic growth.
The American visa ban was based on unproven allegations that Modi was somehow implicated in a riot of Hindus, responding to Muslim violence. Now that he will be the head of state, there is no question but that the Obama administration will retreat from its unfounded ban. And there are substantial risks that if President Obama’s anti-Modi stance persists, India will cozy up to Russia, something the Russian government-controlled website RT.com eagerly anticipates:
The Modi administration will deepen ties with both: Russia to counterbalance the United States and Japan to counterbalance China. The Modi-led India should also see a huge fillip in trade and economic ties with these two countries.
While the American media are reticent to cover what amounts to a sweeping victory for conservative/free market/anti-Islamist forces, overseas media are giving the victory substantial coverage. The left wing UK Guardian is apoplectic, headlining that Modi “bludgeoned” his way to victory.
For his part, Modi is moving to dispel fears that he will be divisive as the leader of India. Al Jazeera reports:
Speaking to supporters, Modi thanked the nation, and immediately addressed concerns his pro-Hindu leanings would sideline minorities.
“The age of divisive politics has ended, from today onwards the politics of uniting people will begin,” Modi said. “We want more strength for the wellbeing of the country… I see a glorious and prosperous India.”
“I want to take all of you with me to take this country forward… it is my responsibility to take all of you with me to run this country,” he added.
Incoming Prime Minister Modi knows well that only two+ years remain of the Obama presidency, and we can hope that ties between the US and its natural ally India will not be seriously damaged in that time frame.
Meanwhile, watch for India to embark on free market reforms that should empower its talented populace to achieve economically the promise that has slumbered for too many years.
Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee introduced legislation today that would allow states to set their own standards as to what defines marriage.
On Thursday, U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced S. 2024, the State Marriage Defense Act, which allows states to set their own standards as to what defines marriage and protects the states from having the federal government encroach on that territory.
Thirty-three states define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.
I support traditional marriage. Under President Obama, the federal government has tried to re-define marriage and to undermine the constitutional authority of each state to define marriage consistent with the values of its citizens. The Obama Administration should not be trying to force gay marriage on all 50 states. We should respect the states, and the definition of marriage should be left to democratically elected legislatures, not dictated from Washington. This bill will safeguard the ability of states to preserve traditional marriage for [their] residents.
How a state should define marriage should be left up to the citizens of each state. It is clear the Obama administration finds the principles of federalism inconvenient in its effort to force states to redefine the institution of marriage. The State Marriage Defense Act provides an important protection for states, respecting the right to choose for themselves how each will treat the institution of marriage under the law.
Meanwhile… A federal judge struck down Virginia’s ban on gay marriage on Thursday.
Not a smidgen of corruption.
A Republican House committee chairman said the Internal Revenue Service targeted tax-exempt conservative groups for audits, widening the scope of GOP ire over the agency’s oversight of political activities.
House Democrats pushed back, saying Republicans were seeking to use the IRS controversy to score political points with their conservative base in an election year.
The IRS has been under scrutiny since an inspector general’s report last May found that the agency had targeted conservative groups for lengthy and heavy-handed review of their applications to become tax-exempt organizations under section 501(c) 4 of the tax code. The controversy led to significant management shakeups at the IRS and generated a slew of congressional investigations, some of which are still going on.
On Tuesday, House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R., Mich.) said his committee’s continuing investigation has found that the IRS also singled out established conservative tax-exempt groups for audits.
“We now know that the IRS targeted not only right-leaning applicants, but also right-leaning groups that were already operating as 501(c)(4)s,” Mr. Camp said in a statement. “At Washington, DC’s direction, dozens of groups operating as 501(c)(4)s were flagged for IRS surveillance, including monitoring of the groups’ activities, websites and any other publicly available information. Of these groups, 83% were right-leaning. And of the groups the IRS selected for audit, 100% were right-leaning.”
Rep. Elijah Cummings on three separate occasions sent letters from the House Oversight and Government Reform, stating that he had concerns and felt it necessary to open an investigation on True the Vote.
