In addition to the Benghazi cover-up, IRS targeting of political dissenters, and the illegal seizure of media phone records, whistleblowers within the Department of Justice (DOJ) have contacted Liberty Counsel to express grave concerns over this administration’s latest attack on freedom.

Our sources have provided Liberty Counsel an internal DOJ document titled: “LGBT Inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers.” It was emailed to DOJ managers in advance of the Left’s so-called “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Pride Month.”

The document is chilling. It’s riddled with directives that grossly violate – prima facie – employees’ First Amendment liberties.

Following are excerpts from the “DOJ Pride” decree. When it comes to “LGBT” employees, managers are instructed: “DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.” (Italics mine)

That’s a threat. And not even a subtle one.

Got it? For Christians and other morals-minded federal employees, it’s no longer enough just to shut up and “stay in the closet” – to live your life in silent recognition of biblical principles (which, by itself, is unlawful constraint). When it comes to mandatory celebration of homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors, “silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”

This lawless administration is now bullying federal employees – against their will – to affirm sexual behaviors that every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology reject.

The directive includes a quotation from a “gay” federal employee to rationalize justification:

“Ideally, I’d love to hear and see support from supervisors, so it’s clear that there aren’t just policies on paper. Silence seems like disapproval. There’s still an atmosphere of LGBT issues not being appropriate for the workplace (particularly for transgender people), or that people who bring it up are trying to rock the boat.”

 Of course there’s “still an atmosphere of LGBT issues not being appropriate for the workplace.” When well over half of federal employees, half the country and most of the world still acknowledge objective sexual morality (and immorality), “the workplace,” especially the federal workplace, should, at the very least, remain neutral on these highly controversial and behavior-centric issues.

Still, to borrow from self-styled “queer activist,” anti-Christian bigot and Obama buddy Dan Savage, “it gets better”:

“DO assume that LGBT employees and their allies are listening to what you’re saying (whether in a meeting or around the proverbial water cooler) and will read what you’re writing (whether in a casual email or in a formal document), and make sure the language you use is inclusive and respectful.”

 Is this the DOJ or the KGB? “[A]ssume that LGBT employees are listening …”? And what are “LGBT allies”? If you disagree with the homosexual activist political agenda, does that make you the enemy?

Yes, in any workplace, language should remain professional, but who defines what’s “inclusive”? Who decides what’s “respectful”? If asked about “LGBT issues,” for instance, can a Christian employee answer honestly: “I believe the Bible. I believe that God designed sex to be shared between husband and wife within the bonds of marriage”? Or is that grounds for termination?

Here are some more DOs:

• DO “Attend LGBT events sponsored by DOJ Pride and/or the Department, and invite (but don’t require) others to join you.”
• DO “Display a symbol in your office (DOJ Pride sticker, copy of this brochure, etc.) indicating that it is a ‘safe space.’”

Are you kidding? Does this administration really think it’s legal to induce managers to “attend LGBT events,” or to “display pride stickers” against their will? That’s compulsory expression. That’s viewpoint discrimination.

That’s unconstitutional. But there’s more:

• “DO use inclusive words like ‘partner,’ ‘significant other’ or ‘spouse’ rather than gender-specific terms like ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ (for example, in invitations to office parties or when asking a new employee about his/her home life).”
• “DO use a transgender person’s chosen name and the pronoun that is consistent with the person’s self-identified gender.”

In other words, lie. Engage in corporate delusion.

• “DO deal with offensive jokes and comments forcefully and swiftly when presented with evidence that they have occurred in the workplace.”
• “DO communicate a zero-tolerance policy for inappropriate jokes and comments, including those pertaining to a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.”

Who gets to decide what’s an “inappropriate joke [or] comment”? I thought we had a Constitution for that. Sure, I get it, it’s probably better not to start your work day with: “A lesbian, a tranny and two gays walk into a bath house …” but still, “no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” means no law. No matter how much Obama wishes it so, we don’t leave our constitutional rights at the federal workplace door.

