Please share your experiences and knowledge so that we might criticize.http://www.findmall.com/list.php?20Sat, 25 May 2013 05:38:45 -0500 Phorum 5.2.18 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1915142,1915142#msg-1915142 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1915142,1915142#msg-1915142 ojm bc Views ForumSat, 25 May 2013 00:29:57 -0500 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914863,1914863#msg-1914863 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914863,1914863#msg-1914863
Thursday, 23 May 2013 11:59 AM

Republican U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa said on Thursday he will call Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner back to testify before his committee on the IRS-tea party scandal after she asserted her constitutional right not to answer questions.

"We are obligated to bring Lerner back because she did not properly take the Fifth (Amendment)," Issa said.

"She clearly chose to make her statements and then not open herself up to even any questioning as to the statement she made," said Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

On Wednesday night, Issa said he was "deeply disappointed" that Lerner refused to answer his panel's questions on Wednesday about her involvement in the agency's targeting scandal, and warned that the official may be held in contempt of Congress.

"She can be held in contempt," Issa said on Fox's "Hannity." "Ultimately we are very fortunate that most people come voluntarily before our committee."

Lerner invoked her constitutional right not to testify in a prepared statement that may have gone too far in proclaiming her innocence.

Issa said Lerner apparently waived her constitutional right against self-incrimination in her opening statement in which she disavowed any wrongdoing, criminal or otherwise.

"I am very proud of the work that I have done in government," Lerner said, reading from the statement at the hearing. "I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.

"And while I would very much like to answer the committee's questions today, I've been advised by my counsel to assert my constitutional right not to testify or answer questions related to the subject matter of this hearing."

The U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment allows people to stay silent to avoid incriminating themselves, but constitutional law experts, including famed attorney and Newsmax contributor Alan Dershowitz, insist that Lerner may have inadvertently waived that right by declaring her innocence of any wrongdoing.]]> vlad Views ForumFri, 24 May 2013 11:12:10 -0500 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914812,1914812#msg-1914812 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914812,1914812#msg-1914812https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxPeHqH4XxI]]> vlad Views ForumFri, 24 May 2013 02:23:15 -0500 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914801,1914801#msg-1914801 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914801,1914801#msg-1914801 Guvner Views ForumThu, 23 May 2013 23:25:55 -0500 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914799,1914799#msg-1914799 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914799,1914799#msg-1914799


Food For Thought



If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being
in the country illegally
you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If you have to get your parents' permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin
in school, but not to get an abortion ...
you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If the only school curriculum allowed to explain how we got here is evolution, but
the government stops a $15 million construction project to keep a rare spider
from evolving to extinction ...
you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor
or check out a library book, but not to vote who runs the government ...
you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun
magazines with more than ten rounds, but gives 20 F-16 fighter jets to the crazy
new leaders in Egypt ...
you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If, in the largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not a 24-ounce soda
because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat ...
you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If an 80-year-old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a woman in a
hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched ...
you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of
debt is to spend trillions more ...
you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If a seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher's
"cute," but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is
perfectly acceptable ...
you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If children are forcibly removed from parents who discipline them with spankings
while children of addicts are left in filth and drug infested "homes"...
you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government
intrusion, while deliberately not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC
checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing and free cell phones ...
you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If the government's plan for getting people back to work is to incentivize NOT
working with 99 weeks of unemployment checks and no requirement to prove
they applied but can't find work ...
you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you more "safe"
according to the government ...
you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.]]> Guvner Views ForumFri, 24 May 2013 22:07:27 -0500 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914769,1914769#msg-1914769 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914769,1914769#msg-1914769https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsTlqIMedvg]]> vlad Views ForumFri, 24 May 2013 16:46:51 -0500 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914750,1914750#msg-1914750 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914750,1914750#msg-1914750Associated PressBy STEPHEN OHLEMACHER | Associated Press 3 hrs ago



House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. holds up a document as he speaks to IRS official Lois Lerner on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, May 22, 2013, during the committee's hearing to investigate the extra scrutiny IRS gave to Tea Party and other conservative groups that applied for tax-exempt status. Lerner told the committee she did nothing wrong and then invoked her constitutional right to not answer lawmakers' questions.


WASHINGTON (AP) Moving quickly to stem a raging controversy, the new acting head of the Internal Revenue Service started cleaning house Thursday by replacing the supervisor who oversaw agents involved in targeting tea party groups.

A day after she refused to answer questions at a congressional hearing, Lois Lerner was placed on administrative leave, according to congressional sources.

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, a senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said Lerner was asked to resign but refused, so she was placed on leave. An IRS spokeswoman said the agency could not comment on Lerner's status because it was a private personnel matter.

