Tag: Stop

Hey, Trumpians, Stop Saying That Cruz STOLE Colorado – And Cruzites, Stop Celebrating An Establishment Victory

It’s ridiculous to assert that Ted Cruz has stolen delegates in Colorado. All the candidates knew that the Colorado GOP had blocked average people from participating in that state’s caucus system many months ago. Indeed, it’s not the Cruz camp I have a problem with when it comes to the Colorado scenario, it’s the Republican party elite with whom I’ve a bone to pick. You see, by choosing to turn the state’s delegate allocation over to the will of establishment insiders and political hacks instead of the will of the voter base, party leaders are sending a clear message to millions of primary election voters nationwide that it doesn’t matter who you campaign for, organize for, or even cast your ballots for – when we allow it – because in the end WE are going to decide who gets the nomination. My only question is: why is anyone still pretending that the deck wasn’t stacked in the house’s favor from the start?

Tell me, could there be a more glaring example of contempt for democratic processes than this? Sure, the GOP is a private institution and its leaders are free to make up any rules they want to whenever they feel like it. Nobody with an above-room-temperature IQ is disputing that fact. What one needs to ask oneself is this: of all the ways the party big-wigs could have chosen to run their nomination process, why did they pick this incoherent mishmosh of primary/caucus/neither systems that dole out delegates in such variable and often confusing ways? I mean, even among states which allow for direct primary voting, there’s widely differing rules with respect to delegate allocation. Some states are winner-take-all, while others are winner-might-take-all if he or she wins up to a certain percentage of the vote. Other states are purely proportional in their delegate disbursements, while still others don’t seem to follow any rational course at all. Where’s the homogeneity here? …the consistency?

And why have party bosses waited until so late in the primary season to consider changes to the rules by which the convention will be run? Shouldn’t they have made those decisions before the primaries even started, if only for the purpose of appearing fair and equitable to the voting public? What possible excuse could they have for waltzing in after most of the primary votes have been cast and diddling with this process, other than they desire to further burden the frontrunner with obstacles that did not exist before the race started?

I have long complained that primary elections are largely rigged affairs, but rarely do I have the opportunity to point to such clear illustrations of said rigging as I do today. It may well please many of my fellow Cruzites to learn that our favored candidate has just been handed the entirety of Colorado’s delegates for no discernable reason whatsoever, but it doesn’t put a smile on my face. I only consider myself a winner when I’ve actually faced someone in competition and beaten them fair and square. I don’t accept participation trophies, nor do I feel like breaking into a victory dance merely for showing up on time.

If it hasn’t become painfully obvious to you people by now that this entire primary election season is turning into one gigantic sham, then I feel sorry for you. Yes, fellow Cruzites and Cruzoids, don’t delude yourselves into thinking that just because the party’s insiders seem to be leaning in Cruz’s direction for the time being, that they won’t turn on him like a pack of rabid weasels in Cleveland this summer. You see, once you’ve cast your lot with the likes of Reince Priebus, Paul Ryan and all the other unprincipled assclowns currently running the GOP, you don’t get to complain when they stab you in the back further on down the road. That’s the nature of “party rules”, and they have nothing to do with the concepts of right and wrong.

Edward L. Daley

.

.

To My Fellow Ted Cruzites, Stop Behaving Like Leftist Bitches!


…………….

.
The animus between Cruzites and the Trumpians is so strong these days that anyone in either camp who tries to point out that one side isn’t always right and the other side isn’t always wrong results in knee-jerk, moonbat-like hostility the likes of which I’ve not seen among the Republican electorate in my lifetime.

For instance, I read a brief post the other day on some social media network by an ardent Trump fan wherein he(?) mentioned that Cruz gets a bum rap for being a part of the “RINO-Bush” 2000 campaign. The Trumpian in question merely pointed out that, at the time, Bush was the most conservative guy in the race who had any chance of beating Al Gore, and that Ted was simply supporting his party’s nominee. He opined that Cruz wasn’t necessarily some establishment assclown just because he’d backed George Dubya for president, and he was exactly right in that assessment, but that didn’t stop other Trump backers from treating him like he was the worst traitor since Benedict Arnold.

Similarly, I was attacked by faceless, #NeverTrump SM-warriors just the other day for defending The Donald over accusations by Ted Cruz that he had planted the National Enquirer sex-scandal story. All I did was share information which confirmed that it was allies of Marco Rubio who had been shopping that story around for months prior to it becoming public. Afterward I mentioned that I thought it was hypocritical of Cruz to be doing exactly what he’d accused Trump of doing only days before, which was holding someone to account for acts that no one could prove they’d actually committed. Based upon the reactions I got from my fellow Cruzites, one would have thought that I’d tortured a puppy on live video. I was branded a Trumpaloompa, a TrumpRump and other such monikers, even though I’d made it clear from the start that I’ve always backed Ted Cruz for president and still do. Not only did none of the people who responded to me exhibit the intellectual honesty to admit that I’d made a valid, fact-based point, but they seemed to assume I was a part of some pro-Trump, lunatic-fringe spy network or something.

In both of the above cases, the various respondents behaved with irrational contempt toward well-intentioned and well-reasoned people, and nobody else piped up at any time to illuminate these folks as to how completely leftist they all sounded. Yes, I said LEFTIST!

