THE MERRY WORLD OF PIMPS AND PORNOS

CHILD PORN RAMPANT IN U.S. GOVERNMENT AND -- READY??

THE PENTAGON!!

GOVERNMENT PEEK FREEKS ARE ON THE LOOSE!

THE RYAN-MURRAY BUDGET BILL ROBS VETERANS BUT ALLOWS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TO KEEP THEIR WELFARE

THERE ARE NO WORDS TO CONVEY HOW OUTRAGEOUS THIS IS.  READ ABOUT IT

HERE

AND THEN CALL YOUR CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS.  GOOGLE THE U. S. HOUSE AND THE U. S. SENATE FOR THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION.  LET THEM KNOW HOW STRONGLY YOU OBJECT TO THIS BILL.  YEA, YEA, I KNOW, IT'S TOO LATE, THEY ALREADY PASSED IT.  BUT THEY MIGHT GET THE HINT THAT THEIR DAYS IN WASHINGTON ARE NUMBERED!

REP BRIDENSTINE (OKLAHOMA) QUESTIONS OBAMA'S LEADERSHIP. MUST SEE ENTERTAINMENT

This man spoke more truth in one minute than Obama and his administration have spoken in their entire 4.5 years in office. The joke is on those who try and defend Obama.  Look at the results of his policies, highest gas prices ever, high unemployment rate, lowest worker participation rate in the last 50 years, no jobs, and Obamacare coming down the chute, guaranteed to destroy what Obama has left of this Nation.  Add in incompetence, arrogance and his overt, divisive actions to split this country into the "haves" and the "have nots," and throw in the multitude of scandals that have been exposed, which His Honor calls "phony scandals," and anyone with an ounce of intelligence would have to admit what a disaster he is for the country. Of course those who still think they will keep getting something for nothing love the guy - why wouldn't you. Instead of working for a living and paying your own bills, you expect someone else to work, pay their bills and yours too. That is the saddest part of all..

IRS COMMISSIONER POW WOWS WITH THE WHITE HOUSE 157 TIMES PLANNING THE ATTACK

GOOD EVENING, FELLOW RIGHTIES, LET'S START OUT WITH SOME FACTS EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW AND SPREAD VIGOROUSLY TO FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES.  COPY THIS AND PASS IT ON, PLEASE!  OR SEND THE LINK TO YOUR BUDDIES OR PROGRESSIVES YOU WANT TO DRIVE CRAZY.  

1.     1.  Sleazebag Shulman, the commissioner of the IRS during the targeting of Conservatives.  He was appointed by Bush in 2008, but he is no Conservative.  He was then and is now a DEMOCRAT. 

      2.  His wife runs an organization funded by George Soros and anti-free-speech union thugs dedicated to silencing Conservatives.  The Head of the IRS has a wife who runs an organization designed to do EXACTLY WHAT THE IRS DID!!  Do you still believe it was done by two low rank IRS AGENTS in Cincinnati?  Not a chance, and today those “low ranking IRS agents” from Cincinnati told the truth.  Washington was “basically throwing us underneath the bus.”   

2        3. Shulman visited the White House 157 times, ONE HUNDRED FIFTY SEVEN TIMES!  Guess how many times Bush’s second term IRS chief visited the White House during the last term of George Bush? That would be ONCE.  157 vs. 1.  And guess how many times Shulman visited the White House in the 9 months he served as IRS Commissioner under Bush?  ZERO!

3    4. Shulman was appointed by Bush in March 2008, Obama was elected in Nov. 2008, took office in January, 2009, and Obama’s Target Conservatives Program began in the summer of 2010.

4     5.  Democrats in Congress were writing letters demanding that the IRS give greater scrutiny to conservative groups. The President has railed against the Tea Party.  Obama’s White House referred to Tea Partiers as “terrorists.”  Obama is the one who constantly talks about his "enemies" and stated time and again in public speeches that The Tea Party is "a threat to Democracy."  Pres. Obama has turned the IRS into his personal political machine.  The tone is set at the top, and this is Obama's tone from Obama's White House.    

5    6.   “We're gonna punish our enemies, and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us” -- Barack Obama.

6    7.  The rank-and-file wouldn't do what is alleged unless they were ordered to, and ordered to in a way that suggested that failure to comply would be disastrous to their career.  I'm betting this started in the office of David Axelrod with the full and active agreement of Obama and his hench-woman, Valerie Jarrett.

7      8.  Shulman should be in prison, along with anyone else who was involved in the scandal, including Axelrod, Obama and Jarrett.  

9.  Obama should be impeached.  The buck stops at his desk.  The “chickens are coming home to roost,” to quote one of Obama's role models, and I'd say it's about time the crooks and liars got caught with their pants down.  

SCENE:  IRS POW WOW AT THE WHITE HOUSE:

OBAMA:  Hi Dougie. Please, sit down. Put your feet up.  Relax, this won’t hurt.  Coffee, canapes, crime?

SHULMAN:  Glad to run on over when summoned, Your Honor, Your Highness, Oh God Of All Things

OBAMA:  I wanted to talk to you about a huge national problem that you can help me with.  These Teabagger terrorists are going wild now that the court ruled against us on Citizen's United. They’re a threat to Democracy.  They’re organizing and raising money like crazy. We definitely need to bring these crazed groups into line. Don't you agree?

SHULMAN:  Yes, Your Honor, Your Highness, Oh God Of All Things

OBAMA:  Look, Dougie. I like you. I’d hate to see your career set back and your family suffer because you lose our job. That would be such a tragedy.  Your wife and kids depend on you supporting them. You would feel awful if something bad happened to them just because you didn't do what you need to do.

SHULMAN:  Yes, Your Honor, Your Highness, Oh God Of All Things

OBAMA:  Well, Dougie, you get an A+ for your reasoning.

SHULMAN:   I’ll get right on it, Your Honor, Your Highness, Oh God Of All Things

AND THAT'S HOW IT STARTED

SHULMAN'S WIFE

BREITBART'S ARTICLE

THE DAILY CALLER'S OPINION

REMEMBERING MEMORIAL DAY, WHAT IT MEANS TO BE FREE

Sen. Robert A. Taft, Republican, believed in America, limited government, and the power of the people.  He would have been standing with us against Obamacare, IRS tyranny, a lying government bureaucracy, unconstitutional wars, and the takeover of the Republican Party by moderates who work hand-in-hand with liberal Democrats to implement Obama's socialist agenda. On May 30, 1945 -- as World War II was coming to an end -- at a Memorial Day Ceremony at Gettysburg National Cemetery, Sen. Taft gave the following speech.  All Conservative Republicans need to read it.  Liberal Democrats could learn something from it, but they probably wouldn't change their minds about their quest for control.  The warnings he gave in this speech are the same warnings against tyranny in America that we must pay attention to today.  It is long.  I have highlighted sections that I believe are the most relevant in case you don't have time to read all of it.  But it will be worth your while to read every word.