The DOJ edict even addresses cross-dressing man woes: “As a transgender woman [that’s a man in a skirt], I want people to understand that I’m real. I want to be recognized as the gender I really am [again, you’re a man in a skirt]. Yes, there was awkwardness with pronouns at first for folks who knew me before the transition. But it hurts when several years later people still use the wrong pronouns. And just imagine if people were constantly debating YOUR bathroom privileges. Imagine how humiliating that would be.”

Tell you what, buddy: I won’t “debate YOUR bathroom privileges” if you return to this planet. You’d better stay the heck out of the ladies room while my wife or two daughters are in there; otherwise, we have a problem. Women have an absolute right not be sexually harassed in the workplace – a right to privacy when using the facilities.

To worry whether a gender-confused, cross-dressing man is going to invade her privacy creates a hostile work environment.

This “DOJ Pride” directive is but the latest example of the “progressive” climate of fear and intimidation this radical Obama regime has created for Christians, conservatives and other values-oriented folks, both within and without the workplace.

I’m just glad the wheels are finally coming off.

Share the Love	Get Free Updates
Tweet

The post You WILL Affirm All Things ‘Gay’ appeared first on Godfather Politics.

According to a lawsuit filed by an unnamed healthcare provider, the IRS illegally seized 60 million medical records in 2011.

The IRS had obtained a search warrant to obtain the financial records of one person.  By the time IRS agents were through, they not only acquired that individual’s financial records but they also seized the medical records of 10 million US citizens.  Nothing in the warrant gave the IRS agents permission to access or seize any medical records.

A UPI report on the lawsuit stated:

“Despite knowing that these medical records were not within the scope of the warrant, defendants threatened to ‘rip’ the servers containing the medical data out of the building if IT personnel would not voluntarily hand them over.”

If proven that the medical files were seized illegally, the IRS could also be facing charges of violating medical privacy laws.  Additionally, IRS agents are accused of seizing workers’ cell phone and telephone records, which were also not covered in the search warrant.

In the lawsuit, the IRS is being charged with being invasive, unlawful and that they stole personal medical records that contained how people were being treated and the therapy they were receiving for various medical ailments.  The healthcare provider filing the suit is asking for $25,000 compensatory damages per violation.  If each medical record seized is considered a violation, which in fact it should be, that would equate to a possible $250 billion judgment.

In the past 2 weeks, we have been learning more and more about just how corrupt the IRS has become.  They operate as if they are above the law and untouchable, allowing them to do anything and bully anyone around that they want.

I believe that this is the time for someone like Sen. Rand Paul to come and push for a complete overhaul of the federal income tax system along with the IRS.  With the integrity of the IRS being challenged in multiple scandals, the time has never been riper for a push to overhaul the system.

Share the Love	Get Free Updates
Tweet

The post IRS Facing Lawsuit for Seizing Millions of Medical Records appeared first on Godfather Politics.

In the wake of a flood of scandals rocking President Barack Obama’s ivory tower, Wenzel Strategies conducted a telephone poll last Thursday for WND.  I found their results surprising and encouraging. It revealed that a growing number of Americans believe that President Obama should be impeached.

Fritz Wenzel, President of Wenzel Strategies summed up the poll results, saying:

“It may be early in the process for members of Congress to start planning for impeachment of Barack Obama, but the American public is building a serious appetite for it.”

“Half or nearly half of those surveyed said they believed Obama should be impeached for the trifecta of scandals now consuming Washington.”

When they broke it down to the individual scandals, the results still indicate that Obama’s popularity is changing from hero to villain.  Poll results for the Benghazi scandal indicated that 50.1% of Americans say that Obama should be impeached.  Perhaps the most surprising result was 27.6% of Democrats that responded to the poll on Benghazi said that the president should be impeached.

When asked about the IRS scandal that only became public less than 2 weeks ago, 49% said that Obama should be impeached and again, 24.4% of Democrats responding said Obama should be impeached because of the scandal.

