Posted on December 16, 2013 by Gary DeMar
The Reason GOP is Not Going after the IRS for Harassing Tea Party Groups
December 16, 2013
Two seemingly unrelated articles caught my attention. Here’s the first one: “Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberly Strassel noted on Friday [Dec. 13] that Barack Obama and the IRS have a new plan to target Tea Party groups in advance of the 2014 elections. During Thanksgiving week, the Treasury Department announced a proposal to limit the political activity of 501(c)(4) groups.”
One would think that Republicans in Congress would be outraged. The silence is deafening.
We know that the IRS was going after conservative groups, many of which were associated with the newly formed Tea Party movement. It was a big story for a time, and then it seemed to die.
Why haven’t Republicans made an issue of this unconstitutional and possibly criminal scandal? Stories have come out showing that officials in the IRS had gotten instructions from the top to slow down the approval process of Tea Party groups.
Now we know why the GOP has let the IRS off the hook. Establishment Republicans and their lobbyists hate the Tea Party, but for different reasons.
Republicans like pork as much as the Democrats do, and their lobbyists will do anything to stop anybody who gets in their way to bring home the fattened political bacon. Tony Lee at Breitbart reports on the second one:
“Lobbyists are reportedly ‘pumping their fists’ over House Speaker John Boehner’s declaration of war against the Tea Party last week.
“According to The Hill, lobbyists were ‘pleasantly surprised by’ Boehner’s ‘strident remarks’ last week in which he said Tea Party groups have lost ‘all credibility’ after they opposed the budget compromise that increased taxes. Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin said Boehner’s words were a declaration of war on grassroots conservatives.”
When American bank robber Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, his answer was simple: “That’s where the money is.” Lobbyists know if you want tens of millions of dollars, you go to Washington,
The GOP may be against individual welfare, but they are whole hog for corporate welfare. Lobbyists are permanent fixtures in Washington hoping to get their slice of the tax-payer income-tax pie. It’s no wonder that the area around DC area is ground zero for our nation’s Super Zips.“A Washington Post analysis of the latest census data shows that more than a third of Zip codes in the D.C. metro area rank in the top 5 percent nationally for income and education.”
So it’s no wonder that Boehner and other Establishment Republicans are attacking the Tea Party and not stopping the IRS from bullying conservative groups.
Republicans like Boehner and Ryan know were the money is. While it’s politically conservatively correct to attack liberal pork, it’s a whole other thing to attack GOP pork. Now you’re meddling.
How the Federal Government will Respond to the Liberty Amendments
Posted on December 16, 2013 by Common Constitutionalist
I know I’m not supposed to think this, and revenge is neither sweet nor charitable, but would it not be a wonderful spectacle to witness and be part of a movement that helps restore America and watch as all branches of the federal government sit helplessly as their power erodes with the passage of the liberty amendments?
Recently, thanks in no small part to Mark Levin’s latest bestseller, The Liberty Amendments, there has been a resurgence of interest in the Constitution and states’ rights.
Some states have begun to assert themselves along constitutional lines. It’s as if we all forgot that the Constitution was written by and for the states and to protect the citizens from the very thing that afflicts us, and oppressive centralized authority.
I’ve written many times about how the founders of this country were truly a gift from God, Their wisdom and prescience have not been repeated since.
Who else could have predicted the mess we currently find ourselves in?
Yet they foretold it. Why else would they have inserted Article V into the Constitution?
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.”
Levin’s book was released in August and months later 100 representatives from 32 states assembled at George Washington’s home in Mt. Vernon to discuss the implementation of Article V.
Now you tell me; is that not a Christmas miracle?
States like South Carolina and Virginia have already begun to assert authority over the feds. It really is wonderful to see. And there’s really nothing the federal government can do about. Or is there?
We all know, and it is well documented, just how low down and dirty the current administration is. Heck, not just them, the entire government, including both Houses and Parties.
But as bad as we think they are now, we ain’t seen nothin’ if states begin successfully to curb and reverse federal authority.
We’ve seen what the NSA, EPA, and IRS are capable of, and they’ve only just begun.
Look at how the Republican leadership reacts whenever their ironfisted authority is challenged, although their vitriol is reserved only for conservatives and constitutionalists.
Do we really think politicians and power-mad authoritarians will go quietly into the night? Think again.
So what might happen to these states that don’t know their place and decide to get all uppity?
First, we’ll see all the Soros-funded groups like Center for American Progress and MoveOn join with the ACLU (as if they’re not already joined) and file a gazillion lawsuits in federal courts, that, thanks to Harry Reid, are currently being packed by judges who are part of the federal government and won’t want to see their privileges and pensions tampered with, claiming this or that is unconstitutional.
Then the Jackboots will swing into action. “Gee, pick your state; you’re getting a bit uppity and we’re afraid if you keep this up, maybe we will have to pull your educational funding. Remember those federal highway funds you needed? We may have to divert them to a friendlier state.”