Speech Delivered by Sen. Robert A. Taft at Memorial Day Ceremony, Gettysburg National Cemetery, May 30, 1945   Fellow citizens of the United States of America, I am greatly honored to be invited to come here today to the Gettysburg National Cemetery and express, inadequately I know, the obligation which we feel to those who fell on the greatest battlefield of the Civil War, and the reverence which their service to us still inspires 82 years later. I know that I cannot express that obligation and that reverence as effectively as it has been many times expressed before upon this occasion. I can only relate the sacrifices of our soldiers to the more immediate problems which we face today. The soldiers of 1863 gave their lives to preserve the Union and make permanent the Government which had proved to the world that a Nation, founded for the purpose of securing freedom, and governed by its own people, could survive through a great war without being destroyed from within by the very forces of freedom developed in a free country. Many other American boys have fought since then to preserve our people and their freedom. Our hearts are full today with our gratitude and devotion to those who are fighting now and who have fought in this war, those who have given and those who have risked their lives that our Nation may be preserved and may preserve its freedom. In these wars with Germany and Japan, we are now approaching the great sacrifices of the Civil War-we have suffered a million casualties among our boys in the Army, Navy, and Air Force. About 300,000 have been killed, or missing and probably killed. That means that there are 300,000 families who mourn a beloved son, 300,000 wives and mothers to whom this war has brought tragedy and grief. Too many newspapers and too many individuals have come to accept the military attitude that American boys are only pawns in the game, that we can properly sacrifice so many impersonal lives for this goal. But every life is a boy with a father and mother, or a wife or sweetheart. We should never forget the awful catastrophe that war is, that it means the destruction of all the hopes and purposes which have formed the ideals of hundreds of thousands of American individuals and families. Let us remember today that very few purposes can justify the sacrifices which we are calling upon our boys to make. Let us remind ourselves that neither foreign conquest, nor hate, nor revenge, can justify such a loss, that the only purpose of this war that can justify its continuance is to insure the future peace and freedom of the American people. Let us not gloat because we burn or destroy the city of an enemy, and remember that such destruction can only be justified as a means of bringing this war to a quicker end. The moment that we can achieve a peace which will guarantee the prevention of future aggression on the part of Japan, it is our duty to all those whom we honor here today to see that peace is brought about, whether by arms or by negotiation. But we have a further duty to the men who are suffering in this war when peace has been brought about. There can be little doubt now that the defeat of our enemies will prevent attacks upon this country from without for many years to come. We are all agreed that that result may be strengthened and assured by the creation of an international organization to preserve peace. We hope that such an organization can insure peace, not only in the immediate future, but for generations to come. The San Francisco Conference, under the most severe handicaps of political and economic differences will at least establish an international forum constantly working to prevent the recurrence of war. But we must constantly remind ourselves that the only purpose of this war, the only purpose of the battle fought here at Gettysburg in 1863, the only purpose of any war in which this country has been engaged is to maintain here at home the freedom which was won in 1776, the freedom to work out here the destiny of the American Republic. American foreign policy and international organizations are only a means to that end. And so we should be equally concerned here today that we retain in Washington the policies necessary to assure that freedom. It is useless to destroy totalitarianism in Germany and Japan and then establish it in the United States. There is real danger of just that result for the whole thought of the world has moved steadily toward the totalitarian philosophy, toward the subjection of the individual to the state instead of a government by the people. Government controls such as peacetime military conscription which would have been indignantly rejected in the nineteenth century, are given serious consideration, even in this country-Totalitarian thought has spread over the world. When Mussolini established a dictatorship in Italy, many of our citizens thought that a little benevolent despotism was a good thing for the Italian people. Hitler brought it to Germany, the military caste brought it to Japan, largely because so many people lost faith in the efficacy of democratic government. We see it also on our side, in the great Russian Soviet, in Chiang Kai-shek's China, in Brazil, in Argentina and to many other Latin-American countries. It has made progress because so many people have been persuaded that it is perhaps desirable to surrender individual freedom and let someone dictate their lives better than they themselves can arrange them. In this country many people who would indignantly deny any soft feeling for State control are advocates of measures which lead inevitably in that direction because they are dissatisfied with the necessary slow progress involved in a government where all the people are given a voice. I believe that freedom can only be preserved if we retain government by the people all the time. I heard a United States Senator argue that we could have freedom and democracy even though Congress delegated all its powers to the President during the war and adjourned, because, he said, we could meet again and take those powers away. There are two fallacies in that view. While that form of government lasts, there is no freedom and it is not government by the people. Secondly, if it lasts too long, the powers granted by the people are never returned to them. That has been the history of popular government from the days of Greece and Rome through the Middle Ages to Germany and Japan today. The best protection of freedom is to maintain continuous rule by the people. It cannot be done without constant vigilance against the turning over of power to governments and to men who are in effect beyond the reach of the people. The very size of the Republic today leads to a delegation of power. The machinery by which 135,000,000 people govern themselves is necessarily so complicated that it is hard to devise a system in which the real voice of the people is heard. Hundreds of bureaus have been created, and even here in Washington we don't know how many bureaus there are or what it is that they are doing. Each one is a little kingdom in itself. When the ordinary man comes to Washington, he has a hard enough time to find out which is the bureau which is bossing him, and an even harder time to get consideration for his views. More than a hundred Government corporations have been created, even less accountable to Congress than the bureaus. Washington is a vast rabbit warren of bureaucrats, all issuing regulations having the force and effect of law and building up a control to which the people gradually come to conform their lives. The war has required a suspension of many freedoms, and the people have become so used to regulations that they almost forget what freedom is. The danger of totalitarian government is that the people do get used to it, as to a narcotic. The time has come to remember that many of these restrictions on freedom were only created to preserve freedom and should be abandoned when freedom is assured. The size of the Republic, the complexity of modern problems in the economic field, all lead the people to the easy course of turning over the problems to someone else, to some expert, perhaps, to solve the whole business. Instead of thinking out problems for themselves, inhabitants of a totalitarian world would accept the advice of supposedly expert columnists or radio commentators, who are also too busy to think out their problems, and who accept what is handed to them by the Government. A people unconcerned with their own liberty want every problem