IRS Scandal - Todays Testimony

Here are testimony points that have been brought forth by Carter Hull, a tax attorney that worked for the IRS for 48 years. It's quite telling, and now puts this scandal with in the Obama Administrations White House.

• Carter Hull, a tax law specialist and self-described 501(c)(4) expert with 48 years of experience, testified that he sent development letters, and once he received responses, based on his decades of experience,  determined he had enough facts to make recommendations whether to approve or deny the applications.
• Mr. Hull’s recommendations were not carried out.  Instead, according Michael Seto, the head of Mr. Hull’s unit in Washington D.C., Lois Lerner instructed that the Tea Party applications should go through a multi-layer review that included her senior advisor and the Chief Counsel’s office.
• According to Mr. Hull, sometime in the winter of 2010-2011, the senior advisor to Lois Lerner told him the IRS Chief Counsel’s office would need to review these applications.  Mr. Hull also indicated this was the first time in his 48 year career at the IRS he was told to send an application to Ms. Lerner’s senior advisor.
• It was not until August 2011 that the Chief Counsel’s office held a meeting with Mr. Hull, Ms. Lerner’s senior advisor, and other Washington D.C. officials to discuss these test applications.  During the intervening months, these applications languished.
• The Chief Counsel’s office instructed Mr. Hull that they needed updated information to evaluate the applications.  Since the applications were up-to-date months earlier, when Mr. Hull made his recommendations, Mr. Hull testified that he found this request from the Chief Counsel’s office surprising.  The Chief Counsel’s office also discussed the possibility of a template letter to develop all the Tea Party applications, including those being held in Cincinnati.  Mr. Hull explained that all the applications were different and that a template was impractical.
• Mr. Hull’s supervisor, Ronald Shoemaker, provided insight on the type of additional information sought by the Chief Counsel’s office—namely, information about the applicants’ political activities leading up to the 2010 election.
• The lengthy review of the test applications in Washington created a bottleneck and caused the delay of other Tea Party applications in Cincinnati.  Indeed, multiple IRS employees in Cincinnati – including Elizabeth Hofacre — have told the Committee they were waiting on guidance from Washington on how to move the applications forward.
• Mr. Hull explained that he could not provide advice to Ms. Hofacre because his hands were tied by his superiors in Washington.  Therefore, none of these applications were approved or denied during the time he worked with Ms. Hofacre on the cases.
• The head of the Cincinnati office, Cindy Thomas, testified that she continuously asked senior Washington officials when guidance was coming, but it was to no avail.

The IRS Targetting and The Obama Administration Connection?

Last night on On the Record, Lori Lowenthal Marcus, President of Z-Street brought forth information that could show that the Obama administration was in indeed connect with the IRS's targeting of certain groups for harassment.
ZStreet had applied for 501-C(3)  tax exemption, to help raise funds for their cause.
ZStreet cause is as stated on their website.

All members of Z STREET share a love of Israel, pride in being Zionists, and the belief that Israel must not negotiate with, make concessions to, or appease terrorists.  

What do we all really want for the inhabitants of the Middle East?  At the end of the day, everyone wants to live safe, productive lives.  They want to have the ability to read what they want, say what they want, work where they want, and go where they want.  And they want access to good medical care, cutting-edge technology, first class educational opportunities and a vibrant economy. 

Our goal at Z STREET is to put forth a viable model that ensures that the greatest number of people have access to all these rights and services while internalizing the importance of tolerance, mutual acceptance, pluralism and respect for the law.

ZStreet promotes a middle east solution, as does the United States. It's been our policy to reach such a solution for decades.
 
But as Ms Marcus spoke last night, she said something that caught my attention.

"The agent in charge (IRS) also told our lawyer that some of those other organizations applications were going to be sent to a special unit in Washington to determine whether those organizations position contradicts those of the administration."

