Global warming has kicked tornado season off to a bloody start. At least twenty-four confirmed deaths and hundreds of injuries are the result of a tornado more than a mile wide that ripped through an area outside Oklahoma City, OK. But don’t be fooled into thinking that tornado season typically does bring with it death and destruction. You may be thinking, “It’s a giant funnel of wind and debris; of course it’s going to kill people, and of course some tornadoes are going to be bigger than others.” Wrong, you moron. Global warming. Ask a Democrat.

Take Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, for example, who thought this to be the most advantageous time to whip up and bring to the Senate floor a nice little school project of his in the form of a piece of cardboard his parents printed for him at Kinko’s. The cardboard bears the image of Earth from space, accompanied by the evangelizing words of Gaianism, “TIME TO WAKE UP.”

Whitehouse, a liberal, raised the issue under the pretext of—you ready?—fiscal conservatism. “When cyclones tear up Oklahoma and hurricanes swamp Alabama and wildfires scorch Texas, you come to us, the rest of the country, for billions of dollars to recover. And the damage that your polluters and deniers are doing doesn’t just hit Oklahoma and Alabama and Texas. It hits Rhode Island with floods and storms.”

He goes on to say, “I don’t want…an America suffering from grave economic and environmental and diplomatic damage because we failed, because we didn’t wake up and do our duty to our people, and because we didn’t lead the world. I do not want that future. But that’s where we’re headed. So I will keep reaching out and calling out, ever hopeful that you will wake up before it is too late.”

Good thing he brought his Kinko’s printout with him. (Seriously, what was it for? There wasn’t even a graph of forged data on it. What kind of effort is that? It was just a picture of Earth and a warning that he repeated in his stupid speech. Why did he waste the money to print that?)

Hey, I wonder if Whitehouse was the one behind my instant-oatmeal packet this morning having printed on it this trivia question: “What kind of gas is central in global warming?” (Answer on the back: Greenhouse.)

Wouldn’t it be really embarrassing to these Doomsday prophets of the left if one of their own teammates, back in 1975, published an article saying that, according to scientists, the surge in tornadoes back then was a direct result of global cooling? Why, yes, yes it would be embarrassing. That is, if liberals had any sense of shame.

The post A Convenient Crock: Oklahoma Tornadoes Caused By Global Warming AND Cooling appeared first on Political Outcast.

Vermont became the fourth state to legalize assisted suicide. Of course, they don’t call it that. And they don’t call it euthanasia either. They call it “death with dignity.” It’s hard to believe that people were actually cheering on the Vermont Governor as he signed the Death with Dignity Act into law. What about this is worthy of cheering?

Now, there are certain stipulations in the new law that place restrictions on who can and cannot receive “end-of-life” drugs to hasten their own demise:

“Under the bill, a qualifying patient must be at least 18 years old, a Vermont resident and suffering from an “incurable and irreversible disease,” with less than six months to live. Two physicians, including the prescribing doctor, must make that medical determination. The patient must also be told of other end-of-life services, ‘including palliative care, comfort care, hospice care, and pain control,’ according to the bill.”

But all those restrictions are subject to change. This bill is just their foot in the door. The 6-month stipulation might be amended later to be 1 year, or maybe they’ll scrap it altogether. Maybe eventually they’ll change the 2 physicians rule to 1 or only require the consent of the patient.

Just look at what the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) has become in the UK. It’s similar to hospice care in that doctors will place patients on it when they believe the patient’s death is imminent. But many in the UK such as Professor and neurologist Patrick Pullicino say that the LCP is being abused:

“There are around 450,000 deaths in Britain each year of people who are in hospital or under NHS care. Around 29 per cent – 130,000 – are of patients who were on the LCP. Professor Pullicino claimed that far too often elderly patients who could live longer are placed on the LCP and it had now become an ‘assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway.’ He cited ‘pressure on beds and difficulty with nursing confused or difficult-to-manage elderly patients’ as factors. Professor Pullicino revealed he had personally intervened to take a patient off the LCP who went on to be successfully treated.”

