Conservative Senators Cruz and Lee Introduce State Marriage Defense Act

Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee Introduce State Marriage Defense Act – Gateway Pundit

Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee introduced legislation today that would allow states to set their own standards as to what defines marriage.

.

.
Breitbart reported:

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.

Cruz stated:

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.

Lee echoed:

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.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Leftist Corruption Update: 100% Of Tax-Exempt Groups Targeted For Audits By IRS Were Conservative

Report: 100% Of Tax-Exempt Groups Singled Out For Audits By IRS Were Right-Leaning – Weasel Zippers

.

.
Not a smidgen of corruption.

Via WSJ:

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.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Top Democrat On House Oversight Committee Sent Threatening Letters To Conservative Victim Of IRS Targeting

Dem Rep. Sent Three Threatening Letters To Conservative Activist Using Committee Letterhead (Video) – Gateway Pundit

Thursday afternoon True the Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht filed an ethics complaint against Rep. Elijah Cummings alleging the Congressmen intimidated her and and her group.

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.

The Congressman also smeared True the Vote in several cable news interviews in 2012. In the hearing today, Cummings accused True the Vote of racism saying that they were trying to suppress 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.”

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Conservative Businessman Eric Gurr Mounting Primary Challenge Against John Boehner (Videos)

Meet Eric Gurr, The Man Who Would Take Down House Speaker John Boehner – The Examiner

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:

Dear Friends,

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

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
—————————————————————————————————————————
.

Related videos:

.

.

.

.

.

*VIDEO* Lawyer For Targeted Conservative Groups Slams FBI, Holder DOJ For Bogus IRS Investigation


.
Related article:

.
Obama’s IRS Goon Squad Ramping Up Efforts To Target Conservative Groups In 2014 – Weasel Zippers

.
………….

Via WSJ:

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.

Keep reading

.

Stacy McCain, AKA Gramps: You do not have to be a buffoon to write for the NY Times, but it helps

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

This is just downright bizarre:

[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.

 

*VIDEO* Bill Whittle Explains The Conservative, Free Market-Based Solutions To Our Health Care Problems


.

What I do not understand about some Conservatives

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?

 

 

The dumbest Tweet ever?

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.Screen-shot-2013-09-30-at-4.33.20-PM

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?

American Revolutionary Soldiers 7 Confederate

Defense Department Educational Materials Depict Conservative Organizations As “Hate Groups”

Defense Department Teaching Documents Suggest Mainstream Conservative Views “Extremist” – Judicial Watch

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.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

What we need more of

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

IRS Scandal Update: Established Conservative Groups Say They Were Unfairly Audited (Video)

IRS Faces New Targeting Charges; Established Conservative Groups Say They Were Unfairly Audited – Gateway Pundit

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

.

Now this…

Two established conservative groups have stepped forward and claim they were unfairly targeted by the Obama IRS.

Representatives from the Leadership Institute and the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute spoke with Greta Van Susteren on Monday night.

.

.
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.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Is every Republican Pundit named David an idiot??

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.”

And then Rep. Raul Labrador ripped Brooks to tatters:

OUCH! That will leave a mark

 

Agents Investigating The IRS For Targeting Conservatives Haven’t Bothered To Contact Any Of The Victims Yet

FBI Investigators Have Not Contacted Any Of The 41 Conservative Groups Involved In Class-Action IRS Lawsuit – Daily Caller

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.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

IRS Commissioner: Targeting Of Conservative Groups Was Broader And Longer Than Previously Disclosed

New IRS Chief Says Targeting Of Conservative Groups Was Broader And Longer Than Previously Disclosed – Update: Agency Improperly Screened Groups Until Last Month – Weasel Zippers

.

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.

Update:

(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.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

70 Conservative House Members Risk Careers in Planned Showdown With RINO Leadership Over Amnesty Bill

Revolt Among Republicans On Immigration Bill: 70 House Members Risk Careers In Planned Showdown With Leadership – The Blaze

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.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

How to defeat the Left, long-term

In other words, how do we, as Conservatives, defeat Liberalism, and thus return Constitutional law to America. Well, I would offer one bit of advice. We must know our enemy. In any conflict, and yes the conflict between Left and Right has been going on in America to one degree or another since we gained our independence. You can go all the way back to the ideological divide between the Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian models for American liberty and government. We must grasp that the Left will never stop in their lust for power, and we must never forget they are masters of incrementalism. we must also accept that exploiting tragedies is a tactic they are masters at. And yes, we must understand that when they say by any means necessary, they mean it.  Perhaps more than anything we must know the Left defines morality very differently than we do. The Left defines as moral any action that helps them succeed. Lying, cheating, intimidation tactics, and more are “moral” to a Leftist if it helps them reshape America into a Neo-Marxist nation.

