Jun 18 2014

New House Budget is Priceless…Kudos to the House GOP

House Appropriations Committee 500x200

The Internal Revenue Service is about to get slapped with a harsh payback for messing around with conservative groups, blowing wads of tax dollars on employee conferences and helping implement Obamacare.

The House Appropriations Committee is set to OK an IRS budget of $10.9 billion, $1.5 billion under President Obama’s request for fiscal year 2015, reducing the agency’s budget to 2008 levels.

The goal is to keep the tax agency focused on its “core duties,” and eliminate efforts to judge the political activities of tax-exempt groups and brake its implementation of Obamacare.

The funding is part of a larger $21 billion bill for several agencies including the IRS, Treasury Department and Securities and Exchange Commission. Noting that it cuts $2.3 billion from the president’s overall request, Chairman Hal Rogers said, “the bill focuses cuts on lower-priority or poor-performing agencies, such as the scandal-plagued and inefficient Internal Revenue Service.”

The following budget proposals are most noteworthy…

1. A prohibition on a proposed regulation related to political activities and the tax-exempt status of 501(c)(4) organizations. The proposed regulation could jeopardize the tax-exempt status of many non-profit organizations and inhibit citizens from exercising their right to freedom of speech, simply because they may be involved in political activity.

2. A prohibition on funds for bonuses or awards unless employee conduct and tax compliance is given consideration.

3. A prohibition on funds for the IRS to target groups for regulatory scrutiny based on their ideological beliefs.

4. A prohibition on funds for the IRS to target individuals for exercising their First Amendment rights.

5. A prohibition on funding for the production of inappropriate videos and conferences.

6. A prohibition on funding for the White House to order the IRS to determine the tax-exempt status of an organization.

7. A requirement for extensive reporting on IRS spending.

8. A prohibition on any transfers of funding from the Department of Health and Human Services to the IRS for ObamaCare uses

9. A prohibition on funding for the IRS to implement an individual insurance mandate on the American people.

Sources: The Washington Examiner, Breitbart.com.

Google Adsense

Jun 18 2014

Ted Cruz…


Jun 18 2014

Senators that Foisted the Snake-Oil ObamaCare Scam on America Scold Dr. Oz for Mentioning Weight-Loss Methods

Consumer Protection Panel Chairman Claire McCaskill, major supporter of ObamaCare

Consumer Protection Panel Chairman Claire McCaskill, major supporter of ObamaCare

Under pressure from Congress, celebrity Dr. Mehmet Oz on Tuesday offered to help “drain the swamp” of unscrupulous marketers using his name to peddle so-called miracle pills and cure-alls to millions of Americans desperate to lose weight.

Oz appeared before the Senate’s consumer protection panel and was scolded by Chairman Claire McCaskill for claims he made about weight-loss aids on his TV show, “The Dr. Oz Show.”

McCaskill was a major supporter of ObamaCare and last year scolded Republicans for “misleading people” by saying  that ObamaCare would make people lose their health insurance. Since then over 5 million Americans have lost their insurance due to ObamaCare.

Oz, a cardiothoracic surgeon, acknowledged that his language about green coffee and other supplements has been “flowery” and promised to publish a list of specific products he thinks can help America shed pounds and get healthy — beyond eating less and moving more. On his show, he never endorsed specific companies or brands but more generally praised some supplements as fat busters.

McCaskill took Oz to task for a 2012 show in which he proclaimed that green coffee extract was a “magic weight loss cure for every body type.”

Sources: FoxNews.com, CNSNews.com.

Jun 18 2014

Old poster, but still true…


Jun 18 2014

You can lead a Liberal to logic, but you can’t make him think…


Jun 17 2014

Where did Candidate Obama go?…


Jun 17 2014

Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus explained…it’s not a license to lie

driehaus-500x200Issue: (1) Whether, to challenge a speech-suppressive law, a party whose speech is arguably proscribed must prove that authorities would certainly and successfully prosecute him, as the Sixth Circuit holds, or should the court presume that a credible threat of prosecution exists absent desuetude or a firm commitment by prosecutors not to enforce the law, as seven other Circuits hold; and (2) whether the Sixth Circuit erred by holding, in direct conflict with the Eighth Circuit, that state laws proscribing “false” political speech are not subject to pre-enforcement First Amendment review so long as the speaker maintains that its speech is true, even if others who enforce the law manifestly disagree. [Source: ScotusBlog.com]

In plain English the Supreme Court ruled that a state may not prohibit speech it thinks may be false, without first determining whether or not it can be proven false in court.

Background: In 2010, the Susan B Anthony List, a pro-life lobbying group,  attempted to erect billboards to expose then Rep. Steve Driehaus for supporting taxpayer funded abortion by voting for the Affordable Care Act. SBA List was prevented from doing so because of the Ohio law, and was threatened with prosecution if it engaged in similar speech about Driehaus or other candidates in Ohio. Lamar, the billboard company SBA List was using, refused to place the advertisement for fear of being dragged into the lawsuit.  In the lawsuit, Driehaus has alleged that the SBA List falsely accused him, when they tried erecting similar billboards in his district in 2010 stating that, by voting for Obamacare, Driehaus voted for taxpayer funded abortion.

