The voices in Lois Lerner’s ear

Once again, we have to thank Tom Fitton for rooting this out. Like everything else the Obama administration tried to bury, the IRS targeting was no different. Go figure, the FBI and DOJ under Obama was involved with this, too.

Judicial Watch Obtains IRS Documents Revealing McCain’s Subcommittee Staff Director Urged IRS to Engage in “Financially Ruinous” Targeting

Judicial Watch | June 21, 2018

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released newly obtained internal IRS documents, including material revealing that Sen. John McCain’s former staff director and chief counsel on the Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee, Henry Kerner, urged top IRS officials, including then-director of exempt organizations Lois Lerner, to “audit so many that it becomes financially ruinous.” Kerner was appointed by President Trump as Special Counsel for the United States Office of Special Counsel.

The explosive exchange was contained in notes taken by IRS employees at an April 30, 2013, meeting between Kerner, Lerner, and other high-ranking IRS officials. Just ten days following the meeting, former IRS director of exempt organizations Lois Lerner admitted that the IRS had a policy of improperly and deliberately delaying applications for tax-exempt status from conservative non-profit groups.

Lerner and other IRS officials met with select top staffers from the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in a “marathon” meeting to discuss concerns raised by both Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) that the IRS was not reining in political advocacy groups in response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. Senator McCain had been the chief sponsor of the McCain-Feingold Act and called the Citizens United decision, which overturned portions of the Act, one of the “worst decisions I have ever seen.”

In the full notes of an April 30 meeting, McCain’s high-ranking staffer Kerner recommends harassing non-profit groups until they are unable to continue operating. Kerner tells Lerner, Steve Miller, then chief of staff to IRS commissioner, Nikole Flax, and other IRS officials, “Maybe the solution is to audit so many that it is financially ruinous.” In response, Lerner responded that “it is her job to oversee it all:”

“Henry Kerner asked how to get to the abuse of organizations claiming section 501 (c)(4) but designed to be primarily political. Lois Lerner said the system works, but not in real time. Henry Kerner noted that these organizations don’t disclose donors. Lois Lerner said that if they don’t meet the requirements, we can come in and revoke, but it doesn’t happen timely. Nan Marks said if the concern is that organizations engaging in this activity don’t disclose donors, then the system doesn’t work. Henry Kerner said that maybe the solution is to audit so many that it is financially ruinous. Nikole noted that we have budget constraints. Elise Bean suggested using the list of organizations that made independent expenditures. Lois Lerner said that it is her job to oversee it all, not just political campaign activity.”

Judicial Watch previously reported on the 2013 meeting. Senator McCain then issued a statement decrying “false reports claiming that his office was somehow involved in IRS targeting of conservative groups.” The IRS previously blacked out the notes of the meeting but Judicial Watch found the notes among subsequent documents released by the agency.

Judicial Watch separately uncovered that Lerner was under significant pressure from both Democrats in Congress and the Obama DOJ and FBI to prosecute and jail the groups the IRS was already improperly targeting. In discussing pressure from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (Democrat-Rhode Island) to prosecute these “political groups,” Lerner admitted, “it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political activity.”

More: https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-obtains-irs-documents-revealing-mccains-subcommittee-staff-director-urged-irs-to-engage-in-financially-ruinous-targeting/

Is there any scheme against conservatives or Republicans that McCain did not have his hands in? It seems like that was his whole purpose, especially to undermine the Right and disrupt their ability to organize. This one scandal was tailor made to fit his agenda.

And the IRS scandal is not over, as JW says it is still recovering documents. That is called a coverup, too. It is easier to cover up when you have the institutional resources cooperating. But this shows how far Obama’s administration went and who all was involved.

By the time you do get info, leftist Obamafiles then try to bury the exposure in subterfuge.

[screenshot via C-SPAN May 22, 2013]

Advertisements

Obama Slithers Out With His Lie

Thou protests too much. Obama trots out the claim his presidency was scandal free.

Fox News

“I didn’t have scandals, which seems like it shouldn’t be something you brag about,” Obama said, according to Newsweek.

“if you look at the history of the modern presidency, coming out of the modern presidency without anybody going to jail is really good. It’s a big deal.” [and he’s proud — no, instead they got rewarded]

“No one in my White House ever got in trouble for screwing up as long there wasn’t malicious intent behind it,” Obama reportedly told the crowd.

That’s because what he screwed up was the entire country, and we have yet to recover from his tenure of evil. Who knew destroying America was not a scandal?

In fact, most of our problems now were caused directly, if not intentionally, by Obama.

US Attorneys General do not get held in contempt in a scandal-free administration. The IRS doesn’t politically target people in a scandal-free administration. A scandal-free administration, intelligence and DOJ do not start up an investigation of an opponent’s campaign, nor target political opponents by weaponizing government against them.

Even now, his LieBarry (as I call it) is a big scandal. Obama’s truth-challenged legacy.
To believe any of Obama’s claims would “require the willing suspension of disbelief.”

Here’s Obama in search of a scandal-free zone.

Right Ring | Bullright

Lois Lerner Fears Retaliation

Lerner, Paz say they fear physical harm from enraged public, want IRS testimony sealed permanently

The Washington Times

Former IRS executive Lois G. Lerner told a federal court last week that members of her family, including “young children,” face death threats and a real risk of physical harm if her explanation of the tea party targeting scandal becomes public.

Ms. Lerner and Holly Paz, her deputy at the IRS, filed documents in court Thursday saying tapes and transcripts of depositions they gave in a court case this year must remain sealed in perpetuity, or else they could spur an enraged public to retaliate.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/19/lois-lerner-holly-paz-want-testimony-sealed-perman/

Retaliation — I think that word should be banned from her vocabulary. I’m not feeling the sympathy. What about her pension? Consequences? There’s Obama’s not a smidgen.

Career government criminals want the records permanently sealed and government protection now. She now wants to reverse the Constitution.

Our government then had to pay out 3.5 million taxpayer dollars for what she did! And it took 6 years to do it. She had her 5th amendment privileges, what do they have?

That’s a brand new kind of chutzpah. My G-A-S is busted.

Stunning, Hypocritical Statements

Over the last few days there have been a series of stunning and hypocritical statements. Even more than normal, and from high places. This was supposed to be a short one.