Look, I don’t give a damn who you support for president or why, that’s your business. However, what I DO care about is the manner in which you choose to do it, and if your idea of righteous campaigning is to defame and denigrate anyone who has the temerity to expose the inconsistencies and outright falsehoods perpetrated by whatever candidate you happen to embrace, then you’re no better than a filthy neo-socialist parasite!

And that goes doubly for people who support Ted Cruz for president. Why? Because the number one criticism I hear leveled at Trump from my fellow Cruzites is that he will say or do anything to get elected. And while that may be true, when you turn a blind eye to the fact that Ted Cruz does not appear to be above dirty tricks and hypocrisy himself, you’ve just ceded any moral or ethical high ground you may have had to the opposition. Indeed, I hold Cruz supporters to a higher standard than I do the followers of other candidates in this race, and if you’re to have any real integrity as a Cruzite, you will too.

Moreover, I’m sick to death of seeing people whom I’ve always considered to be genuine, well-principled conservatives take sides against Donald Trump absolutely every time some left-wing media asshat invents a “scandal” out of thin air. Sure, you have every right to criticize The Donald for the myriad dumbass things he’s said over the years, but jumping on the let’s-bash-Trump bandwagon every time the opportunity presents itself is just plain pathetic. It’s beneath men and women of good faith to act in such a way, and what pisses me off the most about this state of affairs is that I am often forced to defend a man I don’t even like very much in the name of fairness and basic decency against others of my own ideological bent.

It angers me, and for that reason I now beseech my fellow Crusites to GROW THE FUCK UP and start behaving like the sort of people you profess to want running our country, instead of the unprincipled swine who’ve done nothing but steer it straight into the crapper since the day after President Ronald Reagan gave his farewell address from the Oval Office.
.

.
Sincerely,

Edward L. Daley

.

Kurt Russell Tells Leftist Reporter It’s ‘Absolutely Insane’ To Think Gun Control Will Stop Terrorists

Kurt Russell: ‘Absolutely Insane’ To Think Gun Control Will Change Terrorists – Big Hollywood

.

.
In a recent interview with Jeffrey Wells, acting legend Kurt Russell responded to questions on the San Bernardino attacks by saying it’s “absolutely insane” to “think gun control will change terrorists’ point of view.”

This was preceded by Russell explaining that he doesn’t “understand concepts of conversation about gun culture” because “we’ve lived with guns since, what, the 7th Century or something?”

But according to Hollywood Elsewhere, Wells continued to paw at Russell, combining the emphasis on terrorism with the suggestion that guns are something “disenfranchised white guys need” so they can “feel good about themselves.”

Russell said:
.

If you think gun control is going to change the terrorists’ point of view, I think you’re, like, out of your mind. I think anybody [who says that] is. I think it’s absolutely insane. The problem, the problem that we’re having right now to turn it around… you may think you’ve got me worried about what you’re gonna do? Dude, you’re about to find out what I’m gonna do, and that’s gonna worry you a lot more. And that’s what we need. That will change the concept of gun culture, as you call it, to something [like] reality. Which is, if I’m a hockey team and I’ve got some guy bearing down on me as a goal tender, I’m not concerned about what he’s gonna do – I’m gonna make him concerned about what I’m gonna do…

.
Wells responded with, “I get that,” and Russell seized the opportunity to go back to an earlier question about the line separating fantasy and reality and said that reality is doing what has to be done to “stop” the guy coming at you–whether that guy is in the hockey scenario or in a scenario hedged in by terrorism. And once you “stop him,” Russell said, “That’s when things change.”

Wells countered by sticking with the gun control theme, saying, “Obama’s point was that the guys on the no-fly list, [they’re on it] for good reason because of terrorist connections or suspicions… they can get hold of a gun pretty easily.”

Russell said, “They can also make a bomb pretty easily. So what? They can also get knives and stab you. Whaddaya gonna do about that? They can also get cars and run you over. Whaddaya gonna do about that?”

Wells said, “They didn’t kill the people in San Bernardino with cars.”

Russell retorted, “But they’ve killed others that way, haven’t they? Yeah, yeah. Whaddaya gonna do? Outlaw everything? That isn’t the answer.”

Wells then said the words, “Just put some controls…” to which Russell responded, “Put some controls? What, so the people, so the people who want to defend themselves can’t?”

Wells tried to right the ship, saying, “No, not so you can’t, just so the idiots can’t get hold of them [so easily], that’s all.”

Russell said, “You really believe they’re not going to? Are you serious about that? What good will that…? Oh my God. You and I just disagree.”

Listen to the audio of the interview here.

.

.

RINO Boehner Caves To House Conservatives – Will Call For Vote On Resolution That Could Stop Iran Deal Cold

Report: Boehner Caves To House Conservatives On Iran Deal Vote – Gateway Pundit

It looks like the thousands of protesters outside the U.S. Capitol may have persuaded at least one Congressman to rethink Obama’s nuclear deal.

.

.
Speaker John Boehner reportedly has agreed to vote on a resolution introduced by Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL). The resolution will state that Obama has not complied with the law by not submitting the full Iranian nuclear deal to Congress.

