Senate Democrats have decided that holding the Internal Revenue Service accountable is not a priority right now.
On Tuesday the Democratic leadership in the chamber blocked a resolution by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to investigate the federal agency and fire all people responsible for improperly targeting conservative organizations.
“President Obama should terminate the individuals responsible for targeting and willfully discriminating against Tea Party groups and other conservative groups,” the resolution states.
His resolution also demanded an investigation “to determine if other entities in the administration of President Obama were involved in or were aware of the discrimination and did not take action to stop the actions of the Internal Revenue Service.”
The freshman senator asserted that he introduced the legislation to protect the First Amendment rights of the American people, and not to drive attention to the partisan nature of the scandal.
“This resolution is not about Republican vs. Democrat or conservative vs. liberal,” Paul said in a statement. “It is about arrogant and unrestrained government vs. the rule of law. The First Amendment cannot and should not be renegotiated depending on which party holds power.”
“Each senator took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, yet Senate Democrats chose to block my resolution and thus refused to condemn the IRS for trampling on our First Amendment rights,” he continued. “I am incredibly disappointed in Washington’s party politics and I am determined to hold the IRS accountable for these unjust acts.”
While Paul is personally a member of the Tea Party movement, he had previously acknowledged that he was offended by the IRS’s actions.
“I’m offended when any kind of government entity targets people for their political or religious beliefs,” Paul said at an Iowa GOP fundraiser, “so it’s, you know, particularly offensive, since I’m one of the groups they were targeting. They didn’t audit me personally, but, you know, government should never be used to bully people.”
Everyone who has read my writings on Trump knows that I detest this walking publicity whore. He has ZERO credibility with me frankly. He would likely run over his own dog to get some attention, and, I guess we have to give him credit because he has the media played. He speaks, and they come running. At CPAC though, Trump fell rather flat as Hot Air’s Erika Johnson tells us
CPAC announced they were inviting Trump last week, ostensibly because his “previous CPAC appearance was hugely popular” and “he’s an American patriot and success story with a massive following among small government conservatives” (small-government conservatives, say what?);
but for all the media attention Trump’s presence received, the people actually attending the conference weren’t all that excited. The ballroom was not at all full and there was some mildly assenting polite applause, at best.
Glad to see that the attendees are brighter than the folks who invited Trump.
Rand Paul had this to say about the direction of Conservatism
I believe a Republican Party that is more tolerant and dedicated to keeping the government out of people’s lives as much as possible would be more appealing to the rising generation. We have a nation of 300 million people who all harbor very different opinions on various policies. We have a Constitution that allows, even requires, many of these decisions to be made at the state and local level, which could accommodate the diversity of opinion in this country. Most young people I encounter simply have no desire to tell other people what to do or how to live.
Well I could not agree more, even though The Right Scoop disagrees
That said, I don’t agree with his foreign policy and I don’t like what I think I’m hearing now, that Republicans need to take the ‘social conservatism’ and chuck it. I don’t know what else he could mean in the above paragraph. “Diversity of opinion”? Telling other people “how to live”? “Republican Party that is more tolerant”?
Sorry, but I’m not a libertarian for a reason and I just can’t chuck my principles out the window either. As I’ve pointed out many times before, some of these so-called ‘tolerant’ views will infringe on my right to disagree with these views down the road. When we go the route that the left wants us to take, often times giving someone else a right means taking a right away from someone else.
In my view, this is not about “chucking” my, or anyone else’s principles. Paul is right about the Constitution leaving most decisions up to states and municipalities. And we DEFINITELY need to make the federal government as insignificant in our lives as possible, and, I would add making state government as insignificant in our lives at the state level, and definitely the same goes for county and city governments. It is called liberty. Sorry I DO NOT trust government to constrain itself, and I am not a fan of some Social Conservatives who want the government limited until THEY get offended by something, which is why I have disdain for groups like the American Family Association, and Conservatives like Rick Santorum. Now, Right Scoop IS correct in that we must guard against what the Left wants, which is to ban the ability to disagree with other’s choices, for example, Gay couples suing a bakery or florist who does not want to do their wedding. Businesses ought to have every right to NOT do business with anyone they damn well do not want to do business with. Again, THAT is liberty. And , I would think that taking power away from government would help in that venture. The fact is government at all levels is far too involved in our lives.
Bill Quick puts it this way
The wave of the political future in America is not socon, by the way. It’s libcon. Of conservatarian.
I agree. I talk to so many people, especially young people who have more in common with Conservatism, pro-life, pro gun rights, pro smaller government, lower taxes, less regulations than they do Liberalism. But they also cringe when Conservatives start talking about blaming video games for school shootings, or banning pornography, or turning the FCC loose on shows that some SoCons are upset by, or getting the government involved on our personal morals. Like it or not those stances turn many folks off. Frankly they think it is best if they decide for themselves in most decisions, free of government interference. they may not like big government done Liberal style, but are equally distrustful of big government that leans the other way.
I would be happy to see him in the race frankly. We need a real Conservative who can deliver the Conservative message in a positive manner, Paul fits that bill I think. Sure the media would try to trash him, as they do any Conservative who even thinks about running, and the Dems would bring out the Extremist Card to play, but so what. Frankly, I think it is too early for talking about 2016, remember we DO have the 2014 mid terms next year, but frankly, traffic is slow today, and a bit of Rand Paul can only help.