The third scandal covered by the poll involved the Obama administration’s invasion of the AP reporter’s telephone records.  On this scandal, 48.6% said they believe Obama should be impeached and 26.1% of Democrats also responded in favor of impeachment.

Wenzel commented further on the results, saying:

“What is clear from the data is that Obama is at risk of losing his base.  On each of these questions, about one in four Democrats said they agreed Obama should be impeached. What could be more alarming to the White House is that it appears that most of America is tuned in to these issues now, as 93 percent of registered voters said they get at least one news update on these issues every day.”

“Of the three issues now in the news, the one that has been there the longest, and the only one that has to do with the death of American citizens, is seen as the most important to Americans. While 49 percent said the Benghazi murders of U.S. diplomatic personnel is the most serious issue, 26 percent said IRS harassment was most serious, and 25 percent said the seizure of AP phone records was most serious. With news still breaking on all three fronts, it is impossible to know which of the three scandals will ultimately be the most damaging to the Obama administration. These findings clearly show Americans are concerned about what is going on in Washington.”

“What could be most concerning to the White House is that the Democratic Party effort to retake the U.S. House of Representatives next year may be at risk because of these issues. Asked whether they would lean to vote for the Democrat or the Republican in their own congressional district based on what they know about these three situations, 46 percent said they would lean toward voting for the Republican, while 39 percent said they would lean toward voting for the Democrat. Another 16 percent said these issues make no difference in their congressional vote.”

“The appetite is growing for impeachment proceedings. It is too early to say it is time for those proceedings to start, but it’s now possible to see that day on the far horizon.”

Peggy Noonan, former speech writer for President Ronald Reagan summed up what’s happening to the Obama administration and to the president himself.  She said:

“We are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate. The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous. No one likes what they’re seeing. The Justice Department assault on the Associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration’s credibility deeply, probably irretrievably damaged. They don’t look jerky now, they look dirty. The patina of high-mindedness the president enjoyed is gone.”

“The president, as usual, acts as if all of this is totally unconnected to him. He’s shocked, it’s unacceptable, he’ll get to the bottom of it. He read about it in the papers, just like you. But he is not unconnected, he is not a bystander. This is his administration. Those are his executive agencies. He runs the IRS and the Justice Department.  A president sets a mood, a tone. He establishes an atmosphere. If he is arrogant, arrogance spreads. If he is too partisan, too disrespecting of political adversaries, that spreads too. Presidents always undo themselves and then blame it on the third guy in the last row in the sleepy agency across town.”

The winds have turned against Obama’s presidential ship and it appears it could be heading for the rocks.  It hasn’t crashed yet, but currents are changing direction, making it harder for Captain Obama to steer away from a splintery end.  Will he be able to turn the wheel enough to prevent Titanic disaster?

Personally, I hope not.  In fact, I would love to see one or two more scandals surface to show the American people just how corrupt Obama’s administration really is.  If that were to happen, I’m sure that no matter how hard he tries, Obama will not be able to save his ship and that he will certainly crash into the rocks and sink.

Share the Love	Get Free Updates
Tweet

The post 1 in 4 Democrats Want Obama Impeached appeared first on Godfather Politics.

Colorado may have passed far-reaching gun control laws with their Democratic-controlled houses, but they weren’t passed without fierce opposition, and not just from law-abiding gun owners. Fifty-four of the state’s 62 elected sheriffs have banded together and filed a lawsuit against the state for their unconstitutional legislation aimed at law-abiding citizens.

There were eight other sheriffs in the state of Colorado that didn’t sign on to the lawsuit for political reasons. Their jurisdictions were largely Democratic and probably supported the gun control bills that are going in to effect on July 1^st. They wouldn’t want to upset their base. As for 90% of the state’s elected sheriffs as well as various pro-2^nd Amendment groups like Women for Concealed Carry, they’re targeting two gun control bills in particular.

