The IRS is at it again! Must read for IRS deniers!

It's worse than we thought! The dear dictator has directed the IRS to not just make it an un-level playing-field for  conservatives on his enemies list, he has also instructed the IRS to hobble groups who stand up to oppose him or embarrass him, or just plain disagree. Basically anybody he wants....


The IRS Goes to Court - WSJ

It isn’t every day that judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals declare themselves “shocked.” But that happened on Monday when an animated three-judge panel eviscerated the IRS and Justice Department during oral argument in a case alleging the agency delayed the tax-exempt application of a pro-Israel group due to its policy views.

We all know this administration is still miffed that the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to America to speak to a joint session of Congress without his express written consent, so that makes sense.

But the argument does not end there. The IRS basically argues they can make anyone or any enemy wait 270 days before they are allowed to sue.

The three judges—Chief Judge Merrick Garland, David Tatel and David Sentelle—were incredulous.

...

the government argued, because under Section 7428(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code groups may sue to obtain their tax-exempt status if no action has been taken for 270 days, and that should be an alternative to Z Street’s approach.

“You don’t really mean that, right? Because the next couple words would be the IRS is free to discriminate on the basis of viewpoint, religion, race [for 270 days]. You don’t actually think that?” Judge Garland said. “Imagine the IRS announces today a policy that says as follows: No application by a Jewish group or an African-American group will be considered until one day short of the period under the statute . . . Is it your view that that cannot be challenged?”

But the IRS and the administration are undaunted. It's part of a plan.

Poor Ms. McLaughlin was sent to argue the indefensible so the IRS can delay discovery until the waning days of the Obama Administration. “If I were you, I would go back and ask your superiors whether they want us to represent that the government’s position in this case is that the government is free to unconstitutionally discriminate against its citizens for 270 days,” said Judge Garland.

All this stuff is going to come out!

Discovery will eventually happen, emails will disappear, and it won't be until Obama is out of office and can use the old Clintonian strategy of saying "that's an old story" that the truth will come out.

The question is.... will anyone care then?

Bernie Sanders: Stalking Horse or Lap Dog?

So Bernie Sanders is officially running for President.

Something had to break. The optics of the goose stepping left having only one candidate were just not palatable.

My gut says he is / will be infused with Clinton money.

I haven't heard anyone else suggest this yet, so I just wanted to get on the record. Mark my words.

 

 

 

Full Definition of STALKING HORSE

1

:  a horse or a figure like a horse behind which a hunter stalks game

2

:  something used to mask a purpose

3

:  a candidate put forward to divide the opposition or to conceal someone's real candidacy

The Baltimore Bunch

Here's the story of a now dead convict
who had been arrested 20 times before
He ran from cops, when he saw them
and now he’s dead.

Here’s the story, of the first responders
who we love when they’re saving our butts
They were six cops serving the public
They didn’t know they were on their own

Till that one day when they chased that guy Gray
He ran and they chased him on a hunch
That this guy would somehow die isn’t pretty
That’s the way they all became the Baltimore Bunch.

The Baltimore Bunch
The Baltimore Bunch
That’s the way they became the Baltimore Bunch.

Slaves Revolt on Democrat's Baltimore Plantation

Dear Democrats,

We are NOT sorry that your slaves are revolting on your Baltimore plantation. You clearly learned nothing from your Civil War. Slavery is WRONG! Now stop it!

Sincerely,
Everybody else (Except ISIS - slavery is OK with them too)

---

So it continues...

The democrats will never let their slaves go! They can't get them to pick cotton anymore, but they have locked up their votes. Until the slaves decide to leave the plantation, it is almost difficult to feel sorry for them. 50 years of Democrat rule and Democrat policies in Baltimore have resulted in the slave uprising we are witnessing.

A brief history

Since the 1600's some American colonists had been owning slaves with regularity. There is even a historical debate as to whether the first documented / legal slave owner was a black man. Regardless, it is documented history that black colonists did legally own slaves.

