Pelosi is thinking: “I’ve had so many face lifts, you are actually kissing my ass.”
Pelosi is thinking: “I’ve had so many face lifts, you are actually kissing my ass.”
PUBLISHED: 16:14 EST, 21 May 2013 | UPDATED: 04:37 EST, 22 May 2013
The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday afternoon that Lois Lerner, who heads up the Internal Revenue Service‘s tax-exempt division, plans to invoke the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in a hearing Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Affairs.
The Fifth Amendment provides that U.S. citizens may not be compelled to offer testimony if telling the truth would incriminate them.
Lerner’s defense lawyer, William W. Taylor III, wrote to the committee on Tuesday that his client would refuse to answer questions related to what she knew about the extra levels of scrutiny applied to conservative nonprofit organizations that applied for tax-exempt status beginning in 2010.
She also will decline to say why she didn’t disclose what she knew to Congress, according to the LA Times.
Lerner ‘has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation,’ Taylor’s letter read, ‘but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course.’
He is asking the oversight committee to excuse Lerner from testifying, claiming that calling her in a congressional hearing would ‘have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her’ since members would not expect her to answer questions.
Ahmad Ali, a committee spokesman, told MailOnline that ‘Ms. Lerner remains under subpoena from Chairman Issa to appear at tomorrow’s hearing – the Committee has a Constitutional obligation to conduct oversight.’
‘Chairman [Darrel] Issa remains hopeful that she will ultimately decide to testify tomorrow about her knowledge of outrageous IRS targeting of Americans for their political beliefs.’
The IRS applied special criteria to conservative organizations seeking tax-exempt status, putting them on a ‘Be On The Lookout’ (BOLO) list, based on the groups’ names and political philosophies.
President Barack Obama has said he was unaware of the program until May 10, when excerpts of an IRS Inspector General Report on the practice were leaked to reporters.
But Jay Carney, the president’s chief spokesman, confirmed Monday that senior White House staff, including White House Counsel Kathy Ruemmler and Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, knew about the IRS’s habits as early as April 24, and chose not to tell Obama.
The Inspector General report found that Lerner and other IRS were notified in or before June 2011 that some staff in the agency’s Cincinnati, Ohio office were using ‘tea party,’ ‘patriots’ and other key words to add applicants to the BOLO list.
Once on that list, the groups were subjected to additional auditing of their financial practices, their membership and their political activities.
Despite knowing about the program, Lerner and other senior IRS staffers withheld the information from Congress despite receiving several requests from House committees whose members heard from constituents that their tea party groups’ tax-exempt approvals were taking as long as two years to be resolved.
The House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee was among those that specifically asked the IRS whether it was inspecting tea party groups more closely than other applicants, including those on the political left.
Lerner herself launched her agency’s scandal with a planted question-and-answer exchange during a May 10 American Bar Association conference.
Asked the pre-arranged question, Lerner responded by conceding that her employees had acted inappropriately.
‘Instead of referring to the cases as advocacy cases, they actually used case names on this list,’ she told the assembled tax lawyers.
‘They used names like “tea party” or “Patriots,” and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title.That was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate — that’s not how we go about selecting cases for further review.’
She later claimed that the increase in scrutiny of tea party groups was due to an influx of new applications from right-wing organizations, following the Supreme Court’s ‘Citizens United’ ruling, which opened the floodgates to greater political participation by nonprofit advocacy groups.
The Washington Post called that claim bogus, however, with the newspaper’s fact checker awarding it a ‘four Pinocchios’ rating for dishonesty.
Lerner’s boss, acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller, was relieved of his post by Treasury Secretary Jack Lew last week, although the term of his appointment to the job was already scheduled to end in early June.
Other higher-ups inside the IRS have not been publicly held accountable for the improper targeting of conservative organizations.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2328696/Lois-Lerner-Top-IRS-official-invoke-Fifth-Amendment-congressional-hearing-tea-party-targeting-program.html#ixzz2U0v3U4JW
Okay, not the full Senate – yet, but can there be any doubt this lunacy will fly right through that democrat-controlled body?
By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times
Monday, May 20, 2013
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted Monday to allow illegal immigrants who get legal status to begin collecting tax-welfare payments, as the panel spent a fourth day working through amendments to the massive immigration bill and party-line splits began to emerge.
