The 15-acre neo-Ottoman empire inspired complex will have five buildings and a mosque capable of serving over 750 faithful Muslim worshipers. I have to give President Obama and his State Department some credit. The White House was correct in proclaiming that they had Islamists on the run. I just did not think they were beginning to run America.

Last week’s Islamist celebration ceremony was attended by Maryland Governor, Martin O’Malley who welcomed guests representing the “Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA),” the “Islamic Society of North America” and several other U.S. Muslim Brotherhood affiliates. Rumor has it that Governor O’Malley is considering a Presidential run in 2016.

President Obama was invited but between scandalapouza and tee off times, he was unable to attend.

Many Americans are unaware of an escalation of Turkish government programs to grow Islamist influence in North America. Not surprising, since any real reporting on the growth of Islamic cultural influence in America is commonly ignored by our liberal press. After all, why should progressive ideologues give a hoot about Islamist leadership in the United States? To them, mainstream Islamic leaders like INCA President Naeem Baig should be embraced regardless of ties to terror and Baig’s public comments like: “work in America is kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within” are out of context Islamaphobic misunderstandings.

Whether here or abroad Islamic cultural centers are not a model of civic multicultural charity. They only serve Muslims. Welcoming these stealth jihadists’ compounds financed by leaders that condemn both Israel and America, in my opinion, is at a minimum aiding seditious behavior.

Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan considers Islamic criticism akin to “a crime against humanity.” He has also publicly railed against Israel as a “fascist regime” and a “terrorist state, “but considers Hamas a “resistance group. “ It has been reported by Islamist-Watch.org that Erdogan’s AKP Party “desires to re-establish the Caliphate and unify the Middle East—and later the world—under Turkish Islamist rule and hegemony.”

Yeah, not a big deal. It is just another innocuous fancy Muslim cultural center. Nothing to be concerned about. Jihad and desires for a Global caliphate are not real. It is only a conspiracy theory.

Presently, the Turkish Fethullah Gulen School network, the “largest charter school network in America” is under investigation by the FBI. The Gulen School ideology has been a powerful force aiding in the conversion of Turkey’s former secular society into an Islamist dominated state. In other words, we have Jihadi Elementary, Intermediate and High Schools currently operating with US tax payer subsidies all over our country. The founder of this Turkish education and cultural abomination just happens to reside in Pennsylvania.

Since Prime Minister Erdogan took over Turkey in 2003, the peaceful culture of Islam has worked very hard to establish itself as a true purveyor of tolerance. According to the Clarion Project:

“College admissions have been changed to favor religious students, the military has been gutted of its secular generals (with one in five generals currently in prison on dubious charges) and women have been routed out of top government jobs. Honor killings in Turkey increased 1,400 percent between 2002 and 2009. Persecution of artists and journalists has become commonplace as opponents are charged with vague crimes like “denigrating Islam” and “denigrating the state.”

It would appear that our former Muslim allies in Turkey might not be so tolerant after all.

Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan is aggressively pursuing his pro-Islamist agenda within our borders and not much is being done to prevent foreign Islamists from strengthening their subversive activities. Our federal government is once again asleep at the wheel while future anti-American pro-Sharia influences work to radicalize Muslim youth. I wonder what historic calamity awaits America. Regardless, I am sure it will result in more unconstitutional infringement and privacy loss. After all, when it comes to terrorism, Washington rarely learns life’s lessons. To quote future Presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton “What difference does it make?”

The post Maryland Blessed With $100 Million Turkish Mega-Mosque appeared first on The Last Resistance.

Of course, because you’re a good person you immediately reply, “No, I don’t want to minimize my payments to the IRS. I want to send them more money than I have to.”

Does that sound right?

Thus Rand Paul spoke in front of his colleagues in the Senate:

“Tell me one of these politicians up here that doesn’t minimize their taxes. Tell me a chief financial officer that you would hire if he didn’t try to minimize your taxes legally. Tell me what Apple has done that is illegal.”

Did anyone have an answer for Senator Paul? Did anyone even bother to listen to his questions? He also pointed out that the US government has hurt the US economy, not Apple.

“I frankly think the Committee should apologize to Apple. I frankly think Congress should be on trial here for creating a bizarre and byzantine tax code that runs into the tens of thousands of pages, for creating a tax code that simply doesn’t compete with the rest of the world. This committee will admit: Apple has not broken any laws. Yet, they are forced into a show trial at the whims of politicians, when in fact; Congress should be on trial for chasing the profits of great American companies overseas. You haul before this committee one of America’s greatest success stories and you want applause?”

