Will Holder Prosecute or even investigate Jon Corzine? Fat Chance of that. With Holder and the Obama Administration going after Conservatives States,..first suing States who are trying to fix the illegal alien issue and secondly suing the states who are trying to solve voter fraud, Holder has no time to investigate or prosecute crimes such as Corzine stealing money from investors or Black militants intimidating voters. I find it funny that the Black Militants only chose locations where elderly white people voted as opposed to trying to intimidate voters in states like Texas, or Arizona or Montana, or Wyoming,....or Alabama, etc.
Ted Cruz and the Tea Party Victorious in Texas Republican Senate Run Off Election. The Tea Party, yet again, showed it's grass roots strength by Ted Cruz winning the run off election against David Dewhurst an entrenched old school Republican in the Republican stronghold of Texas. So all those Liberal and Rhino declarations that the Tea Party is dead are vastly over stated and in fact, totally wrong. And what is telling is that Cruz won by such a large margin,.....56 % to 44%, even though he was outspent $24 million to $9 million.
More Legacy Media Bias demonstrated in the news reports about Anne Romney's and Michelle Obama's clothing. First we had the Legacy Media, also known as the Mainstream Media or Obama's fifth Column, beating up Anne Romney because she was wearing a $900 blouse,...."Oh, she is so out of touch with middle class America by wearing and flaunting that expensive item of clothing,...shame on her."........ Contrast that with the Media reporting on Michelle Obama wearing a $8,600 shirt/vest,...."Oh, Michelle sets a high bar for style,.....oh, her arms are so toned,.....". Come on, even you Liberals have to see that the media is so slanted towards Democrats, that they may as well get paid by the DNC. Well, ......maybe they are.
Facebook Poll on Welfare Do you think welfare recipients should be drug tested?
Yes: 168,439 (94%)
No: 7,575 ( 4%)
Don't Know: 2,724 (2%)
Cowboys and the Tea Party political movement have a lot on common. Both believe in individual responsibility; judging a man by his actions not words; and, both are disgusted with government intrusions into our lives and particularly our God given rights.
Friday, August 3, 2012
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Obama's Amnesty Program
It looks to be that Obama is trying to recruit more voters prior to November,......he must be worried.
Top Immigration Officials Describe Border Chaos Resulting From Admin's Amnesty Policy Senator Sessions (R-AL) hosted a press conference today with top officials from two unions that represent U.S. immigration law enforcement agencies.
ICE agent Chris Crane is President of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, the union representing America's more than 7,000 ICE agents and personnel.
Border Patrol agent George McCubbin, III is President of the National Border Patrol Council, the union representing America's more than 17,000 border agents and personnel.
From Senator Sessions' remarks: "The Administration claims it has diligently enforced immigration law and that the border is 'more secure than ever.' But those on the front lines know this to be untrue. They see the violence, chaos and lawlessness. They have lost confidence in the leadership of their agencies...As you will hear today, this administration has engaged in a sustained, relentless effort to undermine America's immigration laws. They have handcuffed and muffled those charged with protecting the public safety and the integrity of our borders. Such action has not only weakened our security but our democracy...All Americans, immigrant and native born, will have a better future if our nation remains unique in the world for the special reverence it places in the rule of law and fairness in our immigration system."
Watch the below video to see what both Law Enforcement Union officials have to say about President Obama's failure to uphold his Constitutional duties and responsibilities.
Top Immigration Officials Describe Border Chaos Resulting From Admin's Amnesty Policy Senator Sessions (R-AL) hosted a press conference today with top officials from two unions that represent U.S. immigration law enforcement agencies.
ICE agent Chris Crane is President of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, the union representing America's more than 7,000 ICE agents and personnel.
Border Patrol agent George McCubbin, III is President of the National Border Patrol Council, the union representing America's more than 17,000 border agents and personnel.
From Senator Sessions' remarks: "The Administration claims it has diligently enforced immigration law and that the border is 'more secure than ever.' But those on the front lines know this to be untrue. They see the violence, chaos and lawlessness. They have lost confidence in the leadership of their agencies...As you will hear today, this administration has engaged in a sustained, relentless effort to undermine America's immigration laws. They have handcuffed and muffled those charged with protecting the public safety and the integrity of our borders. Such action has not only weakened our security but our democracy...All Americans, immigrant and native born, will have a better future if our nation remains unique in the world for the special reverence it places in the rule of law and fairness in our immigration system."
