Why Does the IRS Need Guns?

By TOM COBURN and ADAM ANDRZEJEWSKI

(An article from the Wall Street Journal)

After grabbing legal power, bureaucrats are amassing firepower. It’s time to scale back the federal arsenal.

Special agents at the IRS equipped with AR-15 military-style rifles? Health and Human Services “Special Office of Inspector General Agents” being trained by the Army’s Special Forces contractors? The Department of Veterans Affairs arming 3,700 employees?

The number of non-Defense Department federal officers authorized to make arrests and carry firearms (200,000) now exceeds the number of U.S. Marines (182,000). In its escalating arms and ammo stockpiling, this federal arms race is unlike anything in history. Over the last 20 years, the number of these federal officers with arrest-and-firearm authority has nearly tripled to over 200,000 today, from 74,500 in 1996.

What exactly is the Obama administration up to?

On Friday, June 17, our organization, American Transparency, is releasing its OpenTheBooks.com oversight report on the militarization of America. The report catalogs federal purchases of guns, ammunition and military-style equipment by seemingly bureaucratic federal agencies. During a nine-year period through 2014, we found, 67 agencies unaffiliated with the Department of Defense spent $1.48 billion on guns and ammo. Of that total, $335.1 million was spent by agencies traditionally viewed as regulatory or administrative, such as the Smithsonian Institution and the U.S. Mint.

Some examples of spending from 2005 through 2014 raise the question: Who are they preparing to battle?

• The Internal Revenue Service, which has 2,316 special agents, spent nearly $11 million on guns, ammunition and military-style equipment. That’s nearly $5,000 in gear for each agent.

• The Department of Veterans Affairs, which has 3,700 law-enforcement officers guarding and securing VA medical centers, spent $11.66 million. It spent more than $200,000 on night-vision equipment, $2.3 million for body armor, more than $2 million on guns, and $3.6 million for ammunition. The VA employed no officers with firearm authorization as recently as 1995.

• The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service spent $4.77 million purchasing shotguns, .308 caliber rifles, night-vision goggles, propane cannons, liquid explosives, pyro supplies, buckshot, LP gas cannons, drones, remote-control helicopters, thermal cameras, military waterproof thermal infrared scopes and more.

• The Environmental Protection Agency spent $3.1 million on guns, ammunition and military-style equipment. The EPA has put nearly $800 million since 2005 into its “Criminal Enforcement Division.”

• The Food and Drug Administration employs 183 heavily armed “special agents.”

• The University of California, Berkeley acquired 14 5.56mm assault rifles and Yale University police accepted 20 5.56mm assault rifles from the Defense Department. Texas Southern University and Saddleback College police even acquired Mine Resistant Vehicles (MRVs).

Other paper-pushing federal agencies with firearm-and-arrest authority that have expanded their arsenals since 2006 include the Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Education Department, Energy Department, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, National Institute of Standards and Technology and many others.

People from both ends of the political spectrum have expressed alarm at this trend. Conservatives argue that it is hypocritical, unconstitutional and costly for political leaders to undermine the Second Amendment while simultaneously equipping nonmilitary agencies with heavy weapons, hollow-point bullets and military-style equipment. Progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders have raised civil liberties concerns about the militarization of local police with vehicles built for war and other heavy weaponry.

Meanwhile, federal authorities are silent on the growing arsenal at federal agencies. In fact, we asked the IRS for an asset accounting of their gun locker—their guns and ammunition asset inventory by location. Their response? “We don’t have one [an inventory], but could create one for you, if important.”

Our data shows that the federal government has become a gun show that never adjourns. Taxpayers need to tell Washington that police powers belong primarily to cities and states, not the feds.

Dr. Coburn is a physician and former U.S. senator from Oklahoma. He is the honorary chairman, and Mr. Andrzejewski is the founder and CEO, of OpenTheBooks.com, a repository of public-spending records.

Gingrich: GOP establishment should back, not battle, Donald

From http://www.washingtontimes.com

Trump after New York: The presumptive nominee -GOP establishment should back, not battle, Donald

 – – Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Newt-Gingrich-vs-Donald-Trump

The scale of Donald Trump’s victory in New York turned him from frontrunner into presumptive Republican nominee.

The vehemently anti-Trump faction of the party will reject this conclusion.

The news media will dither and analysts will knit pick.

The pseudo-sophisticated will point to the cleverness of stealing delegates legally pledged to Trump.

It is all baloney.

Trump’s emphasis on the will of the voters will “trump” these arguments and analyses. When one candidate has won the lion’s share of the popular vote—and almost certainly Trump will have won more than his two rivals combined—the Republican base is not going to support overturning that outcome with insider cleverness at local, state or national conventions.

