Tuesday, May 21, 2013
by Ron Paul
May 21, 2013
“What do you expect when you target the President?” This is what an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agent allegedly said to the head of a conservative organization that was being audited after calling for the impeachment of then-President Clinton. Recent revelations that IRS agents gave “special scrutiny” to organizations opposed to the current administration’s policies suggest that many in the IRS still believe harassing the President’s opponents is part of their job.
As troubling as these recent reports are, it would be a grave mistake to think that IRS harassment of opponents of the incumbent President is a modern, or a partisan, phenomenon. As scholar Burton Folsom pointed out in his book New Deal or Raw Deal, IRS agents in the 1930s were essentially “hit squads” against opponents of the New Deal. It is well-known that the administrations of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson used the IRS to silence their critics. One of the articles of impeachment drawn up against Richard Nixon dealt with his use of the IRS to harass his political enemies. Allegations of IRS abuses were common during the Clinton administration, and just this week some of the current administration’s defenders recalled that antiwar and progressive groups alleged harassment by the IRS during the Bush presidency.
The bipartisan tradition of using the IRS as a tool to harass political opponents suggests that the problem is deeper than just a few “rogue” IRS agents – or even corruption within one, two, three or many administrations. Instead, the problem lies in the extraordinary power the tax system grants the IRS.
The IRS routinely obtains information about how we earn a living, what investments we make, what we spend on ourselves and our families, and even what charitable and religious organizations we support. Starting next year, the IRS will be collecting personally identifiable health insurance information in order to ensure we are complying with Obamacare’s mandates.
The current tax laws even give the IRS power to marginalize any educational, political, or even religious organizations whose goals, beliefs, and values are not favored by the current regime by denying those organizations “tax-free” status. This is the root of the latest scandal involving the IRS.
Considering the type of power the IRS excises over the American people, and the propensity of those who hold power to violate liberty, it is surprising we do not hear about more cases of politically-motivated IRS harassment. As the first US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall said, “The power to tax is the power to destroy” – and who better to destroy than one’s political enemies?
The US flourished for over 120 years without an income tax, and our liberty and prosperity will only benefit from getting rid of the current tax system. The federal government will get along just fine without its immoral claim on the fruits of our labor, particularly if the elimination of federal income taxes are accompanied by serious reduction in all areas of spending, starting with the military spending beloved by so many who claim to be opponents of high taxes and big government.
While it is important for Congress to investigate the most recent scandal and ensure all involved are held accountable, we cannot pretend that the problem is a few bad actors. The very purpose of the IRS is to transfer wealth from one group to another while violating our liberties in the process. Thus the only way Congress can protect our freedoms is to repeal the income tax and shutter the doors of the IRS once and for all.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Pat Robertson Tells A Woman Whose Husband Cheated On Her to Basically Get Over It, Forgive Your Master...Boys Will Be Boys
Great "Christian" advice from Pat "I lost my fucking mind 20 years ago" Robertson to A woman whose husband cheated on her: Stop focusing on the cheating
by Larry Simons
May 16, 2013
There are a few constants in life. Sunlight, rain, the beauty of the stars, the changing of the seasons and of course, Christian fucknut Pat Robertson's severe brain damage. I wish I was under contract to receive just twenty dollars every time this deranged whackjob said something stupid, thoughtless or irresponsible. I would own my own yacht and me and Bill Gates would be buddies.
On yesterday's telecast of The 700 Club, during its Bring It On segment, in which 150-year-old Robertson answers viewers' questions sent by email, they came to a question from a woman named "Ivy" who asked Robertson's advice on how she should handle her husband's infidelity.
"I've been trying to forgive my husband for cheating on me. We have gone to counseling, but I just can't seem to forgive, nor can I trust. How do you let go of the anger? How do you trust again? God says to forgive, but it's been so hard to do. I want to forgive, so we can get on with our lives."
Enter Robertson, who should win the award for worst advice ever given to a woman who's been cheated on. There are so many disturbing elements of his response, I have no idea where to begin.
