Tuesday, June 18, 2013

MADD Silent on Amnesty Law That Rewards Drunk Drivers

Judicial Watch ^ | June 18, 2013 | Judicial Watch

As preposterous as it may seem, illegal immigrants with drunk-driving, domestic violence, aggravated assault and child abuse convictions will qualify for amnesty under the immigration bill pending in the U.S. Senate unless an amendment introduced by a Texas lawmaker is adopted.
Incredibly, groups that would normally be vocal on these sorts of issues have remained silent. For instance, the nation’s largest organization working to stop drunk driving and support victims of the violent crime—Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)—refuses to criticize the proposed law even though it will essentially reward those convicted of driving dunk. Through a spokeswoman, MADD said it “doesn’t get involved in immigration matters.”
Under the current legislation, crafted by the bipartisan Gang of Eight in the senate, illegal aliens convicted of the crimes mentioned above are eligible for probationary legal status, officially known as Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI). This means they can qualify for a Social Security number and state driver’s license as they embark on a 10-year path to permanent residency. Three years later, candidates become eligible for American citizenship.
(Excerpt) Read more at judicialwatch.org ...

IRS Tea Party Targeting Was Directed From D.C.

Investor's Business Daily ^ | June 18, 2013 | IBD EDITORIALS

Scandal: A D.C.-based supervisor in the IRS's tax-exempt status division has indicated during interviews with congressional investigators that the targeting was deliberate and not run by rogue agents in Cincinnati.
Holly Paz, who until recently was a top deputy in the IRS division that handles applications for tax-exempt status, told congressional investigators she was personally involved in reviewing Tea Party applications for tax-exempt status as far back as 2010, reviewing as many as 30.
The involvement of Paz thickens the plot considerably and shatters the theory that two rogue agents in Cincinnati got bored in their cubicles one day and decided to target for special scrutiny Tea Party and other conservative groups.
Paz's supervisor was Lois Lerner, who headed the tax-exempt division. It was on May 22, the day after Paz was interviewed by investigators, that Lerner refused to answer questions from lawmakers at a congressional hearing, citing her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself.
Was Lerner worried about what Paz had told investigators and that her testimony would contradict Paz's?
The full transcript of Paz's interview has not been released. Democrats say that's because the full transcript would reveal no vast left-wing conspiracy, with Elijah Cummings, ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, proclaiming the investigation over.
But Chairman Darrell Issa says it's only just begun, with enough of the interview being released to demolish the big lie about Cincinnati without tipping off those being investigated.
By the fall of 2010, Carter Hull, an IRS legal expert also based in Washington, was working on about 40 Tea Party applications, Paz said. She added that for several months that year, Hull worked closely with Elizabeth Hofacre, one of the "rogue" agents in Cincinnati, to review the Tea Party cases.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...

Senate rejects border fence!

The Washington Times ^ | June 18, 2013 | Stephen Dinan

Minutes after the border fence, senators also voted to weaken current law that requires the government to have biometric checks such as fingerprints or eye-scans for every visitor to the U.S. — a recommendation of the 9/11 commission that looked into the terrorist attacks on Washington and New York.

Senators on Tuesday rejected building the 700 miles of double-tier border fencing Congress authorized just seven years ago, with a majority of the Senate saying they didn’t want to delay granting illegal immigrants legal status while the fence was being built.

The 54-39 vote to reject the fence shows the core of the immigration deal is holding. The vote broke mostly along party lines, though five Republicans, including Sen. Marco Rubio and the rest of the bill’s authors, voted against the fence, and two Democrats voted for it.

(Excerpt) Read more at p.washingtontimes.com ...

DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THE SCANDAL?