And even those efforts are likely to be moot since Trump seems poised to win the nomination outright.

Let’s start with New York.

As I write, the latest numbers are 89 delegates for Trump, 3 for John Kasich, and zero for Ted Cruz.Let me repeat: The champion of the stop Trump movement just won ZERO delegates.

Ahh, the sophisticates say, but this is Trump’s home state. Of course he won all the delegates. If that is the standard, let’s look at the results in Cruz’s home state.

In the Texas primary on March 1, Cruz got 104 delegates, Trump got 48, Rubio got 3 and Kasich got none. In Cruz’s home state, Trump got nearly one third of the delegates in a four-person race.

One other really big state, Florida, has also had the chance to vote. And what happened there? On March 15, Trumpwon 99 delegates. Cruz, Rubio and Kasich combined won zero.

So in the three biggest states to have voted so far, the delegate count is Trump 236, Cruz 104, and Kasich 3. (California will vote on June 7 and the latest CBS poll shows Trump at 49 percent, Cruz 31 percent, Kasich 16 percent.)

Trump is far ahead in delegates in the three biggest states to have voted.

Of course, Trump’s core argument is not about delegates. It’s about the popular vote.

In Florida, New York, and Texas, Republicans have voted. Roughly 2.4 million voted for Trump, compared to 1.8 million for Cruz and 500,000 for Kasich. In these three biggest states, Trump has attracted more votes than Cruz and Kasichcombined.

All evidence is that California will further widen that margin based on recent polling.

Trump is probably going to win all of New Jersey’s delegates (which is winner-take-all, with poll numbers resembling the results in New York). He’s probably going to win Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Maryland as well (though by a narrower margin) and possibly Rhode Island.

It is likely that Kasich will come in second and Cruz will come in third in all of those states. That could strengthen Kasich enough for him to rival Cruz in California (further widening the “Never Trump” candidate’s gap behind Trump).

Cruz’s best shot to turn the race around may be Indiana. That state could be a legitimate battleground for all three candidates. (Kasich is the governor of Ohio right next door, so he also has a shot at Indiana.)

Cruz may win a few small western states. He may also cleverly keep poaching Trump’s delegates at state conventions in an effort to overturn the popular vote with insider maneuvering.

There are two problems with those strategies.

First, Trump is correct in asserting that a manipulated nomination defying the popular vote would be anathema to the Republican base. It would make Cleveland and the fall campaign chaotic and unmanageable.

Second, Trump is probably going to win the nomination on the first ballot.

Take a clear-eyed look at the numbers. After New YorkTrump has 845 delegates. Cruz has 559, and Kasich has 147.

So Trump is 139 delegates ahead of the other two combined.

He is almost 300 delegates ahead of Cruz, his closest rival.

Every analysis of the next few weeks indicates Trump’s margin will widen and he will move steadily closer to 1237. Already, he is only 392 short before any undecided delegates, Rubio delegates, and the like are counted.

These are the numbers of a presumptive nominee, not a front runner. If this were any candidate but Donald Trump, the media would be saying his rivals’ efforts were hopeless and the establishment would be pressuring them to exit the race.

It is time for the GOP establishment to work with this new reality rather than wage war against it.

Here Is California’s Economic Future After Huge Minimum Wage Hike

No wonder people are moving in large numbers out of California. Small business would be closing as they will not be able to pay those higher wages. Large business will pass the increases to the consumers, unskilled and young workers will be the losers, and the labor unions will be the winners. – Celeste

From http://dailysignal.com

Here Is California’s Economic Future After Huge Minimum Wage Hike

California lawmakers and labor leaders are cheering a new deal that, if passed, raises the state’s minimum wage to $15 an hour, making the Golden State the first in the country to do so.

But labor experts are already warning that such a wage hike could lead to higher prices for consumers, more automation, and a drop in employment.

According to media reports, lawmakers and labor unions reached a deal this weekend raising the statewide minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2022. Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, formally announced the proposal Monday.

“California is proving once again that it can get things done and help people get ahead,” Brown said. “This plan raises the minimum wage in a careful and responsible way and provides some flexibility if economic and budgetary conditions change.”

 

The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation.  We’ll respect your inbox and keep you informed.

The deal would raise the minimum wage to $10.50 an hour next year, with increases of $1 per hour taking place annually until the minimum wage hits $15 an hour. Businesses with fewer than 25 employees have until 2023 to comply.

According to the Los Angeles Times, state lawmakers could vote on the proposal as early as this week.

Though the new proposal has labor unions and Democratic state lawmakers cheering, labor experts are already forecasting increased prices for consumers and more transitions to automation for business owners.