Robertson's expert Christian advice? Are you ready?
"Alright, here's the secret. Stop talking about the cheating."
Really Pat? Robertson is telling a woman whose sole purpose in writing the email was to get advice on what to do about her husband's cheating. Robertson's brilliant answer for Ivy?: Forget about the very reason you emailed me, which is the very same reason your marriage is in jeopardy and the very reason you have gone to counseling. Just forget about it Ivy.
Is it possible for Robertson to utter anything worse? Of course it is. All it requires Robertson to do is keep moving his lips. Robertson continues:
"He cheated on you. Well, he's a man. OK. So, what you do is begin to focus on why you married him in the first place..."
Did it ever occur to this fossil that the reason this woman married her husband in the first place may have been because he seemed like he would be the kind of man who would NOT cheat on her and be faithful to her? Of course not. You see Pat, the possibility of infidelity is the very reason why "Ivy" did not marry OTHER men. You can't really blame Robertson for being the closest thing to an actual zombie that can be found anywhere on planet Earth. This guy has been studying the Bible for 50+ years. His brain cells are eroding faster than sandstone.
"[focus on] ..what he does good. Does he provide a home for you to live in? Does he provide food for you to eat? Does he provide clothes for you to wear? Is he nice to the children? Do you have a happy family? Does he take the kids to sporting events? Does he go out and watch their little league games? Does he share with you stuff that's going on? Is he handsome? Or is he, ya know, what is it?"
Not only does the entire aforementioned paragraph indicate that Robertson has completely ignored the whole issue of the husband's cheating [and hence the entire reason "Ivy" sent the email], but it is clear that Robertson is still living in the 1950's when women had to be the obedient little perfect wife who had to have dinner ready for her man every single night [to show her husband that she has been thinking of him all day and about his needs when he arrives home], be rested up so she could have enough energy to attend to her husband's every need, be freshened up and looking good when he walked in the door, had to make sure the house was tidy so he wouldn't have to step through a bunch of clutter, always had to be happy to see him and suppress any negative thoughts or bad moods if her day was personally a bad one, had to greet her husband with a warm smile, never get angry if he was late and never complain or tell him about any problems, be ready with a cold drink and a fresh pillow for his chair so he could rest his head, never ask him questions or question his judgement or integrity.
In other words, it's clear that Robertson is telling "Ivy" that her husband is the Master and that she should know her place.
Robertson is telling "Ivy" that, as long as the husband is paying the bills and taking care of the family's basic needs, he can screw any woman he wishes. It is not the woman's place to rock the boat and question her Master.
Robertson is also presupposing that the husband is the prime wage-earner and because of that fact, "Ivy" should be happy that she does not have to go out into the world and work a 9-5 job. She should shut her mouth, be content and thankful that her husband takes care of everything. To Robertson, "Ivy" has no right to complain to "Master".
The questions that blew me away in the aforementioned paragraph were, "Is he nice to the children? Do you have a happy family?" How nice is it for the children if Dad is screwing other women except for Mom? How is the family "happy" if the family unit is in jeopardy of possibly breaking apart?
"Does he share with you stuff that's going on? Is he handsome?" This made my jaw drop. What could possibly be "going on" that holds more importance than him cheating? What does the husbands good looks have to do with "Ivy's" concerns for her marriage? If her husband is nice looking, that's one of the things that is detrimental to the problem. If he was unattractive, he may not be cheating!
And still the fucknut continues:
"Start focusing on those things and essentially fall in love with him all over again. And I recommend you reach out and touch him. Touch his face, touch his face. Hold his hand. Look into his eyes. Talk to him."
That's the point Pat, you shribbled up, mindless twat. How can she fall in love with him again if he is fucking other women? "Touch his face"? What the fuck does that mean? "Hold his hand"? "Look into his eyes"? It is crystal clear what's going on here: Robertson is saying that the husband is the victim! The husband is the one that needs consoled. The husband is the one that needs to be understood. Can Robertson be any fucking nuttier than this? Answer: NO.