Catherine Engelbrecht was on with Megyn Kelly last night:
“Franky, Megyn, the thought of having to sit before my accuser and be silent in the face of what we did was unconscionable… He filed over a period of months in 2012, he filed three letters that he sent to me asserting that he was opening an investigation. He sent this on House Oversight and Government Reform letterhead.”
Eric Gurr is a 48-year-old Ohioan and a lifelong Republican. He was born and raised in Hamilton, a suburb of Cincinnati. Mr. Gurr is the CEO of a computer consulting firm based in West Chester, Ohio. He is married and has three children as well as two grandchildren. He and his family reside in fast-growing Liberty Township. He has never run for political office before.
Oh, and he just happens to be challenging House Speaker John Boehner in the Republican primary for Ohio’s 8th congressional district.
Mr. Gurr was kind enough to grant yours truly an exclusive interview.
ROBERT ELLIOTT: Thank you for agreeing to do this interview, Mr. Gurr.
So did you go to college in Ohio? How does your family feel about your decision to run for high public office? What prompted someone who has never run for political office before to decide to challenge one of the most powerful elected officials in the country?
ERIC GURR: I went to college at The University of Cincinnati. I started out in mechanical engineering in 1983, then switched to computer related. I dropped out in ’87 and have worked with computers, programming, and related endeavors since that time.
My family has been very supportive of my decision.
What prompted me to run was the realization that since 2008 Mr. Boehner had slowly pulled away from my views and what I thought was in the best interest of the nation long-term. I was not in favor of the TARP programs and I still think our monetary policy is on the wrong track.
Syria was the tipping point. I thought that war with Syria was a terrible idea. Essentially it is a very high-risk proposition with little or nothing to be gained. I also believe strongly that the immigration bill was a bad bill at the wrong time. It makes no sense at all to add to a workforce burdened by high unemployment and underemployment.
When I started putting all of these things together I realized that Speaker Boehner has just been in Washington too long. Publicly elected servants should serve a few terms and then leave lest they become forever detached from their constituents. Over time this leads to a moderation not only in positions and policy, but in passion for the fight. Inside that beltway, conservative values (both economically and socially) are seen as “extreme.” We as the base of the GOP have no desire nor need to apologize for these conservative principles as they have served the nation quite well for over 200 years.
ROBERT ELLIOTT: What are your thoughts on the multiple scandals that have engulfed the Obama administration – IRS, NSA, Benghazi, Fast & Furious, etc.?
ERIC GURR: The IRS scandal is the biggest scandal to hit this country since Watergate. The most feared institution has been used for political purposes. I find it highly improbable that Ms. Lois Lerner acted of her own volition. I am stunned that the Democrats don’t seem to understand the gravity of this situation. This scandal needs to be investigated until we know absolutely everything.
The NSA is not permitted to spy on citizens without a proper warrant. I think that the Constitution is quite clear on this. I know there are many who say that this invasion of privacy protects us all, but where does that end?
I also believe Benghazi is a real and serious scandal. If we follow the timeline it appears that we first received word of an attack at 10:00 PM. If the State Department didn’t send help they must answer the question: why? The canned response is that the main thrust of the attack happened at 4:00 AM and the forces would not have had time to get there. But there is no way they could have known when the next attack was coming.
Fast & Furious was probably a well-intended venture that spiraled out of hand. But when our own agents are shot with these weapons I think some answers should be expected. The attorney general has some real inconsistencies in his statements to Congress and needs to be brought back on the carpet. If we cannot trust the attorney general to follow the laws, who can we trust?
ROBERT ELLIOTT: How do you feel about the recent efforts of House and (some) Senate Republicans to defund Obamacare?
ERIC GURR: I think Ted Cruz and others supporting him are on the right track. With control of only the House there are few tools left in the tool box. It will be no consolation for Republicans to say in three or four months, “We told you this would happen.”