Instapundit reported:

Looks like pressure from the House conservative Freedom Caucus membership has forced House Speaker John Boehner to agree the House will not pass a resolution disapproving of President Obama’s Iran deal. Instead, the House will apparently vote Friday on the resolution introduced by Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL), which will state that Obama has not complied with the Corker-Cardin law because he has not submitted the full Iranian nuclear “agreement,” which that law explicitly defines to include all “side deals,” between third parties (including the Iran-IAEA side deals).

The House is also anticipated to now vote on a second resolution, which would state that because the President has failed to submit the “agreement” defined by Corker-Cardin, the President has no corresponding authority to lift any existing Iranian sanctions.
.
The move by Boehner came after Freedom Caucus members threatened to vote down a planned resolution disapproving of the Iran deal, leaving the House on record as approving the deal. This threat was designed to leverage Boehner via potential political embarrassment, and encourage GOP leadership to consider the Roskam alternative, which will both delay congressional action on the Iran deal, as well as provide a stronger legal basis upon which to challenge any presidential action lifting sanctions.

.

.

Maryland National Guard FINALLY Brought In To Stop Obama Supporters From Destroying Baltimore

Baltimore Streets Fill With National Guard Troops – WorldNetDaily

.

.
National Guard troops filled the streets of Baltimore in the early morning Tuesday hours, bringing a semblance of calm to a city that was overrun with protesters who had set their sights on police, injuring 15 so far in the melees.

.

.
Fox News reported some of the injuries were due to bottles hurled at police, but all are expected to fully recover.

“We went to bed last night and the entire city smelled like smoke,” said Peter Doocy, from Fox News on Tuesday morning. “We woke up this morning and it’s pretty much the same thing.”

Media pictures showed buildings torched and smoking, firefighters on the scene working to put out lingering flames and glass scattered throughout the streets from broken business windows. At least 50 businesses and buildings, including a church, have been damaged by protesters.

.

Southern Baptist church’s newly built senior center

.

Convenience store and residence at East Biddle Street and Montford Avenue

.

CVS pharmacy on Pennsylvania Avenue

.
Much of last night’s rioting was due to teenagers roaming the streets, Fox News reported. Schools were closed and classes on Tuesday were cancelled.

Meanwhile, 1,500 members of the National Guard are patrolling the streets in tactical vehicles, and hundreds of police officers from outside the city are expected to arrive in the coming hours, Fox News reported.

.

.
The scene outside City Hall, where much of the rioting on Monday had occurred, was actually calm and quiet Tuesday morning, due largely to the massive National Guard and police presence that’s been called to the city.

So far, about two dozen people have been arrested, though their charges aren’t known.

The city’s been suffering through hours of violence and thuggery, with media pictures of the scene showing car fires and swarms of angry individuals throwing rocks and breaking business windows. The protests started shortly after the funeral of Freddie Gray, the young black man who died from massive spinal injuries shortly after being taken into police custody.

A curfew that was supposed to have gone into place Monday night is now set for Tuesday evening at 10 o’clock. Much ofthe city’s violence is being blamed on poor leadership, with the mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, fielding particularly harsh fire for comments she made seeiming to suggest the protesters had a real cause and police officers were setting aside space for them to vent.

She’s since backtracked on those comments, and blamed the press for taking her out of context.

This is what she said over the weekend: “While we tried to make sure that [protesters] were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.”

Late Monday, facing widespread criticism from her remarks, she said: “I made it very clear that we balanced a very fine line between giving peaceful protesters space to protest. What I said is, in doing so, people can hijack that and use that space for bad. I did not say that we were accepting of it, I did not say we were passive to it. I was just explaining how property damage can happen during a peaceful protest. IT is very unfortunate that members of your industry [media] decided to mischaracterize my words and try to use it as a way to say that we are inciting violence, there is no such thing.”

Meanwhile, members of the media on the scene say the majority of the protesters were residents of the community, and they were destroying buildings, businesses and properties in their own back yards.

.

.

Take Action – Stop Net “Neutrality” – Contact The FCC And Congress Today


.
Click HERE to contact the FCC via online form at its official website and tell the bureaucrats thereof to keep their hands off the internet!

You can also contact them via email: openinternet@fcc.gov

And don’t forget to contact your members of Congress about the issue, just for good measure.

U.S. Senate
U.S. House Of Representatives

.
…………

.

Nevada And Tennessee Join 24 Other States Suing To Stop Obama’s Executive Amnesty

Nevada And Tennessee Make It 26 States Suing To Stop Obama’s Amnesty – Townhall

.

.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced Monday that both Nevada and Tennessee have joined the Lone Star state’s challenge of President Obama’s executive amnesty, bringing the total number of states fighting Obama’s unilateral immigration policies to 26.

“Texas is proud to lead a coalition that now includes a majority of the United States standing up against the President’s rogue actions,” Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement. “The momentum against the President’s lawlessness continues to build with Tennessee and Nevada joining the effort to protect our states from the economic and public safety implications of illegal amnesty. As President Obama himself has said numerous times, he lacks the authority to impose amnesty. His actions represent a blatant case of overreach and clear abuse of power.”

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen already heard oral arguments in the case January 15th, where Texas argued that Obama’s amnesty would create a new wave of illegal immigration that would burden state governments. “This is the second time they’ve done it in two years,” Texas attorney Andrew Oldham told Hanen. “People think: They’ve done it twice in two years. Maybe they’ll do it again in 2016.”

