*VIDEOS* IRS Targeting Of Conservatives: Entire House Oversight & Government Reform Committee Hearing – 05/22/13

…………………….Click on image above to watch video.

.
Via C-SPAN

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Excerpt:

.

.

Scandalpalooza! Your Daley Gator Benghazi-gate Document Dump

………….

• State Department Leaking False Information To Smear Whistleblower Gregory Hicks
• Ex-Diplomats: Stevens’ Benghazi Mission Was To Buy Back Missiles Issued To Terrorists By State Department
• Benghazi Bombshell: CIA Warned Of Impending Jihadist Attack
• White House: ‘Irrelevant Fact’ Where Obama Was During Benghazi
• President Asshat Caught In Yet Another Benghazi-gate Lie
• Benghazi’s Smoking Guns (Jonah Goldberg)
• Washington Post Factchecker Destroys Obama’s Claim He Called Libya ‘Terrorism’
• Ben Rhodes: Obama’s Fixer Behind The Benghazi Cover-Up
• Geraldo: My Sources Tell Me They Were In Benghazi To Round Up Missiles To Send To Syrian Rebels Via Turkey
• *VIDEO* Judge Jeanine Pirro Verbally Bitchslaps Obama Regime Over Benghazi Lies
• The Benghazi Scandal Grows (Stephen Hayes)
• Top GOP Senator Says Obama Could Be Impeached Over ‘Most Egregious Cover-Up In American History’
• Top Obama Official’s Brother Is President Of CBS News, May Drop Reporter Over Benghazi Coverage
• *VIDEO* Benghazi Calling – By Edward L. Daley
• House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman: More Benghazi Hearings Coming
• Benghazi Talking Points Changed 12 Times By Obama Regime, Scrubbed Of Terror References
• Blow-By-Blow: How Obama & Hillary Left Americans To Die (Arnold Ahlert)
• *AUDIO* Mark Levin Berates Obama Lackeys In The News Media Over Their Lack Of Benghazi Coverage
• Obama Used Taxpayer Money In Benghazi Cover-Up (Video)
• 7 Things We Learned From The Benghazi Whistleblower Hearing
• Benghazi Continues: Hillary De Medici (Roger L. Simon)
• *VIDEO* Complete Benghazi Whistleblower Hearing
• *VIDEO* Everything You Need To Know About Benghazi
• *VIDEO* Mother Of Benghazi Victim: I Blame Hillary
• Thanks Barack… Terrorist Group Linked To 9/11 Benghazi Attack Operates Freely In City
• Hillary Clinton Sought End-Run Around Counterterrorism Bureau On Night Of Benghazi Attack
• How Obama Betrayed America (David Horowitz)
• Benghazi Whistleblower Says U.S. Has Identified Terrorist Behind 9/11 Attack But Refuses To Capture Him
• *VIDEO* Lawyer For Benghazi Whistleblower: Obama State Department Breaking Federal Law
• Obama On Benghazi Whistleblowers Scandal: I Know Nothing… Nothing!
• Benghazi Whistleblower Says Obama Regime Is Lying, Multiple Assets Could Have Been Used To Save Our People
• Obama State Department Blocking Lawyers From Representing Benghazi Whistleblowers (Audio)
• Congressman Gowdy: Explosive Benghazi Hearings Coming (Video)
• Benghazigate Congressional Report: Obama Inc. Lied About Video, Hillary Knew About Inadequate Security
• *VIDEO* Benghazi: Unaware, Unresponsive, Unaccountable – OPSEC
• 700 Retired Military Special Ops Tell Congress To Form Select Committee On Benghazi
• Benghazi’s Silenced Witnesses Hidden In Plain Sight?
• Obama Regime’s Benghazi Cover-Up Continues
• *VIDEO* Afterburner With Bill Whittle: What Difference Does It Make?
• *VIDEO* Rush Limbaugh: Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Testimony Was “Flat Out Bullshit”
• *VIDEOS* Republican Lawmakers Grill Secretary Of State Clinton During Benghazi Hearing
• *VIDEO* Congressman Duncan Lays Into Secretary Of State Clinton During Benghazi Hearing
• *VIDEOS* Senators Paul And McCain Slam Secretary Of State Clinton During Benghazi Hearing
• Benghazi Terrorists, Skating Free
• Senate Republicans Refuse To Confirm Kerry Until Hillary Testifies About Benghazi
• *VIDEO* Glenn Beck: Obama May Go To Prison For Arming America’s Enemies, Cover-Up Of Treason
• Hillary Clinton’s Head Fake
• BenghaziGate: Obama Regime Knew Libyan Terrorists Had US-Provided Weapons
• *VIDEO* John Bolton: Susan Rice’s Meeting With GOP Senators A Disaster For Her
• Another Laughable Benghazi Lie
• Krauthammer: White House ‘Held Affair Over Petraeus’s Head’ For Favorable Testimony On Benghazi
• Report: Petraeus Agrees To Testify Before Congressional Committees About Libya Attacks
• *VIDEO* Lt. Col. Ralph Peters On Petraeus Resignation: “Timing Is Just Too Perfect”
• Proof: Obama Refused To Call Benghazi ‘Terror,’ CBS Covered Up (Video)
• Criminal Negligence: Benghazi Gave 1-Month Warning
• Benghazi Blunder: Obama Unworthy Commander-In-Chief
• Congress Wants Answers On Newly Found Benghazi Documents
• Benghazi Culpability: Walls Closing In On Administration
• ABC And CBS Ignore Their Own Reporters As Benghazi Blackout Reaches 7 Days
• Scandal Deepens With New Benghazi Documents: At A Minimum, Hillary Clinton Must Go
• Report: Obama Never Convened Counterterrorism Task Force During Benghazi Attack
• Documents: Consulate Warned Of ‘No Police Support’
• Obama ‘Has Not Participated In The Investigation’ Of Benghazi
• *VIDEO* Security Insider Explains What Happens In Intelligence, Military & Diplomatic Communities During Consulate Attacks
• Retired Lt. Col.: My Sources Say Obama Was In The Room Watching Benghazi Attack Happen (Video)
• Top AFRICOM Commander General Carter Ham Was Never Ordered To Save U.S. Men In Benghazi (Video)
• Early Briefings On Benghazi Focused On Al Qaeda, Not Video
• If Reelected, Obama Should Be Impeached Over Benghazi (Roger L. Simon)
• Father Of Fallen Benghazi SEAL: Obama Regime Sat And Watched, Did Nothing While My Son Died (Videos)
• *VIDEO* Benghazi-gate: Obama’s Lying Cronies
• Emails: White House Told Two Hours Into Benghazi Attack That Islamic Terrorist Group Claimed Responsibility
• Obama Camp: Benghazi Attack Was Not A ‘Foreign Policy Failure’ (Video)
• Former CIA Officials Say No Way WH Didn’t Know Benghazi Was A Terrorist Attack, Even During The Attack (Video)
• *VIDEO* Special Report With Bret Baier: ‘Death And Deceit In Benghazi’
• ‘My Son Is Not Very Optimal, He Is Very Dead’: Mother Of Diplomat Killed In Benghazi Attack Slams Obama’s Comment On Raid
• Obama On Benghazi Attack: ‘If Four Americans Get Killed, It’s Not Optimal’ (Video)
• Obama Regime Used Unarmed Guards At Benghazi Consulate Despite Previous Terror Attacks
• Obama Regime Didn’t Reach Benghazi For 17 Days Because They Were Waiting On Visas
• Stunning Incompetence: Up To 20,000 Shoulder-Fired, Surface-To-Air Missiles Are Missing In Libya
• Rep. Trey Gowdy Explodes At Libya Hearing: ‘I Want To Know Why We Were Lied To’ (Videos)
• *VIDEO* Mother Of Benghazi Victim Angry At Being Stonewalled By Obama Regime
• *VIDEO* Ex-Benghazi Security Officer Frustrated By Cuts In Security
• *VIDEO* American Crossroads: “Intelligence”
• There Was No Protest Outside Libyan Consulate; Everything The Obama Regime Told Us Was A Lie
• Intelligence Officials Angered By Obama Regime Cover-Up Of Intelligence On Iranian, Al Qaeda Surge In Egypt And Libya
• President Asshat Rejected Military Intervention In Benghazi DURING The Attack
• Reuters: “Within Hours” Obama Admin Had A Dozen Intel Reports Al-Qaeda Behind Benghazi Attack
• Obama Regime Ignored Requests For Increased Security In Libya Prior To 9/11 Anniversary Attack
• Report: FBI Still Hasn’t Arrived In Benghazi To Begin Investigation Into Consulate Attack
• The White House’s Scandalous Lies About Libya (Stephen Hayes)
• The World Burns: Will The GOP Investigate?
• Suspected Killer Of U.S. Ambassador Was Leader Of U.S.-Backed Libyan Rebel Forces And Former Gitmo Detainee
• Rodeo Clown Media Frantically Distract From Obama’s Foreign Policy Disaster
• U.S. Intelligence: Benghazi Attack Wasn’t Spontaneous
• Video Proof Of Obama’s Embassy Attack Lies… (Warning: Graphic Content)
• No Protest Before Benghazi Attack, Wounded Libyan Guard Says
• *VIDEO* Rep. Allen West Calls Ambassador Rice ‘Asinine, Naive, Inept, Incompetent And Borderline Ignorant’
• Al-Qaeda Says Attack On U.S. Consulate In Benghazi “Revenge” For Recent Drone Killing Of Abu Yahya Al-Libi
• Despite Four Previous Benghazi Attacks, State Department Refused Even “Standard Security” At Consulate (Video)
• Why Barack Obama Should Resign
• Former Secret Service Agent Says Obama Administration Has Shown ‘Sheer Incompetence’ In Handling Libya Attack (Video)
• Press Endangers Private Citizen To Hide Obama’s Middle East Failures
• *AUDIO* Mark Steyn: Every American Should Be Ashamed Of Buffoon Obama
• Obama State Department Ignored Warnings About U.S. Embassy Attack In Libya
• Leftist Media Wrong Again: Looks Like The Libyan Consulate Attack Wasn’t About Some YouTube Video After All
• UPenn Professor Doubles Down, Writes USA Today Op-Ed Calling For Arrest Of Mohammed Movie Filmmakers
• GOP Congressman Louie Gohmert Hammers Obama In Scathing House Floor Speech (Video)
• Obama Calls Libyan President To Thank Him For Support After U.S. Ambassador Murdered (Video)
• Romney Is Right: In Embassy Incidents, Obama Administration’s First Instinct Was To Sympathize With Attackers
• Romney: U.S. Response To Consulate Attack In Libya Disgraceful
• Radical Islamists Chant “We Are All Osama!” At U.S. Embassy In Egypt On 9-11
• Obama State Department: Egypt Attack Doesn’t Necessarily Reflect Growing Anti-American Sentiment
• Former Deputy National Security Adviser: U.S. Response To Embassy Attack ‘Bizarre And Unacceptable’
• Obama Camp Condemns Romney Before Condemning Attacks In Egypt, Libya
• MSNBC Panel Actually Debates If DOJ Should Prosecute Anti-Islam Pastor Terry Jones For Libya Deaths
• House Conservatives Call For Stripping Aid To Libya, Egypt From Spending Bill Following Attacks Ob U.S. Embassies
• Corrupt News Media Caught On Tape Conspiring Against Romney Over Embassy Attack Response
• *VIDEO* Mitt Romney Remarks And Q&A On Libya And Egypt Embassy Attacks
• After U.S. Consulate Torched And Ambassador Murdered, President Asshat Delivers A ‘Strongly Worded’ Speech
• *VIDEO* Raw Footage: Consulate In Benghazi On Fire, Ambassador To Libya Reported Killed

.

*PICTURES* Tea Party Patriots: Nationwide IRS Protests – 05/21/13

WASHINGTON, D.C.



.
ATLANTA, GA



.
CINCINNATI, OH




.
NASHVILLE, TN



.
ORLANDO, FL


.
ST. LOUIS, MO




.
MYRTLE BEACH, S.C.



.
CHICAGO, IL


.
ALBUQUERQUE, NM


.
HOUSTON, TX


.
TAMPA BAY, FL


.
DENVER, CO


.
EVANSVILLE, IN

.
CHARLOTTE, NC

.
TACOMA, WA

.
BOSTON, MA

.
ROCKFORD, IL

.
SANTA ANA, CA

….MORE IMAGES TO BE POSTED AS THEY BECOME AVAILABLE

.

*VIDEO* IRS Targeting Of Conservatives: Complete Senate Finance Committee Hearing – 05/21/13

…………………….Click on image above to watch video.

.
Via C-SPAN

.

Arpaio Cold Case Posse Chief Investigator: Affidavit – Obama Document Forgery Case (AL Supreme Court)

Case No. 1120465

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

HUGH MCINNISH, et al.,

Appellants

v. BETH CHAPMAN, SECRETARY OF STATE, et al.

Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY

CV 2012-1053

AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL ZULLO

L. Dean Johnson
L. DEAN JOHNSON, P.C.
4030 Balmoral Dr., Suite B
Huntsville, AL 35801
Tel: (256) 880-5177

Larry Klayman
KLAYMAN LAW FIRM
2020 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20006
Tel: (310) 595-0800

Attorneys for Appellants

1.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL ZULLO

My name is Michael Zullo, I am a citizen over 18 years of age and a resident of Arizona. The information contained in the affidavit is based on my personal knowledge and if called as a witness, I could testify completely thereto. I am a former sworn law enforcement office/criminal investigator and currently appointed by the elected Sheriff of Maricopa County, Joseph M. Arpaio as the commander of his Cold Case Posse and serving in this capacity as the chief investigator commissioned to investigate the allegations brought to his attention that President Obama’s identity documents were forged. I hereby swear, to the best of my knowledge and belief, as follows:

1. In August 2011, some 250 citizens of Maricopa County, Arizona, petitioned Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio to investigate allegations that President Obama’s identity documents were forged. They further alleged that by endorsing the forgeries, Mr. Obama had raised questions about his constitutional eligibility to hold the office of President.

2. The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is an Arizona State Certified Law Enforcement Agency, Headquartered in Phoenix Arizona. Maricopa County is the fourth largest county in the United States, and has a total area of 9,224 square miles. And has a population of over four million. Deputy Sheriffs of the MCSO are delegated their law enforcement authority by the Maricopa County Sheriff.

2.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

3. Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio became Sheriff in 1992 and has been reelected to an unprecedented sixth term in office. He began his career as a federal narcotics agent infiltrating drug organizations from Turkey to the Middle East to Mexico, Central, and South America to cities around the U.S.

4. His expertise and success led him to top management positions around the world with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). He concluded his remarkable federal career as head of the DEA for Arizona. Arpaio has over five decades experience in law enforcement.

5. The Maricopa County Cold Case Posse

6. Under the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes, the elected Sheriff of Maricopa County has the authority to request assistance from a volunteer posse to assist the Sheriff in the execution of his duties, working under law enforcement authority of the Maricopa County Sheriff.

7. Upon activation by the Maricopa County Sheriff, certified Posse members are empowered to act as if the Sheriff himself were present when called upon to do so. Posse members of the MCSO are delegated their law enforcement authority by the Maricopa County Sheriff.

8. Under that activation Sheriff Arpaio granted fully law enforcement authority of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office to conduct this investigation and to report back to the Sheriff our findings for his ultimate dispensation.

3.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

9. In October of 2006, Sheriff Arpaio ordered the creation of the MCSO Cold Case Posse (CCP). At his personal request I accepted appointment as commander of this unit. I have served in this capacity for the last seven years.

10. The purpose of the CCP was to assist Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office in investigations including active and Cold Case Homicides. Since its inception, the CCP has been placed under the guidance and control of The General Investigation Division.

11. The MCSO Cold Case Posse consists of hand selected individuals with diverse skills consisting of professional experiences in conducting investigations, including individuals with backgrounds in Law Enforcement, Insurance Fraud Investigations, Military Service, Physicians, Computer Information Systems, Corporate CEO’s, as well as attorneys who have participated in criminal and or civil litigation.

12. Sheriff Arpaio referred the complaint to his Cold Case Posse, directing myself as Lead Investigator to review the evidence, to determine whether and to what extent the complaint had merit, to investigate further in due course as necessary, and to report directly to Sheriff Arpaio.

13. A five-member team of experienced investigators was expressly selected. It included former police detectives and attorneys (whom have received additional investigational training by Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office) who worked voluntarily and at virtually no expense to the taxpayer.

4.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

Investigation of the Complaint

14. Sheriff Arpaio referred the complaint to his Cold Case Posse, directing myself as Lead Investigator to review the evidence, and to determine whether and to what extent the complaint had merit. We were to investigate further as necessary, and report to Sheriff Arpaio. Sheriff Arpaio expressed that it was his goal to clear the document as authentic and move the country forward. He also required that the investigation be thorough and absent of any political ideologies, and that it be performed with the utmost care and diligence.

15. At the Sheriff’s direction, the principal focus of the investigation was the electronic document or computer image on the White House website that President Obama had presented as an authentic image of his long-form birth certificate to the American people and to citizens of Maricopa County at a White House press conference on April 27, 2011, when he had said, “We provided additional information today about the site of my birth…yes, in fact, I was born in Hawaii, August 4, 1961, in Kapiolani Hospital.”

16. The investigators were also directed to review all background documentation provided by the petitioners in relation to their complaint, and to consider all other information obtained or developed during the normal course of the investigation.

17. The petitioners suggested that the Sheriff’s Office should start by contacting Dr. Jerome Corsi, an investigative journalist who had written a book in search

5.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

of Mr. Obama’s original birth certificate document and had amassed a substantial body of evidence. Dr. Jerome Corsi was unknown to the investigators prior to this investigation. Subsequently, we spent 16 hours interviewing Dr. Corsi, who agreed to turn over to us for review all of the information he had on file.

18. At the conclusion of Dr. Corsi’s interview I determined that Dr. Corsi’s work, (with the exception of a copy of the down loaded .pdf file released by the White House on April 27, 2011) was to be treated as “investigational information” only and not to be considered as evidence.

19. The basis for this decision was due in part to the fact that some of the information presented by Dr. Corsi was a compilation of research performed by other individuals. In addition Dr. Corsi was in communication with these individuals prior to meeting with us and these individuals were yet unknown to our investigators.

20. To preserve the independence and integrity of our investigation Dr. Corsi’s information would be utilized as investigative background information only. Dr. Corsi worked closely with our investigation as an informational source until July 2012.

21. Dr. Corsi suggested that we should contact a nationally recognized computer expert, Mara Zebest, who has served as a contributing author and technical editor for more than 100 books on Adobe and Microsoft software. Ms. Zebest

6.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

was contacted and invited to participate in a two-day investigational meeting, to which we invited five other participants: investigators, attorneys, and professionals in computerized graphic design, IT professionals, and a physician. None had any prior familiarity with the White House computer image document.