One basically bans the majority of firearms by prohibiting convertible magazines. The law prohibits any magazine that can hold more than 15 rounds, but it also stipulates that if a magazine can be converted to hold more, than that magazine is a violation. If the magazine has a removable base plate, then it is against the law, regardless of how few rounds it was originally designed to hold. This would even ban most or Colorado’s shotguns, the only kind of firearm endorsed by the Vice President.

The other law requires a background check for gun transfers when a firearm will be in the possession of someone other than the owner for more than 72 hours. As an example of how ridiculous this provision is, one of the sheriffs at the press conference where the lawsuit was publicly announced mentioned his neighbor who was being deployed to Afghanistan. He had “illegal” firearms with “high capacity” magazines (over 15-round capacity). But when he is deployed overseas, he would also be violating the law if he leaves these firearms with his fiancé without first obtaining a background check on her.

The sheriff said that these laws are not only unconstitutional; they’re unenforceable. He said he’s got much more important things to do than to check up on people like his neighbor.

The Democrats pushed too far this time. I think their actions are backfiring. Hopefully, Coloradans will wake up and elect representatives who take their oath to the Constitution seriously.

Share the Love	Get Free Updates
Tweet

The post 54 Colorado Sheriffs Sue State Over New Gun-Grabbing Bills appeared first on Godfather Politics.

Imagine you send your son to college and he gets accused of sexual harassment. You find the charges unbelievable and you trust an investigation will vindicate him. You assume that, until the complaint has been investigated and a ruling has been made he won’t be disciplined.

Not true.

The Wall Street Journal just reported on the scandal that everyone has missed because of… all the other scandals. A new “letter” from the Department of Justice and the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights has been issued. Among other things, it states that,

“a university must take immediate steps to protect the complainant from further harassment prior to the completion of the Title IX and Title IV investigation/resolution. Appropriate steps may include separating the accused harasser and the complainant, providing counseling for the complainant and/or harasser, and/or taking disciplinary action against the harasser.”

As Greg Lukianoff summarized it in the WSJ, “In plain English: Students can be punished before they are found guilty of harassment.”

But that is only the beginning. There is no longer any real standard. The old standard of objective offense is rejected:

“Third, Sexual Harassment Policy 406.5.1 improperly suggests that the conduct does not constitute sexual harassment unless it is objectively offensive. This policy provides examples of unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature but then states that ‘[w]hether conduct is sufficiently offensive to constitute sexual harassment is determined from the perspective of an objectively reasonable person of the same gender in the same situation.’ Whether conduct is objectively offensive is a factor used to determine if a hostile environment has been created, but it is not the standard to determine whether conduct was ‘unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature’ and therefore constitutes ‘sexual harassment.’ . . . sexual harassment should be more broadly defined as ‘any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.’ (Findings at pg. 9)”

So, yes, your son is a sexual harasser. He asked a classmate to go out on a date and she had all she needed to charge him.

The new policy includes speech. It even singles out: “non-sexual harassment of a person because of the person’s sex and/or gender, including, but not limited to, harassment based on the person’s nonconformity with gender stereotypes.” Actually, this would apply to siding with the Bible on homosexual conduct or arguing that women should not serve in combat roles.

More than anything, this new regime is a way of giving jobs and authority to Left-liberal authoritarians of the Clinton-Obama type. Wendy Kaminer’s conclusion in the Atlantic is well aimed. Leading up to it, she points out:

“Finally, in addition to punishing alleged harassers, colleges and universities are required to undertake extensive, putatively preventative measures against harassment, mainly extensive mandatory training (or re-education) programs for staff members and students. Read the dreary, detailed resolution agreement between the Obama administration and the University of Montana to appreciate the burdensome sexual harassment bureaucracies required by federal policy, especially when a school has been found derelict. Montana has agreed to hire an ‘equity consultant,’ and conduct student focus groups, annual ‘climate surveys’ and monitoring programs; it will also subject itself to an annual federal assessment ‘of the effectiveness of its anti-discrimination efforts.’”

