82 Year Old Black Grandma Goes Republican and explains why
82 Year Old Black Grandma Goes Republican and explains why
IRS beats tea party in court
The decisions have major implications for tea party groups suing the IRS over the issue. | AP Photo
By RACHAEL BADE | 10/23/14 3:23 PM EDT Updated: 10/23/14 4:17 PM EDT
The IRS notched a major legal victory Thursday after a federal judge dismissed lawsuits brought by more than 40 conservative groups seeking remedies for being singled out in the tea party targeting scandal.
Judge Reggie Walton of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia threw out almost all counts brought against the tax-collecting agency in two cases, ruling that both were essentially moot now that the IRS granted the groups their tax-exempt status that had been held up for years.
The decisions have major implications for tea party groups suing the IRS over the issue. It appears they have a tough case to make because the IRS, since the controversy broke in 2013, has approved most tea party groups’ applications, which, according to Walton, keeps the court from hearing their cases.
“After the plaintiff initiated this case, its application to the IRS for tax-exempt status was approved by the IRS. The allegedly unconstitutional governmental conduct, which delayed the processing of the plaintiff’s tax exempt application and brought about this litigation, is no longer impacting the plaintiff,” Walton said in his decision to throw out True the Vote’s lawsuit against the IRS.
— By this reasoning, murder should never go to trial, because the murder is no longer impacting the victim … ?!?
His reasoning was similar in the second case, where 41 conservative groups banded together to sue the IRS for similar misconduct: “[T]he allegedly unconstitutional governmental conduct … is no longer impacting the plaintiffs. … Counts … are therefore moot.”
The judge, appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, also said the groups couldn’t receive monetary relief from individual IRS officials, such as ex-IRS official Lois Lerner, because of the chilling effect it would have on tax administration.
— Wow. Who cares about the “chilling effect” the IRS has on the citizens? The entire point of the probe is to punish people who ABUSE other citizens by using their position in a role of government!
The same judge in August rejected True the Vote’s bid for a court-appointed forensics expert to hunt Lerner’s lost emails, another blow to conservatives seeking outside experts to take the lead on the IRS investigation. Two years’ worth of the former head of the tax-exempt division’s emails were erased in a hard drive crash in 2011, the IRS says.
Walton did, however, demand the IRS within 14 days answer for two applications that have not yet been approved nor denied: applications for Patriots Educating Concerned Americans Now and Liberty Township Tea Party. But that footnote was the only part of the ruling that favored the conservative groups.
A furor erupted in May 2013, after a treasury inspector general report blasted the IRS for using discriminatory labels to sort through applicants seeking tax-exempt status using terms like “tea party ” and “patriots.”
Soon after a raft of right-leaning organizations that applied for tax exempt status sued the government. Some had had their applications put on hold for years; others were asked what were later ruled inappropriate questions about donors and political views during the application process.
The groups in their suits alleged that the IRS violated their First and Fifth Amendment rights with the inappropriate “be on the lookout” list that used words like tea party to hold up their applications. They sought monetary relief for their trouble as well as injunctive relief barring the IRS from discriminating against conservative groups again.
The agency has since changed its practices, including scrapping the lists.
When the suit was filed, 22 of the groups had already received their tax-exempt status, five had dropped their applications altogether and just over a dozen were still waiting to hear from the IRS.
Since then, the IRS had approved all but two, rendering much of the arguments moot, the judge said.
True the Vote tried to argue that the IRS could at a later time re-employ its old targeting scheme or audit the group unfairly as retribution for its lawsuit, but the judge didn’t buy that argument.
He said, since the defendant is the government, “there is less concern about the recurrence of objectionable behavior.” He also said the future worries about unfair audits were “speculative.”
“[T]he Court is satisfied that there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged conduct will recur, as the defendants have not only suspended the conduct, but have also taken remedial measures to ensure that the conduct is not repeated,” he said, citing IRS documents on the steps they’ve taken to ensure targeting doesn’t happen again.