Danny Werfel, the agency's new acting commissioner, told IRS employees in an email that he had selected a new acting head of the division, staying within the IRS to find new leadership.

Ken Corbin, a 27-year IRS veteran, will be the new acting director of the agency's exempt organizations division. Corbin currently is a deputy director in the wage and investment division, where he oversees 17,000 workers responsible for processing 172 million individual and business tax returns, Werfel said.

Werfel's email Thursday made no mention of Lerner. But congressional aides who were briefed on the matter confirmed that Lerner was placed on paid administrative leave. The aides spoke on condition of anonymity because a personnel matter was involved.

"From all accounts so far, the IRS acting commissioner was on solid ground to ask for her resignation," Grassley said in a statement. "The IRS owes it to taxpayers to resolve her situation quickly. The agency needs to move on to fix the conditions that led to the targeting debacle. She shouldn't be in limbo indefinitely on the taxpayers' dime."

Lerner's lawyer, William W. Taylor III, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Lerner is the IRS official who first publicly disclosed on May 10 that IRS agents had been targeting tea party and other conservative groups for additional scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status. At the time she apologized on behalf of the IRS, but it wasn't enough to stop a firestorm of criticism from the White House and Congress.

If Lerner, a career civil servant, is dismissed she would become the third IRS official to lose their job in the scandal. Last week, President Barack Obama forced acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller to resign, replacing him with Werfel, a former White House budget official who started at the IRS on Wednesday.

Also last week, Joseph Grant, one of Miller's top deputies, announced plans to retire June 3, according to an internal IRS memo. Grant had just been named commissioner of the agency's tax exempt and government entities division, which includes the agents that targeted tea party groups. Grant had been the acting head of the division since 2010.

Lerner provided one of the most electric moments since the controversy erupted when she unwaveringly but briefly defended herself before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Wednesday.

"I have not done anything wrong," she told the committee, reading from a written statement. "I have not broken any laws, I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee."

Then, she refused to answer lawmakers' questions, invoking her constitutional right against self-incrimination. A few minutes later, she was excused. As she boarded an elevator, several of the men who escorted her briefly jostled with TV camera operators who were trying to film her.

Lerner learned in June 2011 that agents were singling out groups with "Tea Party" and "Patriots" in their applications for tax-exempt status, according to a report by the agency's inspector general. Lerner ordered agents to scrap the criteria immediately, but later they evolved to include groups that promoted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

It finally stopped in May 2012, when top agency officials say they found out and ordered agents to adopt appropriate criteria for determining whether tax-exempt groups were overly political.

Former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman told two congressional committees this week that he first learned in the spring of 2012 that conservative groups had been improperly singled out for additional scrutiny. However, after learning that the practice had stopped and that the inspector general was investigating, Shulman said he didn't tell anyone in the Treasury Department or the White House about it. The IRS is part of the Treasury Department.

Shulman, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, left office in November, when his five-year term expired.

On Thursday, the two leaders of the Senate Investigations subcommittee accused Lerner of misleading committee staff just a few days before it she made the controversy public.

Subcommittee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., and the top Republican member, Arizona Sen. John McCain, called on the IRS to immediately suspend Lois Lerner from her job as director of the IRS division that handles applications for tax-exempt status.

On April 30, committee staff interviewed Lerner and seven of her colleagues for six hours, the senators said in a letter to Werfel.

"That interview covered, among other topics, how the IRS determines which groups to review, what actions are taken in connection with the IRS reviews, and how the laws and regulations are used to examine those groups," the senators wrote. "Ms. Lerner failed to disclose the internal controversy."

Lerner, 62, is an attorney who joined the IRS in 2001. In her brief appearance Wednesday, she expressed pride in her 34-year career in federal government, which has included work at the Justice Department and Federal Election Commission. AT the IRS, she oversaw 900 workers and a budget approaching $100 million.

Corbin, the new acting director of exempt organizations, began his IRS career in Atlanta in 1986, Werfel said.

"Ken is a proven leader during challenging times. He has strong management experience inside the IRS handling a wide range of processing issues and compliance topics as well as taxpayer service areas," Werfel said. "Combined with his track record of leading large work groups, these skills make him an ideal choice to help lead the Exempt Organizations area through this difficult period."

Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, praised the selection of Corbin.