Obama lawyer Kathleen Hartnett disputed that claim, insisting that new arrivals will not come “on the expectation of receiving deferred action because they will be turned away.” “His policy only applies to people who have been here since 2012,” she said.

Judge Hanen is not likely to buy that administration argument. In a 2013 case, Hanen predicted that Obama’s lax border enforcement policies would lead to a wave of illegal immigration. And that is exactly what happened in 2014.

Texas and the other 25 states are asking Judge Hanen to issue an injunction that would stop Obama from giving out any work permits before the program gets up and running in May.

If Obama’s amnesty does stand it will cost taxpayers billions in tax credits every year.

With Tennessee and Nevada, the full list of 26 states suing Obama over his executive amnesty are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin.

.

.

Parasitic Leftists Try To Stop Penn State Conservatives From Sharing Constitution In “Free Speech Zone”

Student Activists Told To Remove Table From Penn State ‘Free Speech Zone’ – Big Government

.

.
Several Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) Penn State student activists were tabling for their organization in celebration of Constitution Day on Wednesday.

Jolie Davis, chair of her YAF Chapter, had copies of the Constitution as well as literature at the table informing students of Penn State’s “speech code” policies. On the 8,500 acres of Penn State, there are only 12 small spaces designated as “Free Speech Zones” on campus. The organization’s table, located outside of the Hetzel Union Building (HUB), had a poster that read “Free Speech Banned at Penn State.”

.

.
After an hour or so of tabling, the YAF table was approached by campus security personnel, who told Jolie to take the table down. Jolie pressed the official with questions, asking why she had to take down her table. The campus security officer replied, “You can’t have a table but you can pass out flyers.” It is important to note that the area in which Davis was tabling was a “designated free speech zone.”

Davis and other activists decided to film the whole encounter. Once the official realized he was being recorded, he said, “It’s not going to help your cause to put this on video.” The official brought two more people from the college with him, one of them from Student Affairs, where they explained to Davis that she needed to reserve the space. She asked why she would have to reserve the space since it is a “designated free speech zone.” The college representatives told her she could go inside and discuss the policy. However, when she did, the officials hurried away.

Davis and other YAF activists have tabled at this exact location before; the only difference this time was now her organization was highlighting Penn State’s ridiculous speech code policies. Davis said, “At Penn State not all free speech is created equal.”

Apparently, it isn’t enough to restrict students’ free speech rights on campus because now students’ rights are restricted even in designated free speech zones.

.

.

Parasitic Leftists Stop Army Officer From Entering His Daughter’s School; Claim His Uniform Is Offensive

An Army Officer Was Walking His Daughter To School But Is Told He Can’t Enter For ‘Offensive’ Reason – Independent Journal Review

.

.
A Lieutenant Colonel was escorting his daughter to Rochester Adams high school in Michigan, when the man in uniform was rudely informed that he would not be permitted to enter the premises.

The reason that the military officer was given? His uniform ‘might offend people.’

The security personnel hired by the school told the 24-year veteran Lt. Col. Sherwood Baker that if he wanted to take his daughter inside the building, he would have to go home and change clothes.

Lt. Col. Baker’s wife Rachel Ferhadson told WJBK, “before he was allowed in, the security guard stopped him and said sorry you’re not allowed in the school. Security told him men and women in uniform weren’t allowed because it may offend another student.”

The school superintendent Robert Shaner, who is a military veteran himself, went out of his way to apologize to the family for the misconduct of the security personnel.

But the question that should come to mind about protecting students from ‘taking offense’ at a soldier in uniform: what about offending a military officer in the U.S. Army with a long career of service defending Americans from enemies of the country, while putting his life on the line to do it?

.

.

3,500 ‘Minutemen’ Troops Converging On Border To Help Stop Illegal Alien Invasion

Ordinary Citizens Rising Up: 3500 ‘Minutemen’ Troops Converging At Border – Downtrend

While it is certainly good to see ordinary Americans doing what they can to help solve problems and issues that are troubling our country, it is also sad to see the failure of government to act on legitimate concerns. After all, we can certainly agree that one of the most essential concerns and duties of a government is to protect, control, and defend our borders.

.

.
Sadly, ever since Obama has taken power, we have seen a continued and concerted effort to weaken our borders. To anyone who has been following recent events, it is clear that Obama is, at best, playing politics with our immigration laws and his policies. At worst, he is looking to weaken our country internally to the point where we become vulnerable to an outside attack or invasion.

Perhaps you have heard of the Minuteman project? I hadn’t until quite recently. This is an organization made up of patriotic Americans who are now looking to put an end to this influx of illegal immigrants. They are converging on the border in an effort to assist security efforts.

This is a response to how Obama has disarmed many of those Border Patrol officers and also simply refused to enforce many of our immigration laws. He has also removed and dwindled resources to the point of near non-existence. Obviously, this allowance of countless illegals into our country is both blatant and intentional. We have seen the photos of how drug smugglers are coming into this country laden with 50+ pound bags of drugs almost at will since Border Patrol officers have been recalled in an effort to man the detention facilities.