to be handled by a czar. They are impatient with Congress if Congress takes time to argue a case on its merits. A frame of mind in dealing with public questions which moves on waves of emotion, engulfing editors, writers, and broadcasters alike, and demands solutions today for every complex problem, is a frame of mind leading to totalitarian government. While we talk constantly of democracy and free enterprise, I see too many of the very people who use that language advocating measures which deny it. Too many businessmen believe in controls of the NRA code variety, quotas, cartels, division of production, the fixing of minimum coal prices, and other measures to protect business from excessive competition. Labor unions, which ought to be the very core of democracy, are ruled by perpetual leaders almost without the formality of reelection. At this very moment demands are being made that Congress give up its power to fix tariffs and to provide for the reorganization of the Government departments, on the ground that democratic processes are too slow and ineffective. Arbitrary power must be granted to carry through the currently popular theories. Every bill proposes that Congress delegate its power to make law to some board, and the Supreme Court itself is dominated by the thought that the people themselves and their representatives are incompetent even to prescribe standards, but must give power to make law to administrative agencies. Nearly every bill introduced proposes increased Federal power, and the reduction of the power of States and local governments where the people's voice can be heard. In education, in health, and in unemployment compensation, Federal bureaus seek wide and arbitrary power to affect the lives of millions of individuals. People who think themselves sincere believers in democratic government want everything desirable at once, and the more attractive the goal, the less they care about the method. If this frame of mind were carried to its logical conclusion, it would lead to the turning over of all power to a benevolent dictator to carry out the good things which he promises and which he presents in a sufficiently attractive package. Of course, this general attitude makes the ground fertile for Government propaganda. A desirable end such as peace or extended foreign trade is linked with certain particular methods and panaceas proposed and highly recommended by the Government, or accompanied by a demand for broad power to solve the problem without further interference from Congress. Anyone who is opposed to this particular panacea is at once labeled as opposed to peace or foreign trade, and probably pictured as a reactionary, a Fascist, or even a Republican. All the arguments for the favored remedy are blared over the radio and broadcast in pamphlets, and no argument is admitted against it. The first Dumbarton Oaks proposal was pictured as so letter perfect, that I am still getting attacks on Senator Vandenberg's amendments by people who don't know that the State Department has accepted them. Bretton Woods and the revised reciprocal trade treaties are pictured as the only cures for all foreign-trade difficulties. The question is not the desirability of these various delegations of people's power, it is the frame of mind which seems to be willing to abandon that power without question, It is the frame of mind which avoids the discussion of the merits of a problem and accepts the voice of the state as the voice of God. Nothing is so dangerous to democracy as a vast machine of propaganda, for it strikes at the very root of democratic government. Government by the people can only endure if it is founded on intelligent decision based on accurate knowledge. (THE NEXT SECTION OF TAFT'S SPEECH ADDRESSES HIS OPPOSITION TO THE MILITARY DRAFT, WHICH BEGAN AFTER WW II.  IT'S A VERY INTERESTING, HISTORICAL EXPLANATION OF HOW THE DRAFT BEGAN) This afternoon I wish to speak particularly about one step now proposed, supported by Government propaganda, which seems to me to strike at the very basis of freedom, for which our boys are fighting. It is the proposal that we establish at once compulsory conscription for military training in time of peace. The proposal is that we establish in this country a continuous 12 months' military training for every boy, the same military set-up which we have gone to war to abolish in Germany and Japan. Whether we become a militaristic and totalitarian country depends more on this measure than any other. It does not relate to any limited class or group. It reaches every family and every boy. It subjects them completely to the domination of the Government for a year during their most formative period. It keeps them under constant supervision as reserves for years thereafter. The power to take a boy from his home and subject him to complete Government discipline is the most serious limitation on freedom that can be imagined. Many who have accepted the idea favor a similar Government-controlled training for all girls. There is no doubt that the Government, and particularly the War and Navy Departments, are straining every nerve to secure the enactment of this legislation before the war ends. Secret meetings are being held in the Pentagon Building and elsewhere. On April 26 the chief executive officers of some 40 or more women's organizations were invited there, and it is said they were addressed by the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, the Under Secretary of State, General Marshall, Admiral King, and other high-ranking officers. The ladies were requested not to disclose the substance of the speeches made or identify the War Department or its officials with the sponsorship of the plan. One newspaper stated that the ministers of various churches were invited to a similar meeting and attended, and that Negro organizations have been approached. Invitations went out from a citizens committee in New York to hear Secretary Forrestal, Under Secretary Grew, and General Weible at an off-the-record luncheon on May 25. Government propaganda is bad enough when it is open, but it is inexcusable when secret. We may expect a flood of open propaganda after the ground has been prepared, and everyone who is opposed to the plan will be pictured as for war and for unpreparedness. We have fought this war to preserve our institutions, not to change them. We have fought it to permit us to work out our problems here at home on a peaceful foundation, not on a foundation dominated by military preparations for another war. The question of the best form of military organization should not be an emotional problem. It should be dealt with by argument and not by propaganda. But the methods being used threaten the freedom of this country, for if they are successful they can be used to fasten upon us every kind of regulation, price control for business, wage control for labor, production control for farmers. If we approach this problem logically and not emotionally, the first question should be how large an Army we need to insure our freedom. Why not discuss what the right size is so that we can determine the best method of providing it? How can we tell how large an Army we do need until the peace is made and the organization of the world effected? It seems to me impossible to pass intelligently on the need for conscription at this time. Must we not see first what kind of a world is established at San Francisco and at the peace table? There are approximately 1,250,000 American boys in every age group. Is it necessary to train them all for a full year at a cost of at least two and a half billion dollars a year? This would provide reserves of about twelve and a half million men between the ages of 18 to 27. Is any such reserve necessary? Certainly, it is not needed in a hurry, for the armies we now have will be the best possible reserve for the next 3 or 4 years. The Selective Service Act expressly provides that all drafted men at the end of the war shall be transferred to the reserve and remain there for 10 years. Apparently, the argument for doing this job now is that the people might not be willing to do it later. That is certainly a typical totalitarian argument. It is an attempt to base a great permanent national policy on war emotion, because the proponents are afraid of government by the people when they have time to think it over. It seems improbable to me that the training of a million and a quarter boys a year would ever be necessary. The vast reserve provided could only be needed for a