Sunday, September 14, 2014


This is the stuff that proves that Liberals or Democrats have no problem spending other peoples money!

Senator Mary Landrieu's (D-LA) release on Friday of the findings from an internal report that admitted taxpayers paid $33,727 for chartered flights she took to campaign events between 2002 and 2014 has raised more questions than it answers.

The questions arise because the findings reported did not come in the form of a complete report of the type found in a standard accounting audit.
Instead, they consisted of a press statement from her campaign office, a two page letterfrom her attorney, Marc Elias of the law firm of Perkins Coie, and a spreadsheet that contained the dates of the flights in question, the amount they cost, and the number of political and campaign events conducted at each event. 
In the statement released on her campaign's website, Landrieu referred to the spreadsheet as "the full report." The spreadsheet, however, did not include the origin and destination of the flights, nor the location and details of the campaign and official events from each trip, making it impossible to check the veracity of those events.

The reliability of the findings was further compromised by the fact that Mr. Elias, who prepared the spreadsheet described by Landrieu as a "full report," is a highly partisan Democrat with extensive experience defending Democratic politicians in trouble. According to the Perkins Coie website, his "clients include the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic Governors Associations and numerous U.S. senators and representatives and their campaigns."
In addition, Elias "served as lead counsel for Senator Al Franken in the 2008 Minnesota Senate election recount and contest – the largest recount and contest in American history... [He] represented Senator Maria Cantwell in connection with her 2000 recount, Senator Harry Reid in connection with his 1998 recount, and served as a consultant to the Senate Rules Committee during its consideration of the 1996 Louisiana Senate election contest. In 2010 he successfully represented Senator Robert Menendez in the New Jersey Supreme Court case invalidating the application of state recall statutes to U.S. Senators."
The incomplete and partisan nature of the review conducted by Elias prompted Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus to call for an "independent review" of Landrieu's travel late Friday.
According to Landrieu's statement to the press, the report prepared by Elias concluded that she spent more than $510,000 on chartered air flights between 2002 and 2014. Of that amount, the report claims that $202,330 was exclusively for campaign-only events and was paid for by the Landrieu campaign. The remaining $298,883 was paid for "mixed purpose" flights--that is, flights that took Landrieu to multiple events in both an official and campaign capacity. 
Until September 2014, taxpayers paid for all $298,883 of these "mixed purpose" flights. The review by Elias, begun on August 16 and completed on September 12, suddenly discovered that Landrieu attended 136 campaign events on these 43 taxpayer-funded trips. Many of the campaign events were fundraisers.
Landrieu's attorneys then retroactively applied a very Landrieu-friendly formula to pro-rate the payments for these "mixed purpose" flights, and determined that, under that formula, Landrieu's campaign should have paid $33,727 of the $298,883 those flights cost, and her office, which actually paid the $298,883 at the time the flights were taken, should have only paid $265,156. On September 12, according to Elias, "Friends of Mary Landrieu, Inc. sent a check in that amount [$33,727] to the U.S. Department of the Treasury."
Landrieu's press statement and Elias' letter cited new rules established by the Federal Election Commission in 2002 as the basis for the Landrieu-friendly formula for pro-ration. A review of that FEC ruling, issued on February 6, 2002, and the associated lettersent to all members of the U.S. Senate by The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics, signed by Chairman Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) and Vice Chairman Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS) on February 14, 2002, paints a significantly different interpretation of the formula used by Landrieu's team to calculate the amount she should have paid.
More significantly, the 2002 letter sets forth a very clear set of legal and ethical standards for the handling of "mixed purpose" travel payments, which Landrieu brazenly violated for a dozen years. The Reid and Roberts letter began:
Dear Colleague: On February 6, 2002, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) clarified the scope of its travel allocation regulation concerning mixed purpose travel, i.e. a trip that involves stops for campaign as well as official activities . . . It is the Committee's understanding that as clarified the FEC regulation will allow expenses for a trip that is mixed purpose to be pro-rated between expenses of (i) official travel paid with Senate funds and (ii) campaign travel paid with campaign funds, to appropriately reflect the travel expenses associated with each purpose of the trip.
Under the Committee's rulings, expenses for such a mixed purpose trip may be pro-rated on a reasonable basis (i.e. proration should be based on an evaluation of the number, nature, length, and efforts dedicated to the various events) to accurately reflect the purposes of the trip.
But Reid and Roberts also gave Senators the choice of paying for "mixed purpose" trips entirely from their campaign or personal funds. "Alternatively," they wrote, "a Senator could use campaign or personal funds to pay for the entire cost of the trip."
In other words, Landrieu could have chosen to have her campaign pay all $298,833 spent by the taxpayers on the 43 "mixed purpose" trips her report says she took between 2002 and 2014, rather than the $33,727 her campaign reimbursed taxpayers this month after she had been caught red-handed violating this 2002 FEC regulation and 2002 Senate Ethics Committee ruling.
Given the incomplete nature of the "full report" offered by Landrieu to describe her "mixed purpose" charter flight expenditures, and the significant time lag between the expenditure of taxpayer funds to pay for these flights (as much as a dozen years for some flights), Landrieu's decision to pay only $37,727 of the $298,833 spent on these flights is likely to draw more criticism from her Republican opponents.
Reid and Roberts provided an illustrative example in their letter of the standard for pro-rating expenses for "mixed purpose" flights between campaigns and taxpayers. Significantly, the standard set forward in their later was not the standard used by Perkins Coie, who split costs for such flights based on the number of hours spent at campaign events versus the number of hours spent at official events.
The pro-ration standard, they wrote, should "accurately reflect the purposes of the travel." Reid and Roberts noted:
For example, if a Senator flies to a state for two campaign and two official events (1) absent something unusual in the character of the events, Ethics Committee rulings would permit the transportation to be equally divided between appropriated funds and campaign funds (if evaluation of the factors noted above so indicates, this equal division should be adjusted as necessary to accurately reflect the purposes of the travel), or (ii) the campaign or the Senator's funds may be used to pay for all of the transportation. As always, caution in the expenditure of official funds is advised.
Significantly, Reid and Roberts closed the letter by advising their Senate colleagues, including Landrieu "[i]f you have any questions about this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the Committee at 4-2981."
Breitbart News asked Senator Landrieu's office and campaign to comment on this story, but has not received a response.