Don’t think this can and will happen? Think it’s illegal for the feds to withhold those funds, you say? Hah!
Just look at the record of the low down nefarious thugocracy that currently resides in the White House. Do we really think they care that legality may get in the way of their agenda?
Let’s not be naïve.
February 27, 2013 by John DeMayo
The Internal Revenue Service has strict codes regulating the lawful operations of 501(c) (4) charities like “Organizing for Action (OFA)” the new Obama social welfare advocacy group that succeeded “Obama for America” the Presidents official 2012 re-election campaign. After a little tax code research, I have, come to the conclusion, that OFA and President Obama bear investigation by the U.S. House of Representatives for not only potential ethics transgressions but for alleged U.S. tax law violations.
IRS regulations state: 501(c)(4) non-for profit organizations (i.e. Organizing for Action) must be operated “exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.” 501 (c)(4) groups are not prohibited from participating in campaigns or elections as long as they serve the goal of “social welfare.”
I would think that President Obama, educated man that he is, understands the concept of “social welfare,” but maybe not, given social welfare requires knowledge of social welfare’s economic origins. After all, economics is a subject that Obama has had little regard for unless it requires blindly signing legislation that redistributes Americans income to his constituency.
Even if we allow for Liberal Democrat’s idealistic fantasies touting future economic benefits from legally owned gun regulation—or what liberals may try to characterize as “social welfare” i.e. decreased gun violence in America—both reality and government crime statistics prove the Obama team wrong every day. U.S. Department of Justice statistics prove that violent crime, specifically gun related violent crime is decreasing, not increasing in America. Taking away guns or ammunition will have an adverse effect on social welfare and have a negative economic benefit.
Examples of this fact are found in major cities like Chicago—a city run by Democrat idealists for close to a century—a city buried in real “social welfare” problems like debt, unemployment, government dependency, failing schools, poverty, illiteracy, corruption, and gang violence. However, where are the economic benefits for the windy cities residents from Chicago’s strict gun laws?
Obama’s Organizing for Action may claim that gun and ammunition regulation—an infringement of 2nd amendment freedoms and an ethical violation of Obama’s oath of office amounts to social welfare, but I would challenge the President to provide the data to back up his liberal assertions. They are lies propagated by a President who at best is stretching the truth and in reality is redefining U.S. tax law to service his political agenda, nothing more. No economic or “social welfare” benefit will be gained by eliminating or regulating legal gun ownership in U.S. communities. To the contrary, gun regulation will foster crime, and with it economic decline in American communities. Chicago’s rising crime and DOJ statistics prove this point, Obama’s Organizing for Action is violating IRS code with its anti-second amendment advocacy framed as social welfare, and it warrants investigation by Congress and the Internal Revenue Service.
It also warrants mentioning that federal and state anti-second amendment regulations cause job losses. Obama’s and liberal states Governors proposed gun control policies have many established gun and ammunition manufacturers actively considering relocating and/or downsizing. I suppose some liberals may consider this a form of “social welfare,” but I am almost positive soon-to-be unemployed workers at certain gun manufacturers would disagree.
Back in the 90s during the Clinton years, Congress charged Newt Gingrich, who was also harangued and vilified for his political activities involving a 501(c) (3) charity—accused of promoting political causes and candidates—with 84 separate ethics violations. Yet Newt Gingrich did not violate his oath of office to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution or commit a single crime. Eventually, reprimanded by Congress and viewed by his party as a political liability Gingrich succumbed to political pressures and resigned.
Today Organizing for Action is raising funds—from donors that do not require identification—to push President Obama’s second term agenda. Two days ago, it was publicly revealed that President Obama is granting White House meetings to donors and fundraisers that contribute 500 thousand dollars to his “Organizing for America” the Obama social welfare machine. In addition, it is been suggested that MSNBC is a major benefactor of OFA. Sounds like pay to play to me. Moreover, many view this as ethical government.
It may come as a surprise to some of you, but I have been a subscriber to President Obama’s campaign website, which is now the Organizing for Actions website, since Obama’s campaign began. Suffice it to say, I believe in keeping my enemies close. Every day I receive e-mails from OFA asking for volunteer assistance as well as financial support. These emails reference the importance of passing the Obama second term agenda in every communication. Specifically the agenda President Obama lies out in his 2013 State of the Union address.
Can someone, even a liberal explain the “social welfare” or economic benefit for America, if Gays are given Constitutional protections like same sex marriage? Will America experience an economic boom and historic job growth attributable to LGBT matrimonial bliss? Better yet, can someone explain the social welfare or economic benefit of abortion or reproductive rights that deny fathers the equal right to raise a child doomed to whimsical termination? No Obama second term agenda items provide a “social welfare” or economic benefit for Americans, only Obama’s Americans or Democrat voters, yet Obama’s OFA is busy raising anonymous contributions to promote Democrat candidate ideologies over Republican candidate positions.