great overseas expedition like that in which we are now engaged. For such an expedition, it would take several years to organize ships, planes, and munitions, just as it did in this war. We would surely have to have new modern equipment in many fields, and it would take longer to build it than it would to train the men, as we found in this war. It would seem that for sudden attack, or for attack from the air or from attack by rockets the great mass of millions of reserves would be of little value. I should think we rather need an expert Army with the most modern weapons. In the event of a sudden attack, our main reliance would have to be a Regular Army of highly trained and technically trained men, and during such an attack they would not be much aided by 10,000,000 reserves. The argument that we can save in the size of a professional army by having many millions of reserves bears all the earmarks of a propaganda argument instead of one based on common sense. Having determined that we need an Army of a certain size, with certain reserves, we could then decide whether we could get it by voluntary means in the American tradition. Suppose we need a million men in the armed forces. We expect to have at least 50,000,000 people working at civilian jobs in this country. Surely we can make the Army sufficiently attractive as an occupation for 2 percent of these to be willing to volunteer. With good pay, reasonable treatment for men and their families, and provision for retraining and retirement when a man is too old to stay in the Army, I don't see why Army life cannot be made just as attractive as working daily on a machine, mining coal, or engaging in hundreds of other occupations. Many jobs in the Army should give highly technical training with interesting knowledge which makes the trainees capable of advancement in other activities in life. To provide the necessary Reserves, it could be made worth the while of many boys to take the necessary training. Many alternative plans have been suggested to a year's conscription. For instance, adequate reserves might be provided by training 200,000 boys in each age group. It should be possible to obtain volunteers in that number for a 3-month course and basic training during one summer, courses in school and a later 3-month summer course in the field. The boys could be paid a sum which would assist them in their regular education during the winter. Additional courses could be provided for those who wish to become Reserve officers. What I have suggested is only one idea and there may be many others. The Army will immediately criticize any plan, because they are determined to have conscription. They want the boys for 12 months consecutively because they want to change their habits of thought, to make them soldiers, if you please, for the rest of their lives. Nothing less will do. We are indeed bankrupt of ideas if we cannot provide a method by which necessary military forces and Reserves are provided by an American voluntary system. The other arguments for conscription seem to me almost too trivial to discuss. It is said it will teach the boys discipline and that they need it. My own opinion is that we need more initiative and original thinking and less discipline rather than more. Our present Army is not the most disciplined Army in the world, but there isn't any better Army for the simple reason that the boys do some thinking for themselves. It is said the Army will improve their health, and that they need it because so many failed to pass the strict health requirements of the Army. As a matter of fact, the great bulk of defects were those relating to teeth, eyes, mental, nerves, and heart conditions, all of which had arisen long before the age of conscription. There is nothing to show that the Army would conscript any of these boys. To improve their health, we must reach them at a much younger age. The argument that it would improve the morals of our boys has almost been dropped because of its foolishness. If there is one place where morals will not be improved, it is in the vicinity of Army camps. It is true that there are some boys who are benefited by Army control, but to improve a few, let us not change the whole character of the American life which I believe has been the cause of success in this war. It is said that we are going to teach the boys citizenship in the camps. This argument makes clear a real danger in the whole system. By handing boys over for 12 months to the arbitrary and complete domination of the Government, we put it in the power of the Government to indoctrinate them with the political doctrines then popular with the Government. It has all the dangers of Federal education and none of its advantages. Attempts along this line have been made with the present Army, and a large amount of propaganda sent out to be taught to the soldiers. In wartime it is bad enough; in peacetime, it would be intolerable. Some have supported this project on the ground that the training is only to be part military and a considerable amount of it is to be character training along other lines. We have already a complete school system in this country. If it isn't adequate and does not give education in citizenship, we can well spend our time and money in trying to improve that system. As a matter of fact, it is already the finest system of education the world has ever seen. Military conscription is essentially totalitarian. It has been established for the most part in totalitarian countries and their dictators led by Napoleon and Bismark. It has heretofore been established by aggressor countries. It is said it would insure peace by emphasizing the tremendous military potential of this country. Surely we have emphasized that enough in this war. No one can doubt it. On the contrary, if we establish conscription every other nation in the world will feel obliged to do the same. It would set up militarism on a high pedestal throughout the world as the goal of all the world. Militarism has always led to war and not peace. Conscription was no insurance of victory in France, in Germany, or in Italy. The countries with military conscription found that it was only an incident and not the determining factor in defense or in victory. Military training by conscription means the complete regimentation of the individual at his most formative period for a period of 12 months. If we admit that in peacetime we can deprive a man of all liberty and voice and freedom of action, if we can take him from his family and his home, then we can do the same with labor, we can order the farmer to produce and we can take over any business. If we can draft men, it is difficult to find an argument against drafting capital. Those who enthusiastically orate of returning to free enterprise and at the same time advocate peacetime conscription are blind to the implications of this policy. They are utterly inconsistent in their position. Because of its psychological effect on every citizen, because it is the most extreme form of compulsion, military conscription will be more the test of our whole philosophy than any other policy. Some say it is unconstitutional. It makes very little difference whether it actually violates the terms of the Constitution. It is against the fundamental policy of America and the American Nation. If adopted, it will color our whole future. We shall have fought to abolish totalitarianism in the world, only to set it up in the United States. Government by the people can only exist if the people are individuals who think. It can only exist if the individual is free to rule the state and if he is not ruled by the state. We must be constantly vigilant to keep alive the thinking of freemen, and there is no such threat to that thinking as the course which would impose on the Nation compulsory military training. We have no greater obligation to the men who fought at Gettysburg, we have no greater obligation to the men who fought in Europe and who are fighting in the Pacific, than to preserve here in America a state in which the individual shall be free to think and be master of his own soul, and where the people shall be free to govern their own Government. Folks, Sen. Taft got it right: "We have no greater obligation to the men who fought... than to preserve here in America a state in which the individual shall be free to think and be master of his own soul, and where the people shall be free to govern their own Government." May we remember Taft's words on this Memorial Day and every day to come.