Start with Juanita Broaddrick who is amazed lately by high profile people that suddenly tell her they believe her now. Okay, stunner that they can even admit it. Give them credit. She saw it as kind of a validation, finally. She declared Hell has frozen over.

Erstwhile do-gooders may have their political reasons for a change of tune now. But it does not reconcile years of looking down on these Clinton victims, and making excuses for Bubba and Hillary, which allowed them to continue to corrupt and enrich themselves. They simply believe Juanita — and presumably others — all is better, no harm? Everyone is happy? All because it is politically convenient now when Hill and Bill are private citizens hiding under a fictional exemption from accountability. Leaves a bad taste, no?

 

Sleazy Senator Bob Menendez just walked on his corruption case. Well, he walks and the jury hangs. (great pun) But in his deadlocked debacle he made two remarkable statements. (there were more but who has time?)

1) “To those who were digging my political grave so they could jump into my seat, I know who you are and I won’t forget you”

Ouch, can’t help seeing that as a threat. Wonder what vengeance he has in mind? And who are they, since most of the media ignored the whole thing? The MSM was making sure no one could dig his political grave, if they don’t tell people what is going on.

There still is an Senate ethics investigation Mitch McConnell called for. So it isn’t done.

2) Menendez said another stunner. Paraphrased, he has a fear of abuse of government power. He has a new appreciation and respect now for those who suffered from the hands of abusive power. So he’s going to turn into a fierce advocate? Don’t wait for that.

Wow sort of strange for someone who lived and breathed hiding behind, enabled and enriched by, the abuse of power. Then has a hung jury at his trial.

No, I don’t think you get to say that when you were not convicted for some strange reason — after all he did. I don’t think you call that abuse of power, you call that luck of draw.

Actually, details were even worse from the government side:

[ABC] Jury member Edward Norris said 10 jurors wanted to acquit Menendez on all charges, while two held out for conviction.

“I just wish there was stronger evidence right out of the gate,” the juror said. “It was a victimless crime, I think, and it was an email trial. I just didn’t see a smoking gun.”

Menendez can take that as a compliment. It is tough not to leave a trail. Victimless?

 

Finally, there is Hillary. always making the news. Hillary said that an investigation into the Uranium One would be “such an Abuse of Power”misuse and abuse of power. It must be that, but Trump and his campaign cannot be investigated enough.

[Clinton called the proposed investigation] “a disastrous step into politicizing the Justice Department” and “such an abuse of power.”

“If they send a signal that we’re going to be like some dictatorship, like some authoritarian regime, where political opponents are going to be unfairly, fraudulently investigated, that rips at the fabric of the contract we have, that we can trust our justice system,”

Here we go with the talk of dictatorships and rogue, out of control regimes that… I don’t know, use IRS to attack their political enemies, or silence their opponents with threats. That sort of thing. Ones who would stand down law enforcement to let innocent people or businesses suffer anarchy; or who turn felons out on streets because there is no room in jails for them. Maybe regimes that pardon terrorists. Ones that are more concerned with politics and elections than national security. What kind of regime would use government to make deals that benefit themselves and silence anyone who opposes them?

She also said “It will be incredibly demoralizing to people who have served at the Justice Department…who know better.” Whew, they know better? Isn’t that the way we got to this point? So it would be terrible for those public officials to have to follow and enforce the law. How demoralizing? Why should a justice Department stand up for blind justice as opposed to biased injustice? Leaders meeting on a tarmac days before getting an investigation is squashed. How demoralizing when an attorney General is held in contempt by Congress for not complying with….wait for it, justice!

Yes, they know better than that. Yet we saw no whistle blowers stand up to expose Obama’s injustice. In fact, we saw officials and staffers line up to take the 5th amendment to protect those who abused power and authority. She says they know better? Yes they do. Now I know why she has such faith in the Deep State swamp microbes.

We need a real Department of Know Better.

No, she said it would be a giant “abuse of power.” Wait, what she did was an abuse of power: from first lady right on up through the Senate to the State Department. Not to mention her reign of corruption and control over the DNC. Then that whole theater investigation of her abuse revealed how deep those corrupted roots go. She and her campaign manager were pushing for a special counsel on Trump. And they already suggested he should be investigated for obstruction of justice. Abuse of Power? Enemies, political enemies, do we really need to talk about Hillary and enemies?

Let’s not forget Hillary is a walking, talking, flame-throwing obstruction of justice. (and probably everyone around her) So now Hillary and Menendez sound like twins. She is getting around to claiming to be a victim of government abuse of power, which she wants to use against Trump, her political enemy. That’s what she’ll be blaming Trump for.

Now Obstruction of justice was a year and a half of Hillary covering her backside for her illegal server. But somehow she’s concerned about power being corrupted and abused? Yes, tell us all how scary that could be. Sends shivers down my back. (and shivs in the backs of her enemies)

 

CNN for its part set up a clock asking how long it will be, after he returned, for Trump to comment on the Roy Moore situation? Apparently upset he hadn’t already.

If they hadn’t noticed, he’s been kind of busy. Well, with Trump trying to avert that inevitable WWIII, nuclear Armageddon, and with rehearsing the nuclear codes he shouldn’t be trusted to have, and having secret meetings with Putin and all. Either we’re on the precipice of Nuclear Holocaust or we are not. Make up your mind!

I can’t leave out the narrative change. We remember the last 25 years. Democrats, a little late to the parade, now act like the party of protecting and listening to women. The suddenly woke folk on women victims try to define the narrative. Dems are the good guys, after standing in the way of any moral responsibility. You guessed it, Republican are the bad guys. That is meant to deflect and erase their political history for the last 25 years.

One more laugh for the road. Orin Hatch had a moment of outburst at Sherod Brown in committee. Orin called out their class warfare garbage about Republicans are doing it “all for the rich.” I guess the Utah Senator finally had enough. It didn’t stop Ohio Senator Sherod Brown from spouting off back to him that the rich are just getting richer. Great for people who actually want to raise all our taxes, let alone block this tax cut. And they have such righteous objectives.

Right Ring | Bullright

Lois Lerner legacy lives on

Lois Lerner escapes prosecution, and the arm of justice.

“In a letter notifying members of Congress of its decision, the Justice Department said that while investigators had found “mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia,” there was no evidence that any IRS employee had targeted a political group based on its viewpoints or obstructed justice.”

See article

Please, no news here. Move on everyone. What a disgrace.