"In naming Ken Corbin as acting director to replace Lois Lerner, the administration has taken a strong step to address serious mistakes made by the IRS Exempt Organization Division," Levin said. "This and further corrective action are vital in restoring the confidence of the American people."
In this May 22, 2013, photo, Lois Lerner listens on Capitol Hill in Washington. A day after she refused to answer questions at a congressional hearing, Lerner has been replaced as director the Internal Revenue Service division that oversaw agents who targeted tea party groups. Danny Werfel, the agency's new acting commissioner, told IRS employees in an email Thursday, May 23, 2013, that he has selected a new acting head of the division, staying within the IRS to find new leadership. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
View Photo]]> vlad Views ForumThu, 23 May 2013 21:35:39 -0500 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914746,1914746#msg-1914746 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914746,1914746#msg-1914746John Fund: Conservative Vote Suppressed by IRS Targeting



Thursday, 23 May 2013 11:37 AM

By Melanie Batley


The IRS could be directly to blame for lower voter turnout during the 2012 election after conservative groups were left sidelined by the IRS decision to target them, according to John Fund, national-affairs columnist for National Review Online.

In his Thursday column, Fund said there is little evidence to substantiate claims that turnout was lower because voters, particularly minorities, were thwarted from casting their ballots due to tighter state laws requiring photo-ID at polling stations.

"All of this proved to be twaddle," wrote Fund, pointing to an August 2012 Washington Post poll that showed nearly two-thirds of African Americans and Hispanics backed photo ID. Moreover, the Census Bureau, he said, has since reported the voter turnout rate for blacks exceeded that of whites for the first time.

"But it now turns out there may have [been] suppression of the vote after all," he wrote, pointing to a conversation he had with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who said, "It looks like a lot of tea-party groups were less active or never got off the ground because of the IRS actions. Sure seems like people were discouraged by it."

Fund said he had also spoken to several conservative groups that were directly impacted by having their nonprofit status delayed by "either IRS inaction or burdensome and intrusive questioning.

"At least two donors told me they didn't contribute to True the Vote, a group formed to combat voter fraud, because after three years of waiting, the group still didn't have its status granted at the time of the 2012 election," Fund wrote.

"The IRS claims that all the delays and information demands were rooted in mere mismanagement and misjudgment, a stance that began to look even shakier [Wednesday] when Lois Lerner, the director of the IRS' exempt-organization division, took the Fifth Amendment before a House committee," wrote Fund.

He concluded, "It won't be easy to discover whether the 'voter suppression' engaged in by the IRS was malicious and political. But we have to make every effort to find out before the American people start losing confidence in the integrity of our elections."]]> vlad Views ForumFri, 24 May 2013 22:14:50 -0500 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914603,1914603#msg-1914603 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914603,1914603#msg-1914603 Kelley (Texas) Views ForumThu, 23 May 2013 17:27:05 -0500 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914491,1914491#msg-1914491 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914491,1914491#msg-1914491
It all makes sense now. Gay marriage & marijuana being legalized on the same day.

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lays with another man, he should be stoned."

We were just interpreting it wrong.]]> JW Views ForumThu, 23 May 2013 19:04:21 -0500 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914218,1914218#msg-1914218 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914218,1914218#msg-1914218http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2329089/Woolwich-attack-Two-men-hack-soldier-wearing-Help-Heroes-T-shirt-death-machetes-suspected-terror-attack.html

Bet they wish they had a concealed carry right...

G..]]> Guvner Views ForumFri, 24 May 2013 11:06:04 -0500 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914198,1914198#msg-1914198 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914198,1914198#msg-1914198 Kelley (Texas) Views ForumFri, 24 May 2013 14:56:32 -0500 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914157,1914157#msg-1914157 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914157,1914157#msg-1914157http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/22/18423701-leave-our-lands-man-knifed-to-death-in-suspected-london-terror-attack?lite


http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/05/22/man-killed-in-reported-machete-attack-in-london/]]> Glenn(SD) Views ForumWed, 22 May 2013 17:07:29 -0500 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914125,1914125#msg-1914125 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914125,1914125#msg-1914125
I wonder if Hussein Obama would have been re-elected if all of these scandals had been disclosed by the news media last fall? Kinda funny, but Hussein Obama's Administration even turned on the Associated Press, as well as a reporter for Fox News. Is the honeymoon over between the news media and Hussein Obama? Will they now start reporting his misdeeds or will they continue to support him as he destroys America? Kelley (Texas) :shrug:]]> Kelley (Texas) Views ForumWed, 22 May 2013 19:01:48 -0500 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914075,1914075#msg-1914075 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914075,1914075#msg-1914075http://uscitizensassociation.com/pdfs/USCA_Ad.pdf]]> Terry B Views ForumWed, 22 May 2013 14:30:24 -0500 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914055,1914055#msg-1914055 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1914055,1914055#msg-1914055 buck Views ForumThu, 23 May 2013 19:03:28 -0500 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1913651,1913651#msg-1913651 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1913651,1913651#msg-1913651http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/20/democratic-senator-goes-on-anti-gop-rant-over-climate-change-as-tornadoes-hit-oklahoma/#ixzz2TsioKufH]]> Glenn(SD) Views ForumThu, 23 May 2013 19:05:23 -0500 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1912863,1912863#msg-1912863 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1912863,1912863#msg-1912863MCO P1020.34(Web) - MARINE CORPS UNIFORM REGULATIONS
Chapter 3 - Uniform Items And Regulations For Wear; § 3035. UMBRELLAS (Female Marines).