IRS TARGETS CONSERVATIVE GROUPS, VERY IMPORTANT VIDEO

IF YOU CARE ABOUT AMERICA YOU WILL WATCH THIS VIDEO IN ITS ENTIRETY.  IF YOU DON'T SPEAK UP NOW, WHEN THE IRS, FBI, OSHA, ATF OR SOME OTHER ROGUE GOVERNMENT OFFICE COMES FOR YOU, THERE WILL BE NO ONE LEFT TO DEFEND YOU.

FOUR AMERICANS KILLED BY OBAMA'S DRONES, "BUT WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?"

OBAMA HAS KILLED MORE US CITIZENS 

THAN FOREIGNERS WATER BOARDED UNDER BUSH 

Four Americans have been killed by Obama Drones since 2009.  One was an intentional target, three were collateral damage.  All were in violation of the U.S. Constitution.  Americans are entitled to due process under the law.  These four Americans were murdered by their American president, no trial, no jury, no judge.

The Democrats were ferociously against Bush's water boarding activities.  They ranted, raved, harangued, screeched, squealed and squawked incessantly every time they opened their sizable mouths on Bush's water boarding policy.  But now they are astonishingly silent, stone cold mute, hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, when Their Guy kills Americans using His hit list and His drones.  They are pure partisan hacks, Little Bo Peep’s Sheep, while their Nobel Peace Prize Prez continues his murderous drone rampage, believing Americans are expendable, no problem.

How long before some low level Drone operator sitting in an office in Cincinnati, or Washington, or Seattle, decides they are sick and tired of the Tea Party, or Conservatives, or Religious Zealots, and send out the Drones – by mistake, of course.  

HERE'S THE STORY - BUT "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?"

HILLARY WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT? LYING, UNETHICAL OBAMA CLONE

I found this article and thought you'd all like to read it.  It is SO VERY IMPORTANT to know this if you are considering supporting Hillary for President in 2016.  She's been a liar for decades.  Many of her over-the-year's-lies are cited in this article. That's why it was so easy for her to lie about Benghazi.  Putting Hillary in the White House will give us another four years of crooked, lying, thieving politics.  She and Obama are cloned low-lifes.  Read this whole article.  And then campaign, campaign, campaign AGAINST Hillary Rodham Clinton for President in 2016.  The article is fairly long.  But I encourage you to read it ALL.  It's a real eye opener and will give you ammunition when Hillary supporters swarm like biting gnats.

Politics: Watergate-era Judiciary chief of staff: Hillary Clinton fired for lies, unethical behavior

Published by: Dan Calabrese on Wednesday January 23rd, 2013

By DAN CALABRESE - Bet you didn't know this. 

I've decided to reprint a piece of work I did nearly five years ago, because it seems very relevant today given Hillary Clinton's performance in the Benghazi hearings. Back in 2008 when she was running for president, I interviewed two erstwhile staff members of the House Judiciary Committee who were involved with the Watergate investigation when Hillary was a low-level staffer there. I interviewed one Democrat staffer and one Republican staffer, and wrote two pieces based on what they told me about Hillary's conduct at the time.

I published these pieces back in 2008 for North Star Writers Group, the syndicate I ran at the time. This was the most widely read piece we ever had at NSWG, but because NSWG never gained the high-profile status of the major syndicates, this piece still didn't reach as many people as I thought it deserved to. Today, given the much broader reach of CainTV and yet another incidence of Hillary's arrogance in dealing with a congressional committee, I think it deserves another airing. For the purposes of simplicity, I've combined the two pieces. If you're interested in understanding the true character of Hillary Clinton, it's worth your time to read it.

As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.

Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.

The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.

The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.

“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said.

The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files. So what did Hillary do?

“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.

But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States.

Franklin Polk, who served at the time as chief Republican counsel on the committee, confirmed many of these details in two interviews he granted me this past Friday, although his analysis of events is not always identical to Zeifman’s. Polk specifically confirmed that Hillary wrote the memo in question, and confirmed that Hillary ignored the Douglas case. (He said he couldn’t confirm or dispel the part about Hillary taking the Douglas files.)

To Polk, Hillary’s memo was dishonest in the sense that she tried to pretend the Douglas precedent didn’t exist. But unlike Zeifman, Polk considered the memo dishonest in a way that was more stupid than sinister.

“Hillary should have mentioned that (the Douglas case), and then tried to argue whether that was a change of policy or not instead of just ignoring it and taking the precedent out of the opinion,” Polk said.

Polk recalled that the attempt to deny counsel to Nixon upset a great many members of the committee, including just about all the Republicans, but many Democrats as well.

“The argument sort of broke like a firestorm on the committee, and I remember Congressman Don Edwards was very upset,” Polk said. “He was the chairman of the subcommittee on constitutional rights. But in truth, the impeachment precedents are not clear. Let’s put it this way. In the old days, from the beginning of the country through the 1800s and early 1900s, there were precedents that the target or accused did not have the right to counsel.”

That’s why Polk believes Hillary’s approach in writing the memorandum was foolish. He says she could have argued that the Douglas case was an isolated example, and that other historical precedents could apply.

But Zeifman says the memo and removal of the Douglas files was only part the effort by Hillary, Doar, Nussbaum and Marshall to pursue their own agenda during the investigation.

After my first column, some readers wrote in claiming Zeifman was motivated by jealousy because he was not appointed as the chief counsel in the investigation, with that title going to Doar instead.

Zeifman’s account is that he supported the appointment of Doar because he, Zeifman, a) did not want the public notoriety that would come with such a high-profile role; and b) didn’t have much prosecutorial experience. When he started to have a problem with Doar and his allies was when Zeifman and others, including House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill and Democratic committee member Jack Brooks of Texas, began to perceive Doar’s group as acting outside the directives and knowledge of the committee and its chairman, Peter Rodino.

(O’Neill died in 1994. Brooks is still living and I tried unsuccessfully to reach him. I’d still like to.)

This culminated in a project to research past presidential abuses of power, which committee members felt was crucial in aiding the decisions they would make in deciding how to handle Nixon’s alleged offenses.

According to Zeifman and other documents, Doar directed Hillary to work with a group of Yale law professors on this project. But the report they generated was never given to the committee. Zeifman believes the reason was that the report was little more than a whitewash of the Kennedy years – a part of the Burke Marshall-led agenda of avoiding revelations during the Watergate investigation that would have embarrassed the Kennedys.