Clinton foundation full of red flags

With so Many Red Flags, Why Isn’t the IRS Auditing the Clinton Foundation?

by Charles Ortel – 16 Mar 2015 | Breitbart

Sixteen months ago, Nicholas Confessore and Amy Chozick wrote in The New York Times about the loose governance and financial performance of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. For example, after more than 10 years in operation, the Foundation had internal controls that were only just coming into play, while financial disclosures seemed sloppy and even misleading.

In addition, two months have elapsed since Eric Braverman– the talented executive recruited in July 2013 to put the Clinton Foundation back into order– resigned unexpectedly several weeks following renewal of his long-term management contract by the Board of Directors.

Actually accounting for financial impact?

Media reports suggest Braverman lost out fighting the melange of Clinton loyalists who behave as Bill and Hillary have done throughout their adult lives: acting as if rules are for other people and noble ends justify transgressions, even egregious ones.

More: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/16/with-so-many-red-flags-why-isnt-the-irs-auditing-the-clinton-foundation/

The answer from the Clinton mobile defense team is “there is no there there” or “no evidence has been produced that….” And the response to that is Bill and Hillary Clinton are involved, need we say more? With the track record of the shady, sleazy politics and activity of the Clintons, their involvement anywhere should require an investigation.

After all, the IRS audits and investigates any other players, even for years. Yet they haven’t looked into the foundation money trail and State? It takes global-sized blinders to ignore that. Meanwhile, the DoJ has attacked businesses’ like gun dealers — not to mention guitar manufacturers –and seized bank accounts for simply making objectionable deposits or purchases. They confiscate the funds as well. But in this case, there is not a huge investigation. Rather Clintonista supporters are offended when someone reports facts which themselves are the smoking gun. Businesses get operation Choke point, Clintons and their foundation get “it does so much good.”

We already have a president in office who is not impeachable no matter what he seems to do. Then we have a foundation with direct government connections that is apparently off limits and immune from investigation or audit by the IRS for its flagrant practices. Again, all of it so scandalous and the Clintonites say there is no evidence. There doesn’t have to be, just the egregious appearance of so many abuses and conflicts are quite enough.

[“KdEtat07BillJefferson90K” by Infrogmation, New Orleans – Photo by Infrogmation. Licensed under CC BY 2.5 via Wikimedia Commons.]

Suppose a public official has money in his pocket and gave favorable treatment to the source. Then people say but nothing connects that money in his pocket with the favorable treatment. They say there is no evidence. So when (LA) William Jefferson had all that money in his freezer he could have said, “nothing connects it to my actions.” Case closed. It is absurd that we do not investigate it. Why hasn’t there been some sting operation by FBI? Is it because Clintons are above and beyond the reach of the law?

Then again, Politico magazine described the rifts and rivalry within the foundation. Struggles that ensued when daughter Chelsea brought in a new CEO to right the ship. (replacing Clinton loyalist Bruce Lindsey)He resigned after getting board support.

The previously untold saga of Braverman’s brief, and occasionally fraught tenure trying to navigate the Clintons’ insular world highlights the challenges the family has faced trying to impose rigorous oversight onto a vast global foundation that relies on some of the same loyal megadonors Hillary Clinton will need for the presidential run sources have said she is all but certain to launch later this year. — Politico

An investigation with teeth or IRS audit is justified. Instead, we read the facts to a chorus of denials about evidence. Let’s all take a stupid pill. That will solve it. Plus while Hillary was at State and her server was in NY, State had no confirmed Inspector General. An obvious outsourced server would have set off alarms.

Townhall

Bill Clinton and President Obama had an agreement that the Clinton Foundation would not accept any new donations from most governments while she was Secretary of State, and that any new, or increased, donations would be subject to State Department review. Of course, that didn’t really happen, and Clinton has failed to disclose the foundation’s donors since 2010, despite a 2008 promise to do so on an annual basis.

Bloomberg reported on the IG problem, obvious to anyone that cared — and certainly would be known to Hillary Clinton.

Instead of that being a problem, we were told ‘there is no evidence of any wrongdoing.’ Now we see how instrumental her server violation was and it was in NY close to the Foundation operation. Did anyone cry about not confirming an IG? They have had a similar situation in the Department of Interior. So, again, objectionable businesses get operation Choke Point, and the State Department under Hillary did not get an inspector general. If any place needed one at that time, it was State.

Obama’ amnesty freebies

NY Times — Assoc. Press | FEB. 14, 2015

WASHINGTON (AP) – Millions of immigrants benefiting from President Barack Obama’s executive actions could get a windfall from the IRS, a reversal of fortune after years of paying taxes to help fund government programs they were banned from receiving.

Armed with new Social Security numbers, many of these immigrants who were living in the U.S. illegally will now be able to claim up to four years’ worth of tax credits designed to benefit the working poor. For big families, that’s a maximum of nearly $24,000, as long as they can document their earnings during those years. … More>

Moving right along:

Determining Alien Tax Status — (per IRS guidelines)

If you are an alien (not a U.S. citizen), you are considered a nonresident alien unless you meet one of two tests. You are a resident alien of the United States for tax purposes if you meet either the green card test or the substantial presence test for the calendar year (January 1-December 31).

Certain rules exist for determining the Residency Starting and Ending Dates for aliens.

In some cases aliens are allowed to make elections which override the green card test and the substantial presence test, as follows:

Nonresident Spouse Treated as a Resident
Closer Connection To a Foreign Country
Effect of Tax Treaties

You can be both a nonresident alien and a resident alien during the same tax year. This usually occurs in the year you arrive or depart from the United States. If so, you may elect to be treated as a Dual Status Alien for this taxable year and a Resident Alien for the next taxable year if you meet certain tests. (Refer to section “Dual-Status Aliens” – “First Year Choice” in Publication 519, U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens.)

A resident alien who is required to establish his/her U.S. residency for the purpose of claiming a tax treaty benefit with a foreign country should refer to Certification of U.S. Residency for Tax Treaty Purposes.

Substantial Presence Test

You will be considered a U.S. resident for tax purposes if you meet the substantial presence test for the calendar year. To meet this test, you must be physically present in the United States on at least:

31 days during the current year, and

183 days during the 3-year period that includes the current year and the 2 years immediately before that, counting:

  • All the days you were present in the current year, and
  • 1/3 of the days you were present in the first year before the current year, and
  • 1/6 of the days you were present in the second year before the current year.