So the LCP kills off about 130,000 elderly people a year. And it’s done legally and with doctors’ consent. Is it really that far-fetched to imagine this sort of thing happening here? Especially with Obamacare and talk of death panels and rising healthcare costs. It seems that “death with dignity” will be quite useful in keeping costs down by eliminating the sick and elderly. Sure, for now it’s just four states, and there are stipulations with who can be granted their death wish. Give it a few years, and death panels will be out in the open giving their expert advice on who is worth treating and who isn’t. Or, “death with dignity” panels.

The post Vermont Legalizes Assisted Suicide: Death Panels? appeared first on Political Outcast.

“If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all” used to be good enough. Nope. Not anymore. In a new encyclical to Department of Justice employees intended to establish a better workplace environment for LGBT employees, supervisors are instructed, among other things:

DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.

That’s just one of many ridiculous DOs and DON’Ts included in what would be a hilarious document if it weren’t so disturbing. It is sprinkled with apparently real testimony from people of other perversions… I mean persuasions… who have been “persecuted” in the workplace. Consider this guy… er, girl… eh, I don’t know:

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.

Yes. That would be humiliating. Which is why I go to the bathroom appropriate to my actual gender. And if I suddenly decide to start wearing women’s clothes, take hormones, and talk in a higher-pitched voice, my present self is telling all of you right now that I do not consider it a kindness on your part to act like nothing is wrong with me. I mean, if I started pretending like I was a bird of paradise or a cup of water, I hope my loved ones would send me to the applicable specialist rather than act like everything were normal. What are we supposed to do? If I were a woman (and I consider this only for hypothetical purposes), I think I would be made very uncomfortable by the presence of a man in the women’s bathroom. Am I not allowed to feel uncomfortable in that case?

Forget “hate speech.” Apparently there is “hate silence” as well. This is ridiculous, and I’m sick of it. I can understand if they wanted you to keep your negative opinion to yourself. But now that’s not even good enough. LGBT bigotry makes the Gestapo and the KGB look mild in comparison. At least they might allow you silent disagreement if you didn’t make waves. But this closes in on Orwellian dimensions. They’re Thought Police and they know what you’re thinking…

But they don’t know what I’m thinking really. So let me explain it in universal terms. Say I’m walking by a burning house, and a man is standing in the living room about to be burned to death, so I go up to the window and yell, “You idiot! Get the hell out of the house before you burn to death!” And he says, “No. I’m doing this on purpose. Don’t judge me.” So then a group of people get together, and they decide that they all favor burning to death in living rooms, and they tell me, “We don’t want you telling any of us that we shouldn’t burn ourselves alive in living rooms, okay? This is just the way we are.” “Okay,” I say. “If that’s the way you want it, I can keep my mouth shut when I see one of you burning himself alive.” So I see one of them writhing in a self-started conflagration, and I honor his wish and keep walking even though I know I’ll regret later that I didn’t try harder to pull him from the flames. But then the Living Girl and Boy Torches reconvene: “We could tell when you were walking by in silence that you did not condone our behavior. Next time you walk by, you need to tell us you like what we’re doing. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”

Is that an exaggeration? Not in my mind. I think LGBT behavior is bad for individuals and bad for the human race. It’s self-destructive. And the majority of Americans agree with me actually. But we can’t say that without being hateful, apparently. Because it’s hateful, apparently, to try to stop someone from doing something self-destructive. But whatever. I can keep my opinion to myself. (Why are you all snickering?) But it’s gotten to the point where even that isn’t good enough. You literally have to adopt their opinion or you’re a bigot. That’s right. They’re so tolerant, you can’t even have your own private unspoken opinion without being called a pervophobe. So I’ve decided to speak to them about this in a way they will understand:

The post LGBT Bigotry: When Not Saying Anything is Saying Something appeared first on Political Outcast.

This past week the news of the IRS scandal seemed to override every other topic.  The IRS was caught purposely targeting at least 500 conservative groups who had applied for non-profit status.  They also targeted powerful and wealthy Republicans who donated to the Romney campaign by auditing them without proper cause.  There are also allegations that the IRS targeted at least 2 pro-life groups as well.