In another victory for the IRS officials who have been sued as individuals for their actions, Walton said the groups could not receive monetary damages from them, citing a previous case that found allowing such would “make the collection of taxes chaotic if a taxpayer could bypass the remedies provided by Congress simply by bringing a damage action against [IRS] employees.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/irs-tea-party-legal-victory-112145.html#ixzz3H0QzwTfh
An interesting perspective…from a military point of view…and, yes, using 2014 basic pay tables….and, granted, the E-1 and the E-5, both eat for free…although it may well be an MRE…seems to me that if the $15 “living wage” is instituted…then the military base pay table is in need of a drastic up-tic….
$20 Hamburgers or minimum wage?
For those fast food employees striking for $15 an hour, let’s do some math…
At $15 an hour Johnny Fry-Boy would make $31,200 annually.
An E1 (Private) in the military makes $18,378.
An E5 (Sergeant) with 8 years of service only makes $35,067 annually.
So you’re telling me, Sally McBurgerflipper, that you deserve as much as those kids getting shot at, deploying for months in hostile environments, and putting their collective asses on the line every day protecting your unskilled butt!?
Here’s the deal, Baconator, you are working in a job designed for a kid in high school who is learning how to work and earning enough for gas, and hanging out with their equally goofy high school pals.
If you have chosen this as your life long profession, you have failed.
If you don’t want minimum wage . . . don’t have minimum skills.
No need for us to worry about the virus from Africa. He only has two more years in office.
If you haven’t seen Senator Ted Cruz’s uplifting speech from the Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit last Friday, I hope you can watch it today: http://www.cruzcrew.gop/vvs14/
In it, he provided a clear vision for victory. As he stated, reflecting on Psalm 30:5, “Joy cometh in the morning.” My friends, morning is coming.
Cruz’s inspiring speech earned rave reviews from the media, too.
Politico reported, “Sen. Ted Cruz captivates Values Voter Summit.”
U.S. News and World Report’s headline said “At Value Voters Summit, Ted Cruz Hits His Mark.”
The Hill noted Cruz received “a rockstar’s reception from the crowd.”
The Washington Times reported that he “drew a standing ovation from the crowd…even before he spoke” and “brought the crowd to its feet multiple times” throughout.
Breitbart said, “Cruz gave a passionate speech about religious liberty and faith. Invoking personal stories from his own life, the senator highlighted the power of hope in the darkest of times.”
The Daily Beast said “the first-term Texas senator repeatedly brought attendees to their feet as he hit every note perfectly for the crowd” and that “Cruz’s words electrified the room.”
This week, Cruz also sat down with Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol for a discussion about, as Kristol said, what is “Beyond Obama.” After writing that Cruz’s commentary was “sound and intelligent” Kristol wrote:
Today’s conservative task is daunting. But it’s also exciting. The business founder Peter Thiel asks, when was the last time an American politician really envisioned, in a serious and plausible way, a future qualitatively different from the present or the immediate past? His answer? Ronald Reagan, speaking at the Berlin Wall in June 1987. Reagan envisioned a world without the Soviet Union. And then it came to pass. That was a generation ago. Reagan remains an inspiration and a model for American conservatives. But the times require not Reaganite nostalgia but a neo-Reaganite agenda. Younger Republican candidates and bolder Republican officeholders sense this.”
Ted Cruz senses this. He has not hesitated to speak out and challenge Washington’s conventional foreign policy thinking, just like Kristol said.
On Sunday evening, Cruz published a Politico op-ed questioning why the Obama Administration is moving forward with nuclear negotiations with Iran while they continue to hold Americans, including Pastor Saeed, in prison. Cruz wrote:
U.S. leaders should not fall into the trap of blindly assuming that just because our enemy Iran hates our enemy ISIL, it means that Iran is now our friend. We would do much more to defend the national security interests of the United States by seeking common cause with our real allies in the region than by pursuing some misguided and dangerous attempt at détente with the Islamic Republic of Iran. We should also insist that if the Iranians want a seat at the negotiating table, they must start by releasing the American citizens unjustly detained in their country. It’s time.
