Larry Elder plays a great refutation of Valerie Jarrett’s assertion that the Obama administration was scandal free. In fact, this claim is demonstrably false, as THE DAILY WIRE highlights, here are four of their thirteen (with inserted media) — BREITBART lists eighteen:
In a very strong wording, John and Ken call people miffed about Trump’s losers: “Honestly, if you are upset about this, you’re a moron.”
Larry Elder destroys the Democrats talking points on Trump not paying taxes. Like I have said before this is not an argument against Trump but an argument against the progressive tax system as currently in our tax law code.
Info on the above audio:
My plan is the biggest and boldest tax cut in American history. This will shake up Washington and Wall Street, no doubt. But I’m not running for their approval, I’m running to take our country back.
I am not a huge fan of the Pauls… but I would overlook a lot of what I see as flaws in Rand if he would push for this. This would be a huge boost to the economy, business, and reform our country needs. Here is his SITE for Pres if you are interested.
The following is from Glenn Beck:
“He has just announced a radical tax plan. I’m telling you, this is erotic, it is so good,” Glenn said.
PAT: I’m in love with it. Even though I’m not a huge —
GLENN: Pat is not a huge Rand Paul fan. I looked at him — he rolled his eyes when I said he has a tax plan you will like. He rolled his eyes. Then I said, you’re thinking about it, aren’t you? And he’s like, oh, I am. Listen to this.
- RAND: I’m running for president to defeat the Washington machine. And to do that, we have to drive a stake through the heart of the IRS and our terrible tax code. We need to tear it up and start over, with a plan that’s simple, fair, and cuts taxes for every single American. Let’s start with the workers tax cut. For most Americans, the biggest tax they pay is the FICA tax on their paycheck. And all anyone ever tries to do is raise that tax or pretend you’re not paying it. In my tax plan, the first thing we’ll do is eliminate the workers tax. That’s right. It’s gone. Zero. Nothing. That means that every single working American would keep thousands of dollars more in their paycheck —
GLENN: FICA gone.
PAT: Yes! Seriously.
- RAND: We’re not stopping there. We will end corporate welfare and eliminate the army of lobbyists and tax lawyers gaming the system.
GLENN: I like that.
- RAND: All special tax breaks will be gone, in exchange for one low flat rate of 14.5 percent that every single business will pay. No more billion-dollar corporations paying zero —
GLENN: But wait. There’s more.
- RAND: But also, no more mom-and-pop businesses paying 40 percent. Everyone pays the same, and it will grow our economy. In fact, the Tax Foundation studies show my plan will create nearly 2 million jobs. Finally, every American taxpayer, everyone will be able to file a very simple return on one page at a low and fair rate of 14.5 percent — for every single American. And the guy with the most lawyers and accountants doesn’t win; you do. My plan will cut taxes for everyone. It will end corporate welfare and special tax breaks. It will create jobs, and it will get the IRS out of your life.
GLENN: Amen. That is unbelievable. That’s the best thing I’ve ever heard from any candidate on the IRS yet. Phenomenal. Rand Paul.
(h/t Gay Patriot… who points out in a roundabout way that it is a pipe dream)
- Funny how Faux News has nothing on this report. Curious to see what crackhead Megyn Kelly has to say about this.
This was my response:
I am at Wolf Creek right now [the Brewery], but I was at work. You can always post stuff like that on my timeline with something like: “hey, I don’t know if you saw this, but the Repubs are shooting down some theories that the media ~ read here Fox ~ have been putting forward. What are your thoughts when you get the time?”
That way you are being approachable as well as putting the onus on me to back up some of what I previously thought. Just some tips on being strategic in your challenges.
Another right-leaning person on a friends FB said this:
- I don’t care what the Times says happened or not. All they care about is clearing Hillary.
My response to a compatriot:
Trust me, Trey Gowdy is not about “clearing” Hillary.
If we cannot admit evidence into a debate that counter’s our position — at all — we are merely a clanging bell. It is one reason I reject neo-Darwinism as well as conspiracy theories… they can never be wrong.