The bill is axiomatically prevented from working for several reasons. The biggest reason being that there is no addressing of the supply side in the bill. If you want to lower cost while increasing demand for services you must first address the supply. It takes years to become a doctor. So the first portion of a serious bill like this would have been to delay for eight years while you fund an increase in the number of doctors, nurses, and other healthcare providers and equipment. This bill added an anti-science and anti-technology excise tax of 2.3 percent. If the GOP is somehow successful in the endeavor and at least delays implementation by a year or two the economy will rebound, job growth will ensue, and we will have a clearer picture of what needs to be done to reform existing systems. If some of the old guard in the GOP leadership continue to delay and obfuscate, we’ll never get the opportunity to explain to the American people (the few who still support the bill) how damaging it is to the long term economic viability of the nation.
ROBERT ELLIOTT: Candidates who seek to unseat incumbents are almost always at a financial disadvantage. This is especially true in your case, since you are taking on such a powerful and high-profile incumbent in the Speaker of the House. How much cash do you think your campaign will need to raise in order to mount a credible challenge? And how do you plan to raise it? Have you considered a “money-bomb” type of event?
ERIC GURR: Money is the challenge. I’ve been contacted by people all over the country suggesting a “money bomb” type of event. I have tried to contact a few of the conservative outlets, but have been told I must be “vetted” first. Over the past two weeks I’ve tried to respond to as many online requests as I can and that’s starting to produce. The website gurrforcongress.com is averaging over 300 visits per day. I’ve tried to analyze the situation in the 8th congressional district of Ohio and the good news is that millions of dollars probably won’t be needed. Speaker Boehner can only bombard the voters with so much information. I’ve figured I’ll need about $300,000 to make a serious challenge. Although it sounds like a lot, the reality is if I can get a few thousand people to donate $25 – $50 I’ll be in a strong position. In order to become competitive with his fundraising machine I’ll have to look outside the district. With a solid drive and $100,000 or so I think I can pull that off.
ROBERT ELLIOTT: How do you feel about term limits? If elected, would you pledge to serve only a certain number of terms?
ERIC GURR: I’m in favor of term limits but much more in favor of politicians keeping their word. I would not serve more than four terms and prefer to serve three, then be challenged in a primary to get the word out about new candidates. If you lose, you lose. If not, the next year there are a few candidates the public has come to know who can run for the seat and I would drop out. There is absolutely no chance I would serve more than four [terms]. A citizen legislator must be a citizen first. If you stay in Washington for 15 or 20 years, you have become a professional politician.
ROBERT ELLIOTT: How would you work to tackle the federal budget deficit? Assuming you plan to support spending reductions, are there any areas that you think should be off-limits to cuts?
ERIC GURR: The deficit should be cut in two phases. In the first phase I would propose to Congress cutting 3% across the board with an exemption for Social Security and Medicare. Then I would push hard for a significant cut in the capital gains tax. This tax cut has historically increased revenue. I would also delve deeper into cuts for the EPA, agricultural subsidies, and even the Department of Education. All of these agencies have poor track records recently and have seen their budgets bloated beyond any reasonable level of growth.
Defense spending is worth a look, but I don’t know that I would commit to any cuts at this point. It’s not that I think there isn’t room, it’s just that I know when you have a certain level of access to information you may be inclined to change your views. I am in favor of missile defense but not in favor of a large standing army with bases spread across the world.
The American people have felt the pinch for five years and I think it is time for Washington, D.C. to share in a little of the belt tightening.
ROBERT ELLIOTT: Would your campaign like to communicate a direct message to potential donors and/or Republican primary voters in your district?
Frank Milillo, Eric Gurr’s campaign manager:
As many of you may have heard, Hamilton native Eric Gurr is challenging John Boehner in the May primary for the Ohio 8th district U.S. congressional seat. Many of us have supported Mr. Boehner over the past 20-plus years, but I think many of you now agree it’s time for a change. Eric is a principled conservative and wants to cut spending, lower taxes to promote jobs and economic growth, and put an end to the ill-conceived Obamacare.