James Sherk, a research fellow in labor economics at The Heritage Foundation, said a $15-an-hour minimum wage is unprecedented for any state in the U.S., and the long-term impacts are therefore unknown.

Sherk said such a wage hike is likely to lead to a reduction in employment, specifically for manufacturing companies that sell products across state lines.

Those businesses, he told The Daily Signal, don’t have the opportunity to raise prices, and the industry employs 1.6 million Californians, 37 percent of which make less than $15 an hour.

“A lot of those jobs will move to other states and countries,” Sherk said.

Sherk also warned that in the fast food and hospitality industries, consumers can expect to see prices increase to compensate for increased labor costs.

“For industries like fast food or hotels or anything like that, the only place they can get money is by raising their prices,” he said. “This will cause consumers to purchase less goods and services. It’ll hurt consumers in their wallets.”

Some cities in California like San Francisco and Los Angeles have already enacted minimum wage increases above the statewide $10 an hour. Though many advocates argue that such wage hikes are intended to help workers struggling to make ends meet, particularly in cities with high costs of living, Marc Joffe, a policy analyst at the California Policy Center, fears that a wage hike could hurt the very people it’s intended to help.

According to an analysis of how a $15-an-hour minimum wage would impact the state, Joffe found that such a wage hike would negatively affect areas of the state that have higher unemployment rates and weaker economies, such as the Central Valley.

“A place like San Francisco can probably absorb [a wage increase], but the problem is that California is a really very diverse state in terms of income levels, levels of prosperity, productivity, and so forth,” Joffe told The Daily Signal. “When you put a one-size-fits-all solution like that in, you’re really hurting less affluent counties.”

In the wake of the most recent minimum wage hike from $9 an hour to $10 an hour, Joffe said that areas are already turning to automation as a way to cut down on labor costs. Self-checkouts are replacing cashiers in supermarkets, he said, and customers place restaurant orders on kiosks in San Francisco restaurants.

“Even in downtown San Francisco, which could sustain higher prices, they’re doing things to substitute for workers,” he said. “When you take these differences in cost of living and economic vitality, [raising the minimum wage] becomes a real problem in areas that are less affluent.”

Sherk, too, warned that more and more places could turn to automation to cut down on labor costs and employment substitution, which occurs when employers opt to hire more skilled workers.

“Companies will be choosier,” he said. “What we’ve seen in other cases is, you have more disadvantaged workers losing out. Those with more skills begin to get disproportionately favored and hired.”

Though Brown announced Monday the deal with state lawmakers and labor leaders, he previously said he was hesitant to raise the minimum wage beyond $10 an hour.

“Raise the minimum wage too much and you put a lot of poor people out of work,” he told reporters in January. “There won’t be a lot of jobs. It’s a matter of balance.”

According to Brown’s budget summary for 2016, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would cost the state $4 billion annually by 2021. Additionally, the state warned that not only would such a wage hike return the state budget to annual deficits, but it would also “exacerbate” a recession and add to job losses.

Similarly, the California Department of Finance warned against raising the minimum wage to beyond $10 an hour in a legislative analysis conducted in March. According to its analysis, which looked at a bill raising the minimum wage to $13 an hour in July 2017, the Department of Finance warned that such a wage hike would cost the state more than $4.7 billion over a three-year span.

The agency also stressed that the increased minimum wage would have a negative impact on California’s economy and lead to slower employment growth.

Brown said Monday the wage hike will cost the state $20 million in 2016.

“Small businesses in California are still struggling to cope with the 25 percent minimum wage hike over just the past two years,” Tom Scott, director of the California National Federation of Independent Business, said in a statement opposing the proposal. “Proposing a 50-percent increase on top of that is reckless and ignores serious negative consequences including job loss and increased costs to job creators, senior citizens, and nonprofits.”

The minimum wage proposal unveiled Monday comes days after an initiative backed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West qualified for the state’s Nov. 8 ballot. The proposal would have raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2021.

A second proposal, also backed by the SEIU, is still being circulated for signatures, according to The Los Angeles Times. In addition to raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, the measure also requires businesses to provide employees three new sick days annually.

George Miller: The Trump Phenomenon

The Trump Phenomenon

By George Miller

I still can’t believe it myself. The larger than life real estate and reality show billionaire, from my original hometown, who always has something to say about nearly everything, who has gingerly dipped his toes in the political waters before but always hung back, is finally running for office. Not starting with city council or state assembly, but going for the gold- PRESIDENT of the You-nited Snakes of America. Wow.

What is the significance of this? Well, can you name the last billionaire businessman President we had? Bush, you say? Yeah, well he had degrees from Harvard and Yale, lost some money on a sports franchise and dry oil wells- no billionaire. Name a REAL businessman tycoon President. Romney was an also-ran.