The IRS scandal erupted right in the height of the Benghazi scandal that is still on going.  Evidence collected so far implicates lies and cover ups by the White House, State Department and the Defense Department.  The similarities with President Nixon’s Watergate scandal has led a number of people to label this scandal as Benghazigate.

Let’s not forget that the Operation Fast and Furious scandal is also still ongoing and implicates top officials at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Justice Department and possibly the White House.

The fraudulent birth certificate scandal is also still alive and well in a case to be heard by the Alabama Supreme Court and Chief Justice Roy Moore.  Not only is there strong evidence that the official White House released birth certificates are fraudulent, but that Obama’s Selective Service Registration Card is also a fraud.  There is also suspicion concerning his Social Security Number.  His number is one that is assigned to Connecticut, but there is no evidence that Obama ever lived there when the number was issued.

If all of these scandals aren’t enough, let’s add another one to what I hope is Obama’s funeral pyre.  Not only was the IRS targeting conservatives and patriotic Americans, it appears that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was also targeting conservative groups.

In a statement released by Senators Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), David Vitter (R-LA) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the EPA is accused of treating conservative groups differently than how they treated liberal environmental groups:

“According to documents obtained by the Committees, EPA readily granted FOIA fee waivers for environmental allies, effectively subsidizing them, while denying fee waivers and making the FOIA process more difficult for states and conservative groups.”

The committee of legislators obtained information that indicated that since January 2012, 21 of 26 requests for Freedom of Information Act fee waivers from conservative groups were denied.  During the same period 75 of 82 FOIA fee waiver requests from environmental groups that shared many of the same agendas of the current administration were approved.  The committee addressed these disproportions saying:

“The startling disparity in treatment strongly suggests EPA’s actions are possibly part of a broader effort to collude with groups that share the agency’s political agenda and discriminate against states and conservative organizations.  This is a clear abuse of discretion.”

Sen. Vitter compared the EPA dealings with those of the IRS, saying:

“We know the Obama EPA has completely mismanaged FOIA, but granting fee waivers for their friends in the far-left environmental community, while simultaneously blocking conservative leaning groups from gaining access to information is really no different than the IRS disaster.”

Perhaps it’s time to start asking if there are any of Obama’s departments or agencies that are not involved in any illegal dealings.  It might be easier to count them than the growing list of those involved in the various scandals.

Obama came out of Chicago politics and the Chicago mayor’s office has a long history of corruption and illegal actions.  It seems he was well trained before usurping his presidential throne.

The post EPA Also Targeted Conservative Groups appeared first on Political Outcast.

The governor of Georgia has ordered that Bibles that were removed from lodges at government parks throughout the state be returned. Gov. Deal’s order prompted American Atheists, a group founded in 1963 by famed atheist Madeline Murray O’Hair,^[1] “to ship books on atheism to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources in hopes that they will be placed in every cabin in the state parks.”

At first, Georgia atheist Ed Buckner responded to the placement of the Bibles on State of Georgia property:

“Ed Buckner, 67, the former leader of the organization American Atheists, expressed his disapproval last month after finding a Gideon’s Bible in a cabin at one of the state parks. He said that he believed the Bibles violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution, which says that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.’”

Mr. Buckner has been trying to make his case against religion and government for years.^[2]

Mr. Buckner certainly knows by now since he’s heard it often enough from me and others that the First Amendment is a prohibition against what Congress can and can’t do not what states can and can’t do regarding religion:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion or prohibiting the Free exercise thereof. . . .”

The state of Georgia is not Congress.^[3]

In issuing his order to replace the Bibles, Gov. Deal said that “any group is free to donate literature” to the park service.

So the atheists are taking the governor up on his offer by sending Why I Am Not A Muslim by Ibn Warraq, Why I Am An Atheist by Madeline Murray O’Hair, God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens, and The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. For a response to Dawkins’ book see The Deluded Atheist and to Hitchens’ book see God Is: How Christianity Explains Everything, both by Douglas Wilson.