22. During that meeting, all aspects of the document were examined with the intention of attempting to disprove the allegation that the document had been fabricated. This included a review of the work of an author by the name of John Woodman. John Woodman, a struggling, self-described computer expert, had authored a book putting forth explanations on how computer software automatically caused the anomalies contained in the White House document. Mr. Woodman’s work had been cited vigorously by numerous media outlets attempting to disqualify allegations suggesting that the .pdf document offered by Mr. Obama was anything but authentic.

23. The theories set forth in Mr. Woodman’s book were thoroughly tested by investigators and found to be nothing more than pure speculation and supposition. The investigators concluded Mr. Woodman’s work was nothing more than conjecture without any evidentiary proof that his theories could be supported.

24. When investigators put his theories into practical application, they could not successfully reproduce any of the anomalies found in the White House

7.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

document by automated computerized process. Therefore Mr. Woodman’s work was dismissed as irrelevant and offering zero evidentiary value.

25. At the end of the two-day event, all investigational information concerning the .pdf file was presented was intensely tested and deliberated.

26. All in attendance agreed unanimously that the White House computer image .pdf file contained anomalies that were unexplainable unless the document had been fabricated piecemeal by human intervention, rather than being copied from a genuine paper document. This conclusion also served to contradict the alleged chain of events surrounding the production of the document, as put forth by the White House and the Hawaii Department of Health.

27. Investigational findings thus far were reported back to Sheriff Arpaio. Having informed Sheriff Arpaio that the document appeared to be a fabricated forgery and that violation of Arizona criminal statutes and federal statutes may have taken place, it would be essential to continue the investigation. Sheriff Arpaio agreed and investigators began to pursue further investigation of the .pdf file and related events surrounding the creation of the document.

28. This serves as an outline of our work, preliminary results, and preliminary conclusions to date. As of the date of this report, this investigation remains

8.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

open and ongoing and additional forensic evidence continues to be uncovered further validating the original investigational findings.

29. Investigators studied Mr. Obama’s “short-form” Hawaiian birth certificate that became public in 2008; the “long-form” certificate endorsed by Mr. Obama at a White House press conference on April 27, 2011, and then posted as an electronic computer image at whitehouse.gov (no physical document was produced); and the selective service registration card allegedly signed by Mr. Obama on July 30, 1980.

30. We interviewed several persons, consulted many experts, tested and evaluated computer evidence using related software. In early in 2012, I informed Sheriff Arpaio of our preliminary findings. I reported that after extensive examination of the electronic document, the computer image released by the White House on April 27, 2011, and examination of Mr. Obama’s Selective Service registration card, that we believed there was probable cause to suspect Mr. Obama’s identity documents were in- fact forged.

31. The Sheriff held a press conference on March 1, 2012, to announce the findings that investigators had concluded that the document released on April 27, 2011, by the White House of Mr. Obama’s long form birth certificate was a computer generated fraud created exclusively by human intervention and not by the actions of random computerization. The press conference served to

9.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

attract further evidence, and to give us an opportunity to present an outline of our reasons.

32. On March 1, 2012, Sheriff Arpaio held a press conference during which he and I presented an outline of those aspects of the investigation that would not compromise the safety of witnesses or the integrity and future course of the investigation.

33. At that time, we announced that we had concluded that there was probable cause that forgery and fraud had been committed in respect of two documents: 1) the long-form or original birth certificate computer image presented by Mr., Obama, which contained multiple errors and anomalies, many of them serious and: 2) the selective-service document for Mr. Obama, which contained a two-digit year-stamp. This was contrary to specifications issued by federal regulation to the effect that the year of issue should be expressed as four digits on the stamp, and also contrary to any other selective-service registration document that we had been able to examine.

34. I visited Hawaii twice and continued our investigation. After further in-depth computerized testing and discovering additional information, we concluded in mid-2012 that Mr. Obama’s identity documents were not only forged beyond the legal standard of probable cause, but due to loop holes in the state of Hawaii’s vital statistics reporting laws, there was the distinct evidence suggesting that Hawaii’s statutes appeared to be in conflict with federal

10.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

immigration law and posed an independent threat to the national security of the United States.

Sheriff Arpaio’s Press Conference on July 17, 2012

35. After three months of further investigation, the Sheriff held a second press conference to announce, with my support, that there was no longer a question of mere suspicion but that of probable cause. It was now demonstrated beyond probable cause that the document presented to the public by Mr. Obama and placed on the White House website was an utter forgery.

36. In addition, Sheriff Arpaio reported concerns that Hawaii’s statutes appeared to be in conflict with federal immigration law and the birth registration policy in Hawaii posed a threat to national security.

37. Sheriff Arpaio stated at both press conferences that we are not in a position to conclude either that Mr. Obama himself has committed any offense or that he was born outside the United States, nor that he is constitutionally ineligible to seek or hold the office of President of the United States.

38. However, the fact that most if not all of the identity documents are forged supports the complainant’s allegation that Mr. Obama, in endorsing and posting a forged birth certificate image on the White House website, has raised legitimate questions that should now be investigated by Congress.

39. Sheriff Arpaio also announced that the investigation would continue, and it has continued ever since.

11.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

The Ongoing Investigation

40. As the investigation continued, various national and local media attempted to disqualify the investigative findings by fostering alternative explanations for the documents irregularities. Opponents made nothing more than superficial explanations alleging that the Obama documents irregularities were simply caused by nothing more than the automation processes of computer software. However, the media failed to put forth any investigative evidence to validate their theories, which were soundly defeated by over 1,200 independent computer software tests conducted by investigators.

41. Investigators wanted to determine the probability that a document containing the plethora of irregularities as found in the computer image Obama presented could still be genuine.

42. Taking it a step further, investigators sought an independent authority on forensic document examination that had no previous connection with our inquiry. Investigators commissioned a court certified handwriting analyst and forensic document examiner with over 20 years of experience providing document expertise to legal and law enforcement communities, corporations, financial institutions and private individuals for this task.

43. Investigators requested an independent review of our findings in respect to the long-form birth certificate image that fell within his field of expertise.

12.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

44. Upon the conclusion of our expert’s examination he issued an independent 40 page forensic report in which he verified our investigational finding and validating conclusion in full agreement with the finds of investigators. He concluded:

• “…based on my observations and findings, it is clear that Certificate of Live Birth I examined is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate, but a digitally manufactured documented created by utilizing material from various sources.” and

• “In over 20 years of examining documentation of various types, I have never seen a document that is so seriously questionable in so many respects. In my opinion, the birth certificate is entirely fabricated.”

Authenticity of White House Released Birth Certificate Image

45. Investigators have determined beyond probable cause that the computer image released on April 27, 2011 by the White House, and purporting to be a true computer copy of Mr. Obama’s long form birth certificate, is not a scan of an original hard copy document. It is, in fact, an undeniable computer generated forgery created with the sole intent to deceive the public by commission of felonious fraudulent acts.

46. Sheriff Arpaio’s investigators have determined the document ( the .pdf file released by the White House) was created entirely by human intervention, and not by the actions of random computerization. As such, the White house computer image cannot be relied upon as bona fide factual record of the birth event that it attempts to depict.

13.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

47. Our investigation has also concluded that the method used to fabricate the document was by means of human logic and the distinct manual placement and distribution of electronic data between nine distinct computer generated “layers”. This type of layering is entirely uncharacteristic of a paper document that, when scanned, results in a simple, digitized, single layer photographic image.

48. Investigators in particular focused on the registrar stamp bearing the signature of Hawaii States Registrar Dr. Alvin T. Onaka. This stamp was found to be comprised of external objects that were imported into the document, created uniquely for the forgery of the Obama birth document, by an intentionally deceptive cut-and-paste process. This fact alone is sufficient to render the entire document void of any probative value.

49. Our investigational findings soundly defeated the only two attempted explanations of the anomalies on the computer generated long-form birth certificate image offered for justification: OCR (Optical Character Recognition) and/or Optimization (Compression of the files in order to reduce the file size). Investigators attempted to recreate the anomalies found in the computer generated image by tedious implementation of the some 1200 computerized tests, and were unable to recreate the anomalies contained in the White House .pdf file. Investigators clearly demonstrated

14.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

that neither could account for the myriad discrepancies found in the White House image.

50. Subsequently, this is supported by an independent expert forensic examination confirmed the electronic computer image of Barack Obama’s long form Certificate of Live Birth, released by the White House on April 27, 2011, is in fact a forgery, thus supporting the initial findings of our investigation.

51. Therefore Mr. Obama has in fact not offered any verifiable authoritative document of any legal significance or possessing any evidentiary value as to the origins of his purported birth narrative or location of the birth event.

52. In addition investigators have determined that the White House .pdf file displaying a manufactured image of Mr. Obamas purported Hawaiian birth certificate could not survive judicial scrutiny or be offered as documented evidence, certified by the State of Hawaii, as proof attesting to the event and therefore could not be accepted as such in any judicial proceeding.

53. As such, this computer manipulated fraudulent image cannot be deemed as acceptable legal evidence for the purpose of validation or verification of identity or citizenship, or serve as verification of a birth event by any Secretary of State in the confines of the United States.

54. Mr. Obama has not released any evidence other than a manufactured computer forgery by human intervention and design in an effort to support

15.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

his claim of his birth taking place at Kapiolani Hospital, Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.

55. Additionally, Hawaii State Statues and Hawaii Department of Health policy do not authorize the Hawaii Department of Health to create a computer generated .pdf file as an officially certified document severing as a verification of a live birth event.

56. The very creation this .pdf file runs in direct conflict with the Hawaii Department of Health’s own admission declaring they released two paper copies of a “Birth Document” to the President’s attorney Perkins Coie partner Judith Corley on April 25, 2011.

57. According to copies of letters released by White House officials, Judith Corley initiated the process and traveled to Hawaii to pick up two photo copies of Mr. Obama’s long form birth certificate, not an electronic .pdf file. The two copies released to Judith Corley have never been made public.

58. Investigators have also determined that the much touted 1961 newspaper announcements are in fact utterly unreliable as evidence to support verification of the event as depicted in the .pdf image of the manufactured birth certificate released by the White House and attested to my Mr. Obama. In addition the aforementioned announcements can be of no substitute for a Hawaii State Official Birth Certification and or Certificate.

16.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

59. In summation, investigators believe that the computer image presented by the White House is an unabashed forgery, and thus could not survive even the lowest level of judicial scrutiny in any jurisdiction in the United States, and does not serve as evidence or certification of any such event.

60. Furthermore, it cannot be used as an authenticated legal document for proof of citizenship, or proof to obtain a legitimate passport, or legitimate Social Security Identification Number. It most certainly cannot be relied upon as legitimate proof and verification of a live birth event by the residents of Maricopa County, the State Of Arizona, or in any jurisdiction within the United States.

Arizona’s Verification Attempts Thwarted

61. Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett requested verification of Mr. Obama’s birth records from the State of Hawaii Department of Health:

62. “Please verify that the attached copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama is a true and accurate representation of the original record in your files.”

63. However, Hawaii Department of Health State Registrar Dr. Alvin T. Onaka did not verify the White House computer image as a true or accurate representation of the original birth record, only responding, “the information in the copy … that you attached with your request matches the original record in our file.”

17.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

64. Hawaii officials cleverly focused on the representation of information depicted in the fraudulent image diverting attention to the foundation of the request of Secretary of State Bennett. “Please verify that the attached copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama is a true and accurate representation of the original record in your files.”

65. “Information” is not a verification of the document (.pdf file) as a whole.

66. A fraudulently created document often times contains matching information on some level when compared to some other document of record, however, the fact that some information may match in a file does not verify the legitimacy of the document as a whole.

67. In this case the .pdf image presented by the White House to the public, is in the appearance of what the unsuspecting public would perceived to be a true copy of an official document and therefore accepted on face value. This also includes the fabrication and appearance of green security paper background that one would expect to be used on such an official document. The creation and use of this background would solely be used to give the perception of authenticity in an official capacity.

68. Further, Hawaii has not acknowledged that they ever created or released an electronic computer created .pdf file containing an image of the Barack Hussein Obama II Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth to the White House or to the attorney for Barack Hussein Obama II. They also did not verify how and

18.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

when information may have been added or deleted for the original file and for what purpose.

69. The PDF file posted on the White House website shows no evidence of a scan of a photocopied document ever taking place, but displays all the evidence of a manufactured file. An electronic image of the photocopied document as it would have been if the original document had been genuine would not have possessed the irregularities in the White House .pdf file that, in our forensic experts’ opinion, demonstrate that the image was pieced together electronically from multiple sources.

70. One of our most serious concerns is that the White House document appears to have been fabricated piecemeal on a computer, constructed by drawing together digitized data from several unknown sources.

Isolation Of The Registrar’s Signature And Date Stamps

71. The registrar’s signature stamp and the date stamp adjacent to it each appear independently on separate layers of the electronic image. Furthermore, these distinct layers contain no other data of any kind. Our experts have considered the possibility that the ink used for these two stamps might have been of a sufficiently distinct color to be distinguished from all other colors on an original paper document and thus isolated. However, we have concluded that no scan of an original document could produce such separation of individually distinct items into distinct layers with no other data on them.

19.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

72. The registrar’s stamp appears to have been imported from another unknown source document.

73. Investigators intently focused on the fact that the stamp cannot have been placed on the document pursuant to state and federal laws as one of many indications that the document is a forgery and, therefore, that it cannot be relied upon as verification, legal or otherwise, of the date, place or circumstances of Mr. Obama’s birth.

74. The date stamp next to the registrar’s signature stamp exhibited a similar grave anomaly, allowing it to be moved about electronically within the document – which would have been impossible if the document were the scanned and certified copy that official statements profess it to be.

75. We were particularly disturbed to find that the registrar’s date and signature stamps could be picked up and moved around the document at will, leaving behind a distinct white halo impression of the two stamps.

76. On our test document, with a single layer and a single link, any manipulation of this kind was impossible.

77. A close examination of the State registrar’s stamp on the electronic image of Mr. Obama’s birth certificate shows there are two different registrar stamps evident on the electronic image: (1) the date stamp, indicating April 25, 2011, and (2) the text and signature stamp containing Dr. Alvin Onaka’s signature.

20.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

78. Both registrar stamps give the appearance of been applied by a rubber stamp inked from a pad.

79. The registrar’s date stamp (left) and signature stamp (right)

80. However, our experts determined that the registrar’s stamps are external objects that were imported into the document. The stamps were not impressions copied whole, but were created uniquely for the Obama document by a cut-and-paste process.

81. The white area around the date stamp indicates the image is not a scan of a paper document but a computer-generated file fabricated electronically.

21.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

82. That the registrar’s signature and date stamps were both created by links to external objects imported into the Obama birth certificate is also confirmed by turning on “Links” in the “Window” menu in Adobe Illustrator.

83. Not only was the registrar date stamp imported from an external link, it was scaled and then rotated clockwise by 90 degrees to be placed in the document:

22.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

84. The registrar’s date-stamp scaled and rotated to be placed in the White House image

85. Likewise, the signature stamp was also an imported object scaled and then rotated 90 degrees clockwise to be placed in the document:

86. The Registrar’s signature-stamp and date-stamp were computer-generated images that were imported into the document. They were not electronic images of actual rubber-stamp imprints inked by hand or machine on to a paper document. This can only be accomplished by human logic and intervention.
White Halo Effect

87. Furthermore, the White House image displays a white “halo effect” around the letters, such that the texture of the paper cannot be seen underneath the ink, and the image noise is inconsistent throughout the document.

23.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

88. As seen below, moving the two stamps leaves the white halo visible, indicating where the two external links had initially been pasted into the document.

89. Registrar’s date and signature stamps separately rotated and repositioned on the White House image.

90. The fact that the .pdf file contains evidence of the importation of the Official Hawaii Registrars Stamp and Date stamp and the fact that the Stamps can be picked up and moved about the document leaving a white background of its imported placed location should be evidence enough of tampering bringing the authenticity of the document completely into question. This fact alone

24.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

provides sufficient evidence for any court certified document examiner to conclude and testify the entire document is fatally flawed and is void of any legal authority.

91. Fraudulent Birth certificates created in Washing DC.

92. President Obama’s White House technology czar Vivek Kundra, oversaw technology projects and budgets for 86 D.C. government agencies as head of the District’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer. Yusuf Acar, then acting head security officer for the D.C. Office of the Chief Technology Officer was arrested and ultimately sentenced to 27 months in prison in connection with a bribery scam by federal authorities in 2009.

93. Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Hibarger told a federal judge that Acar, was a flight risk because agents seized $70,000 in cash in his house and because in recorded conversations, he boasted that he could easily flee to his native Turkey. Acar also told an informant that he could use computers to create fake D.C. birth certificates, Hibarger said.

94. Inspector General Report

95. In September 2000, the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published a report on birth-certificate fraud, showing that birth certificates were widely used to obtain citizenship fraudulently. It found that few government officials were trained in detecting

25.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

fraudulent birth certificates. Yet there is no federal law specifying uniform form or content for birth certificates. The report cited:

96. “Legitimate birth certificates provide vital information about the person whose name appears on the certificate. While originally intended for the sole purpose of birth registration, birth certificates are now used extensively for employment purposes and to obtain benefits or other documents used for identification.

97. “The Office of Inspector General has conducted three inspections focused specifically on birth certificate fraud that identified a number of vulnerabilities in birth certificate processes. Because so many Federal and State agencies rely on birth certificates to assist them in determining eligibility for services and benefits, it is important that these agencies have current information on the nature and extent of birth certificate fraud to assist them in the proper assignment and protection of benefits.”

98. “A certified copy of a birth certificate is proof only that a birth occurred and was recorded. For that purpose, it may be desirable that the public be allowed easy access to them. However, the agencies and organizations that use birth certificates as proof of identification for employment purposes, to obtain benefits or other documents (e.g., driver’s licenses, Social Security cards, and passports), and to assist them in determining eligibility for public assistance and other benefits, may have concerns with how easily certified copies of

26.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

birth certificates can be obtained. These conflicting perspectives are at the very heart of the birth certificate controversy”.

Birth Certificates continue to be Used as “Breeder Documents” and are Easy to Obtain

99. Virtually all Federal and State agencies agree that fraudulent birth certificates are used as “breeder documents” to obtain the genuine documents needed to create new identities, and that fraudulent birth certificates are easy to obtain. Factors which contribute to their use as “breeder documents” include the following

Birth Certificate Fraud is Hard to Detect

100. “Many altered or counterfeit birth certificates and genuine birth certificates held by imposters may go undetected. The reasons why these fraudulent birth certificates are hard to detect include the following:

• over 14,000 different versions of birth certificates are in circulation;

• nearly 4 million United States births were registered in 1999;

• security features contained in the paper used to issue birth certificates, as well as formats and signatures, vary among State vital records offices and the many local entities issuing them;

• technological advances in the Internet, scanners, color printers, and copiers make it easier to obtain genuine birth certificates and create counterfeit ones;

27.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

• between 85 and 90 percent of the birth certificate fraud encountered by the Immigration and Naturalization Services and Passport Services staff is the result of genuine birth certificates held by imposters — the most difficult fraud to detect; and Federal and State agency staff report receiving only limited training focused on the detection of fraudulent birth certificates.”