We keep hearing from “The Media” that Trump doesn’t have “political experience,” therefore “he isn’t qualified.” Please, name a politician who has a better mastery of bending other politicians to his will and playing the media like a fiddle to achieve his agenda. Name a contemporary national politician who attracts huge, adoring crowds, besides Bernie (Obama doesn’t count anymore, having largely lost that franchise). Name a politician who has successfully built a multi-billion dollar organization in dozens of countries, with tens of thousands of employees and dealt with many jurisdictions to make all this happen. Hillary, Rubio, Kasich, even Cruz? Ha!

But , also name another American non-politician- or even politician- who has so many influential opponents- on the left, right, middle- doing everything in their power to stop him, but he STILL leads by commanding margins in the primaries and polls. This is unprecedented and bears some thought. It’s interesting that his most bitter political enemies are also the ones many deplore the most. The so-called “President.” The DNC. Republican elite, or “GOPe” as they are now often called (the “e” stands for establishment).

He is a flawed candidate- as ALL of them are. With a towering ego and surprising insecurities for such an accomplished man, vengeful, impulsive, not so discreet and improvisational, one wonders why he isn’t stopped right there. He makes lots unforced errors/gaffes. But many things he says and does that opponents think are errors are perceived otherwise by his growing supporter base. I personally believe he would be a lot more successful in his campaign if he would hold his tongue more and think about its effect. But, then again, I’m not leading in the Republican Presidential campaign last time I checked.

So, why isn’t he stopped? Well, for one thing, his force of personality, innovativeness, sheer energy, intelligence, drive and persistence make him somewhat akin to a force of nature. He can focus that like a laser when he wants to get great things accomplished and overcome great obstacles to do it. Every time he clears his throat, media surround him with cameras and microphones, leading detractors to claim the media loves him :-). If they really loved him, why do they eviscerate him at every opportunity?

All great people have major flaws. All great people have compensating attributes.

Consider that nearly all of his campaign opponents except Ben Carson were professional politicians, with years and years of experience and practice at campaigning, speaking, analyzing issues, controlling “spin,” letting opponents defeat themselves and helping them do so, when needed.

Many of his detractors are openly contemptuous of him, singly and in tag teams they attack him from all sides. Yet, every time the smoke clears, he is still standing, often higher than before. His political epitaph has been written, futilely, multiple times in the last 9 months.

So, what then is his secret weapon that keeps his campaign alive- thriving, actually? Simple- three things:

1- He never, never gives up, as long as he sees a path to victory- and he has better vision of such things than almost anyone. If thwarted, he will immediately counterattack, devastatingly. Or, he will wait, bide his time and later attack from another direction, at a time and place of his own choosing. A nine billion dollar fortune is also helpful when you need staying power and independence.

2- He has ideas which are often far more workable and popular than opponents, who consistently underestimate him, seem to think.

3- He has tremendous support from the public, from nearly all types of people, income, educational level and backgrounds, including many from groups the establishment claims hate him. He emphatically rejects political correctness, to a fault. For example, even though he had repudiated David Duke multiple times, he obstinately refused to sit up and bark like a trained seal once again for CNN’s Jake Tapper on that subject recently. His fans LOVE that in a way that the establishment can never even begin to comprehend. They LOVE hearing him run down establishment figures and their failed ideas.

I would prefer a better political “Messiah” for our troubled nation at this critical juncture- But don’t see a better one on the horizon at this time. Was it Donald Rumsfeld who said “you go to war with the army you have”? I think back to biblical passages where God calls upon deeply flawed individuals to carry out his will on earth. Well, why not The Donald? He has taken tremendous risks- to his reputation, business empire, even a physical risk of being killed by powerful, desperate opponents who will stop at nothing to prevail– “Our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor.” His enemies say he is doing it for his ego, to make more money, whatever. But, he could instead be coasting on his victory lap of fulfilling the American dream- admired, enjoying his family, the fruits of his labor and the admiration of millions. But, at the age of 69 and at a peak of success in his life-long efforts, he’s NOT.

Next installment: Trump’s ideas on immigration, trade, jobs, foreign policy- are they crazy, “racist,” impractical or ….? Is he a “Conservative?”

George Miller is publisher of Citizensjournal.us and an Oxnard, CA resident

California Republicans React to GOP Debate

 My take and almost 99.5% of the polls conducted right after the Republican Debate last night in Las Vegas, the winner; Mr. Donald Trump! Please read below my dear and long time friend Jon Fleischman’s column. – Celeste

From http://www.breitbart.com

California Republicans React to GOP Debate

By Jon Fleischma

The last GOP debate before Super Tuesday is in the can. Co-hosted by CNN and Telemundo, it was viewed by 14.5 million people on Thursday evening. The debate crystallized that this is now essentially a three-person show: Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). And things really got hot, as the gloves came off.