Bob: "Did you hear about the Obama administration scandal?"
Jim: "You mean the Mexican gun running?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean SEAL Team 6 Extortion 17?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean the State Dept. lying about Benghazi?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean the voter fraud?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean the military not getting their votes counted?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean that 3 or 4 of Obama's GAY boyfriends were mysteriously MURDERED when they came forward with claims he was gay too?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean the president demoralizing and breaking down the military?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean the Boston Bombing?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The NSA monitoring our phone calls, emails & everything else?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean the president wanting to kill Americans with drones in our own country without the benefit of the law?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "Giving 123 Technologies $300 Million and right after it declared bankruptcy it was sold to the Chinese?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean the president arming the Muslim Brotherhood?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The IRS targeting conservatives?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The DOJ spying on the press?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "Sebelius shaking down health insurance executives?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "Giving SOLYNDRA $500 MILLION DOLLARS and right after they declared bankruptcy 3 months later the Chinese bought it?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The NSA monitoring our phone calls, emails and everything else?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The president's ordering the release of nearly 10,000 illegal immigrants from jails and prisons and falsely blaming the sequester?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The president's threat to impose gun control by Executive Order in order to bypass Congress?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The president's repeated violation of the law requiring him to submit a budget no later than the first Monday in February?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The 2012 vote where 115% of all registered voters in some counties voted 100% for Obama?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The president's unconstitutional recess appointments in an attempt to circumvent the Senate's advise-and-consent role?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The State Department interfering with an Inspector General investigation on departmental sexual misconduct?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "HHS employees being given insider information on Medicare Advantage?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: Clinton, the IRS, Clapper and Holder all lying to Congress?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "I give up. Oh wait, I think I got it! You mean the 65 million brain-dead voters who stuck us again with the most corrupt administration in American history?"
Bob: "THAT'S THE ONE!"

The Economic Illiteracy – or Lies- of the Huffington Post


Townhall.com ^ | June 18, 2013 | John Ransom 
Posted on 6/18/2013 6:49:55 AM by Kaslin

You’d think when the Huffington Post’s top writer on finance writes about the tax code, he’d understand at least how the tax code works. But in an age when “finance” editors, like the HuffPo’s Mark Gongloff, are demonstrably anti-business, pro-Occupy and work as shills for progressive ideas, facts take a back seat to ideology, outrage and agendas.

The latest outrage Gongloff has taken issue with is how little of the U.S. tax revenue, on a percentage basis, is generated by corporate taxes, as opposed to the good old days of the 1950s.

He even has a chart to prove it




“What this shows,” writes Gongloff, “is how dramatically corporate tax contributions have shrunk in the past several decades, and how our personal taxes have risen to fill the gap. Payroll taxes now make up 35 percent of all federal government tax receipts, up from 11 percent in 1950. Corporate income taxes, meanwhile, now make up less than 10 percent of federal revenue, down from about 26 percent in 1950.”

The chart actually shows none of that.

While technically it’s true that corporate taxes as a percentage basis have gone down, individual taxes aren’t going up in order to fund tax cuts for corporations. Corporations are generating more tax revenues then they did in the good old days, in fact.

Payroll taxes are going up because programs like Social Security and Medicaid-Medicare-which are funded by payroll taxes- are growing faster than any other area of the government budget.

In other words, the “garbage in” in the guise of payroll taxes is growing because social insurance programs, like Social Security, are sending the “garbage out” in the form of higher expenses for an aging population.

And as even Gongloff acknowledges in a later update to his story, “[the] chart of course does not reflect the fact that employers typically cover half of the payroll taxes collected by the government. Assuming companies pay half of the payroll taxes in this chart, the total tax burden for individual Americans is reduced to about 63 percent of total federal revenue, instead of 81 percent, as I estimated in an earlier version of this story. But that is up from about 45 percent in 1950.”

Gongloff doesn’t understand how payroll taxes work apparently- or as liberals would say, he doesn’t care.

Payroll taxes are part of employee benefits. The taxes are insurance payments that go to Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security. So, he’s wrong in a couple of areas.

First, to the extent that payroll taxes are an ordinary part of labor costs, workers pay the entire cost of these taxes. And they should, since the taxes pay for benefits that go directly to those workers, generally speaking.  But for every dollar in benefits it’s fewer dollars that can go to hire new workers.

But he’s also wrong about corporate taxes in general.

