(Kurt Schlichter) Liberals will tell you that the IRS scandal is a “phony scandal,” apparently because using the federal government as a tool of oppression against one’s political opponents is A-OK as long as the ones using it are liberals and the ones being oppressed are conservatives.
Remember, scratch a liberal and it’ll bleed fascist brown.
So why not start off your discussion with your liberal conversationalist pal by posing that basic question: Is it okay, or is it not okay, to use federal agencies to harass and persecute your political opponents?
Now to us, because we are decent people and real Americans, the answer is “No,” but most hardcore liberals truly believe that it’s absolutely acceptable for Barack Obama to oppress his political opponents using the federal agencies under his control. To them, the rules and rights that protect all Americans only protect all Americans that they agree with. (more…)
WASHINGTON – House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Regulatory Affairs Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, today pressed the Federal Election Commission (FEC) on yet another hard drive crash of an employee who disparaged Republicans and campaigned for President Obama in violation of the Hatch Act, which states that federal employees should not conduct political activities during work hours.
(more…)
If you tell your neighbor your favorite color is blue, and tell your spouse your favorite color is green, it really doesn’t matter. Either could be true at a given moment in time.
While owning a singular pet – If you tell your neighbor you own a cat, and tell your boss you own a dog, one of them is a lie – but likely doesn’t hold a consequence unless your integrity is called out by your employer in a legal action.
The only statement that legally matters is what you state when in front of a court of law.
Your favorite color, when stated to a judge, is considered the absolute truth – so too is ownership of either the cat or dog. The fact you are under oath, in front of a judge, changes the relative consideration of your statement.
When President Obama Inc. (Pelosi / Reid) told the American people the individual mandate within the ObamaCare law was a penalty, he promised it was not a tax.
In front of the Supreme Court President Obama Inc. claimed the individual mandate was most definitely a “tax”, and not a penalty. In the eyes of the court the truth was the statement made in front of the judiciary, the individual mandate was evaluated as a tax.
The prior statements to congress and the American people are discarded. The “Truth” is what’s said in front of the court – in the eyes of the law, the absolute Truth. (more…)
This story is developing – more will follow later – but I wanted to point out the IRS legal position in front of Judge Reggie Walton:
The IRS lawyers are claiming True The Vote cannot “prove” any Lerner emails were lost, therefore legally the IRS cannot be compelled to explain “why” the emails were lost.
You getting this ?
WASHINGTON DC – A second federal judge has now ordered the IRS to explain under oath how the agency lost emails from former division director Lois Lerner, the woman at the heart of the Tea Party targeting scandal.
U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton told Obama administration lawyers on Friday he wants to see an affidavit explaining what happened with Lerner’s hard drive. The IRS claims her computer suffered a crash in 2011 that wiped her email records at the time clean. (more…)