State Practices Create Opportunities for Fraud

101. “It was the consensus of those we interviewed that a number of State practices create opportunities for fraud. Those practices include the following:

• delayed, amended, and midwife birth registrations that are based on affidavits of personal knowledge, include no documentary evidence, and are not often marked or overlaid accordingly;

• delays in matching death and birth records can make the identities of many deceased persons easy to assume between the time the person dies and the time the death and birth records are matched;

• questionable physical security situations that create opportunities for fraud; and limited oversight of local issuing entities by State vital records offices”.

Birth Certificates Alone Do Not Provide Conclusive or Reliable Proof of Identity

28.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

102. “Many agencies and organizations request that individuals provide their birth certificates to receive a benefit or service, or to support the issuance of other documents often used for identity purposes (e.g., driver’s license).

103. However, agencies who rely on birth certificates as a means of establishing identity must understand the limitations of accepting a birth certificate as proof of age, citizenship, or identity. For example, genuine documents obtained with counterfeit birth certificates can be used to obtain genuine birth certificates. Thus, it is inherently illogical to require someone to prove their identity using potentially fraudulent identity documents spawned by false birth certificates in order to obtain a birth certificate.”

Governor Abercrombie of Hawaii

104. Mr. Abercrombie has publicly stated that he was present when Mr. Obama was born. There is no evidence to support this claim. No doctor or nurse or persons who attended Mr. Obama’s birth has come forward to say so. No one has ever come forward to say he or she recalls having seen either Mr. Obama or his parents together at any social event when he was an infant.

105. It is not surprising; therefore, that Governor Abercrombie later recanted that statement that he had seen Mr. Obama’s parents with their new-born so. He acknowledged that he had not seen them at any hospital,

29.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

although he said he remembered having seen Mr. Obama as a child with his parents at social events.

106. Once Mr. Abercrombie had become Governor, he told the Honolulu Star Advertiser on January 20, 2011, that he was searching within the Hawaii Department of Health to find definitive vital records that would prove Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, because he feared the continuing eligibility controversy might hurt the President’s chances of re-election in 2012.

107. Mr. Abercrombie, who is a member of Mr. Obama’s political party, said that the birth certificate issue would otherwise have “political implications” for the presidential election “that we simply cannot have.”

108. Mr. Abercrombie did not subsequently report that either he or the Hawaii Department of Health had found Mr. Obama’s long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. The governor only suggested his investigation to date had identified an unspecified listing or notation of Mr. Obama’s birth that someone had made in the state archives: “It was actually written, I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down.”

109. This being the case, this document as reported would clearly be out of the chain of custody of the Hawaii Department of Health. Hence, the authenticity of that written record and the integrity of that record cannot be verified or sufficiently secured to prevent tampering.

30.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

110. To date, the purported undisclosed birth record in the state archives that Governor Abercrombie has claimed to have discovered and has described as being “actually written” has never been made public.

No Mention Has Been Made Of It Since

111. From Governor Abercrombie’s admission, it is legitimate to infer that this record, if it indeed exists, was not in the possession of the Hawaii Department of Health, which may have had no record of the in-country birth of Mr. Obama either in hard copy form, such as a long form birth certificate, preserved in a vault. If such a document had existed, Mr. Abercrombie would have had it within minutes of his request: for he had the right, as the senior official of the Hawaii administration, to examine it if he wished to do so.

112. Governor Abercrombie’s predecessor, Linda Lingle, who was in office until January 2010, said she had asked the then Director of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, to confirm the existence of the original paper long-form birth certificate and to issue a statement confirming that she and Dr. Alvin Onaka, the registrar of births, had located and verified the existence of the document

113. However, Governor Abercrombie, even after launching an exhaustive investigation, failed to produce the documentary evidence of Mr. Obama’s Hawaiian birth that he had said he would produce.

31.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

114. On the question of the long-form birth certificate, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, formerly Director of Health for Hawaii has made several statements of interest:

115. In October, 2008, she said Hawaiian law forbade the issuance of certified copies of original birth certificates to persons with no tangible interest in the record, but added that she and Dr. Alvin Onaka, the Registrar of Vital Statistics, had personally seen and verified the original birth certificate “in accordance with state policies and procedures”.

116. To this day, Dr. Fukino is the only person who has said publicly that she has personally inspected Mr. Obama’s actual birth certificate in a bound book in a vault at the Department of Health.

117. Dr. Fukino’s statement confirms Governor Lingle’s own statement that she did not personally verify the existence of the original birth certificate, but relied solely on the representations of Dr. Fukino, whose statement also implies that a birth record of some kind exists and that she inspected it, though she provided neither a description of the document nor any verifiable information said to have been contained therein.

118. Dr. Fukino says she was accompanied by Dr. Alvin Onaka, with whom she viewed the document. We noted that Dr. Onaka has never publicly confirmed that he had accompanied Dr. Fukino or that he had verified the

32.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

existence of the document. Dr. Onaka has remained suspiciously silent on the matter to date.

119. Under these circumstances, Dr. Fukino’s statement to the effect of a verification of an authentic “Long Form Birth Certificate” has little evidential value.

120. Dr. Fukino also gave an interview to CNN on April 26, 2011, in which she stated that she simply went into the vault and inspected Mr. Obama’s original birth certificate. By inference, then, it should have been no more difficult for Governor Abercrombie to locate it as well.

121. In July, 2009, Dr. Fukino said she had seen “the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American.” Again this statement has no evidential value.

122. As reported by Fox News, Dr. Fukino said that during her time as Director of Health for Hawaii Dr. Alvin Onaka, State Registrar of Hawaii, had moved Mr. Obama’s birth certificate from a file vault, where bound books containing vital records line the shelves in handwritten, leather-bound ledgers and placed inside the vault’s 5-ft-tall gray metal combination and key lock safe that holds money and other valuables. If so, Dr. Onaka could very easily have alerted Governor Abercrombie to its whereabouts.

33.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

123. In 2008 when Governor Lingle stated, that in an attempt to quell the issue she had the Birth Certificate inspected by the state’s Director of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino:

124. Mr. Onaka was the Register at that time. Presumably the document was in the same bound volume as the other 499 from that the year secured in his vault. The question becomes what happened to it when Governor Abercrombie came looking for it in 2011.

125. Dr. Fukino said that Mr. Obama’s long-form birth certificate was preserved in a hard-covered bound volume along with the other long-form birth certificates of that period. This record – if it had existed – would have been easily obtainable from the Department of Health upon the Governor’s request.

126. Dr. Fukino also said that Mr. Obama’s original Certificate of Live Birth was bound in a ledger containing 499 other certificates of people born in Hawaii in 1961. There were 500 sheets per book, and 35 volumes of 1961 birth records. The last series of digits in the registration number found on Hawaiian long form and current computerized-format birth certificates indicates which numbered volume contains the original document inside the health department’s first-floor vault.

127. She explained that each of the bound volumes for the 1960s, including the one containing Mr. Obama’s birth certificate, had bright orange elasticized

34.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

canvas covers with the birth year stamped clearly on the spine. Different colors were used for different decades.

128. The last few digits in the registration number, which are correlated with the current computerized database of information taken from the original paper records, serve as a unique identifier allowing the volume containing the original certificate to be found immediately in the vault.

129. Therefore, it should not have been at all difficult for Governor Abercrombie to locate Mr. Obama’s original long-form birth certificate by simply asking the Department of Health to look up the computerized record, check the certificate number, and instantly locate the relevant volume of paper certificates. His failure to locate the document raises the possibility that Mr. Obama’s birth record may not have been in the relevant orange-bound volume of 500 sequentially-numbered certificates, or that, if it is present, it did not show him as having been born anywhere in Hawaii.

130. It is also possible that Mr. Obama’s birth registration was not recorded, or that the number on that registration did not correlate to his name in the Department of Health’s computerized database that has been in use since 2001.

131. We noted that Dr. Fukino had changed the wording from viewing Mr. Obama’s “original birth certificate” (in her first statement) to having “seen the original vital records” (in her second statement).

35.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

132. We later learned that Hawaiian law permits amendment of a birth certificate and the creation of a document file containing the sealed record of the original document and supporting documentation that authorized a change to the information contained in the original document. We also learned that an amended certificate would be distinctly marked alerting to the fact it was altered.

133. The wording suggests that perhaps there was a file of some type located within the Department of Health containing additional information regarding this matter, permissible under Hawaii State Statutes. But the file may not have contained an original birth certificate identical to the electronic image on the White House website.

Hawaii State Practices Allow Fraudulent U.S. Citizenship

134. Investigators found a high potential for fraud in the registration and issuance of Hawaii birth certification documents. It was discovered to be evident in: 1) lax statutory regulation and 2) through obscure evidentiary requirements in establishing factual verification of the information required in the reporting of legitimate births occurring within the state of Hawaii.

135. In 1982, Hawaii revised a long standing statute (§ 338.17.8) allowing the issuance of birth certificates to children born out of state. Hawaii declares these foreign born children to be American citizens simply by virtue of an application by any adult making representations on behalf of the parents, and

36.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

simply supplying documentation substantiating the parents had resided in Hawaii and paid income tax to the state Hawaii for one year prior to the birth of the child. Thus, by statutory provision, Hawaii has granted upon itself the unique power to confer citizenship to children not born in the United States, and to children not born to United States citizen parents, but to children actually born on foreign soil.

[§338-17.8] Certificates for Children Born Out of State.

(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the Director of Health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the Director of Health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the Director of Health in any manner that the Director shall deem appropriate. The Director of Health may also adopt any rules pursuant to Chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

136. The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to Chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]

137. These implications of this law is evidenced by the discovery of correspondence between the Department of Health Director George Yuen, in support of the measure, and State Representative Herbert A .Segawa. The March 1st 1982 document clearly shows the effect this proposed Bill H.B. 3016-82 would it

37.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

have become law. The document recognized the fact that the department would have to issue birth certificates to children worldwide if the child’s parents could prove they were in fact legal residents of the Territory or State of Hawaii. Legal residents as categorized by Hawaii tax code, not Untied States citizens.

38.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

39.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

138. There is nothing in Hawaii Revised Statute § 338.17.8 to require that this birth certificate be marked as the child being born out of state, nor that was the child born within the United States or its territories. There is no requirement in this statute that at least one parent provide proof of United States citizenship.

139. This section only requires a declaration (and proof which is not defined and is based upon requirements deemed appropriate by the Director) that the parents were residents of Hawaii. It does not require that the parents were citizens of the United States.

140. By statutory provision Hawaii has granted upon itself the unique power to confer citizenship to children not born in the United States, and to children not born to United States citizen parents, but to children actually born on foreign soil. Conceivably, the parents and child may never have set foot on United States soil. Hawaii declares these foreign born children American citizens simply by virtue of an application of any adult, making representations on behalf of the parents and simply supplying documentation substantiating the parents had resided in Hawaii and paid income tax to the state Hawaii, for one year prior to the birth of the child.

141. The authority to naturalize persons as citizens of the US is conferred upon the Attorney General only, not the State of Hawaii.

40.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

142. It would appear that Hawaii Revised Statute § 338.17.8 is in direct conflict with the Immigration and Nationality Act, in that United States citizenship maybe be conferred to an individual who is not entitled to such citizenship.

143. See I.N.A. §§ 301, et seq., which comprehensively regulates how a child born out of the United States acquires U.S. Citizenship. Even this would require at least on parent be a United States citizen at the time of the birth.

144. This comprehensive regulation would clearly be meant to exclude any regulation in the area by the States. Arizona v. United States, 11-182 (June, 2012).

145. Compulsory registration of births, authorized by Hawaii Revised Law §57-8 requires all births of be registered. It also permits the registration for an unattended birth to be accepted on the representation of only one of the parents. No other witnesses are necessary for a claimed unattended birth. Conceivably, a parent could have given birth outside of the U.S., and claimed that it was an unattended birth (no witnesses) in Honolulu.

146. Local registrar to prepare birth certificate, authorized by Hawaii Revised Law §57-8 is bristling with the fraudulent potential by compelling the local registrar to prepare a birth certificate for an alleged unattended birth based solely uncorroborated testimony from anyone claiming to have had knowledge of the birth taking place.

41.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

147. Under this statute, a birth could exist outside of the U.S., and any person could represent false information to the local registrar. The registrar is compelled to file the certificate.

148. Additionally, there is no requirement for a parent or relative, providing identification to be present at time of registration. Any person, a relative, friend or stranger may registrar the birth of a child while both the mother and baby were outside of the country.

149. There is no verification process and no way to be certain of the actual identify of the parents.

H.R.S §338-6, Current Law as of October 25, 2009

150. Delayed or altered certificates, authorized by Hawaii Revised Law §57-18. Utilizing this Statute, a person may apply for a delayed or amended certificate having one year to do so from time of birth. There is no verification to determine why the registration is late. The Statute also allows any person “born” in the Territory of Hawaii to file or amend a certificate.

151. This would include that any adult could claim their birth was never reported a decade later, file for a birth certificate. The validity of the three types of birth filings were so questionable that even Hawaii would not accept them as “Prima Facia Evidence”.

152. This Statute would require the birth certificate be plainly marked, “Delayed”, or “Altered” and the probative value would determine by the

42.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

official to whom the certificate was being offered. We believe it is safe to conclude that even the State of Hawaii did not have confidence in the representations on this document.

153. Investigators have advised Sheriff Arpaio that several possible crimes may have been committed:

154. First, the fraudulent creation of an official document

155. Second, the White House characterizing a forgery as an officially-produced governmental birth record; and

156. Third, Mr. Obama represented to the residents of Maricopa County and the American public that a forgery was “proof positive” of his authentic 1961 Hawaiian long-form birth certificate, thereby deceiving voters and state election commissions across the country into believing he was eligible to become President, have his name appear on Presidential ballots, thereby garnering votes from the public under false pretenses.

157. Accordingly, Sheriff Arpaio continues to recommend that the Congress of the United States open an immediate investigation, including the appointment of a select committee, as regards to the authenticity of Mr. Obama’s documentation, whether any crimes have been committed, and to determine Mr. Obama’s eligibility for the office of President of the Unites States.

43.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

Mr. Obama’s Selective Service Registration Card

158. Investigators also examined Mr. Obama’s Selective Service registration card bearing Mr. Obama’s signature, which displays a Post Office Date stamp, “July 29, 80,” in the lower right corner. For comparison purposes, investigators reviewed a number of authentic Selective Service registration cards of other individuals, obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests.

159. All the authentic registration cards the investigators inspected displayed a Post Office stamp indicating the calendar year date stamp with four digits, for example “1980”. This was in sharp contrast to Mr. Obama’s card which displayed a two digit date stamp of “80” for the year.

160. Investigators interviewed several Post Office employees who verified that it was standard procedure to utilize only a four digit date stamp. Investigators learned that the date stamp that would have been utilized in 1980 was identified as a Pica Post Office stamp set that could only be obtained through postal supply houses.

161. Investigators located that particular stamp set but were unsuccessful in locating a four digit 1980 date stamp insert.

162. Noticing irregularities in the date stamp, namely the date “80” on Mr. Obama’s registration card, it is offset low and to right when compared to the full four digit “1980” date stamps on other cards. Investigators believed that

44.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

this anomaly was created by the severing of an intact four year “2008” date stamp and inverting the remaining “08” inverting it to cause it to display “80”.

163. Investigators concluded that this representation of “80” that appears on Mr. Obama’s selective service card is in fact an altered 2008 pica date stamp.

164. Investigators obtained a 2008 Pica Post Office date stamp and severed it in between the two zeros. Then by inverting investigators were able to replicate an identical looking stamp to that one found on Mr. Obama selective service card. Investigators concluded that there is a high probability that Mr. Obama’s selective service card was recently created as an attempt to cover up the fact that Mr. Obama failed to register for Selective Service as required by law in 1980.

Missing Immigration Records for August 1-7, 1961

165. There has been immense speculation that Mr. Obama may actually have been born in Kenya. These speculations were fuelled not only by the refusal of Mr. Obama to produce a valid Hawaiian birth certificate, but by recognition of the Kenya government claiming Kenya as being Mr. Obama’s birth place. There were numerous reports that Stanley Ann Dunham had reportedly left Hawaii to travel to Kenya in the summer of 1961 to give birth.

166. In an attempt to verify whether Mr. Obama and his mother Stanley Ann Dunham had possibly arrived in the United States at or around the alleged

45.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

date of his birth, we contacted the National Archives to obtain microfilms of the immigration landing records (I-94 document) for the calendar year 1961.

167. Investigators focused on microfilm records of INS passenger cards for foreign flights arriving in Honolulu during the time period of July 1961 through September 1961.

168. We discovered that data records for the entire week of August 2, 1961 through August 7, 1961, were completely missing from the microfilm roll. This included the alleged date of Mr. Obama’s birth (August 4, 1961).
Selective Service Registration Card Analysis

169. Investigators also examined Mr. Obama’s Selective Service registration card bearing Mr. Obama’s signature. They concluded that there is a high probability that Mr. Obama’s selective service card was recently created as an attempt to cover up the fact that Mr. Obama failed to register for Selective Service as required by law in 1980.

170. 1961 August 4, 7:24 pm – Barack Hussein Obama II was allegedly born in Kapiolani Hospital, Honolulu, HI, according to the image of his long-form birth certificate that is posted on the White House website. Birth certificate number 61-10641.

171. However, this has been greatly debated due in part to initial reports that Mr. Obama was reports to have been born in Queens Medical Center, in Honolulu Hawaii. Inquiries were made at Queens Medical Center and

46.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

authorities there disclosed that they had no record of that event. Subsequently, a change was made in the narrative alleging the birth place to now be Kapiolani Hospital. While this may be an oversight other discrepancy surfaced around the information visible on the .pdf file image released by the White House.

172. The serial number shown on the image of the certificate, which purports on its face to have been imposed on the form with an automated sequential numbering stamp, is 61-10641. Investigators learned at that time, batches of birth certificates were collected monthly, ordered by date and time of birth, and then sequentially number-stamped in a special room by a single clerk trained for the purpose, to minimize numbering errors.

173. The long-form original certificates were inspected twice for accuracy by two different clerks and then signed by the registrar. They were kept together secured in a certain room until they were all numbered at the end of the month. They were not allowed to become out of order and they were not numbered incorrectly. (It should be noted that the Nordyke twins were born minutes apart and their respective certificate numbering was based not only by date but by time as well. This indicates the clerk scrutinized the documents prior to placing them in chronological order for proper numbering.)

47.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

174. Vital statistics will show that Susan Nordyke was born at Kapiolani Hospital at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time on Aug. 5, 1961, and was given No. 151-61-10637, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.

175. Gretchen Nordyke, twin to Susan Nordyke, was born at Kapiolani Hospital at 2:17 p.m. Hawaii time on Aug. 5, 1961, and was given No. 151-61-10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.