In the final analysis, everything from the Obama Administration is about oppression and stimulus.

Share the Love	Get Free Updates
Tweet

The post Obama’s New Campus Persecution System appeared first on Godfather Politics.

Even beyond the moral objections to homosexuality and gay “marriage,” there has always been an important tactical reason to oppose the gay rights agenda, and that is because of the prediction that the more entrenched the idea of “gay rights” becomes in government, the more government would come after anyone opposing the gay agenda.

The Department of Justice has now proven the point with its brochure “LGBT Inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers,” available here.

Going far beyond any mere pamphlet about how to make your office run smoothly if you have gay employees, the DOJ is peddling all-out advocacy of the gay rights agenda, with a strongly implied threat of legal force behind the rhetoric. The pamphlet is apparently being passed around in preparation for “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month.”

The pamphlet features a long list of do’s and don’ts, such as: “Do assume that LGBT employees and their allies are listening to what you’re saying (whether in a meeting or around the proverbial water cooler) and will read what you’re writing (whether in a casual email or in a formal document), and make sure the language you use is inclusive and respectful. DON’T assume all employees are (or a particular employee is) heterosexual.”

So, does this “listening” by LGBT “allies” include reporting to der Kommisar? You can’t even assume that employees are familiar with, much less respectful of, normal human behavior any more; instead, you have to mince your words for fear of offending the Gaystapo.

But there are plenty more appalling orders from the DOJ in this pamphlet: “DO use inclusive words like “partner,” “significant other” or “spouse” rather than gender-specific terms like “husband” and “wife” (for example, in invitations to office parties or when asking a new employee about his/her home life).”

Gotta keep it gender-neutral to avoid offending the he/shes. Speaking of which, there’s also this gem of a quote: “DO use a transgender person’s chosen name and the pronoun that is consistent with the person’s self-identified gender.”

In other words, if Bob shows up in a dress, you are expected to address him as “Janet” and refer to him as “her.”

Like gays in general, the pamphlet is a bit confused, referring to “sexual orientation,” but then deeming the phrase “sexual preference” to be offensive. The pamphlet doesn’t offer a ruling on “queer,” as in the TV show “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.” “Queer” was all the fashion a few years ago in the gay community, but maybe it’s out of style, like Gucci pumps.

The pamphlet’s also keen on boosting tolerance through ample use of zero-tolerance policies for jokes and gossip about gays. So Catholic, fundamentalist Christian and Irish jokes, OK. Gays, no.

We’re also apparently supposed to work up to something like those mandatory government-regulation displays in the workplace: “Display a symbol in your office (DOJ Pride sticker, copy of this brochure, etc.) indicating that it is a “safe space.” Attend LGBT events sponsored by DOJ Pride and/or the Department, and invite (but don’t require) others to join you.”

How many times has skipping out on a “not required” meeting netted you a promotion? That’s a not-so-subtle way of forcing workers to endorse gay pride events.

And there’s advice about assignments, as well: “DON’T let your discomfort with an employee’s failure to conform to gender stereotypes (how you think he or she should act or look) – e.g., feminine man, masculine woman — affect whether he or she gets a particular assignment or works with a particular client.”

So set your misgivings aside and let the transgender lesbian work on the church group’s ad campaign.

The pamphlet also includes quotes from alleged DOJ employees about different topics related to being gay in the workplace, including this doozy: “As a transgender woman, I want people to understand that I’m real. I want to be recognized as the gender I really am. Yes, there was awkwardness with pronouns at first for folks who knew me before the transition. But it hurts when several years later people still use the wrong pronouns. And just imagine if people were constantly debating YOUR bathroom privileges. Imagine how humiliating that would be.”

I’m not sure we’re working from the universally accepted definition of “real” here. You’re a guy wearing a dress. People probably pick up on that because, if that’s really your picture in the brochure, you look like a guy wearing a dress. But you are humiliated because people have a problem with you using the same bathroom as their daughters and wives? You might want to think about not wearing the dress to work, then.

