Art credit: Thinkstock

Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin published this op-ed the other day in the Washington Examiner: 

The dangerous Democratic assault on free speech

JENNY BETH MARTIN • | JUNE 18, 2014 | 6:00 AM 

David Brown was imprisoned for 18 months because he demonstrated against rising taxes. Author James Callendar spent nine months in jail for writing a book critical of the government. Newspaper editor Benjamin Franklin Bache was arrested for criticizing the president but died before his trial, while printer Anthony Haswell spent two months in jail for republishing passages from Bache’s writings.

These men did not live in some Third World dictatorship. They lived in the United States during one of the darkest periods of our history; a time in which freedom of speech was restricted by the federal government following passage of the Sedition Act of 1798. Given recent events, it appears Democrats are keen on recreating some of that oppression. In an accelerating campaign to silence the voices of those with whom they disagree, the administration of President Obama and members of his party in Congress have undertaken the most audacious effort in more than 200 years to squelch those who dare to disagree.

The most recent example comes in the form of a proposed amendment to the Constitution, S.J. Res. 19, which would rewrite the IRSt-amendment">First Amendment by giving government the power to restrict free speech in the political arena. Supported exclusively by Democrats, it serves as an end-around to long-standing law that says unequivocally that money is the same as speech and would restrict how much money individuals, organizations and candidates may raise and spend in elections.

Concurrent with this is the ongoing abuse of power by certain members of Congress who are using their taxpayer-funded offices as a platform for attacking private citizens and pressuring government agencies to begin criminal actions against people who exercise their First Amendment rights. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has repeatedly taken to the Senate floor, the Senate Gallery and other venues to vilify Charles and David Koch for taking positions on issues that differ from his.

But if one agrees with Reid, the senator is gracious enough to praise that person by way of his Senate office. Such is the case with Tom Steyer, a billionaire Democrat and environmental activist who has pledged to spend $100 million to fight “climate change,” in the 2014 election cycle. Coincidental with Steyer's financial pledge, Reid led more than half of his fellow Democrat senators in a nearly 15-hour-long gabfest on the Senate floor promoting Steyer's pet issue.

No less outrageous is how Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., pressured the IRS and the Department of Justice to commence criminal investigations of certain tax-exempt 501(c)(4) groups that were abiding by the law while exercising their right to free speech.

The spark that lit this fuse of intimidation, coercion and abuse was struck before the 2012 elections, when the IRS began a systematic campaign of targeting certain organizations seeking tax-exempt status, compelling applicants to divulge the nature of their prayers and reading material, among other things. This targeting had the effect of silencing those who wanted only to engage in constitutionally protected speech but were prevented from doing so by the Obama administration.

These actions represent the biggest threat to free speech since the late 18th century, when Americans were arrested, fined and thrown into prison for the crime of disagreeing with their government. It is a hideous blot on U.S. history but the Obama administration and Senate Democrats are actively engaged in finding new ways to restrict our freedom of speech through executive fiat and rewriting the most important part of the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment contains those personal freedoms most precious to Americans: religion, assembly, redress of grievances, the press and speech. They, more than any other liberties, are the bedrock of the exceptional nature of the American founding. But if government can decide that free speech is no longer a fundamental liberty, we have lost the means to fight for all the others.

Jenny Beth Martin is a co-founder of Tea Party Patriots. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner?

 # # #

IRS budget cuts and Tea Party Patriots

Art credit:ctj.org.

Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, reports that

The House Appropriations Committee is set to OK an IRS budget of $10.9 billion, $1.5 billion under President Obama's request for fiscal year 2015, reducing the agency's budget to 2008 levels.

The goal is to keep the tax agency focused on its “core duties,” and eliminate efforts to judge the political activities of tax-exempt groups and brake its implementation of Obamacare.

Below are the bill highlights about the IRS:

. . . Included in the bill is $10.95 billion for the IRS – a cut of $341 million below the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $1.5 billion below the President’s budget request. This will bring the agency’s budget below the sequester level and below the level that was in place in fiscal year 2008. This funding level is sufficient for the IRS to perform its core duties, including taxpayer services and the proper collection of funds, but will require the agency to streamline and make better use of its budget.