Now, Bob Belevdere and Stacy McCain also have some advice on how to best Leftism.

Stacy McCain explains the differences in approaches by the Left and the Right in changing The Culture:

Perhaps people have no memory, or have paid no attention to the events and trends of recent years, and thus have no thought of, “What next? And after that, then what?” If you are able to think back as far as the 1980s, trace the line from where we were then to where we are now, and then plot that course forward — well, you certainly have reason to wonder what kind of environment your grandchildren will face in another 10, 20, 30 years.

There is no logical stopping point to the liberal agenda, and what they demand today is never their final demand. Grant them everything they ask today, and tomorrow they will return with a new list of demands, accusing you of unfairness for not having previously granted whatever they ask. No concession can ever satisfy them, for their is no limit to their appetite — it’s like negotiating with a shark over how much of your leg he can eat.

Many conservatives don’t really think in this kind of long-and-deep mode, and a habit of shallow short-term thinking cripples them in terms of effectively opposing liberalism.

Charles Krauthammer can be a ferocious critic of liberalism, but his willingness to cede almost anything in order to elect a Republican president is a weakness all too common among D.C.-based pundits whose chief interest is in foreign policy.

Indeed, this fixation on foreign policy to the detriment of nearly every other issue is one legacy of the Cold War era that has seriously impeded Republicans as a genuinely conservative force over the past two dozen years. Many Republicans are willing to give away the store on domestic policy if it will give them control of the White House and the ability to exercise the “Big Stick” of foreign/defense policy. And they simply can’t be made to see why that is ultimately a formula for GOP irrelevance.

The Left is often patient, just as the Muslims are [Totalitarians of a feather and all that]. They are willing to settle for incrementally getting what they want.

We on the Right are lucky that, since the election of Barack Hussein Obama, they have often abandoned their usual patience and become reckless, as in the whole #FreeKate Movement, which Stacy has been in the process of utterly destroying [you can read all of his reporting on this story here].

We need to (1) learn how to play the long game, (2) be prepared to take advantage of every time the Left gets reckless and (3) hone our counter-arguments while we wait for them to make mistakes.

Much more at the link

 

The Other McCain: It has been a tough week for the guy who used to be somebody

That “used to be” being Charles Johnson of course. As I read Stacy McCain’s post on CJ, I was floored. Who knew Charles Johnson was still blogging? I thought maybe he had run off to join some cult that worships pony tails or something. But it turns out that Johnson is still around, and still making an ass of himself

The World’s Least Credible Blogger™ has been tying himself into laughable knots of hilarious self-contradiction lately, attempting to defend President Wiretap Benghazi Failure against . . . Well, facts.

Facts have always been optional with Obama, who has relied on his media-generated force field to survive all previous encounters with unfortunate reality. Obama’s fawning fanboy Charles Johnson fancies himself an apostle of Scientific Truth (and imagines his antagonists are all ignorant bigots), but the relentless drip, drip, drip of scandalous facts the past few days have been quite hard on CJ’s self-image.

Case in point: Diary of Daedalus catches CJ attempting to redefine the word “bogus” as “vastly overblown,” so as to dismiss as false or exaggerated the accounts of how Tea Party groups and other conservatives were targeted by the IRS.

So, Johnson falls back on the deny, deny, deny tactic. It does not matter that Conservative groups WERE targeted, or that the IRS ADMMITED that they targeted Conservative groups, not to Johnson.  Stacy gets in one more barb at CJ while directing us to a list of his recent failures

Scroll down Diary of Daedalus and enjoy the ridiculous failures. That is to say, if you still remember who Charles Johnson is. Or rather, was.

 

 

Complete Treasury Department Report On The IRS’ Targeting Of Conservative Groups



……………………..Click on image above to view report.

.
Via Docstoc.com

.

IRS Office That Targeted Tea Party Also Disclosed Confidential Documents From Conservative Groups

IRS Office That Targeted Tea Party Also Disclosed Confidential Docs From Conservative Groups – ProPublica

The same IRS office that deliberately targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status in the run-up to the 2012 election released nine pending confidential applications of conservative groups to ProPublica late last year.

.

The IRS did not respond to requests Monday following up about that release, and whether it had determined how the applications were sent to ProPublica.

In response to a request for the applications for 67 different nonprofits last November, the Cincinnati office of the IRS sent ProPublica applications or documentation for 31 groups. Nine of those applications had not yet been approved – meaning they were not supposed to be made public. (We made six of those public, after redacting their financial information, deeming that they were newsworthy.)

On Friday, Lois Lerner, the head of the division on tax-exempt organizations, apologized to Tea Party and other conservative groups because the IRS’ Cincinnati office had unfairly targeted them. Tea Party groups had complained in early 2012 that they were being sent overly intrusive questionnaires in response to their applications.