The line that underscores the implied threat of the whole brochure, though, is this: “DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”

Join the immoral behavior cheer squad or else. Go along if you expect to get along.

The mere fact that it is the Department of Justice putting this pamphlet out makes it little more than a laundry list of reasons why gay people will sue anyone getting in the way of the gay rights agenda, regardless of First Amendment religious protections.

It’s all downhill from here.

Share the Love	Get Free Updates
Tweet

The post DOJ: Show Your Gay Pride, or Else … appeared first on Godfather Politics.

Barronelle Stutzman is the owner of Arlene’s Flowers. When one of her customers, Robert Ingersoll, a homosexual, asked Stutzman to supply the flowers for his upcoming wedding with his male “partner,” she refused. She cited her religious beliefs.

Stutzman never refused Ingersoll service when he ordered flowers for personal use. It was the idea of homosexuals marrying that she opposed.

“When it came to doing his wedding, I said, ‘I could not do it because of my relationship with Jesus Christ.’ He thanked me and said he respected my opinion. We talked and gave each other a hug and he left,’ she wrote.”

 Instead of going elsewhere, Ingersoll sued. The ACLU, the multi-million-dollar fundraising organization, got into the act and joined the suit along with the State of Washington. So a 70-year-old woman who owns a flower shop is being sued by the full power of the state of Washington and an anti-Christian bullying organization that “has net assets of almost 300 million dollars.”

Why should anyone be compelled to sell any service to anyone for any reason? If the KKK had come in to order flowers for an event, do we think Washington’s Attorney General would be bringing a suit? How about a white supremacist group? NAMBLA?

What if an anti-abortion group wanted to purchase flowers from a florist that was fervently pro-abortion and the owner refused the business? Would the ACLU have taken the case?

Homosexuals are the real discriminators. They are the real bullies. Off-the-wall pro-homosexual marriage supporter Michael Kinsley writes in the New Republic:

“DC Comics dropped writer Orson Scott Card’s planned Superman book when thousands signed a petition demanding it because of his many homophobic [sic] remarks.”

 Stutzman has decided to counter sue. Alliance Defense Fund’s senior legal counsel Dale Schowengerd states:

“In America, the government is supposed to protect freedom, not use its intolerance for certain viewpoints to intimidate citizens into acting contrary to their faith convictions. Family business owners are constitutionally guaranteed the freedom to live and work according to their beliefs. It is this very freedom that gives America its cherished diversity and protects citizens from state-mandated conformity.”

 Too many Americans give into intimidation. They believe it’s their lot in life not to make trouble. Too many Christians misunderstand the Apostle Paul’s message in Romans 13 about “being [in] subjection to the governing authorities” (v. 1). It doesn’t mean being silent or passive when a government goes on the attack.

When Paul was about to be beaten by a Roman soldier, he appealed to his Roman citizenship and was immediately afforded legal protection (Acts 22:25–29). On a later occasion, when some of his fellow-countrymen from Jerusalem brought “many and serious charges against him which they could not prove,” he appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:9–12).

The attitude of many Christians, conservatives, and even libertarians have been opposed to fighting the homosexual agenda by arguing that it’s best to “live and let live” and “not judge.” We should not “impose our morality on other people.”

The worm has turned. Homosexuals who used the “toleration” card to get their foot in the legal door are now slamming it shut on anyone who disagrees with their agenda. There will be a price to pay for opposition.

Share the Love	Get Free Updates
Tweet

The post Liberal Bullies Get a Taste of Their Own Medicine appeared first on Godfather Politics.

I pretty much despise Apple’s political culture, so I’m tempted to just laugh at them in their troubles with the Washington Bully Club (i.e. the Federal Government). They want to be cool progressives so let them enjoy being at the mercy of their own kind.