Corporate taxes in real dollars, regardless of the tax rate today, dwarf corporate tax collections from 1950.

In 1950, corporate taxes generated about $10.5 billion, according to the Tax Policy Center- the equivalent, when adjusted for inflation, of about $101 billion today.  In 2012 corporate taxes were $287 billion- or 184 percent higher than in 1950 with inflation adjustments- down from a record $370 billion set in 2007 under George W. Bush- or 266 percent higher than 1950.

And this is why conservatives have the superior argument when it comes to tax policy: Unlike Obama and his progressive “fairness” doctrine, most Americans think that tax policy should generate the most revenue with the lowest tax rates. Common sense dictates that one should get the most benefit for the least cost.

Just think how much money the government could generate if corporate taxes were set lower and were paid by companies rather than set high, as they are now, and avoided by companies.

After all, companies have a choice still of domiciling in another, “fairer” tax jurisdiction- and they always will have that choice.

Maybe, like most liberals, Gongloff doesn’t know any better:

“And Rand Paul is kind of right, you guys, as is Tim Cook [of Apple],” he concludes. “We should not be so mad at Apple for doing what the law allows. We should be mad that the law allows Apple and other companies to keep billions of dollars of cash offshore and out of the government coffers, where it could be helping the unemployed and our crumbling infrastructure and such.”

Hahahaha.

I like especially his policy argument expressed as “and such.”

Once we solve that “and such” part, the big money will really come rolling in.

But really: Who will do a better job creating jobs, returns for investors, products and services that people like?

Apple Computers or the federal government?

I know the answer and so do you.

I suspect that Gongloff knows better too.

But like most liberals don’t, I suspect, he just doesn’t care.

4 Types of IRS Audits: What to Know and How to Prepare for Each One

Fox News ^ | 06/17/2013 | by Donna Fuscaldo

Being the subject of an IRS audit is enough to make anyone sweat, but knowing your rights and the type of audit your facing can help make the process a little less stressful and drawn out.
“There’s a lot of fear when you find out you’re getting audited,” says Mary Kay Foss, a certified public accountant. She suggests contacting a professional immediately after receiving the audit notice. “If you ignore it, it’s not going to go away.”
There are four types of IRS audits and you will prepare differently for each one:
1) Correspondence Audit: This is the least severe type of audit, according to Rocket Lawyer On Call attorney Mark Rosenberg and involves the IRS sending a letter in the mail requesting more information about part of a tax return.
For instance, the agency may have questions regarding charitable deductions and request you send in receipts to substantiate your deduction. “It’s the lowest level of the audits,” says Rosenberg. “If you have the receipts or information it’s generally not an issue.”
If your tax return is legitimate and you have the data to back up any claims on your return, tax professionals say you can normally handle the situation on your own. If you don’t have the receipts or information, then you may want a professional dealing with the IRS because you could face fines, penalties and interest if you end up owing money.
“If it’s small and not that much income, the audit is often done through the mail,” says Bill Smith, managing director of accounting firm CBIZ MHM.
2) Office Audit: If the IRS has more questions about your return, then you’ll get a letter in the mail inviting you into an IRS office for the audit.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxbusiness.com ...

Who Is Being Dishonorable? Dishonest?