And let us point out that there were no political parties at this time. Slavery didn't become contentious until the formation of the United States. Our founding fathers debated slavery, but could not come to agreement, and all decided it was not the issue that should prevent the formation of this new republic. The government was formed so brilliantly by the constitution, it is hard to believe they could not get that one right. They chose not to address the issue, and so just lit the fuse.

Even after the formation of the new government slavery was not a partisan issue. It was more or less a religious issue. Yes! Those religious nuts were running around, ranting and raving about the evils of slavery! Both the Party of Jefferson (Democratic-Republican Party) and the Party of Adams (The Federalist Party), were buying and selling slaves, and engaging in slavery for commercial gain, and personal comfort.

During the Jackson Administration the two party system morphed into the Democrats (Jackson's Party) and the Whigs (Those opposed to Jackson Party). Still slavery was not a partisan issue. It was not until the 1850's that slavery became political again. The Whig Party dissolved over the issue of slavery during this period. Slave owning Whigs joined the Democrats, who were either for slavery or willing not to pass judgement. Abolitionist Whigs formed the Republican party. So let's take this moment to point out that no Republican ever owned slaves. I assure you that a man on the street survey would show that very few Americans know this. They sure do not teach it in public schools. In fact they do contortions to leave you to believe that it is the Republicans who have always oppressed Black people.

When the Republican Party had it's first nominee (Abraham Lincoln ) elected president Democrats became so alarmed that the Party of Abolitionists would take away their slaves the Confedaracy was formed.

History.com

By the time of Lincoln’s inauguration on March 4, 1861, seven states had seceded, and the Confederate States of America had been formally established, with Jefferson Davis as its elected president. One month later, the American Civil War began when Confederate forces under General P.G.T. Beauregard opened fire on Union-held Fort Sumter in South Carolina. In 1863, as the tide turned against the Confederacy, Lincoln emancipated the slaves and in 1864 won reelection. In April 1865, he was assassinated by Confederate sympathizer John Wilkes Booth at Ford’s Theatre in Washington, D.C. The attack came only five days after the American Civil War effectively ended with the surrender of Confederate General Robert E. Lee at Appomattox.

Once Democrats thought they might lose their slaves, they started the Civil War! Millions of Americans died because Democrats wanted to keep their slaves!

The confederacy lost, and the Emancipation of slaves by the Republicans was complete.

But not so fast.....
Democrats were still unwilling to let their slaves go, so they invented sharecropping.

Sharecropping | Slavery By Another Name | PBS

After the Civil War, former slaves sought jobs, and planters sought laborers. The absence of cash or an independent credit system led to the creation of sharecropping.
Sharecropping is a system where the landlord/planter allows a tenant to use the land in exchange for a share of the crop. This encouraged tenants to work to produce the biggest harvest that they could, and ensured they would remain tied to the land and unlikely to leave for other opportunities. In the South, after the Civil War, many black families rented land from white owners and raised cash crops such as cotton, tobacco, and rice. In many cases, the landlords or nearby merchants would lease equipment to the renters, and offer seed, fertilizer, food, and other items on credit until the harvest season. At that time, the tenant and landlord or merchant would settle up, figuring out who owed whom and how much

Believe it or not, this new form of slavery lasted until the 1930's - 1940's. During this period the sharecroppers revolted by forming unions. Democrat plantation owners retaliated with violence.

Slavery in the 20th Century

The situation of landless farmers who challenged the system in the rural south as late as 1941 has been described thus: "he is at once a target subject of ridicule and vitriolic denunciation; he may even be waylaid by hooded or unhooded leaders of the community, some of whom may be public officials. If a white man persists in 'causing trouble', the night riders may pay him a visit, or the officials may haul him into court; if he is a Negro, a mob may hunt him down."

Sharecroppers formed unions in the 1930s, beginning in Tallapoosa County, Alabama in 1931, and Arkansas in 1934. Membership in the Southern Tenant Farmers Union included both blacks and poor whites. As leadership strengthened, meetings became more successful, and protest became more vigorous, landlords responded with a wave of terror.

It was only mechanization of farming that eventually brought the institution of sharecropping to an end in the United States. Think about that for a second!