I couldn't believe my ears, so I looked this up and what I found was, ZStreet has filed a complaint in court, suing the IRS, and in the complaint it states here:

A.     The plaintiff in this case, Z STREET, is a nonprofit organization devoted to educating the public about Zionism; about the facts relating to the Middle East and to the existence of Israel as a Jewish State;  and about Israel’s right to refuse to negotiate with, make concessions to, or appease terrorists. Z STREET is not a grant-making organization and does not fund any organizations either within or outside the United States.
B.     Z STREET brings this case because, through its corporate counsel, Z STREET was informed explicitly by an IRS Agent on July 19, 2010, that approval of Z STREET’s application for tax-exempt status has been at least delayed, and may be denied, because of a special IRS policy in place regarding organizations in any way connected with Israel, and further that the applications of many such Israel-related organizations have been assigned to “a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization's activities contradict the Administration's public policies.” These statements by an IRS official that the IRS maintains special policies (hereinafter the “Israel Special Policy”) governing applications for tax-exempt status by organizations which deal with Israel, and which requires particularly intense scrutiny of such applications and an enhanced risk of denial if made by organizations which espouse or support positions inconsistent with the Obama administration’s Israel policies, constitute an explicit admission of the crudest form of viewpoint discrimination, and one which is both totally un-American and flatly unconstitutional under the First Amendment. 

And here, it also states that:

22.   Agent Gentry further stated to counsel for Z STREET: “these cases are being sent to a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization's activities contradict the Administration's public policies.”

So, just how further up the chain does this go?

Was it ordered by the Obama administration to funnel these applications to Washington for scrutiny on whether Obama would approve their tax exempt status?

Could very well be.

Sheriff Warns, Liberals Looses It

 

Sheriff David Clarke Urges Americans To Defend Themselves – Liberals Go Ballistic
 
January 26, 2013
The anti-gun rights movement was dealt a blow this week as a public service announcement by Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke began to circulate in greater numbers – an announcement that is in direct contradiction to the push by the Obama administration and other Big Government activists looking to decimate gun rights in America.

Sheriff Clarke urges citizens not to depend on 911 but rather to become educated on the use of a gun to protect oneself. Some liberals are now demanding Clarke resign his position over what they deem to be irresponsible advice, while gun owners hail him as a much needed voice of reason in the shadow of an Obama administration intent on greatly reducing Americans’ right to own and use firearms in this country.

Political Maneuver- Vote Getter

In what could be the most obvious political maneuver to capture votes, today the Obama Whitehouse will  halt the deportation of as many as 800,000 young "illegal"  immigrants and in some cases give them work permits, in a sweeping new initiative announced by the Department of Homeland Security.

(Damian Dovarganes/AP)

People under 30 who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas will be immune from deportation if they have not committed a significant misdemeanor or felony and have graduated from a U.S. high school or joined the military. They can apply for a renewable two-year work permit.


Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told reporters on Friday that she believed the move "is the right thing to do," and will help the agency focus on deporting criminals. Funny thing is, these people ARE criminals who entered the country ILLEGALLY or OVERSTAYED their visas.



"I wouldn't say we are encouraging people to step forward," an Obama administration flunky told reporters. "We are making a process available and people can make their own decision." (whether to be granted a pass for breaking our immigration laws).


Young people who were brought into the country illegally or overstayed their visas are better know as "Dreamers,". Does that word sound familiar? Like something we have heard out of Washington the last 2 years or so?
It should. The Dream Act passed the House nearly two years ago, but was blocked by Republicans in the Senate. 
So, the Obama administration decided to bypass congress and enact it ANYWAYS.
Several times over the course of the past year, Obama has told Hispanic audiences who asked him why he did not issue an executive order halting deportations of some classes of immigrants that such a move would be legally impossible. "There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President."


But NOW as Obama see's his electability slipping away, his administration decides to just ignore what congress didn't do. Pass the dream act.


This is nothing but a ploy, along with the Justice Dept to sue Florida for "purging" the voters rolls of those who are unable to vote.

__________________________________Update______________________________

Sheriff Joe take on all this.

 Even CNN calls in Politics!

Christianity v. The Obama Administration

In an astonishing and unprecedented move today, Notre Dame and 40 other Catholic institutions have filed lawsuits against Obama and his Health & Human Services (HHS) to stop the HHS move requiring religious institutions to provide insurance coverage for sterilization, contraceptives and other abortifacient drugs to their employee, against the teaching of the church.

Father John Jenkins, Notre Dame President authored a letter to all Notre Dame employees explaining the suit and what it means.

