Thursday, June 6, 2013



Jay Leno told his studio audience the other night that President Obama should forget his plans to close the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay and instead close the IRS.

The applause was instantaneous and the laughs were loud and genuine.

Most ordinary Americans would have whooped and hollered in favor of Leno's idea long before they learned the IRS has been caught targeting conservative political groups and wasting millions on moronic employee-training conferences.

But the IRS is no joking matter.

The average working American -- poor or rich or in-between -- hates and fears the IRS for good reason.

Able to seize your bank account or house without a court order, able to shut down your business overnight, the IRS is the closest thing to the Gestapo America has ever had.

But it's not the current IRS scandals that are the real problem. It's not the hated tax-collecting bureaucracy itself. It's not even whether the Obama regime used the dangerous powers of the IRS as a political weapon.

The real problem -- the long-term problem and the one Republicans have to find the courage to fix -- is the horrible income tax system the IRS is hired to enforce.

The federal income tax code deserves the death penalty for a lot good reasons. It's unfair, overly complex, horribly politicized, harmful to individuals and the economy, helpful to the forces of Big Government and impossible to understand without a CPA.

It's also a costly waste of money and time. Just complying with our unnecessarily (but deliberately) complicated federal tax system costs Americans about $430 billion a year, according to economist Arthur Laffer.

The IRS scandals are a golden opportunity for conservatives and Republicans to direct the country's attention toward the ultimate and long-overdue goal -- abolishing the IRS as we know it and drastically reforming our tax code.

We need a strong leader -- now -- who will stand up and lead the country down the road to radical tax reform.

Maybe it's going to be Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. Earlier this week he called for abolishing the IRS after instituting a simple flat tax that could be filled out on a postcard. Maybe it'll be another rookie in Washington, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky.

The biggest problem we have is that our side -- the tax-reform side -- has no leader and no clear, unified message.

Should we conservatives go for a Flat Tax or a Fair Tax?

A low, simple, flat-tax percentage for all income earners, minus deductions for home mortgages and charitable deductions? Or a national sales tax of about 23 percent that would replace both the federal income tax and the payroll tax?

If my father Ronald Reagan were around today, I know what he'd do.

He'd do exactly what I'd do -- get the flat-taxers and the fair-taxers together in a room and have them hash out a single tax reform program to sell to the American people.

So, sure, let's bring the Obama Gang and its IRS lackeys to justice for their abuses.

But what we need most right now is for someone -- Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Donald Trump, even Jay Leno -- to convene a national tax convention that would unite our side and lead the fight for a better tax code.

Republicans can't afford to be split on the important issue of income tax reform or miss this chance to focus on the crimes of the IRS.

The Flat Tax and the Fair Tax each have pluses and minuses that need to be debated. But in the end it really doesn't matter which idea triumphs.

America and all Americans would be better off with either one. Either would eliminate the progressive tax system and make federal taxes simpler, fairer, smarter and apolitical. And, best of all, either one would kill the IRS as we know it -- forever.


Now that the election is past us, perhaps liberals and conservatives can agree on a bipartisan measure of reform that’s sorely needed in Washington: Obama needs to remove Eric Holder from his spot as the nation’s top law enforcement officer. 

As a conservative, I have been outraged by the selective prosecutions, subversions of the laws to protect political power, the disregard of constitutional checks and balances, along with the general arrogance of the Arrogant General, Eric Holder.

And now, it seems, liberals are starting to have the same concerns that conservatives do.

The growing unease that liberals have felt with Holder may have reached the breaking point before the recent troubles.

The disillusionment started to materialize with Holder’s declarations that prosecutions of crimes relating to the financial system will have to take a back seat to the overall health of the economy.

So in other words, people like former Obama economic capo, Democrat Jon Corzine, will get to skate after his firm “misplaced” $1.6 billion in customer-segregated accounts; money that was supposedly off limits, in the same way that I’m not entitled to spend money in YOUR checking account.

And Corzine is not the only example, just one that conservatives like to use.

Apparently ANY large financial institution’s employees can commit a crime, and, according to Holder’s theory of the law, the economic health of the country comes first. Justice just has to wait. Or be suspended all together, as long as those people are big and important enough.

Not coincidentally, these same financial institutions and the people who run them are some of the biggest donors to political campaigns in the nation. And they give to both parties.