Watch the below video to see what both Law Enforcement Union officials have to say about President Obama's failure to uphold his Constitutional duties and responsibilities.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Obama's Enemies
From John Strassel: Obama's Enemies List—Part II:
First an Obama campaign website called out Romney donor Frank Vandersloot. Next the IRS moved to audit him—and so did the Labor Department. Reported on the Wall Street Journal here.
John Strassel has already told the story of Frank VanderSloot, an Idaho businessman who last year contributed to a group supporting Mitt Romney. An Obama campaign website in April sent a message to those who'd donate to the president's opponent. It called out Mr. VanderSloot and seven other private donors by name and occupation and slurred them as having "less-than-reputable" records.
Mr. VanderSloot has since been learning what it means to be on a presidential enemies list. Just 12 days after the attack, the Idahoan found an investigator digging to unearth his divorce records. This investigator — a recent employee of Senate Democrats—worked for a for-hire opposition research firm. Now Mr. VanderSloot has been targeted by the federal government.
In a letter dated June 21, he was informed that his tax records had been "selected for examination" by the Internal Revenue Service. The audit also encompasses Mr. VanderSloot's wife, and not one, but two years of past filings (2008 and 2009).
Mr. VanderSloot, who is 63 and has been working since his teens, says neither he nor his accountants recall his being subject to a federal tax audit before. He was once required to send documents on a line item inquiry into his charitable donations, which resulted in no changes to his taxes. But nothing more—that is until now, shortly after he wrote a big check to a Romney-supporting Super PAC.
Two weeks after receiving the IRS letter, Mr. VanderSloot received another—this one from the Department of Labor. He was informed it would be doing an audit of workers he employs on his Idaho-based cattle ranch under the federal visa program for temporary agriculture workers. The H-2A program allows tens of thousands of temporary workers in the U.S.; Mr. VanderSloot employs precisely three. All are from Mexico and have worked on the VanderSloot ranch—which employs about 20 people—for five years. Two are brothers. Mr. VanderSloot has never been audited for this, though two years ago his workers' ranch homes were inspected. (The ranch was fined $8,400, mainly for too many "flies" and for "grease build-up" on the stove. God forbid a cattle ranch home has flies.)
This letter requests an array of documents to ascertain whether Mr. VanderSloot's "foreign workers are provided the full scope of protections" under the visa program: information on the hours they've worked each day and their rate of pay, an explanation of their deductions, copies of contracts. And on and on.
Perhaps all this is coincidence. Perhaps something in Mr. VanderSloot's finances or on his ranch raised a flag. Americans want to believe the federal government performs its duties without fear or favor. Only in this case, Americans can have no such confidence.
Did Mr. Obama pick up the phone and order the screws put to Mr. VanderSloot? Or—more likely—did a pro-Obama appointee or political hire or career staffer see that the boss had an issue with this donor, and decide to do the president an unasked-for election favor? Or did he or she simply think this was a duty, given that the president had declared Mr. VanderSloot and fellow donors "less than reputable"?
Mr. VanderSloot says he "expected the public beatings" from the left after the naming, but he "also wondered whether government agencies, anxious to please their boss, would take notice of the target he had apparently placed on me. Now that I'm being singled out for audits, I can't help but wonder whether there is a connection."
As for other Romney donors: "It is un-American and irresponsible for a president to target individual, law-abiding citizens for political retribution, and it is inconceivable that any U.S. agency would stoop to do the bidding for this campaign's silliness," says Louis Bacon, an investor and conservationist who also made the Obama list.
We don't know what happened, and that's the problem. Entrusted with extraordinary powers, Mr. Obama has the duty to protect and defend all Americans—regardless of political ideology. By having his campaign target a private citizen for his politics, the president forswore those obligations. He both undermined public faith in federal institutions and put his employees in an impossible situation.
Every thinking American must henceforth wonder if Mr. VanderSloot has been targeted for inquiry because of his political leanings. And every federal servant must wonder if his inquiries into an Obama enemy will bring suspicion or disgrace on the agency—even if the inquiry is legitimate.
As for Mr. VanderSloot, to what authority should he appeal if he believes this to be politically motivated—given the Justice Department on down is also controlled by the man who targeted him? (The White House did not return an email requesting comment.) If this isn't a chilling glimpse of a society Americans reject, it is hard to know what is. It's why presidents are held to different rules, and should not keep lists. And it's why Mr. Obama has some explaining to do.