That scrutiny appears to have gone beyond Tea Party groups to applicants saying they wanted to educate the public to “make America a better place to live” or that criticized how the country was being run, according to a draft audit cited by many outlets. The full audit, by the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration, will reportedly be released this week. (ProPublica was not contacted by the inspector general’s office.)

Before the 2012 election, ProPublica devoted months to showing how dozens of social-welfare nonprofits had misled the IRS about their political activity on their applications and tax returns. Social-welfare nonprofits are allowed to spend money to influence elections, as long as their primary purpose is improving social welfare. Unlike super PACs and regular political action committees, they do not have to identify their donors.

In 2012, nonprofits that didn’t have to report their donors poured an unprecedented $322 million into the election. Much of that money – 84 percent – came from conservative groups.

As part of its reporting, ProPublica regularly requested applications from the IRS’s Cincinnati office, which is responsible for reviewing applications from nonprofits.

Social welfare nonprofits are not required to apply to the IRS to operate. Many politically active new conservative groups apply anyway. Getting IRS approval can help with donations and help insulate groups from further scrutiny. Many politically active new liberal nonprofits have not applied.

Applications become public only after the IRS approves a group’s tax-exempt status.

On Nov. 15, 2012, ProPublica requested the applications of 67 nonprofits, all of which had spent money on the 2012 elections. (Because no social welfare groups with Tea Party in their names spent money on the election, ProPublica did not at that point request their applications. We had requested the Tea Party applications earlier, after the groups first complained about being singled out by the IRS. In response, the IRS said it could find no record of the tax-exempt status of those groups – typically how it responds to requests for unapproved applications.)

Just 13 days after ProPublica sent in its request, the IRS responded with the documents on 31 social welfare groups.

One of the applications the IRS released to ProPublica was from Crossroads GPS, the largest social-welfare nonprofit involved in the 2012 election. The group, started in part by GOP consultant Karl Rove, promised the IRS that any effort to influence elections would be “limited.” The group spent more than $70 million from anonymous donors in 2012.

Applications were sent to ProPublica from five other social welfare groups that had told the IRS that they wouldn’t spend money to sway elections. The other groups ended up spending more than $5 million related to the election, mainly to support Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Much of that money was spent by the Arizona group Americans for Responsible Leadership. The remaining four groups that told the IRS they wouldn’t engage in political spending were Freedom Path, Rightchange.com II, America Is Not Stupid and A Better America Now.

The IRS also sent ProPublica the applications of three small conservative groups that told the agency that they would spend some money on politics: Citizen Awareness Project, the YG Network and SecureAmericaNow.org. (No unapproved applications from liberal groups were sent to ProPublica.)

The IRS cover letter sent with the documents was from the Cincinnati office, and signed by Cindy Thomas, listed as the manager for Exempt Organizations Determinations, whom a biography for a Cincinnati Bar Association meeting in January says has worked for the IRS for 35 years. (Thomas often signed the cover letters of responses to ProPublica requests.) The cover letter listed an IRS employee named Sophia Brown as the person to contact for more information about the records. We tried to contact both Thomas and Brown today but were unable to reach them.

After receiving the unapproved applications, ProPublica tried to determine why they had been sent. In emails, IRS spokespeople said ProPublica shouldn’t have received them.

“It has come to our attention that you are in receipt of application materials of organizations that have not been recognized by the IRS as tax-exempt,” wrote one spokeswoman, Michelle Eldridge. She cited a law saying that publishing unauthorized returns or return information was a felony punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and imprisonment of up to five years, or both.

In response, ProPublica’s then-general manager and now president, Richard Tofel, said, “ProPublica believes that the information we are publishing is not barred by the statute cited by the IRS, and it is clear to us that there is a strong First Amendment interest in its publication.”

ProPublica also redacted parts of the application to omit financial information.

Jonathan Collegio, a spokesman for Crossroads GPS, declined to comment today on whether he thought the IRS’s release of the group’s application could have been linked to recent news that the Cincinnati office was targeting conservative groups.

Last December, Collegio wrote in an email: “As far as we know, the Crossroads application is still pending, in which case it seems that either you obtained whatever document you have illegally, or that it has been approved.”

This year, the IRS appears to have changed the office that responds to requests for nonprofits’ applications. Previously, the IRS asked journalists to fax requests to a number with a 513 area code – which includes Cincinnati. ProPublica sent a request by fax on Feb. 5 to the Ohio area code. On March 13, that request was answered by David Fish, a director of Exempt Organizations Guidance, in Washington, D.C.

In early April, a ProPublica reporter’s request to the Ohio fax number bounced back. An IRS spokesman said at the time the number had changed “recently.” The new fax number begins with 202, the area code for Washington, D.C.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.