Led by Jim Gilchrist, this Minuteman Project is trying to take up the slack presented by the Obama Regime. They have issued a call for volunteers to head to the border and secure it since our lovely community organizer in chief refuses to do so. According to a report from WND:

“What Gilchrist describes as an ‘invasion’ is the flood of illegal aliens, including many children, coming into the United States from Mexico. Many of the illegal aliens are from Central America, where the word is that those who reach the United States gain access to food, housing, health care, and education. Part of the impetus has been identified by Barack Obama critics as the president’s policy of deferring deportation action against young illegal aliens.

Now Gilchrist, in a move that reflects increasing tension over the flood of illegals, some of whom are carrying tuberculosis, polio and other threats to society, has issued a new call for citizen volunteers to join him at the US border with Mexico.”

Interesting events. 3500 true American patriots have already responded to the call. It should be very instructive to see what response is forthcoming from the authorities. It should also be interesting to see what kind of effect they have on the number of illegals crossing into our country.

What do YOU think? Is this a legitimate response to a government that is increasingly out of control and shirking its responsibilities? Should we begin taking the security of our borders and our country more seriously and into our own hands? Might you ever consider joining forces with these 3500 courageous Minutemen?

.

.

Leftist Nutbag Alert! Obama Regime Calls For Wooden Skyscrapers To Stop Global Warming

Obama Regime Calls For Wooden Skyscrapers To Stop Global Warming – Moonbaterry

It’s not your imagination. The anti-human envirofascist luddites who rule us really are trying to force us back to the Middle Ages in the name of their preposterous global warming hoax. Now they want us to go back to constructing buildings out of wood – even high-rise buildings:

The White House launched a new campaign to sell its global warming agenda to rural America: “sustainable” buildings, including skyscrapers, made out of wood to lower carbon dioxide emissions.

The Agriculture Department (USDA) announced it was launching a new $1 million program to promote wood as a “green” building material to boost rural economies, as well as a $1 million competition “to demonstrate the architectural and commercial viability of using sustainable wood products in high-rise construction,” according to Department.

Skyscrapers made out of wood. They are serious.

The project… combines parts of President Barack Obama’s Climate Action Plan and the administration’s push to win over rural America using green jobs. The USDA hopes to spur the use of wood technologies in industrial building projects like “tall buildings and skyscrapers, as well as other projects,” claiming that such buildings would produce be more energy efficient and reduce carbon emissions.

According to the bizarre ideology of our rulers, wooden buildings make the weather more hospitable for man-eating polar bears by “storing atmospheric carbon,” thereby preventing the global warming that so conspicuously does not exist.

These lunatics know as much about building as they do about running the health insurance industry. But they are in charge, so they will have their way.

Among the many obvious downsides of wooden skyscrapers are excessive cost, structural weakness, warping, termites, and fire hazard.

On the positive side, Muslims won’t have to hijack airliners full of people to knock them down. A fast-moving Cessna ought to do the job.

Coming soon: government-subsidized high-rises made out of dung. They will be the ultimate in sustainability, and help us to celebrate multiculturalism by embracing the Third-World techniques favored in Obama’s ancestral homeland. Uniquely among government initiatives, dung skyscrapers will actually reduce costs, because the District of Columbia can produce a nearly infinite supply of the building materials required.

.
…………

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Family Of Likely Obama Supporters Try To Escape From Cops After Traffic Stop, Fail Miserably


.

Democrat AG From Maryland Photographed At Teen Party Says It’s Not His Job To Stop Underage Drinking

Gansler Says Breaking Up Teen Party Was Not His Job – Baltimore Sun

When Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler arrived at a house party of teenagers in June, he pushed through the crowd, past youngsters dancing on a table and a smattering of red plastic cups. One of the revelers snapped a photo.

.

As the night wore on, teens at the South Bethany rental home posted tweets, photos and videos of a bash labeled the “eviction party” for its intensity – a celebration where underage participants later confirmed many were drinking alcohol.

Gansler, a Democrat who is running for governor, said this week that he stopped by the Delaware beach house to talk briefly with his teenage son and then left. He said he does not remember whether he saw anyone drinking. But even if he had, Gansler said, it was not his responsibility as a parent or a high-ranking law enforcement official to intervene.

“Assume for purposes of discussion that there was widespread drinking at this party,” Gansler said. “How is that relevant to me? …The question is, do I have any moral authority over other people’s children at beach week in another state? I say no.”

Advocates against substance abuse and underage drinking disagreed, saying adults shouldn’t look the other way.

“It’s totally inappropriate for an adult, especially for an elected official whose job is to uphold the laws of the state or any state,” said Michael Gimbel, an independent consultant and the former alcohol abuse prevention official for Baltimore County.

“For any parent to do this is irresponsible. But for an attorney general who fought for these laws on the books is even worse,” he said.

Gansler has publicly advocated against underage drinking, appearing less than a year ago in a video for the Century Council, a nonprofit that works to combat both teen drinking and drunken driving.

“Parents, you’re the leading influence on your teen’s decision not to drink,” Gansler said in a video filmed as part of the organization’s “Ask, Listen, Learn” initiative to persuade parents to talk to middle-school children about drinking. “It’s never too early to talk with your kids about smart ways to say no.”

.