But not so fast.....
Democrats were still unwilling to let their slaves go, so they invented Jim Crow Laws.

Jim Crow Laws

The Jim Crow laws were racial segregation state and local laws enacted after the Reconstruction period in Southern United States that continued in force until 1965 mandating de jure racial segregation in all public facilities in Southern U.S. states (of the former Confederacy), starting in 1890 with a "separate but equal" status for African Americans. Conditions for African Americans were consistently inferior and underfunded compared to those provided for white Americans. This decision institutionalized a number of economic, educational and social disadvantages. De jure segregation mainly applied to the Southern United States, while Northern segregation was generally de facto — patterns of segregation in housing enforced by covenants, bank lending practices and job discrimination, including discriminatory union practices for decades.

It wasn't until 1964 that Jim Crow laws were legally ended.

On July 2, 1964, Johnson signed the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964.^[24][25] It invoked the commerce clause^[24] to outlaw discrimination in public accommodations (privately owned restaurants, hotels, and stores, and in private schools and workplaces). This use of the commerce clause was upheld in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States 379 US 241 (1964).^[26] 

It is my belief that this is why Democrats are seen in modern day politics as the champions of the Black race. Only because the sitting President was a Democrat do democrats get to absolve themselves of their sins of slavery. And as to how Republicans who freed the slaves became the foil? I really have no good explanation other than indoctrination or re-education by public schools and the media. Another man on the street survey would most likely show that most Americans believe Republicans opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This just simply is not true. All you have to do is look at the votes for this Act to see that Democrats still wanted their slaves. In every instance Republicans were far more in favor of this Act than Democrats.

Vote Totals

By party

The original House version:^[20]

• Democratic Party: 152–96  
• Republican Party: 138–34  

Cloture in the Senate:^[21]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 
• Republican Party: 27–6  

The Senate version:^[20]

• Democratic Party: 46–21
• Republican Party: 27–6 

The Senate version, voted on by the House:^[20]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 
• Republican Party: 136–35 

Once again, it was really the Republicans that came to the rescue of Black slaves.

But not so fast.....
Democrats were still unwilling to let their slaves go, so they invented welfare.

Democrats now keep their slaves on the plantation by handing out welfare and other entitlements at the expense of tax payers. The allure of free stuff is just too magnetic. And while Republicans have been fighting to free Blacks from Democrat enslavement once again by eliminating welfare and the stagnation of lives, Democrats have fooled Blacks into being resentful of such attempts.

Democrats have always argued that they love Black people and have always had their best interests close to their hearts. When the issue was actual slaves as property they argued that it was the most humane thing to do since Blacks hadn't been able to civilize themselves. Slavery was their path to civilization.

Democrats argued that sharecropping was in the best interest of the ex-slaves. After all? What else were they going to do?

And finally, democrats today argue that welfare is in the best interest of their ex-slaves as a helping hand, despite the facts of generational addiction to free stuff ultimately resulting in poverty.

Are all Democrats part of the slavery conspiracy? Certainly not. Those that are not are just from the 'Unicorn and Fuzzy Bunny' wing of the Party. If it sounds like charity, makes them feel warm and gooey on the inside, then they are for it.

But let's be clear about one thing. When it comes to race, Republicans are not the bad guys.

Massa is still out there. Burn her plantation down!

Was Germanwings Flight 9525 Brought Down By Putin? And If So, What Is His Next Move?

Let's remember, that there have been published reports about a theory that Putin was behind the disappearance of flight MH370.

Expert Jeff Wise links Vladimir Putin to MH370 disaster

Wise’s theory is that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the hijacking of the Boeing 777 and landed it in Kazakhstan.

One reason Putin may have wanted to steal the plane would be to hurt the West and its allies, Wise wrote, particularly because the US had imposed punitive sanctions on Russia the day before MH370 disappeared.

And.......
Let's remember that at this same time Putin was annexing The Crimea.
A beautiful "Wag the dog" scenario.