It is difficult to defeat a politician as entrenched in Washington culture as Mr. Boehner has become. He has nationwide donations and deep pockets. But we believe the people of Ohio deserve better, and with your donation of as little as $25 we can get the word out and make a hopeful and helpful change for the people of Ohio and the United States of America.
To donate, please visit the campaign website at gurrforcongress.com
Orr if you prefer, you can send a check to:
Gurr For Congress
7182 Liberty Centre Drive, Suite O
West Chester, Ohio 45069
President Obama and Democrats have been at great pains to insist they knew nothing about IRS targeting of conservative 501(c)(4) nonprofits before the 2012 election. They’ve been at even greater pains this week to ensure that the same conservative groups are silenced in the 2014 midterms.
That’s the big, dirty secret of the omnibus negotiations. As one of the only bills destined to pass this year, the omnibus was—behind the scenes—a flurry of horse trading. One of the biggest fights was over GOP efforts to include language to stop the IRS from instituting a new round of 501(c)(4) targeting. The White House is so counting on the tax agency to muzzle its political opponents that it willingly sacrificed any manner of its own priorities to keep the muzzle in place.
And now back to our previously scheduled outrage over the Chris Christie administration’s abuse of traffic cones on the George Washington Bridge.
Yet my sources say that throughout the negotiations Democrats went all in on keeping the IRS rule, even though it meant losing their own priorities. In the final hours before the omnibus was introduced Monday night, the administration made a last push for IMF money. Asked to negotiate that demand in the context of new IRS language, it refused.
That’s a lot to sacrifice for a rule that the administration has barely noted in public, and that then-acting IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel claimed last fall when it was introduced is simply about providing “clarity” to nonprofits. It only makes sense in a purely political context. The president’s approval ratings are in the toilet, the economy is in idle, the ObamaCare debate rages on, and the White House has a Senate majority to preserve. With one little IRS rule it can shut up hundreds of groups that pose a direct threat by restricting their ability to speak freely in an election season about spending or ObamaCare or jobs. And it gets away with it by positioning this new targeting as a fix for the first round.
This week’s Democratic rally-round further highlights the intensely political nature of their IRS rule. It was quietly dropped in the runup to the holiday season, to minimize the likelihood of an organized protest during its comment period. That 90-day comment period meantime ends on Feb. 27, positioning the administration to shut down conservative groups early in this election cycle.
Do Liberals ever tire of bashing the South? Of course not, after all, the South IS the most Conservative part of the country, and the most patriotic. And the Left will never forgive the South for taking a stand against a power hungry federal government. McCain has the scoop
[T]he South is once again committed to taking a backward path. By refusing to expand health care for the working poor through Medicaid, which is paid for by the federal government under Obamacare, most of the old Confederacy is committed to keeping millions of its own fellow citizens in poverty and poor health. They are dooming themselves, further, as the Left-Behind States.
Just another historical illiterate who thinks Washington has a grove of money trees or something. McCain eviscerates this tool
Do you believe this? “Free” money from the federal government? Medicaid as a job-creation dynamo? While I have not bothered to dig down on the data here, the basic economics of it is like saying that if you take $5 out of your pants pocket and put it in your coat pocket, you will then have $10. Government has no money of its own to spend. Every cent expended by government must come either from tax revenue or from borrowing, and borrowing — i.e., deficit spending — is ultimately a drag on economic growth, because capital invested in government bonds (which is how deficit spending is financed) is capital not invested in private-sector businesses.
The liberal belief in “free government money” is like one of those quasi-religious magical thinking exercises that Ace discusses here.
To cite X-number of people signing up for “expanded Medicaid” as “success” is simply to say that if you’re giving away the taxpayers’ money, moochers will gladly take their share of the loot.
Is the South doomed to be the “Left-Behind States”? Next time you hear of someone moving from Texas to Detroit, let me know.
Why do Conservatives not stand up to thugs and bullies? Of course some do, but, why do we, or too many of us allow this kind of threat?