May 21, 2012
A Message from Father John Jenkins, C.S.C.,
President, University of Notre Dame
Today the University of Notre Dame filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana regarding a recent mandate from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). That mandate requires Notre Dame and similar religious organizations to provide in their insurance plans abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilization procedures, which are contrary to Catholic teaching. The decision to file this lawsuit came after much deliberation, discussion and efforts to find a solution acceptable to the various parties.
Let me say very clearly what this lawsuit is not about: it is not about preventing women from having access to contraception, nor even about preventing the Government from providing such services. Many of our faculty, staff and students — both Catholic and non-Catholic — have made conscientious decisions to use contraceptives. As we assert the right to follow our conscience, we respect their right to follow theirs. And we believe that, if the Government wishes to provide such services, means are available that do not compel religious organizations to serve as its agents. We do not seek to impose our religious beliefs on others; we simply ask that the Government not impose its values on the University when those values conflict with our religious teachings. We have engaged in conversations to find a resolution that respects the consciences of all and we will continue to do so.
This filing is about the freedom of a religious organization to live its mission, and its significance goes well beyond any debate about contraceptive.

CNS News also reports that 40 other Catholic Dioceses have also file lawsuits against the HHS, to uphold the 1st Amendment of the US Constitutions "free exercise thereof."

The dioceses and organizations, in different combinations, are filing 12 different lawsuits filed in federal courts around the country.

The Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. has established a special website--preservereligiousfreedom.org--to explain its lawsuit and present news and developments concerning it.

"This lawsuit is about an unprecedented attack by the federal government on one of America’s most cherished freedoms: the freedom to practice one’s religion without government interference," the archdiocese says on the website. "It is not about whether people have access to certain services; it is about whether the government may force religious institutions and individuals to facilitate and fund services which violate their religious beliefs."

May gods will be their strength to a historic victory in the courts!

The Programing of the Brain Dead Liberal

This is the Administration scratched LP album stuck in it's groove of wash, rinse and repeat on taxation.
Fair Share, Shared sacrifice, Buffet Rule, Race to the bottom, Greater good, Fortunate Americans don't contribute at all....
AND now we have "Global minimum tax"
WTF?!?!

Gene Sperling came out today, spewing and regurgitated the President's scratch LP album message that we have a taxation problem in this country, all the while the President throws at our feet a budget that adds a $1.3T deficit.

Let me refresh Americans minds for just a few:
From 2002- 2008, Bush ran a deficit of $2.1T.... TOTAL! And Yes that is a lot.
HOWEVER in 2009 and 2010 the deficit shot up by $2.7T

And it is estimated to skyrocket an additional $1.6T in 2011 and $1.1T this year.
In 3 years, on Obama's watch, he will have ran a deficit of $4.3T, doubled that of Bush last 6 years.

Lets compare federal government revenue stream, starting with the Bush tax cuts in 2003, and compare them with unemployment and government outlay, shall we?
Because that is the true factor of why tax receipts as down... Just so there is no confusion and some clarity, because with Obama and his economic councils chief, Sperling are laying out a smoke screen so Americans buy the BS coming from this administration on their class warfare tactic.


2003 total tax receipts= $1.782T: Unemployment= 6.0: Outlay= $2.159T
2004 total tax receipts= $1.880T: Unemployment 5.5: Outlay= $2.292T
2005 total tax receipts= $2.153T: Unemployment 5.1: Outlay= $2.472T
2006 total tax receipts= $2.406T: Unemployment 4.7: Outlay= $2.655T
2007 total tax receipts= $2.568T: Unemployment 4.7: Outlay= $2.728T


2008 economy begins to tank
2008 total tax receipts= $2.524T: Unemployment 5.8: Outlay= $2.982T
2009 total tax receipts= $2.105T: Unemployment 9.3: Outlay= $3.517T
2010 total tax receipts= $2.162T: Unemployment 9.3: Outlay= $3.456T

So, as you can see, we don't have a taxing problem.
No need to raise taxes on ANYONE.
Increased tax revenue stream correlates directly with lower unemployment rates.
Getting Americans back to work is the solution. But over bearing regulation by the government stagnates hiring, which in turns stagnates revenues.
They are doing it to themselves!
And what is more telling, tax revenue receipts in 2010 are nearly the same as in 2005, but employment figures are 4% higher. Ever wonder why... Tax increases that you were never made aware of.

In 8 years, our total outlays have been $22.3T, but revenues stands at only $17.58T. A difference of -$4.72T, And in reality, nearly $2.7T of that came from this administrations spending habits the last 2 years.

And what does Harry Reid think of the Presidents new budget?
"Dead On Arrival!" What does that say to his own party leader?

Chris Matthews Has a Moment of Clarity?