What is most disgusting to conservatives is that Rand Paul is not attacking Democrats or official “Liberals” when he speaks these words. He is defending Apple from a bipartisan Senate Committee, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee.

People act as if corporations are greedy to reduce their tax burden, but they never think of the government employees as greedy when they berate corporations for being greedy. The fact is that, since every corporation is trying to reduce its tax burden as much as legally possible, any corporation that does not do so is at a competitive disadvantage. They will not last in the marketplace. Furthermore, while corporations cannot afford the competitive disadvantage of paying more than they owe, they do not personally lose money by paying the taxes that every other corporation has to pay. Rather, they simply pass on that cost to consumers. Consumers are the ones who pay these corporate tax rates. And when Apple or another company reduces the amount of money they are required to pay the government, they are keeping prices lower for consumers.

The only real affect taxes have on the business world is not the rate, but the compliance costs of what Rand Paul called a “bizarre and byzantine tax code that runs into the tens of thousands of pages.” That complexity means corporations have to hire experts just to figure out how much they owe and to defend it with the tax authorities when questioned. Big companies that have been around awhile have a real advantage here over startups. Compliance costs consume a lower percentage of their resources than for a newer and smaller company.

If Congress wanted Apple to keep their money active in the United States, they could do so easily. Simply lower the corporate tax rate to zero. Taxing corporations is simply another tax on individual consumers that piles on top of sales tax and income tax.

The post American Champion Rand Paul Defends Apple From The Politics Of Plunder appeared first on The Last Resistance.

Bradlee is not only a contributor here at Freedom Outpost, but he is also the founder of You Can Run International (YCR), a ministry which not only takes to nationally syndicated radio six days a week, but also reaches out to the young people of America bringing them the history of America, the Constitution and pushing forth the law of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ. If you watch the video above, you will see that Dean made no calls for the execution of homosexuals, but merely pointed out that Muslims were looking to do so.

“I did not respond to MSNBC and Rachel Maddow’s assaults on my ministry without expecting opposition,” Dean said. “When you have MSNBC’s attorneys lobbying these judges, it is self-explanatory. I will leave it to the people to see the transparency of corruption on the behalf of this supposed judicial system. If the judicial system was doing its job, there would be no MSNBCs or Rachel Maddows. The judge knows all the well what MSNBC does on a daily basis. With a communist slogan like ‘lean forward,’ everyone should know that I am dealing with the very people that are trying to destroy our Republic.”

According to Dean, “I took it on the chin at first. But when I got death threats against my family, I knew I had to take action. So I filed a defamation lawsuit against her and MSNBC.”

The Superior Court Judge, Joan Zeldon, who threw out the case, ordered the plaintiffs in the case to pay $24,000 in legal fees for the defendant’s attorneys without any discover or hearing on exactly what those fees were for, according to Dean’s attorney Larry Klayman.

“We’re confident that the judge should have recused herself from the case, due to her bias and prejudice,” said Klayman. “The attorneys’ fees were unwarranted, and in any case inflated, and we are confident of our success on this appeal.”

“Rachel Maddow should not take any satisfaction,” Klayman said. “This is just round one. The case has not been adjudicated on its merits.”

He explained that “clearly, what they did was defamatory, and it put the life of Bradlee Dean and the lives of his family and colleagues in danger.”

Clearly the judge in the case has a bias against Dean and his ministry. As a result, an affidavit was filed with the Superior Court of the District of Columbia concerning the actions and statements of Judge Joan Zeldon, which read in part, “Recusal is required when judicial remarks create the appearance that the court’s impartiality may be called into question, and ‘could suggest, to an outside observer, such a ‘high degree of favoritism or antagonism’ to defendants’ position that ‘fair judgment is impossible.”

He added, “We have learned that Maddow’s lawyers are part of a large and powerful District of Columbia and New York-based law firm which donates to, or supports judges in many ways.”

WND reported on the case back in November:

The move to another court was a “tactical, strategic decision,” the ministry statement said.

