IRS is NON Political – They Will Go After Anyone!
September 3, 2010
Yesterday the New York Times reported that the former Planned Parenthood Golden Gate–umbrella organization to seven Planned Parenthood clinics in the San Francisco area–is now under investigation by the criminal division of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). According to the story, a former employee of the organization lodged a complaint with the IRS regarding an inappropriate financial relationship between Planned Parenthood and its political arm.
Meanwhile, as we begin Labor Day 2010, the national group overseeing its affiliates, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, still has not published the annual report from July, 2008-July, 2009. The report, which includes information such as the number of abortions that were performed during that time and the dollar amount received in government funding, is typically made public every April. Interestingly, this report will be the first summary of how the group has fared during the Obama Administration. What might they be hiding?
What we do know is that the non-profit is profiting quite nicely since the Obamas came to D.C. In Planned Parenthood’s IRS 990 form from July, 2008-July, 2009, they had a net profit of over $106 million dollars (and President Obama had only been in office for six months!) For more information on Planned Parenthood’s financials and other interesting facts about the organization that everyone should know, see FRC’s newly released pamphlet, Planned Parenthood: What Every Parent, Teacher, Woman, Community Leader and Elected Official Needs to Know.
Something for Nothing… and Sometimes Even Less – OPINION
August 31, 2010
Sometimes it is hard to get excited about living in Northern California. Though I love being here I have begun to have “battered conservative syndrome”. Residing in the area has certain perks. We are in relatively warm weather most of the time yet near the snow if we want winter activities or surf if we want to see the ocean. What I am talking about is not our wonderful mountains, sea and weather, it is the people… liberals, to be specific. Everywhere I look from advertising in print or on television or bumper stickers on the backs of beat up Honda Civics, etc., all I see are liberal platitudes about environmental issues and slogans of peace and love.
Question: how does having the word “peace” stuck on a bumper sticker achieve the goal? Shouldn’t these people be going to countries where human rights are in jeopardy? I say, “Shut up and go do something.” But I digress…
On three out of four corners of Camino Alto and Blithedale and the south bound freeway exit in Mill Valley we now have various races of homeless people begging for money. One of these days I am going to buy an hour of one of the more coherent of them and find out how much money and services they are getting from all the welfare programs available to them; federal, state, county and city. I’ll bet it’s a lot when you add up subsidized housing, food programs, health programs, etc. These people are in their situation, not because there is no opportunity in the US. It is because of other problems like mental illness or drug and alcohol abuse. Very few of them are there because of life circumstances, and of those, rarely do they find themselves permanently in the ranks of the homeless.
Don’t get me wrong. Many of us have problems. Every third commercial on the conservative radio stations is about legally discharging debt while keeping the goodies that got them there. Tax attorneys are advertising about how they can get the government to forgive all or part of a tax liability. Nobody seems to have any responsibility any more. It’s sad when you think about it. Even during the depression, people took make-work jobs because they were too proud to receive hand-outs. Oh, if only that sentiment existed today. Now the Obama government is talking about forcing lenders to forgive any home loan that is underwater where people are unable to pay their mortgage. What about those of us who are struggling to make our payments to keep our credit in good stead? It’s catastrophic what will happen to the housing market if Obama does this as his October surprise. Talk about chaos!
In the meantime, many of us are banging our heads to secure new employment or renegotiate contracts to keep the work we have. How long before we too give up? After all, why should we pull the cart while so many freeloaders are piling on? What’s our incentive? After all, aren’t we conservatives the bad guys even when we are paying the bills to keep the lights on? And what happens when the rest of us stop pulling and jump in the cart with the rest of the country? Do yo think those rich people running Congress and the Senate will have to start putting money in to keep the scam going? Will it be government workers who are now being paid more than their private sector counterparts? Doubtful. Government will probably just print or borrow more money.
But wait! Don’t jump off the bridge yet! Here’s why I have hope. Most people in the United States don’t want a handout from the government. The prevailing sentiment is that we still live in the greatest country in the world, even if the news media is telling us otherwise. Tea Parties and other protests are continually springing up all over the country put on by people who don’t normally go out and do this. All predictions for the elections in the fall say Republicans (mostly conservatives) will win handily.
A word of caution: winning the election is just the beginning. Once elected, we must insist they govern like conservatives. Will this happen, or will the old “John McCain” return? Right now I see 4 Republicans who stand in the way of real victory: Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Of course there are others like Charles Grassley who could throw a spanner in the works. But make no mistake; the shift is starting to happen. And that gives me hope.