So far this year, the federal government brought in more money than ever, but even at record tax receipts, the government is far outspending its intake.

During these first 11 months of fiscal year 2014, the feds brought in $2.66 trillion in tax receipts. Despite this, the federal government is still running a $598 billion deficit, according to the latest Monthly Treasury Statement.
CNSNews.com reports that individual income taxes totaling $1,233,274,000,000 formed the largest share of the government's revenue in the first 11 months of fiscal 2014:
The rest of the receipts came from corporation income taxes totaling $247,200,000,000, employment and general retirement (off-budget) totaling $674,338,000,000, employment and general retirement (on-budget) totaling $209,281,000,000, unemployment insurance totaling $54,591,000,000, other retirement receipts totaling $3,155,000,000, excise taxes totaling $73,051,000,000, estate and gift taxes totaling $17,702,000,000, customs duties totaling $30,902,000,000 and miscellaneous receipts totaling $119,933,000,000.
This intake of tax revenue is $134,705,540,000 more than the feds had brought in by this time last year.
Yet, even as the federal government brought in a record-high in revenue thus far for fiscal year  2014, it also spent approximately $3,252,611,000,000, overspending revenue by approximately $589,185,000,000.



I would invite him to run against Hillary if she is there. It would definitely take votes away from Hillary. Any one who votes for  a self Identified Socialist for President in this Country really has problems in their life. We currently have a closeted socialist right now and we can see what damage this Clown is doing to the security and economy.

The presidency as a private joke between the Obamas

Just a few minutes ago, I wondered in print if President and Mrs. Obama are, at heart, ironists of the first order, the Andy Kaufmans of the world stage. The presidency as put-on is a breathtaking bit of audacity, at first inconceivable to anyone who takes seriously the gravity of the responsibilities inherent in the office.
But it is not truly inconceivable that the former leader of the Choom Gang could have carried with him a fundamentally ironic (and solipsistic) view of the world. Stoners often retreat into irony and denial of the seriousness of matters when events conspire against them.
After I posted the earlier piece asking the question, Lucianne Goldberg sent me a picture of the First Lady’s outfit worn at the hyper-ironic commemoration of 911 she chose to attend. I consider it, with its evocation of Robin Hood robbing-from-rich-to-give-to-the-poor and its in-your-face defiance of those who criticize her efforts to regulate what schoolchildren eat in the name of combatting obesity, strong evidence that the First Couple are having a lot of laughs at our expense. Nobody has taste this bad.