.
Century Council’s CEO and president Ralph Blackman, upon learning that Gansler had been at such a party, said, “Let me pick myself up off the floor here.”

Blackman added that he couldn’t judge what Gansler should have done while briefly stopping by a party. But he said that as a parent, he would hope to hold himself to a standard high enough to “not only set a good example and be a good role model for my own kid, but for the wider group of kids who all influence each other.”

“You can agree, you can disagree with the legal age,” Blackman said. But by looking the other way, “you are somehow suggesting that it is OK to break the law. It’s part of the value systems that go into young people’s decision making.”

Gansler, in a two-hour interview Tuesday about senior week and the June 13 party, said, “My responsibility is only to my child… Everybody has their own moral compass. Mine is to raise my own child.” He said firmly that his son was not drinking.

Gansler had attended a Maryland State Bar Association event in Ocean City earlier that evening. During his brief stay at the teens’ party, he was captured in both a video and a photo posted online. He did not dispute the authenticity of those images.

He said he was at the party only for a few minutes to discuss with his newly graduated son when they would leave Delaware the next morning for a college event in Pennsylvania. Of senior week, he said, “For better or worse, the reality is some kids drink alcohol while they’re there.”

The two-term attorney general and former Montgomery County state’s attorney said he had no more responsibility to shut down a party if he saw drinking than to stop teenagers walking down the street with beer cans in hand or investigate tailgate parties.

“Was I supposed to serve as the police officer?” Gansler asked. “No.”

Gansler was part of a group of parents who paid for a weeklong stay at a six-bedroom beach house after their sons’ graduation from the private Landon School in Bethesda.

The parents arranged for two fathers to serve as chaperones each night, paid for food and negotiated rules that forbade the boys from driving, having girls behind closed bedroom doors or drinking “hard alcohol,” according a copy of the rules and planning documents obtained by The Baltimore Sun. The list of prohibitions did not mention drinking beer or wine.

Gansler said that while he didn’t write the rules, he attended a meeting where parents discussed them and was one of two adults who explained them to the dozen boys.

“If anything bad happened, if the kids violated the rules, they’d be sent home,” Gansler said. “My guess is… that if someone drank beer, that would not be an offense for which the chaperones would want to send somebody home.”

Delaware law, like Maryland’s, does not distinguish among types of alcohol in its broad prohibition against underage drinking. In both states, the legal drinking age is 21.

It is legal for parents to allow their own children to drink at home.

In several photos posted online by people at the party, older adults can be seen standing in the background. In videos and photos, young people, both men and women, are dancing on a bar and on a table. In one video, a bucket of clear liquid is poured from the balcony onto dancers below. It’s unclear how many teens were drinking.

Some of the videos have since been removed from social media.

“I don’t remember much, but it was one of the best parties I’ve been to, hands down,” said one attendee who spoke to The Baltimore Sun this week under the condition of anonymity because some engaged in underage drinking.

Two days after the party, however, the house was in bad shape. Julie Barnes, who has for years cleaned the home after renters, said she arrived on June 15 to find the wooden floors rippled from moisture damage, dents that appeared to be made from high heels on the bar and pool table, and floors sticky from what smelled like beer. According to minutes of a South Bethany Town Council meeting where the vandalism was discussed, the house sustained about $50,000 worth of damage.

Police who investigated did not place blame on the Landon group and classified the damage as likely the result of a burglary that occurred sometime between Friday evening and Saturday when Barnes arrived to clean. The Landon group turned in their keys Friday afternoon, parents said.

A parent who chaperoned the night of the party but would not discuss whether there was drinking said he helped the boys clean up the next morning. He said they left the house in good shape. Another parent said a representative of the realty company ResortQuest called afterward to say the house was fine and minor damage would be covered by the security deposit. The parents asked not to be identified to protect their children’s privacy. Representatives from ResortQuest did not respond to a request for comment.

Gansler said the parents assume that someone broke in and trashed the house after the boys checked out.

“Apparently, the night before, the parents who were chaperoning it kicked kids out” because it was getting too crowded, Gansler said. “The thought was [the damage] was so malicious that they were trying to get revenge or back at the parents who were chaperoning for kicking them out.”

The home’s owner, Timothy Dickson, lives in Virginia and said he thought he and his wife were renting to several families vacationing together, not to a dozen recent high school graduates. He said they were dismayed by the teens’ behavior at their beach house as displayed on social media.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

H/T U.S. Constitutional Free Press

.

Lois Lerner: We Were Under Pressure To Stop Political Donations From 501(c)(4) Groups (Video)

Lois Lerner In Recently Uncovered Video: We Were Under Pressure To Stop Political Donations From 501(c)(4) Groups – Poor Richard’s Mews

It’s no wonder that Lois Lerner wants immunity in exchange for her testimony. After all, people that have done nothing wrong, don’t need immunity. That being said, a video of Lerner from 2010 seems to shed a little more light on the reason why she and others in the IRS targeted the Tea Party.

.

From Breitbart:

Newly uncovered video shows Lois Lerner discussing the political pressure that swirled around the IRS in 2010. Lerner says “everyone” was “screaming at” the IRS to stop the flood of money pouring into the 2010 elections through 501(c)(4) groups as a result of Citizens United.