Much to the dismay and with gnashing of teeth, liberals have to acknowledge that Fox News does not control (insert evil laughter *here*) Republicans.
Trey Gowdy, the “bulldog of justice” in the House and a V E R Y conservative member of the House led the two year investigation. While I was thinking there was more to the story, Rep. Gowdy had WAY more information and evidence and eyewitness testimony than Fox News or others in the blogosphere had (obviously). So Rep. Gowdy being a “bulldog” came to a fair decision for sure, putting to rest my own pet-theories. Here is National Review:
A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees. . . .
The investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.
In response to accusations that the administration misled the American public in the days following the Benghazi attack by blaming events on a spontaneous protest against a YouTube video:
In the immediate aftermath of the attack, intelligence about who carried it out and why was contradictory, the report found. That led Susan Rice, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to inaccurately assert that the attack had evolved from a protest, when in fact there had been no protest. But it was intelligence analysts, not political appointees, who made the wrong call, the committee found. The report did not conclude that Rice or any other government official acted in bad faith or intentionally misled the American people….
What Trey Gowdy knows is the “bad faith” is something meant more for contract law/legal matters. Not the Benghazi issue in the House. Here is the conclusion of the report:
Again, I trust Rep. Gowdy’s attentiveness and eat crow gracefully.
I think the only activity the House should be concerned with is getting some of the 300[+] bills they wrote and passed [many with Democrats on-board and bi-partisen activity] that Harry Reid has scuttled since 2006 passed.
The IRS crime should squared away with immunity going to Lerner for info or her going to jail. Getting Obama-Care replaced and creating a better business environment in America. Black conservative voices should capitalize on the fact that unemployment in the black community is high and the fact that Obama essentially is giving the opportunity to 5-million people (the ones that will come forward will probably be about 1.5 million or so) to get legal job hiring status. THUS, bringing unemployment ~ esp. in the black community ~ higher (see here).
From this mid-term on we have to be strategic, and Benghazi is not one of those hills to die on. And TRUE liberals should be upset that all these hard-drives conveniently crashed… and as a new person was added to the list to be investigated… walla, their hard-drive crashed. The power of the government to audit political enemies was a BIG deal in the Nixon investigation. But not now? The chances of these hard-drives crashing like this would be 3,139,250-to-1:
Strategic battles, conservatives (myself included) will have to give-up pet peeves.
Some info via The Blaze
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) grilled a University of Baltimore law professor during a Wednesday House hearing and made a compelling case as to why a special counsel is needed to investigate the IRS scandal. At one point, he even offered the professor some “free litigation advice” when he refused to answer one of his questions that seemed pretty straightforward.
Professor Charles Tiefer was brought in by Democrats as an expert to help determine whether the House Judiciary Committee should appoint a special counsel to investigate the IRS scandal. Tiefer, who previously served as solicitor and deputy general counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives, was also recently asked by Democrats to provide a statement on House Speaker John Boehner’s lawsuit against President Obama, which he called an “embarrassing loser.”
“Professor Tiefer, would you seat a juror who referred to your client as an obscene body part?” Gowdy asked, clearly referring to emails that show ex-IRS official Lois Lerner referring to conservatives as “assholes” and “crazies.”
Professor Tiefer didn’t say a word for about five seconds before he muttered, “I’m sorry?”
(I wish to explain my chosen head-line.) I say “pro-marriage” because, as Gay Patriot notes, “the Obama State Department recently honored Masha Gessen, a lesbian activist who had this to say on the topic of gay marriage:”
I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist. (See: National Review)
Fox News has this interview of the chair of National Organization of Marriage from just two weeks ago:
This quick addressing of the issue via Gateway Pundit:
The conservative group National Organization of Marriage accused the IRS of leaking documents to the Obama Campaign in 2012. A top Obama campaign official Joe Solomese used the information to attack Mitt Romney during the 2012 election. The Huffington Post used the leaked documents in a story questioning former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s support for traditional marriage. The document showed Romney donated $10,000 to NOM.
The IRS agreed this week to pay only $50,000 in damages to the National Organization for Marriage after leaking confidential information to a leading gay marriage group….