In addition, due to the inappropriate actions by the IRS in targeting groups that hold certain political beliefs, as well as its previous improper use of taxpayer funds, the bill includes the following provisions:

-- A prohibition on a proposed regulation related to political activities and the tax-exempt status of 501(c)(4) organizations. The proposed regulation could jeopardize the tax-exempt status of many non-profit organizations and inhibit citizens from exercising their right to freedom of speech, simply because they may be involved in political activity.

-- A prohibition on funds for bonuses or awards unless employee conduct and tax compliance is given consideration.

-- A prohibition on funds for the IRS to target groups for regulatory scrutiny based on their ideological beliefs.

-- A prohibition on funds for the IRS to target individuals for exercising their First Amendment rights.

-- A prohibition on funding for the production of inappropriate videos and conferences.

-- A prohibition on funding for the White House to order the IRS to determine the tax-exempt status of an organization.

-- A requirement for extensive reporting on IRS spending.

ObamaCare –The bill also includes provisions to stop the IRS from further implementing ObamaCare, including a prohibition on any transfers of funding from the Department of Health and Human Services to the IRS for ObamaCare uses, and a prohibition on funding for the IRS to implement an individual insurance mandate on the American people.

It's unbelievable that there would be a need for some of these prohibitions, such as the one that would prohibit funds that "target individuals for exercising their First Amendment rights". And words like “inappropriate” and “consideration” are vague and subjective, especially when the goal is to rein in lawless behavior. Who knows if the Senate will pass it. Maybe it could stall ANY funding until the IRS manages to "find" Lois Lerner's vanishing emails. But maybe the budget cut is a teeny tiny start. Anyway, you can read the rest here.

Cantor’s defeat and the push for amnesty

Art credit: Oneoldvet.com

Lots of pundits have been weighing in on the fallout from Eric Cantor’s stunning defeat in last Tuesday’s primary to Dave Brat. Thomas Sowell has this perspective on the GOP elite’s position on amnesty “immigration reform”:

Apparently the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives -- which is to say, House Speaker John Boehner and [soon to be former] Majority Leader Eric Cantor -- thinks that amnesty is not amnesty if you call it "immigration reform" and toss in some fig-leaf requirements before the amnesty kicks in.

Immigration laws are the only laws that are discussed almost entirely in terms of what can be done to help those who have broken the law. Some want to help a little and some want to help a lot. But amnesty lite is still amnesty.

Some people seem to think that amnesty is not amnesty if you throw in requirements for citizenship. Amnesty is not some esoteric concept. It means that you are not going to be punished for breaking the law -- and that simply brings laws into contempt. Denying citizenship is not a punishment because crossing the border illegally does not entitle you to citizenship. Providing a legal status short of citizenship is not punishment either.

There is no requirement for either amnesty or for citizenship that President Obama cannot ignore or dilute unilaterally, as he has ignored or diluted existing immigration laws, as well as other laws. Barack Obama is the biggest reason to pass no immigration "reform" laws until after he is gone.

It doesn't matter what immigration policies you believe in if you don't control your borders -- and the vast numbers of minors flooding across our borders today show that the Obama administration has no intention of controlling the borders. They are more concerned with controlling the border guards and ordering them not to take pictures that show the public what is happening.

If you are serious about controlling the borders, then you pass laws to control the borders first. Some years later, after you can see whether the border has been controlled or not -- you can start discussing what our national immigration laws should be.

Otherwise, "comprehensive" immigration reform means granting some form of amnesty up front and promising to control the border later. How many more times are we going to fall for that bait and switch fraud?

Read the rest here. 

Steven Hayward at Power Line speculated on the possibility of President Obama issuing executive pardons to ALL illegal immigrants. After the mid-terms, of course.