FedUpEditor
API President says Senate leaders took right step to shelve flawed spill bill
August 5, 2010
WASHINGTON, August 3, 2010 — Senate leaders took the right step to shelve a flawed spill bill, and we look forward to working with lawmakers to improve the bill so that American taxpayers, domestic jobs, the economy and our economic security are protected, according to a statement by American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Jack Gerard:
“The decision today by the Senate leadership to shelve flawed spill legislation is a good one. The bill proposed by the Democratic leadership is not an effective or reasoned response to the spill. Instead it will cost American jobs, threaten our fragile economic recovery and jeopardize our energy security.
“Among the legislation’s shortcoming is the elimination of the cap on oil spill liability. Unlimited liability for spill damages would force most oil and natural gas companies out of the Gulf of Mexico because they would be unable to purchase insurance. This would put thousands of American jobs at risk and reduce the energy supplies we get from the Gulf.
“A robust, workable oil spill liability program – possibly including a mutual insurance element – is achievable and would cover the cost of a large spill without shifting huge costs to taxpayers.
“The bill falls short again in seeking to impose a new layer of federal regulation on hydraulic fracturing. This technology is essential to developing America’s vast reserves of shale gas, and states already do a good job regulating its use. Superfluous federal legislation would slow development of these vital domestic supplies of clean-burning energy and hundreds of thousands of new jobs associated its development.
“We strongly believe a bill is possible that could enhance offshore safety and ensure payment of damages from possible future accidents without discouraging job creation or domestic energy development. We stand ready to work with the Senate towards this goal.”
Guess Who Is Paying for Lawyers to Sue Themselves?
July 22, 2010
The federal government spends about the same amount of money funding environmental lawyers as it does to protect endangered species according to an investigation conducted by a Wyoming lawyer who defends farmers and ranchers involved in environmental lawsuits.
According to the Capital Press, Karen Budd-Falen was curious how much money the federal government paid the lawyers who initiated cases against her clients and uncovered more than $4.7 billion in taxpayer money that the government paid to environmental law firms between 2003 and 2007. That represents an average of $940 million a year, compared to $922 million spent directly on the 986 endangered and threatened species, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s annual report.
According to her research, Budd-Falen found that three environmental groups—Western Watersheds Council, Forest Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity—filed more than 700 lawsuits against the U.S. government between 2000 and 2009.
“That money is not going into programs to protect people, wildlife, plants and animals,” Budd-Falen told the Capital Press, “but to fund more lawsuits.”
According to Budd-Falen, environmental groups are eligible for government funds under the Equal Access to Justice Act, which provides for the award of attorney fees to “prevailing parties” in cases against the government. The firms also are accessing government funds through the Judgment Fund, which is a line-item appropriation in the federal budget used for paying claims against the government.
“We tried to track the fees paid to environmental groups in certain federal courts. These guys are charging between $350 and $450 an hour in legal fees.” Budd-Falen told Now Public.
“If you just look at the raw number and say ‘why in the world is the United States paying a million dollars bankrolling them to sue us,’ well that’s what congress set up through EAJA. That’s the law, we’re bound by it,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Haws of Boise told Now Public.
Read the entire article here:
Note: Your tax dollars at work… paying lawyers to sue ourselves? WTF??? – FedUpEditor
DOJ is a DOG
July 1, 2010
http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4266609&w=400&h=249
Drilling Moratorium Lifted
June 22, 2010
A federal judge in New Orleans today lifted the ban on deepwater drilling. In a 22-page ruling, Judge Martin Feldman wrote:
“The blanket moratorium, with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger.”
The White House announced it would file an immediate appeal.
In a statement, API welcomed Judge Feldman’s decision to lift the moratorium on Gulf of Mexico deepwater operations and listed some of the activities the industry is taking to improve the safety of deepwater operations.
Immediately after the Deepwater Horizon accident, the industry formed two task forces to examine safety and environmental protection, and recently it formed two additional task forces on subsea well control and oil spill response.
With regard to the moratorium, API said:
“The moratorium was an initial reaction to concerns about the safety of offshore oil and natural gas operations. However, an extended moratorium would have a tremendous impact on the nation’s energy security – and cause significant harm to the region of the country that was already suffering from the spill – without raising safety or improving industry procedures. With this ruling, our industry and its people can get back to work to provide Americans with the energy they need, and do it safely and without harming the environment.”