Not only can they claim tax benefits for being here, but if they owe tax in certain countries, they can seek an exemption by getting a certification from IRS.

Certification of U.S. Residency for Tax Treaty Purposes

U.S. citizens and U.S. residents sometimes need certification of U.S. residency to claim a tax treaty benefit or a reduction of VAT tax with a foreign country. Such persons should file Form 8802 with the IRS to obtain such certification of residency.

The IRS provides this residency certification on Form 6166, a letter of U.S. residency certification. Form 6166 is a computer-generated letter printed on stationary bearing the U.S. Department of Treasury letterhead.

So the agency designated as enforcement arm for Obamacare is the same one enforcing Obama’s amnesty program. Note also that alien is a correct term for a non-citizen.

The steady drip, drip, drip

It’s Ferguson, it’s NYC, no it’s everywhere. In fact, it isn’t black, native American, or other, it’s everyone. And it’s law enforcement across the board.

So that is Obama’s latest on the police acting stupidly, in Obama’s narrative. Only there is no summit in sight on the problem.

Remember last year under the sequester when Obama wanted America to feel the pain of budget restrictions? He threatened us with cuts to fire and police departments. He used those threats as fodder against any opposition to his unilateral agenda.

Now he critiques the cops for their treatment of people. And he broadens it to their treatment of, well, everyone.

His latest statements come on the heels of the NYC grand jury decision not to prosecute police for “murder” or death of Garner, in their arrest of him for selling cigarettes. A case where, once again, Al Sharpton is front and center in the case and reaction to the decision. It’s amazing he can still have time to have a show on MSNBC. But this is probably considered being “on assignment.”

Obama on NY grand jury decision: ‘This is an American problem’

December 03, 2014 | The Hill

President Obama vowed Wednesday that he would not “let up” in his push to address law enforcement issues after a grand jury in New York opted not to bring criminal charges in the case of Eric Garner, a black man killed when a white police officer placed him in a chokehold.

“It is incumbent upon all of us as Americans, regardless of race, region, faith, that we recognize this is an American problem and not just a black problem or a brown problem or a Native American problem; this is an American problem.

“When anybody in this country is not being treated equally under the law, that’s a problem. And it’s my job as president to help solve it,” he said.

Obama said the Garner case speaks “to the larger issues we’ve been talking about now for the last week, the last month, the last year and sadly for decades.”

“Unfortunately, we are seeing too many incidences where people just do not have confidence that folks are being treated fairly,” Obama said.

The president said he had spoken to Attorney General Eric Holder on the phone, and that the Justice Department would have additional information about the federal response to the grand jury finding.

Okay, people are not being treated fairly, and people across the country do not have confidence in the system. That might have some merit in the broader context.

Either people are not being treated fairly, or there is some wide perception in the public that they are not. But when we the people took issue with the border, we were told everything was fine and that we just had a perception problem.

Now based on a few individual instances, he tells us people are not being treated fairly. And that he supposedly stands on the side of the mistreated people. In other words, like an Al Sharpton in the Oval Office. He rolls all this out as if it were just a matter of fact that everyone knows. (contrary to his reaction to what most people think of the border)

Furthermore, if he wants to talk fairness, how about the way he treated this last flood of illegals over the border? Now he wants to lecture us about fairness? Or how about the way the IRS treated conservatives for years? Remember his get to the bottom of this…before his “not a smidgen of corruption” line. But he is a one-man crusader for fairness.

The real dirty truth about Obama is it very much matters who you are, what color you are, what demographic you are, what political party you belong to, or how much money you have, or what job you have, or who your employer is in the way you are treated. This is just how he and his Democrat colleagues see things. Now he once again comes out pushing his old canard about equality, fairness, and victimhood. And if you trust either he or Holder as the guardians for fairness, then you really need your head examined.

Just what we need, Obama vowing a campaign for fairness. He didn’t even demonstrate fairness in his presidential campaigns. And he didn’t push his Obamacare fairly.

Now, he is Obama, Captain fairness. Captain Hypocrite is more accurate. Any time Obama lectures about fairness, look out. These days lies travel faster than the speed of airwaves, especially from the bully pulpit.

RightRing | Bullright

Dissing Zero

While some effects are hypothetical, what isn’t are Obama’s poll numbers. So I looked at the Real Clear Politics chart and what I found was interesting. The day it shifted from black-approval, to negative-disapproval was about May29th, 2013. From then on the disapproval leads. Well, besides a giant asteroid passing by earth, there was other news.

Six months into his second term and Obama’s approval numbers inverted. His disapproval numbers have remained higher than his approvals ever since.

May 2013 was not a good month for the Obama administration, dep of Justice, or the IRS, or one Lois Lerner. The IRS scandal broke and by the 22nd, Lerner was taking the fifth amendment in her roundabout way of giving an opening statement declaring she did nothing wrong. This after she initially leaked the IRS targeted conservatives. Benghazi was still on the front burner.

Last October it was 50.9 disapproval — 43.9 approval. By December, it was 55.6 disapproval to 40% approval. All that stuff which happened in the last year and a half adds to that mix. Benghazi, to IRS, to immigration, privacy, rights, government spending and national security.

We had the trifecta, Benghazi the Dep of Justice scandal over the phone records. (without even counting fast and furious) Questions of whether Holder lied under oath about investigations. It was the week Lois Lerner was called to testify and took the fifth amendment. The Democrats finally began calling for her resignation. A Senate gang of eight was working on and moving an immigration reform bill. He’s been inverted ever since.

Then through to the recent discontent. On August 05, NBC/Wall Street Journal reported about upcoming mid-term elections:

Two words sum up the mood of the nation: Fed up.

Six in 10 Americans are dissatisfied with the state of the U.S. economy, more than 70 percent believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, and nearly 80 percent are down on the country’s political system, according to the latest NBC News / Wall Street Journal poll.

The frustration carries over to the nation’s political leaders, with President Barack Obama’s overall approval rating hitting a new low at 40 percent, and a mere 14 percent of the public giving Congress a thumbs up.

“We’re in the summer of our discontent,” said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. “Americans are cranky, unhappy… It is with everything going on in the world.”

The discontent’s two main causes

The NBC/WSJ pollsters attribute the wide discontent to the lingering effects of the Great Recession, as well as a loss of faith in the country’s politicians. /…

There’s also the public’s anger at Washington. A whopping 79 percent of respondents are dissatisfied with the U.S. political system, including nearly half who are very dissatisfied.