It’s Not Hard to Understand Why Durbin Thinks IRS Officials Needs Criminal Protection

Sen. Dick Durbin has consistently shown his affinity for the Internal Revenue Service. As we’ve laid out earlier, he has cozied up quite well with disgraced IRS executive Lois Lerner, using her to defeat his opponent, used the taxing body to go after his political foes, and even receives financial support from employees. It turns out, though, that this IRS alliance has a history dating back to the Clinton Administration.
IRS In 1998, when Congress was debating a restructuring plan to root out the corruption and problems plaguing the nation’s tax collector, then-Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee proposed removing the exemption from criminal ethics rules for IRS employees, among others, who serve on the oversight board. Take a wild guess how Durbin voted.
You already know that Durbin voted against the Thompson Amendment so he could protect his soon-to-be buddies at the IRS from criminal prosecution. Now, 16 years later, we have the IRS chasing after conservative groups at Durbin’s whim and the IRS Commissioner saying “Wherever we can, we follow the law.”
Just more proof the American People could benefit from Dumping Durbin this year.
- See more at: http://dumpdurbin.org/?p=133#sthash.5Sx3cEBz.dpuf

Saturday, September 13, 2014

Reported White House, Latino Lawmaker Meeting Fuels Amnesty Fears

If we listen to this he brings up a good point. Just like this Idiot we have running Illinois, they are going to pass some type amnesty AFTER the Midterms! Why? Piss people off even more and their whining Idiots are worried that they will lose their "Job" by getting voted out. So they will screw the American People and do amnesty after the election, just like Quinn wants to make the Temporary Tax hike permanent  after the election because no one has to worry about an election. Wake up People! They are not governing for the good of the country. Its about Power and Money!


Nancy Pelosi and the end of civilization as we know it

Caution; Liberal stupidity on display here again!

Lowest workforce since ww2

Inflation on the rise

Our border security is pathetic right now

Middle class is shrinking

And this Douchbag things will get worse??? She is NUTS!

This Liberal "Regime" is the Most Corrupt we have seen.

Just to name a few.......

The Yahoo News headline begins:  “Nancy Pelosi: Civilization ‘In Jeopardy’”
I held my breath and thought, could it be? Is Pelosi actually going to say something sane about the threat of ISIS, or even (gasp) jihad?
But, of course, it was not to be as I finished reading: “Nancy Pelosi: Civilization ‘In Jeopardy’ if GOP Takes Senate”
I know the woman is a loon, but it’s still quite shocking to bump up against her lunacy.
Anyway, she was speaking with Bill Maher. (What a pair, right?)
When asked why he should care if the GOP wins the Senate in November, Pelosi had this to say (while smiling broadly, which is the facial mask of progressives no matter what the topic and even if they haven’t had 1,000 years worth of plastic surgery):  “Civilization as we know it today would be in jeopardy.”
Wow! That’s like the war on women on steroids. Now the GOP is a threat to all of civilization?
Pelosi went on to say that 50% of Americans don’t even know there are mid-term elections and how that needs to change. In the next breath, she said that “people are very wise.” Maher asked her how it could be that half the country doesn’t realize there are mid-term elections and be very wise at the same time.
They both laughed it off. (Like I said, laughing is a progressive specialty, particularly when things get awkward.)
Speaking about the economy, Pelosi had this to say: “We are not fear mongers. The Democrats are messengers of hope.”
Speaking about ISIS, it was hard to determine which of this pair was more idiotic, but here’s one more Pelosi gem: “I think war is not a way to resolve conflict…It only begets more war.”
Hey, I have an idea. Can someone send a tweet to ISIS that says: Wage peace. I think that might do the trick.