Now, I do not know who was there, and who that prick is talking to. Likely not to any male. But, again, I do not understand someone NOT sticking their finger in this punk’s face, and telling him to go blank himself. I am not advocating violence here, I am not, but I am suggesting taking a clear stand against this type of threat. Allow me to give you a example. I was born and raised in Tampa, and in the mid 1990′s I went to some County Commission meetings to fight against a group of people trying to change the County Seal because it contained a flag they were offended by, actually, the seal contained a flag, or other form of representation of every government that ever ruled over Florida, so it was very historical.
After one such meeting, I and some folks also protesting the change were accosted, verbally, by a loud mouth looking to instigate a violent incident. An incident that his group would, of course video tape in an attempt to blacklist those opposed to the change as violent racists. He focused on an older gentleman, who was much smaller than him. He berated him with taunts, slurs, and threats until some younger, much bigger guy, namely me, stepped in front of the man he was accosting, and got in the thugs face. In softly spoken but not so polite language, I told him if he wanted a fight then throw the first punch, or shut the Hell up and go away. I was certainly not stupid, and would never throw that first punch but I made it clear that if he REALLY wanted to start a fight that I would defend myself. Oddly enough, he backed down very quickly. Perhaps this is an approach more Conservatives should take? Any thoughts?
This might be. John Fugelsang certainly did some serious digging to get this nugget of idiocy out of The Pit of Eternal Leftist Inanity
This is the natural result of Liberals going to the same well over and again. Eventually, it dries up and you end up saying/writing/tweeting something so stupid that you make a complete mockery of yourself. Fugelsang illustrates this by trying to tie the Confederacy to a government shutdown. a shutdown I might point out is the result of Harry Reid and president Obama being unwilling to budge an inch on either delaying, defunding, or altering Obamacare in any way.
If I may, allow me to set something straight here. The Confederacy was formed when seven states decided that the Northern States were going to use force to unfairly tax them, trample their state sovereignty, yes, slavery being one among several issues at stake, but not, in my view the most crucial one and centralize power in Washington rather than in the States. What they were doing was what the 13 colonies had done before them. They declared their right to form a new government, and wanted only to be let alone. Upon Lincoln’s call for 75,000 troops to force these states back into a union they no longer wished to be in the states of Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia seceded. Their leaving the union had nothing to do with slavery, a fact too many people, even many Conservatives overlook.
Another fact overlooked, or ignored by Republicans today is that at that time the Democratic party WAS the Conservative party. It was the party that believed the Constitution could only be changed by amending it. Many Republicans believed in higher law that superseded the Constitution. It was the disregard for the Constitution that scared the Southern States. The ideal of States being sovereign was dear to many Americans in that time, not only Southerners but Northerners as well. The issue of slavery has been used by Liberals, and many modern Conservatives to squelch any debate on the causes of the war, or on the worthiness of hailing Lincoln as a “great” president. But, that issue was more complex than many today are willing to accept. For instance, you hear people say that the South wanted to expand slavery to new territories. While this is true of some Southerners, consider 94% of Southerners owned no slaves, it is also true that Southerners held that territories were FEDERAL property, thus the sovereignty states held did not apply. These same Southerners, Jefferson Davis being a prime example, also held that when a territory became a state, it then had every right to allow, or ban slavery. In other words, that was a States Rights issue.
Sadly too many folks today never study the real causes, positions, issues, etc of that day. The South was bad because, slavery. Lincoln was a saint because he “ended” slavery, and anything he did, like imprisoning thousands and shuttering newspapers for speaking out against his policies, is thus excused, again because, slavery!
One last thing about the Democratic Party of that day. The Democratic Party was born out of the Democrat-Republicans, the party of Madison, Jefferson, and Monroe among others. That party split into the Democratic Party and the National Republicans in the late 1820′s with the National Republicans fading away very quickly. Again, at that time the Democratic Party WAS the party more affiliated with the Founders than their political opponents the Whigs were. It was out of the Whig party that the Republican Party rose, yes, with a strong sentiment against slavery. Of course many Republicans of that time wanted slavery abolished, and the former slaves gone from the country. Yes Lincoln was one of those who supported that. Google “Liberia” if you have doubts.