Male Marines are not authorized to carry umbrellas.


Marine Corps Manual W/CH 1-3
Chapter 2 - Manpower; Section I - General; § 2806 - Uniform Regulations; Paragraph 2.

"The Marine Corps Uniform Regulations, published by the Commandant of
the Marine Corps, shall be binding on all Marines. No officer or official shall
issue instructions which conflict with, alter, or amend any provision without
the approval of the Commandant of the Marine Corps."]]> SteveC (CntrlFla) Views ForumMon, 20 May 2013 03:23:43 -0500 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1912774,1912774#msg-1912774 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1912774,1912774#msg-1912774
that there were no charities before welfare,
that there was no art before federal funding,
that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high,
that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding,
that taxing the use of gasoline or other energy will reduce the use of gasoline or other energy, but taxing work and investment will not reduce work and investment,
that the right to the pursuit of happiness is morally repugnant because it is selfish,
that bigotry and prejudice are evil unless they're against selfish bastards, in which case they're good,
that honest hard-working people who want to spend their money on their own damn families and businesses must be lumped-in with criminals so we can feel self-righteous about despising them as if they were the exact same kind of selfish bastards as criminals,
that private property rights are also morally repugnant because they too are based on selfishness,
that the best ideas are more government intervention in the economy, more aggressive confiscation of private property, more government funding of socially destructive behavior, and a foreign policy subordinated to world opinion,
that a man's home is his castle only until the city condemns it so a politician's developer-crony can build a high tax-paying shopping mall there (which would be for "the public good"),
that freedom of speech and of the press does NOT apply to TV, radio, cell phones, PDAs or the internet, all of which must be government- regulated to enforce OUR ideas -- oops, I mean our ideas of "access" and "fairness",
that whenever there is a question about the purposes and motivations of the United States, one must assume -- no, make that believe -- the worst,
that the United States must not make the decision to defend itself by itself; it must first get permission from the U.N.,
that the terrorist cells busted in Lackawanna, New York City, Miami, Chicago and London weren't a real threat, but a nondenominational prayer before a high school football game is,
that the only people worthy of being a leader, especially president, are those who display our definition of intelligence, which is: showing signs of being an analytical, reflective, self-doubting, slow-acting intellectual who accepts, and adheres religiously to, modern liberal doctrines, including the following:
that all generalizations are false,
that there are absolutely no absolutes,
that you can be sure that nothing is certain,
that it's really bad, even evil, to make or pronounce moral judgments,
that all cultures are equal, but ours stinks; that all truth is relative, except the unquestionable truth of "post-modernism", that no race, class or gender is superior, but middle class white males are clearly inferior, that no books are superior, except, of course, those by third-world authors,
that it's good to support minority, homosexual and women's rights and simultaneously make common cause with Islamofacists, who would attack all of them,
that identifying individuals by their uniqueness is "racist," but identifying them only as a member of a race is not,
that those who oppose liberalism, nomatter how thoughtful or scholarly, can be dismissed out of hand simply by calling them "racist, sexist, fascist homophobes," because, after all, they have to be such, don't they?
that the independent broadcasters who give us 500+ TV channels can't deliver the quality that PBS does,
that good economies are caused by politicians and not by entrepreneurs,
that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity,
that farmers, ranchers, hunters and fishermen don't care about nature and the long-term survival of species, but "animal rights" activists who've never been outside the city do,
that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate and in the cycles of the sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs,
that people who drive cars are bad, but people who ride buses or trains are good,
that people who live in single-family homes (or want to) are bad, but people who live in high-density apartments (or admit they ought to) are good,
that the thinning of forests by lumber companies and forestry workers "destroys habitat," while burning them down in their entirety by allowing unhindered forest fires makes animals "thrive,"
that American corporations' drilling for oil in "environmentally sensitive" areas is bad, but paying billions of dollars to moslem countries for their oil is better,
that the entire earth is an "environmentally sensitive" area, so no development, drilling, or building of any kind is justifiable ANYwhere,
that limiting the supply of fur-bearing animal pelts will make their costs go up, but limiting the sources of gasoline and other petroleum products will not make their costs go up,
that Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, George Washington Carver or Thomas Edison,
that any person or any country which has a higher standard of living than any other must have achieved it as a matter of luck, not freedom, opportunity, foresight and work -- and must feel guilty about it -- but if they're not, they must be forced to "pay" for their good fortune in a manner which we (who feel guilty for them anyway) will decide is best,
that there is only one moral code, and it is the pure altruism of the self-sacrifice: first-foremost-only-and-always kind,
that the only people who should decide which sacrifices anyone must make are the ones in government and/or their sycophants in academe or the media,
that the correct view of the state is one that sees citizens as children who need nurturing, and bureaucrats and politicians as the only adults who can do the nurturing,
that private citizens should not be allowed to choose their doctors, their childrens' schools, where they live, what foods they eat, where and if they smoke, and when they speak or write: which "politically correct" words they may use and which "incorrect" ones they may not -- without your help,
that there is no such thing as a "sovereign citizen." In fact, there is no such thing as "inalienable rights," only permissions from government,
that everything not forbidden should be mandatory, and everything not mandatory should be forbidden,
that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and doctors are overpaid,
that Robin Hood should be remembered for "robbing the rich to give to the poor" (because that was "good"), even though it wasn't his motive, and not for "taking back from the taxors and giving back to the taxees" (because that's always bad), even though it was,
that recessions and depressions are caused by businessmen, and not by politicians and bureaucrats,