Whoever said that atheists aren’t religious? These books — bibles (“bible” is from the Greek word biblos and is translated as “book”) — are indicators that atheism is a faith that has its own set of scriptures. These books will present what each of the authors believes.

To show that this is the case, Richard Dawkins, one of the authors whose “bible” the atheists want to send to Gov. Deal, said, “[I]n the arena of science you can invoke Professor So-and-So’s study published in 2008, ‘you can actually cite chapter and verse.’”^[4]

An odd choice of words: “chapter and verse.”

Scientism and atheism are religions with their own inspired books and scientific authorities.

Instead of going after Bibles placed in lodging rooms, maybe these atheist groups should investigate how public library shelves are being stacked with pro-Muslim books and paid for by our tax dollars^[5] with nary a negative book in the bunch. Robert Spencer states that these books were chosen by “scholars [who] are disposed to obscure the links between Islam and terrorism.”

1. Her son, William J. Murray, denounced atheism in 1980 and became a born again Christian. He is now president of the Religious Freedom Coalition, based in Washington, D.C.
2. On the evening of May 24, 2006, American Vision sponsored a debate between Mr. Buckner and William J. Federer at the Christian Worldview Conference in Toccoca, Georgia. I serve as the president of American Vision and arranged the debate.
3. In the Georgia General Assembly Unannotated Code the following instructions are given to the state’s archivist: “Encourage the study of historical documents including but not limited to those which reflect our National Motto, the Declaration of Independence, the Ten Commandments, the Constitution of the United States, and such other nationally recognized documents which contributed to the history of the State of Georgia” (45-13-41).
4. Stanley Fish, “Citing Chapter and Verse: Which Scripture Is the Right One?, The New York Times (March 26, 2012).
5. the cost to taxpayers is about $950,000

The post Atheists Want Their Unbelieving ‘Bibles’ Placed Next to Gideon Bibles appeared first on Political Outcast.

First the AP was violated by the Justice Department infringing on their first amendment rights. Today, according to Fox News, it is learned that Fox reporter, James Rosen, has been accused by the FBI of being “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor, and/or co-conspirator.” That’s marginally better than the Justice Department’s more blunt contention. They are calling Mr. Rosen “a criminal co-conspirator.”

The investigation is said to be related to leaks of classified information involving North Korea . . . back in 2009. Surely it is just coincidental that this ruckus diverts attention from Obama’s own criminal transgressions. Isn’t it?

The assault is due to Mr. Rosen’s typical pursuits as a reporter. “Typical” in this sense means that he was merely doing what legions of reporters have done before him. And they were never prosecuted for it. The “leaker” in this case is reportedly a government adviser, Jin-Woo Kim.

According to The Washington Post, the case against James Rosen, Chief correspondent for Fox News “bears striking similarities to a sweeping leaks investigation disclosed last week in which federal investigators obtained records over two months of more than 20 telephone lines assigned to the Associated Press.” What a surprise. This infringement of first amendment rights has even attracted the anxious attention of the likes of Senator Marco Rubio. Fox News reports Senator Rubio was

“‘very concerned’ about the reports of ‘possible criminal prosecution for doing what appears to be normal news-gathering protected by the First Amendment.
The sort of reporting by James Rosen detailed in the report is the same sort of reporting that helped Mr. Rosen aggressively pursue questions about the Administration’s handling of Benghazi … we expect that … the investigations focus on the leakers within the government — not on media organizations that have First Amendment protections and serve vital function in our democracy.’

 “Yes. The same sort of normal news-gathering Mr. Rosen employed in his aggressive pursuit about “the Administration’s handling of Benghazi.”

 It is a fact that those providing the leaks are frequently pursued by the long arm of the law. But never the reporter to whom such information is given. Never. Such an attempt at prosecution of a reporter for acquiring facts has the potential of creating yet another Constitution-demolishing precedent under our Imperial President’s reign. Not that breaking a precedent has ever stopped this regime.