Did Chris Matthews have a moment of clarity about the Obama Administration and the HHS forcing Catholics institutions to provide health insurance policies that pay for birth control and the morning after pill medication?

Hell has frozen over!!! Chris has actually figured out that something Obama did is indeed dangerous!

OR, is he and MSNBC just trying to boost ratings? ......

Another Version of SOPA & PIPA in the Hands of Senate

A must read- If you think we succeeded to bring a halt to SOPA and PIPA, not so fast. This is not being reported in our media. Why? Maybe they dropped the ball. Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement has been signed, but the Senate has not ratified it.... yet. 

InfoWars seems to be the only one reporting this that Obama has inked his name to it and is petitioning the Senate to ratify it.

Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration had rejected requests to make the text of ACTA public, with the White House saying that disclosure would cause "damage to the national security."

They are probably right, since those hacktivist associated with Anonymous did over SOPA and PIPA.

And now they succeeded to taking down the Federal Trade Commission website on Wednesday.

Now I usually take Infowars stories with a grain of salt, but not this time.

Spread the word and call your Senators to not ratify this.

 

DOJ Attack on Sheriff Joe Getting ICEd

Something most of you already know, that the Obama Administration and Eric Holder DOJ efforts began, in March of 2009, to probe in to shutting down Sheriff Joe Arpaio sworn duty to uphold the laws of the United States.

The 'results' (in their words) of which they released last week - accusing Arpaio of 'racial profiling', 'civil rights violations' and 'unconstitutional policing'.

But this article, from back in Sept of 2010 shows that ICE had given Sheriff Joe a raving review of his effort to combat illegal immigration and as far as ICE was concerned, the probe from Obama's DOJ was all politically motivated.

Flashback:
Excerpts of that Dayton Tribune piece.

Eric Holder and the Obama Administration are applying the full weight of the federal government’s resources into trying to stop the new Arizona immigration law, but that’s only one of the multi-front attacks they’ve setup to make sure states are stripped of their ability to enforce U.S. immigration laws. Now the DOJ is suing the most active and largest sheriff’s office in Arizona (Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s office has 189 officers) by extending an investigation into alleged civil rights violations.

The DOJ informed sheriff Arpaio that a probe was underway to investigate what the DOJ claimed were “alleged patterns or practices of discriminatory police practices and unconstitutional searches and seizures.” This is where things get sticky for Eric Holder and the Obama Administration.

Six months prior to this investigation the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) had already conducted its own investigation of sheriff Arpaio’s office and not only gave it a clean bill of health, they actually gave a raving review. The report said things like “The OI and DRO supervisors consider the conduct and performance of the MCSO … officers to be professional and meeting the requirement of the MOA.” And that they considered the working relationship between the feds and the sheriff’s office to be “excellent” and that cases brought by the sheriff’s office to be “high quality.”

The DOJ then got caught with its pants down when more government documents were uncovered under the Freedom of Information Act that suggests politics may be at the root of the investigation.

Emails from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency employee to John P. Torres who was at the time the acting assistant secretary of ICE said: “Did you see this?” attaching a news report on the investigation. “Yes,” Torres responded a few minutes later. “Interesting politics at play.”

 So with that said, is ICE also 'racial profiling', violating 'civil rights' and such?

This is more like a witch hunt then a probe of wrong doing.

Project Gun Runner- They All Knew

And how couldn't they?

Ever wonder why this clip has not gotten more play?
According to Deputy Attorney General Ogden, Holder and the Obama Administration knew about operation Project Gun Runner as part of Fast & Furious

Another 'Power' Grab Attempt by the Feds

Socialism is still alive and well in the Obama administration.

As reported on Fox News, the Federal government is attempting to seize control over power line projects, usually reserved for utility companies working with state and local officials.

The Obama administration is looking to consolidate control over the nation's power highway, pushing a proposal that would put one federal agency in the driver's seat when it comes to reviewing and approving power-line projects across the country. 

The proposal has triggered a outcry of complaints, pitting the federal government against concerned citizens and local lawmakers. 

The states, which along with local governments have long had authority over whether and where power lines get built, derided the plan as a move that would make it harder for local residents to weigh in. 

"It turns the whole process on its head," said Robert Thormeyer, spokesman with the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. He said the federal government would be "more inclined to build" than the states, if for no other reason than they probably wouldn't have as much interaction with citizens. A bureaucrat in Washington might not hear the not-in-my-backyard pleas as frequently as a bureaucrat in, say, Boise. 