that it would be vastly preferably to risk destroying the economy of the United States even in wartime than to allow drilling in areas which might risk the well-being of wildlife,
that FDR must be remembered for "ending the great depression," even though he didn't (in fact he made it worse), and for giving half the people "hope," even though he decimated the Constitution and gave the other half despair,
that the explosions in medical and prescription drug costs since 1965 have been caused by greedy doctors and drug companies and not by medicare, HMO subsidies and labyrinthine government regulations,
that you can acquire self-esteem without actually doing something to earn it or living up to a code of ethics,
that public schools must be given ever-more money and protection from competition, no matter how poorly they perform,
that intolerance may be horrible, but "zero tolerance" is wonderful,
that social changes must be made by classroom propaganda and coercion, not by persuasion, and certainly NOT by example,
that it is racist to be color-blind and that good policy is to be color conscious -- in fact to identify people ONLY as a member of a group,
that all cultures are precious, must be preserved at all costs, and must all be treated as equal, not because of their outcomes, but because we say so,
that the new ideal paradigm to be established is "multi-cultural diversity", which means making sure every organization has at least one black liberal, one militant-feminist liberal, one gay liberal, one Latino liberal, one transgender liberal, one Native American liberal, and so forth. The one kind of diversity NOT permitted is diversity of philosophy, politics, views or values (especially merit- or accomplishment-consciousness),
that, since hatred is horrible, it's okay to hate haters. And independent people. And SUV-owners. And gun owners. And business people. And the merit-conscious. And other individualists. And any other politically incorrect policy advocates. And whoever else it's chic to hate today. In fact the new definition of "hater" is "anyone who disagrees with us."
that if a private person or organization refuses to sponsor, finance, allow or provide a venue for, a speaker, movie maker or demonstration, then that's "censorship," and that's bad, but if a government or government-run enterprise does it, then that's quelling "hate speech,"and that's good,
that it's shocking -- and worthy of detailed, damning and deliciously horrifying exposés -- to find that free-market scholars are actually able to fund their work with voluntary donations from wealthy individuals and businesses -- while it's pleasing to find that socialist scholars are able to fund their work "virtuously" with tax money (extracted from their opponents -- and victims -- by government coercion),
that CHANGE is good -- but ONLY so long as it is change TO liberal values FROM other values,
that people who resist your vision of social change should be jailed,
that everyone who believes in free markets is a religious conservative (or if we know better, we pretend we don't -- since we don't want the general public to know about libertarians),
that everyone who believes in civil liberties is a big-government liberal (or if we know better, we still don't want the general public to know about libertarians),
that the ancient left-right political spectrum must be defended as the only yardstick for evaluating ideologies because (unlike the Nolan Chart, for example) the old left-right one conveniently implies that "the democratic ideal" is nothing more than a compromise between socialism and fascism, and so the ONLY question is "WHAT KIND of huge, powerful, all-pervasive government do you want?",
that black people can't succeed without your help, but those who do, or tell others they can, must be vilified as "Uncle Toms,"
that the NRA is bad, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution,
that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese communists,
that more people are killed by guns than are saved by gun owners simply brandishing their weapons,
that even though there are 54,000,000 children under 16 in the U.S., and you can never achieve "zero" accidental deaths from drowning, choking, fires, falls, poisoning, motor vehicles and medical mistakes, you can somehow achieve zero from firearm accidents (perhaps because there are always so many fewer such accidents every year),
that it's possible to develop a system to identify and locate absolutely all random suicide bombers so they can be stopped before they strike, but it's impossible to develop a system to identify, locate and shoot down incoming missiles before they do,
that corporations are more dangerous than governments -- even when they haven't been sold a government-protected monopoly and can't make you buy from them, and even though the federal government is hundreds of times the size of the largest corporations and has guns, jails, IRS kangaroo courts, and can and does make you buy from it or deal with it,
that the quantity of natural resources in all of existence remains finite, and will always run out unless government controls its use and mandates horse-and-buggy "substitutes",
that the quantity of wealth in all of existence remains fixed, and always has from time immemorial, so only people in government should decide how it's allocated,
that any attempt to tax successful entrepreneurs at less than 100% of their incomes must be met with horrified screams of "giveaway! giveaway!! giveaway!!!"
that businessmen are parasites, but politicians and bureaucrats are not,
that people who work in the private sector are evil, but people who work in government are saints,
that a contract can mean anything any time anybody wants it to, especially if it's named "The Constitution of the United States",
that private citizens are too stupid to make their own decisions about anything, but people in government are too smart not to give them dictatorial powers over everything,
that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried, is because "the right people" haven't been in charge,
that the only answer to the millions of problems caused by government -- is always ... ("ta-da!") more government (of course!),
that the only choices Americans are given by the Republicans and Democrats include having to choose between legal abortions and "overkill" security from international terrorists (ignoring the fact that Libertarians support BOTH Constitutional security measures and states' rights to legalize or outlaw abortions),
that contributions to the Democratic Party by the Chinese Communists are in the best interests of the United States,
that both "hard" and "soft"-money contributions to the campaigns of politicans by Americans are not in the best interests of the United States because they are always initiated by the donors as bribes and never by the politicians as a "protection racket,"
that people who get upset about the misuse of the FBI, the military, the BATF and the IRS belong in jail, but that the misusers, liars and Constitution- violators belong in the White House,
that William J. Clinton, as a wonderful president, should not be remembered for any misdeeds at all, but if he is, it should be only for the sexual ones, and not for any of those other things,*
that Hillary Clinton is normal and really a very nice person,