Townhall.com ^ | June 18, 2013 | David Limbaugh


Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson attacked Sen. Rand Paul, my brother, Rush, and my good friend Mark Levin in a recent column for their various comments concerning the National Security Agency's surveillance data collection operation and other administration activities.
I find it noteworthy that Gerson -- who holds himself out as measured and reasonable, as one who abhors sloppy thinking and expression, and as one who decries the politics of personal destruction -- has gone out of his way to personally attack Limbaugh and Levin. He challenged their conservatism, patriotism, integrity and honor instead of simply registering his disagreement with their opinions. To make his case, he conflated and distorted their statements.
Gerson "stipulate(s)" that "IRS targeting of tea party groups is deeply disturbing" and that "Eric Holder's Justice Department is politicized, swaggering and incompetent." But, he says, "asserting that U.S. intelligence agencies are part of a conspiracy that somehow includes a national gun registry, drone surveillance and Lois Lerner crosses a line."
Did Limbaugh or Levin say anything about a conspiracy? I don't purport to speak for either of them, but I believe it's more accurate to say their position is that Obama has created a climate conducive to government abuses, which is manifesting itself in scandalous behavior throughout the administration. Who is crossing a line here?
Gerson challenges Limbaugh's and Levin's conservatism because "traditional conservatism recognizes the balancing of principles -- in this case, security and privacy -- rather than elevating a single idea into an absolute."
Gerson has erected a particularly flimsy and dishonest straw man here. You will not find a scintilla of evidence that either Limbaugh or Levin is an absolutist in the context of the liberty/security argument or elsewhere. They have never contended anything other than that a responsible balance must be achieved between our liberties and our national security interests. That they may draw the line at a different place than Gerson does or call into question the potential for governmental abuses of power in the name of security does not make them absolutists.
Limbaugh and Levin have not opposed the NSA surveillance program per se, but they have expressed strong skepticism that in passing the Patriot Act and other enabling legislation, Congress contemplated the types and breadth of surveillance and potential sweeping encroachments on privacy that some have suggested are occurring under this administration.
Gerson writes: "It is one thing to oppose the policies of the administration; it is another to call for resistance against a 'regime' and a 'police state.' It is the difference between skepticism about government and hatred for government. And it raises the question: How is it even possible to love such an Amerika?"
To refer to the Obama administration as a "regime," insists Gerson, "distorts the United States into something unrecognizable in order to advance a partisan ideology. ... Americans have fought and died for this country, and to turn on it in this way is noxious. It is dishonest. And it is dishonorable."
This is disgracefully sloppy polemic. Limbaugh has referred to the Obama administration as a "regime," and he obviously advocates strong opposition to its agenda and to its multitudinous abuses of power. Does this mean he crossed the line into hatred for government? Surely, Gerson isn't denying that Obama has demonstrated a propensity for acting outside his constitutional and statutory authority.
What is Gerson implying when he says Limbaugh and Levin are calling for resistance, when he must know that they have advocated nothing other than lawful opposition to Obama's policies? They haven't even flirted with calls for civil disobedience, much less revolution. So shame on Gerson for implying otherwise -- if that is what he is doing.
Gerson has correctly diagnosed the problem but has incorrectly identified its creator. It is President Obama, not Limbaugh and Levin, who is "distorting the United States into something unrecognizable." Limbaugh and Levin are the ones who have dedicated their lives to prevent him from succeeding.
Even apart from his many scandals, Obama has demonstrated contempt for the separation of powers, the Constitution and the rule of law. He has proved he has an almost unlimited appetite for government expansion and a reckless disregard for our national debt.
Why shouldn't all authentic conservatives and other patriots vigorously oppose Obama and call him out for his excesses?
To criticize abuses of power by government officials is not to express "hatred for government." To criticize an executive branch that will not operate within its prescribed constitutional parameters is not to express hatred for government or for America.
It is precisely their love for America that compels them (and us) to criticize President Obama's deliberate, pre-announced plan to "fundamentally transform America" into something it was never intended to be.
Perhaps Gerson should explain to us how it is possible to love America and want to fundamentally transform it into something the Framers wouldn't recognize.
Neither Limbaugh nor Levin is distorting the current state of affairs to advance a partisan ideology. But just maybe, Gerson is distorting and conflating their statements and the current state of affairs because he defensively assumes, wrongly, that they are criticizing the NSA surveillance program as implemented by President Bush, whom Gerson served, and because he is trying mightily to ingratiate himself to the liberal elites by attacking a couple of their favorite whipping boys.
Are your arguments honorable, Mr. Gerson? Are they honest?

“Because Hope is Contagious.”

Michelle Obama's Mirror ^ | 6-18-2013 | MOTUS


Obama_Poster_Hopey_Dwarf



“You’re their proof of what is possible — because hope is contagious.