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., who helped write a 2005 law that initially expanded federal power over power lines, complained about the plan in a letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu. 

The chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee said it appears the commission is trying to "rewrite" the language in the law. He said that's a decision for Congress, not the commission, to make. 

The move, he wrote, "would pave the way for the commission to use the newly consolidated powers in ways never intended by Congress." 

Under the law, the Department of Energy was tasked with studying where transmission lines were needed most. Then the FERC was given the power to grant construction permits in those areas under certain circumstances, including if a state withheld approval for more than a year. 

Successful court challenges, though, have since blocked the federal government from exercising that authority. 

Yet another law that needs repeal!

Col. West- Leadership in Waiting

I just can't get enough of this guy, Col. Allen West.

West did a piece on Red Country today that speaks volumes to any red blooded American, who knows what it truly means to know and understand America for what it has been and what it should be.

The piece was directed at, and rips a new one, to the Obama Administration, Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus.

Here are some excerpts:

Friday, we received the news that there was not one new net job created in the United States of America. In other words, we have stagnated the investment, innovation, and ingenuity of the entrepreneurial spirit that has made our nation a leader in free market and private sector growth

Previously, we have discussed the over-regulatory environment emanating from Washington and this Obama Administration. It has been evidenced in the nearly 600 new regulations issued in the month of July, with an estimated compliance cost of $10 billion.

We have heard enough about “investing” in green energy jobs. This is evidenced in a green energy company, Solyndra, praised a year ago by President Obama as a model green energy company in California,  just announcing bankruptcy. Solyndra was a recipient of stimulus finding, one of the top 5 “green energy” companies.

...We have a President who is unwilling to admit his economic policies have failed, and it is time to pivot in a completely different direction…a lesson he could learn from former President Bill Clinton.

Therefore, what is the purpose of the speech next week on the grand jobs plan which we have been waiting for with baited breath since the Big Black Bus tour? We have sat and counted the days and hours until the speech while the President relaxed in Martha’s Vineyard, truly a place representative of America.
What will be the purpose of this address, since the President wants all of Congress to sit attentively? Will we finally receive a written plan, or must we again seek to “score” or evaluate another speech? One thing that has already been declared is that after the speech on Thursday, the President will be heading back to the White House to begin working to resolve this situation.  Actually, no, he will go back out on the campaign trail Friday.
The question is, will he take the taxpayer-funded private jet or the Big Black Bus? 

 It seems my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus have been reading Saul Alinsky's book, Rules for Radicals, and are seeking to apply his Rule #13 tactic. This baseless attack upon the constitutional conservative grassroots movement called the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party has reached a new low of unreasonable desperation.

 What person would not agree with the principles of efficient and constitutional limited government, fiscal responsibility, national security, and free market/free enterprise? It appears Congresswomen Maxine Waters and Frederica Wilson along with Congressman Andre Carson do not.

Perhaps my colleagues, who were out this past month across America conducting “job fairs,” should closely examine failed economic, monetary, tax, and regulatory policies emanating from this current Obama Administration, rather than point fingers.
And oh, by the way, while the CBC was out conducting these “job fairs” the unemployment rate for black Americans rose from 15.9% to 16.7%.

I do believe a standing round of applause is in order here!

 

Hypocrisy of a President

First, Monday morning of this past week began with a roar around here.
We got pounded with a storm so ferocious that it packed nearly 100 MPH winds that took down not only my telephone pole, along with power, but all the cable and phone lines with it also.
We got power restored Thursday and internet last night.
All in all, over 860,000 people were effected in my area.

OK on with opinion politics.
With all the political grandstanding this week in Washington over the debt ceiling negotiations, Obama makes a threat to take his view on how we are going to remedy the looming default deadline to the American people.
Today he made good on threat... However, its the same old same old crap he has been pushing since day one of his Presidency.

"Let's be honest. Neither party in this town is blameless, both have talked this problem to death without doing enough about it. That's what drives people nuts about Washington."

Now this would be true for the most part, however it's the Republican controlled House that has been pushing the Democrats to even talk about this problem that we have had for years now.
The problem is it was the left who refused to "Listen to the American peoples" concerns here. So NOW he wants to "Take it to the American people"?

"We are all part of the same country. We are all in this together."