At the time, a lawyer representing Rep. Driehaus ordered Lamar Companies not to put up the billboards until the matter was settled by the Ohio Elections Commission, or else he would add them to the complaint. Driehaus’ legal battle against SBA List is ongoing, including his defamation claim in which the former congressman alleges that the SBA List cost him his job and a “loss of livelihood” by educating constituents about his vote in favor of ObamaCare.

Ultimately it was only Driehous’s accusation of falsehood, not a determination by a court, that resulted in the stifling of SBA List’s freedom of speech.

Results: Liberals are now screaming that the SCOTUS has declared lying in political ads legal. Ironic, since that is the basis of most Liberal campaign ads. You’d think they’d be happy about that. The truth is Liberals already has a “get out of jail free” card when it came to deceptive ads, since the committees, commissions or whatever concocted entity pretending to make elections fair are almost always stacked with Liberals who give their buddies a pass while attempting to shut down Conservatives for even the hint of impropriety. The SCOTUS decision strips these fake “commissions” of punishing people and groups without a fair trial.

SOURCES: FoxNews.com, LifeNews.com and LifeNews.com.

Jun 17 2014

Some Inconvenient Truths…


Jun 17 2014

The Bill of Rights…


Jun 17 2014

Walter Williams: Slavery Reparations

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and a member of the Board of Advisors for the Media Research Center's Free Market Project.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and a member of the Board of Advisors for the Media Research Center’s Free Market Project.

Walter Williams – First off, let me say that I agree with reparations advocates that slavery was a horrible, despicable violation of basic human rights. The gross discrimination that followed emancipation made a mockery of the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. I also agree that slave owners and slave traders should make reparations to those whom they enslaved. The problem, of course, is that slaves, slave owners and slave traders are all dead. Thus, punishing perpetrators and compensating victims is out of the hands of the living.

Punishing perpetrators and compensating victims is not what reparations advocates want. They want government to compensate today’s blacks for the bondage suffered by our ancestors. But there’s a problem. Government has no resources of its very own. The only way for government to give one American a dollar is to first — through intimidation, threats and coercion — confiscate that dollar from some other American.

Reparations advocates make the foolish unchallenged argument that the United States became rich on the backs of free black labor. That’s nonsense that cannot be supported by fact. Slavery doesn’t have a very good record of producing wealth. Slavery was all over the South, and it was outlawed in most of the North.

Buying into the reparations argument about the riches of slavery, one would conclude that the antebellum South was rich and the slave-starved North was poor. The truth of the matter is just the opposite. In fact, the poorest states and regions of our nation were places where slavery flourished — Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia — while the richest states and regions were those where slavery was absent: Pennsylvania, New York and Massachusetts.

Read the full article at CNSNews.com.

Jun 17 2014

Natural Rights…


Jun 17 2014

Fact check: Does the Gates Foundation fund abortion?

After a conference in Toronto this month, Melinda Gates wrote on the Foundation’s website that because of the controversy around the topic, “the Gates Foundation has decided not to fund abortion.”

But is it true? Does the Gates Foundation really refrain from funding abortion around the world?

Father Shenan J. Boquet, president of Human Life International called the statement “outright deception.” Fr. Boquet notes that, “The Gates Foundation has in the past and will continue to give tens of millions of dollars to the largest abortion providers in the world, including International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International. These large sums of money will undoubtedly expand the reach and influence of the abortion industry.”

While Gates Foundation funds cannot be earmarked for abortion, the fungibility of money makes it easier for these organizations to provide abortion internationally.  In other words, every dollar the Gates Foundation gives to Planned Parenthood for distributing birth control or building an abortion-friendly clinic frees up a dollar in Planned Parenthood’s budget to spend elsewhere. – See more at: http://liveactionnews.org/fact-check-does-the-gates-foundation-fund-abortion/#sthash.A0QkMA2E.dpuf

If aid is fungible, it simply does not matter what donors finance. They may end up financing, at the margin, very different and perhaps undesirable activities. When the recipients of these funds are the world’s leading abortion providers, it’s not hard to figure out where newly freed money in their budgets will go.

Read the full article at LiveActionNews.org.

Jun 17 2014



Jun 17 2014

Exciting News for Redskin Fans…Games Just Got Even Better!!

washington-redskins 500x200

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he won’t attend a Washington Redskins home game until the football team changes its controversial name.

harry-reid angry smallIn a letter late last week to the team’s president, Reid called the Redskins name a racial slur that disparages the American people. The Nevada Democrat, who said he represents 27 tribes in his state, rejected Bruce Allen’s invitation to a Redskins home game until the team does “the right thing” and changes its name.

“I will not stand idly by while a professional sports team promotes a racial slur as a team name and disparages the American people,” Reid said in the letter. “Nor will I consider your invitation to attend a home game until your organization chooses to do the right thing and change its offensive name.”

Read the full article at FoxNews.com.

So Redskin games will be that much better with one less, arrogant, elitist, clueless jerk in the stands. Ticket sales should skyrocket now, so better grab them while you can.


Jun 17 2014

Self Defense…