“However, Judge Zeldon, who it became apparent had hoped to rule against Dean and YCR and in favor of Maddow and MSNBC given her leftist ideology, sought to punish plaintiffs and throw a monkey wrench into the voluntary dismissal of the case before her. Judge Zeldon ruled that the case before her could not be dismissed unless Dean and YCR paid over $24,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs to Maddow … claiming that the defendants attorneys should be compensated for the legal work they did in her case.”

When Dean challenged the payments, the judge said he was not even allowed to ask questions about the billings. Klayman said a hearing on such fees is routine, but the judge refused even that.

On top of this, the judge had the audacity to refer to Maddow’s attorneys as “distinguished,” while denigrating Dean, YCR and Mr. Klayman.

Dean, YCR and Klayman are now set to bring their case to Washington, D.C. next month. Dean says that his lawsuit is not about just defending his work as a preacher, musician and speaker to youth assemblies, but says, “I’m defending every conservative leader in America who boldly stands up for God’s country and the Constitution. Everyone who publicly stands for our Constitution, which our Founding Fathers and brave soldiers have fought, bled and died for. Whether it is from the pulpit, on the street, or in schools.”

While the Left is using a two-pronged approach, the IRS on one side harassing conservatives and Tea Party groups, and the liberal media attacking on the other. Should this case go down in defeat, it will be like blood in the water for the liberal media. We cannot let this happen.

Dean and his ministry have fought for well over a decade to get their message out to young and old alike. They need our support. It has already cost the ministry thousands of dollars in court fees to defend Constitutional principles, which the outcome will have long term effects upon us and our children.

If you would like to support the fight against the liberal media, you can do so by clicking here and contributing to the cause.

The post The IRS & The Liberal Media Set Their Sights On Same Groups appeared first on The Last Resistance.

Weakness is defined in many ways: an unwillingness to perform necessary duties in times of crisis; fear for one’s self preventing one from doing what is right; and betrayal of one’s own convictions when faced with a challenge. These are all signs of weakness. Our political world is full of weakness; politicians who are so afraid of losing their jobs that they will do and say anything to keep it; even when it violates their own moral compass. This behavior occurs on both sides of the aisle, for sure, but the Obama administration truly takes the cake, and eats it too.

The Obama administration continuously refuses to condemn Iran. When the Iranian Presidential election was clearly rigged; and thousands flooded the streets in protest, the Obama administration did nothing. They showed no signs of solidarity; and gave no indication as to what side on which they fell. When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes outrageous statements regarding Israel, or the Jews; Obama is nowhere to be heard.

Obama has continuously relied on “sanctions” that do absolutely nothing. A UN sanction is like a polite request in the eyes of tyrants. They pretend to do what we want, while secretly—and sometimes not so secretly—pursuing their agenda. Now this weakness; this lack of spine, is being shown again.

State Department representative Jan Psaki recently dodged question after question regarding Iran’s “no women” policy in their upcoming elections. Here is an excerpt of the Psaki interview:

QUESTION: Jen, can I change the subject? It would seem that in Iran the Guardians Council, which is vetting the candidates for the upcoming elections next month, have decided and have ruled that women cannot contest, they cannot stand as candidates. I wondered what the United States reaction is to that, considering that 50 person of the population in Iran is women – are women.

MS. PSAKI: Well, we don’t take positions on any candidates, as you know, and we hope that the upcoming elections will be free, fair, and transparent and will represent the will of the Iranian people. So we wouldn’t weight into decisions made by the government. Of course, broadly, we hope that women around the world participate in politics and elected office, but beyond that I don’t think I have anything specific for you.

QUESTION: Taking the word “fair” – if you’re being fair, it would seem to exclude 50 percent of the population from an election, would already mean that it is not a fair election.

MS. PSAKI: Well, we don’t weigh in on to the candidates and the candidates that are chosen through the process in Iran. Of course, of course, broadly speaking we do want women to participate in elections around the world and rise up in elected office.

QUESTION: Just not in Iran?

The interview goes on, with Psaki repeating the same talking points over and over again. Breaking down what was said, I have a few things to say:

1. Psaki alleges that the United States wants “free” and “fair” elections in Iran; then goes on to say that we should not have any involvement in their elections, even when Iran has chosen to eliminate 50% of the population form the candidate pool. That doesn’t sound so free and fair.

2. Psaki then says that she hopes that women around the world will get involved in politics; whether it be in elected office or simply by voting. If that is indeed what she wants, she is not addressing the issue at hand. She says she wants women involved, but when women are excluded, she raises no ire.