Is this not, the same violation of ethics that took Newt Gingrich down?
For all of its obvious and documented ethics violations and potential IRS code abuses, President Obama’s self-serving Democrat loyal “Organizing for America” requires investigation. Get on the horn America; I think these allegations may have some teeth.
I found this in another of their links about Al Sharpton. (I can barely stomach to name him, let alone do a blog on this tare)
Apparently this bill was stillborn. How many times have I blogged about enough evidence to have “O” brought up on TREASON charges? The bunch of steers in Congress, (2010 freshmen excluded from the analogy) may need to be recycled next election. Plus the nerve of seeking U.N. “approval” when Congress is to be consulted… TO H with the U.N.
Declares president’s use of military without approval ‘high crime, misdemeanor’
Drew Zahn is a former pastor who cut his editing teeth as a member of the award-winning staff of Leadership, Christianity Today’s professional journal for church leaders.
Let the president be duly warned.
Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”
Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama’s authorization of military force in Libya.
In an exclusive WND column, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.
“This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations,” Tancredo writes. “This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.”
In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., over who determines the proper and legal use of the U.S. military, Panetta said, “Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would … come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”
“Well, I’m almost breathless about that,” Sessions responded, “because what I heard you say is, ‘We’re going to seek international approval, and then we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval.’ And I just want to say to you that’s a big [deal].”
Asked again what was the legal basis for U.S. military force, Panetta suggested a NATO coalition or U.N. resolution.
Sessions was dumbfounded by the answer.
“Well, I’m all for having international support, but I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “They can provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”
The exchange itself can be seen below:
The full wording of H. Con. Res. 107, which is currently referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, is as follows:
Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
If you’d like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WND Daily Poll.
Long ago I upset people by being so appalled at similar behavior, that I commented “435 reasons for a sniper rifle”. I know I can’t take the law in my own hands; however, treason is treason. In time of war, being convicted of treason calls for a firing squad. “X’
Posted on December 20, 2011 by qathy [PAN member]
Today I went searching for a specific piece of legislation. It is a bill currently in committee in the House of Representatives. Imagine my dismay when I discovered that it includes a clause which says that the 11th amendment does not apply to any lawsuits initiated by people complaining of infractions of the legislation.
Forgive me for my apparent stupidity, but how can Congress enact such legislation? If such a clause is included in this bill, how many others have the same clause? Why are we not aware that Congress is so blatantly pushing the Constitution aside?
For a long time I have known that Congress avoids the Constitution when it feels the need. Every entitlement program in existence would disappear in a flash if the Constitution prevailed. But I was not aware that any of the bills that created these programs included a clause which said, in essence, the Constitution is suspended with regard to this bill. I always thought they were simply finessing the programs and that they succeeded simply because nobody has yet mounted a successful attack on their Constitutionality.
This, situation, however, is different. This bill states in plain language that even a legislative dummy like me can understand. This bill says that 11th amendment may not be used as a defense in lawsuits subsequent to this legislation.
In case you don’t have the amendments memorized, the 11th amendment is about states’ rights. It enshrines the sovereignty of states with regard to the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. The 11th amendment says:
“The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.”
By inserting a clause that says this amendment does not apply, the Congress says that the citizen from state A who objects to action in state B and sues on the basis of this law may sue state B without regard to the fact that the Constitution disallows such suits. Nothing in the Constitution forbids a citizen in state A from suing his own state for some infraction, but it does not permit him to cross state lines to lodge such a suit. Congress appears to have appropriated to itself some power we did not grant it in the Constitution, because it appears to believe that it can deny Constitutional rights to a state.
Notice that I have not commented on the central subject of the legislation. That is not the issue I am concerned about in this post. I am concerned about anything that dilutes the power of the Constitution to shape our government. We have a Constitution precisely because the federal government needs boundaries. Without limits applied to it, the federal government will overrun the states and reduce them to mere administrative units for federal power. It is appalling to see that this statement has been boldly inserted into a piece of legislation and nobody is worrying about it.
I am not sure how I find out if this clause is in any other bills or in existing laws. If it is, then I am really worried.
When our president stated recently that this form of government does not work and never has worked, I was appalled. I knew he believed it, but I thought he was still trying to fool us into believing something better of him. In the legislative clause which asserts that Congress can disallow a right which the Constitution grants to states, I see that our president is not alone in his belief that the Constitution is not a good thing, because it interferes with federal power. This is scary.
Just yesterday I listened to an interview with Stuart Varney. He said something very important. He said that when he came to the USA forty years ago, he was fleeing socialism. He is very disturbed to see that it is now arising in the US, the place he thought would be a haven from its onslaught. I feel the same way. I grew up knowing that we needed to defend ourselves from the USSR because we did not want to be engulfed by socialism. Now I feel that it is engulfing me, anyway.
What can a single outraged citizen do about this problem?