It was painfully clear (to me, anyway) that Trump exposed himself as being all temperament and style, and not very much substance. But given the distrust and discontent of much of the GOP primary electorate I’ll be interested to see if Trump’s inability to get into specifics causes him more trouble than his decades of ideological inconsistency.

Here is a roundup of thoughts from various California politicos to whom Breitbart News reached out after the debate was over…

Arnold Steinberg, Republican Pollster and Strategist

Going in, Trump was advantaged: Vicente Fox, former president of Mexico attacked him, and Biden, in Mexico, apologized for Trump. Some of the attacks in the debate on Trump were potent, but will they work this late? The longer voter support for him consolidates, the harder to disabuse Trump voters. Carson was much improved, but CNN cheated him on time.  Kasich did fine and is the only one of this group that Trump, if he were the nominee, could consider as VP.  Rubio probably ruled himself out. Rubio and Cruz did well, Rubio probably better. If the repeated doubts about Trump raised by Rubio and Cruz did not work last night, they won’t work at all.

Sam Sorbo, Actress and Talk Show Host

The debaters have all improved their verbal-combat skills (thank heavens!), and how to handle the moderators (even better!).

  • Trump got testy: “First of all, very few people listen to your radio show.” (After which, Hugh Hewitt fumbled some of his next question.)
  • Rubio took control: “In less than five years, 83% of our entire budget will be made up of social security, medicare, medicaid and the interest on the debt … You cannot balance the budget unless you deal with that 83%.”
  • Cruz took Trump to the mat: “He can’t prosecute the case against Hillary and we can’t risk another four years of these failed Obama policies by nominating someone who loses to Hillary Clinton in November.”

Sadly, we learned (again) that Kasich’s dad was a mailman and Carson doesn’t get to answer too many questions.

Favorite quote (you figure out who): “I beat her, and I beat her badly.”

Diane Harkey, Vice Chairman of the State Board of Equalization

Rubio was a home run, Cruz was very effective and Trump was typical — he repeated himself with little substance.  However entertaining he may be, I think we saw a lack of depth on issues.

Celeste Greg, GOP Activist and Publisher, The Greig Report

I Watched the debate/dogfight with the two Junior senators, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio desperately and ferociously attacking the front-runner, businessman Donald Trump. Mr. Trump held his own. Certainly neither one of the senators can claim the title of Mr. Congeniality. Sen. Rubio, with his boyish look, was funny when he said that if Mr. Trump had not inherited his wealth (actually he borrowed money from his Dad) he would be selling watches in Manhattan. Probably so, but it would be his own label and most likely at Tiffany’s, I Magnin, or Cartier!

I don’t think Sen. Cruz scored any points last night — he was combative, unconvincing, repetitive, and closing the IRS is not going to happen. Dr. Carson once again proved he is a classy gentleman, his hands are magic and they have saved lives.  Gov. Kasich, perhaps the one of the five with the most knowledge and experience in government, was calm, and had very had good answers.

Overall, nothing new about their stances on immigration, ISIS, North Korea, Russia, Iran, IRS. vs. Apple. No losers, but Mr. Trump continued being himself–though more subdued– and stood his ground, stronger, giving him the advantage to go on as the frontrunner to win several states on Super Tuesday.

Shawn Steel, California’s Republican National Committeeman

Not only did Marco land a series of never ending punches, he enjoyed it. The Donald is bruised. It will feel the pain today.

Joel Pollak, Editor-In-Chief, Breitbart California

Cruz was the winner overall. He let Rubio attack Trump while reserving his time for principled answers. He needed to win on home turf and will now do well in Texas.

Rubio landed punches but failed to make a case for himself and was constantly interrupting. He needs to convince voters he is mature enough for the job, and his impatience signals the opposite.

Trump had his worst debate, though not catastrophic. But Trump is the long-term winner because Rubio’s supporters will think he did well by attacking, thereby keeping him in the race and continuing to split the anti-Trump vote with Cruz.

Bruce Bialosky, Founder of the Republican Jewish Coalition of California

Tonight, we finally had a winnowed field that showed that Trump was unprepared on policy issues to be president.  The only thing he could say about fixing Obamacare was the Republican doctrine of at least 15 years of a national health insurance market.  He lied about his taxes. The IRS can only go back three years on an audit, but Trump is supposedly being audited for 4-5 years. If he is being audited every year, there goes his mantra of hiring the best people. (He should call me and I would make sure he never gets audited again.) There is no reason he cannot release his tax returns because of these supposed audits. Kasich and Carson were window dressing.  Rubio decked Trump and won the debate. Trump lost the debate badly.