Editor’s note: The President’s knee jerk reaction is as hystercal as would be banning of air travel after a plane crash. There have been relatively few incidents regarding deep water drilling, and this should be kept in perspective. Obama’s hope was to use this as an environmental wedge against Big Oil.
California Legislators Pelosi, Boxer and Feinstein Wealthiest Lawmakers in Washington…
June 18, 2010
Kind of makes you wonder why they want to tax the rich although they are not giving up THEIR money! Democrat voters are stupid to believe these lying liars! – Editor
California’s three most powerful female politicians, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, are also among the wealthiest lawmakers in Washington, according to annual financial disclosure reports released Wednesday.
Pelosi, D-San Francisco, reported income of $102,161 from book royalties in addition to her salary of $223,500 as speaker. She also has several joint accounts and properties with her husband, Paul Pelosi, a real estate investor and venture capitalist.
The couple own a St. Helena vineyard, Zinfandel Lane, valued $5 million to $25 million, in addition to a town home valued from $1 million to $5 million.
Paul Pelosi also has stock in several companies, including Apple, Microsoft and Yahoo. He also listed a partial sale of stock in the United Football League valued at $1 million to $5 million, and a partial sale of stock in Motorola valued at $500,000 to $1 million.
Nancy Pelosi is also an honorary board member for several organizations, including Lead America, a youth leadership organization; the National Women’s History Museum; and the Wheelchair Foundation, a nonprofit in Danville. She is also the CFO and secretary for the Paul and Nancy Pelosi Charitable Foundation.
Boxer listed her husband Stewart Boxer’s salary at more than $1,000 because congressional reporting rules state that spouses need not provide specific amounts. Boxer also listed her pension as $4,246 for the year, in addition to her $17,000 income from sale of her books.
Boxer’s value of assets is listed in a blind trust that the Senate Ethics Committee approved in 2001. The value of the trust is estimated at between $1 million and $5 million, according to her financial disclosure statement. Stewart Boxer reported assets in Wells Fargo Bank valued at $100,000 to $250,000.
Boxer also reported a gift valued at $3,625 from her Democratic colleague Feinstein. The gift was a flight the senators took to California. She also listed reimbursements for travel connected to her book-tour promotion, part of her contract with her publisher.
Feinstein, who also established a blind trust in 1991, listed her assets at between $1 million and $5 million. The former San Francisco mayor and supervisor’s pension from the city is reported at $49,969 for the year.
She and her husband, Richard Blum, also reported assets in Carlton Hotel Properties valued between $5 million and $25 million. In addition, the couple own a condominium in Hawaii valued at $1 million to $5 million.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/17/MN041E09OR.DTL#ixzz0rE7SqXtl
You Already Know This – OPINION
June 14, 2010
Lynn Woolsey called for a “progressive resurgence” in a Hill blog article today. Who the heck does she think got us to this horrible mess in the first place? Look who has been running government for the past 3+ years! Besides, there really hasn’t been time to have a real conservative resurgence… yet. Maybe she is looking into the future and what November will bring.
The problem with progressivism is that, just because it sounds like a good idea doesn’t mean the federal government should be doing it or spending money on it. After all, their track record of success is pretty bleak no matter how noble they think their causes are.
The original founders saw the USA as a collection of individual countries (states) united under one limited federal government so that we would not end up where we are today; top down central planning. Instead they saw a country with a small federal government and strong state governments. Yet here we are 234 years after the Declaration of Independence, and we are exactly where they feared we would be; huge federal government (much more powerful than King George was?), unbridled deficit spending, freedoms being incrementally taken away in the name of “fairness” and religion kicked to the curb (unless you are a Muslim extremist). How did this happen? Over time, that’s how.
There is only so much bandwidth and money with which to tackle all the unconstitutional laws that have been passed over the years. And then our congressmen use those bad laws which survive to serve as precedents upon which to write more bad laws. This is the reason for the Constitution. It is a measuring stick by which laws are to be written (or not). But with Federal Judges seeing it as a “living, breathing document” they have twisted the Constitution to mean something other than what was originally intended. So it would seem the problem with progressivism is that in top down planning everyone must do it the same way regardless if it’s a good idea or not. Where’s the freedom? Besides that, it is not “constitutional”.