176. Barack Hussein Obama II purportedly born at Kapiolani Hospital at 7:24 p.m. Hawaii, Aug. 4, 1961, and was given No. 151-61-10641, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 8, 1961.

177. Virginia Sunahara was born at Wahiawa Hospital at 9:16 p.m. Hawaii time on Aug. 4, 1961, and was given No. 161-1961-011080, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 10, 1961.

Name of child Date and time born Registered Certificate #
Barack Obama Aug 4 at 7:24 pm Aug 8 10641
Virginia Sunahar Aug 4 at 9:16 pm Aug 10 11080
Susan Nordyke Aug 5 at 2:12 pm Aug 11 10637
Gretchen Nordyke Aug 5 at 2:17 pm Aug 11 10638

178. 1961 August 4, 9:16 pm – Virginia Sunahara was born in Hawaii, according to her current birth record. The serial number currently shown on Virginia Sunahara short form Certificate of Live Birth as that of her birth

48.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

record is 61-11080. This registration number is 439 numbers after Barack Hussein Obama II.

179. Some 17,578 births occurred in Hawaii in 1961 – an average of about two births per hour. Virginia Sunahara was born less than two hours after Barack Hussein Obama II stated time of birth, so that the number that ought to have appeared on her original birth certificate should have been not more than a dozen either side of Barack Hussein Obama II 61-10641.

180. Virginia Sunahara registration number is inexplicably out of sequence by 439 numbers.

181. 1961 August 5 – Death of Virginia Sunahara after breathing complications at 8 PM

182. Mr. Obama’s birth certificate was registered August 8, 1961. The Nordyke twins’ birth certificate was registered August 11, 1961. Even if the sequential numbering had followed the date of registration rather than the date of birth, Mr. Obama’s certificate should have been automatically assigned a number lower, not higher, than the numbers allocated to the certificates of the Nordyke twins. And the number currently assigned to Ms. Sunahara is entirely out of sequence

49.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

Hawaii Newspaper Birth Announcements
183. Investigators conducted an exhaustive search of all birth records announced in the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin for the month of August 1961.

184. The following conclusions were reached:

• There was no apparent consistency in the order or day with which each newspaper reported birth announcements, such that one or the other of the two newspapers would often lead or lag the other in the reporting of any particular birth.

• Some births were announced in one newspaper and not in another.

• Some births were not announced at all.

• Births to unwed mothers were omitted from reporting in either newspaper, even though Hawaii vital statistics report there were over 1,000 births to unwed mothers in 1961.

185. A comparison of the Obama birth announcement in the two newspapers clearly demonstrates the announcements are identical in every detail, including the order of other birth announcements preceding and following the Obama birth announcement.

50.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

186. We found the sequence of reported births around the reporting of the Obama birth was actually an anomaly for Hawaiian newspaper reporting in August 1961 because the sequence of births before and after Obama’s was one of the few birth sequences in the entire month that were identical in every detail, including the order of other birth announcements preceding and following the Obama birth announcement.

187. We concluded that birth lists were in fact released by the Hawaii Department of Health, not information volunteered to the newspaper from parents or relatives, was the likely source of information for the newspaper birth announcement listing, in that:

Neither newspaper had an editor that handled birth announcements;

51.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

• Both newspapers merely printed birth announcements, directly as received, from information published in Department of Hawaii vital statistics announcements;

• Hawaiian hospitals did not report to newspapers any birth announcement information;

• Neither newspaper independently checked the truthfulness or accuracy of birth announcement information published by the newspapers from Hawaii Department of Health vital statistics records.

188. Searching over a several year period, various researchers have found repeated listings of births to Japanese parents as being reported in the newspapers as Hawaiian births, even though the children were found to be born in Japan. These findings tend to reinforce what we learned on our visits to Hawaii: that it was then the widely-recognized practice in Hawaii, later regularized by statute, to certify foreign births to Hawaiian parents as Hawaiian births.

189. In 1961, the Hawaii Department of Health appears to have used local area offices outside Honolulu as reporting centers where parents and other family members could represent children born to the family as Hawaiian births, without submitting any proof the child was actually born in Hawaii. This practice was also statutorily permitted.

52.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

190. It is plausible that an original birth record of some type for Mr. Obama may exist in Hawaii. However, as noted elsewhere, our investigation has discovered that at that time Hawaiian law contained a specific provision that permitted a Hawaiian parent of a child born anywhere in the world or any adult purporting to represent that parent, the right to register the child as Hawaiian-born.

191. It is for this reason that two entries in the “Births” column of the local newspapers at the time do not constitute evidence that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. They are merely evidence suggesting that a birth certificate of some type was issued for him in Hawaii, and they tell us nothing about whether or not he was born there. In particular they do not – as the White House document purports to do – identify the hospital of birth. Hawaii law permits various forms of registration and supplementation at later dates, with different information. The mere issuance of a birth record does not confirm the birth took place within the state of Hawaii or in the United States.

192. If Mr. Obama had not in fact been born in Hawaii, the long-form original birth certificate would not have stated that he had been born in a particular hospital at a particular time, and would not have borne the signatures of the attending physician. The newspaper entries would have been identical whether he had been born in Hawaii or elsewhere in the world, but the birth records would not have been identical.

53.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

193. The existence of this law permitting out-of-country births to be registered as though they were Hawaiian births is a further evidence that he newspaper announcements of Mr. Obamas purported birth in Hawaii cannot and should not be relied on as any evidentiary validation of the event taking place as depicted by the manufactured .pdf file image released by the White House.

Irregularities in the Parents’ Address

194. B Obama (Kenya) and Stanley Ann Dunham, President Obama’s alleged parents, did not live together as man and wife at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway in Hawaii, the birth address shown on the White House image as well as in the two birth announcements for Barack Obama Jr. published in local newspapers at the time.

195. Both newspapers, the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin, carried the announcement that Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, to Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama who resided at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway.

196. Madelyn Dunham and her daughter Stanley Ann lived at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway. There is no evidence that B Obama Sr. lived there.

197. Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack H. Obama Sr. lived at two different addresses after their marriage. Stanley Ann Dunham remained in the rented 6085 Kalanianaole Highway after her marriage.

54.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

198. B Obama Sr, lived alone at an 11th Avenue address, closer to the university where he was a student. It is reported that Stanley Ann Dunham left Hawaii in August 1961, the month of Barack Obama Jr.’s birth, taking him with her but leaving her husband behind when she moved to Seattle to enroll at the University of Washington.

199. Whether B Obama Sr. did not establish a residence with his wife and son in Hawaii is unknown, there is no listing in the Polk directories for 1961 – 1962 that documents Stanley Ann Dunham and B Obama (Kenya) as ever having lived at the same address.

200. A search of the Polk’s Directory of Honolulu for 1961-62 indicates that 6085 Kalanianaole Highway was being rented by the grandparents, Madelyn L. Dunham, listed as a loan interviewer and escrow agent at the Bank of Hawaii, and Stanley A. Dunham, listed as a manager with Pratt Furniture.

201. In a separate listing, Ann S. Obama, Mr. Obama’s mother, is identified as a student living at the 6085 Kalanianaole Highway address; Barack H. Obama, her husband, is listed as a student living at a separate address, his own apartment at 625 11th Avenue, closer to the University of Hawaii at Manoa:

55.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

202. Polk’s Directory of City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii 1961-1962

203. Researchers were unable to determine that B Obama (Kenya) and Stanley Ann Dunham Obama ever lived together at any common address in Hawaii

204. Much of Mr. Obamas early life remains a mystery and is only revealed to the public through an unsupported composite narrative. Instances exist where the narrative of birth or other reported life time events have been called into question and then the narrative is altered in an effort to clears up discrepancy, but absent of any documentation supporting the change in questionable facts.

205. A thorough background investigation supported by the release of life time documentation would be necessary to strengthen the birth narrative should it exist as depicted to the public.

206. However, investigators have been hampered by the refusal of Mr. Obama to release any of his past records should they exist.

207. Record not released including the follow:

A. Original, long-form 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate.

B. Marriage license between Obama’s father (Barak Sr.) and mother (Stanley Ann Dunham)

C. Name change (Barry Sotero to Barack Hussein Obama)

D. Obama’s adoption records

56.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

E. Records of Obama’s and his mother’s repatriation as US citizens on return from return from Indonesia

F. Obama’s baptism records

G. Noelani Elementary School (Hawaii)

H. Punahou School financial aid or school records

I. Occidental College financial aid records

J. Harvard Law School records

K. Columbia senior thesis

L. Columbia College records

M. Obama’s record with Illinois State Bar Association

N. Obama’s files from career as an Illinois State Senator

O. Obama’s law client list

P. Obama’s medical records

Q. Obama’s passport records

Sworn to under penalty of perjury.

Date — Michael Zullo

57.

Tea Party Patriots To Hold Massive Protest Rallies At IRS Offices Nationwide On Tuesday, May 21, 2013

BREAKING: Nationwide TEA PARTY PROTESTS Set For Tuesday At IRS Offices (Pass It On!) – Gateway Pundit

PROTEST THE CORRUPTION – PROTEST THE CRIMINAL OBAMA IRS

.

Thanks to Barack Obama the Tea Party is once again outraged and motivated.

The Tea Party Patriots on behalf of Tea Party, Patriot groups, 9/12, liberty activists, and the American people, we are calling for anyone and everyone to protest the IRS’ complete abuse of power on Tuesday, May 21, 2013 at noon local time.

.

CLICK TO FIND A LOCATION NEAR YOU

NOW IS THE TIME TO STAND UP AGAINST THIS HORRIBLE ABUSE OF POWER!

Tuesday – May 21 – Noon – at Your Local IRS Office.

** And, here’s a link where people can tell us their stories, either individually being targeted or their groups being targeted.

.

Click here to tell your story.

PLEASE PASS THIS ON – This is step one of our national assault to FIGHT BACK.

More here.

UPDATE: Here’s more info on the St. Louis area protest:

BUILDING: TOWN & COUNTRY
ADDRESS: 1122 T & C COMMONS
CITY: CHESTERFIELD
STATE: MO
ZIPCODE: 63017
BUILDING_T: IRS OFFICE
FULL ADDRESS: 1122 T & C COMMONS, CHESTERFIELD, MO 63017

.
Click HERE to view PICTURES of the various protests.

.

Introducing The Obama Scandal Bracket! (Jon Gabriel)

Introducing The Obama Scandal Bracket! – Jon Gabriel

With so many White House scandals – and new ones popping up every day – how are average citizens supposed to keep track? Wouldn’t it be nice if Obama went on ESPN and mapped them all on a bracket?

Why wait for next year’s March Madness when you can start May Madness today? Introducing the Obama Scandal Bracket! Click here for a full-size version and vote for the scandal you think will bring down the president.

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Congressional Republicans To Investigate EPA Freedom Of Information Requests Scandal

Lawmakers To Investigate EPA FOIA Scandal – Daily Caller

Republican lawmakers are launching an investigation into claims that the Environmental Protection Agency, while giving preferential treatment to environmental groups, made it harder for conservative groups to obtain government records.

.

“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,” wrote Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Darrell Issa and Sens. David Vitter, Chuck Grassley and Jim Inhofe in a letter to the EPA.

Citing a report by The Daily Caller News Foundation, Republicans are asking the EPA to hand over all Freedom of Information Act fee waiver requests, responses to requests, and FOIA officer training materials since the beginning of the Obama administration.

Lawmakers are also asking for all communications regarding FOIA fee waiver requests or appeals under the Obama administration.

The free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute obtained documents showing that since January 2012, the EPA granted fee waivers for 75 out of 82 FOIA requests from major environmental groups and only denied seven of them, giving green groups a 92 percent success rate.

At the same time, the EPA rejected or ignored 21 out of 26 fee waiver requests from conservative groups.

“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,” the lawmakers wrote. “This is a clear abuse of discretion.”

Republicans are tying the EPA to the broader controversy over the Internal Revenue Service targeting conservative groups.

“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,” said Vitter.

Acting EPA administrator Bob Perciasepe announced Thursday that he was asking the inspector general to look into the matter.

“I am going to get an independent look at all that information so I can get a determination,” said Perciasepe, adding that the agency’s shift to an online system often means that groups are not charged any fees even if they are not formally waived.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Your Daley Gator Lying Leftist Liars IRS Cover-up News Roundup For Monday (Videos)

Obama And The IRS: The Smoking Gun? – American Spectator

President met with anti-Tea Party IRS union chief the day before agency targeted Tea Party.

.

“For me, it’s about collaboration.” – National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley on the relationship between the anti-Tea Party IRS union and the Obama White House

Is President Obama directly implicated in the IRS scandal?

Is the White House Visitors Log the trail to the smoking gun?

The stunning questions are raised by the following set of new facts.

March 31, 2010.

According to the White House Visitors Log, provided here in searchable form by U.S. News and World Report, the president of the anti-Tea Party National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelley, visited the White House at 12:30pm that Wednesday noon time of March 31st.

The White House lists the IRS union leader’s visit this way:

Kelley, Colleen Potus 03/31/2010 12:30

In White House language, “POTUS” stands for “President of the United States.”

The very next day after her White House meeting with the President, according to the Treasury Department’s Inspector General’s Report, IRS employees – the same employees who belong to the NTEU – set to work in earnest targeting the Tea Party and conservative groups around America. The IG report wrote it up this way:

April 1-2, 2010: The new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed.

In short: the very day after the president of the quite publicly anti-Tea Party labor union – the union for IRS employees – met with President Obama, the manager of the IRS “Determinations Unit Program agreed” to open a “Sensitive Case report on the Tea party cases.” As stated by the IG report.

The NTEU is the 150,000 member union that represents IRS employees along with 30 other separate government agencies. Kelley herself is a 14-year IRS veteran agent. The union’s PAC endorsed President Obama in both 2008 and 2012, and gave hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles to anti-Tea Party candidates.

Putting IRS employees in the position of actively financing anti-Tea Party candidates themselves, while in their official positions in the IRS blocking, auditing, or intimidating Tea Party and conservative groups around the country.

The IG report contained a timeline prepared by examining internal IRS e-mails. The IG report did not examine White House Visitor Logs, e-mails, or phone records relating to the relationship between the IRS union, the IRS, and the White House.

In fact, this record in the White House Visitors Log of a 12:30 Wednesday, March 31, 2010 meeting between President Obama and the IRS union’s Kelley was not unusual.

On yet another occasion, Kelley’s presence at the White House was followed shortly afterwards by the President issuing Executive Order 13522. A presidential directive that gave the anti-Tea Party NTEU – the IRS union – a greater role in the day-to-day operation of the IRS than it had already – which was considerable.

Kelley is recorded as visiting the White House over a year earlier, listed in this fashion:

Kelley, Colleen Potus/Flotus 12/03/2009 18:30

The inclusion of “FLOTUS” – First Lady Michelle Obama – and the 6:30 pm time of the December event on this entry in the Visitors Log indicates this was the White House Christmas Party held that evening and written up here in the Chicago Sun-Times. The Sun-Times focused on party guests from the President’s home state of Illinois and did not mention Kelley. Notably, the Illinois guests, who are reported to have attended the same party as Kelley, included what the paper described as four labor “activists”: Dennis Gannon of the Chicago Federation of Labor, Tom Balanoff of the Service Employees International Union, Henry Tamarin of UNITE, and Ron Powell of the United Food and Commercial Workers.

Six days following Kelley’s attendance at the White House Christmas party with labor activists like herself, the President issued Executive Order 13522 (text found here, with an explanation here). The Executive Order, titled: “Creating Labor-Management Forums To Improve Delivery of Government Services” applied across the federal government and included the IRS. The directive was designed to:

Allow employees and unions to have pre-decisional involvement in all workplace matters…

However else this December 2009 Executive Order can be described, the directive was a serious grant of authority within the IRS to the powerful anti-Tea Party union. A union that by this time already had the clout to determine the rules for IRS employees, right down to who would be allowed a Blackberry or what size office the employee was entitled to. The same union that would shortly be doling out serious 2010 (and later 2012) campaign contributions to anti-Tea Party candidates with money supplied from IRS employees. The union, as noted last week here in this space, already has the authority to decide all manner of IRS matters, right down to who does and does not get a Blackberry.

It is the same union whose IRS employee-members were being urged in 2012 by Senate Democrats (Chuck Schumer, Al Franken, Max Baucus, and others) to target Tea Party and other conservative groups.

Which, as the IG records, they did.

Both Mr. Obama and the NTEU’s Kelley have been by turns evasive and tight-lipped about their roles in the blossoming IRS scandal.

Kelley refused to open up to the Washington Post. In an article titled ”IRS, union mum on employees held accountable in ‘sin’ of political targeting,” the Post quoted the following:

“NTEU is working to get the facts but does not have any specifics at this time. Moreover, IRS employees are not permitted to discuss taxpayer cases. We cannot comment further at this time,” NTEU President Colleen M. Kelley said via e-mail.

A call to the NTEU office in Cincinnati resulted in a similar response: “We’ve been directed by national office. We have no comment.”

The President approached things in a more evasive manner.

Last Thursday at the President’s press conference with the Turkish prime minister, Julianna Goldman of Bloomberg News asked the following question:

“Mr. President, I want to ask you about the IRS. Can you assure the American people that nobody in the White House knew about the agency’s actions before your Counsel’s Office found out on April 22nd? And when they did find out, do you think that you should have learned about it before you learned about it from news reports as you said last Friday? And also, are you opposed to there being a special counsel appointed to lead the Justice Department investigation?”

The President’s response?

“But let me make sure that I answer your specific question. I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press.”

Take note: Goldman’s question was:

“Can you assure the American people that nobody in the White House knew about the agency’s actions before your Counsel’s Office found out on April 22nd?”

The President evaded by answering:

“I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report…”

The question was not whether he knew about the IG report ahead of time. The question was whether he could “assure the American people that nobody in the White House knew about the agency’s actions.”

In response, the President ducked.

In other words, the IRS union chief went to the White House to meet personally with the president on March 31. The union already had Executive Order 13522 behind it, issued by the President barely three months earlier. An Executive Order directing that the IRS must “allow employees and unions to have pre-decisional involvement in all workplace matters…”.

The very next day after that March 31 meeting at the White House, the IRS, with the union involved in its decision-making, was setting up its “Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party.”

Which raises the famous question from Watergate: What did the President know and when did he know it?

While potentially explosive now, in fact the Obama Administration hadn’t been in office a month before Kelley was boasting of the IRS union’s influence in the White House.

In a February 15, 2009 interview given to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pittsburgh is Kelley’s home town), there was this question from the PG reporter, with the now Washington-based Kelley boasting as below:

Q: Has the Obama staff been receptive?

A: Yes. We have worked with the transition team, given them suggestions; and throughout the campaign, President Obama talked about working with the federal employees and unions. He’s recognized the contributions federal employees make. I was just at the White House (Jan. 30) while he was signing some executive orders to undo some things the prior administration did.

Catch that?

The boast?