Looking at 2016, I hope that we can for ONCE have a field of Conservatives without a Moderate to screw it up, why yes, I am talking to you Chris Christie. And I hope that field of Conservatives can debate without trying to destroy each other with unimportant issues or emotionalistic tactics, and yes, that is meant for you Michelle Bachman And PLEASE, Ann Coulter just shut up this time, we really do not need you telling us who CAN, or CANNOT win. Sorry for the negative tone, but, I am sick, and also tired of Conservative candidates picking each other off so that we get struck with the candidate the Democrats WANT to run against. And yes, that means you Mitt, and you Mr. Maverick. Finally, I want, more than anything, for a candidate’s record, and accomplishments to matter, not style. Yes, I am talking to you GOP voters!
While I am at it, let me add a list of GOP candidates I do not want to see run
Mike Huckabee, do I really have to explain why?
Chris Christie. He is the fatter, less tan Charlie Crist
Sarah Palin. the media would make a circus out of this, I do not think she could win.
Jeb Bush, yes, I already said his name once but I REALLY do not want him to run.
Joe Scarborough. Do we really want that tool running?
Rick Santorum. Two words sweater vests! Plus he is a whiner.
ANY “Moderate Republican”.
Newt Gingrich. I said him just to aggravate Ed Daley.
Click the pic to listen
I listened to Paul getting interviewed by Hannity on the drive home today. Smitty weighs in
How do you work in an airport adjacent to Kentucky, where CNN blares 24/7, and not know the junior U.S. Senator from the neighbor state?
The White House is standing by the Transportation Security Administration in its standoff with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and his father, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).
The elder Paul called the TSA a “police state” Monday after Rand Paul was reportedly detained by TSA after he refused to take a pat-down from TSA officials at the Nashville International Airport.
White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday that he didn’t have any reaction to Paul’s “police state” comments.
But Carney sided with the TSA saying, “I think it is absolutely essential that we take necessary actions to ensure that air travel is safe.”
Stuck on Stoopit! Typical government incompetence. It is not the fault of the TSA agents. They are simply following orders. Dafly, their orders come from morons. This stupidity could ONLY come from DC!
Paul really takes it to Kathleen Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, video via Adrienne
Man oh man, I love this from Rand Paul, calling out Trump on his non-existent Conservative credentials! H/T Yid With Lid
Today Rand Paul had an answer to Trump’s birth certificate victory dance, Speaking at a New Hampshire Republicans Breakfast he commented that it was time to see Trump’s “Republican registration.” According to the NY Times account of his talk:
“I’ve come to New Hampshire today because I’m very concerned,” Mr. Paul said. “I want to see the original long-form certificate of Donald Trump’s Republican registration.”
As a bit of laughter erupted in the room, he added: “Seriously, don’t you think we need to see that?”
One day after Mr. Obama released his long-form birth certificate from the state of Hawaii – a move that was followed by Mr. Trump’s claim during a visit to New Hampshire that he believes he deserves credit for the president’s decision – Mr. Paul sought to change the subject. He gently urged Republicans to take notice that Mr. Trump has contributed money to Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, and many other Democrats. “I’m going to believe it when I see his embossed seal to his Republican registration,” said Mr. Paul.
Paul does have a point, Trump may be a registered Republican but his conservative qualifications are very suspect. The Club for Growth outlined some examples of his big government and anti-free trade policies earlier this week.
Face it you Trumpers out there, the guy is a convenient Republican at best, and a disaster for the GOP at worst! Trump is not going to win, he knows it, and anyone with a brain knows it. He is in this for the publicity and that is it!
Really irritating, and I say that knowing it’ll damage my cherished RINO cred. From his letter tonight to Reid and McConnell:
I am disappointed that despite passing six different FY 2011 Continuing Resolutions, each with the understanding that passage would move bi-partisan negotiations further along, that we are once again faced with the likelihood of a government shutdown. A government shutdown absolutely serves no purpose and is in no one’s best interests. I stand ready to work with each of you, to do what it takes—and to put politics aside—and work on behalf of a greater good to ensure that Congress reach a bi-partisan compromise for FY 2011 and avoid a government shutdown.
Our collective work begins by having a clear understanding of the seriousness of our budget crisis and what is at stake if we fail to address it. We can all agree that we simply cannot continue on this reckless, unsustainable course. Reducing and eliminating needless spending and programs are appropriate, but a wholesale reduction in spending, without considering economic, cultural, and social impacts is simply irresponsible. We must also be mindful that many of the proposed spending reductions would disproportionately affect the neediest among us, including housing and heating assistance. Likewise, some of the proposed cuts would be economically counterproductive, negatively impacting our ability to innovate and invest in research and development.
Deficit reduction is a necessary goal for our country. But deficit reduction should not be achieved in isolation of our priorities as a government and a society.
AP at Hot Air sees what Brown is doing, playing politics over principles
Translation: “Dear Massachusetts voters — just a reminder that I’m basically an independent now.” I don’t know what annoys me more, the sheer vacuousness of the let’s-cut-but-let’s-be-reasonable bromides or his suggestion that GOP deficit hawks are blindly slashing spending without regard for how it’ll affect people. The baseline Republican demand of $61 billion in cuts would remove a bucketful of red ink from a giant reservoir; even a fiscal conservative as stalwart as Rand Paul is limiting himself to cuts of $500 billion, just a third of this year’s deficit alone. If you’re going to blanch at “cultural impacts” when the GOP breaks out its safety scissors, what’ll happen when Ryan and company break out the scalpel and go after entitlements?
Another gutless wonder who spits in the faces of those who helped get his ass elected!