The Right Scoop continues with the story via The Daily Signal:
Geez. Talk about targeting conservative groups.
DAILY SIGNAL – Two years after activists for same-sex marriage obtained the confidential tax return and donor list of a national group opposed to redefining marriage, the Internal Revenue Service has admitted wrongdoing and agreed to settle the resulting lawsuit.
The Daily Signal has learned that, under a consent judgment today, the IRS agreed to pay $50,000 in damages to the National Organization for Marriage as a result of the unlawful release of the confidential information to a gay rights group, the Human Rights Campaign, that is NOM’s chief political rival.
“Congress made the disclosure of confidential tax return information a serious matter for a reason,” NOM Chairman John D. Eastman told The Daily Signal. “We’re delighted that the IRS has now been held accountable for the illegal disclosure of our list of major donors from our tax return.”
In a separate posting, Gay Patriot notes the following:
Fact: The IRS Targeted 104 Conservative and Tea Party groups to deny them tax exempt status during the 2012 election cycle.
Fact: Not a single progressive group (of the 7 audited) was denied tax exempt status in this period.
Fact: Lois Lerner’s computer hard drive “crashed” within ten days of Congress beginning an inquiry into the IRS targeting of Conservative groups. According to the IRS, this resulted in the loss of all of her emails to outside agencies… including the White House.
Fact: The IRS abruptly canceled its contract with a company that backed up its emails externally after Congress initiated an inquiry.
Now, a reasonable person looking at the above set of facts might say that the pattern is consistent with an agency that did something wrong and then undertook to destroy the evidence of wrongdoing.
But according to the Democrats, to draw such a conclusion from that set of facts is akin to believing that the Earth is Secretly Run by Alien Lizard People….
I sit here daily and wag my head at the Democrats ability to obfuscate justice in their unnerving support for the first gay president.
Via Elder Statement:
I am going to start this post with a very STRONGLY WORDED rant on the asinine political correctness found on the professional Left. Again, language warning, but you should be just as flabbergasted as these men (via The Blaze):
Jonathan Turley (via The Washington Post) gets into the mix in his now patented warning from the left about the excesses of government size, growth, and overreach. Some of which I have noted in the past here. But here is the column from which Dennis Prager touches on, and Goldberg’s will follow:
…It didn’t matter to the patent office that polls show substantial majorities of the public and the Native American community do not find the name offensive. A 2004 Annenberg Public Policy Center poll found that 90 percent of Native Americans said the name didn’t bother them. Instead, the board focused on a 1993 resolution adopted by the National Congress of American Indians denouncing the name. The board simply extrapolated that, since the National Congress represented about 30 percent of Native Americans, one out of every three Native Americans found it offensive. “Thirty percent is without doubt a substantial composite,” the board wrote.
Politicians rejoiced in the government intervention, which had an immediate symbolic impact. As Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) said Wednesday: “You want to ignore millions of Native Americans? Well, it’s pretty hard to say the federal government doesn’t know what they’re talking about when they say it’s disparaging.”
For the Washington Redskins, there may be years of appeals, and pending a final decision, the trademarks will remain enforceable. But if the ruling stands, it will threaten billions of dollars in merchandizing and sponsorship profits for NFL teams, which share revenue. Redskins owner Dan Snyder would have to yield or slowly succumb to death by a thousand infringement paper cuts.
The patent office opinion also seems to leave the future of trademarks largely dependent on whether groups file challenges. Currently trademarked slogans such as “Uppity Negro” and “You Can’t Make A Housewife Out Of A Whore” could lose their protections, despite the social and political meaning they hold for their creators. We could see organizations struggle to recast themselves so they are less likely to attract the ire of litigious groups — the way Carthage College changed its sports teams’ nickname from Redmen to Red Men and the California State University at Stanislaus Warriors dropped their Native American mascot and logo in favor of the Roman warrior Titus. It appears Fighting Romans are not offensive, but Fighting Sioux are.