3. In response to both questions, she answers in almost an identical way, indicating a pure-planned response. This response, however, flies in the face of the “women’s rights” agenda of which the Left claims to be the champion. The Left only champions “women’s rights” when it benefits them.

Everything Psaki says is a lie. If she truly wanted to champion women’s rights, these are not the responses she would have given. If she cared anything about the women in Iran–who want to run for office, but are excluded–she would pursue a solution. Instead, she just evades the questions.

The Obama administration is intentionally impotent when it comes to foreign affairs. They don’t support Israel, they let Iran run wild, and they pour millions in aid money to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

There are two possible reasons for the incompetency, as I see it. One, the administration is afraid of radical Islam, and therefore is unwilling to do anything serious to oppose them. Two, the administration is in line with the ideals of the radicals in the Middle East, and don’t want to do anything to interfere with what is going on.

Either way, be it incompetence or compliance, this administration is making us weaker every day. They are making a mockery of what they supposedly stand for. Obama’s constant blathering about strong foreign policy, women’s rights, and terrorism is just smoke and mirrors. He cares nothing for women’s rights; what he cares for is his own power.

The cruelty and indifference of this administration springs from weakness, and greed.

The post Obama Administration Looks The Other Way When Iran Excludes Women From Political Office appeared first on The Last Resistance.

Nothing in the story questions that the sexual relationship constitutes statutory rape in the Florida legal code. Heterosexual pervert males have had to watch out for “jail bait” for decades in American legal culture. The disgusting phrase “barely legal” shows that they have had to make sure they skirted around the letter of the law. But now, suddenly, the entire legal framework of making parents the guardians of their children until a legal age is being attacked on the grounds that the relationship was homosexual and the parents of the alleged victim have religious convictions.

“Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt was arrested February 16 by the Indian River County Sheriff’s Office on two counts of lewd or lascivious battery on child. Her mother, Kelley Hunt Smith, explained on Facebook that Kaitlyn began a ‘mutual consenting’ relationship with a girl at Sebastian River High School who was about three years younger. The parents of the younger girl were upset by the situation and contacted police, she wrote. ‘They were out to destroy my daughter, they feel like my daughter “made” their daughter gay,’ Kaitlyn mother’s said. ‘They are bigoted, religious zeolites [sic] that see being gay as a sin and wrong, and they blame my daughter.’ The parents of the younger girl also pressured the Indian River County School Board into expelling Kaitlyn, she added. The teen is now attending an alternative school.”

So if you want to protect your son or daughter from an adult’s sexual advances, you must be a religious “zeolite.” Or perhaps a zealot to literate people.

Notice that, if this couple is as zealous (sorry, I mean zeolitic) as this woman claims, then they would certainly have done exactly the same thing if the girl had been seduced by an eighteen-year-old man. News flash to anti-religious bigots out there: you need to get your facts straight. In the majority of American religions, sex outside of marriage is a sin and no parent wants to see their (more or less?) fifteen year old daughter left as unprotected prey to any young adult who can lure her. If the school is not allowed to give the girl aspirin without parental approval, then a man can get parental consent before he does something a bit more drastic. The same goes for a woman.

As far as we can tell, the family is reacting to this woman’s seduction of their daughter exactly the same way they would react to a man seducing her. And they are asking of a law that is supposed to be applied in such cases to be applied to a woman who violates the law just like it would be applied to a man who violates the law. But their religious convictions against homo-sex are being treated as a reason to nullify the law and give this woman a free pass—Lesbian immunity.

We are currently in the middle of a pansexual legal revolution that will make every child fair game. The law will not allow parents to have anything to do with raising their children.

The post Media: Preying In Public School Should Be Legal appeared first on The Last Resistance.

Every day, political pundits bray about various issues. They all have well-rehearsed talking points to which they refer when they are caught off guard by a question. Whether or not the talking point are valid is another topic. Some are based in fact, and simply rehearsed for clarity; while others are based in circular logic and lies, and rehearsed because they are fantasies. Regardless, when a pundit is firmly entrenched in a particular belief, it is very unlikely that they will admit they are incorrect when new evidence comes to light.

Just as Tolstoy said, it is a rare thing indeed when a man finds the courage to change himself; realize that his former opinion may have been less than right; and admit that in front of other people. Of all the pundits that could change their opinion, I would never have guessed that Piers Morgan would be the one to do so.