Tom Hudson, President of the California Republican Assembly

Donald Trump is as phony as Arnold Schwarzenegger!  His petulant name-calling and New York rudeness is already getting tiresome, but the primaries just started. Ben Carson had the best line of the debate: “Will someone please attack me?” Senator Ted Cruz, the CRA-endorsed candidate, stood out as the only candidate who looked presidential and really meant what he said.

Jason Roe, Republican Strategist

How do people take Trump seriously?  I mean, c’mon, this guy is so ahead of his skis, he doesn’t even know what he’s talking about. Rubio put him on his heels repeatedly and even when Trump struck back, Marco pounced on him. Was Carson there?

James Lacy, Publisher, California Political Review

Did tonight’s debate slow Trump’s march to the nomination? No, it didn’t. Though Cruz and Rubio surely landed some punches, Trump, again at ground zero center stage, and battling away, seemed to be able to come back cooly whenever he needed to.  He made good sense on his tax cut plan, spending, and the “Wall”.  His saying he will “not let people die on the streets” will be seen as offering some compassion, not socialism, by most voters. Kasich seemed to benefit from more time than usual in past debates, and Carson, sadly, is just increasingly irrelevant.

Hector Barajas, Republican Consultant and Analyst

Cruz debating Trump as if they’re on Senate floor = losing. Rubio’s street fighting = winning. Rubio comes out swinging from the start and Trump fantasizes that Hispanics love him.

Reed Galen, GOP Strategist

This debate was a sh*t show. Rubio did what he needed to do but not sure it’s enough to change the dynamic before Tuesday. Carson should take his fruit salad and go home.

 

Merry, Merry Christmas!

Merry, Merry Christmas!
From Celeste Greig
Merry-Christmas-images-for-friends-1As a Christian, I believe in the wonderful miracle and celebration of the birth (Matthew 1:18-25) of our savior Jesus Christ,  given as a gift from God his father to
humanity (John 3:16).  I want to wish all of you from the bottom of my heart. a very Merry Christmas. May God who made the stars to shine and filled with his love, to fill your heart with  divine love,  peace,  and joy.
Wishing all of you an amazing, prosperous, full of good healthy and a Happy New Year 2016!
As always lets not forget the thousands of members of our Armed Forces, the brave men and women who are currently serving in the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Marines and Navy, who continue sacrificing, defending our freedoms and fighting abroad to keep peace from oppression, and who will not be able to be with their love ones during, this holy season, our Police Force, the men and women in blue who now more than ever will be patrolling, guarding, and trying to keep our streets safe, so we can have a joyous celebration during these  times of uncertainty and fear, last but not least our firefighters.
Blessings to each of you and your families at Christmastime, give lots of love and help others, so you can receive more in return !
FELIZ NAVIDAD, PROSPERO ANO NUEVO 2016 Y FELICIDAD!
BUON NATALE E FELICE ANNO NUOVO 2016!
JOYEUX NOEL ET UNE NOUVELLE ANNE 2016!
MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR 2016!
 With much love 
Celeste,”Gipper” and the GreigReport.com 

Gary L. Bauer: ISIS, Boy Scouts and Kudos To Cruz

From  Gary L. Bauer – Founder and President of Campaign for Working Families, Arlington, VA

Former CNN commentator Piers Morgan penned a blistering op-ed this week warning that ISIS was winning and that President Obama “only has himself to blame.” Here’s an excerpt:

“Obama’s had plenty of time to devise a successful strategy for dealing with the emerging threat of ISIS, and so far he has spectacularly failed.

“As they beheaded Americans, he made somber speeches, then played golf minutes literally seven minutes later. . . . The clear message? ‘Don’t worry, I’ve got this all under control.’ Only he hasn’t. Many parts of Iraq and Syria are demonstrably raging OUT of control. Obama’s ‘lead from behind’ military strategy . . . now looks hopelessly misguided. His decision to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq seems even more disastrous. . .

“It’s time President Obama stopped talking a good game, and actually played one. Because I don’t think it’s too big a leap to suggest ISIS currently represents one of the biggest threats to global peace since the Nazis. . . . Sometimes, as the world found with Hitler, the only way to beat such an oppressive, evil enemy is through might. . . .

“President Obama has to stop telling us how well everything’s going, admit this is now a very serious and unstable situation, and do something meaningful about it. . . . In short, the President has to show that the golf clubs are back in the bag now, and he’s serious. ISIS is winning. They must be stopped. Or we’ll all lose.”
Scouts Cave

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, also the national president of the Boy Scouts of America, said today that he is urging the BSA to end its ban on homosexual adult leaders. Press reports say the decision was made “in order to avert potentially destructive legal battles.”