Lerner spoke to a small group at Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy on October 19, 2010, just two weeks before the wave election that brought the Tea Party and Republicans significant gains in Congress. During her appearance Lerner was asked about the flow of money from corporations to 501(c)(4) groups. “Everyone is up in arms because they don’t like it” Lerner replied, adding “Federal Election Commission can’t do anything about it; they want the IRS to fix the problem.”

Lerner goes on to outline the fact that 501(c)(4) organizations have the right to do “an ad that says vote for Joe Blow” so long as their primary activity is social welfare. However Lerner again emphasizes the political pressure the IRS was under at the time saying, “So everybody is screaming at us right now ‘Fix it now before the election. Can’t you see how much these people are spending?’” Lerner concludes by saying she won’t know if organizations have gone too far in campaigning until she looks at their “990s next year.”

Read the Rest

Here’s the video:

.

.
Let’s go over the timeline here:

* January 21, 2010: The SCOTUS hands down the Citizens United ruling.
* October 19, 2010: Lois Lerner is on tape describing the intense amount of pressure put on the IRS by the Federal Elections Commission and others to “fix the problem” of private, non-profit companies donating to candidates and elections.
* November 2nd, 2010: The 2010 midterm elections bring historic gains for the GOP, around 700 seats nationwide.

Look, let’s not kid ourselves. The Democrats took a shellacking in the 2010 midterms because of the passage of Obamacare. Sure, there may have been other factors at play but that’s the big one. To blame the midterms on Citizens United is just plain silly. And while the leftists at the IRS had already been targeting conservative groups based solely on their ideology since well before Citizens United, the fact remains that, in their minds, Citizens United was the culprit. And after the huge 2010 midterm losses, something had to be done.

I believe that’s what detectives call a “motive.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Woman Can’t Convince Feds To Stop Hispanics From Using Her Address To Obtain Illegal Tax Refund Checks

Feds Unwilling Or Unable To Stop Illegal Checks – Carolina Journal

A Long Island, N.Y., woman has spent nearly two years trying to convince the Internal Revenue Service and the U. S. Postal Service that persons with Hispanic-sounding surnames using her address to obtain tax refunds from the IRS are part of a fraud scheme.

.
……….

She has not found a government agency that will stop the phony tax refunds from arriving in her mailbox. Instead, federal and state authorities pass the buck. The checks, including some offering payment for Hurricane Sandy “relief” to people who may not exist, keep coming.

Carol Cooke is frustrated. “This is fraud. It is our money and they are giving it to people that don’t deserve it. I have had 16 people using the address where I have paid the mortgage and taxes,” she told Carolina Journal. “Nobody has the right to use this address, especially for fraud. Some of the correspondence was in Spanish only.”

Cooke has lived at 557 Boxwood Drive, Shirley, N.Y., for 37 years. She approached CJ about her situation after reading a Carolina Journal Online story about Stolen Identity Refund Fraud. Federal officials say it’s the “No. 1 tax scam of 2013,” with more than $5.2 billion in losses to U.S. taxpayers reported in tax year 2010.

CJ’s initial report in March highlighted a similar scheme based in Durham. Subsequent stories elaborated on other aspects of SIRF. Cooke said she had contacted other news organizations but none expressed interest. CJ met with her in June at her home.

In October 2011 she began receiving IRS correspondence at her home addressed to other people. Initially she wrote on the envelope, “does not live at this address,” and put the items back in the mailbox. Then she took others to the Shirley Post Office and asked an employee to tell her what she needed to do to stop getting other people’s mail at her house. “I can’t stop people from sending mail to your address,” she said she was told.

The next month, IRS refund checks arrived in her mailbox. There was a $7,113 check to Maribel Rodriguez Rosado, a $7,613 check to Nadia Abad Hernandez, and a $6,073 check to Dairysol Bonilla Ocasio. “I realized that those checks were probably part of a fraud scheme,” she said.

She alerted the IRS to the situation with a phone call. The IRS representative told her to mark the envelope “return to sender.” “I was just not satisfied with that. I wanted it to stop. How can these people receive mail and then checks at my address? It is fraud,” she told CJ.

A spokesman for the IRS told CJ that the agency could not discuss specific cases or situations.

Instead of returning the checks via mail, she decided to notify another government agency, the New York attorney general’s office. She copied the checks and completing a consumer complaint form provided by the AG’s office.

The AG did nothing. “We appreciate your alerting us to this matter. We believe the organization shown below” – the IRS – “may be able to assist you and we are forwarding your correspondence there,” wrote Judy Blumenberg from the Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Protection in the AG’s office.

On the IRS website, Cooke found a form titled “IRS Fraud Reward Whistleblower.” She thought she could receive financial compensation for reporting fraudulent activity involving the IRS.

She completed the form and decided to involve her congressman, Democratic Rep. Tim Bishop, in the correspondence. She also filled out a “Case Information and Privacy Release Form Authorization” provided by Bishop’s office.

“This case has been forwarded to the [IRS] Criminal Investigation Division,” wrote IRS Local Taxpayer Advocate Bernardita Tehrani in a letter Bishop’s office received March 12, 2012. Bishop’s office forwarded a copy to Cooke. A spokesman for Bishop told Cooke she did not qualify for a reward. She said her main concern wasn’t the potential for a financial payday; she reported the tax fraud because it was wrong and needed to stop.