But the fact remains that the lefty hipsters at Apple actually make useful stuff (I realize there is debate about the price point and the rational shopper). That fact sets them apart from the people who are threatening them. According to Politico:

“Apple is under so much pressure in Washington over its offshore cash that it’s doing things it almost never does. CEO Tim Cook is coming to Washington to testify in front of a panel of senators about stashing more than $100 billion overseas, rather than sending a lower-level executive… The Apple offensive is a reminder of how powerful even an unpopular Washington remains, when it can still make even a mega-brand nervous… Tuesday’s hearing will be political theater at its finest — senior senators on their home turf looking to crucify a high-profile executive for the cameras, with little legislative action ever to result from it. For Cook, it’ll be the same hot seat before the same Senate committee that summoned Microsoft and HP last year for a verbal bludgeoning…”

You would think that Apple had been caught in some financial crime. But no, nothing illegal has happened at all. Apple is simply being bullied by politicians for not keeping the money here in the United States for them to pick over.

The Government of the United States, which now has two branches that cannot sustain an audit because they are simply black holes of missing money (the two are the Pentagon, year after year, and now joined by DHS), is going to tear into Apple over how they use money? They allow the Military to completely lose trillions of dollars (yes with a “t”) and they are going to now make Apple’s practice of keeping a hundred billion dollars offshore a show case for their self-righteous indignation? The Senate would be more plausible if they would at least prosecute banks for real crimes rather than attack Apple for non-crimes. While bankers can simply lecture us about how their business is too complex for us to understand, Apple has to give an account for all their business decisions.

These Senators are a bunch of syndicate godfathers hyped up on arrogance pills. Apple is owned by private shareholders to whom they owe as high a profit margin as they can legally manage.  It is not the government’s business how Apple conserves its resources, allocates its capital, or protects its assets as it tries to do good business and be prepared for emergencies.

Apple’s “crime” is that they dared to borrow money in the US to buy back some stock rather than bring foreign money back home to do it.

“It’s precisely the sort of move that long has infuriated lawmakers of both parties, who for years have hammered businesses across industries — but especially technology — for their creative tax-avoidance strategies.”

Apple is not the problem; those self-righteous, parasite Senator presiding over their useless, bloated “government” are the problem. These Senators should not have the right to harass law-abiding businesses.

On the contrary, they should be summoned to give an account for themselves to the people who work for a living.

Share the Love	Get Free Updates
Tweet

The post Politicians Threaten Apple Over Misusing Money: Taste The Irony! appeared first on Godfather Politics.

From all we’ve heard in the news, the IRS targeting of non-profit applications with the name ‘Tea Party’ or ‘Patriot’ started back in 2010 if not earlier.  At that time, Sarah Hall Ingram was the commissioner responsible for all tax-exempt organizations and applications for non-profit status.  Ingram held that position from 2009 through 2012.

Joseph Grant took over for Ingram on May 8, 2013, Grant seems to be the fall guy for the scandal even though most of it began under Ingram’s control.  He has already announced that he would retire on June 3.  In reality, it should be Ingram who is forced to resign and not Grant as the vast majority of illegal actions occurred under her leadership.

So where did Ingram get moved to?  Believe it or not, she is now the director of the IRS division that oversees Obamacare.

Remember when Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that the insurance mandate provision of Obamacare was legal because it wasn’t a penalty, but a tax?  Well, Ingram is the IRS director in charge of enforcing that tax – penalty.

One can’t help but wonder if liberal Democrats and Obama’s half-brother will be charged the same tax as conservative, patriotic Republicans will pay under her oversight.  Since I cannot get individual health insurance due to my health condition and the fact that I regularly write scathing articles about President Obama and the rest of the liberal Democrats, I wonder if I’ll get nailed with paying my full tax penalty along with that of some Democrats?