I can’t say that I am surprised. It was inevitable after the organization liberalized its membership rules two years ago. Many families committed to Judeo-Christian values have since joined Trail Life USA.

But note the reasoning behind this decision. The tolerant thing to do would have been for gay scouts to form their own group rather than demand that the Boy Scouts of America change its values under threat of “destructive legal battles.”

But the militant left isn’t asking for tolerance. It is demanding submission to its agenda.

The Silencing

Speaking of the intolerant left, if you’re looking for good summer reading material, I recommend Kirsten Powers’ new book, “The Silencing: How The Left Is Killing Free Speech.”

Conservatives have long complained about the media’s liberal bias. But even some liberals like Powers are disturbed by the left’s increasing intolerance and hostility.

USA Today columnist and commentator on Fox News, Powers is a recent convert to Christianity and it seems the scales are falling from her eyes in more ways than one. Consider this excerpt from her book:

“This intolerance is not a passive matter of opinion. It’s an aggressive, illiberal impulse to silence people. This conduct has become an existential threat to those who hold orthodox religious beliefs. But increasingly I hear from people across the political spectrum who are fearful not only of expressing their views, but also as to where all of this is heading.

“I’ve followed this trend closely as a columnist with growing concern. It’s become clear that the attempts — too often successful — to silence dissent from the liberal worldview aren’t isolated outbursts. They are part of a bigger story.”

Needless to say, Powers is now under incredible attack from the left, which is attempting — of course — to silence her! I don’t agree with Powers on everything, but she is absolutely right about the left. And I am happy to recommend her book as a way of showing support for free speech and expression.

Kudos To Cruz

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) speaks during the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa, on Aug. 10.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) speaks during the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa, on Aug. 10.

Tuesday Senator Ted Cruz did a brief interview with a local reporter in Beaumont, Texas. The reporter repeatedly hectored Cruz with “gotcha” questions such as, “Do you have a personal animosity toward gay Americans?”
The senator knocked it out of the park. Here’s what Cruz said:
“Is there something about the left — and I am going to put the media in this category — that is obsessed with sex? . . . ISIS is executing homosexuals — you want to talk about gay rights? This week was a very bad week for gay rights because the expansion of ISIS, the expansion of radical, theocratic, Islamic zealots that crucify Christians, that behead children and that murder homosexuals — that ought to be concerning you far more than asking six questions all on the same topic.”

Sticking to his script, the reporter again asked, “Do you have a personal animosity toward gay Americans?” Cruz shot back:
“Do you have a personal animosity against Christians, sir? Your line of questioning is highly curious. You seem fixated on a particular subject. Look, I’m a Christian. Scripture commands us to love everybody. And what I have been talking about, with respect to same-sex marriage, is the Constitution, which is what we should all be focused on. The Constitution gives marriage to elected state legislators. It doesn’t give the power of marriage to a president or to unelected judges to tear down the decisions enacted by democratically elected state legislatures.” Kudos to Ted Cruz! That is the right answer and the right way to handle hostile media.

Disclaimer: The GreigReport recognize the fact that there are excellent conservative, constitutional Republican candidates who are running for the Presidency of the United States of America, therefore, from time to time we may include a quote or an action alert from one of them, but would not constitute and endorsement.

Steve Frank: Kardashian-West House Sucks Up Water During CA Drought

Steve Frank, is a well known sough out speaker, blogger, radio talk host, Publisher and Editor of the CA Political News and Views and our own Celeste Greig’s ‘adopted brother.’

Kim Kardashian, Kanye West House Sucks Up Water During California Drought — So Do Homes Of Kourtney, Khloe, And J. Lo

By Steve Frank

Steve Frank

 

 

 

 

 

California might be in a drought, but that hasn’t stopped celebrities from drenching their gardens with water. The house of Kim Kardashian and Kanye West still enjoys a lush, green garden, reports Page Six. The aerial photos from the New York Post give a great view of homes belonging to Kardashian-West and other celebrities, comparing their well-watered greenery with the dry land surrounding their houses.

Photos of the homes of Kim Kardashian, Khloe Kardashian, BarKim Kardashianbra Streisand, and Jennifer Lopez are shown in the above linked-to article, displaying beautiful green lawns that are drawing criticism in the drought-ravaged land.

The Kardashian-Jenner Family can simply afford to pay the extra water fees because they have bigger fish to fry. As reported by the Inquisitr, Kendall Jenner is dealing with racist backlash that erupted on Twitter after being seen with actor Michael B. Jordan. Kylie Jenner found herself clarifying whether she claimed to be high in a recent Snapchat video.