Constitutional infringements of rights by this regime are legion: Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the Second Amendment, to name a few. These exhibitions of domino-toppling have been met by the enthusiastic applause of Obama’s thuggish, leftist entourage. One of the strongest factions of which is the MSM media. Even now they attempt to circle the wagons around him. But Obama has trespassed on their sacred ground. His pursuit of Chicago-style vengeance takes no prisoners. Freedom of the press is supposed to be sacrosanct, isn’t it? Now the press has been taught differently.

Cherry picking may be fun for the MSM but not in the rain. Welcome, press, to the new day. And it isn’t sunny.

The post The Media Got Used by Obama and They Can’t Admit it appeared first on Political Outcast.

In D.C., no good deed goes unpunished. And conversely, evil deeds are routinely rewarded. They don’t call it the District of Corruption for nothing.

A 39-year-old man was facing jail time and a hefty fine on several counts of gun charges after he saved a neighborhood kid’s life by shooting at a few unleashed pit bulls that attacked the boy. Considering that he saved an 11-year-old boy’s life, prosecutors were merciful to him and decided not to get him on criminal gun charges. They instead opted to only charge him a $1,000 fine for being in possession of unregistered guns. The Washington Times recounted what happened:

 “The horrific incident that spawned the investigation occurred on a Sunday afternoon in late January as 11-year-old Jayeon Simon and his friend rode bicycles near Eighth and Sheridan streets Northwest in the Brightwood neighborhood. According to court records filed in D.C. Superior Court, three unleashed pit bulls pounced on Jayeon and attacked him. Seeing the attack, Mr. Srigley went inside his home to get his Ruger 9 mm pistol while several other men hopped over fences to get away from the dogs, court records state. From behind the wooden fence of his front lawn, Mr. Srigley began firing at the dogs. His shots attracted the attention of a Metropolitan Police Department officer on bicycle patrol nearby, and he also opened fire on the dogs, killing the other two.”

 So, if the man didn’t have any gun at all, the boy might not have survived the attack. The policeman only came over after he heard shots, so he may have not come over at all if Srigley didn’t have a gun to shoot.

Thankfully, the boy survived, but he endured injuries that will result in several scars over his body, and the boy’s family credits Mr. Srigley for saving his life.

Even though prosecutors acknowledge his good deed, “the law’s the law.” They agreed to “cut him a deal” where as long as he didn’t commit any other crimes in the next couple months, all they would require from the man is a $1,000 fine.

And of course, they had to confiscate his guns and his 100 rounds of ammo. In addition to his 9mm Ruger, he also had an antique M-1 rifle and a Mossburg 12-gauge shotgun, both of which were in a storage unit in D.C.

Srigley stated that when he lived in Virginia, his firearms were all legally purchased and registered, but that he hadn’t yet registered them in D.C. Prosecutors said he can have his guns back when he gets them registered in Maryland where he’s planning on moving.

I understand that things could have been worse. Prosecutors could have been really stupid and charged him for having unregistered guns and threw him in jail for a year. I’m glad they had some semblance of common sense. But they shouldn’t have done anything to the man except pat him on the back. And that’s something that’s not ever likely to happen in D.C., unless you’re a crook who’s been elected to find ways to steal wealth and rights from citizens.

The post D.C. Man Fined For Saving Boy’s Life appeared first on Political Outcast.

The other day I saw a 10-minute clip of Mitt Romney talking with Jay Leno on The Tonight Show, Romney as gracious as ever in leveling only the most cordial of critiques upon the Obama administration, and felt a pang of nostalgia for the days when I, and other conservatives who grew to respect him, had a real hope that our president could very possibly be so good a man as Romney. (I really do love him, my fellow conservatives, I confess.)

Adding to the nostalgia, in doing my daily reading of today’s news (thank you, RealClearPolitics, CNS, and Drudge), I came across a 2012-election fact that might not be news to anyone but me: while there are almost six times as many whites in this country as there are blacks, more blacks, as a percentage, voted in 2012 than did whites. To be specific, 66.2 percent of blacks voted, compared to 64.1 percent of whites. This, according to the US Census Bureau.

I read this and was shocked. Never before today have I felt so strong an urge to slap 36 percent of America’s white population. Vote, people! What’s the matter with you?