Boy, tell me about it. Do you know what else is contagious? Bubonic plague, cholera, leprosy, small pox…as a rule, it’s best to stay away from contagious things. It’s unclear at this point if Bitchy Resting Face is classified as a contagious disease.

Screenshot Studio capture _1172[3]

Anyway, Big Guy and TOTUS gave one of their signature, rousing reads in Belfast before moving on to the G8 meeting where he continued his charm offensive, which may be losing its edge a bit:

POTUS-Putin-550x355“I said you could keep the damn ring.”

Meanwhile, Lady M gave an important speech of her own, butt due to the superficiality of the British press, all they talked about was how distracting her “fringe” was:

mo's fringe

Admittedly, it does seem to be making her a little cross-eyed, butt still, that’s no reason to  bring attention to Lady M’s struggle with BRFthe way they did in the article:

(SNIP)

Anyway, Lady M and the Wee Wons spent the day being charmed by their Irish roots,

article-2343015-1A5EA6D9000005DC-937_634x378

before heading out for a special evening performance of Riverdance – a spectacular display of disembodied feet, which always creeps me out just a little:



For the occasion Lady M chose a stunning outfit in basic black, creatively accessorized by a pink and orange table napkin:

170752189Néal, aon?

...Read The Rest Here>>>


We know who the admitted foreign born twice unconstitutionally elected communist Kenyan really charms...

'NSA should come clean about domestic spying': Ray Kelly

New York Post ^ | June 17, 2013 | By JENNIFER BAIN

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly launched a stinging rebuke to the federal government’s secret phone and Internet monitoring campaign — and suggested leaker Edward Snowden was right about privacy “abuse.”

“I don’t think it ever should have been made secret,” Kelly said today, breaking ranks with US law-enforcement officials.

His blast came days after the Obama administration and Attorney General Eric Holder outraged New York officials by endorsing a federal monitor for the NYPD.
Kelly appeared to firmly reject Holder’s claim that disclosure of the monitoring campaign seriously damaged efforts to fight terrorism.
“I think the American public can accept the fact if you tell them that every time you pick up the phone it’s going to be recorded and it goes to the government,” Kelly said. “I think the public can understand that. I see no reason why that program was placed in the secret category.”
“Secondly, I think if you listen to Snowden, he indicates that there’s some sort of malfeasance, people . . . sitting around and watching the data. So I think the question is: What sort of oversight is there inside the [National Security Agency] NSA to prevent that abuse, if it’s taking place?”
Kelly has been on the receiving side of this kind of criticism.
The NYPD secretly spied on Muslim organizations, infiltrated Muslim student group and videotaped mosque-goers in New Jersey for years, it was revealed in 2012. The NYPD said its actions were lawful and necessary to keep the city safe.
After the vast federal phone-Internet monitoring program was revealed, President Obama said he had struck the right balance between ensuring security and protecting privacy.
But yesterday, Kelly indicated Obama was wrong. . .

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


As the North Rests on Its Laurels, South Is Rising Fast: Have America’s fastest-growing economies!

The Daily Beast ^ | June 17, 2013 | Joel Kotkin

One hundred and fifty years after twin defeats at Gettysburg and Vicksburg destroyed the South’s quest for independence, the region is again on the rise. People and jobs are flowing there, and Northerners are perplexed by the resurgence of America’s home of the ignorant, the obese, the prejudiced and exploited, the religious and the undereducated. Responding to new census data showing the Lone Star State is now home to eight of America’s 15 fastest-growing cities, Gawker asked: “What is it that makes Texas so attractive? Is it the prisons? The racism? The deadly weather? The deadly animals? The deadly crime? The deadly political leadership? The costumed sex fetish conventions? The cannibal necromancers?”
The North and South have come to resemble a couple who, although married, dream very different dreams. The South, along with the Plains, is focused on growing its economy, getting rich, and catching up with the North’s cultural and financial hegemons. The Yankee nation, by contrast, is largely concerned with preserving its privileged economic and cultural position—with its elites pulling up the ladder behind themselves.
This schism between the old Confederacy and the Northeastern elites is far more relevant and historically grounded than the glib idea of “red” and “blue” Americas. The base of today’s Republican Party—once the party of the North—now lies in the former secessionist states, along with adjacent and culturally allied areas, such as Appalachia, the southern Great Plains, and parts of the Southwest, notably Arizona, largely settled by former Southerners.
“In almost every species of conceivable statistics having to do with wealth,” John Gunther wrote in 1946, “the South is at the bottom.”(continued)

(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...