In one major change, the committee voted 17-1 to make a third drunken-driving conviction a deportable offense for the newly legalized immigrants if at least one of those offenses occurs after they are approved for legal status.
But immigrant-rights groups called that a rollback of due-process rights for the immigrants and said a drunken-driving incident shouldn’t cost someone a chance at citizenship.
“We cannot and will not support hard-line proposals that take away discretion and limit an individual’s ability to pursue the pathway to citizenship,” said Paromita Shah, associate director of the National Lawyers Guild’s National Immigration Project.
Overall, the committee continued to maintain the delicate balance struck by the “Gang of Eight” senators who negotiated the 867-page bill: Quick legal status for illegal immigrants, but delaying citizenship rights until after the administration spends more money on border security, puts in place a new electronic verification system to check workers’ status, and enacts an entry-exit system to check visas at airports and seaports.
In previous days’ action, two Republican members of the Gang of Eight — Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona — joined with Democrats to block a series of GOP amendments to stiffen the bill’s security.
But on Monday, the two Republicans sided with their party colleagues on key questions on giving illegal immigrants public benefits.
The 10 Democrats on the committee still outnumber the newly unified Republicans, but the votes signaled tough fights ahead on the Senate floor.
You will find the rest of the story at this link.
Hopefully the republican-controlled House of Representatives will put a swift end to this insanity, as unlike the idiots currently populating the Senate, all of them will be up for reelection next year.
-But you will pardon me if I refrain from holding my breath.
As for myself, I am getting beyond tired of seeing Americans being treated like second-class citizens in favor of illegal invaders by our own government.
Those on that Senate committee that voted for this idiocy should be ashamed of themselves.
Of course, when you have no shame…
Do you remember then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calling on Americans to support the massive Obamacare bill that no Congressperson had actually read, saying that “we must pass it to find out what’s in it”?
Every day since the passage of that monstrous piece of legislation, we are finding out exactly “what’s in it.”
Here’s another “what” that’s in the abomination of the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare:
That isn’t actually in the Orwellian-named “Affordable Care Act” (Obamacare is anything but affordable). The devil is in the detail — in the many administrative rules and regulations conjured by the Executive Branch of the U.S. federal government to implement Obamacare.
Elizabeth Harrington reports for CNSNews that the preventive services regulation that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has issued under the Obamacare law requires health care plans to offer free sterilizations to girls as young as their teens.
The HHS mandate, which took effect last August 1, requires nearly all health care plans in the United States to provide, without cost sharing, “all Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity, from menarche to menopause,” which means all females who have begun ovulating, including teenagers.
The National Institutes of Health says that U.S. females usually start to menstruate “around age 12.” Thus the HHS-mandated insurance coverage providing sterilizations without cost-sharing would apply to girls as young as 12.
The Obama Administration announced in March that the preventive services mandate would also apply to college and university health plans, “to ensure students enrolled in these plans benefit from important consumer protections in the Affordable Care Act,” an HHS Fact Sheet stated.
H/t FOTM’s Sunny.
This is deeply disturbing.
About three months ago, quietly and without anyone noticing, the Obama regime’s Department of Defense (DoD) gave itself the authority to use U.S. military troops to police America without permission from the President of the United States (POTUS) or state or local government.
US Army tanks “training” in the streets of St. Louis, June 2012.
The U.S. military is prohibited from intervening in domestic affairs, a prohibition codified in two laws:
The only exception to the deployment of U.S. military troops within the United States is provided under Section 4 of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, which says: “and [the United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.” In other words, Article IV requires the U.S. government to protect each state from invasion and, upon the application of the state legislature (or executive, if the legislature cannot be convened), from domestic violence.
Together, these laws limit executive authority over domestic military action.
About three months ago, however, as reported by Jed Morey for the Long Island Press, the Department of Defense (DoD) unilaterally made a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” and in so doing, granted itself the authority to police America’s streets without obtaining prior presidential, state, or local consent, thereby upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.
DODI no. 3025.21′s subject is “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies.” Its purpose, “In accordance with the authority in DoD Directive (DoDD) 5111.1 and Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum (References (a) and (b)), is to establish “DoD policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides procedures for DoD support to Federal, State, tribal, and local civilian law enforcement agencies, including responses to civil disturbances within the United States, including the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any territory or possession of the United States or any other political subdivision thereof in accordance with DoDD 3025.18 (Reference (c)).