Eventually the Republicans and Democrats switched roles, we all know who the Conservatives and Liberals are today. Of course, it ought to be remembered that after the War Between the States Republicans included Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt, and so did the Democrats with the likes of Woodrow Wilson. It was not always so easy to define a politician by his party affiliation.
I write these things because I tire of the ignorance I hear about the War of Northern aggression, and the bashing of the South and the Confederacy as some evil enterprise that sought to destroy self-government when in fact the Confederacy was the greatest stand against the centralization of governmental power. Yes, the war changed this nation, and yes the end of slavery was an overdue result, and a result that would have happened even without a war. But the destruction of State Sovereignty, and the rise of an all-powerful federal government was a drastic blow to this nation. If you do not believe me, look around. look at how much more powerful the federal started becoming after Appomattox. Look what disgraces like Teddy Roosevelt, who should be removed from Mt. Rushmore, and replaced by Madison, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama have done to America since the turn of the century. The change they brought to America was largely made possible by the destruction of state sovereignty.
Maybe these soldiers fought for a lot of the same principles?
Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained educational materials from the Department of Defense (DOD) depicting conservative organizations as “hate groups” and advising students to be aware that “many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.” The documents repeatedly cite the leftwing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a resource for identifying “hate groups.”
The document defines extremists as “a person who advocates the use of force or violence; advocates supremacist causes based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or national origin; or otherwise engages to illegally deprive individuals or groups of their civil rights.”Judicial Watch obtained the documents in a response to a Freedom of Information Act request (FOIA) filed on April 8, 2013. The FOIA requested “Any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to the preparation and presentation of training materials on hate groups or hate crimes distributed or used by the Air Force.” Included in the 133 pages of lesson plans and PowerPoint slides provided by the Air Force is a January 2013 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute “student guide” entitled “Extremism.” The document says that it is “for training purposes only” and “do not use on the job.” Highlights include:
* The document defines extremists as “a person who advocates the use of force or violence; advocates supremacist causes based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or national origin; or otherwise engages to illegally deprive individuals or groups of their civil rights.”
* A statement that “Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publically espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.”
* “[W]hile not all extremist groups are hate groups, all hate groups are extremist groups.”
* Under a section labeled “Extremist Ideologies” the document states, “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”
* In this same section, the document lists the 9/11 attack under a category of “Historical events.”
* “[A]ctive participation… with regard to extremist organizations is incompatible with military service and, is therefore prohibited.” [Emphasis in original]
* The document details the “seven stages of hate” and sixteen “extremists’ traits.”
* The SPLC is listed as a resource for information on hate groups and referenced several times throughout the guide.
* Of the five organizations besides the SPLC listed as resources, one is an SPLC project (Teaching Tolerance) and one considers any politically or socially conservative movement to be a potential hate group (Political Research Associates).
* Other than a mention of 9/11 and the Sudan, there is no discussion of Islamic extremism.
In April 2013, following a terrorist shooting at the Family Research Council (FRC) headquarters that occurred in August 2012, Judicial Watch filed multiple FOIA requests to determine what, if any, influence SPLC’s branding of hate groups had on government agencies. On its website, the SPLC has depicted FRC as a “hate group,” along with other such mainstream conservative organizations as the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, and Coral Ridge Ministries. At the time of the shooting, FRC president Tony Perkins accused the SPLC of sparking the shooting, saying the shooter “was given a license to shoot… by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center.”
Though the document released today by Judicial Watch was obtained from the Air Force, it originated in a DOD office and is, therefore. thought likely to be used in other agency components.
“The Obama administration has a nasty habit of equating basic conservative values with terrorism. And now, in a document full of claptrap, its Defense Department suggests that the Founding Fathers, and many conservative Americans, would not be welcome in today’s military,” said Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton. “And it is striking that some the language in this new document echoes the IRS targeting language of conservative and Tea Party investigations. After reviewing this document, one can’t help but worry for the future and morale of our nation’s armed forces.”