In addition, 71 percent of Americans believe the economic problems facing the country are due to the inability of elected officials in Washington to get things done to improve the economy.

By comparison, just 23 percent think the problems are due to deep and longstanding issues with the economy.

“The public seems to have moved beyond the plaintive cry of ‘Feel our pain!’ to the more angry pronouncement of ‘You are causing our pain!’” said Democratic pollster Fred Yang of Hart Research.

More: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/americas-fed-obama-approval-rating-hits-all-time-low-poll-n173271

I just love the way he stated that conclusion. But there is a fly in their ointment. They claim there is not a central issue people are rallied around. That’s a problem? Well, there are many. So the larger issue is not only don’t people trust our politicians (i.e. government) but that they blame it/them for these circumstances.

One has to be blind not to see the wide circumstances for discontent. This year is even worse than last. Does not coalescing around one particular issue seem like a problem that will hurt Republicans? Choosing one particular issue would naturally give others a pass. That people blame politicians and government could be a wonderful thing.

RightRing | Bullright

Buzzwords, adjectives and word salad

One thing notable about the left is their language. They never actually speak directly about something, they call it names.Without saying what their plan is, they declare it “reasonable”. They describe something like playing charades. They want to associate good feelings with whatever their position is. So they use adjectives and describe it in attractive terms. That is usually a dead give away a Democrat is speaking.

And it seems to me the harder they pursue that approach the more Marxist or socialist they are. Their language is also loaded with code words. One cannot miss them, which is the point, they are meant to be obvious.

This is a common tactic on amnesty and illegal immigration, or other issue. You never get the specifics. So you get Nancy telling us we have to pass a bill before you can find out what is in it. Even they will acknowledge they don’t know what is in it before hand. However, they do know all the key terms to describe it. And everyone knows them.

It’s like they are doing an ad for a new Iphone. They cannot tell you exactly what something is but they can tell you how to feel about it. As if as long as you feel the right way about it, the contents don’t matter.

Of course that is just one reason they play that word salad game. There are others like when they attack conservatives or “right-wingers” they want to paint them as bad as they can. So out come the adjectives — from nasty, to bigoted, to hate-filled, to racist.

A friend of mine had several exchanges in the letters to the editor of a newspaper. A Liberal Democrat, who inhabits the pages like his private villa, uses all the typical tactics of the left. The talking points and code words flow like a cheap novel. Almost as if he can’t help himself, he characterizes anyone who disagrees in typical Left-wing vernacular. It definitely is a word salad, you can spot it immediately.

“Welcome to Jonestown — Peoples Temple Agricultural Project ” The Jonestown Institute, http://jonestown.sdsu.edu.

Picture Jonestown and Jim Jones using the term kool-aid for the poison. No wonder the term stuck. A sampling of left-wing dialect might include, but is not limited to, any of the following or combinations.

Fair-minded
Sensible
Level playing field
Reasonable
Fair-share (any hyphenated “fair” word)
Doubling-down
War on women
Fact (used vaguely or as a pejorative)
Sustainable

There’s a larger list of attack words for their opponents. Not to mention their cliches.

Now, on the same language topic, let’s try a little hypothetical. Suppose Congress got Lois Lerner, or other operative, to testify on any scandal. It might look something like this.

Ask any question and they say they don’t know. Let’s begin:
(Q= questioner / A= testifier)

Q: what did you know about …….

A: “I don’t know”

Q: Why don’t you know”

A: I don’t know”

Q: You have to know why you don’t know because…

A: I told you I don’t know.

Q: Look, the rules and law say that in your position you have to know these things, but you say you don’t know?

A: I must not have to know because I don’t.

Q: It’s not possible that you don’t know anything.

A: You are trying to tell me something I don’t know.

Q: I would not do that

A: You just did

Q: All I want to know is what you know about ___.

A: If you want to know what I know, then why do you keep asking me what I don’t know?

Q: But I’m not asking you what you don’t know I’m asking what you do know?

A: I don’t know anything…. and I know what I don’t know.

Q: If you know what you don’t know then you obviously know everything.

A: (blank stare)

Q: You don’t know much do you?

A: Well, I’m sure I don’t know

Q: That just proves it, you do know.

A: I don’t know everything but I know what I don’t know!

Q: See, you do know, and think you know everything. — I yield back…

A: …Do not !!!!!!!!! Stop trying to tell me something I don’t know.

Chair: Shut up ….or you’ll be in contempt !
Now that concludes our job interview, you passed the test.

A: I’d like to exercise my 5th amendment privileges now.

RightRing | Bullright

Perception deception: Obama argues with the world

According to Buzz Feed reporting, Obama had those terse words about the world and it’s relativity to social media. If my critique sounds condescending that is not my fault. It is the only suitable way to respond to Obama’s inflammatory rhetoric.

Speaking at a private Democratic fundraiser in Purchase, N.Y., the president told donors, “if you watch the nightly news, it feels like the world is falling apart … And I can see why a lot of folks are troubled.”

But, Obama lectured, “the truth of the matter is, is that the world has always been messy.”

“In part, we’re just noticing now because of social media and our capacity to see in intimate detail the hardships that people are going through,” the president told donors, who paid up to $32,400 a plate to attend the event. “The good news is that American leadership has never been more necessary, and there’s really no competition out there for the ideas and the values that can create the sort of order that we need in this world.”

Now that we see real “hardships that people are going through”… like having their heads chopped off for their faith. Yep, we missed all that gory stuff before. Just maybe it is because it’s so prevalent now that it is impossible to ignore – unless you are Obama.

Imagine how many brutal beheadings we missed all because social media hadn’t focused our attention on it until now. They’ve been lobbing off heads for decades, where in the hell have we been? Oh we didn’t know about those other genocides before now.

If it is explanation time with Obama, it must be lecture time. That’s how he rolls. Bush used the 9/11 term “let’s roll”. Under Obama, roll out deceptive lectures

(Hot Air)Americans are waiting, too. Instead of clarity, we get condescending lectures, like the one Obama gave rich supporters about a messy world and social media.

Obama widened his blame of social media and our consciousness of hardships, which apparently color our vision and thought process. Call it the social media – hardships worldview. He’s quite the psychologist at diagnosing us. We’ve never had an Oval Office therapist before.