The most disturbing part of the DODI no. 3025.21 begins on page 15: “Enclosure 3: Participation of DoD Personnel in Civilian Law Enforcement Activities.”
On page 16, under Section 1b’s “Permissible Direct Assistance” is a subsection (3), which states:
When permitted under emergency authority in accordance with Reference (c), Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances because:
(a) Such activities are necessary to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order; or,
(b) When duly constituted Federal, State, or local authorities are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for Federal property or Federal governmental functions. Federal action, including the use of Federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect Federal property or functions.
Jed Morey of the Long Island Press cites Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, who calls the DODI rule, “a wanton power grab by the military,” which is “quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”
Afran points out that Section 1b(3) of the DODI not only fails to define what circumstances would be so severe that the president’s authorization is “impossible,” it also grants full presidential authority to “Federal military commanders” who have the same power to authorize military force as the president when the latter’s authorization is “impossible” — whatever that means.
As Afran puts it, “These phrases don’t have any legal meaning. It’s no different than the emergency powers clause in the Weimar constitution [of the German Reich]. It’s a grant of emergency power to the military to rule over parts of the country at their own discretion.”
Afran also expresses apprehension over the government’s authority “to engage temporarily in activities necessary to quell large-scale disturbances.” “Governments never like to give up power when they get it,” says Afran. “They still think after twelve years they can get intelligence out of people in Guantanamo. Temporary is in the eye of the beholder. That’s why in statutes we have definitions. All of these statutes have one thing in common and that is that they have no definitions. How long is temporary? There’s none here. The definitions are absurdly broad.”
Afran reminds us that, unlike the military, “the police operate under civilian control. They are used to thinking in a civilian way so the comparison that they may have some assault weapons doesn’t change this in any way. And they can be removed from power. You can’t remove the military from power.” Afran is considering amending his NDAA complaint currently in front of the court to include this regulatory change.
Jed Morey concludes: “for the first time in our history the military has granted itself authority to quell a civil disturbance. Changing this rule now requires congressional or judicial intervention. [...] As we witnessed during the Boston bombing manhunt, it’s already difficult to discern between military and police. In the future it might be impossible, because there may be no difference.”
Subject: Why Carry a Gun?
Why Carry a Gun?
My old grandpa said to me ‘Son, there comes a time in every man’s life when he stops bustin’ knuckles and starts bustin’ caps, and
usually it’s when he becomes too old to take a whoopin.’
I don’t carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
I don’t carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.
I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry.
I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.
I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.
I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.
I don’t carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.
Police protection is an oxymoron.
Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.
Personally, I carry a gun because I’m too young to die and too old to take a whoopin’…..author unknown (but obviously brilliant)
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—- ————- ————-
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are ‘citizens’. Without them, we are ‘subjects’.
During WW II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, please spread this anti gun -control message to all of your friends.
The purpose of fighting is to win.
There is no possible victory in defense.
The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either.
The final weapon is the brain.
All else is supplemental.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND’S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT TO WHOM THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
This was brought to my attention
One other point is particularly important here. The description of gun distribution in Switzerland omits important information.
The Swiss government doesn’t hand out a gun to every household. It requires nearly every able-bodied young male adult to serve in the citizen militia, where they are issued a military rifle. The guns are supposed to be for military use only, not for personal defense.
Those men are supposed to show up for 18 weeks of training, followed by seven re-training sessions (each lasting three weeks) over the next 10 years.
If you want to keep your weapon after your years of service, it is refitted to scale back its firepower and you need to provide a reason for keeping it.
I’m a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!
If you are too, please forward.
~ Steve ~ H/T FOTM’s OWN Ken L.
9:48 AM, MAY 19, 2013 • BY DANIEL HALPER
Please Pay attention at 1:13 mark
“every hearing has found it’s been a tragedy”
Host Chris Wallace reminds Pfeiffer that Obama didn’t really talk with Secretary Clinton, Secretary Panetta, or Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that night. “He was talking to his national security staff,” Pfeiffer insists.
Asked about whether the president entered the Situation Room, Pfeiffer says, “I don’t remember what room the president was in on that night, and that’s a largely irrelevant fact.”