Ukraine Crisis Timeline - BBC

February 2014
27-28 February: Pro-Russian gunmen seize key buildings in the Crimean capital, Simferopol. Unidentified gunmen in combat uniforms appear outside Crimea's main airports.
1 March: Russia's parliament approves President Vladimir Putin's request to use force in Ukraine to protect Russian interests.

 A week later MH370 disappears.

Ya ya.... I know.... kind of a crazy theory, but for me? I would be watching Putin and Russia Very closely.

Russia threatens to aim nuclear missiles at Denmark ships if it joins NATO shield

In an interview in the newspaper Jyllands-Posten, the Russian ambassador to Denmark, Mikhail Vanin, said he did not think Danes fully understood the consequences of joining the program.

"If that happens, Danish warships will be targets for Russian nuclear missiles," Vanin told the newspaper.

IRS watchdog reveals Lois Lerner missing emails now subject of criminal investigation - Washington Times

IRS watchdog reveals Lois Lerner missing emails now subject of criminal investigation - Washington Times

The Tide of War Against Extreme Islam Turns as Extremists go on the Offensive in Paris.

Je suis un Charlie

It didn't take long, and we are not allowed to act surprised. In fact it was predicted. It just is rather stunning to see how quickly it happened, but the old adage about "we can fight them there, or we'll have to fight them here" is quickly becoming true.

Barely two weeks after NATO ceremoniously surrendered Afghanistan to an uncertain fate, Jihadis successfully attacked a target they had previously and publicly threatened with revenge for publishing cartoons they deemed offensive to their Mohamed. A publication called "Charlie Hebdo".

Whether the timing is intentional or coincidental, the message or at least the optics are clear. Jihad has been victorious at home, and now they are on the march.

This attack was not a 'lone wolf' attack. It can't be chalked up to a lone unstable religious nut who used Jihad as an excuse to act crazy and violently. On the contrary, this attack appears to have been by well trained and possibly veteran Jihadi soldiers.

Gunmen in Charlie Hebdo Attack in Paris Likely 'Well Trained,' Experts Say

“They carried out the operation in a very calm, controlled way,” said Richard Clarke, former White House counter-terrorism advisor and current ABC News consultant. “They appear to have fire discipline, not spraying bullets everywhere. They were people who did not look like they were wild, on some kind of spree, but who were accomplishing a military operation.” 

When will the president learn that just because he doesn't want to fight the Jihadis, the Jihadis do in fact want to fight him, and the western culture.

If this was in fact an attack by citizens of Europe or the United States or Canada, who were trained on the battlefield by, oh, say, ISIS and have now returned to execute terror attacks, then there is nothing preventing them from getting on an airplane to the United States to come here and do the samething.

Good thing our cowardly mealy mouthed media outlets have chosen to censor themselves by not showing the graphic cartoons that upset the Jihadis so much. How courageous.

NYPD: Sympathy for the Bedevilled.

When every cop is a criminal
and all the sinners saints
When heads is tales just call me.......

- Jagger/Richards

So for those keeping score at home, Al Sharpton's incitement to riot campaign has netted 2 dead NYPD patrolmen.  Rev. Al, world famous racial arsonist, has been ginning up the black voter base with accusations of racist police running amok, when race had nothing to do with the deaths of two black men at the hands of the police.

Remember when the Tea Party was the scary violent political group?

I do. It all started when lefty loon Jared Loughner tried to assassinate Rep. Gabriel Giffords, and killed six other people (Jared Loughner is a Lefty Loon).The media and the left tried blaming the whole thing on Sarah Palin and her violent rhetoric. She was using words like 'target', and using cross hairs on a map to identify political races to focus on. And it was that type of imagery that was the dog whistle that drove Jared Laughner to commit his heinous act. All bull crap!

But fast forward to today, and we have angry demonstrators who only come out at night and chant things like

What do we want?
DEAD COPS!
When do we want them?
NOW!

That's not scary, now is it?

So when the violent rhetoric in the Al Sharpton "Police are racist" movement actually resulted in two deaths the media immediately identified the danger of rhetorical violence in protests and protesters. What? Oh? No. They did not. In fact, the story has very quickly moved to how it MUST be something else, and not directly attributable to chants wishing for dead cops.