“I was just at the White House…”

Which is to say, the election of 2008, in which the union had endorsed Obama, was no sooner over than the head of the IRS union had “worked with the transition team” and “given them suggestions.” Literally ten days after the Obama January 20 inaugural in 2009 – January 30 the article notes – Kelley was boasting that “I was just at the White House while he (the President) was signing some executive orders to undo some things the prior administration did.”

And what did Kelley see as the IRS union’s relationship with the White House she had already visited ten days into the President’s first term?

Kelley responded candidly:

“We are looking for a return to what we used to call partnership. I don’t really care what it’s called. For me, it’s about collaboration.”

Catch those words?

Collaboration. Partnership.

In addition to Kelley’s three visits to see the President – in January of 2009, December of 2009, and March of 2010 – she is listed for three other visits, the contact names those of presidential aides:

“Kelley, Colleen Weiss, Margaret 11/04/2009 10:00”

“Kelley, Colleen Weiss, Margaret 12/01/2009 12:00”

“Kelley, Colleen Nelson, Greg 01/14/2010 13:40”

The obvious question instantly arises with the revelation that Kelley was meeting with the President personally – the day before the IRS kicked into high gear with its “Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party”.

Were the President of the United States and the President of the NTEU meeting in the White House at 12:30 on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 – and engaged in “collaboration” and “partnership”? A “collaboration” and “partnership” that was all about targeting the Tea Party?

And did that collaboration and partnership result in the IRS letting loose the hounds on the Tea Party and conservative groups – the very next day after the Obama-Kelley meeting?

To add to the administration’s IRS-NTEU woes is the fact that beyond the Inspector General, there is another IRS-connected agency in the Treasury Department: the IRS Oversight Board.

And on that board sits a presidential appointee named Robert M. Tobias. Tobias, oddly, was a Clinton appointee in 2005, confirmed by the Senate for a five-year term. He is still there. He is the longtime NTEU general counsel and Kelley’s predecessor as the union president. Here’s the statement, from the IRS Oversight Board, on all of this. It is headed:

IRS Oversight Board Deeply Troubled by Breakdown in IRS Process in Reviewing Tax-Exempt Applications.

There was no reference to the influence of the anti-Tea Party NTEU in the statement. Why would there be when the union’s ex-president sits on the Oversight Board itself?

Obama’s problem here is considerable.

By not forthrightly answering Goldman’s question, he seems to be evading the issue in the manner that brought so much trouble in the form of congressional investigations, special prosecutors, and impeachment threats to Presidents Nixon and Clinton, with Nixon being forced to resign the presidency and Clinton brought to a Senate trial.

The President’s too-clever-by half evasion added to Kelley’s silence leaves open the question of whether the union and the White House, not to mention the IRS Oversight Board, are collaborating – collaborating right now – on a cover-up.

Nixon looked the American people in the television eye and flatly lied about his personal involvement in the Watergate scandal, lies that came from a frantic attempt to conduct a cover-up.

Clinton looked the American people in the eye and famously wagged his finger as he lied that he “did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.” In Clinton’s case this extended to lying to a federal grand jury.

For a good long while, the American people in fact believed both Nixon and Clinton. The stories are now legion of Nixon cabinet and staff believing their man, and Clinton’s cabinet and staff believing their man’s protestations of innocence as well.

Finally, in both cases, the truth was out.

As Washington and the country have long since twice-learned the hard way, the parsing of presidential words in cases like this, not to mention looking into the cameras and boldly lying on the prayer of getting away with the lie, always bodes ill for presidents. It leads inevitably to that simple question famously uttered by then-Tennessee GOP Senator Howard Baker and posed of Nixon at the Senate Watergate hearings: “What did the President know and when did he know it?”

Twice in recent American history the answer to this question, once for Nixon and once for Clinton, has landed popular, powerful presidents in impeachment hot water. Ending Republican Nixon’s presidency altogether and coming close to doing the same with Democrat Clinton. Leaving the legacy of each permanently scarred.

The notion that the players in the IRS scandal did what they did to get past the 2012 election will only add to an Obama presidential reputation as borrowing the Nixon playbook on skirting scandal in a presidential election year.

Ironically re-casting the image of America’s first black president as the black Nixon.

With the examples of how Nixon and Clinton dodged, evaded, and lied, Obama’s non-answer to Juliana Goldman’s question at last week’s press conference comes in for much more scrutiny. Matched to the silence of Kelley it begins raising obvious questions. Such as:

• Did the President himself ever discuss the Tea Party with Kelley?

• Did the President ever communicate his thoughts on the Tea Party to Kelley — in any fashion other than a face-to-face conversation such as e-mail, text, or by phone?

• What was the subject of the Obama-Kelley March 31, 2010 meeting?

• Who was present at the Obama-Kelley March 31 meeting?

• Was the Tea Party or any other group opposing the President’s agenda discussed at the March 31 meeting, or before or after that meeting?

• Is the White House going to release any e-mails, text, or phone records that detail Kelley’s contacts with not only Mr. Obama but his staff?

• Will the IRS release all e-mail, text, or phone records between Kelley or any other leader of the NTEU with IRS employees?

• What role did Executive Order 13522 play in the IRS investigations of the Tea Party and all these other conservative groups?

Doubtless there are others, considerable others and the list of questions will grow.

Not to be lost sight of here is the role of the NTEU in raising money for Democrats in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles – the exact period when the IRS was busy going after the Tea Party and the others to curb any possible influence the groups could have in the elections of 2010 and 2012.

The NTEU, through its political action committee, raised $613,633 in the 2010 cycle, giving 98% of its contributions to anti-Tea Party Democrats. In 2012 the figure was $729,708, with 94% going to anti-Tea Party candidates. One NTEU candidate after another, as discussed last week in this space, campaigned vigorously against the Tea Party.

So the motivations here – defeating the Tea Party in 2010, and failing at that, making sure that the news of the metastasizing cancer in the IRS was kept quiet until after the 2012 presidential election was over – are clear.

What is particularly interesting here are the automatic assumptions of the mainstream media in all of this.

Like this “given” from the Washington Post’s Dan Balz, bold print added for emphasis.

The most corrosive of the controversies is what happened at the IRS, which singled out tea party and other conservative groups for special scrutiny in their applications for tax-exempt status. That Obama knew nothing about it does little to quell concerns that one of the most-feared units in government was operating out of control.

But if in fact the President did know about it?

Here’s the Washington Post’s “Journolist” Ezra Klein:

The crucial ingredient for a scandal is the prospect of high-level White House involvement and wide political repercussions…

If new information emerges showing a connection between the Determination Unit’s decisions and the Obama campaign, or the Obama administration, it would crack this White House wide open. That would be a genuine scandal. But the IG report says that there’s no evidence of that. And so it’s hard to see where this one goes from here.

Exactly.

Which is why it will be a curious sight indeed to see the efforts the media will go to ignore/dismiss the tight, on-the-record connection between the President personally and a vociferously anti-Tea Party union. A union that has the literal run of the IRS – and whose union chief is recorded as having met with the President in the White House the day before the IRS launched “a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases.” A decision with which, according to the IG report: “The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed.” Check those words from Mr. Klein again:

If new information emerges showing a connection between the Determination Unit’s decisions and the Obama campaign, or the Obama administration, it would crack this White House wide open. That would be a genuine scandal.

The question now is a simple one.

In 1974, “the smoking gun” was a tape recording that ended the Nixon presidency.

In 1998, the smoking gun was a blue dress – and it almost undid Bill Clinton’s White House.

Now the all-too-familiar pattern of scandal and its day-by-day drip-drip-drip nature has begun to set in. Newsmax is now quoting Washington attorney and conservative activist Cleta Mitchell as saying:

“There were nearly 100 groups across the country that got the very egregious set of letters from the IRS that were almost identical and they came from offices all over the country, so I know of at least 85 to 90, maybe more, organizations.”

Regular American all over the country are coming forward with their stories. Understanding the relationship between the Obama White House and the IRS union will be a must for congressional investigators.

President Obama is coming perilously closer to becoming the new Nixon. The next Bill Clinton.

And once again, as news of exactly what a president was doing in the Oval Office on a particular day and time goes public, yet again the old question becomes new.

What did the President know? And when did he know it?

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related articles:

.
Obama’s Chief Lawyer Knew About IRS Targeting Weeks Ago – Townhall

The IRS scandal keeps getting closer and closer to the top of the White House food chain as Obama officials desperately try to spin their way out of mounting evidence and foul play. The Wall Street Journal is reporting President Obama’s top attorney knew about the IRS targeting weeks ago before news broke, but of course, Obama still didn’t know about it until he learned about it “from the news.”

The White House’s chief lawyer learned weeks ago that an audit of the Internal Revenue Service likely would show that agency employees inappropriately targeted conservative groups, a senior White House official said Sunday.

That disclosure has prompted a debate over whether the president should have been notified at that time.

In the week of April 22, the Office of the White House Counsel and its head, Kathryn Ruemmler, were told by Treasury Department attorneys that an inspector general’s report was nearing completion, the White House official said. In that conversation, Ms. Ruemmler learned that “a small number of line IRS employees had improperly scrutinized certain…organizations by using words like ‘tea party’ and ‘patriot,’ ” the official said.

President Barack Obama said last week he learned about the controversy at the same time as the public, on May 10, when an IRS official revealed it to a conference of lawyers.

The main question since this whole thing broke on May 10th is whether President Obama ordered the targeting, knew of targeting, or encouraged the targeting through his statements. Did this thing come from the top? Kim Strassel says of course it did.

Was the White House involved in the IRS’s targeting of conservatives? No investigation needed to answer that one. Of course it was.

President Obama and Co. are in full deniability mode, noting that the IRS is an “independent” agency and that they knew nothing about its abuse. The media and Congress are sleuthing for some hint that Mr. Obama picked up the phone and sicced the tax dogs on his enemies.

But that’s not how things work in post-Watergate Washington. Mr. Obama didn’t need to pick up the phone. All he needed to do was exactly what he did do, in full view, for three years: Publicly suggest that conservative political groups were engaged in nefarious deeds; publicly call out by name political opponents whom he’d like to see harassed; and publicly have his party pressure the IRS to take action.

Mr. Obama now professes shock and outrage that bureaucrats at the IRS did exactly what the president of the United States said was the right and honorable thing to do. “He put a target on our backs, and he’s now going to blame the people who are shooting at us?” asks Idaho businessman and longtime Republican donor Frank VanderSloot.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
A Bushel Of Pinocchios For IRS’s Lois Lerner – Washington Post

In the days since the Internal Revenue Service first disclosed that it had targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, new information has emerged from both the Treasury Inspector General’s report and congressional testimony Friday that calls into question key statements made by Lois G. Lerner, the IRS’s director of the exempt organizations division.

The clumsy way the IRS disclosed the issue as well as Lerner’s press briefing by phone were seen at the time as a public relations disaster. But even so, it is worth reviewing three key statements made by Lerner and comparing them to the facts that have since emerged.

“But between 2010 and 2012 we started seeing a very big uptick in the number of 501(c)(4) applications we were receiving and many of these organizations applying more than doubled, about 1500 in 2010 and over 3400 in 2012.”

Lerner made this comment while issuing a seemingly impromptu apology at an American Bar Association panel (it was later learned that this was a planted question – more on that below.) In her telling, the tax-exempt branch was simply overwhelmed by applications and so unfortunate shortcuts were taken.

But this claim of “more than doubled” appears to be a red herring. The targeting of groups began in early 2010, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizen’s United was announced on Jan. 21. The ruling paved the way for political groups to apply under a tax-exempt status known as 501(c)4. Most charities apply under 501(c)3, but under 501(c)4 nonprofit groups that engage in “social welfare” can also perform a limited amount of election activity.

At first glance, the Inspector General’s report appears to show that the number of 501(c)(4) applications actually went down that year, from 1,751 in 2009 to 1,735.

But it turns out that these are federal fiscal-year figures, meaning “2010” is actually Oct. 1, 2009 to Sept. 30, 2010, so the “2010” year includes more than three months before the Supreme Court decision was announced.

Astonishingly, despite Lerner’s public claim, an IRS spokeswoman was not able to provide the actual calendar year numbers. By allocating one-quarter of the fiscal year numbers to the prior year, we can get a very rough sense of the increase on a calendar-year basis.(Figures are rounded to avoid false precision; 2012 is not possible to calculate)

2009: 1745

2010: 1865

2011: 2540

In other words, while there was an increase in 2010, it was relatively small. The real jump did not come until 2011, long after the targeting of conservative groups had been implemented. Also, it appears Lerner significantly understated the number of applications in 2010 (“1500”) in order to make her claim of “more than doubled.”

“I think you guys were reading the paper as much as I was. So it was pretty much we started seeing information in the press that raised questions for us and we went back and took a look.”

Here, Lerner suggests that she only found out about this issue when news reports appeared in February and March 2012 about tea party groups complaining that they were being targeted. But the IG timeline shows this claim to be false.

According the IG, Lerner had a briefing on the issue on June 29, 2011, in which she was told about the BOLO (“Be On the Look Out”) criteria that included phrases such as “Tea Party” or “Patriots.” The report says she raised concerns about the wording and “instructed that the criteria be immediately revised.” She continued to be heavily involved in the issue in the months preceding the new reports, according to the timeline.

“I don’t believe anyone ever asked me that question before.”

This was Lerner’s excuse during the media call for why she had not publicly addressed the issue before.

But in congressional testimony Friday, former acting director Steven T. Miller said he had discussed with Lerner about arranging to make a statement at a May 10 conference sponsored by the American Bar Association, knowing that the IG report would soon be released.

Lerner then contacted a friend, Celia Roady, a tax attorney with the Washington firm Morgan Lewis, to ask a question about the targeting, according to a statement by Roady on Friday. (Roady had previously denied this was a planted question when asked directly by participants at the meeting.)

So Lerner was dissembling when she suggested that a simple well-aimed question prompted the disclosure.

In fact, just two days before the ABA conference, Lerner appeared before Congress and was asked about the status of investigations into 501(c)(4) companies by Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.). She provided a bland answer about a questionnaire on the IRS Web site, failing to take the opportunity to disclose the results of the probe. (The clip is embedded below, with the question coming at 5:09.) Small wonder that Crowley is now calling for her to resign, saying that Lerner lied to him.

.

.
We gave the IRS the weekend to provide a response. A spokeswoman said they were not able to offer an explanation for Lerner’s remarks in time for our deadline.

The Pinocchio Test

In some ways, this is just scratching the surface of Lerner’s misstatements and weasely wording when the revelations about the IRS’s activities first came to light on May 10. But, taken together, it’s certainly enough to earn her four Pinocchios.

Four Pinocchios

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Two IRS Offices Targeted Hawaii GOP Leader At The Same Time – Daily Caller

In what former Republican executive and activist Dylan Nonaka is calling a massive invasion of privacy that suggests a coordinated effort to target conservative groups, two IRS offices last year independently and simultaneously conducted costly audits and sought tea party-related training materials that they apparently believed could be tied to Nonaka.

Nonaka, who is the former executive director of the Hawaii Republican Party and a faculty member of the Arlington, Va.-based conservative activist training organization the Leadership Institute, is little-known outside of Hawaii. So when the now-infamous Cincinnati IRS office in 2012 demanded that the Hawaii Tea Party explain its “relationship with Dylan Nonaka” and the Leadership Institute, and “provide copies of the training material used by Dylan Nonaka” – all almost at the same time that the Baltimore IRS office separately began auditing the Leadership Institute and requesting its training materials – it wasn’t long before Nonaka became suspicious.

“It’s a little bit scary,” Nonaka told The Daily Caller, adding that the apparent coordination made it extremely unlikely that only two IRS officials were primarily behind the agency’s efforts to target conservative groups, as the IRS has claimed.

“To say that these were are a couple of rogue IRS agents, there’s just no way,” Nonaka said. “They obviously had to have done research into the state of Hawaii.”

BELOW – Four of the IRS’ questions for the Hawaii Tea Party. (Read the full request here)

The Hawaii Tea Party, based in Maui, was audited in 2011. But despite the IRS’ inquiries, Nonaka said he had only limited interaction with the group.

“I think I did one training with [the Hawaii Tea Party] through the Leadership Institute, when the Leadership Institute came to Hawaii,” Nonaka told TheDC.”I was never a member of the Hawaii Tea Party. I was never involved with them.”

Meanwhile, also in 2011, the Leadership Institute was under the IRS’ microscope.

“Our audit began June 1, 2011,” Leadership Institute spokeswoman Abigail Alger told TheDC. “We were asked for additional documentation in February 2012″ – just 19 days after the Hawaii Tea Party was asked for additional information.

“The Baltimore office asked for copies of our training material,” Alger said. “The questions ranged from turning over the content of our 2008 training materials, to giving them all the information on our 2008 interns. These were just college kids, but they asked who our 2008 interns went on to work for.”

“In May, the IRS had an internal workshop. Our audit was closed July of that year, with no evidence of wrongdoing,” Alger said. “By that point, we had spent $50,000 in legal fees.”

The Hawaii Tea Party was also cleared of wrongdoing by the Cincinnati office.

“It’s a pretty big invasion of privacy,” Nonaka said.

Hawaii Tea Party IRS Inquiries

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related videos:

.

.

.

.

.

.

Your Daley Gator Lying Leftist Liars IRS Cover-up News Roundup For Saturday (Videos)

Obama Administration Knew About IRS Scrutinizing Conservative Groups In June: Inspector General – New York Daily News

An Internal Revenue Service watchdog testified Friday that he told Obama administration officials in June that he was looking into allegations the IRS targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status.

The revelation by Inspector General Russell George came at the first congressional hearing on the IRS misconduct, which has generated a political firestorm since it was disclosed a week ago.

.

George’s testimony represented the first evidence that officials in the Obama administration knew of the allegations as long as a year ago, during the presidential campaign.

Appearing Friday before the House Ways and Means Committee, George said he told the Treasury Department’s general counsel of his investigation on June 4, in a routine briefing of what his office was working on.

George said he did not disclose that he had concluded the targeting was improper.

But his testimony that knowledge of the allegations was not limited to the IRS is likely to fuel efforts by Republicans to link the scandal to the White House and congressional Democrats.

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said Friday that he was briefed in March that an investigation was underway of IRS screening of conservative groups – though he didn’t learn the substance of the findings until last week.

In an interview with Bloomberg Television, Lew said he had “a getting-to-know-you conversation” with George in mid-March, a couple of weeks after he was sworn in as treasury secretary, and the investigation “was one of the things he briefed me was ongoing.”

“I didn’t know any of the details of it until last Friday,” Lew said.

Lew also disclosed that he has ordered Danny Werfel, whom President Obama named Thursday to take over as acting IRS commissioner, to come up with an action plan within 30 days to address the handling of applications for tax-exempt status.

Obama also has said he first learned of the matter last Friday – when a Treasury Department official, Lois Lerner, revealed during an American Bar Association conference that IRS workers in a Cincinnati office had subjected groups with “Tea Party” or “patriots” in their names for extra scrutiny to determine if they should be tax exempt.