The original idea was that each state was a unique experiment free to try different things to see what worked to solve their challenges. It was even codified in the 10th Amendment in case the original version of the Constitution didn’t make that clear. It says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Obama and Progressives call this a “negative” right. Actually, it is exactly right (correct)… period. Each state government was supposed to decide for itself how it should be run. They could then look to other states and see what worked in order to implement or improve upon those which their constituents found favorable. Not so today. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any area in any state that didn’t come under the rule of some bureau of the federal government.
The original purpose of the Federal Government was to solve disputes and problems which crossed state lines. Read George Washington’s biography and you will learn that he viewed the federal government as a necessary evil and loathed the thought of it. He knew what “progressives” would do if given half a chance.
Examples of the founders intent for responsibilities of Federal government would be building and maintaining bridges between bordering states, or regulating commerce on shared waterways that touch several states. Two of the things the federal government is actually supposed to do, defending our borders or protecting our freedom overseas, are the same things Progressives complain about spending money on. They say we should be spending the money here on infrastructure or education. As in debt as we are, we probably shouldn’t be spending the money anywhere!
If you want to see the failures of progressivism you only need to look at states like Michigan, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii or California and cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Detroit, etc. to see that the progressive experiment doesn’t work. High crime and high unemployment are the norm for liberal bastions such as these. Yet what happens when Lynn Woolsey talks about how we need a progressive resurgence? Socialist ideologues come out of the woodwork and praise her, even though she and her buddies have spent us into the poor house thanks to progressives. Those people will never be persuaded to see the truth.
It is my belief that the majority of people in this area are liberal because they can afford to be. Things are pretty good for many people in Marin County. Fortunately, the high unemployment rate in California hasn’t really hit the San Francisco Bay Area yet… yet. Does that mean we should wait until it gets worse before we do something? Unlike an Obama administration spokesperson, we are not looking for a crisis to use to our advantage. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that to change people’s minds.
What we must do is seek out the reasonable Democrats, the patriotic ones who love our country and believe the party has left them, and turn them to our side like Reagan did. There are common sense, patriotic people on the other side who don’t like what their Democratic Party has become. They may not change parties, but they can be persuaded to vote for a candidate who wants to lower taxes to stimulate the economy and help businesses create jobs, among other ideals that will truly embody progress.
- FedUpEditor
Health Care… STILL?
June 8, 2010
Today President Obama will hold a tele-townhall in the administration’s latest attempt to try and sell the new health care law that a majority of Ohioans (and Americans) continue to reject. It’s time the administration admitted that the problem isn’t in the sales pitch, it’s the policy. Small businesses don’t want all the new taxes and job-killing mandates; seniors don’t want the $500 billion in Medicare cuts; and middle-class families don’t want the higher health care costs that even the Obama Administration admits will result from the new law. That’s why I’m fighting to repeal this costly health care law, and replace it with common-sense solutions to lower the costs and increase access to quality care. Also in this week’s E-Bulletin you’ll find the times and locations for my weekly “Open Door” program, as well as the latest on the nation’s fiscal health and America Speaking Out. Please continue to keep me updated on the issues that concern you.
Sincerely,
John Boehner
Liberal Papers, Marin IJ and Press Democrat Support Halliwell – Judd is Favorite of Conservatives!
June 2, 2010
It’s no surprise that liberal papers like the Marin Independent Journal and Santa Rosa’s Press Democrat have thrown their support behind Mike Halliwell, a two time loser to unseat Woolsey. However, conservatives and business people have thrown support behind newcomer Jim Judd in hopes of making real change that will bring back conservative values in northern California!
Here is an Editorial from the PD and the link to it online
EDITOR: The Press Democrat’s recommendation of Mike Halliwell as the 6th District Republican primary choice is not a surprise considering what’s at stake come November (“A debate,” Editorial, Thursday).
This will present an opportunity for badly needed change to fight the flood of entitlement programs that have been and will continue to be foisted on a tax weary public, and we will need the leadership of a realist such as Jim Judd.
I’ve known and done business with Judd for more than 20 years and have seen this businessman guide his company through three recessions, including the current one. The “most conservative elements” that The Press Democrat pins on him are in fact the core values that have helped him manage this and that all Americans should possess: family, national pride and fiscal responsibility.
I’m sure Halliwell may have these same values along with some political experience, but his presentation of them has failed to unseat Woolsey the past two elections. Why throw this real chance for change under the political bus with the same old rhetoric?
Judd understands what has brought us into the liberal quagmire and has the leadership skills and understanding of what it will take to get us out of it with his real world views.
CHUCK HOWARD
Santa Rosa