Pundits claim that the reservoirs in California could enjoy fewer than 12 month’s worth of drinkable water. According to the San Jose Mercury News, the water conservation rules apply to everyone in California, including celebrity households.
“Violators can be fined up to $500 per offense, although enforcement is up to each city.”

In the Hidden Hills area where Kim and Kanye live, homes are listed in the $8.5 million range, according to Zillow. And those rich neighbors are mad at Kardashian-West because of their water usage.

“The Kardashian flowers and hedges are right in our face. It’s disgusting. You walk by and you can smell the freshness.”
Jennifer Lopez isn’t immune to the criticism, nor is Jessica Simpson, because of the obvious water levels their houses use.
Khloe Kardashian’s new house hasn’t been featured on Keeping Up with the Kardashians — at least not in the unfavorable light the Calabasas estate is being shown on Sunday, due to its water-sapping greenery.

Barbra Streisand is drawing boos in Malibu, although Babs’ PR rep, Ken Sunshine, claimed she has cut down on her water usage and plans to cut down more. Confronted with the lush aerial photos, Sunshine reportedly clammed up and refused further comment. Heiress Petra Ecclestone’s house is being called one of the biggest water sappers, despite the fact she’s hardly there.

It’s not all bad news, though. Celebrities like Cher, Julia Roberts, and Jennifer Aniston are being praised for the water conservation changes they’ve made.

Steve Frank is the Publisher of California Political News and Views and an Army Veteran. He is a long time political activist and a past board member of the California Republican Party. Learn more at: www.capoliticalnews.com

Dr. Karen Kenney: Proctology And The IRS Probe

Dr. Karen Kenney is a Constitutional and absolutely a brilliantly smart woman, she testified in front of the U.S. Congress’s Ways & Means Committee on the IRS targeting conservative organizations and denying tax exempt status to pro-life, pro-Second Amendment and Tea party groups.

She is also the founder and Executive Director of the San Fernando Valley Tea Party Patriots, holding monthly informative meetings with excellent speakers with a large range of topics and issues of interest to everybody.

 

By Dr. Karen Kenney: Proctology:  study of the anus, rectum and colon. 

IRS probe: see above, add debt.

In June, it will be nearly two years since my testimony concerning the IRS scrutiny of tax-exempt applications for “tea party”/conservative groups made me a Twitter “like” and a You Tube “view.”

My testimony opened with a quote from John Adams, “Facts are stubborn things” and ended with a “Thank you” to members of the Ways and Means Committee. In between were a 5-minute recitation of facts between 2010 and 2012, which chronicled the demanding, intrusive IRS probe; its impact on our San Fernando Valley Patriots, and a dash of “tea party” principles dipped in the First Amendment.

It was an honor to testify with Kevin Kookogey (Linchpins of Liberty), Diane Belson (Laurens County South Carolina Tea Party); John Eastman (National Organization for Marriage); Sue Martinek (Coalition of Life of Iowa) and Becky Gerritson, (Wetumpka Alabama Tea Party). They passed my secret test: Would I want them for neighbors? Yes.

The transition from quiet patriot to “grassroots” minor celeb has brought a whiplash of political, media and legal challenges and opportunities—along with clarity of my conservative values. (As a former registered Democrat, now registered Republican, I wish I could register Conservative, but not in California—the “Altered State.”)

I’m not sure whether to send a thank you note to Barack Hussein Obama or Lois Lerner.

Obama’s signing on Feb. 17, 2009 of the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009” inspired my “tea party” genes; Lois Lerner’s invoking on May 22, 2013 the Fifth Amendment incited them.

Between 2010 and 2012, the SFV Patriots hosted events that drew hundreds to a Tax Day Rally (250); a 9-11 Memorial (275) and a July 4 rally (200). Now, tax debt and shriveled attendance at public rallies restricts our civic virtue to monthly meetings, a growing social media footprint, speaker presentations and distribution of free pocket versions of America’s founding documents. Yet, our numbers grow as we attract patriots from across the spectrum of party and union politics

In July 2012, I withdrew our application for tax-exempt status after three interrogatories by the IRS, including a demand for our donor list—a clear violation of policy and our First Amendment rights. We continue to pursue litigation with the American Center for Law and Justice, which represents nearly 40 groups targeted by the IRS.

At a recent speech, someone asked why we continue. The answer is simple: America is exceptional. No other nation is built on the principles within our Founding Documents.

As far as a proctological view of America? I’ll leave that to the Progressives.

We patriots prefer our nation’s heart and mind.

Karen L. Kenney, PhD, is coordinator of the San Fernando Valley Patriots

Follow the San Fernando Valley Patriots on Twitter: twitter.com/PatriotDogHouse