"I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if we do prosecute -- if we do bring a criminal charge -- it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy," Holder told senators last week according to CBSNews. "I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large."

I wonder who as “hit” Holder “with indications” an indictment in a criminal matter might have a “negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy”?

Mr. Obama? Care to field this one? 

Eric Holder was not appointed by the president, under the constitution, to decide cases on the basis of the national economy; nor on the amount of money that donors make to Obama’s campaign; nor yet on the basis of race, creed, and unmanned aerial-vehicle make, model and armaments configuration.

Holder doesn’t seem to understand that his function as attorney general is to uphold the law, and that his failure to recognize his role is enough to disqualify him from the top spot at Justice.

Conservatives have long held the view that Holder’s political bias make him unfit to be the country’s top law enforcement officer.

Mr. Obama can fire Eric Holder now, as even some liberals now agree.

Find more liberal opinion on firing Eric Holder below.

Ok, the last one really isn’t about Holder resigning. It’s about a much better option: Fire Obama.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/29/liberal-law-professor-says-eric-holder-s
http://www.occupy.com/article/calls-fire-eric-holder-should-worry-wall-street
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/05/should-president-obama-fire-eric-holder
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/bill-press-fire-eric-holder-91479.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/is-this-the-end-of-eric-holders-tenure-at-the-justice-department/275830/
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/keith-olbermann-eric-holder-shouldve-resigned-before-making-martyr-of-fox-news-reporter/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-some-wh-want-holder-resign-viewed-politically-maladroit_732175.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/30/penatgon-papers-lawyer-james-goodale-it-s-time-for-eric-holder-to-resign.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/3/white-house-wants-attorney-general-eric-holder-go-/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-obama-20130515,0,1109593.story
Image: Holder Says He Won't Step Down, Has 'Great Respect' for JournalistsHolder Says He Won't Step Down, Has 'Great Respect' for Journalists
By: Paul Scicchitano for Newsmax


  • 4
    Shar
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told NBC News on Wednesday that he has no plans to resign for the time being and insisted that he has "great respect" for the news media despite signing off on requests by his Justice Department to examine the phone and email records of journalists.

"There's some things that I want to do, some things that I want to get done that I’ve discussed with the president, and once I have finished that I'll sit down with him and we’ll determine when it’s time to make a transition to a new attorney general," Holder told NBC's Pete Williams in an exclusive interview.

"But to be clear, you’re not stepping down now?" Williams pressed.

"No, I have no intention of doing so now," Holder replied.

A number of prominent Republican lawmakers have called for Holder’s resignation in recent weeks and some White House advisers have expressed frustration over Holder's apparent inability to have foreseen problems arising from his approval of a subpoena naming Fox News’ James Rosen as a possible co-conspirator in an espionage investigation.

Holder has become a lightning rod for criticism over the Justice Department's decision to subpoena the phone records of 100 Associated Press reporters and editors in another polarizing leak investigation.

The top lawman in the U.S. said the aggressive crackdown on leaks was not the result of a policy decision, but rather demands from the intelligence community and Congress.

"I'm a little concerned that things have gotten a little out of whack," he said. "I think we can do a better job than we have. We can reform those regulations, reform those guidelines to better reflect that balance."

The Justice Department obtained Rosen's phone and email records to investigate the leak of sensitive intelligence about North Korea, describing the journalist as an aider, abettor, or co-conspirator at the very least — a phrase that Holder maintains was needed to obtain the search warrant.

"I don't like that because it means that me as a government official, who has great respect for the press, is in essence saying that a reporter who is doing his or her job — and doing that very important job — is somehow branded a criminal, and I’m just not comfortable with that. We’re going to change that."

Williams said another possible change would be to give the news media a chance to fight a request for records in court before they are turned over.

"We'll come up with ways in which notification can be given to the media, and possibly involve on a more consistent basis, judges as third-party arbiters," Holder said.

Honor them always

Today we mark D-Day, the day that Allied troops landed along the beaches of Normandy and changed forever the course of history.

Remember and honor the bravery and sacrifice of the 160,000 Allied troops who landed that day and took on Nazi Germany, for without their sacrifice we would NOT be the country we are today.
 