The fact that the report was kept under wraps upset Republican committee member Charles Wiggins of California, who wrote a memo to his colleagues on the committee that read in part:

Within the past few days, some disturbing information has come to my attention. It is requested that the facts concerning the matter be investigated and a report be made to the full committee as it concerns us all.

Early last spring when it became obvious that the committee was considering presidential "abuse of power" as a possible ground of impeachment, I raised the question before the full committee that research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon.

As I recall, several other members joined with me in this request. I recall as well repeating this request from time to time during the course of our investigation. The staff, as I recall, was noncommittal, but it is certain that no such staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use.

Wiggins believed the report was purposely hidden from committee members. Chairman Rodino denied this, and said the reason Hillary’s report was not given to committee members was that it contained no value. It’s worth noting, of course, that the staff member who made this judgment was John Doar.

In a four-page reply to Wiggins, Rodino wrote in part:

Hillary Rodham of the impeachment inquiry staff coordinated the work. . . . After the staff received the report it was reviewed by Ms. Rodham, briefly by Mr. Labovitz and Mr. Sack, and by Doar. The staff did not think the manuscript was useful in its present form. . . .

In your letter you suggest that members of the staff may have intentionally suppressed the report during the course of its investigation. That was not the case.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Doar was more concerned that any highlight of the project might prejudice the case against President Nixon. The fact is that the staff did not think the material was usable by the committee in its existing form and had not had time to modify it so it would have practical utility for the members of the committee. I was informed and agreed with the judgment.

Mr. Labovitz, by the way, was John Labovitz, another member of the Democratic staff. I spoke with Labovitz this past Friday as well, and he is no fan of Jerry Zeifman.

“If it’s according to Zeifman, it’s inaccurate from my perspective,” Labovitz said. He bases that statement on a recollection that Zeifman did not actually work on the impeachment inquiry staff, although that is contradicted not only by Zeifman but Polk as well.

Labovitz said he has no knowledge of Hillary having taken any files, and defended her no-right-to-counsel memo on the grounds that, if she was assigned to write a memo arguing a point of view, she was merely following orders.

But as both Zeifman and Polk point out, that doesn’t mean ignoring background of which you are aware, or worse, as Zeifman alleges, confiscating documents that disprove your argument.

All told, Polk recalls the actions of Hillary, Doar and Nussbaum as more amateurish than anything else.

“Of course the Republicans went nuts,” Polk said. “But so did some of the Democrats – some of the most liberal Democrats. It was more like these guys – Doar and company – were trying to manage the members of Congress, and it was like, ‘Who’s in charge here?’ If you want to convict a president, you want to give him all the rights possible. If you’re going to give him a trial, for him to say, ‘My rights were denied,’ – it was a stupid effort by people who were just politically tone deaf. So this was a big deal to people in the proceedings on the committee, no question about it. And Jerry Zeifman went nuts, and rightfully so. But my reaction wasn’t so much that it was underhanded as it was just stupid.”

Polk recalls Zeifman sharing with him at the time that he believed Hillary’s primary role was to report back to Burke Marshall any time the investigation was taking a turn that was not to the liking of the Kennedys.

“Jerry used to give the chapter and verse as to how Hillary was the mole into the committee works as to how things were going,” Polk said. “And she’d be feeding information back to Burke Marshall, who, at least according to Jerry, was talking to the Kennedys. And when something was off track in the view of the Kennedys, Burke Marshall would call John Doar or something, and there would be a reconsideration of what they were talking about. Jerry used to tell me that this was Hillary’s primary function.”

Zeifman says he had another staff member get him Hillary’s phone records, which showed that she was calling Burke Marshall at least once a day, and often several times a day.

A final note about all this: I wrote my first column on this subject because, in the aftermath of Hillary being caught in her Bosnia fib, I came in contact with Jerry Zeifman and found his story compelling. Zeifman has been trying to tell his story for many years, and the mainstream media have ignored him. I thought it deserved an airing as a demonstration of how early in her career Hillary began engaging in self-serving, disingenuous conduct.

Disingenuously arguing a position? Vanishing documents? Selling out members of her own party to advance a personal agenda? Classic Hillary. Neither my first column on the subject nor this one were designed to show that Hillary is dishonest. I don’t really think that’s in dispute. Rather, they were designed to show that she has been this way for a very long time – a fact worth considering for anyone contemplating voting for her for president of the United States.

By the way, there’s something else that started a long time ago.

“She would go around saying, ‘I’m dating a person who will some day be president,’” Polk said. “It was like a Babe Ruth call. And because of that comment she made, I watched Bill Clinton’s political efforts as governor of Arkansas, and I never counted him out because she had made that forecast.”

Bill knew what he wanted a long time ago. Clearly, so did Hillary, and her tactics for trying to achieve it were established even in those early days.

Vote wisely.

IRS KNOCKING AT YOUR DOOR, SAL RUSSO, THE FULL STORY

Sal Russo from the Tea Party Express wrote an op-ed that was picked up and published in the U.S.A. Today.  It is so powerful I wanted to share it with you.

SAL RUSSO, TEA PARTY EXPRESS, THE REAL STORY

BEN SHAPIRO ON THE OBAMA LEGACY

 

BEN SHAPIRO SOUNDS OFF ON THE "BLAME EVERYONE ELSE" GAME OBAMA LOVES TO PLAY

"This is the legacy of the Obama administration: blaming everyone else. It began with Bush. Then it became Congressional Republicans. Now it's everybody within the Obama administration with the sole exception of the President.

Michelle Obama is only moments away from being thrown under the bus should anything happen inside her 'Let's Move' program. To call this unpresidential would be the understatement of the year. It is cowardly.

Obama has spent his entire career leading from behind then jumping forward to take credit when things go right. ... His entire presidency has rested on the pitch that Americans should trust him.

If he hasn't created jobs, that's because he hasn't had enough power to do so -- trust him with more power, and he'll take care of you.

If he hasn't lowered healthcare costs, that's because Obamacare hasn't been fully implemented by that discriminatory IRS -- trust him with more power, and he'll make sure you're cared for.

If the entire Middle East has been transformed into a Muslim Brotherhood hotbed, that's because Obama hasn't had bipartisan support for his foreign policy -- elect him a Congressional majority in 2014, and he'll fix the problem."