As federal agencies have grown in size and scope, they have increasingly viewed their regulatory functions as powers to reward or punish citizens and groups. The Internal Revenue Service offers another good example. Like the patent office, it was created for a relatively narrow function: tax collection. Yet the agency also determines which groups don’t have to pay taxes. Historically, the IRS adopted a neutral rule that avoided not-for-profit determinations based on the content of organizations’ beliefs and practices. Then, in 1970, came the Bob Jones University case. The IRS withdrew the tax-exempt status from the religious institution because of its rule against interracial dating on campus. The Supreme Court affirmed in 1983 that the IRS could yank tax exemption whenever it decided that an organization is behaving “contrary to established public policy” — whatever that public policy may be. Bob Jones had to choose between financial ruin and conforming its religious practices. It did the latter.
There is an obvious problem when the sanctioning of free exercise of religion or speech becomes a matter of discretionary agency action. And it goes beyond trademarks and taxes. Consider the Federal Election Commission’s claim of authority to sit in judgment of whether a film is a prohibited “electioneering communication.” While the anti-George W. Bush film “Fahrenheit 9/11” was not treated as such in 2004, the anti-Clinton “Hillary: The Movie” was barred by the FEC in 2008. The agency appeared Caesar-like in its approval and disapproval — authority that was curtailed in 2010 by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United.
Even water has become a vehicle for federal agency overreach. Recently, the Obama administration took punitive agency action against Washington state and Colorado for legalizing marijuana possession and sales. While the administration said it would not enforce criminal drug laws against marijuana growers — gaining points among the increasing number of citizens who support legalization and the right of states to pass such laws — it used a little-known agency, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, to cut off water to those farms. The Bureau of Reclamation was created as a neutral supplier of water and a manager of water projects out West, not an agency that would open or close a valve to punish noncompliant states….
Here is the article from The National Review — in part — that has Jonah Goldberg likewise raising alarm about the bureaucracy that Turley speaks to in the above article.
…Now, I don’t believe we are becoming anything like 1930s Russia, never mind a real-life 1984. But this idea that bureaucrats — very broadly defined — can become their own class bent on protecting their interests at the expense of the public seems not only plausible but obviously true.
The evidence is everywhere. Every day it seems there’s another story about teachers’ unions using their stranglehold on public schools to reward themselves at the expense of children. School-choice programs and even public charter schools are under vicious attack, not because they are bad at educating children but because they’re good at it. Specifically, they are good at it because they don’t have to abide by rules aimed at protecting government workers at the expense of students.
The Veterans Affairs scandal can be boiled down to the fact that VA employees are the agency’s most important constituency. The Phoenix VA health-care system created secret waiting lists where patients languished and even died, while the administrator paid out almost $10 million in bonuses to VA employees over the last three years.
Working for the federal government simply isn’t like working for the private sector. Government employees are essentially unfireable. In the private sector, people lose their jobs for incompetence, redundancy, or obsolescence all the time. In government, these concepts are virtually meaningless. From a 2011 USA Today article: “Death — rather than poor performance, misconduct or layoffs — is the primary threat to job security at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Small Business Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Office of Management and Budget and a dozen other federal operations.”
In 2010, the 168,000 federal workers in Washington, D.C. — who are quite well compensated — had a job-security rate of 99.74 percent. A HUD spokesman told USA Today that “his department’s low dismissal rate — providing a 99.85 percent job security rate for employees — shows a skilled and committed workforce.”
Obviously, economic self-interest isn’t the only motivation. Bureaucrats no doubt sincerely believe that government is a wonderful thing and that it should be empowered to do ever more wonderful things. No doubt that is why the EPA has taken it upon itself to rewrite American energy policy without so much as a “by your leave” to Congress.
The Democratic party today is, quite simply, the party of government and the natural home of the managerial class. It is no accident, as the Marxists say, that the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents the IRS, gave 94 percent of its political donations during the 2012 election cycle to Democratic candidates openly at war with the Tea Party — the same group singled out by Lois Lerner. The American Federation of Government Employees, which represents the VA, gave 97 percent of its donations to Democrats at the national level and 100 percent to Democrats at the state level…