Our only hope is the total repeal of Obamacare.  Late Thursday night, the House voted to repeal the entire Affordable Care Act including the insurance mandate.  The problem now lies with the Democratic controlled Senate.  Hopefully there are a few Senate Democrats that are starting to see the economic catastrophe that will be caused if Obamacare is allowed to take full effect this next January.  All it would take is just 6 of them to join the 45 Republican senators to vote to repeal Obamacare, and Ingram would most likely be out of job and America would be saved from the looming nightmare, at least for now.

We all need to be praying for those 6 votes!

Share the Love	Get Free Updates
Tweet

The post If the IRS Scandal Concerns You, Wait Till You See Who’s In Charge of the IRS Enforcement of Obamacare appeared first on Godfather Politics.

The DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) was first introduced by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) in August 2001.  The original bill would apply only to illegals who entered the US when they were minors and have lived here for a minimum of 5 years and have graduated from high school.  If these young illegals completed 2 years of college (or college equivalent program) or 2 years of active military service, they would be granted temporary residency in the US for a period of 6 years.  If they fulfilled all of the requirements and have remained free of any criminal activity, they could then be eligible to apply for permanent residency.

The DREAM Act of 2001 was never approved, but not forgotten.  Versions of it have been introduced in 2007, 2009 and 2011, but again, the measured was never passed.  In May of 2012, President Barack Obama announced that he was issuing an executive order to stop the deportation of young illegals who basically met the requirements spelled out in the DREAM Act.  He called his program the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program.  Technically, he bypassed Congress to establish a new law which in reality is a violation of the Constitution, but no one seems to care to do anything about it.

Under Obama’s provision, these under 30 illegals would be granted permits to work in the U.S. which also entitled them to a number of state and federal benefits.  One of those benefits included obtaining a valid state driver’s license.  This provision instantly raised alarm flags among many conservatives.

In Arizona, the state that has been at the center of the immigration debate, Governor Jan Brewer took immediate action of her own and issued an executive order barring all of Obama’s illegals from obtaining any state benefits.  Those benefits included unemployment benefits, health insurance, state-subsidized child care, business or professional licenses, government contracts and driver’s licenses.  Brewer stated that the state was not prepared to bear the cost of Obama’s program, which they believed to be illegal anyway.

Many conservatives in the state saw the issue involving driver’s licenses as another opportunity for Democratic voter fraud.  In many states, all a person needs is a valid driver’s license and to just answer yes to questions of citizenship in order to get registered to vote.  In fact, a number of conservatives including myself, believed that Obama’s Dream Act was timed just a few months prior to the election in order so that thousands of illegals would be able to get driver’s licenses and register to vote in time for the November election.  Since voter fraud is a theme of the Democratic Party, Republicans in many areas did what they could to prevent it from happening.

Brewer’s executive order was immediately challenged by several civil rights groups including the ACLU, claiming that her action violated the civil rights of illegal aliens.  On Thursday, US Federal Judge David Campbell refused to block Brewer’s executive order in denying young illegals the right to obtain a driver’s license.

While the ruling seemed to be a victory for Brewer and the state of Arizona, the judge left the door open for further legal action.  He said that the lawsuit had some merit because prior to Obama’s program, the state did grant driver’s licenses to immigrants that had valid work permits.  However, he did rule against one of the lawsuit’s provisions that claimed that Brewer’s policy was pre-empted by federal law.

Gov. Brewer says the ruling is a victory for the state and that she was overjoyed that Judge Campbell denied the injunction that had been asked for.

ACLU for Arizona says that they will continue to challenge Brewer’s executive order and believe that eventually it will be overruled and thrown out.

If you want my opinion, here it is:

I believe that President Obama acted illegally when he bypassed Congress to establish law, especially since Congress failed to pass the said law on more than one occasion.  Therefore, Immigration and Customs Enforcement should detain and deport all illegal immigrants and require them to enter the country through the same legal means as the millions of legal immigrants have done for years.  Then and only then should they be eligible for the same benefits we citizens get and nothing more!

Share the Love	Get Free Updates
Tweet

The post Victory for Arizona in Denying Driver’s Licenses to Obama’s Illegals appeared first on Godfather Politics.