The South is pro-God, pro-gun, pro-life and pro-military. Most of us here in that beautiful part of the country don't care much for union thugs, the minimum wage, atheists, sodomites, feminists, tree huggers, liberals and, most of all, Obama.

2012 - Syrian Rebels: When We Finish With Assad, We Will Fight the U.S.! (send more weapons!)

McClatchy Newspapers ^ | December 2, 2012 | David Enders

Al Qaida-linked group Syria rebels once denied now key to anti-Assad victories

Nearly a year later, however, Jabhat al Nusra, which U.S. officials believe has links to al Qaida, has become essential to the frontline operations of the rebels fighting to topple Assad.

“When we finish with Assad, we will fight the U.S.!” one Nusra fighter shouted in the northeastern Syrian city of Ras al Ayn when he was told an American journalist present. He laughed as he said it and then got into a van and drove off, leaving the journalist unable to ask whether it had been a joke.
(Excerpt) Read more at mcclatchydc.com ...

India to send world's last telegram. Stop

Christian Science Monitor ^ | June 14, 2013 | Shivam Vij

Once a staple of authoritative communication across the Indian subcontinent, the telegram has lost too much ground to smartphones. One devotee is threatening a Gandhi-style fast.

At the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), India's state-owned telecom company, a message emerges from a dot matrix printer addressing a soldier's Army unit in Delhi. "GRANDMOTHER SERIOUS. 15 DAYS LEAVE EXTENSION," it reads. It's one of about 5,000 such missives still being sent every day by telegram – a format favored for its "sense of urgency and authenticity," explains a BSNL official.

But the days of such communication are numbered: The world's last telegram message will be sent somewhere in India on July 14.

That missive will come 144 years after Samuel Morse sent the first telegram in Washington, and seven years after Western Union shuttered its services in the United States. In India, telegraph services were introduced by William O'Shaughnessy, a British doctor and inventor who used a different code for the first time in 1850 to send a message.
The BSNL board, after dilly-dallying for two years, decided to shut down the service as it was no longer commercially viable.

"We were incurring losses of over $23 million a year because SMS and smartphones have rendered this service redundant," Shamim Akhtar, general manager of BSNL's telegraph services, told the Monitor.

(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...

Left Loses Big in Citizenship-Verification Supreme Court Case!