This morning, the GOP-majority House Ways and Means Committee holds the first Congressional hearing on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) targeting conservatives and Christians for higher levels of scrutiny.
Outgoing Acting IRS Commissioner Steve Miller, Obama’s first scapegoat in his IRS-gate, told a House committee that “foolish mistakes” were made by the tax agency, but that partisanship wasn’t the reason. [Hey, Miller, if "partisanship wasn't the reason," then why did you "resign" from the IRS? ~Eowyn]
Treasury Department’s Inspector General for Tax Administration Russell George testified at the same hearing and said he did not find evidence that IRS’ decisions were motivated by politics. [HaHaHaHaHa! That Russell George is a real stand-up comedian! ~Eowyn]
To watch the hearing live, click here.
Meanwhile, NBC’s Lisa Myers reported this morning that the IRS deliberately chose not to reveal that it had wrongly targeted conservative groups until after the 2012 presidential election.
But remember we’ve been told: “partisanship wasn’t the reason” and there’s no “evidence that IRS’ decisions were motivated by politics”!
From the http://washingtonexaminer.com
May 15, 2013 | 2:40 pm | Modified: May 16, 2013 at 9:35 am
IRS officials refused to grant tax exempt status to two pro-life organizations because of their position on the abortion issue, according to a non-profit law firm, which said that one group was pressured not to protest a pro-choice organization that endorsed President Obama during the last election.
“In one case, the IRS withheld approval of an application for tax exempt status for Coalition for Life of Iowa. In a phone call to Coalition for Life of Iowa leaders on June 6, 2009, the IRS agent ‘Ms. Richards’ told the group to send a letter to the IRS with the entire board’s signatures stating that, under perjury of the law, they do not picket/protest or organize groups to picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood,” the Thomas More Society announced today. “Once the IRS received this letter, their application would be approved.”
Planned Parenthood endorsed Obama in 2008 and 2012.
The IRS also pressured another pro-life group about its religious activities. “The IRS withheld approval of an application for charitable tax-exempt recognition of Christian Voices for Life, questioning the group’s involvement with ’40 Days for Life’ and ‘Life Chain’ events,” according to the law firm. “The Fort Bend County, Texas, organization was subjected to repeated and lengthy unconstitutional requests for information about the viewpoint and content of its educational communications, volunteer prayer vigils, and other protected activities.”
The IRS admitted last week to that some members of the agency targeted Tea Party groups for discriminatory reviews of their applications for tax-exempt status. The Justice Department has initiated a criminal investigation into the matter.
Mike Allen and Jim Vandehei report for Politico, May 14, 2013, that Washington, D.C. is turning on Obama.
Here are the signs:
1. The Republicans smell blood: One-third of all committees in the GOP-majority House of Representatives are investigating one thing or another of the Obama regime. Top Republicans tell Politico the Benghazi and IRS investigations both will last at least months, and probably until the midterms of 2014 and beyond. Republicans are also working up plans to use the backdrop of government incompetence and over-reach to try to further undermine implementation of Obamacare.
2. Establishment Democrats, never big fans of Obama to begin with, are starting to speak out. One Democrat who likes Obama and has been around town for many years says Obama’s aloofness has alienated many Democrats who think him distant and unapproachable: “He has never taken the Democratic chairs up to Camp David to have a drink or to have a discussion. You gotta stroke people and talk to them. It’s like courting: You have to send flowers and candy and have surprises. It’s a constant process. Now they’re saying, ‘He never talked to me in the good times.’” Black Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-Md), a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, calls the IRS scandal “one of the most alarming things” he’s ever seen.
3. The liberal media are beginning to turn on Obama over the lies, bullying and shadiness. National Journal’s Ron Fournier, who covered the Clinton and Bush scandals and was once the AP Washington bureau chief, says: “One common thing with Benghazi and the IRS scandal, is we’re being misled every day. We were lied to on Benghazi, on the talking points behind Benghazi, for months. We were lied to by the IRS for months and now they’re sending a clear message to our sources: ‘Don’t embarrass the administration or we’re coming after you.’” Even diehard Obamabot New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd last weekend scolded the White House over Benghazi. The press, after years of being accused of being soft on Obama while being berated by West Wing aides on matters big and small, now has every incentive to be as ruthless as can be.