First an Obama campaign website called out Romney donor Frank Vandersloot. Next the IRS moved to audit him—and so did the Labor Department. Reported on the Wall Street Journal here.
John Strassel has already told the story of Frank VanderSloot, an Idaho businessman who last year contributed to a group supporting Mitt Romney. An Obama campaign website in April sent a message to those who'd donate to the president's opponent. It called out Mr. VanderSloot and seven other private donors by name and occupation and slurred them as having "less-than-reputable" records.
Mr. VanderSloot has since been learning what it means to be on a presidential enemies list. Just 12 days after the attack, the Idahoan found an investigator digging to unearth his divorce records. This investigator — a recent employee of Senate Democrats—worked for a for-hire opposition research firm. Now Mr. VanderSloot has been targeted by the federal government.
In a letter dated June 21, he was informed that his tax records had been "selected for examination" by the Internal Revenue Service. The audit also encompasses Mr. VanderSloot's wife, and not one, but two years of past filings (2008 and 2009).
Mr. VanderSloot, who is 63 and has been working since his teens, says neither he nor his accountants recall his being subject to a federal tax audit before. He was once required to send documents on a line item inquiry into his charitable donations, which resulted in no changes to his taxes. But nothing more—that is until now, shortly after he wrote a big check to a Romney-supporting Super PAC.
Two weeks after receiving the IRS letter, Mr. VanderSloot received another—this one from the Department of Labor. He was informed it would be doing an audit of workers he employs on his Idaho-based cattle ranch under the federal visa program for temporary agriculture workers. The H-2A program allows tens of thousands of temporary workers in the U.S.; Mr. VanderSloot employs precisely three. All are from Mexico and have worked on the VanderSloot ranch—which employs about 20 people—for five years. Two are brothers. Mr. VanderSloot has never been audited for this, though two years ago his workers' ranch homes were inspected. (The ranch was fined $8,400, mainly for too many "flies" and for "grease build-up" on the stove. God forbid a cattle ranch home has flies.)
This letter requests an array of documents to ascertain whether Mr. VanderSloot's "foreign workers are provided the full scope of protections" under the visa program: information on the hours they've worked each day and their rate of pay, an explanation of their deductions, copies of contracts. And on and on.
Perhaps all this is coincidence. Perhaps something in Mr. VanderSloot's finances or on his ranch raised a flag. Americans want to believe the federal government performs its duties without fear or favor. Only in this case, Americans can have no such confidence.
Did Mr. Obama pick up the phone and order the screws put to Mr. VanderSloot? Or—more likely—did a pro-Obama appointee or political hire or career staffer see that the boss had an issue with this donor, and decide to do the president an unasked-for election favor? Or did he or she simply think this was a duty, given that the president had declared Mr. VanderSloot and fellow donors "less than reputable"?
Mr. VanderSloot says he "expected the public beatings" from the left after the naming, but he "also wondered whether government agencies, anxious to please their boss, would take notice of the target he had apparently placed on me. Now that I'm being singled out for audits, I can't help but wonder whether there is a connection."
As for other Romney donors: "It is un-American and irresponsible for a president to target individual, law-abiding citizens for political retribution, and it is inconceivable that any U.S. agency would stoop to do the bidding for this campaign's silliness," says Louis Bacon, an investor and conservationist who also made the Obama list.
We don't know what happened, and that's the problem. Entrusted with extraordinary powers, Mr. Obama has the duty to protect and defend all Americans—regardless of political ideology. By having his campaign target a private citizen for his politics, the president forswore those obligations. He both undermined public faith in federal institutions and put his employees in an impossible situation.
Every thinking American must henceforth wonder if Mr. VanderSloot has been targeted for inquiry because of his political leanings. And every federal servant must wonder if his inquiries into an Obama enemy will bring suspicion or disgrace on the agency—even if the inquiry is legitimate.
As for Mr. VanderSloot, to what authority should he appeal if he believes this to be politically motivated—given the Justice Department on down is also controlled by the man who targeted him? (The White House did not return an email requesting comment.) If this isn't a chilling glimpse of a society Americans reject, it is hard to know what is. It's why presidents are held to different rules, and should not keep lists. And it's why Mr. Obama has some explaining to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)