And still, there's more:
"But as you're praying 'Oh God, keep me not to hate him for what he did when he was with that stripper in that hotel room ten years ago and I'll never forgive him' kind of thing, please help me."
WTF? Who fucking said it was a stripper ten years ago Pat? Why would she send you an email in May of 2013 if the cheating happened in 2003? Regardless of when the cheating occurred, the point is, Pat, the cheating is still happening!
Robertson: "So, what are you focusing on? You're focusing on the thing that makes you mad. Stop that. Start focusing on the good stuff."
Translation: Ivy, your hubby pays the bills, takes care of you, plays with the children, he's good looking, he provides for you, buys you food and clothes, puts a roof over your head. Every once in awhile he likes to screw another woman. He has this one flaw. He does so much good. So, in order for you to be happy, just overlook it and don't question your Master. You owe him that for all the good he does.
Robertson: "He must have something good, you wouldn't have married him."
Yeah, Pat, one of those good attributes was the fact that he only wanted his wife, and that during the wedding ceremony, he vowed to be faithful to her. Now he has broken that vow, and what's your "expert" "Christian" advice?: "Ivy" should remind herself what good qualities she saw in her husband that made her marry him? Since the husband is the one cheating, shouldn't it be the husband's job to remind himself of "Ivy's" good qualities and for the husband to make amends? Not according to Robertson. After all, the husband is the victim!
Finally, Robertson comes to the entire point of this whole issue. He admits that the husband's cheating is "Ivy's" fault!
"So, think about those things and give him honor instead of trying to worry about it. But recognize, also, like it or not, males have a tendency to wander a little bit. And what you want to do is make the home so wonderful, that he doesn't want to wander."
Translation: Thank God you have him. Give him all the respect he deserves. Males make mistakes and it's not their fault. If you would have been a better wife and given him all the things he deserves, he never would have had a reason to go to someone else for it.
Yep, to Robertson it's Ivy's fault, because she was not the good little obedient 1950's servant wife.
So, the Christian message to all women whose husbands cheat on you: Be thankful you have a wonderful man who pays the bills, provides for all your needs and buys you food and clothes. Without him, you'd be nothing. He's your Master and you need to realize that males have a natural tendency to stray and fuck other women. If your husband does this, it has to be YOUR fault, because that is an indication that you are not doing your obedient wifely duties and satisfying your Master.
Fuck you, Pat Robertson.
If you must, watch him actually say this shit (starts at 1:55)
Oddly enough, in 2010, Robertson said almost the complete opposite thing to another woman email-er who asked almost the same question. The woman asks Robertson, "Is it my duty to stay with a man who is continually unfaithful?
Robertson's response to her?:
"I don't think so. Jesus gave an exception for divorce. God's not in favor of divorce, believe me. He's always in favor of rehabilitation and restitution. But if a guy is a serial philanderer, and his wife doesn't want to hang around, I don't think she's bound according to the scriptures. He's broken the vows, he's broken the union by his philandering, so if you feel inclined that you feel led to go, I don't think there's anything to stop you."
Well, except for Robertson's utterly unbelievable contradictory statements. In one case, the wife should obey and honor her Master after he cheats; in the other case, the wife is free to go because the husband cheated multiple times. Why is "Ivy" bound to her husband after he cheats, but the other woman [you addressed in 2010] free to leave?
Odd, I find nowhere in the Bible where it says anything about how often the sinful act must be committed for it to be wrong. Sin is sin. Committing it once is sin, and committing it 100 times is sin. The Bible does not differentiate between the two.
Only crazy Pat Robertson does.
watch Pat the nut say it's only OK for the wife to leave
her hubby if he's cheated multiple times
Monday, May 13, 2013
Christian Heavy Metal Singer [and Nut] Charged with A Crime That Would Make A Satanist's Jaw Drop: Hiring A Hit Man to Kill His Wife
Attorney for singer Tim Lambesis says his client was "set up". Was the set up before or after Lambesis gave the would-be hit man $1,000 in cash, photos of his wife, her address, codes to get through the security gates of her home, and a list of dates [of when to commit the crime] that would provide him an alibi? Hmmm.
by Larry Simons
May 13, 2013
In yet another incident to be included in the "Christians are fucking NUTS" file, Tim Lambesis, lead singer of the band As I Lay Dying, has been charged with an act that you might expect to be carried out by a Satanist, an atheist or anyone who watches Honey-boo-boo: Hiring a hit man to kill ones wife.