that Barack Obama is normal and not only very nice, but cool, and doesn't have a mean bone in his body,

that it would better to see civilization destroyed than to see your cherished beliefs in cultural equivalency and moral ambivalence dismissed,
that you must be a knee-jerk "pass a law!" big-government control-freak in order to get any poor people or any "good" people -- especially the professionally unselfish "saintly" people -- to even like you, let alone to love you,
and last, but definitely not least -- that good intentions are all that are needed to pave the way to utopia, especially if all your friends have the same good intentions.
====================]]> old lineman Views ForumWed, 22 May 2013 21:54:13 -0500 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1912262,1912262#msg-1912262 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1912262,1912262#msg-1912262Do any of you prep for when the SHTF. are am I the only one?]]> bossman Views ForumWed, 22 May 2013 21:52:00 -0500 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1912219,1912219#msg-1912219 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1912219,1912219#msg-1912219IRS sued for seizing 60 million medical records]]> SteveC (CntrlFla) Views ForumThu, 23 May 2013 19:08:54 -0500 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1912194,1912194#msg-1912194 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1912194,1912194#msg-1912194(This message does not contain any text.)
]]> vlad Views ForumThu, 23 May 2013 19:11:19 -0500 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1911951,1911951#msg-1911951 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1911951,1911951#msg-1911951