Sure, we are not reading the PDB(briefings) but we do have some command on the condition of the world. Is Obama really reading those, or putting them in the classified hopper? We may never know, but if he was reading them, he is once again playing fast and furious with the facts. Or he knows and hopes we’re stupid.

No one can now say that we are a relatively safer world now than when he took office. One cannot say people feel we are. And confidence in or approval of his “leadership” is swirling in the toilet. I guess that is where social media rears its ugly head in this.

He is telling us the world is still the same but our perception is tainted by social media. We just think the world has gotten worse – nastier. It is a good thing when we are more aware as opposed to being passively ignorant. There can be no denying that the world is bad and his policies haven't helped. Blame media

Obama said “folks are getting a little further ahead of where we’re at than we currently are.”

That's one hell of a comforting thought. No strategy like a delayed strategy. Hopefully we are ahead of Obama, who relies on network reports for his information, as to what is going on. Right, there was that lecture about our cable news addiction – just turn it off.

As Obama contemplates using a 5 iron or 7, we’re suppposed to be confident in his decisions. After all, he didn't start playing golf till he was president either. No, the thing about Obama is he always requires a lot of faith or hope. He thinks as long as he has that 30% of hope-sters that pay no attention to his score, everything will be hunky dory. They'll keep on believing and he'll keep on deceiving.

It’s a good thing he referred to social media. He couldn’t have meant MSM. If we had to depend on them, they would continue their candy-coated coverage of the world Obama wishes it was, instead the world as it is. But “social media” is always butting up against his utopian narrative.

Then along came the perception problem

Remember when Janet Napalm Napolitano insisted there was no problem on the southern border. She said the real problem was a perception one. Even then it set off a firestorm of debate and outrage on, where else but, social media. She continued on her perception that the border was never more secure than ever, yada yada.

“There is a perception that the border is worse now than it ever has been. That is wrong. The border is better now than it ever has been,” she said.

We had similar denials and lectures about the state of the economy and effects of Obamacare. It’s just those critics beating away at Obamacare that made it appear bad. Similarly, it was critics and their perception who made Benghazi a “phony scandal”. IRS, spending, gun control, the border, and we’re just global warming deniers.

Now that we have freshened our memories, we don’t have to review every episode of his reign only to find the problem is always us. We have perceptionitis. And that is no doubt what is causing social media cancer to spread throughout our consciousness. Besides we are just suffering those ill-effects of an economy which was supposed to be in full-bloom recovery. Again, our perception.

So the jayvee team is out on the court ready — regardless what uniforms– and Obama’s A-team is on the bench still planning their game strategy. That is not just our perception.

RightRing | Bullright

Par for Obama’s course

Even some MSNBC hosts were having a laugh over IRS explanations.

John Koskinen told a hearing that:
“We are not going to dribble out the information and have it played out in the press.”

Don’t accuse the IRS of dribbling!

The IRS, Koskinen had told them earlier, hasn’t even had the funds to move all its employees from Windows XP, which is no longer generally supported by Microsoft, to Windows 7.

The IRS said in a statement that it has gone to great lengths cooperating with congressional investigations, spending nearly $10 million to produce more than 750,000 documents.

Famous quote

I’m never surprised by controversies that are whipped up in Washington…. alright? That’s par for the course.” – Obama

Who’s doing the “whipping up” here?

RightRing | Bullright

Benghazi black hole

Not much has changed since these clips.

Oh, “the kind of insanity we’re dealing with.”


The outrage goes on. Boehner, complicit or just complacent?

Did CIA’s Mike Morell Lie Under Oath About Changing the Benghazi Talking Points?

April 2, 2014

After former acting CIA Director Mike Morell testified to the House Intelligence Committee that he is the one who changed the Benghazi talking points, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) renewed her call for a select committee to investigate the attack. She suggested that Morell either lied to senators shortly after the attack, or lied during his testimony today.

4 Dead in Benghazi
“Should have been done long ago.”
“How can you run when you know?”

What will it take?
 

Benghazi attack could have been prevented if US hadn’t ‘switched sides in the War on Terror’ and allowed $500 MILLION of weapons to reach al-Qaeda militants, reveals damning report

Citizens Committee on Benghazi claims the US government allowed arms to flow to al-Qaeda-linked militants who opposed Muammar Gaddafi
Their rise to power, the group says, led to the Benghazi attack in 2012
The group claims the strongman Gaddafi offered to abdicate his presidency, but the US refused to broker his peaceful exit
The commission, part of the center-right Accuracy In Media group, concluded that the Benghazi attack was a failed kidnapping plot
US Ambassador Chris Stevens was to be captured and traded for ‘blind sheikh’ Omar Abdel-Rahman, who hatched the 1993 WTC bombing plot

By David Martosko, U.s. Political Editor

Published: 15:09 EST, 22 April 201 | Daily Mail UK

The Citizens Commission on Benghazi, a self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn’t been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.

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

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

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

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

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

More: Dailymail.co.UK
 

Hillary Clinton Cancels Appearance Where Benghazi Victim’s Mom, Protestors Await

April 4, 2014

Hillary Clinton was the planned keynote speaker at the 17th Annual Western Healthcare Leadership Academy in San Diego on April 11 – but she’s cancelled her visit in the midst of planned protests from San Diego locals and military families.

Protestors organized by “The Difference Matters” do not want the former U.S. Secretary of State to come because of Clinton’s role in the Benghazi scandal.

What difference, at this point, does it make?”
How can you run when you know?

Gonzales’ racist treatment from Senate

[See previous post]
Now this isn’t ancient history. But for Holder to act as if he was the only person scrutinized with tough questions by an agitated Congress, doesn’t even pass the smell test.

Once the government shows the disregard for the independence of the justice system and the rule of law, it’s very hard to restore the people’s faith.” — Senator Leahy to AG Gonzales.

 

Pat Leahy said in 2007:

“The dep of Justice is experiencing a crisis in leadership perhaps unrivaled in its history. Unfortunately, the crisis is not abated. Until there is independence, transparency, and accountability, the crisis will continue.

The attorney General’s lost the confidence of Congress and the American people. Through oversight we hope to restore balance and accountability to the Executive branch. The Dep of Justice must be restored to being worthy of its name. It should not be reduced to another political arm of the White House, it was never intended to be that. Trust and confidence of the American people in Federal law enforcement must be restored.”