That's right. It does not get any nuttier than that, folks. But I have not lost hope in the Christian community. I have faith that it will get nuttier, and it will probably be sooner than later.
Apparently, it has been reported that Lambesis was arrested at a Barnes and Noble bookstore in San Diego on Tuesday after he tried to hire an undercover Sheriff's deputy to kill his estranged wife, Meggan Lambesis, whom he was married to for 8 years up until she filed for divorce in September.
Lambesis reportedly told an acquaintance at his gym that he wanted his wife killed. That acquaintance arranged for Lambesis to meet with an undercover Sheriff's deputy who went by the name "Red". As if this story couldn't get any nuttier, Lambesis' attorney, Anthony Salerno, is now saying his client was set up. How in the hell can you claim your client is set up if the douchebag hands the "hit man" $1,000 [for payment to commit the crime], a photo of his wife [so the hit man can kill the right person], the wife's address [so the hit man can arrive at the right house], codes to get through the security gates of her home and a list of dates that would be good times to commit the killing in order to give your client an alibi?
Salerno also said, "If I had to hang a tag on it, I'd call it a scumbag snitch set-up.." Yeah, Salerno, what a prick Lambesis' gym friend is for having the audacity to go to the police and "snitch" when someone tells him to find someone to take his wife out!
Salerno adds, "Law enforcement was fed something by someone who effectively orchestrated the whole thing ... He did not intend to harm anybody." I wonder if Salerno would feel the same way if his own wife plotted to kill him and it was "snitched" to cops and his death plot was foiled as a result? Do you think Salerno would be saying, "Yeah, well it's cool to still be alive and all, but we got to get that fucking snitch for intervening and stopping my assassination!"
"He did not intend to harm anybody"?? Hilarious. So, when Lambesis was actually telling the undercover cop to kill his wife by saying the words, "I want you to kill my wife and here's all the things you need to do it", Salerno wants us all to believe that Lambesis was actually saying, "Take my wife on a date"?
The judge set the bail at 3 million dollars and ordered Lambesis to surrender his passport, stay away from his wife and children and stay in San Diego county with the exception of meeting with his attorney.
As if it could not get any more unbelievable, Salerno also said this, "The band has a tour scheduled. There's many people who depend on him. If he can't go that would be to the detriment of many, many people."
Oh, fuck you Salerno. People depend on his ex-wife too, namely their children. How detrimental would it have been to his ex-wife's children, parents, siblings and friends if she was murdered and no longer around?
Lambesis has pleaded not guilty. Again, hilarious.
Maybe Lambesis is not solely to blame for this. After all, in many of the scriptures, killing is ordained by God for committing various offenses or holding certain titles. In fact, if the murder of Lambesis' wife would have actually been carried out, it would have been justified by God if the wife would have committed the following acts or held the following titles:
Ignoring a priest
"Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the Lord your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel."
Being a witch
"You should not let a sorceress live."
Being a homosexual
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
Being a fortune teller
"A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death."
Hitting her father
"Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death."
Cursing her parents
"If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness."
"All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense."
"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death."
"A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death."
Following other Religions
"Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed."
"If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst."
"Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the Lord your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the Lord your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death."
Being a nonbeliever
"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."
(2 Chronicles 15:12-13)
Being a false prophet
"If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through."
Being a citizen in a town where others worship other gods
"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the Lord will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The Lord your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him."
Not being a virgin on her wedding night
"But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst."
So you see, an insanity plea might be more fitting, since you have to be insane to worship a god who is this bloodthirsty to commit and order so much death to begin with.