PJ Media ^ | June 17, 2013 | J. Christian Adams

Something perverse happened after the Supreme Court’s decision today invalidating citizenship-verification requirements in Arizona for registrants who use the federal voter registration form. The Left knows they lost most of the battle, but are still claiming victory. That’s what they do. Election-integrity proponents and the states are saying they lost, but don’t realize they really won.
The Left wins even when they lose, and conservatives are often bewildered and outfoxed in the election-process game.
Earlier today, I called the decision a nothingburger. After re-reading the case and reflecting a bit more, it’s clear that the decision was a disaster for the Left and their victory cackles are hollow — and they know it.
Worse, conservatives dooms-dayers who have never litigated a single National Voter Registration Act case have taken to the airwaves, describing the case as a disaster which invites illegal-alien voting.
In the last year, I’ve litigated five NVRA cases and worked on the preemption issues for years, and there is more to cheer in today’s opinion than there is to bemoan. Those complaining about the opinion don’t understand what the Left’s goal was in this case: total federal preemption. On that score, Justice Scalia foiled them; indeed, the decision today was a huge war won, even if the small Arizona battle was lost.
From my time in the Justice Department Voting Section, I can remember intimately the wars over some of the preemption issues decided today.
The Left essentially believes that anyone who fills out a federal Election Assistance Commission registration form should be allowed on the rolls, no questions asked. There were complex fights over the “citizen check-off box” issues, with the Left wanting the box rendered meaningless, and conservatives and election-integrity proponents believing a registration cannot be processed until a registrant affirms on the box that he or she is a citizen.
Before the decision today, here is what the Left wanted:
● Invalidation of Arizona’s requirement that those submitting a federal form provide proof of citizenship with their federal form. Mind you, the citizenship-proof requirement is NOT part of federal law and the Election Assistance Commission does NOT require it in the form they drafted.
● Invalidation of state citizenship-verification requirements when a state voter registration form is used (yes, such forms exist separate from the federal requirement) on the basis of federal preemption. They wanted the Arizona case to invalidate all state citizenship-verification requirements.
● Automatic registration if a registrant submits a completed federal EAC approved registration form, no questions asked.
● Federal preemption on the ability for states to have customized federal EAC-approved forms that differed from the default EAC form.
● Federal preemption over states, like Florida and Kansas, looking for independent information on citizenship to root out noncitizens from the voter rolls. Again, the Left wanted the federal EAC form to be the no-questions-asked ticket to the voter rolls.
So what is the score on these five goals after Justice Scalia’s opinion today? Election-integrity advocates are batting .800; left wing groups, .200. And the most insignificant issue of the five is the one issue the Left won. Justice Scalia foiled 4 of 5 of their goals, and the 4 biggest ones.
How does it work? The decision today uncorks state power. The Left wanted state power stripped and they lost.
First, Arizona can simply push the state forms in all state offices and online, and keep those federal forms in the back room gathering dust. When you submit a state form, you have to prove citizenship. Thanks to Justice Scalia, that option is perfectly acceptable. Loss for the Left. Victory for election integrity.
You might say, “That’s a small victory.” Nonsense. This was the whole ballgame to the groups pushing the Arizona lawsuit. They lost, period.
Next, when voters use a state, as opposed to a federal, form, they can still be required to prove citizenship. The federal form is irrelevant in that circumstance.
After the decision today, states have a green light to do double- and triple-checking even if a registrant uses the federal form. The Left wanted the submission of a federal form to mean automatic no-questions-asked registration. This is a big loss for the Left because now states can put suspect forms in limbo while they run checks against non-citizen databases and jury-response forms. Another significant victory in today’s decision. The Left wanted to strip them of that double-checking power.
The decision today is a great example of how conservatives can be distracted by squirrels running past. It is understandable and forgivable because they aren’t daily immersed in the long-term election-process agenda of the left-wing groups. Nor do they daily involve themselves with the details of election process. But having been in the “preemption wars” for nearly a decade, I can assure you this case is a big win, even if it doesn’t appear so at first glance.

NSA Lying to you about the nature of their searches.

 by Vendome


So I'm watching the news today and start seeing our illustrious Bureaucrats Out Right Lying about what they collect and what they don't.
 
They tell us today they don't collect locations of cell phone trawled for in pursuit of a target named in a warrant.
 
I want you to understand when they issue a warrant, many times, with "Reasonable Cause" They are violating the Constitution by:

1.  Using "Reasonable Cause" as the basis for a warrant.  The Constitution requires no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.
 
2.  supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
 
As to point 2. above wrap your head around "Whole Pipe" Access.  Here they have granted themselves direct access to the Whole Pipe of transmission of information, be that voice or data and includes every last relevant part of a transmission, including location of cell phone at any time during transmission of wink/wink, keep alive, GPS, txt, email, incoming and outgoing calls.
 
Whole pipe access trawls every device transitting during the time the NSA, DOJ, DEA and FBI is gathering information on a target.  There is a technical reason for why they do this but, I still believe it is against the law for them to gather information, especially as a matter of habit, course and intent, of innoccent people, organizations, enterprises and groups, who have not been named in the warrant haven't even a tangential relationship to the target named in the warrant.
 
Service providers are required by to provide all information transmitted by a cell phone, VoIP, PSTN, FAX, VPN, etc inclding CLLI and any and all information that would identify where a transmission geographically begins and ends, as well where the device is when idle.
 