-columnist Ben Shapiro

JAMES ROSEN AND OBAMA'S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

In addition to the Associated Press Obama's Justice Department also went after James Rosen, Fox News Washington correspondent.  They tapped into his emails and had him under surveillance.  I told you when He-Who-Thinks-He's-God was elected the first time that we should prepare for lies, graft, corruption and fraud in Washington.  I predicted Chicago Dems were going to bring crooked Chicago politics to national government, and so they have.  The shroud is starting to shred.  Be prepared.  This is just the beginning.  Since the Associated Press has been in the tank for Obama from the beginning, I wonder what they think now?

JAMES ROSEN AND FOX NEWS GET A DOSE OF WHITE HOUSE ANGST

100,000 IRS AGENTS WON'T STOP THIS FRAUD

What's another 4.2 billion dollars to the beleaguered American tax payer?  Well, according to the IRS, it's just a drop in the big tax fraud bucket, and it's being spent for such a good cause.  Yup, that's right, it's a real necessity or there might be suffering and griping and whining and crying by the illegal aliens, the Obama constituency. 

So what's the big deal?  Well, here it is.  There is a big old sink hole of a tax loophole which allows undocumented workers to collect what's called an Additional Child Tax Credit.  The credit is $1,000 per child, and it is being claimed by families who pay nothing in taxes.  Yup, you are smarter than the IRS Dummies because you figured it out right away.  They pay NOTHING in taxes, yet they get THOUSANDS back in refunds.  Oh, isn't our government efficient?

Here's how it works.  It used to be that you had to have a Social Security number to file your taxes, claim credits, and claim refunds, and each of your children had to have a Social Security number as soon as they came out of the womb, or you could not claim them as a dependent.  But some moron in Washington decided that wasn't really fair because undocumented aliens don't pay taxes or file tax returns because they can't get a SS number.  So what did the Wise Folks in government do?  They said well, we will create a new system of identification called a Taxpayer Identification Number.   And for anyone who can't get a SS number, we will assign them a TIN.  Oh, goodie, then they can file a tax return and get their refund.

All well and good until the recipients of the TINs found out how easy it is to scam the government of the country where they are illegally residing and working.  Actually, they already knew that since they continue to reside here without fear of deportation, thank you Mr. Obama and the Obama Justice Department.  So it's no wonder they decided to take advantage of the Child Tax Credit and the Additional Child Tax Credit simply by adding more kiddies to their tax return as dependents.  What's been known since 2001, yes, that is the year the first public outcry happened, has now become a 4.2 billion dollar per year fraud.  That's 11 years, and NOTHING has been done to stop it. 

And here's the best part.  Most of the "claimed family members", i.e., nephews, nieces, parents, grandparents, etc., as many as 20-25 listed on some tax returns, LIVE IN MEXICO.  They have never set foot on our soil.  Yes, most of the 4.2 billion dollars of OUR money is being sent to Mexico.  Many of the fraudulent tax return refunds were $10,000 to over $20,000 PER RETURN.

And yet the IRS says they won't do anything to stop it, in spite of Congress demanding that they do.  The House Republicans have introduced House Resolution 1956 that would limit all child tax credits to be given only to U. S. Citizens who have a valid SS number.  Guess where this bill is right now?  It's sitting idle in the House Ways and Means Committee thanks to the Democrats who won't let it be brought to the floor for discussion.  Even the IRS's Inspector General says this is wrong and it has to stop.  In fact, he has written letters over the last 4 years to the IRS telling them to stop this lunacy.  The IRS has ignored him.  Geesh, I wonder where they learned how to do that?  Could it be they are patterning their behavior after the Obama administration, who daily ignores our Constitution and our laws?

The Dems just don't want to deal with this right now because they can't afford to alienate any of the Hispanic base.  And even though those illegals who are here scamming our system are not supposed to be voting, want to place a bet on how many are actually showing up at the polls and pulling the lever for a Democrat?  I thought Obama promised to clean up Washington, get rid of fraud, waste and abuse?  Yeah, right, just another lie from the Liar in Chief. 

And what did one illegal alien say when interviewed and asked about the false claim on his return?  He said, "It's not taking advantage.  I'm very thankful to this country for the help it gives me."  Yuppers, that's right, he steals from the American taxpayer and calls it "help."  He thinks the American money tree will never wilt and die. 

Congress may be voting on a budget measure in the coming weeks.  A budget reconciliation package now being considered in the House contains language that would limit additional child tax credits to U.S. citizens with a valid Social Security number.  You must, and I say MUST, let your Representative know that this is just another form of government stupidity, it's stealing from all Americans, and you want it to stop.  And tell them it's another good reason to say NO to every attempt to increase taxes.  They'll just figure out some other stupid way to spend it. 

Here is where you can find out the name and contact information for your Representative.  Don't wait.  Do it today.  And if they don't listen to you, remember November is coming.  It's time to get rid of the trash in Congress.

CLICK HERE TO FIND YOUR REPRESENTATIVE

Watch these videos of the TV news reporters who broke this story. 

CLICK HERE FOR PART 1

CLICK HERE FOR PART 2

MEANWHILE BACK AT THE WHITE HOUSE --

Did you hear Obama’s State of the Union (campaign) speech this week? Maybe you did, but I watched the first 5 minutes, and that’s all I could stomach. I turned it off after I heard the first reference to “fair share.” I wondered how long it would take for him to get to those two words, and it sure didn’t take long. Turns out he made half a dozen references to his favorite slogan, no surprise there.

But wait, shouldn’t fairness begin at home? An IRS report just out reveals that 36 of President Obama’s executive office staff owe the country $833,970 in back taxes. The Mr. Fair Share-hired-workforce hasn’t paid any taxes, much less their “fair share.”


These Tax Dodger Obama cohorts can’t exactly claim poverty as a reason for not paying their taxes. Reports show that the Obama White House staff includes 457 aides earning more than $37 million last year. That’s up nearly $4 million from the Bush administration’s last year.


More stats for your reading pleasure? One-third of Obama’s aids make more than $100,000 per year, with 21 being paid the top White House salary of $172,200 each. That’s an extremely high wage for anyone, lots of moolah, especially with 20 million Americans unemployed.


And there’s lots more “fair share” to go around. Turns out that the 25,640 U. S. Postal service employees owe nearly $270 million. Employees in the U. S. Senate and the House of Representatives owe more than $10 million. Military personnel owe more than $100 million.


The bottom line as reported by the IRS report is postal workers, congressional staffers, military personnel and federal workers, both active and retired, owe $3,420,168,684 in unpaid taxes for 2010. Yes, that’s over $3 billion. This is an increase of more than 3 percent over the previous year.