“Investigation into the firing for partisan purposes of United States Attorneys who’ve been appointed by this president, along with an ever-growing series of controversies and scandals, have [revealed] an administration driven by a vision of an all-powerful Executive over our Constitutional system of checks and balances, one that values loyalty over judgment, secrecy over openness, and ideology over competence. The accumulated and essentially uncontroverted evidence is that the political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least 9 Unites States attorneys last year.

The stonewalling by the White House raises the question: what is it that the White House is so desperate to hide?

The justice dep has been reduced to the role of enabler of this administration. What we need instead is genuine accountability and real independence.

His[Gonzales’] lack of independence and tendency to act as if he were the president’s lawyer, rather than the attorney general of the United States, makes that doubtful.”…

“Once the government shows the disregard for the independence of the justice system and the rule of law, its very hard to restore the people’s faith.”

And those are only Leahy’s opening remarks. Leahy told Gonzales “I don’t trust you.

It’s clear that was a blatant racist slur toward Gonzales because he’s Hispanic. Who can deny that? Did anyone say “you just “don’t trust” him because he’s a Hispanic”, that it was racism? I never heard it. Think about how this administration “deals with” any criticism or those kinds of remarks.

When asked about a “Senate trial for contempt,” Leahy told a reporter that there have been subpoenas etc, “but if they don’t respond there will be contempt citations”. And again, clearly because of racism.

Schumer: “Sir, how can you say that you should stay on as attorney general when we go through these exercises like this where you’re bobbing and weaving and ducking to avoid admitting that you deceived the committee.”

“Stay on”??? Sure, try to force the Hispanic out. “Bobbing and weaving and ducking??” I never heard such racist tripe.

Feingold: “When you look at all these statements together, it’s hard to see anything but a pattern of intentionally misleading Congress again and again. Shouldn’t the attorney general of the United States meet a higher standard??”

“Higher standard?” More racist rhetoric, we know what those “dog whistle”-words mean.

And that’s all besides what they said about Gonzales and Bush on the Sunday talk shows or media blurbs. It’s clear the Dems see racism everywhere they want to see it. Great excuse.

Unfortunately, Gonzales didn’t think of calling it racism because he was a Hispanic.
It wouldn’t have mattered anyway.

RightRing | Bullright

Holder: what AG got treatment like that?

First, what initiated Holder’s comments was the exchange with (Tx)Rep. Louie Gohmert:

“I realize that contempt is not a big deal to our attorney general, but it is important that we have proper oversight,” Gohmert said. He was referring to the House of Representatives holding Holder in contempt of Congress in 2012 for refusing to release documents related to the Fast and Furious scandal.

“You don’t want to go there, buddy! You don’t want to go there, okay,” said an angry Holder.

“I don’t want to go there?” Gohmert responded.

“You should not assume that that is not a big deal to me,” Holder said.

 

So Holder went right out to publicly protest it. Here is Holder pleading his, and Obama’s, unprecedented victim status to Al Sharptons’ National Action Network.

Holder on Gohmert exchange: ‘What attorney general has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment? — Daily Caller

“I’m pleased to note that the last five years have been defined by significant strides and by lasting reforms,” said Holder at the conference of black activists, before improvising “even in the face, even in the face, of unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly, and divisive adversity.”

“If you don’t believe that, if you look at the way, forget about me, forget about me, if you look at the way the attorney general of the United States was treated yesterday by a House Committee, it had nothing to do with me, forget that, what attorney general has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?”

He added, “What president has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?”

Sure you’re the ONLY one…and its just because you’re black. (do I have a bridge for you)
Hey Eric, how about Gonzales or John Ashcroft, and Bush just for starters? Gonzales was practically burned at the stake. The difference is Republicans went after Gonzales too.

Now Holder complains about unprecedented treatment to the same groups on the Left that railed against Gonzales for firing US attorneys, calling for his resignation & impeachment.

All you have to do is research the Gonzales firing of the federal prosecutors and you’ll find the hearings, and press coverage.

Dems didn’t get up and walk out in protest of the treatment Gonzales received, and neither did Republicans. Dems piled on and, more importantly, the Republicans didn’t protest. Instead, some Repubs joined Schumer and those on the left calling for his resignation.

That isn’t ancient history. For Holder to act as if he was the only guy to get this “treatment” from congress is alternative reality.
 

Open Congress .org / Schumer:

    Calls for A.G. Gonzales to step down
    In March 2007, Sen. Schumer called for the resignation of Attorney General Gonzales. Among his reasons that he cited were lack a respect for the “the rule of law and the Constitution”, specifically, the Bush administration U.S. attorney firings controversy, and the recent scandals surrounding “FBI’s illegal snooping into people’s private lives”

How about Keith Ellison on impeaching white Cheney:

“It is beneath his dignity in order for him to answer any questions from the citizens of the United States. That is the very definition of totalitarianism, authoritarianism and dictatorship.”

“If Libby gets pardoned,” Ellison said, “then he should not have the cover of the Fifth Amendment. He’s going to have to come clean and tell the truth. Now, he could get Gonzales-itis, you know, with 71 lapses of memory within a two-hour period.”

“Gonsales-itis”….sounds pretty racist.

But Ellison also compared Bush to Adolf Hitler in one rant, following Dick Durbin’s lead.

Ellison also compared Bush and 9/11 to how the Reichstag fire was used “as pretext to impose police powers” – presumably with his trusty Attorney General spreading the fire.

After all Eric Holder has done to subvert justice, he is the last person who can claim victim status. He’s like the school bully crying that he’s being bullied. He claims to be “advancing the cause of justice”. And by any relative comparison, he is a whining, elitist radical.

More next post
RightRing | Bullright

Lois Lerner, IRS and the Hatch Act

 

Hatch Act and Political Activities

The Hatch Act limits certain political activities of Federal employees both on and off duty. (Members of the Senior Executive Service, are subject to further restrictions and should contact the General Counsel’s office for additional guidance.) Violations of the Hatch Act may result in disciplinary action, up to and including removal.The term “political activity” means doing something in active support of or opposition to a political party, a candidate for partisan political office (e.g., President, senator, representative, state or local legislature or office), or a partisan political group (e.g., “Historians for Smith”). Examples of political activity that would violate the Hatch Act if done while on duty or using Government property include: circulating a candidate’s nominating petition within your office; using the PC in your office after work to produce a brochure in support of a candidate’s campaign; sending e-mail invitations to campaign events to friends within the agency; and using National Archives’ Internet connections to forward e-mail messages received from a partisan campaign or someone supporting a partisan candidate. Permissible political activity under the Hatch Act would include voting for the candidates of your choice; expressing opinions about candidates and issues; assisting in voter registration drives.