Now, of those 64 percent of white voters, only 59 percent pulled the lever for the white man (41 percent for Obama or another candidate), while 93 percent of blacks opted for the black man.

Remember all that pre-election poll analysis deducing that because polls were indicating Romney was going to win a majority of white voters, Romney’s voters were simply racist? The fact that most whites were going to vote for Romney meant that whites didn’t like Obama because he is black. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that fewer whites than blacks, as a percentage of their own race, are on welfare (5 percent of whites versus 29 percent of blacks). The analysts never suggested, or even wondered if, whites were smarter or more economically minded or less emotional than blacks. The “analysis” never went deeper than the immediate assumption, “Well, it’s just simply got to be about race.” And then the post-election polls confirmed the validity of the pre-election polls and the prescience of analysts: most whites did indeed vote for Romney, and most whites were indeed racists.

What it means that only 59 percent of white voters voted for Romney is that 41 percent of white voters are so racist that they either voted for Obama or a third-party candidate. Going back to 2008, there was a drop of 1.1 percentage points in the white vote that year, and in 2012 there was a 2-point drop in the white vote. Whites were so racist in those two elections that some of them didn’t even bother voting against the black guy; they just stayed home.

On the other hand, the black-voter turnout in 2012 was up by 1.5 percentage points compared to that of 2008, and in 2008 it was up by 4.7 compared to that of 2004.

Well, well, well! How do you like that? What do you suppose liberals would suggest if a white man’s candidacy, when running against a black candidate in two elections, caused white-voter turnout to jump by a total of 6.2 percentage points? The suggestion would be, correctly, that white voters suddenly increased because they wanted to show solidarity with their fellow white man, which solidarity would correctly be called racist. On the other hand, when black voters increase by a total of 6.2 percentage points in two consecutive elections in which a black man is a candidate, and, in those same elections, white voters decrease by a total of 3.1, it is, contrary to all rationality, suggested that, still, whites are the racists.

Finally, a brief aside: Jon Wiener at TheNation.com wrote a piece titled “The Bad News About White People: Romney Won the White Vote Almost Everywhere,” by which he means in every state except Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. This, posits the white Wiener, is evidence that white people did not “learn toleration and acceptance of racial difference after four years with a black president in the White House.” If whites are racist for securing the white vote for Romney in 46 states, then what are blacks for securing the black vote for Obama in all 50 states?

Ask liberals what their opinion is of Obama winning the black vote in every state, and their deeply penetrating intellect will lead them to answer, “Whites are racist no matter what.” It’s like asking a kid what he thinks of his zombie face paint, and his response being, “I like turtles.”

The post Whites Are Racist No Matter What, Or, I Like Turtles appeared first on Political Outcast.

Liberals like to remind us that there’s a “separation between church and state,” even though that’s not what the First Amendment says.

We’re repeatedly told that religion and politics do not mix and we can’t impose our morality on other people (unless you’re a liberal Democrat).

Like so much of liberalism, such restrictions are a one-way street. Prohibiting mixing religion and politics only applies to conservatives who hold religious views that are contrary to a liberal agenda.

The most recent example of using religion to promote a liberal cause was perpetrated by Vice President Joe Biden. Biden met with pastors, rabbis, and other religious leaders to join him and the president in a campaign to enact additional gun control legislation.

“Biden met for two-and-a-half hours . . . with more than a dozen leaders from various faith communities — Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh, to name a few. Both Biden and the faith leaders encouraged each other not to give up on what has been an arduous and thus far fruitless effort by Biden and President Barack Obama to pass new gun laws in the wake of December’s schoolhouse shooting in Connecticut. . . .

“The meeting closed with a meditation and a prayer for action.”

The ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation were nowhere to be found. Liberal religion is good for America.

Liberals are for religion as long as they can use it to promote liberal causes. For example, during a debate on increased embryo-research funding, Nancy Pelosi said, “Science is a gift of God to all of us, and science has taken us to a place that is biblical in its power to cure.” (Quoted in Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, “How the Democrats Got Religion,” TIME (July 12, 2007).)). We didn’t hear a peep from the New Atheist crowd.