During yesterday’s testimony, Steven Miller, who was forced to resign this week week as the IRS acting commissioner, revealed that Lerner made her disclosure in response to a planted question at the bar association conference.

“We talked about what would be said and how we might do it,” he said.

The revelation irked lawmakers already angry the IRS never told them it had been improperly targeting conservative groups, despite numerous inquiries by members of Congress.

Reps. Joe Crowley (D-Queens) and Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) demanded Lerner resign or be fired.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
Congressman: IRS Asked Pro-Life Group About ‘The Content Of Their Prayers’ – Washington Examiner

.

.
During a House Ways and Means Committee hearing today, Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., grilled outgoing IRS commissioner Steven Miller about the IRS targeting a pro-life group in Iowa.

“Their question, specifically asked from the IRS to the Coalition for Life of Iowa: ‘Please detail the content of the members of your organization’s prayers,’” Schock declared.

“Would that be an inappropriate question to a 501 c3 applicant?” asked Schock. “The content of one’s prayers?”

“It pains me to say I can’t speak to that one either,” Miller replied.

After Schock pressed him further, Miller explained that although he couldn’t comment on the specific case, it would “surprise him” if that question was asked.

The report comes from the Thomas More Society, a national public interest law firm for religious liberty.

From their report:

Coalition for Life of Iowa found itself in the IRS’s crosshairs when the group applied for tax exempt status in October 2008. Nearly ten months of interrogation about the group’s opposition to Planned Parenthood included a demand by a Ms. Richards from the IRS’ Cincinnati office unlawfully insisted that all board members sign a sworn declaration promising not to picket/protest Planned Parenthood. Further questioning by the IRS requested detailed information about the content of the group’s prayer meetings, educational seminars, and signs their members hold outside Planned Parenthood.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Shocker: IRS Chief Apparently Lied During Testimony Yesterday, There Was No Greater “Flood Of Tax Exempt Applications” In 2010 When Targeting Began – Weasel Zippers

.

No kidding, you mean it wasn’t done for “efficiency”?

Via Breitbart:

In House testimony Friday, former Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller explained that the IRS mistakes in handling applications for non-profit status from tea party groups were due, in large part, to a flood of applications following the Citizens United decision. Miller said the targeting was a botched attempt to centralize the process to account for the increased workload. There were fewer applications in 2010, when the IRS began targeting conservative groups, than the year before, however.

In 2009, before IRS began targeting tea party organizations, 1,751 groups applied for 501 (c)4 status. That number dropped in 2010 to 1,735. In fact, applications were down across all areas in the Tax Exempt division’s jurisdiction. So, they had more staff available for processing. While the number of applications did increase in 2011 and 2012, there was no increase in applications when the IRS began isolating tea party groups.

Moreover, the IRS reportedly abandoned the targeting in early 2012. It presumably had little trouble handling the increased number of applicants in advance of the 2012 election.

For whatever reason the IRS chose to target tea party organizations for special scrutiny, it wasn’t due to a flood of new applications.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Wow! Huge Story!!… Obama IRS Asked Tea Party Groups For Back-End Access To Their Websites (Video) – Gateway Pundit

IT GETS WORSE!

The Obama IRS demanded that several Tea Party groups provide back-end access to their websites.

And, from reliable sources: This happened to several Tea Party groups!

The source has this in writing. It states they wanted access to everything the members had access to, which would be chats, email, contact information, etc. The group raised less than $600. She was targeted as early as October 2010.

Central Texas 912 President, Maria Acosta joined Kristina Ribali from FreedomWorks to discuss being singled out by the Feds.

The IRS asked for back-end access to the group’s website.
And this is a tax question?

Here is the latest creepy story of IRS harassment and abuse.

.
UPDATE: The IRS also demanded the Richmond Tea Party in Virginia to provide access to the back-end of their website.

Question 5A:

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
IRS Says Release Of Groups’ Materials To ProPublica Was ‘Inadvertent And Unintentional’ – TPM

The Internal Revenue Service on Friday issued a statement to ProPublica saying that the agency’s release of pending confidential tax-exempt applications from conservative groups last year had been found to be “inadvertent and unintentional disclosures by the employees involved.”

In the statement, the IRS said the cases had been referred to and reviewed by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

“When these two issues were previously raised concerning the potential unauthorized disclosures of 501(c)(4) application information, we immediately referred these cases to TIGTA [Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration] for a comprehensive review,” the statement said. “In both instances, TIGTA found these instances to be inadvertent and unintentional disclosures by the employees involved.”

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Must Watch: Mega Romney Donor Says He Was Targeted By Obama Campaign, Then Audited By IRS And Labor Dept – Right Scoop

This is not my country. The Chicago thugocracy we have in the White House is every bit what Michelle Malkin has always said it was, using government to target and oppress political ‘enemies’.

In this segment, Frank Vandersloot tells BillO that after he gave Romney one million to help his campaign, he was then targeted by the Obama campaign on their official website along with seven others. Shortly after that he received a letter from the IRS saying he would be audited. And then on top of that, he also had the Labor Dept. come calling because they wanted to look at his books.

He tells BillO his story:

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Congressman Mike Kelly Hammers IRS Parasite Over His Agency’s Abuses Of Power

.

*VIDEO* IRS Targeting Of Conservatives: Entire House Ways & Means Committee Hearing – 05/17/13

…………………….Click on image above to watch video.

.
Via C-SPAN

.

Senate Democrats Block Rand Paul’s Resolution Condemning The IRS

Senate Democrats Block Rand Paul’s Resolution Condemning The IRS – Red Alert Politics

Senate Democrats have decided that holding the Internal Revenue Service accountable is not a priority right now.

.
……….

On Tuesday the Democratic leadership in the chamber blocked a resolution by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to investigate the federal agency and fire all people responsible for improperly targeting conservative organizations.

“President Obama should terminate the individuals responsible for targeting and willfully discriminating against Tea Party groups and other conservative groups,” the resolution states.

His resolution also demanded an investigation “to determine if other entities in the administration of President Obama were involved in or were aware of the discrimination and did not take action to stop the actions of the Internal Revenue Service.”

The freshman senator asserted that he introduced the legislation to protect the First Amendment rights of the American people, and not to drive attention to the partisan nature of the scandal.

“This resolution is not about Republican vs. Democrat or conservative vs. liberal,” Paul said in a statement. “It is about arrogant and unrestrained government vs. the rule of law. The First Amendment cannot and should not be renegotiated depending on which party holds power.”

“Each senator took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, yet Senate Democrats chose to block my resolution and thus refused to condemn the IRS for trampling on our First Amendment rights,” he continued. “I am incredibly disappointed in Washington’s party politics and I am determined to hold the IRS accountable for these unjust acts.”

While Paul is personally a member of the Tea Party movement, he had previously acknowledged that he was offended by the IRS’s actions.

“I’m offended when any kind of government entity targets people for their political or religious beliefs,” Paul said at an Iowa GOP fundraiser, “so it’s, you know, particularly offensive, since I’m one of the groups they were targeting. They didn’t audit me personally, but, you know, government should never be used to bully people.”

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* AP Phone Records Scandal: Entire House Judiciary Committee Hearing – 05/15/13

……….
…………………….Click on image above to watch video.

.
Via C-SPAN

.

President Asshat Caught In Yet Another Benghazi-gate Lie

PolitiFact: Obama Claim Benghazi Review Board ‘Investigated Every Element’ Is Pure Fiction – Big Journalism

For months, conservative media has been howling over the falsehood that the Accountability Review Board (ARB) offered a thorough investigation into the September 11 terror attack in Benghazi. The most frustrating part is that in order to ignore the legions of unanswered questions surrounding Libya, Obama and his media (most famously Slate’s Dave Weigel, who used the report to say GOP claims of a cover up were “pure fiction”) have hid behind the ARB’s report as though it were definitive. For months, conservative media has been howling over the falsehood that the Accountability Review Board (ARB) offered a thorough investigation into the September 11 terror attack in Benghazi. The most frustrating part is that in order to ignore the legions of unanswered questions surrounding Libya, Obama and his media (most famously Slate’s Dave Weigel, who used the report to say GOP claims of a cover up were “pure fiction”) have hid behind the ARB’s report as though it were definitive.

.

On Monday, President Obama tried this ruse again. But now that the media has finally woken up from a five-year infatuation, he isn’t getting away with it. PolitiFact has labeled as “mostly false,” Obama’s claim that…

Over the last several months, there was a review board headed by two distinguished Americans, Mike Mullen and Tom Pickering, who investigated every element of [the Benghazi incident.]

Here is PolitiFact’s reasoning:

While the [ARB] did investigate numerous angles of the security issues, it didn’t look at who perpetrated the attack, nor did it probe the administration’s public communications afterward. No less an authority than the board’s co-chairman undercut Obama’s sweeping claim that the board “investigated every element” with repeated comments on three Sunday shows. On balance, we rate Obama’s claim Mostly False.

Oh how times have changed. Back in December Weigel could get away with using the ARB report to falsely claim the Administration had been cleared of a cover up even though the ARB didn’t even look into the possibility of a cover up.

Today, Obama can’t even get away with it.

By the way, this is the second falsehood the President of the United States has been caught telling this week.

And it is only Wednesday.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Your Daley Gator IRS Scandal Roundup For Wednesday

IRS Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Theft Of 60 Million Medical Records – Healthcare IT News

The Internal Revenue Service is now facing a class action lawsuit over allegations that it improperly accessed and stole the health records of some 10 million Americans, including medical records of all California state judges.

.

According to a report by Courthousenews.com, an unnamed HIPAA-covered entity in California is suing the IRS, alleging that some 60 million medical records from 10 million patients were stolen by 15 IRS agents. The personal health information seized on March 11, 2011, included psychological counseling, gynecological counseling, sexual/drug treatment and other medical treatment data.

“This is an action involving the corruption and abuse of power by several Internal Revenue Service agents,” the complaint reads. “No search warrant authorized the seizure of these records; no subpoena authorized the seizure of these records; none of the 10,000,000 Americans were under any kind of known criminal or civil investigation and their medical records had no relevance whatsoever to the IRS search. IT personnel at the scene, a HIPPA facility warning on the building and the IT portion of the searched premises, and the company executives each warned the IRS agents of these privileged records,” it continued.

According to the case, the IRS agents had a search warrant for financial data pertaining to a former employee of the John Doe company, however, “it did not authorize any seizure of any healthcare or medical record of any persons, least of all third parties completely unrelated to the matter,” the complaint read.

The class action lawsuit against the IRS seeks $25,000 in compensatory damages “per violation per individual” in addition to punitive damages for constitutional violations. Thus, compensatory damages could start at a minimum of $250 billion.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related articles:

.
IRS Told Pro-Life Group It Must Promote Abortion – Gateway Pundit

It’s an Obama world…

The IRS told a pro-life group that it had to promote abortion or they wouldn’t qualify for nonprofit status.

World Net Daily reported:

The Internal Revenue Service already has confessed to targeting and trying to injure tea party, Constitution and patriot organizations, by demanding answers to arbitrary questions and delaying their applications for a tax status so they could operate.

Now WND has learned that the IRS also put an organization in its bull’s-eye that wanted to do nothing more than share its pro-life message with churches.

Cherish Life Ministries was created to be a non-profit under the IRS 501(c)3 provision so that churches would feel comfortable working together…

…Shinn said the IRS contacted him regarding his application for nonprofit status, and was told he didn’t qualify.

“The representative was telling me I had to provide information on all aspects of abortion, I couldn’t just educate the church from the pro-life perspective,” he said. “Every time I pressed her on this issue and asked her to clarify her position, she would state that it wasn’t what she was saying, and then, she would repeat it almost the same way.”

The IRS agent did not respond to a WND request for comment on the ministry’s position.

But Shinn said he was accused of setting up a political organization.

“I asked her why she said we were political organization and she said it was because we had said in our application that we did less than 5 percent political activity. I explained to her that this was what was stated in the application and all we were doing was acknowledging that we were doing less than 5 percent political activity,” he said.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Document: IRS Ordered Conservative Educational Group To Turn Over A List Of High School And College Students It Trained – Daily Mail

When a Tennessee lawyer asked the IRS for tax-exempt status for a mentoring group that trained high school and college students about conservative political philosophy, the agency responded with a list of 95 questions in 31 parts, including an ultimatum for a list of everyone the group had trained, or planned to train.

‘Provide details regarding all training you have provided or will provide,’ the IRS demanded. ‘Indicate who has received or will receive the training and submit copies of the training material.’

That question was part of the tax collection agency’s February 14, 2012 letter to Kevin Kookogey. founder of the group Linchpins of Liberty. He had submitted his application 13 months earlier.

‘Can you imagine my responsibility to parents if I disclosed the names of their children to the IRS?’ he asked MailOnline.

It’s ‘an impossible question to answer fully and truthfully,’ he said, ‘without disclosing the names of anyone I ever taught, or would ever teach, including students.’

Like the leaders of many tea party-affiliated groups whose tax-exemption applications have become the subject of angry complaints, Kookogey called the IRS’s inquisition an overreach, ‘especially considering that my organization mentors high school and college students.’

It ‘should send chills through your spine,’ he told MailOnline, ‘that the government would ask me to identify those I teach, and to provide details of what I teach them.’

The 13-month delay, while burdensome, was far shorter than those some other groups endured. According to a report released late Tuesday by the IRS’s Office of Inspector General, the average delay at one point was 574 days.

But Kookogey said a $30,000 grant was canceled as a result of the IRS’s months-long radio silence, when he couldn’t tell his donor that Linchpins had earned its 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.

That money would have made a significant difference to the group, judging from its public filings in Tennessee. In 2011, Linchpins of Liberty reported collecting just $3,460 in contributions, and spending $7,328 on its programs.

The group’s online materials refer to it as ‘an American leadership development enterprise.’ Its stated purpose is to mentor high school and college students, placing an emphasis on Western civilization and an old-style core curriculum – what previous generations called the ‘great books.’

‘Our ideas are opposed to the Obama administration, but we’re not tea party,’ Kookogey told The Tennessean.

It’s that lack of a tea party connection, he said, that makes his predicament so maddening.

He told MailOnline that nothing about his group – ‘not our name or our description or our website, or anything’ – should have placed it among the organizations the IRS chose to scrutinize closely by using key words like ‘tea party,’ ’9/12,’ and ‘patriots’ as qualifiers.

‘I’m not a Tea Party group. I’m not a Patriot group by name’ he told NewsChannel 5 in Nashville.

‘We mentor high school and college students in conservative political philosophy. It’s a one on one relationship.’

Kookogey summed it up in an interview with MailOnline as ‘unethical, unconstitutional, and unfair,’ later asserting in an email that ‘[w]e were targeted by the IRS based on our political beliefs and the content of our speech.’

The American Center for Law and Justice, which represents 27 conservative groups including Linchpins of Liberty, is planning to file suit against the IRS.

Jay Sekulow, that organization’s chief counsel, wrote on Tuesday that ‘the IRS abuse is ongoing.’

‘Even though the IRS admitted wrongdoing,’ Sekulow wrote in an essay for FoxNews.com, even though the Inspector General’s report indicates that wrongdoing was widespread, the IRS still hasn’t withdrawn its overbroad and unconstitutional questions, and it still hasn’t granted the exemptions it should grant, despite the fact that some applications have been pending for more than two years.’

The Inspector General’s report includes a list of ‘the seven questions’ the IRS asked right-wing groups that were later ‘identified as being unnecessary.’

Its request for the list of students trained by Linchpins of Liberty was not among them.

The report also largely exonerates political appointees in the Treasury Department and at the top of the IRS, instead blaming mid-level bureaucrats for providing ‘ineffective management’ and using ‘inappropriate criteria’ to red-flag conservative groups.

It makes no mention of anyone in the White House directing the IRS to play political favorites. But The Washington Post has reported that ‘senior IRS officials’ in Washington, D.C. were notified of the practice in 2011.

In December of that year, Kookogey says, he called the IRS’s nonprofit evaluation arm in Cincinnati, Ohio, to find out why his group’s application had taken so long.

The agent on the other end of the line, he said, told him, ‘We are waiting on guidance from our superiors as to your organization and similar organizations.’

Attorney General Eric Holder has said that he ordered the FBI to initiate a criminal probe on Friday, when he learned about the IRS’s practices.

The IRS’s actions, he said, were, ‘certainly outrageous and unacceptable, but we are examining the facts to see if there were criminal violations.’

Holder is expected to testify in a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday in Washington. On Friday the House Ways and Means Committee will hear testimony from acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller and Treasury Inspector General J. Russell George.

Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio has called for Miller to lose his job.

‘At a bare minimum, those involved with this deeply offensive use of government power have committed a violation of the public trust that has already had a profoundly chilling effect on free speech,’ Rubio wrote Monday in a letter to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew. ‘Such behavior cannot be excused with a simple apology.’

‘It is clear the IRS cannot operate with even a shred of the American people’s confidence under the current leadership,’ Rubio continued. ‘Therefore, I strongly urge that you and President Obama demand the IRS Commissioner’s resignation, effective immediately.’

On Friday, Sekulow demanded that the IRS immediately approve the tax-exempt status applications of his organization’s 10 legal clients, including Linchpins of Liberty, that are still waiting. He issued the agency an ultimatum: Grant the requests by noon on May 17, or prepare to fight in court.

‘We are demanding that the IRS grant our remaining clients tax-exempt status immediately,’ Sekulow said in a statement. ‘If that does not occur by Friday, we will advise our clients of their right to sue the IRS for the redress of their grievances.’

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
IRS Executive In Charge Of Unit That Targeted Conservatives Received Over $42K In Bonuses Since 2009 – Weasel Zippers

By all accounts she did a splendid job targeting anti-Obama groups.

Via Beltway Confidential:

Lois Lerner, the senior executive in charge of the IRS tax exemption department and the person at the center of the exploding scandal over the IRS targeting conservative, evangelical and pro-Israel non-profits, has been given $42,531 in bonuses since 2009.

That figure was included in data provided by the IRS in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by The Washington Examiner. Lerner is director of the IRS exempt organizations division, which processes and approves or denies applications from groups seeking tax-exempt status.

Lerner received $17,220 for 2009, $24,691 for 2010 and $10,620 for 2011, the most recent year for which the I(RS said data was available.

Keep reading…

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
10 Of 12 IRS Offices Implicated In Scandal Are In Washington – Washington Examiner

The Treasury Inspector General’s damaging report on the IRS-Tea Party scandal has destroyed the administration’s claim that low-level workers in a Cincinnati, Ohio office are to blame, revealing that 10 of 12 agency offices referenced in the affair are in Washington.

The report repeatedly references actions taken by the Washington-based Exempt Organizations unit and guidance specialists also in Washington. What’s more, the report was researched in the Exempt Organizations offices and the Cincinnati-based Determinations Units, which has received the blame for targeting Tea Party groups.