Let’s look down the road a bit from here.  We know that President Obama is enamored of executive power.  He said on climate change that he wouldn’t wait on Congress, and we saw last week his bold use of the Clean Air Act to impose a regulatory scheme that Congress would never pass.  He’s said much the same thing about immigration.  So what might he do?

How about this: after the election next fall, especially if the GOP takes the Senate and with an eye to the 2016 election prospects for Democrats, Obama might well decide to use his pardon power to grant a blanket pardon to all illegal aliens presently in the United States.  This would not, strictly speaking, be a legal abuse; the president’s pardon power is unconditional in the Constitution.  But you can imagine the firestorm it would generate.

. . .  I think the odds of a blanket amnesty-by-pardon are much better than people think. Some enterprising reporter ought to ask about this at a White House press conference some time soon.

But yesterday, a caller to Rush Limbaugh raised an interesting legal point:

CALLER: I just want to point out a problem with [Steven Hayward’s] pardon theory.. . . The theory is you can be pardoned for prior actions and you can't be punished for them. But assuming that you're still in the United States and you still don't have a legal right to be here, you're immediately as guilty after the pardon as you are before the pardon.

RUSH: I don't think so.

CALLER: It doesn't give you a status to stay in the United States.

RUSH: Well, Mr. Hayward thinks it does. By the way, you're the first guy who said you can't do it. I've run it by a lot of people. Yeah, there's no constitutional prohibition against something like that because --

CALLER: Well, you can, if they were not in the United States and you pardoned them and they didn't come back illegally, they would be free. But assuming they're still in the United States and they're still here illegally, they're immediately guilty for actions that happen after the pardon.

RUSH: You can pardon somebody for all future.

CALLER: Actually, I don't think that's true. I don't think you can immunize --

RUSH: Well, even if you can't, by pardoning the fact that they are here illegally, the next day they don't start being illegal all over again, it's been pardoned. You're thinking they can only be pardoned up to that day. Right?

CALLER: Right. You can be pardoned up to that day, but if you don't have a legal right to be inside in the United States, you're not a citizen --

RUSH: Well, then how did Bill Clinton pardon Marc Rich and then say, and, by the way, you can never come back to this country?

CALLER: Well, what he said is Marc Rich is pardoned for these acts which have happened before.

RUSH: Right.

CALLER: If you violate the law after you've been pardoned, you're not immune. You're subject again for the acts that occurred after the pardon.

The rest of Rush’s segment is here. 

Here's the bottom line from Steven Hayward for all of us, as we head into the mid-terms:

Therefore, a modest suggestion: every GOP candidate—especially for the Senate—should force Democratic candidates on the record before the campaign on the question of how they would respond if President Obama uses his pardon power to grant amnesty to every illegal alien currently in the country.  Get them on record now, ahead of the election.

 # # #

Reports of the death of the Tea Party are premature

WOW!

From the Washington Post:

Eric Cantor succumbs 

to tea party challenger Tuesday

By Robert Costa

In a stunning upset propelled by tea party activists, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was defeated in Tuesday’s congressional primary, with insurgent David Brat delivering an unpredicted and devastating loss to the second most powerful Republican in the House who has widely been touted as a future speaker.

Buh-bye!!

White House Mistakenly Identifies Top CIA Agent in Afghanistan

Taking time from his busy schedule of golfing, vacationing and being made fun of by Russian President Vladamir Putin, President Obama, in wanting to act like he cares in a "Presidential" sort of way, made a trip to Afghanistan as a surprise visit to our troops.

Concentrating more on our narcissistic President's love & need of shameless self-promotion, when sending out a press release for his surprise visit - the White House Press Office also released the name of our top CIA officer in Kabul.

No worries.... after identifying this individual for the terrorists in the region, the White House Press Office "fixed" the Joe Biden-like blunder by issuing a revised press release in a "tricked ya" sort of way that did not include the identity of our CIA Chief of Station in Kabul.  

From The Washington Post --

The CIA’s top officer in Kabul was exposed Saturday by the White House when his name was inadvertently included on a list provided to news organizations of senior U.S. officials participating in President Obama’s surprise visit with U.S. troops.