Recently, Pelosi said, “I pray that Hillary Clinton decides to run for president of the United States.”

In 1994, Bill Clinton stumped for the former Democratic governor of New York, Mario Cuomo. “Rocking to resounding gospel strains, President Clinton went to a black church in the heart of Harlem . . . to rouse a vital constituency to turn out its vote for Gov. Mario M. Cuomo.”^[1]

An Associated Press report called the President’s actions “Bible-thumping politics.”^[2] Clinton’s message was decidedly religious and partisan, as was Governor’s Cuomo’s remarks as he “also cited religious themes and maxims.”^[3]

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said, “It’s a positive thing that Democrats are willing to talk about faith and values. But they are aligned with organizations that sue to stop kids from praying and block the Ten Commandments.”

As the latest series of Obama scandals demonstrate, liberals will do anything to win, even if it means appealing to God.

1. Todd S. Purdum, “At Harlem Church, Clinton Tells Cuomo to Keep Going,” New York Times (September 26, 1994).
2. Barry Schweid, “Clinton defends U.S. mission in Haiti,” Marietta Daily Journal (September 26, 1994), 2A.
3. Purdum, “At Harlem Church, Clinton Tells Cuomo to Keep Going.”

The post Separating Church and State Doesn’t Apply to Liberals appeared first on Political Outcast.

We have been presented with the opportunity of a lifetime and that’s not hyperbole.

To paraphrase David Axelrod: the government is so “vast” it’s impossible to know what’s going on.

That’s probably the only intelligent thing he has ever uttered.

Well, he’s absolutely right. It’s gotten so large and out-of-control that it requires storm trooper-like tactics to control the flow of the vast amount of money collected to run it.

Now we’ve learned that the collection department, the IRS, has been targeting groups that oppose the administration.

As an aside — if this scandal is what has surfaced, it’s a cinch there is much more that hasn’t. Just an observation.

Anyone who has been audited knows it may be the most stressful and painful experience this side of childbirth (or so I’ve heard). I thought the government was supposed to work for and be accountable to us, not the other way around.

So for this and a myriad of other reasons, the IRS should be abolished.

We on the right have been putting forth this tired refrain for decades, but there will never be a better chance than now to start advancing this notion.

We could learn a little from the left. “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Well, this is a crisis we must not squander.

But the government needs money to operate, you say. You might add that without the threat of IRS persecution (and I do mean persecution), no one would ever pay their taxes.

Nonsense. Other than the most rabid anti-government lunatics, virtually all citizens are willing to pay.

Most citizens just want the collection to be fair and transparent. The current system is neither (and that is deliberate). As Marco Rubio might say: “Let’s bring those who do not pay taxes ‘out of the shadows.’”

The only truly fair and transparent tax is the consumption tax, not the flat tax. Yes, a national sales tax, but let’s not call it that. People already dislike sales taxes.

We need a tax system where everybody has some skin in the game.

One can still cheat the flat tax system by hiding income. The consumption tax is fair and less apt to be corrupted. Black markets will only spring up if the rate is too high.

Of course the consumption tax would have to be an amendment, not just simply a law and takes the place of the 16th amendment, which would have to be repealed first.

The consumption tax is also the epitome of a free-market system. It is also, with few exceptions, the only purely an absolutely voluntary tax. If you don’t wish to pay the tax, don’t purchase the item or service.

It would also take care of those pesky nonprofit tax-free organizations. No one would be tax-free because everyone and every organization must purchase things.

And how much money could corporations and organizations save by simply closing up K Street and not having to beg and bribe Congress for tax breaks?

Simply put, the lefty wizards of smart have admitted that the government has become too large to manage. They have also admitted that they are a bunch of bungling incompetents. Of course they did so, figuring no one will demand change. I’m sure they think that in a couple of weeks the scandals will be forgotten. Let’s not let them forget.

The current tax system is tyranny and the IRS tyrannical. However impossible the task may sound, the time is now to end the tyranny. “Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered, yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph” — Thomas Paine, The Crisis (1776).

The post Never Let a Good Crisis Go to Waste: Abolish the IRS appeared first on Political Outcast.