The audit, for example, probes into how the Cincinnati-based Determinations Unit developed its plan to pay attention to groups with the words “Tea Party,” “Patriot,” and other phrases used by anti-Obama groups during the 2010 election.

Washington-based offices denied involvement, but did change the “criteria” for groups to target in July 2011. Instead of looking for “Tea Party” groups seeking tax exempt status to investigate, the criteria was broadened to “political, lobbying or [general] advocacy.”

However, “the team of specialists subsequently changed the criteria in January 2012″ back, apparently without telling their bosses. “Specialists” are both Washington- and Ohio- based.

Popular talk radio host Mark Levin, one of the first to post the IG report online, suggested that the House committees investigating the scandal use the IG’s “High-Level Organization Chart of Offices Referenced in this Report” on page 29 in picking who should testify. He suggested that the heads of all 12 be called to testify.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
‘Very Frightening’: Prominent Catholic Prof. Claims IRS Audited Her After Speaking Out Against Obama And Demanded To Know Who Was Paying Her – The Blaze

In the midst of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) scandal, individuals and groups, alike, are continuing to come forward with ever-startling allegations. On Wednesday, Dr. Anne Hendershott, a devout Catholic and a noted sociologist, professor and author, exclusively told TheBlaze that she believes she may have been one of the IRS’s targets.

According to Hendershott, the IRS audited her in 2010 and demanded to know who was paying her and “what their politics were.”

It all started with a phone call she received at her home in May of that year – a call during which Hendershott was told she would be audited. A letter that followed on May 19, 2010 solidified the IRS’s request to meet her in person two months later in July. While IRS investigations are certainly not uncommon occurrences, the professor believes that the situation surrounding hers was more-than-curious.

“The IRS calls my house and says… ‘I just wanted to let you know that we’re going to be auditing your business’ and I said ‘My businesses?’ and he said, ‘You know the expenses you take off for writing,” the academic recalls.

Hendershott was surprised she was being audited on business grounds considering she does not operate an entrepreneurial endeavor in the traditional sense. In addition to her academic work, she told TheBlaze that she occasionally freelances for Catholic outlets and for the Wall Street Journal. But can this really be considered “business” activity?

“I don’t make a lot of money from writing. In fact most years I don’t show a profit,” she told TheBlaze.

Hendershott said some of the outlets and organizations she has written for haven’t paid her a cent.

But the circumstances surrounding the irregular nature of the experience don’t end there. Hendershott noted it was particularly surprising that she, alone, was audited. Her husband, who brings in the vast majority of the family’s income, was not included in the IRS’s inquiry – even though the Hendershotts always files jointly.

So when the agent explained that she would need to come alone and in person to discuss her “business” activity in July of 2010, the professor was perplexed.

“[The IRS agent] didn’t even let me decide when it would be good for me… He didn’t want my husband to come,” she said of the meeting, which was held at an IRS office in New Haven, Connecticut.

The process was a grueling one, including many questions that Hendershott felt were political in nature. Numerous records were requested before the in-person meeting, as well as during and after.

“Every question had to do with bank deposits we made. Every single question,” she said. “What is this money? And I didn’t know a lot of it. We had to go to our bank and get deposits back. We had to get records showing where the money came from.”

While asking about the deposits, the agent wanted to know if the monies came from groups and, if so, what the organizations’ politics were.

The mention of groups, Hendershott notes, is particularly interesting, as she had been writing for numerous Catholic outlets and organizations at the time. In addition to Catholic World Report and the Catholic Advocate, she also penned op-eds for the Wall Street Journal. Many of these writings were critical of President Barack Obama and his policies.

And the plot thickens. Among the organizations she targeted in her writings were progressive groups highly supportive of Democratic causes, including: Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, Catholics United, and Catholic Democrats.

At the time, one of the founders of Catholics United, Chris Korzen, had become a target of her work, as she exposed, in her view, his true leftist agenda and some of the complicated theological stances the left-of-center organizations he associated with were taking. Plus, there were alleged financial ties with billionaire liberal George Soros. Here’s just two paragraphs from an article she wrote in March 2010, just months before her meeting with IRS officials:

On its website, Catholics United describes itself as a 501(c) (4) non-profit organization – eligible to accept donations. But, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good emerged in 2005 as a kind of sister organization to Catholics United. A 501(c) (3) organization, donors can claim a deduction against personal income tax when they donate money to Catholics in Alliance. Reviewing the 2007 IRS 990 forms for both Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United raises some questions, because Chris Korzen is listed as having received $84,821 in compensation for 40 hours per week from Catholics in Alliance on the group’s 990 Form – even though the Catholics United website claimed he was the director there during the same time period. [...]

Despite their inability to engage in extensive lobbying, Catholics in Alliance has been extremely successful in attracting large donors. Never a friend to the Catholic Church, George Soros, one of the earliest donors, contributed $50,000 to Catholics in Alliance in 2005 and another $100,000 in 2006 through his Open Society Institute. Likewise, Smith Bagley, a major Democratic donor and fundraiser, whose wife, Elizabeth Frawley Bagley, is Chairman of the Board of Catholics in Alliance, came close to matching Soros with grants from his family’s Arca Foundation. With a long history of supporting progressive organizations like ACORN, the Gamaliel Foundation, People for the American Way, and Planned Parenthood, Arca contributed $50,000 to Catholics in Alliance in 2007 and another $75,000 in 2008.

Hendershott can’t help but wonder if her writings against progressive groups played a role in her audit. It’s obvious that before she was notified by the IRS she was commenting regularly about matters of faith and politics and, in particular, Obamacare. While she doesn’t have proof that the IRS investigation was political in nature, she has strong suspicions that it was.

“I started writing articles like crazy saying these are fake Catholic groups,” she said of the aforementioned organizations, noting that Korzen would often target her work and rail against her assertions.

Hendershott noted that the progressive leader once called into a radio show she appeared on to challenge her contention that he had accepted Soros money.

“I had the tax return in front of me and read off the amounts that Chris Korzen was getting paid from Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good – a Soros supported fake Catholic group,” she told TheBlaze, noting that, through Catholics in Alliance, he had received $85,000.

While Korzen denied this on the air, Hendershott read from the 990 form in an effort to prove he wasn’t telling the truth. This, she believes, may have sparked – or played a role – in spawning the IRS audit.

“He was getting paid by one organization and working for another,” the professor said of Korzen. ”The IRS should have gone after them.”

Her writings for the Catholic Advocate soon ceased because, Hendershott admits, the IRS audit silenced her. If her suspicions are true, this may have been its chilling intention.

“I haven’t written for them since the audit, because I was so scared,” she said (records show her last article for the organization was on July 10, 2010 – the same month the IRS audit unfolded).

So far, she has only shared her story with friends and those close to her, but in light of the recent IRS scandal, she has decided to speak out.

“It was clear they didn’t like me criticizing the people who helped pass Obamacare,” she said of the audit,” later adding, ”The IRS is very frightening.”

In addition to creating stress and fear, Hendershott said that the experience came at a great emotional and financial expense for the family, noting that even after the audit the government sought more information from her.

“It was like they just couldn’t find what they wanted because they wanted more and more and more,” she said.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Flashback 2012: Democrat Senators Demand IRS Scrutinize Tea Party Groups – Gateway Pundit

In March of 2012 Democratic Senators sent a letter to the Internal Revenue Service demanding that Tea Party groups get extra scrutiny (harassment). The Democrats even threatened legislative action if the IRS did not act.

From Sen. Chuck Schumer’s website:

A group of seven Senate Democrats urged the Internal Revenue Service on Monday to impose a strict cap on the amount of political spending by tax-exempt, nonprofit groups.

The senators said the lack of clarity in the IRS rules has allowed political groups to improperly claim 501(c)4 status and may even be allowing donors to these groups to wrongly claim tax deductions for their contributions. The senators promised legislation if the IRS failed to act to fix these problems.

“We urge the IRS to take these steps immediately to prevent abuse of the tax code by political groups focused on federal election activities. But if the IRS is unable to issue administrative guidance in this area then we plan to introduce legislation to accomplish these important changes,” the senators wrote.

The letter was signed by Senators Charles E. Schumer, Michael Bennet, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall, Jeanne Shaheen and Al Franken. It follows an earlier letter, sent to the IRS by the same of group of senators last month, that also urged the IRS to better enforce rules pertaining to 501(c)4 organizations.

A copy of the letter is here.

This week Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana vowed congressional hearings and called the IRS actions “an outrageous abuse of power.” But, over the last three years, Democratic senators repeatedly and publicly pressured the IRS to engage in the very activities that they are only now condemning today.

UPDATE: Inspector General: The IRS targeted EVERY group with Tea Party in its name.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.

.

*LIVE STREAMING* AP Phone Records Scandal: House Judiciary Committee On DOJ Oversight Hearing – 05/15/13 (1:15 PM ET)

NOTE: LIVE STREAMING OF THIS EVENT HAS ENDED

.
Click HERE to watch the entire hearing on video.

.

…………………….Click on image above to watch stream.

.

Benghazi’s Smoking Guns (Jonah Goldberg)

Benghazi’s Smoking Guns – Jonah Goldberg

President Obama was asked about the metastasizing Benghazi scandal in a joint news conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron on Monday. Referring to the Americans who died in Benghazi, the president said, “We dishonor them when we turn things like this into a political circus.” He added that “the whole issue of talking points, throughout this process, frankly, has been a sideshow… There’s no there there.”

.

.
He’s half right. The talking points drafted by the State Department, the CIA and the White House and given to congressional Republicans and, most famously, to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice are not the center of this story.

I think there was a lot of mischief behind those talking points, which we now know were sanitized, folded, spindled and mutilated to fit a political agenda.

But it’s worth remembering that Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton didn’t get their information from the talking points. They got their information earlier and from much higher authorities, like then-CIA Director David H. Petraeus. The CIA believed the attacks were terrorist-driven early on. According to ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl, when Petraeus saw the talking points, he thought they were useless.

More central are the talking points – written or unwritten – that Obama and Clinton used for weeks after the attacks. The president said Monday that he immediately referred to the Benghazi attacks as “terrorism.” This is at best a brutal bending of the truth. He used the word “terror” generically in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12. And then for the next two weeks, he went on a media blitz blaming a video, including in an interview recorded that day with “60 Minutes.” In a segment that “60 Minutes” helpfully sat on for almost two months, Obama told Steve Kroft that “it’s too early to know” whether the attack was terrorism. He then went on “The View,” Univision and David Letterman pushing the idea that it was all about a video. At the United Nations, he condemned a “crude and disgusting” video but didn’t mention terrorism.

Clinton followed suit. She told grieving family members of the fallen that the U.S. would track down the makers of the video. And, so far, the only person connected with the whole incident who has been punished is the filmmaker, who continues to languish in jail, admittedly on unrelated charges.

If you assume they knew the truth about the nature of the attack, how are those statements not proof of a coverup? The talking points are incidental.

But in a very serious way, so is the coverup.

As Washington Examiner columnist Byron York notes, the Republican obsession with the smoking gun stems from the fact that “they are captive to the Washington mind-set that the coverup is always worse than the crime.”

This Washington cliche isn’t an iron law of the universe. The media like it, I think, because the coverup invariably involves them. When the story is about how the media have been misled, the media can always be counted on to perk up, as we saw last Friday when White House spokesman Jay Carney was eaten alive on C-SPAN.

But the true core of this story has nothing to do with media vanity or talking points – or a political circus. The real issue is that for reasons yet to be determined – politics? ideology? incompetence? all three? – the administration was unprepared for an attack on Sept. 11, of all dates. When the attack came, they essentially did nothing as our own people were begging for help – other than to tell those begging to help that they must “stand down.”

Again, there’s an arsenal worth of smoking guns, from uncontested sworn testimony at the Benghazi hearings to the State Department’s flawed internal review to the four dead Americans, including a U.S. ambassador sent to Benghazi on Clinton’s orders. That’s the there there — regardless of what happened with the talking points. There is, from what we know so far, at best circumstantial evidence pointing to why they pushed this video story so hard. Though, as Thoreau once said, “some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
Washington Post Factchecker Destroys Obama’s Claim He Called Libya ‘Terrorism’ – Big Journalism

Monday, during his appearance before the media with British Prime Minister David Cameron, President Obama was again caught lying to coverup his lying and covering-up in the aftermath of a successful terror attack in Libya that cost four American lives. Obama actually claimed before the world that, “The day after [Libya] happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”

That is a bald-faced lie. In fact it is such a bald-faced lie that Washington Post factchecker Glenn Kessler awarded the President the full-boat of four Pinnochios:

[T]he president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.

Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time – and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

[T]he president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.

Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time – and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

‘No Possible Justification’: Associated Press Livid After DOJ Secretly Obtains 2 Months Of Its Phone Records

‘No Possible Justification’: Associated Press Livid After DOJ Secretly Obtains 2 Months Of Its Phone Records – The Blaze

The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative’s top executive called a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into how news organizations gather the news.

.

The revelation comes just days after it was first reported that the Internal Revenue Service has been “inappropriately” targeting conservative political groups and that Benghazi whistle-blowers (Gregory Hicks, Mark Thompson, and Eric Nordstrom) were instructed by White House officials to keep quiet about the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attacks.

The records obtained by the Justice Department listed incoming and outgoing calls, and the duration of each call, for the work and home phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP.

In all, the government seized those records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.

In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.

“There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know,” Pruitt said.

“We regard this action by the Department of Justice as a serious interference with AP’s constitutional rights to gather and report the news,” the letter continues.

The government would not say why it sought the records. U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have leaked information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.

In testimony in February, CIA Director John Brennan noted that the FBI had questioned him about whether he was AP’s source, which he denied. He called the release of the information to the media about the terror plot an “unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information.”

Prosecutors have sought phone records from reporters before, but the seizure of records from such a wide array of AP offices, including general AP switchboards numbers and an office-wide shared fax line, is incomparable.

In the letter notifying the AP Friday, the Justice Department offered no explanation for the seizure, according to Pruitt’s letter and attorneys for the AP. The records were presumably obtained from phone companies earlier this year although the government letter did not explain that. None of the information provided by the government to the AP suggested the actual phone conversations were monitored.

Among those whose phone numbers were obtained were five reporters and an editor who were involved in the May 7, 2012 story.

.

The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of classified information to the media and has brought six cases against people suspected of leaking classified information, more than under all previous presidents combined.

Justice Department published rules require that subpoenas of records from news organizations must be personally approved by the attorney general but it was not known if that happened in this case. The letter notifying AP that its phone records had been obtained though subpoenas was sent Friday by Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney in Washington.

Spokesmen in Machen’s office and at the Justice Department had no immediate comment on Monday.

The Justice Department lays out strict rules for efforts to get phone records from news organizations. A subpoena can only be considered after “all reasonable attempts” have been made to get the same information from other sources, the rules say. It was unclear what other steps, in total, the Justice Department has taken to get information in the case.

A subpoena to the media must be “as narrowly drawn as possible” and “should be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period,” according to the rules.

The reason for these constraints, the department says, is to avoid actions that “might impair the news gathering function” because the government recognizes that “freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news.”

News organizations normally are notified in advance that the government wants phone records and enter into negotiations over the desired information. In this case, however, the government, in its letter to the AP, cited an exemption to those rules that holds that prior notification can be waived if such notice, in the exemption’s wording, might “pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation.”

It is unknown whether a judge or a grand jury signed off on the subpoenas.

.

The May 7, 2012, AP story that disclosed details of the CIA operation in Yemen to stop an airliner bomb plot occurred around the one-year anniversary of the May 2, 2011, killing of Osama bin Laden.

The plot was significant because the White House had told the public it had “no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the (May 2) anniversary of bin Laden’s death.”

The AP delayed reporting the story at the request of government officials who said it would jeopardize national security. Once government officials said those concerns were allayed, the AP disclosed the plot because officials said it no longer endangered national security. The Obama administration, however, continued to request that the story be held until the administration could make an official announcement.

The May 7 story was written by reporters Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman with contributions from reporters Kimberly Dozier, Eileen Sullivan and Alan Fram. They and their editor, Ted Bridis, were among the journalists whose April-May 2012 phone records were seized by the government.

Brennan talked about the AP story and leaks investigation in written testimony to the Senate. “The irresponsible and damaging leak of classified information was made … when someone informed the Associated Press that the U.S. Government had intercepted an IED (improvised explosive device) that was supposed to be used in an attack and that the U.S. Government currently had that IED in its possession and was analyzing it,” he said.

He also defended the White House’s plan to discuss the plot immediately afterward. “Once someone leaked information about interdiction of the IED and that the IED was actually in our possession, it was imperative to inform the American people consistent with Government policy that there was never any danger to the American people associated with this al-Qa’ida plot,” Brennan told senators.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
Carl Bernstein: AP Phone Scandal A ‘Nuclear Event’ – News Max

Investigative reporter Carl Bernstein on Tuesday called the scandal involving the Department of Justice securing telephone records of Associated Press reporters and editors a “nuclear event.”

“This is outrageous,” Bernstein said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “It is totally inexcusable. This administration has been terrible on this subject from the beginning.

“The object of it is to intimidate people who talk to reporters,” he said. “This was an accident waiting to become a nuclear event, and now it’s happened.”

The AP reported late Monday afternoon that the “Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press.”

The organization was not told the reason for the seizure. But the timing and the specific journalistic targets strongly suggest they are related to a continuing government investigation into the leaking of information a year ago about the CIA’s disruption of a Yemen-based terrorist plot to bomb an airliner, The New York Times reported.

The development represents the latest collision of news organizations and federal investigators over government efforts to prevent the disclosure of national security information, and it comes against a backdrop of an aggressive policy by the Obama administration to rein in leaks, according to The New York Times.

Under President Barack Obama, six current and former government officials have been indicted in leak-related cases, twice the number brought under all previous administrations combined.

“The numerical thing doesn’t matter,” said Bernstein, a former Washington Post reporter who, along with Bob Woodward, broke the Watergate scandal that brought down President Richard Nixon. “What matters is, this is a matter of policy. It is known to the president of the United States that this is the policy. To say that there was no knowledge, in quotes, specifically about this in the White House is nonsense.”

“This is a policy matter, and this does go to the president and the people around him,” he said. “The idea is to try and make an example of those people who talk to reporters, especially on national security matters. National security is always the false claim of administrations trying to hide things that people ought to know.”

That the Justice Department sought records of phone calls made over congressional phone lines could also raise a separation of powers issue between the administration and legislative branches of government.

“The First Amendment is first for a reason,” House Speaker John Boehner spokesman Michael Steel tells Newsmax. “If the Obama administration is going after reporters’ phone records, they better have a damned good explanation.”

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Holder To Answer On Wednesday For Justice Dept. Snooping On AP Reporters – Washington Times

Angry Republicans won’t have to wait long for their chance to question Attorney General Eric Holder about his role in the Justice Department’s snooping on Associated Press journalists.

Long before news broke on Monday that Justice had gathered extensive phone records from reporters and editors at The AP, Mr. Holder already had been scheduled to appear before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday afternoon.