New York Officers’ Killer, Adrift and Ill, Had a Plan- NYT

What exactly pushed Mr. Brinsley to fatally shoot two police officers before shooting himself is not clear.

Are you kidding me?!?!?!?!?!

Mr. Brinsley had also suffered from mental problems. Relatives told the police he had taken medication at one point, and when he was asked during an August 2011 court hearing if he had ever been a patient in a mental institution or under the care of a psychiatrist or psychologist, he said yes. He had also tried to hang himself a year ago, the police said.

So you are getting the drift, right?

When a democratic Representative of Congress is violently attacked  it is OK to blame her political opponents and paint them all as violent and dangerous even though there is no connection whatsoever. But when a black man kills two cops and directly attributes his actions to the AL Sharpton  movement, we can't paint all those people who are actually chanting for dead cops as violent.

riiiiiiiight!

To this day the presumption of a violent tea party exists among the left, and the "I get my news from Jon Stewart" crowd. In fact there is an active facebook page addressing the problem.

People Against Tea Party Threats and Violence

Although you won't find any threats or violence attributed to the Tea Party. Just general GOP bashing, and name calling.

A post for another day should probably analyze the Al Sharpton Lone Wolf propensity for violence versus an ISIS Lone Wolf.

Imperial President Obama Grants Amnesty by Diktat.

Tonight the Dictator-in-Chief declared that he will sign an executive order to grant amnesty to 5 million illegal immigrants.

In his speech tonight he went out of his way to say that his actions were NOT amnesty. If you believe that then you probably believed that 'if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor'.

This Obama drama isn't just a tantrum about the recent elections, it's also a cynical political play. The president has had six years to pretend to care about this issue. He didn't pull the pin on this grenade in 2012 because he wanted to get re-elected. He didn't pull the pin on this grenade in 2014 because the democrats trying to get re-elected would have stabbed Caesar on the steps of the White House. This is the same 'shove it down your throat' tactic he had to use when Massachusetts sent Senator Scott Brown to Washington in order to stop Obamacare. Once again the electorate has sent a message to the dictator, this time in overwhelming numbers, and he does not care. He knows better. Apparently elections only have consequences if you agree with him.

Obama: 'I hear you' - CNN

"To those of you who voted, I hear you," Obama said in his first public remarks since the election. To those who didn't vote, "I hear you too."

Elections don't count. He knows better.

It's also cynical because it is a naked attempt to to incite the Republicans into a rabid rage. Which is strategically smart. That could just work. It would not be the first time he tricked Republicans into taking action that is just not well received by the electorate at large. When Republicans threatened to shut down the government, and then did (to no consequence at all), unless he gave waivers for Obamacare penalties to individuals and small businesses, like he had done for friendly unions and large corporations, he called their bluff. Scored his political points, and then cynically granted the waiver by executive order, out of the sight of the complacent main stream media. The government only shut down because that is what he wanted, for political reasons.

And finally, it's mostly cynical because he has introduced 5 million undocumented democratic voters into the electorate well in time for the 2016 elections. That's the real play here. Get a green card, you get a drivers license. Get a drivers license, you get to vote.

Zeig Heil!

I won't even go into all the video where Obama is telling the Latino voters in 2012 that he didn't have the authority to just grant amnesty by executive order, because he didn't have the legal authority. We have all seen it, and we know his declarations tonight have no legal standing, just as he understands. But who cares!

Maybe Jon Gruber was right?

Jon Stewart takes on Jon Gruber, calls Democrats ‘slimy’

Mr. Gruber, an MIT economist who was paid almost $400,000 to help shape Obamacare, said during an October 2013 appearance at the University of Pennsylvania that the “lack of transparency” and “stupidity of the American voter” were politically advantageous in getting the law passed.

He who does not learn from history is condemned to repeat it.

Bound for the Door

Just another song parody.

Basically the Dems don't get the message that the electorate has sent them. They didn't get it in 2010, and they really don't get it now.

Didn't somebody once say that elections have consequences? huh..........

Sung to the tune "Bound for the Floor" by the band 'Local H'