Now, I purposely misspelled   searcches in the title of the thread.  Why?  Because frequently the information they are targeting is just that much incorrect.  Think about that and what I wrote as you delve into my article explaning the history, laws passed, and technical means.
 
You'll agree with me, that the NSA and the other alphabet agencies are flat out lying when they claim they don't don't do this or that.  They do because of the technical means they use to achieve their aims and also because they have less reason to not keep all that is caught in the trawling of a Whole Pipe, during their unConstitutional search and they, having no client to defend will, have, do and will continue to archive any all information they obtain unlawfully.

Will Marco Rubio Be Hoisted On His Own Petard?

RightWingNews ^ | June 17, 2013 | Derek Hunter

Remember all the build-up around the Facebook IPO? Investors wondered when it would happen and how they could get in on it. People were scrambling to be part of the action. Then, it happened, and it flopped. Marco Rubio is fast turning into the Facebook IPO of the United States Senate. There was hype, there was hope, there was sizzle…but there’s been no steak.
In his first year in the Senate, Marco Rubio did … what exactly? He was sworn in on Jan. 3, 2011, and didn’t even deliver his first Senate floor speech until June 14. Conversely, Rand Paul and Mike Lee joined the Senate on the same day, hit the ground running and haven’t stopped running since.
Not everyone has to be Paul or Lee, and we can argue their success (but not their impact). But as a senator, Marco Rubio hasn’t lived up to half the hype. The proclaimed “savior of the conservative movement” is in the midst of selling it out for a handful of empty promises and feel-good platitudes.
The face for the “Gang of 8” senators on “comprehensive immigration reform” has done more spinning than a top lately and seems dangerously unfamiliar with the legislation. He has said areas of the bill, written by Democrats led by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., needs improvement, but almost nothing he’s said about it is accurate....
(Excerpt) Read more at rightwingnews.com ...

Sarah Palin sees the Middle East from her home!

American Thinker ^ | June 17, 2013 | Ethel C. Fenig

Sarah Palin, attractive and sharp as ever, can not only see into the future she can see Syria, indeed the entire Middle East, from her house. Or a conference in the USA. The woman who was laughed at for predicting death panels would accompany the Obamacare Unaffordable Health Care Act (they're not laughing now)
"And our government passing something called, Obamacare - The Affordable Care Act. I'll repeat that, the Affordable Care Act. And, it's chief result, making our healthcare premiums enormously unsustainably more expensive with death panels to boot."
She also offered her astute foreign policy advice at the Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference.
"Military, where is our commander in chief? We're talking now more new interventions?"
Adding her two-cents, Palin said that "until we know what we're doing, until we have a commander in chief who knows what he's doing, well, let these radical Islamic countries who aren't even respecting basic human rights, where both sides are slaughtering each other as they scream over an arbitrary red line, 'Allah Akbar,' I say until we have someone who knows what they're doing, I say let Allah sort it out."
Yep. After all, Benghazi and indeed the whole Libya intervention worked out so poorly--no hope but big negative change there--let Allah's believers sort out their own problems without American blood. Or money. Or weapons.
And so, I actually kinda, sorta agree with Chelsea Clinton, daughter of you know who, who expressed this sexist thought" "Former first daughter Chelsea Clinton says it's time for a woman in the Oval Office
Except, of course, I think a woman who earned the right through her own hard work, not riding her husband's uhm, coattails, should be in there.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Comparison

Trust us!

e0n8es.png

Congratulations

hallmarxcards4.jpg

Ignoring

188478.jpg

At the IRS meeting

132917_600.jpg

Nobody is listening...

132968_600.jpg

More carpeting

nbbwwm.jpg

Take a look!

133070_600.jpg

No need for money

jj0gf7.jpg

Is it RED?

133050_600.jpg

Your Balls

golfer-in-chief.jpg

Been this way for years!

132908_600.jpg

No Idea!

noelg9.gif

Terrorist on line 2

ev3rep.jpg