You want to “sell” Conservatism to Blacks? Hispanics? Young folks? Gays? We will NEVER, I repeat NEVER get there by pandering to these groups. So how will we get there? By coming together, and focusing on the core values that unite Conservatives, Libertarians, and Republicans. 90 Miles From Tyranny posts a good video We need MORE of this
Dana Loesch sums it up very well Skip ahead to 7:30
The IRS Scandal continues to grow:
** At least 292 conservative groups targeted
** At least 5 pro-Israel groups targeted
** Constitutional groups targeted
** Groups that criticized Obama administration were targeted
** At least two pro-life groups targeted
** A Texas voting-rights group was targeted
** Conservative activists and businesses were targeted
** At least 88 IRS agents were involved in the targeting scandal
** At least one conservative Hispanic group was targeted
** No liberal groups suffered the same type of scrutiny from the IRS – Not one
Two established conservative groups have stepped forward and claim they were unfairly targeted by the Obama IRS.
NewsMax has more on these latest charges.
House Republicans want an inspector general to open up a new front in an investigation of the Internal Revenue Service, focusing on the agency’s treatment of conservative groups that were already granted tax-exempt status.
House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan charged Monday the IRS targeted those groups for extra scrutiny.
“The totality of your ‘targeting’ investigation along with evidence obtained by the Committee points to the fact that the IRS may have selected certain conservative organizations for additional scrutiny after the IRS already approved their tax-exempt status,” the lawmakers wrote to Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George, The Wall Street Journal rreported.
The committee’s latest concern involves two groups, including the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute and the Leadership Institute in Virginia, which the lawmakers said faced IRS audits costing tens of thousands of dollars during the period when conservative applications were being singled out.
Michelle Easton, the president of the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, told the Journal her group was audited by the IRS in 2011, the first time in its nearly two decade existence. She said she was asked for donor lists and had to provide check registries and other paperwork. She said the group was ultimately cleared by the IRS, but had to refute accusations it was operating a list-rental business.
“You get an audit and you’re isolated,” she told the Journal. She feels there was a pattern to the IRS’ behavior, and “that’s a reason to speak out because maybe other people will talk about it.”
Joseph Metzger, the vice president of finance at the Leadership Institute, told The Hill the group had previously been audited twice before, once under President Reagan and again under President Clinton.
Metzger said the audit under Clinton was “particularly savage” and spanned three years and five different agents. He said the one in the 1980s was more “routine in nature.”
I only ask this question because David Frum, whom I despise, and David Brooks are both idiots. Brooks is the media’s favorite Republican, AKA a useful idiot. He got the role of favored Republican because he goes on TV and says the things about Conservatives that the media wants to hear. Stacy McCain, who holds no respect for Brooks either, takes great pleasure in sharing this video clip of Brooks being verbally horse-whipped for being, well, a idiot!
Appearing on “Meet the Press,” David Brooks declared that intellectual strength commands support for the Gang of Eight bill:
“You know, I’ve seen a lot of intellectually weak cases in this town. I’ve rarely seen as intellectually a weak case is the case against the Senate immigration bill.”
OUCH! That will leave a mark
Federal Bureau of Investigation and Internal Revenue Service investigators working on the federal government’s probe into the IRS targeting scandal have not contacted any of the conservative groups involved in a class-action lawsuit against the tax agency.
“No one from the FBI or the IRS investigative team has contacted any of the 41 conservative groups we represent or any of our attorneys,” American Center for Law and Justice spokesman Gene Kapp told The Daily Caller. ACLJ is representing tea party and other conservative groups in the lawsuit.
At least five different IRS offices in Cincinnati, Ohio; Baltimore, Maryland; Chicago, Illinois; Laguna Niguel and El Monte, California; improperly demanded extensive information from conservative groups applying for tax-exempt nonprofit status between 2010 and 2012. The IRS demanded copies of training materials distributed by conservative groups, as well as personal information on college interns and even the contents of a religious group’s prayers.
FBI director Robert Mueller and acting IRS commissioner Danny Werfel have both launched investigations into the matter, but have not contacted any of the conservative groups involved in the ACLJ’s class-action suit.