Cruz is demonstrating the bold, clear leadership our nation needs.
Whether it’s the economy, our out-of-control federal government, amnesty, religious freedom, foreign policy, or any other important issue, Ted Cruz rises to the occasion to fight for our liberties.
As shown from his speeches and remarks this week, he is a clear-thinking, inspirational leader. His message is confident and reminds us of our American greatness. With your help, more people can hear that message.
National Petition to Slash U.S. Funding of the United Nations
Whereas, the United States spends as much as a whopping 1.2 BILLION TAX DOLLARS in annual dues payments to the United Nations;
Whereas, we also pay $2.2 BILLION, or more than 28 percent, of the UN peacekeeping budget, and in addition, there are the “voluntary payments” that finance UN programs and funds, like UNICEF, so that in one recent year the U.S. paid the UN a record total of $7.7 BILLION;
Whereas, the U.S. pays 25 percent of all UN expenses annually, more than all of the other permanent members of the Security Council combined;
Whereas, this money is used to provide a platform for nations that despise us and oppose our American values of democracy, justice, free enterprise, privacy and private property rights;
Whereas, our tax dollars are paying for a rag-tag collection of dictators and socialists to propagandize and work against our security and economic interests;
Whereas, when we try to isolate the rogue dictatorships that are developing nuclear weapons and posing threats to our nation’s and the world’s security, we are often met with NO votes and multiple veto threats, while the UN eagerly hosts a string of dictators who come to our soil and attack our policies and insult us;
Whereas, when the United States rushed to help the injured, starving and dying in the wake of the massive earthquake in Haiti, we were accused by a UN official of trying to “occupy” the nation;
Whereas, the UN is worse than a wasteful, bloated paper tiger — it is a paper tiger intent on biting the hand that feeds it — the United States of America;
I, therefore, demand that Congress SLASH the billions of tax dollars we spend on the United Nations! Are you listening?
Contra Ezekiel Emanuel, age is no absolute barometer for human vitality and dignity.
by Victor Davis Hanson // National Review Online
Normally, no one would care that in a recent Atlantic essay — “Why I Hope to Die at 75” — 57-year-old Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel argued that living to be 75 years old was long enough for anyone. After 75, Emanuel suggests, “We are no longer remembered as vibrant and engaged but as feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic.”
But Emanuel is no garden-variety crackpot. Nor is he a wannabe science-fiction writer dreaming of a centrally planned planet of robust youthful humanoids. Unfortunately, he was one of the chief architects of the troubled Affordable Care Act and a key medical advisor to the Obama administration.
The ACA’s conservative critics have long knocked Obamacare as a first step toward medical rationing. Read Emanuel’s diatribe against living too long, and suddenly Sarah Palin’s attack on Obamacare’s “death panels” does not seem so far-fetched.
Emanuel’s main point is that those who live beyond 75 inordinately gobble up collective health resources — like flu shots. Emanuel asserts that at age 75 and beyond, he will decline nearly all medical tests and treatments. (“What about simple stuff? Flu shots are out.”) He claims he won’t take antibiotics either.
“I think this manic desperation to endlessly extend life is misguided and potentially destructive,” Emanuel writes. “For many reasons, 75 is a pretty good age to aim to stop.”
Emanuel takes the banal position that aging is more costly than youth, and then he takes it to a pathetic extreme, revealing his ignorance of both history and ethics. And while he is mostly talking about his own plans, his past influence and his present desire to disseminate his views make it clear that he would like Americans to follow his advice that it would be wise for them to be dead at 75.
Yet our present lives would be poorer had we taken away history’s 75-year-olds. The great Athenian playwright Sophocles (who wrote until his death in his 90s) would never have crafted some of Greece’s greatest tragedies. The Founding Fathers would not have had the sober wisdom of Benjamin Franklin in his later years. The late Jacques Barzun, the greatest contemporary student of Western values and history, published his masterpiece, From Dawn to Decadence, when he was 93. Henry Kissinger, at 91, just published a magnum opus, World Order.