The White House recognized the mistake and quickly issued a revised list that did not include the individual, who had been identified on the initial release as the “Chief of Station” in Kabul, a designation used by the CIA for its highest-ranking spy in a country.

The disclosure marked a rare instance in which a CIA officer working overseas had his cover — the secrecy meant to protect his actual identity — pierced by his own government. The only other recent case came under significantly different circumstances, when former CIA operative Valerie Plame was exposed as officials of the George W. Bush administration sought to discredit her husband, a former ambassador and fierce critic of the decision to invade Iraq.

The Post is withholding the name of the CIA officer at the request of Obama administration officials who warned that the officer and his family could be at risk if the name were published. The CIA and the White House declined to comment.

The CIA officer was one of 15 senior U.S. officials identified as taking part in a military briefing for Obama at Bagram air base, a sprawling military compound north of Kabul. Others included U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan James B. Cunningham and Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford, Jr., the commander of U.S. and coalition forces in the country.

Their names were included on a list of participants in the briefing provided by U.S. military officials to the White House press office.

The list was circulated by e-mail to reporters who traveled to Afghanistan with Obama, and disseminated further when it was included in a “pool report,” or summary of the event meant to be shared with other news organizations, including foreign media, not taking part in the trip.

In this case, the pool report was filed by Washington Post White House bureau chief Scott Wilson. Wilson said he had copied the list from the e-mail provided by White House press officials. He sent his pool report to the press officials, who then distributed it to a list of more than 6,000 recipients.

Wilson said that after the report was distributed, he noticed the unusual reference to the station chief and asked White House press officials in Afghanistan whether they had intended to include that name.

Initially, the press office raised no objection, apparently because military officials had provided the list to distribute to news organizations. But senior White House officials realized the mistake and scrambled to issue an updated list without the CIA officer’s name. The mistake, however, already was being noted on Twitter, although without the station chief’s name.

It is unclear whether the disclosure will force the CIA to pull the officer out of Afghanistan. As the top officer in one of the agency’s largest overseas posts, with hundreds of officers, analysts and other subordinates, the station chief in Kabul probably has been identified to senior Afghan government officials and would not ordinarily take part in clandestine missions beyond the U.S. Embassy compound.

The identities of at least three CIA station chiefs in Pakistan have been exposed in recent years. In one case, a CIA officer became a target of death threats after his cover was blown, forcing the agency to rush him out of the country.

How America Treats Illegal Immigrants vs U.S. Veterans

From Michelle Malkin via Town Hall --

A government that fails to secure its borders is guilty of dereliction of duty. A government that fails to care for our men and women on the frontlines is guilty of malpractice. A government that puts the needs of illegal aliens above U.S. veterans for political gain should be prosecuted for criminal neglect bordering on treason.

Compare, contrast and weep:

In Sacramento, Calif., lawmakers are moving forward with a budget-busting plan to extend government-funded health insurance to at least 1.5 million illegal aliens.

In Los Angeles, federal bureaucrats callously canceled an estimated 40,000 diagnostic tests and treatments for American veterans with cancer and other illnesses to cover up a decade-long backlog.

In New York, doctors report that nearly 40 percent of their patients receiving kidney dialysis are illegal aliens. A survey of nephrologists in 44 states revealed that 65 percent of them treat illegal aliens with kidney disease.

In Memphis, a VA whistleblower reported that his hospital was using contaminated kidney dialysis machines to treat America's warriors. The same hospital previously had been investigated for chronic overcrowding at its emergency room, leading to six-hour waits or longer. Another watchdog probe found unconscionable delays in processing lab tests at the center. In addition, three patients died under negligent circumstances, and the hospital failed to enforce accountability measures.

In Arizona, illegal aliens incurred health care costs totaling an estimated $700 million in 2009.

In Phoenix, at least 40 veterans died waiting for VA hospitals and clinics to treat them, while government officials created secret waiting lists to cook the books and deceive the public about deadly treatment delays.