On a recent episode of Tonight, Piers adjusted his position on government tyranny. Prior to now, Piers had mocked previous guests that had suggested that limiting the Second Amendment was setting a dangerous precedent. He would laugh, telling them—specifically Ben Shapiro—that our modern government isn’t capable of tyranny; that we should not be so paranoid. Now he has (slightly) changed his tune:

“I went off on some of the pro-gun lobbyists on here, saying to me: ‘Well, the reason we need to be armed is because of tyranny.’ [I would say] don’t be ridiculous; your own government won’t turn itself on you. But actually, when you look at this…this is vaguely tyrannical behavior by the American government. I think what the IRS did is bordering on tyrannical behavior. I think what the Department of Justice has done, actually, to the AP, is bordering on tyrannical.”

Up to this point, Piers foolishly believed that our government would never turn itself on us. He condescended toward gun rights activists, believing them to be paranoid. What Piers didn’t understand is that government, by its very nature, is always on the border of tyranny. We have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to ensure that we are protected from our government; to keep the scale from tipping in the wrong direction.

It is a common misbelief among Liberals that because of our position in time, we are entirely safe from tyranny. Many Liberals incorrectly believe that because we have seen what happened in Germany, Italy, and China; that because we have seen monsters like Hitler, Mussolini, and Mao; we could never fall into the trap of oppressive government. But history has seen a multitude of people fall under tyrannical governments. It would be presumptuous of us to think that because this is the year 2013, we are completely safe from oppression. Power still remains as beautiful a lure as it has ever been.

It’s unfortunate that it took a trifecta of major scandals to penetrate Piers Morgan’s thick skull; but as far as Liberals go, he is one of the densest. If even Piers Morgan can see that our government is bordering on tyrannical, maybe others can also change.

The possibility of tyranny will never change, but the peoples’ response to it can.

The post Even Piers Morgan Sees Potential Obama Tyranny! appeared first on The Last Resistance.

If anyone wishes to advocate for legislation or a candidate’s position, paying taxes, however distasteful, is not an infringement on first amendment freedoms. Ask yourself what harm would befall our nation if dark monies tax-free influence was removed from our electoral and public policy deliberations.

Corporations, Trade Unions, PACs and loosely termed “social welfare groups” have indisputable free speech rights. However, what entitles these groups to evade paying taxes? Simply stated, money. The politicians like their money and tax-exempt status for political allies translates to increases in campaign support. Anonymous campaign support.

The Obama Administration is corrupt and cares little for the public trust. The IRS has violated the law. Off with their heads. You will not hear me complain. However, if substantive changes to IRS and FEC law are not instituted this bi-partisan problem will never go away. Our government created this mess. They profit from it, they encourage it and Americans are victimized by it. Moreover, foreign interests—not so loyal to our Republic—have become very powerful shadow players in this not-for-profit campaign scheme.

Influence peddling is endemic in both political parties. At least until somebody is caught breaking the rules. Then government ethics suddenly become an issue. Of course someone needs to go to prison for these tactics. Law breaking is never “irrelevant. “ Naturally, Obama bears—whether or not he can plausibly deny involvement—ultimate responsibility for the actions of his entire Administration. Investigations that are far more serious should have taken place a long time ago.

It is 2013 and America has a poorly vetted community organizer pretending to run the country. Obama was elected twice with the help of well-designed dark money social welfare organizations and is currently operating his own tax-free 501(c) (4) “Organizing for Action” out of our White House. Obama spends more time running around, recruiting, and raising money for his tax-free influence peddling mill (OFA) then he has spent watching over his Administration. Personally, I wonder how long it took the IRS to approve his application for 501(c)(4) status. Did they ask him about his religious beliefs before granting him tax-exempt status?

Our US Congress is just as guilty at perpetuating this not-for-profit con game as the President. Frankly, Republicans—especially notable national figures John McCain and John Boehner—would rather you did not know just how much money and support their campaigns receive from shadow fundraisers given not-for-profit status. Would it surprise you to know that Boehner gets over 80% of his campaign contributions from outside his home state of Ohio? 501(c)(4) organizations play a very powerful role in our elected officials lives and careers. It is not exclusive to the Democrat political machine.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 13 0f the 21 organizations granted 501(c)(4) status during the last election cycle were conservative. It has been reported that these conservative not-for-profits outspent their liberal counterparts 34-1 during the 2010-2012 election cycle. No wonder the Obama IRS has been overly cautious about approving more of these conservative groups for not-for-profit status. It might also explain the true motive for Republican Party indignation. Oh well.

