Tea Party - Time To Call The GOP's Bluff

  The rise of the Tea Party in 2010 was a movement like never before. Political protests were the domain of aging hippies, wearing tie-dye shirts, who may or may not be aware that the 60's are over. Suddenly, grandmothers, stay at home moms, and just ordinary Americans who had never before been politically active or protested the government, were now gathered by the thousands, waving Gadsden flags, and demanding that their elected officials hear what they had to say.
  The Tea Party carried quite a bit of political clout. Enough to win the largest number of seats by Republicans ever in the House. They were instrumental in the election of a few Senators as well. It is those Senators who seem to forget who brought them to the dance.
  The "test vote" on the Senate's version of the immigration reform bill passed on Monday by a vote of 67-27, with 15 Republican Senators voting to advance the 1100 page bill that almost no one has read.
  This vote by these Senators, we will call them the "gang of 15", has now very clearly illustrated the problem the GOP must tackle if we are to win even the 2014 mid-terms, much less the 2016 presidential election. The Republican Party is slowly splitting.

 There is the Party of John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Dinosaurs whose usefulness has long since dried up. They really were not interested in principles, or winning elections. They just wanted Democrats and the media (interchangeable) to like them. There is the Party of Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. Staunch Constitutionalists who are not so much interested in Party as they are in upholding and maintaining the principles and values on which our nation was founded. But they also know what is expected of them by the people who sent them to Washington. There is the Party of Marco Rubio and Kelly Ayotte. Tea Party favorites in 2010, who seemed to know what those Gadsden flag wavers wanted out of their representatives. They promised to deliver.
  But something has happened on the way to 2014. Republicans who claim to be Conservatives, are voting for a massive big government monstrosity that rewards illegals with a path to citizenship, promises to build a fence that was supposed to be built 7 years ago, and leaves the building of that fence, along with a whole lot of other things, up to Secretary of Homeland Security Janet  Napolitano. The Gang of 15, in their frantic quest to make new Hispanic friends before 2014, believe the way to do that is to vote for what amounts to amnesty for 11 million people, and creating a whole new generation of Democratic voters, while putting securing the border on the to do list.
  When the Tea Party Favorites were elected, they were told that they would indeed be held accountable, and if they did not adhere to basic Conservative principles, they would suffer the same fate as their RINO predecessors. So what now? If these so called Conservatives are not called out, does the Tea Party lose credibility? They were certainly quiet in 2012. Whether or not that was the fault of the IRS, who knows. Will the Tea Party faithful throw their hands up and throw the bums out? We all know there is no such thing as the "perfect" candidate, but many feel they were at least misled, at most lied to by the likes of Rubio, and his gang.
  The bill is expected to have trouble in the Republican led House, but if the bill passes the Senate as  is expected, is it time for the Tea Party to put on it's poker face, and call the GOP's bluff?
  Game on.
               
 

No Income Tax Paid? No Problem!

  The seemingly never ending saga of the IRS and it's bad behavior continues. Although it may take a back seat this week to the pending immigration bill. But what do ya' know, the IRS is well connected to the "plight" of the illegal immigrant.
  In a 2011 story from The Blaze, those here in the United States illegally and working have collected roughly $4.2 billion dollars a year in tax credits per year from the IRS. An amount that has quadrupled in the last 5-7 years.
  The IRS and

Congress have known about this for years, however the IRS claims it has no authority to stop what amounts to outright theft from American taxpayers by those who have entered the country illegally.
  Here's how it works. Individuals who are not authorized to work in the United States, and therefore cannot obtain a Social Security card are issued an ITIN, or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number. This number enables them to file a tax return. Even though illegals are prohibited from receiving most federal benefits, there is a growing number who are filing returns claiming the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC).
  According to Townhall.com, one whistleblower who help expose the scheme said, "It's so easy it's ridiculous. Names are listed on the IRS form. The more you put on there, the more you get back. No questions asked." The IRS claims that for any real change to take place, there must be legislative change. So does sweeping immigration reform do anything to close this loophole?
  Senator Jeff Sessions R-AL offered an amendment requiring a valid Social Security number for each qualifying child, as well as for the filing parent. The amendment failed in committee on a party line vote, but Sessions was expected to offer it up again on the Senate floor when debate on the bill began on Tuesday.
  Illegal immigration costs hard working Americans billions of dollars every year. Public schools and hospitals are forced to shut their doors because they cannot handle the influx of people. And in the case of hospitals, writing off the costs of health care for the uninsured. Many of which will remain uninsured even after the full implementation of Obama care. Debate on immigration reform promises to be contentious. Democrats are likely to see failure to pass the bill as a potential political weapon they can use to portray Republicans as anti-immigration in the oh-so-crucial 2014 mid-term elections. Staunch Conservatives cannot seem to make their less than staunch colleagues see the importance of securing the border before any sort of legalization process is thought of.
  Part of the debate must be how to close these tax loopholes. Perhaps another part is deciding what to do about the always tightening noose around the American taxpayer that is the IRS. 