By Keith Coffman
DENVER (Reuters) - A group of Colorado county sheriffs, angry about two new state gun control laws passed in the wake of last year's mass shootings in Connecticut and Colorado, filed a federal lawsuit on Friday seeking to block the laws from going into effect.
The two laws, passed by the state's Democratic-controlled legislature with scant Republican support, ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds and require background checks for all private gun sales and transfers.
All but 10 of the state's 64 county sheriffs signed on to the suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Denver. In their complaint, the sheriffs allege the new laws, which go into effect July 1, severely restrict citizens' constitutional right to own and bear arms.
The sheriffs, who in Colorado are elected, also complained that they were operating under tight budgets and did not have the money or manpower to enforce the new laws.
"They (the sheriffs) cannot expend these resources to conduct investigations that would be necessary to monitor compliance," the lawsuit said.
The bills were introduced in response to a shooting spree that killed 12 people at a suburban Denver movie theater last July and the slaying of 20 children and six adults at an elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in December.
Connecticut and New York also have passed stricter gun laws in the wake of the shootings. The National Rifle Association, the powerful U.S. gun lobby, has announced plans to challenge the new gun control laws in all three states.
REASONABLE SAFETY MEASURES
Democratic state Senator Mary Hodge, who sponsored the magazine-limit bill, blasted the sheriffs and said the restrictions were reasonable public-safety measures.
"We can't just sit by and do nothing while first-graders and moviegoers are being mowed down in one fell swoop with weapons equipped with large-capacity magazines," Hodge said in a statement.
Joining the sheriffs in the lawsuit are a number of gun-rights organizations and a disabled gun owners group, who say that magazine limits would restrict their ability to defend themselves in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which bars discrimination against the disabled.
"Disabilities make it difficult to quickly change magazines under the stress of a home invasion," the lawsuit said.
Governor John Hickenlooper, a Democrat who signed the bills into law, is named as the defendant in the lawsuit. His office had no immediate comment.
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, a Republican, said in a statement that his role "will be to get court rulings on the legality of various aspects of the legislation as expeditiously as possible."
"Colorado citizens, and law-abiding gun owners in particular, deserve such clarification," said Suthers, who did not publicly oppose the two bills when they were debated in the legislature.
Separately, a Colorado pro-gun group, the Basic Freedom Defense Fund, said it was circulating a petition to recall the president of the state Senate, Democrat John Morse, because of his support for gun control measures.
Morse, a former police officer, said he would likely face a recall election later this year as a result.
"If they are successful in removing the Senate president in Colorado, it will have a chilling effect on anyone who takes them on but if they fail they will be exposed for the paper tiger they should be," he said.]]> vlad Views ForumSat, 18 May 2013 01:06:24 -0500 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1911762,1911762#msg-1911762 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1911762,1911762#msg-1911762

Thursday, 16 May 2013 01:07 PM

By Bill Donohue


The problems with the IRS extend beyond playing politics with conservative groups seeking a tax-exempt status. I have never made this public before, but given the heightened interest in the way the IRS has conducted itself, the time has come to disclose what happened.

Just weeks after Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, I was notified by the IRS that the Catholic League was under investigation for violating the IRS Code on political activities as it relates to 501(c)(3) organizations. What the IRS did not know was that I had proof who contacted them to launch the investigation: Catholics United, a George Soros-funded Catholic organization.


The IRS was contacted on June 5, 2008, to launch a probe of the Catholic League, and the letter sent to me was dated Nov. 24, 2008. The June 5 letter was sent to the IRS by lawyers from Catholics United; it was mailed to Director Marsha Ramirez, director of Exempt Organizations Examinations, and to Lois G. Lerner, director of EO Division.

The "evidence" against me was nothing more than news releases and articles I had written during the presidential campaign on various issues. The lawyers also asked the IRS to question the source of new funding we had received, implying that we received illegal contributions.

The timing is not coincidental. On Oct. 20, I issued a news release, "George Soros Funds Catholic Left," and on Oct. 23, I wrote another one, "Catholic Left Scandal Mounts"; both mentioned Catholics United. The same day, Oct. 23, I was asked to go on CNN, and when Catholics United found out, they contacted the station trying to spike the interview.

The person who did this was the head of Catholics United, Chris Korzen. He said I was not "an authentic Catholic commentator and representative of the Catholic Church," and that they should either drop me altogether or put me on with Alexia Kelley of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (Catholics United is listed on the 990 of Catholics in Alliance as a related organization; Soros greases this group, and by extension, Catholics United).

The bid to keep me off TV failed. But here's the key: Korzen was dumb enough to share with CNN the complaint issued by his group to the IRS. The document, which was leaked to me by someone at CNN, matches up extraordinarily well with the IRS complaint of Nov. 24.

In the end, the IRS concluded that although the Catholic League had "intervened in a political campaign," it was "unintentional, isolated, non-egregious and non-recurring"; our tax-exempt status remained intact. This is false: I intentionally addressed political issues, and did not intervene in the campaign, unless, of course, my freedom to speak about political issues is a violation of the IRS Code. If that is the case, then this IRS unit should fold.

So the problem extends beyond the IRS. It extends to left-wing activists, funded by left-wing tycoons, all for the purpose of silencing conservatives. It's time someone was held accountable for this obscene political game.]]> vlad Views ForumWed, 22 May 2013 13:28:18 -0500 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1911755,1911755#msg-1911755 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1911755,1911755#msg-1911755
Articles of Impeachment:

RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST RICHARD M. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.