Americans should also know that operating a shadow money political not-for-profit under US law is being done without the benefit of official tax authority approval. It simply requires declaring your organization and reporting your political communication and issues add spending to the Federal Elections Commission, not the Internal Revenue Service. Karl Rove’s “Crossroads GPS“, a spinoff of the 527 “American Crossroads” is still waiting for its official not-for-profit designation by the IRS. However, they managed to spend 87.9 million of anonymous donor money on their preferred candidates since their birth in 2010.

Far too many powerful special interests have taken over our elections. New strategies and ingeniously designed schemes subvert campaign finance law only serve to perpetuate the corruption plaguing our government. No political speech should be given tax-exempt status. None. All politically connected contributions should be publicly disclosed. Republican or Democrat. All amounts.

Personally, I wonder how much tax revenue and election integrity America would acquire if we completely abolished these groups. Perhaps it is time that Washington insiders and our “bought and paid for” public servants started paying their fair share and playing by a different set of rules.

Executive Branch corruption is once again getting slapped around—at least for the time being—and politicians up for re-election are outraged over the one sided calls made in the last election cycles influence peddling game. The loyalties and intimidation tactics of campaign contribution referees—the IRS—are exposed and another D.C. street fight is breaking out between Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Like most conservatives, I am angry about the current IRS scandal. However, my anger amplifies when I recognized that once again our government is less concerned with overburdened taxpayers and a nation in jeopardy and more concerned about their campaign coffers and who controls the money.

The post Should Any Political Group Be Granted Tax-Exempt Status? appeared first on The Last Resistance.

Under the headline, “IRS targeting overlooked biggest players in outside political spending” CBS reported,

“Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS and the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity were among those that spent tens of millions of dollars on TV ads and get-out-the-vote efforts to help Republicans. Democrats were aided in similar fashion by Priorities USA, made up of former Barack Obama campaign aides, and American Bridge 21st Century Foundation, an opposition research group led by a former adviser to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. And yet those groups so far have escaped investigations into whether they have crossed the blurry line under the law between what constitutes a tax-exempt “social welfare” organization that is free from donor reporting requirements and a political committee subject to taxes and disclosures.”

First of all, the way this story if framed makes light of the real offense. A failure to harass an organization is not to “overlook” it. Rather, that is exactly what should happen in a free society. Organizations should have the right to not be harassed. The sin here is that the IRS didn’t overlook everyone.

Secondly, this is simply what always happens with government regulators. We saw it with the SEC when they made a showcase of jailing Martha Stewart while leaving Bernie Madoff alone. Big organizations have big law firms. Functionaries in the IRS may have nightmare powers over small groups in Iowa, but they know better than to start quizzing Karl Rove’s people on the content of their members’ prayers.

This is something the media never admits. They always act as if the system is reformable and they quote some advocate who has some law on hand that will fix everything. But the same people who work for Presidential administrations rotate into lobbying and law firms. People with connections to classmates in Yale and sitting judges are never going to be vulnerable to the same shakedowns that are inflicted on the little people.

CBS quotes Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democratic Senator, saying that, “Picking on the little guy is a pretty lousy thing to do.” The Democrat Senator from Rhode Island is “among a small Senate group pushing campaign finance reform measures that would force these big outside groups to disclose their donors.” But what exactly would that accomplish? Think of all the little guys who send money to the big organizations.  They would just be vulnerable to more harassment. By appealing to our sense of fairness, we are being misdirected from the most appropriate solution: don’t pick on anyone, big or little.

The only answer is to recover a society where how you spend your money is your own business, not one with even more prying into financial decisions. To get rid of the problem of corruption, the best solution is to reduce the scope of government so that it is no longer attractive to try to buy political favors.

The problem is big government, not a lack of spying on spending.

The post CBS Spins IRS Scandal To Advocate More Spying appeared first on The Last Resistance.

Aside from the fact that Michael Moore is a moron, this quote speaks to a necessary skill at which we all must be well versed: averting disorientation. Now, replace the name “George W. Bush” with “Barack Obama” and this quote is nicely re-imagined for the present. A few days ago, I wrote about the numerous scandals that the Obama administration is dealing with; and how the timing of their release to the public appears to be calculated to ensure the least damage.

