Something to think about as tax time approaches

The IRS is operating above the law, and nobody in the 0bama regime is willing to rein it in…not much surprise there, unfortunately:

DOJ: No contempt charges for former IRS official Lois Lerner

The Justice Department will not seek criminal contempt charges against former IRS official Lois Lerner, the central figure in a scandal that erupted over whether the tax agency improperly targeted conservative political groups.

Ronald Machen, the former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, told House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in a seven-page letter this week that he would not bring a criminal case to a grand jury over Lerner’s refusal to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in March 2014. The House approved a criminal contempt resolution against Lerner in May 2014, and Machen’s office has been reviewing the issue since then.

Lerner and other IRS officials, however, are still under investigation by the FBI for the tea party targeting matter — which is a separate probe entirely.

…and if you believe they’ll ever prosecute her for targeting conservative organizations, maybe you’ll be interested in this bridge I have for sale.

Something for the anti-theists to consider

…if they can only take off their blinders for a sec:

10 Americans Helped By Religious Freedom Bills Like Indiana’s

The federal government passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993. It was authored by Chuck Schumer, passed with nearly unanimous support from both parties, and signed by President Bill Clinton. The legislation was needed after a bad Supreme Court ruling delivered by Antonin Scalia that limited religious freedom for Native Americans who smoke peyote as part of their religion. A later Supreme Court ruling ruled that the RFRA didn’t apply to state or local governments. Twenty states passed RFRAs and another 13 have protections like the ones in RFRA.

And yet when Indiana passed the legislation last week, the media characterized it as nothing more than a bigoted anti-gay bill and celebrities and activists called for a boycott against the state. The media is highly uninformed about the topic and despite RFRAs being around since 1993, no one can provide any evidence to substantiate the outlandish claims made against them. In fact, RFRA simply allows religious people to challenge government activities that encroach on their beliefs. They have to show that the government action substantially burdens a religious belief that they sincerely hold. And if they prove all that, it falls to the government to show that the challenged action is justified as the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. Having a RFRA doesn’t mean that you know which side wins, it just sets the terms of the debate.

Liars gonna lie

I guess I’ll just keep those rumors of Harry Reid’s pederasty in circulation, then:

Harry Reid is proud he lied about Mitt Romney’s taxes

Harry Reid, D-Nev. has no regrets about his 2012 claims that then presidential candidate Mitt Romney paid no taxes for 10 years.

The outgoing Senate Minority Leader even bragged to CNN that the comments, which had been described as McCarthyism, helped keep Romney from winning the election.

“They can call it whatever they want. Romney didn’t win did he?” Reid said during a wide-ranging interview.

So, in Reid’s world, it is perfectly acceptable to make a defamatory charge against an opponent to damage his campaign.

Connecticut’s Governor Doesn’t Understand His Own State’s RFRA

He should’ve taken the opportunity to STFU, but SJWs never do:

Connecticut’s Governor Doesn’t Understand His Own State’s RFRA

I don’t know how many staffers, lawyers, and advisers currently work for Malloy, but it’s a real shame that not a single one of them told the governor that Connecticut has had an expansive RFRA on the books for over two decades. That’s right: Connecticut passed its own RFRA law on June 29, 1993. You can read the law for yourself here. The inanity of Malloy’s move doesn’t stop there, though. What makes his grandstanding particularly absurd is the fact that Connecticut’s RFRA provides far greater religious liberty protections than Indiana’s or even the federal government’s.

If you dislike Indiana’s RFRA, then you should loathe Connecticut’s. The difference comes down to a single phrase: “substantially burden.”

Both the Indiana law and the federal law declare that the respective governments may not “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion[.]” In other words, the laws require the courts to analyze cases brought under these laws using the strict scrutiny standard. Under the Indiana and federal religious liberty laws, government can burden religious exercise, but it cannot substantially burden it. That’s a key distinction.

Connecticut’s law, however, is far more restrictive of government action and far more protective of religious freedoms. How? Because the Connecticut RFRA law states that government shall not “burden a person’s exercise of religion[.]” Note that the word “substantially” is not included in Connecticut’s law.

American media: asleep at the wheel again

Pro-Hassan Rouhani Iranian editor defects while covering nuclear talks in Lausanne

Probably the most explosive line is right at the end: “The US negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal.” If that’s the case, who’s speaking on our behalf?

0bama and Kerry are working for the enemy, not for you.  Last time I checked, that was treason.  Too bad Boehner and McConnell don’t have the stones to reel in this lawless duo.  The nagging suspicion that there’s not one thin dime’s worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans gets louder still.

Pix from the 2015 Boulder City Beerfest

« ‹ of 7 › »

How’s that hope and change working out for you?

Richard Engel: US Allies in Gulf Won’t Tell Obama Anything Because They Believe That Obama Is Leaking Secret Information to Iran to Kiss Up To Them

The Saudis began operations in Yemen without informing the US — a hitherto unlikely scenario.

But they kept the operation a secret.

Because they think Obama is so determined to make kissy-face with Iran that he would have leaked their battle plans directly to their enemy.

They no longer consider the US “reliable.”

Wasn’t the son of a bitch supposed to have improved our relations with the rest of the world?  How’d that work out, 52%ers?