At the University of California at Berkeley, UC President Janet Napolitano (former secretary of the Department of Homeland Security) has offered $5 million in financial aid to illegal alien students. Across the country, 16 states offer in-state tuition discounts for illegal aliens: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah and Washington. In addition, the Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education, the University of Hawaii Board of Regents and the University of Michigan Board of Regents all approved their own illegal alien tuition benefits.

In 2013, the nation's most selective colleges and universities had enrolled just 168 American veterans, down from 232 in 2011. Anti-war activists have waged war on military recruitment offices at elite campuses for years. The huge influx of illegal aliens in state universities is shrinking the number of state-subsidized slots for vets.

In 2013, the Obama Department of Homeland Security released 36,007 known, convicted criminal illegal aliens, according to the Center for Immigration Studies. The catch-and-release beneficiaries include thugs convicted of homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping, and thousands of drunk or drugged driving crimes.

The same Department of Homeland Security issued a report in 2009 that identified returning combat veterans as worrisome terrorist and criminal threats to America.

In Washington, Big Business and open-borders lobbyists are redoubling efforts to pass another massive illegal alien amnesty to flood the U.S. job market with low-wage labor.

Across the country, men and women in uniform returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan have higher jobless rates than the civilian population. The unemployment rate for new veterans has spiked to its worst levels, nearing 15 percent. For veterans ages 24 and under, the jobless rate is a whopping 29.1 percent, compared to 17.6 percent nationally for the age group.

A Forbes columnist reported last year that an Air Force veteran was told: "We don't hire your kind."

And last December, Democrats led the charge to reduce cost-of-living increases in military pensions -- while blocking GOP Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions' efforts to close a $4.2 billion loophole that allows illegal aliens to collect child tax credits from the IRS, even if they pay no taxes. The fraudulent payments to illegal aliens would have offset the cuts to veterans' benefits.

America: medical and welfare welcome mat to the rest of the world, while leavings its best and bravest veterans to languish in hospital lounges, die waiting for appointments, and compete for jobs and educational opportunities against illegal border-crossers, document fakers, visa violators and deportation evaders. Shame on us.

Action Alert: Support True Health Care Freedom in Ohio!

Remaining steadfast in our fight to free Ohio from the chains of Obamacare, the following is an important Update & Action Alert on the Health Care Compact (HB 227) efforts in Ohio.

The Health Care Compact was successfully voted out of the OH House State & Local Government Committee with a recommendation for passage on 4/2/14.

Yesterday we were informed by OH Rep. Wes Retherford, one of the lead co-sponsors of the Health Care Compact (HB 227), that he is hoping the Health Care Compact will be put to a full vote on the House Floor this coming week - possibly as early as this coming Tuesday (5/27/14).

While this is wonderful news, this leaves us with a short time frame to contact our OH Rep's to encourage their support for true health care freedom in Ohio with a yes vote on the Health Care Compact (HB 227). 

How You Can Help!

Please contact the below area GOP members in the OH House and ask they please support passage of the Health Care Compact.

Being this is Memorial Day weekend and they will not be returning to work until Tuesday, please leave a message on voice mail and/or click the given links to send an email.

Cuyahoga County --

Rep. Mike Dovilla

Phone: (614)466-4895

Email: Click Here

Rep. Nan Baker

Phone: (614)466-0961

Email: Click Here

Rep. Marlene Anielski

Phone: (614)644-6041

Email: Click Here

Note: Please thank Rep. Anielski for supporting the HCC as Vice-Chair on the State & Local Government Committee and encourage her continued support.

Medina County --

Rep. Dave Hall

Phone: (614)466-2994

Email: Click Here

Summit County --

Rep. Marilyn Slaby

Phone: (614)644-5085

Email: Click Here

Rep. Anthony DeVitis

Phone: (614)466-1790

Email: Click Here

For a county by county list of OH Rep's contact information, please click here. 

Please sign the petition in support of the Health Care Compact to show Ohio legislators you support true health care freedom in Ohio.  After you sign it please forward it your friends, family and social network.

Click Here To Sign Petition