Op-ed: 
Screwing America yet again 
By: Diane Sori


In the Rose Garden yesterday, sans a Marine holding an umbrella over his narcissistic self, Barack HUSSEIN Obama happily slapped Republicans in the face by naming Susan ‘It was a YouTube video’ Rice to the influential foreign policy position of National Security Advisor, replacing the retiring Tom Donilon, the man many suspect of being the source of the leaks coming from the White House.

And meeting the number one qualification for the post of Obama’s National Security Advisor being the ability to bold-face lie to the American people without even cracking a smile, Susan Rice smugly accepted this powerful position that does NOT require Senate confirmation…a confirmation she most likely would NEVER get.

And why…because for one, Susan Rice was the very person who willingly went on the Sunday talk show circuit after the attack and knowingly spewed out the Obama rhetoric and lies that the attack was triggered by spontaneous protests over an anti-islam video..something we know and always knew was NEVER the case. And for that lack of judgment in agreeing to participate in what turned into a three-ring circus, Susan Rice should have been disqualified for any governmental position of power…and she would have been if we had an honorable president as steward of our country instead of who we have.

And to make this worse, Susan Rice as our National Security policy maker is quite laughable for this woman is a walking international disaster. Besides her involvement in the lies that are the hallmark of the Benghazi cover-up, Rice’s tenure as U(seless) N(ations) Ambassador has been questionable at best as she has been publicly criticized for NOT showing up for work, including at times when she was needed for critical votes and debates. Rice also led this country’s involvement in the disastrous joke of a Human Rights Council, as they continue to butt into sovereign countries affairs every chance they get…case in point being the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, of which they of course side with the non-existent Palestinian people over Israel.

So this is the woman who Barack HUSSEIN Obama rewards with a position of power simply for being, according to him, a ‘trusted adviser’. Some great adviser for it was Susan Rice who was a key proponent in favor of our becoming involved in Libya in the first place, and this decision will haunt her tenure for getting us involved in Libya was what put the entire Arab Spring disaster into motion…a disaster that became a full-fledged Arab Winter…Muslim Brotherhood and all.

And Rice’s bad judgment calls go back even further than the Obama years for in 1996 it was Susan Rice, who as a member of then president Bill Clinton’s National Security Council, convinced him NOT to accept Sudan’s offer to turn Osama bin Laden over to US authorities. Rice’s reasoning was that because Sudan had a poor human rights record this country should have NO dealings whatsoever with that nation’s government…NO dealings…NOT even to take into custody the al-Qaeda leader or to receive any intelligence information on terrorists from Sudanese authorities.

Imagine if she did NOT open her big mouth…imagine if Bill Clinton had NOT listened to her stupidity…9/11 might NOT have happened and 3000 Americans might have still been alive today.

And this is who Barack HUSSEIN Obama considers a ‘trusted adviser’.

But hey why NOT as Susan Rice sides with ‘the brethren’ as much as Obama does. Case in point, in 2005 Susan Rice co-authored an academic article that postulated terrorism was “a threat borne of both oppression and deprivation.”

Feeling sorry and making excuses for those who commit terrorism…that is who Susan Rice is.

Susan Rice is also NO friend to Israel as she outwardly supports the so-called Palestinians. In February 2011, Rice made comments at the U(seless) N(ations) that Israeli settlements undermine security, corrode hopes for peace, and violate international commitments, calling Israeli settlement activity illegitimate.

Like Israel really gave a damn what Susan Rice thought two years ago or thinks today.

And are you ready for this..with a personal fortune estimated between $24 to $44 million, Susan Rice has a number of major investments in companies that invest in and do business with Iranian companies, especially with companies that do business in Iran’s oil, gas, and energy sector…and the word ‘energy’ should send up red flags…major red flags.

So by giving Rice an appointed position Obama has sparred her from the oh so nasty and grueling NO holds barred Senate confirmation hearings…hearings that Obama knows must be avoided at all costs because first, he knows that slowly pieces of the puzzle about gun and weapons running to Syrian rebels are surfacing as the Benghazi cover-up is starting to unravel and he cannot afford any slip-ups coming from Susan Rice’s mouth…and second, Obama knows that with Susan Rice’s history she would NOT get confirmed.

And yet here she sits as this country’s new National Security Advisor…par for the course for a president who surrounds himself with miscreants, muslim sympathizers, and traitors…just like him.