The hearing, ironically titled “Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice,” now will become the first forum for House Republicans to hammer Mr. Holder over what critics are calling another stunning abuse of power by an administration that’s being crushed under the growing weight of multiple running scandals.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Robert Goodlatte, Virginia Republican, says he plans to ask Mr. Holder “pointed questions” about the issue when he testifies on Wednesday.

Rep. Darrell Issa, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee who has frequently clashed with the Department over the long-running “Fast and Furious” gunrunning scandal, also is demanding answers.

“Americans should notice that top Obama administration officials increasingly see themselves as above the law and emboldened by the belief that they don’t have to answer to anyone,” Mr. Issa, California Republican, said in a statement. “I will work with my fellow House chairmen on an appropriate response to Obama administration officials.”

Rep. Frank Wolf, Virginia Republican, told The Hill newspaper that the incident is reminiscent of Watergate.

“It is the arrogance of power and paranoia. I think it’s shocking. It reminds me of the Nixon days,” he said. ‘If they can do it to The AP, they can do [it] to any news service in the country.”

The AP broke the news Monday that the Justice Department had gathered two months of telephone records from April and May 2012. The records included incoming and outgoing calls, how long each call lasted, the phone numbers of various reporters and editors and other information.

The federal government reportedly was seeking information on a May 7, 2012, AP article detailing how the CIA had derailed a planned al Qaeda-linked group. The story was published a day before President Obama planned to publicly announce the attack had been foiled, the AP said.

Much like the response to recent revelations that the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups, even Democrats are taking aim at the White House over the AP phone scandal.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, Vermont Democrat, said he’s “very troubled” by the news and questions whether the Justice Department truly needed to resort to secretly gathering phone records.

“The burden is always on the government when they go after private information — especially information regarding the press or its confidential sources,” he said. “I want to know more about this case, but on the face of it, I am concerned that the government may not have met that burden.”

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Obama Hailed ‘World Press Freedom Day’ As His DOJ Was Seizing AP Phone Records – CNS

President Barack Obama issued a statement heralding World Press Freedom Day in May 2012, at the same time his Department of Justice was secretly obtaining phone records from Associated Press reporters and editors.

“On this World Press Freedom Day, the United States honors the role of a free press in creating sustainable democracies and prosperous societies,” Obama said in a statement on May 3, 2012. “We pay special tribute to those journalists who have sacrificed their lives, freedom or personal well-being in pursuit of truth and justice.”

The AP disclosed on Monday that the Justice Department obtained telephone records of 20 separate lines, including all outgoing calls and personal phone numbers, in April and May of 2012. The AP is the world’s largest wire service serving newspapers, websites and broadcast media.

“We call on all governments to protect the ability of journalists, bloggers, and dissidents to write and speak freely without retribution and to stop the use of travel bans and other indirect forms of censorship to suppress the exercise of these universal rights,” Obama said in the May 3, 2012 statement.

Obama issued a similar statement for World Press Freedom Day in 2011, 2010 and 2009, but not for 2013.

Obama did not issue a written statement this year, but referenced it while in Costa Rica on May 3.

“I’m proud to be here as you host World Press Freedom Day,” Obama said on May 3, 2013 at a joint press conference with Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla. “So everybody from the American press corps, you should thank the people of Costa Rica for celebrating free speech and an independent press as essential pillars of our democracy.”

World Press Freedom Day is an event sponsored by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

“In some cases, it is not just governments threatening the freedom of the press,” the president said in last year’s statement. “It is also criminal gangs, terrorists, or political factions. No matter the cause, when journalists are intimidated, attacked, imprisoned, or disappeared, individuals begin to self-censor, fear replaces truth, and all of our societies suffer. A culture of impunity for such actions must not be allowed to persist in any country.”

Outrage at the DOJ information-trolling is coming from both conservatives and many liberals, including the American Civil Liberties Union.

“The media’s purpose is to keep the public informed and it should be free to do so without the threat of unwarranted surveillance,” said Laura W. Murphy, director of the American Civil Liberties Union Washington Legislative Office. “The Attorney General must explain the Justice Department’s actions to the public so that we can make sure this kind of press intimidation does not happen again.”

White House spokesman Jay Carney on Monday issued a statement saying, “Other than press reports, we have no knowledge of any attempt by the Justice Department to seek phone records of the AP.” He directed further questions to the Justice Department.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

More IRS Scandal Stuff For Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Dems Vow: ‘Hell To Pay’ If IRS Allegations Ring True – Boston Herald

Outraged Bay State Democrats are blasting President Obama for exhibiting a Nixonian abuse of power after the stunning news that the Department of Justice secretly obtained Associated Press phone records and the IRS targeted conservative groups – new scandals emerging against the backdrop of heightened Benghazi criticism.

.

“There’s no way in the world I’m going to defend that. Hell, I spent my youth vilifying the Nixon administration for doing the same thing. If they did that, there should be hell to pay,” U.S. Rep. Michael E. Capuano (D-Somerville) said about the IRS scandal. “Not only is it bad government and bad to society, it is horrendous politics. The worst thing you can do is give your opponent an easy hammer with which to hit you.”

“It doesn’t seem to be a couple rogue employees. This appeared to be a systemic issue,” said U.S. Rep. Stephen F. Lynch (D-South Boston), who wants to investigate the matter as a member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The committee already has scheduled a hearing on the issue for this week, Lynch said, adding, “No American should find themselves the target of the IRS or any other federal organization because of their political beliefs.”

Both U.S. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Malden) and the GOP’s Gabriel Gomez, rivals in the Senate special election, slammed the administration’s actions, as new reports emerged yesterday that the Department of Justice seized two months’ worth of phone records from Associated Press reporters and editors. Gomez called it “another troubling example of overzealous federal agencies restricting our First Amendment rights.”

Markey said in a statement: “The Justice Department has many questions it now must answer as to why this sweeping request for information was ever necessary. As we work to prevent terrorist attacks against our country, we must continue to respect our laws and uphold our constitutional rights, including freedom of the press.”

Obama yesterday called the IRS actions “outrageous” if true, saying those responsible must be held “fully accountable.”

“I’ve got no patience with it,” he added. “I will not tolerate it, and we will find out exactly what happened.”

The Treasury Department apologized Friday for “inappropriate” targeting of groups seeking tax-exempt status with “Tea Party” or “patriot” in their names, and others that stated their purpose was to question government spending or power. The IRS initially blamed low-level employees, but emails have since shown top officials knew as early as 2011.

“I’m old enough to remember Watergate, and I’m not saying this is another Watergate, but when the IRS is involved, it really hits home,” said U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.). The references to the Nixon administration recalled the massive abuse of power scandals such as the bugging of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. Nixon aides also directed so-called “plumbers” to plug leaks – operatives digging up dirt on people such as Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg.

Nixon’s aides maintained a so-called “enemies list,” with the intent of turning the IRS on them. A congressional investigation later found undue IRS audits were not carried out under Nixon.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related articles:

.
Baucus, Now Investigating IRS, Urged IRS To Target Conservative Groups In 2010 – Daily Caller

Democratic Montana Senator Max Baucus is leading an investigation into why the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative nonprofit groups for extra scrutiny despite the fact that Baucus once wrote a letter urging the IRS to do exactly that.

Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, will head the committee’s investigation into the IRS, which apologized Friday for targeting groups with the terms “Tea Party” and “Patriot” in their titles for extra scrutiny of their nonprofit status as early as 2011.

However, Baucus once wrote a letter requesting that the IRS engage in that very conduct.

Baucus wrote a letter to then-IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman dated September 28, 2010 urging the IRS to investigate nonprofit conservative groups during the Tea Party-dominated 2010 midterm elections.

“With hundreds of millions of dollars being spent in election contests by tax-exempt entities, it is time to take a fresh look at current practices and how they comport with the Internal Revenue Code’s rules for nonprofits,” Baucus wrote in the letter.

“I request that you and your agency survey major 501(c)(4), (c)(5) and (c)(6) organizations involved in political campaign activity to examine whether they are operated for the organization’s intended tax exempt purpose and to ensure that political campaign activity is not the organization’s primary activity,” Baucus wrote in the letter.

“The tax exemption given to non-profit organizations comes with a responsibility to serve the public interest and Congress has an obligation to exercise the vigorous oversight necessary to ensure they do,” Baucus said in a 2010 statement accompanying his letter.

Though Baucus identified 501 (c) (5) groups – or labor unions – as worthy of investigation, the only organizations cited in his request were conservative, pro-Republican groups.

Baucus specifically named Americans for Job Security, which is described as a “pro-Republican organization,” as a specific target for the IRS to investigate.

Crossroads GPS, co-founded by Karl Rove, and American Action Network, chaired by former Republican senator Norm Coleman, were also cited in press coverage related to Baucus’ letter as pro-Republican groups helping to elect GOP congressional candidates in 2010.

Those organizations appeared in a September 16, 2010 TIME article by writer Michael Crowley titled, “The New GOP Money Stampede.” Baucus cited that piece in his letter to the IRS.

Whatever the fallout might be from such a conflict of interest, Baucus won’t be around too much longer to deal with it.

He’s already announced his retirement from the Senate, and won’t run for re-election in 2014.

A Baucus spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Flashback: Obama Wanted The Names Of Donors – Sweetness & Light

From the White House near the height of the mid-term campaign in 2010:

Remarks by the President at a DNC Finance Event in Austin, Texas

August 09, 2010

Four Seasons Hotel, Austin, Texas

THE PRESIDENT: …Right now all around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates all across the country. And they don’t have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don’t know if it’s a foreign-controlled corporation. You don’t know if it’s a big oil company, or a big bank. You don’t know if it’s a insurance company that wants to see some of the provisions in health reform repealed because it’s good for their bottom line, even if it’s not good for the American people.

A Supreme Court decision [Citizens United] allowed this to happen. And we tried to fix it, just by saying disclose what’s going on, and making sure that foreign companies can’t influence our elections. Seemed pretty straightforward. The other side said no.

This is the same blatant lie that Supreme Court Justice Alito shook his head about and said ‘no,’ during Obama’s State Of The Union address in January 2010. Citizens United does not allow foreigners to contribute to campaigns.

They don’t want you to know who the Americans for Prosperity are, because they’re thinking about the next election. But we’ve got to think about future generations. We’ve got to make sure that we’re fighting for reform. We’ve got to make sure that we don’t have a corporate takeover of our democracy…

This is nothing short of Obama’s ‘dog-whistle’ to his his supporters at the IRS. After all, Obama doesn’t need to give his bureaucrats a direct, written (and therefore traceable) order.

He merely has to express his displeasure with some group and his lackeys will know what they have to do. And we now know how much these ‘low level workers’ have done for his administration over the years. (Fast & Furious, Benghazi, the releasing of illegal alien criminals.)

.

.
But now we fast forward to yesterday, where Obama expressed outrage that the IRS would be seeking the names of donors to conservative groups. In fact, Obama even denied knowing that the IRS was even interested in such things until he read about it in the papers back on Friday. A claim even his spokes-flack, Jay Carney, undercut.

From The Hill:

Carney: White House lawyers knew of IRS investigation in April

By Justin Sink | May 13, 2013

Press secretary Jay Carney acknowledged Monday that the White House was informed in April that the Treasury Department’s Inspector General was investigating the IRS’s Cincinnati field office, which is accused of targeting conservative political groups for extra scrutiny.

“My understanding is that the White House Counsel’s Office was alerted in the week of April 22 of this year, only about the fact that the IG was finishing a review about matters involving the office in Cincinnati,” Carney told reporters aboard Air Force One…

President Obama said earlier in the day that he first heard about the allegations that the IRS had specifically targeted Tea Party groups last week. “I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this. I think it was on Friday,” Obama told reporters at a joint press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron.

While Carney insisted that nobody in the White House knew of the specific allegations of improper targeting, the news nevertheless drew fresh questions from Republican critics.

Why only Republican critics? Doesn’t the news media object to be lied to? (This is a rhetorical question.)

“Who else in the White House knew about the IRS scandal but didn’t tell the president?” tweeted Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio)…

In his press conference Monday, the president pledged to hold accountable those responsible. “I can tell you that if you’ve got the IRS operating in anything less than a neutral and non-partisan way, then that is outrageous, it is contrary to our traditions,” Obama said.

So is he going to hold himself accountable? (This is another rhetorical question.)

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
IRS Intimidation Forced Founder To Shut Down Tea Party Group – Big Government

The IRS scandal is growing by leaps and bounds in a way that must be terrifying to an Administration already dealing with fallout from the uncovering of their Libya lies and the knowledge that the Department of Justice seized the phone records of 20 Associated Press reporters. Tuesday morning, ABC News revealed what might have been the political motivation behind the IRS’s decision to target Tea party groups – to ensure they weren’t as effective in 2012 as they were in 2010.

In the 2010 midterms, even the media that despises the Tea Party will admit that the nationwide grassroots movement was a major factor behind record GOP electoral gains. By the time the smoke cleared, Obama had lost the House and his filibuster-proof majority in the United States Senate.

Is it just a coincidence that it was only after these 2010 victories that the IRS decided to single out Tea Party groups for special scrutiny? And not just scrutiny, but the kind of scrutiny that bogged these groups down with paperwork and restricted their political activities.

The Narrative some in the media, like JournOlist founder Ezra Klein of The Washington Post, are desperate to spin is that this was a single Midwest IRS office concerned with political groups abusing a new tax exempt status. The isolation of Tea Parties was merely “discriminatory.”

Already this morning, though, Klein’s spin is falling apart. Chris Good of ABC News reports that Jennifer Stefano of Philadelphia was so intimidate by the IRS that she closed her Tea Party down:

“In the documents that were sent to me, if you did not tell the whole truth by not putting all your personal information out there by Facebook, by Twitter, of your personal relationship with candidates and parties… it could be considered perjury and perjury carried jail time,” Stefano, 39, told ABC News.

“That was frightening and that’s why I shut it down. I shut my group down.”

Tom Zawistowski, former president of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, told ABC News that, “The reason for this attack by the IRS on the tea party was to make sure we were not as effective in 2012 as we were in 2010, and that’s what they did[.]“

Zawistowski also believes that the ridiculous amount of information and documents requested by the IRS was “opposition research,” having nothing to do with whether or not a group would qualify as tax exempt.

The IRS asked another Ohio tea party organization, the Liberty Township Tea Party, about its political views and relationships with an individual and another group.

“Provide a list of all issues that are important to your organization. Indicate your position regarding each issue,” the IRS commanded in a letter with 35 questions, many including between three and six bullet-pointed subquestions.

ABC News adds:

In letters obtained by ABC News, the Internal Revenue Service asked detailed questions of local tea party groups from 2010 to 2012.

Other Tea Party groups interviewed complained of getting bogged down by the paperwork. One group claims that “500 pages of stuff” went “back and forth” between them and the IRS:

There was kind of a cloud over us… It did curtail the things we could do. We could not go outside the IRS rules. Tax-exempt status allows you to do certain things, and we did not go outside them.

These groups say they didn’t hear from the IRS until after their 2010 victories. Then, before they could recreate that success against Obama in 2012, all of a sudden they are intimidated, restricted from certain political activities, and bogged down in a bureaucratic nightmare – all at the hands of the IRS.

Sorry, Ezra Klein, that doesn’t sound “discriminatory” to me – that sounds like a political tactic. Moreover, if it was a political tactic, we already know that it was not one confined to a single office in the Midwest. Klein’s own Post reports Tuesday that…

Internal Revenue Service officials in Washington and at least two other offices were involved with investigating conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, making clear that the effort reached well beyond the branch in Cincinnati that was initially blamed, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.

We now know that the IRS targeted Obama’s political enemies, and either by accident or design, made them less effective during his reelection campaign in 2012. W also now know that Administration officials are lying about what they knew about this scandal and when they knew it.

The only question that matters now is whether or not anyone in the Obama re-election campaign is in any way tied to this. And at this point, that is a perfectly reasonable question to ask.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Andrea Mitchell: IRS, AP Scandals Among ‘Most Outrageous Excesses I’ve Seen’… But Bernstein Still Bats For Obama – Newsbusters

President Obama knows he’s in trouble when Andrea Mitchell – Andrea Mitchell! – proclaims the IRS and AP scandals to be among “the most outrageous excesses I’ve seen” in all her years in journalism [which pre-date Watergate]. The strength of Mitchell’s statement drew gasps from Scarborough and Brzezinski. Then Ron Fournier, former AP editor now with the National Journal, darkly described the White House being “consumed” if it turns out someone there or in the Obama campaign had been aware of the IRS targeting of conservative groups. It happened on Morning Joe today.

But hey, President Obama still has his hangers-on. Take good old Carl Bernstein. As we reported, on yesterday’s Morning Joe Bernstein blathered that he “can’t imagine” that President Obama coudl be involved in the IRS mess. And there was Bernstein again today. When Fournier spoke of consequences of White House or Obama campaign knowledge of the IRS targeting, Bernstein quickly burped out that “we have no evidence of that whatsoever.” Joe Scarborough had to remind the former Watergate reporter: “that’s why you have investigations. You know that.” View the video after the jump.

.

…………………….Click on image above to watch video.

.
Watch the clouds gather over the White House. And when among your few umbrellas are the likes of Carl Bernstein…

Note: The screencap brings Hollywood Squares to mind. PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’ll take the joker in the upper left-hand corner for the block!

ANDREA MITCHELL: Yes, they did have to look and see whether some of these groups were political rather than pro bono. But not in any kind of non-neutral way. The test had to be neutral. The fact they went after the Tea Party here as David said earlier feeds the Republican critics -

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: It really does.

MITCHELL: And this is one of the most outrageous excesses that I’ve seen in all my years in journalism.

BRZEZINSKI: Oh my gosh.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Wow.

MITCHELL: We knew about the past national security probes, but I think this Associated Press investigation just rises to that standard, as well. The press is not popular, we are not popular. But this is, I think, an outrageous invasion of constitutional rights.

SCARBOROUGH: Andrea, it’s remarkable. As long as you’ve been a reporter at the top of your game, to say that a scandal that broke on Friday is one of the most outrageous excesses, the IRS scandal, and then for us to talk about what happened yesterday that most reporters agree with Ron and you, it rises to that level as well. To have two of these falling in two successive business days is going to require a dramatic reset inside the White House, is it not?

MITCHELL: And I don’t see why they don’t get that yet.

RON FOURNIER: The IRS thing, to me, I think that’s the one that has the most chance to be a game changer. If we find out in these hearings that somebody in the White House, especially in the political shop, or somebody in the campaign knew about this political targeting of conservative groups, I think that could be something that could consume the White House for the rest of his second term.

SCARBOROUGH: I agree. That is the key.

FOURNIER: I’m not pleased to say that.

CARL BERNSTEIN: We have no evidence of that whatsoever.

SCARBOROUGH: How could we, Carl? Of course we don’t have any evidence of that, but that’s why you have investigations. You know that. I know that.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.

.