Cooke told CJ that some of her neighbors have seen strangers opening mailboxes and sifting through the contents. Several neighbors have received checks and correspondence from the IRS addressed to persons who did not live there. One woman who requested to remain anonymous told CJ that she and her husband received more 20 pieces of correspondence or checks from the IRS, all of which were addressed to people with Hispanic sounding names. Her husband delivered the material to a regional postmaster.

‘Why did you return it?’

More than a year after the IRS was notified of Cooke’s situation, she has heard nothing from the agency and the checks and correspondence have not stopped.

“Ada Gonzalez Collazo” was one name on IRS correspondence Cooke turned over to Bishop in 2012.

In March, Cooke recovered from her mailbox a letter dated March 6, 2013, addressed to Ada Gonzalez Collazo and referencing tax year 2010.

The letter read: “Dear Taxpayer: We received a returned refund check of $7,756 for the tax period listed above. However, we aren’t sure why you returned it. If you sent an explanation, we are sorry but we have no record of receiving it.

“Therefore, we must ask you to send us your reason for returning the refund check.

“If you have any questions please call Denise Pen at 978- 474-9784 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. EST. If the number is outside your local calling area, there will be a long-distance charge to you.”

Cooke found another letter June 18 from the IRS addressed to Collazo. The notice stated that Collazo had unpaid taxes for 2010 of $5,979.25 and the total needed to be paid by June 27 to avoid additional penalty and interest charges.

“If you don’t pay the amount due or call us to make payment arrangements, we can file a Notice of Federal Tax Lien on your property at any time, if we haven’t already done so,” the letter read.

“If the lien is in place, you may find it difficult to sell or borrow against your property. The tax lien would also appear on your credit report – which may harm your credit rating¬¬ – and your creditors would also be publicly notified that the IRS has priority to seize your property.

“If you don’t pay your tax debt, we have the right to seize your property.”

Cooke said that she is concerned that the IRS might encumber her property based on Collazo’s unpaid taxes, even though Collazo doesn’t live at her address and may not be a real person.

Cardona and Medina

In May, Cooke received a $410.17 check made out to Daniel Alvarez Cardona and another $410.17 check made out to Milagros Lopez Medina. Each check was accompanied by a letter stating that $10.17 was the amount of interest due on an overpayment of $400 for tax year 2012.

Along with those checks were notices of disaster relief assistance from the IRS. “If you have been impacted by the recent disaster in your area and are unable to meet your tax obligations, the IRS may be able to assist with payment and filing extensions, and if qualified, with an expedited tax refund for casualty losses,” stated the notices.

Separate IRS letters addressed to Cardona and Medina dated Oct. 3, 2011, said the 2010 return of each was on hold pending the receipt of additional employer information. Cooke doesn’t know if the IRS issued original checks to Cardona or Medina, or if Cardona or Medina recovered them from her mailbox.

She later received a notice dated June 10, 2013, from the IRS to Cardona stating that he didn’t file a 2011 tax return.

Some are caught

Cooke called the IRS and Postal Service responses to her situation a big disappointment. “An alert should have gone out that this is not right. Those Social Security numbers and those names should be listed in the IRS computer somewhere. Don’t send anything else to these people because they are not real. They are fraudulent,” she said.

Even though the IRS recently has cracked down on Long Island-based fraud, it is unclear whether the crackdown snared those using Cooke’s address.

In December a federal grand jury indicted six Long Island men for their involvement in schemes using stolen Social Security numbers to file more than 11,000 fraudulent tax returns seeking refunds worth up to $73 million.

According to the indictments, the defendants illegally obtained identification information including Social Security numbers for Puerto Rican residents, and used that information to file false returns claiming large refunds. The returns were filed using addresses in Shirley, West Babylon, and other Long Island towns. Then defendants then allegedly bribed Postal Service employees to intercept mailed tax refund checks. The fraudulently obtained checks were cashed at a check cashing service.

Government response

“By and large, postal employees are honest people. There can be some bad apples in any group,” said Donna Harris, a spokeswoman for the Postal Inspection Service in New York. “If they do something like this they will be taken care of,” she said. She didn’t know the status of the employees who allegedly accepted the bribes and said it’s the responsibility of the U.S. Postal Service rather than the Postal Inspector’s Office to deal with them.

As for Cooke’s situation, Harris said carriers are expected to deliver mail to the address on the envelope. A mail carrier suspecting fraud should contact the postal inspector in his area.

CJ also contacted the IRS Criminal Investigation Office in New York. “I’m sure you’re aware that federal disclosure laws prohibit IRS from discussing specific cases or situations,” IRS spokesman Dan Boone wrote in an email.

“For the 2013 tax season, the IRS has put in place a number of additional steps to prevent identity theft and detect refund fraud before it occurs. During 2012, the IRS protected $20 billion of fraudulent refunds, including those related to identity theft, compared with $14 billion in 2011,” he wrote.

“We have new and additional filters in place for the 2013 filing season aimed at preventing and detecting fraudulent returns. This continually updated system enhances our ability to block accounts when we know of or detect a problem. We added screening filters, including ones that target multiple refunds deposited into a single bank account or those sent to a single address.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.