For a more comprehensive view of what the Hatch Act allows and disallows, please review the list of Hatch Act Do’s and Don’ts shown below. Questions concerning the Hatch Act may be directed to Christopher Runkel, Office of General Counsel.

Here is a list of don’ts :

· Engage in political activity while on duty
· Engage in political activity while wearing an official Government uniform or identifying National Archives insignia
· Engage in political activity while using a Government vehicle
· Engage in political activity in any Government office
· Engage in political activity while using Government property, including computers, printers, copiers, fax machines, and telephones
· Wear political buttons while on duty
· Display items (e.g., posters, signs, stickers) at work that indicate support of or opposition to a political party or a candidate in a partisan election
· Run as a candidate for public office in any partisan election, except in jurisdictions specified by OPM
· Solicit, accept, or receive political contributions (except in limited circumstances involving certain Federal labor or employee organizations)
· Solicit, accept, or receive political contributions from a subordinate employee
· Allow your official title to be used in connection with fund raising activities
· Host a fund raiser at your home
· Use your official authority or influence to interfere with an election
· Knowingly solicit or discourage the political activity of any person who has business before the National Archives

 

I haven’t heard anyone mention it. From the beginning, conservative groups were targeted — now we know systematically.
 

GOP says IRS’ Lois Lerner targeted Crossroads

By RACHAEL BADE | 4/9/14 | Politico

House Republicans on Wednesday accused former IRS official Lois Lerner of breaking agency rules by aggressively urging denial of tax-exempt status to Crossroads GPS, the giant political nonprofit founded by Karl Rove.

The House Ways and Means Committee released emails showing the former chief of the tax-exempt unit took a special interest in Crossroads GPS in early 2013 — inquiring with IRS officials why they hadn’t been audited. Around the same time an email suggested she might be applying for a job with a pro-President Barack Obama group, Organizing For Action, though it is unclear if she was joking.

Democrats decried the release, calling it an election year gimmick to win over the party’s political base. One campaign finance group came to the defense of Lerner, who has denied any wrongdoing, calling the probe a partisan witch hunt.

The Republican committee letter calls her actions an “aggressive and improper pursuit of Crossroads… but no evidence [that] she directed review of similarly situated left-leaning groups.”

The documents were released after a rare, closed-door Ways and Means markup, where the panel voted 23-14 along party lines to send a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, requesting he take the former head of the IRS tax-exempt division to court — though the department already has an ongoing investigation….

More http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/republicans-seek-criminal-probe-of-irs-official-105531.html

Feinstein’s hypocrisy on target, on schedule

Democrats kill amendment that would have forbidden Tea Party targeting by IRS

John | March 7, 2014 | Tavern Keepers

We have been reporting for a while now that Ted Cruz had put forth an amendment to rectify current issues with the IRS and the targeting of conservative groups. The language would have been as follows:
“(a) Offense. — It shall be unlawful for any officer of the Internal Revenue Service to, regardless of whether the officer or employee is acting under the color of law, willfully act with the intent to injure, oppress, threaten, intimidate or single out and subject to undue scrutiny for purposes of harassment any person or organization of any state –
“(1) based solely or primarily on the political, economic or social positions held or expressed by the person or organization; or
“2) because the person or organization has expressed a particular political, economic, or social position using any words of writing allowed by law.”
As you can see it not only would have protected Tea Party groups, but any group that might come under assault for their beliefs. Unfortunately Liberty Unyielding is reporting that the Democrats, who control the Senate, used their power to kill the amendment. Per the usual strategy, those doing the dirty work are not up for reelection this year so they have plenty of time for the populace to forget their assault on freedom. Here is the list of shame:
Patrick Leahy of Vermont
Dianne Feinstein of California
Charles Schumer of New York
Richard Durbin of Illinois
Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island
Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken of Minnesota
Chris Coons of Delaware
Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut
Mazie Hirono of Hawaii
So, the Democrats want to make sure that the IRS can continue to be used as a tool of political destruction. Of course, if the Republicans had controlled the Senate the vote would have probably have been similar just with different names. Neither side wants to give up that kind of power. Reason number (really big number goes here) that we should abolish the IRS and implement something that doesn’t resemble the East German Stasi circa 1950’s.
Article Source: http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/03/06/cynical-dems-kill-bill-prohibiting-irs-political-favoritism/

Just another nail in the coffin of freedom. Meanwhile, when it’s their Senatorial committee being spied on by the CIA, that’s some serious stuff. Can’t have that. There are laws! But people exercising their God-given rights of speech, dot Gov can suppress that any way they can — what’s the problem? Trot out the Constitution in defense of big-government.

“I have grave concerns that the CIA search may well have violated the separation of powers principles,” Feinstein said on the Senate floor. “I am not taking it lightly.”

Who cares about the IRS targeting people, but the ruling class can’t be spied on. I guess that law is, “No one but no one shall gore our Ox.”

(LA Times)”At some point during their work, Senate staff members gained access to the draft of an internal review the CIA had done of the interrogations. Senators say that internal review, which remains classified, was far more critical of the CIA than the agency’s official responses to their questions had been.CIA officials say the Senate aides were never supposed to have access to the draft, which they claim is covered by executive privilege. They began to investigate how the committee staff members had gained access to it.”

In fact, Dems will run interference for the IRS scandal. Sickening really.

Debbie’s DNC Freakshow

For people that have never seen one, this is what a freak-sideshow performance looks like. And its almost as believable.

The moonbat express is definitely on the road, destinations unknown. You never know where it will show up next.

What can you gather from that performance (besides rehearsed)? She, Debbie Wasserman Schultz was stunned? I bet it takes plenty to stun ol’ Debbie.

The IRS Investigation “has been resolved”. “It is a settled matter”.(that would be news)

“Politicize the issue”? IRS politicized it just fine. Isn’t that what caused the IRS mess?

“Bear hug? Shout out to Debbie for trying to be original. But they bear hugged dictators for years – radical Marxists can’t help themselves.

Obstructionism, please, from the pros. Too bad we didn’t obstruct their agenda.
Well, she tried.