Amid the flurry of questions and news reports about Benghazi, the IRS, and the AP document seizures, Obama has made himself an innocent child; unaware of anything bad that has ever happened during his time in office—EVER. Using his charm, and cunning, he has removed himself from the tangled web of scandal. Now, he is trying to remove himself even further by painting himself as the “Forward” guy.

According to CBS DC, while on a tour through Baltimore, President Obama said this:

“We’ve got to stay focused on our economy and putting people back to work and raising wages and bringing manufacturing back to the United States of America…That has to be what we’re thinking about every single day…Others may get distracted by chasing every fleeting issue that passes by…But the middle class will always be my No. 1 focus. Period. Your jobs, your families and your communities.”

1. We all know that the middle class is the farthest thing from Barack Obama’s mind. His true focus is to divide and conquer; pitting class against class.

2. This is the most thinly veiled attempt at a diversion I have ever seen. Calling a trio of serious scandals “fleeting issues” is a very poor choice of words, and a sign of desperation.

3. He uses the key word of “distraction” to minimize the scale of what is happening, and to malign those who are pursuing the truth. He wants the American people to feel bad that they are interested in the truth; he wants us to refocus on the economy, taking the heat off of the mess in his own backyard. It’s tactical in the most nefarious way.

Don’t allow Obama to manipulate with his words. Don’t allow him to get away with Benghazi, the IRS incident, or the AP seizure. He owes the American people the truth; and if he won’t give it to us willingly, we will have to force him to. Obama wants to move forward, leaving us and his burning wreckage behind.

It’s time we stop moving “forward,” and, for once, deal with what has happened in the past. We are owed the truth.

The post Obama Deflects; Calling Benghazi a “Fleeting Issue” appeared first on The Last Resistance.

According to Defense News:

“The Obama administration’s armed drone program, which reaches from Afghanistan to Pakistan to Yemen to Somalia, has prompted many Republican, Democratic and Independent senators to question whether the post-9/11 authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) resolution is outdated.”

The Senators think it is time to pass a new authorization. They are looking at the 2001 authorization as a legally binding agreement, for understandable reasons. But they may be confused. Because it now seems as if that authorization was not so much a law as much as it was something like the lightning that first animated Dr. Frankenstein’s monster. The Pentagon is off the table and ready to go where it wants and provide itself with anything else it needs. What it doesn’t want, is to give back any authority to Congress.

One senator wanted to know how the Pentagon could possibly be waging drone war on the Yemen on the basis of the 2001 document. Michael Sheehan, assistant defense secretary for special operations and low-intensity conflict, would not consent:

“Sheehan coolly replied that al-Qaida already had a foothold in Yemen in September 2001, saying that means the existing resolution covers any U.S. military or covert mission there.”

John McCain was not convinced by any of the Pentagon’s reasoning. He said,

“McCain said the 2001 resolution ‘clearly’ needs to be revised ‘because of the changing nature’ of the fight against al-Qaida. ‘It has spread throughout North Africa, throughout the Maghreb’ McCain told the DoD witnesses. ‘The situation’s changed dramatically… For you to come here and say, “We don’t need to change it,” I think, is disturbing.’ Sheehan told McCain Pentagon legal officials ‘have reviewed it’ and have determined the existing resolution is sufficient for the military’s needs.”

Amazingly, this means that McCain was in agreement with the independent Senator from Maine, Angus King. King accused the Pentagon of virtually re-writing the Constitution. It now says whatever they want it to say because they say so.

“A fiery McCain said he is worried the Pentagon wants to maintain the status quo because the 2001 AUMF gives the military ‘carte blanche’ to do anything it wants around the globe.”

He also expressed puzzlement on why the Pentagon was opposing the Senate giving the Armed Forces the actual authority to expand their war: “I’m not sure why you’d oppose a revision”—that is, an expansion.

I’ll tell you why, John: They think they are too good for you. The Pentagon is now a government unto itself with the President as its commander in chief. Going to Congress to get authorized to expand the war (as they have already illegally done) is beneath them.

How long does the Pentagon expect to keep going in this way? At least twenty more years. We are going to have a forever war.

The post Pentagon Authorizes Itself To Wage War appeared first on The Last Resistance.