When Mr. Fair Share continually castigates the “rich” for paying exactly what the current law says they should, he sounds like an uninformed buffoon. He should concentrate on getting his own White House employees and all other federal employees to pay the “fair share” they currently owe. Collecting $3 billion in back taxes would certainly help in improving our budget picture.


Obama talks about wanting more tax breaks for the middle class. Well, I call this one HUGE tax break for federal employees. If you don’t pay your taxes, that’s a tax break. But if the rest of us didn’t pay our taxes we’d be sitting in front of a federal judge, bingo-bango. Turbo Tax Cheat Timothy Geithner should be instructing the IRS to go get ‘em, now! Oh, I forgot. Turbo Timmy is also a tax cheat.

GOING APE, TAX REVENUE GOES UP IN SMOKE

According to 2009 figures released by the IRS, the average tax return paid $5847 in revenue. Using that number and the National Institutes of Health figures for grant money given to drug test Rhesus Monkeys, it costs 621.6 Americans $5847 each year.

Folks, there’s “a monkey on the back of every American,” thanks to the government.

NIH has spent $3,634,807 over the past decade funding research that forced monkeys to smoke and inject drugs. As specified in the grant, the ill-fated primates were forced to use “PCP, METH, heroin, cocaine, ethanol, and methadone.”

Once the monkeys were suitably smashed their behavior was studied, including during different phases of the female monkeys’ menstrual cycles and sexual activity of the drugged subjects.

The study also uses “interventions” as “treatment models” for monkeys who have been taught to use drugs. So we pay to addict them and then pay to treat them, oh, what a great program we fund.

In another federally funded study of drugged monkeys, the druggies were sometimes given a “trail mix” after their daily experimentation sessions, their reward for being obedient and submissive and not going ape during the sessions.

Another NIH project in 2001 gave $328,364 to a project called “A Primate Model of Drug Abuse.” The lead investigator was Dr. Marilyn Carroll, a professor at the University of Minnesota. A description of the grant as published by NIH: “Goals of the research are to use a rhesus monkey model of drug abuse to study factors affecting vulnerability to drug abuse and to evaluate behavioral and pharmacological treatment interventions. Routes of administration will include oral drug self-administration and smoking.” Yeah, you read it correctly.

The U of M study has been ongoing since 1990, costing 621.6 Americans $5847 each and every year.

The latest giftarama to Ms. Carroll of the U or M was on March 31, 2011, when she received her current award, $386,907 in tax dollars.

What have been the results of forcing monkeys to take drugs and get addicted? After studying them for decades and after huge expenditures of tax dollars, Ms. Carroll has determined that testing “revealed dilated pupils and slightly agitated hyperactive behavior.”

The result of the “studies” as reported by Ms. Carroll? “These findings indicate that smoked cocaine-base caused physiological effects similar to those reported in studies of human subjects.” What? It’s taken millions of tax dollars to determine what anyone with an ounce of common sense should know?

NIH has been giving away your money for years, under many administrations, for thousands of dubious so-called research projects, adding millions of dollars to the ballooning national debt, now approaching $15 trillion. Remember, 40 cents of each debt dollar we have is borrowed from China.

And right now, today? Obama wants to soak the “rich” for more money to fund more monkey tomfoolery. I’d say to him, Mr. Obama, the Census Bureau says the median household income in the U.S. is $52,000. How would you explain to America’s moms and dads who make $52,000 per year that the entire tax payment from 621.6 taxpayers went entirely to pay for meaningless monkey shenanigans?

How can you justify continuing to vilify the “rich,” demanding more tax money from them, when you have failed in your campaign promise to root out fraud, waste and abuse from the federal budget?

You, Mr. Obama, said you’d fix this, but you’ve done nothing to put a stop to this type of worthless monkey business, while at the same time spending us into bankruptcy and demanding more, more, more for you to spend. It will be my greatest pleasure to bid you farewell in 2012.

And here's a message for all you Obama Backers who have fallen into his "tax the rich" pit. We do not have a TAX problem, we have a SPENDING problem as evidenced by the drug-the-monkeys-program. Use your head. Think for yourself.

HERMAN CAIN'S 9-9-9 PLAN EXPLAINED BY HERMAN HIMSELF

Watch this to find out how Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan would work. A great explanation for a simplified tax plan that would get everyone paying something. The 47% of Americans who currently do not pay one cent would have to contribute. I like the plan. I might even be in favor of a smaller "flat tax" number for low income people, say like 4% or 5% under a certain amount of income. Listen to his explanation and then YOU decide whether he makes sense or not. I like him because he's not a "career politician" and owes no one any political favors. He's an extremely successful businessman. And 2012 is our last chance to get it right and save the country. Though Cain is not a perfect candidate, none of them are, he doesn't have Romneycare hanging around his neck. He doesn't have in-state-tuition issues and you-must-vaccinate-your-teen-girls-by-executive-order issues like Perry.


CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO HERMAN

SLAP MY HAND CHARLIE

Charlie Rangel, 40 year Congressman from Harlem in NY. He just got reelected. Does that make him a Career Politician? He's 80 years old.

For over 2 years he's been charged with multiple House ethics violations. Finally, right after the election, of course, the House Ethics Committee finds him guilty of egregious ethical behavior. The activities that got him in trouble are very troublesome, including tax evasion and using campaign funds to pay personal legal bills. WOW! Another cheater in the House.

So what does the House Ethics Committee do? They "censure" him. Instead of expulsion, they slap him on the hand.

Expulsion appears in the Constitution. Censure does not. Censure is similar to a reprimand. It's a nothing penalty! It's a pass. It's letting the fox into the hen house knowing the fox is up to no good. Censure simply means Old Charlie will stand in the well of the House while the Speaker of the House rebukes him. That means Nancy Pelosi gets to take Charlie to task for his lack of ethics and honesty. The same Nancy who said "we are going to drain the swamp." Now Nancy, in case you haven't noticed, there is so much toxic waste in the swamp it's unlikely it will ever be drained during your tenure. That's because you are part of the pollution.

Now that the House has made their determination I wonder if the IRS and other agencies will investigate Charlie? You can bet they would if you or I or some other "commoner" were evading taxes. Anyone else would be looking at penalties, fines and interest.

This slap on Charlie's hand is a microcosm of the uncontrolled corruption in Congress. They never pay the price for their deeds. They just snicker and look the other way.