Hell to Pay

  It looks as though it is going to be a long hot summer, and then some for the Obama administration. We are at the point where we need to start numbering the scandals in order just to keep track and keep up. While all of these situations are disturbing and must be gotten to the bottom of, the ones that seem to resonate the most with ordinary Americans are the IRS targeting of Conservative groups, and the NSA monitoring of the personal phone calls and emails of average citizens. At the least, it is a violation of the first magnitude of the right to privacy that every American should expect, and at its most serious and egregious, it is a clear violation of the fourth amendment of the Constitution.
  While lawyers and political pundits have been all over the cable airwaves and the internet, many people have said a lot of things, and brought up very salient points. But there has been one thing that has been missing. It may be nothing, but with this bunch, you should probably make a note of everything.
  Right before the 2012 presidential election, and for a while immediately following, there was a quote floated about by White House Super-Advisor Valerie Jarrett. It went something like this, "After we win this election, it's our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we don't forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay. Congress won't be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over and we have two judges ready to go."
  Quite a bit of "testicular fortitude", even for someone who has been nicknamed by some administration insiders, "Obama's brain". But what about this brazen declaration? Is it the trash talk of elections, or is it more?
  We know that Valerie Jarrett has been a trusted friend and confidante to both Barack and Michelle Obama since their days in Chicago. All are seasoned warriors of the battle known as Chicago politics. We also know that "the Chicago way" does not mean that all parties involved join hands and sing "I'd like to teach the world to sing."
  Jarrett is front and center of most if not all decisions made by the President. Her words have won out over those of former White House Chiefs of Staff Rahm Emmanuel and Bill Daley. Is it possible that her fingerprints could be found at the NSA?
  And what about those talking heads on TV? Why has nobody remembered these words? I once heard Glenn Beck describe a conversation he had with a Nazi concentration camp survivor. As they spoke about the situation in the Middle East, the subject of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and his promise to "wipe Israel off the map" came up. The camp survivor, now an old man stated, "when someone threatens to annihilate you, believe them."
  While the two scenarios could not be more different, the principle is basically the same. Valerie Jarrett may very well be the biggest kook in the room, but the biggest kook in the room has the resources, the means, definitely the power, and maybe most importantly, the wherewithal and the desire to make it happen.
  The Obama administration is on record stating that there are "friends" and "enemies". It is how they operate. It remains to be seen where this latest governmental abuse of power will lead. Is it indeed at long last, payback time?     

Socially Acceptable Discrimination

  Last week, St. Louis broadcast icon Larry Connors filed a lawsuit with the Missouri Human Rights Commission accusing CBS affiliate KMOV-TV of age and race discrimination. The lawsuit claims that management gave younger reporters the more choice assignments. It also states that Connors former co-anchor was paid more because she was an African-American female.
  We are, right now, at the tip of the iceberg of a major scandal involving the IRS, and it's targeting of Conservative and religious groups for extra scrutiny when they filed for tax-exempt status.
  Are Americans headed down a chilling path? A path that actually condones discrimination of certain groups of people and speech?
  As far as groups of people that have been deemed acceptable for discriminatory action, white males and Christians seem to be at the top of the list. God(dess) help you if you are both. Want some back-up for that? Try hunting down discrimination statistics for white males. There aren't any. Recently, a casting call for a male host for a Canadian children's show went out. Just one hitch, no white men need apply.
  Christians are expected to keep their beliefs to themselves. Catholic hospitals are in the fight of their lives to keep from being forced to provide birth control, or perform any other service that may go against their beliefs that falls under the crushing umbrella of Obama care. And whatever you do, don't say, "Merry Christmas"!
  Back in 2003, Hillary Clinton, in front of a crowd, screeched about how dissent was patriotic, and we had a right to disagree with any administration! Really? Ask any one of roughly 500 Tea Party groups just how patriotic they were feeling when the IRS demanded to know the contents of their prayers.
  Noam Chomsky, Godfather of Uber-Lefties, once said, "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." Can Liberals really say they live by that creed today, when their answer to those with whom they disagree, is to shut them up? If minority Americans are comfortable with racism, yes that what it is, towards white males because somehow in their mind they feel like "they have it coming", then they have learned nothing from great courageous Americans like Frederick Douglass, Dr. W.E.B Du Bois, and Dr. Martin Luther King. Who decides what groups and what speech is acceptable, and which ones don't really deserve the equality that is guaranteed all Americans?
  Discrimination is discrimination. There is no "reverse" about it. If you don't condemn it when it happens to someone else, who will condemn it when it happens to you?