Article 1: Obstruction of Justice.

In his conduct of the office of the President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that: On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede and obstruct investigations of such unlawful entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities. The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan have included one or more of the following:

(1) Making or causing to be made false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States.

(2) Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States.

(3) Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings.

(4) Interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force and congressional committees.

(5) Approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payments of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities.

(6) Endeavoring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States.

(7) Disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability.

(8) Making false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation has been conducted with respect to allegation of misconduct on the part of personnel of the Executive Branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct; or

(9) Endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

(Approved by a vote of 27-11 by the House Judiciary Committee on Saturday, July 27, 1974.)

Article 2: Abuse of Power.

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, imparting the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies.
This conduct has included one or more of the following:

(1) He has, acting personally and through his subordinated and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

(2) He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.

(3) He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions to him, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.

(4) He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavored to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive; judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as attorney general of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the office of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.

(5) In disregard of the rule of law: he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch: including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force of the Department of Justice, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws by faithfully executed.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

(Approved 28-10 by the House Judiciary Committee on Monday, July 29, 1974.)

Article 3: Contempt of Congress.

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of the President of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, had failed without lawful cause or excuse, to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things, Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgement as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by Constitution in the House of Representatives.

In all this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office.

(Approved 21-17 by the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, July 30, 1974.)

Consequences:

On August 5, 1974, the long sought after audio tapes provided the "smoking gun" which revealed President Nixon had been deeply involved in the coverup and had ordered Haldeman to halt the FBI investigation just six days after the Watergate break-in."...call the FBI and say that we wish, for the country, don't go any further into this case, period..." -- Nixon to Haldeman, June 23, 1972.)

That revelation resulted in a complete collapse of support for Nixon in Congress. On Friday, August 9, Nixon resigned the presidency and avoided the likely prospect of losing the impeachment vote in the full House and a subsequent trial in the Senate. He thus became the only U.S. President ever to resign. Vice President Gerald R. Ford succeeded him and a month later granted Nixon a full pardon for any crimes he might have committed while President.

Richard Nixon had served a total of 2,026 days as the 37th President of the United States. He left office with 2 1/2 years of his second term remaining. A total of 25 officials from his administration, including four cabinet members, were eventually convicted and imprisoned for various crimes.

"...I think that the Watergate tragedy is the greatest tragedy this country has ever suffered. I used to think that the Civil War was our country's greatest tragedy, but I do remember that there were some redeeming features in the Civil War in that there was some spirit of sacrifice and heroism displayed on both sides. I see no redeeming features in Watergate." -- Senator Sam Ervin.]]> vlad Views ForumFri, 17 May 2013 16:00:00 -0500 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1911468,1911468#msg-1911468 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1911468,1911468#msg-1911468MOA]]> NealNoIN Views ForumSat, 18 May 2013 09:21:15 -0500 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1911343,1911343#msg-1911343 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1911343,1911343#msg-1911343sorry thing is,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,the three things that are in the spotlight right now are almost certainly only the tip of the iceberg. Now that he has pizzed off the MSM, the gloves may come off and he will be revealed to the koolaid drinking masses as the incompetant buffoon that he REALLY is. The only other official thats probably as clueless as Obama is Holder. (Biden is a "special" case :rofl: )]]> NE Digger Views ForumFri, 17 May 2013 17:23:19 -0500 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1911336,1911336#msg-1911336 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1911336,1911336#msg-1911336
Do you know that the words "race car" spelled backwards still spells "race car"? And that "eat" is the only word that if you take the first letter and move it to the last, it spells its past tense "ate"?

And have you noticed that if you rearrange the letters in "illegal immigrants," and add just a few more letters, it spells: "Go home you free-loading, benefit-grabbing, resource-sucking, baby-making, non-English-speaking jackasses and take those other hairy-faced, sandal-wearing, bomb-making, camel-riding, goat-loving, raggedy-ass scumbags with you.


How weird is that? :rofl:]]> NE Digger Views ForumThu, 16 May 2013 23:08:16 -0500 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1911333,1911333#msg-1911333 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1911333,1911333#msg-1911333(This message does not contain any text.)
]]> vlad Views ForumFri, 17 May 2013 19:51:29 -0500 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1911329,1911329#msg-1911329 http://www.findmall.com/read.php?20,1911329,1911329#msg-1911329(This message does not contain any text.)
]]> JW Views ForumThu, 23 May 2013 19:14:03 -0500