The IRS targeting scandal broke in the media in early May. Mueller was excoriated by Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio at a June 13 hearing for knowing very little about his own bureau’s investigation into IRS conduct.
“You’ve had a month now to investigate. This has been the biggest story in the country and you can’t even tell me who the lead investigator is. You can’t tell me the actions the inspector general took which are not typically how investigations are done. You can’t tell me if that’s appropriate or not. This is not speculation. This is what happened,” Jordan said to Mueller.
Acting IRS commissioner Werfel also garnered criticism from congressional investigators at a June 6 hearing for knowing little about the scandal he is investigating.
“I have been here for two weeks. There is a lot to cover. I am not ready to make assurances because I have not completed the review,” Werfel said at the hearing in response to a tough line of questioning from North Carolina congressman Mark Meadows.
And yet heads still haven’t rolled over this.
WASHINGTON (AP) – The head of the Internal Revenue Service says inappropriate screening of groups seeking tax-exempt status was broader and lasted longer than was previously disclosed.
Danny Werfel told reporters Monday that after becoming acting IRS chief last month, he discovered inappropriate and wide-ranging criteria in lists screeners use to single out groups for careful examinations. He did not specify what terms were on the lists.
Werfel’s comments suggest the IRS may have been targeting groups other than tea party and other conservative organizations for tough examinations to see if they qualify. The agency has been under fire since last month for targeting those groups.
Werfel said he has suspended use of those lists. Investigators have previously said agency officials abolished targeting of conservative groups in those lists in May 2012.
(The Hill) – The acting head of the IRS said Monday that the agency was still giving improper scrutiny to groups seeking tax-exempt status when he arrived in May, suggesting that the probe into the IRS’s treatment of conservative groups could widen.
Danny Werfel, the acting chief, said that the IRS division overseeing tax-exempt applications used other “be on the lookout” lists as they tried to flag cases that needed more attention.
The so-called BOLO list has proven to be a key detail in the current investigation over the IRS’s singling out of conservative groups, with agency officials searching for groups with the name “Tea Party,” “patriots” and “9/12.”
Seventy House Republicans are planning a politically risky showdown with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to try to force additional debate on an immigration bill they say will mean amnesty for illegal immigrants and have dire consequences for the country.
The 70 members are petitioning for a special Republican conference meeting on the bill, a “highly unusual” move to go head-to-head with the speaker, according to Reps. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Steve King (Iowa) and Louie Gohmert (Texas), who are serving as spokespersons for the group.
Bachmann, King and Gohmert told TheBlaze the group is invoking the Hastert Rule: requiring support from a majority of the majority to bring a bill forward.
The petition is expected to go to the House leadership on Friday, but it’s possible some signatories might remove their names due to political risk, or that Boehner could head off the challenge by striking a deal. Going against leadership in such a way could have harsh political consequences for the signatories, including retaliation such as permanently getting passed over for chairmanship positions.
A Boehner spokesman did not immediately return a request for comment.
Boehner is on a tight schedule for getting immigration reform passed in the House, predicting this week that Congress could finalize a bill for President Barack Obama’s signature by the end of the year. Any major challenge could ignite pushback from the American public that could force lawmakers to scrap the bill, as happened in the 2007 immigration effort.
The three representatives told TheBlaze that more than half of the Republicans in the House were elected after 2007, and have no concept of how strongly the public opposed the bill.
In an interview with World Net Daily this week, Bachmann predicted that if the immigration bill becomes law, “the whole political system will change.”
“This is President Obama’s number one political agenda item because he knows we will never again have a Republican president, ever, if amnesty goes into effect. We will perpetually have a progressive, liberal president, probably a Democrat, and we will probably see the House of Representatives go into Democrat hands and the Senate will stay in Democrat hands,” Bachmann said.
She also said that if it passes, the bill will create a permanent progressive class.
“That’s what’s at risk right now. It may sound melodramatic, I don’t mean it that way, but this is that big and that important,” Bachmann said.