Problem here was, up until Nov 2010 did the President want to even admit. It was Washington political elite and their supporters vs. We the People. 
But NOW 'We are all in this together?

"Nobody ever got everything they wanted, but eventually they worked together, they moved this country forward."

Does Obamacare pop in to your mind here? The American people didn't want it, but the Democrats 'got everything they [really] wanted'.


During this week, Obama and the Dems have called for a "Shared sacrifice" approach to debt reduction, claiming (in his words) that the wealthiest Americans need to pay their fair share and "A little more" vs being one sided through cutting entitlement, like Social Security payments, medicare and medicaid.


However that would not be the case.


First off, SS payments, medicare and medicaid would NOT be cut. The Republican plan would strip those entitlement programs of their "waste and abuse". Something the American people have been calling for, even before Obama showed up at the Whitehouse. 
So in essence making it solvent and sustainable without effecting recipients, at the same time cutting billions of dollars from the spending and debt.


During our power outage here, I had a chance to talk to a few of my elderly neighbors who brought this talking point up, as we sat outside and talked. Seems the MSM and the Dems have convinced them the cuts are real and they were very concerned about it. 
I had to set the record straight to reassure them that this was not the case to help ease their minds. They had enough stress going on with the prolong power outage. 


Second, the wealthiest have been making their sacrifice for years now, with paying almost twice (or more then twice) the amount of tax rates then the rest of us 'middle class' folks.


So now the Republicans want to make sure that in the future this does not happen again by preparing a balance budget amendment to the US Constitution. But Obama and the left refuse to even consider it.
So are they really concerned about getting our fiscal house in order and keeping it that way?


I think Senator Orrin Hatch said it best yesterday.

"The only reason this administration doesn't want a constitutional amendment is because they want to keep spending the American people's money. And the only reason congressional Democrats would refuse to pass it, is because they know the people of this country would rise up and quickly ratify it."

Obama and the Supreme Court

Something to ponder as you go about your Independence Day weekend.
There is a battle being waged between the United States Supreme Court and the Obama Administration over several Obama questionable decisions that are borderline constitutional.

This report from the Red White & Blue Website.

According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable. Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues.

Critics have complained that much, if not all of Obama’s major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government.

Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.

The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, ‘That’s not true,’ when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court’s ruling.

As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.

Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and so on.

And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until ‘Obama is gone.’

Apparently, the Court has had enough.

The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven.

A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration.

Such a thing would be long overdue.

First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something.

And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim.

The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.

In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can ‘opt out.’

Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama’s history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President.

The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue.  This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii.

And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not Obama himself, in hot water with the Court.

Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years.

More can be read here of the brewing battle. 
(H/T to Chicago Ray)

Taxed By the Mile?

This is how we might have to get around this.

How would you like to be taxed by the mile? Maybe on top of the gas tax you pay for driving a vehicle?

That is an idea the Obama administration is kicking around with in a draft proposal in the offing.

As reported on The Hill, the way the plan would work, would be to require everyone to have a "tracking device" attached to their car to determine how many miles they have driven and payment would be taken once you filled up.
Now the article says “This is not an administration proposal.... this is not a bill supported by the administration.(???)... Does not represent the views of the president.”
Then why is the administration DRAFTING it?

The Obama administration has floated a transportation authorization bill that would require the study and implementation of a plan to tax automobile drivers based on how many miles they drive.

The plan is a part of the administration's Transportation Opportunities Act, anundated draft of which was obtained this week by Transportation Weekly. 

The White House, however, said the bill is only an early draft that was not formally circulated within the administration.

“This is not an administration proposal," White House spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said. "This is not a bill supported by the administration. This was an early working draft proposal that was never formally circulated within the administration, does not taken into account the advice of the president’s senior advisers, economic team or Cabinet officials, and does not represent the views of the president.”

News of the draft follows a March Congressional Budget Office report that supported the idea of taxing drivers based on miles driven.

Among other things, CBO suggested that a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax could be tracked by installing electronic equipment on each car to determine how many miles were driven; payment could take place electronically at filling stations. 

The CBO report was requested by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who has proposed taxing cars by the mile as a way to increase federal highway revenues.

The proposal seems to follow up on that idea in section 2218 of the draft bill. That section would create, within the Federal Highway Administration, a Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office. It would be tasked with creating a "study framework that defines the functionality of a mileage-based user fee system and other systems."

Read it here