Some of the most gripping volumes about World War II would never been written by a supposedly too old Winston Churchill. Had Ronald Reagan refused medical care and hoped to die at 75, the world would never have heard at Berlin, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Had a more youthful Walter Mondale been elected in 1984 instead, would he have dared say that?
Hoping that we all die at 75 is about as inane as barring those under 50 from assuming positions of influence without commensurate experience. After all, Adolf Hitler came to power at 43. A robust Josef Stalin at 50 began collectivization of Russian farmland, which eventually killed millions of Russians. When an untried 31-year old Kaiser Wilhelm II dismissed the sober and experienced chancellor Otto von Bismarck, who was 75 at the time, the German Empire took a path that would lead to World War I.
Does anyone believe that an inexperienced but youthful Barack Obama is a better president because he did not wait to run until he was 60, when he might have had over a decade more of political savvy?
Age is no absolute barometer. We all know those who at 75 are far more vigorous than others who are couch potatoes at 40. If Emanuel’s point is that living beyond 75 is unwise given the odds that society will reap less achievement per resources invested, then that frightening anti-humanist argument can be extended to almost any category.
Should we do away with health care for those with chronic debilitating diseases on the theory that society inordinately gives them too much time and capital and gets very little in return? Events of the twentieth century should warn us about where such government decision-making on health has led.
Why incarcerate prisoners for life sentences? They will likely produce little behind bars. Take values, morality, and collective debt for past services out of the equation, and we could just as easily choose not to treat severely wounded veterans, given that they are unlikely to return to the battlefield.
How exactly does Emanuel judge achievement? By elite measures of where you went to school, who you know, and the influence you peddle?
Many might suggest that a naive and clueless Emanuel in his early fiftiebbs did the nation a lot of damage by dreaming up a lousy, big-government health-care scheme. Under Obamacare, millions lost their doctors and existing health care. They have paid more for deductibles and premiums, as the nation increased its debt to only marginally cover more of the uninsured.
Most Americans can cite a grandparent’s wise advice and aggregate experience as changing their lives for the better. I was blessed that three of my grandparents lived well beyond 75 and taught me everything from riding a horse and farming to accepting setbacks with calm and dignity.
In contrast, the greatest tragedy in my life was the far too early death of my mother at 67 — at precisely the point when our family most needed her omnipresence, caring, and sage counsel.
Who knows — had Dr. Emanuel been asked to help draft an Affordable Care Act in his mid-70s, we might not have had to collectively suffer from his youthful inexperience.
WELCOME to 2014: • Our Phones – Wireless
• Cooking – Fireless
• Cars – Keyless
• Food – Fatless
• Tires –Tubeless
• Dress – Sleeveless
• Youth – Jobless
• Leaders – Shameless
• Relationships – Meaningless
• Attitudes – Careless
• Babies – Fatherless
• Feelings – Heartless
• Education – Valueless
• Children – Mannerless
• Country – Godless We are SPEECHLESS, Congress is CLUELESS, And our President is WORTHLESS ! I’m scared – shitless
The Democrats are right, there are two Americas. The America that works, and the America that doesn’t. The America that contributes, and the America that doesn’t. It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society, and others don’t. That’s the divide in America .
It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country.
That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.
The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just. That is the rationale of thievery.
The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat. That is the philosophy that produced Detroit.
It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America. It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal.
The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victim-hood and anger instead of ability and hope. The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful–seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices. Because, by and large, income variations in society are a result of different choices leading to different consequences.
Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure.
Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income. You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college – and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education.
You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course. Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.
My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an in equality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant. He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine. Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.
It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure. The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy. Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and short sighted decisions.
Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort.
The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get.”
Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society. Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity. He and his party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts.
It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.
What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow. Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.
“Life is ten percent what happens to you and ninety percent how you respond to it.”
Leo “Lou” Holtz (born January 6, 1937) is a retired American football coach, and active sportscaster, author, and motivational speaker.