10 Crazy Things The IRS Asked Tea Party Groups

10 Crazy Things The IRS Asked Tea Party Groups – Hot Air

The Internal Revenue Service admitted Friday to improperly targeting conservative groups for aggressive applications processes for tax exempt status in 2012, using the terms “Tea Party” and “patriot” as flags. Here are some of the things they wanted to know about those groups.

1. We’re gonna need all your direct and indirect communication. “‘Direct and indirect communications’ is profoundly chilling of First Amendment rights, ” said David French, senior counsel for American Center for Law & Justice, which has been representing 27 conservative organizations met with IRS inquisitions. “It’s so vague as to be impossible to comply with.”

.

2. What do we need to know about your members? Nothing much. Just ALL THE THINGS!

.

3. Your present and past employees and their relationships, please.

.

4. No, family members of past and present board members and employees are not exempt, nor are their activities with other groups. Why do you ask?

.

5. If someone in this country’s free press has ever interacted with you in any way shape or form about your free speech activities, we’re going to need documentation of that.

.

6. By the way, all the insane, intrusive information we’re asking for is understood to be public once you’ve given it to us, so please include only the most flattering possible photos of your children and pets.

.

7. There are very specific requirements for completing and submitting this insane, intrusive information we’re asking for. Does it feel like you’re running hurdles yet, Lolo?

.

8. Don’t forget to read the continued very specific requirements for completing and submitting this insane, intrusive information.

.

9. If you do not comply with these very specific requirements for completing and submitting this insane, intrusive application, you will go directly back to Start, you will not pass Go, and let’s face it, we will probably collect $200.

.

10. Please predict the future reliably. Thank you for your time.

.

All of the examples above are taken from actual IRS correspondence received by ACLJ’s 27 clients. There were many versions of the in-depth questionnaire sent to different organizations, suggesting there was more than one agent or one office involved. Though IRS officials blamed “low-level” employees in the Cincinnati office, which is the central IRS office in charge of tax exemptions, French said the abuse was far more widespread. ACLJ’s clients dealt with inquiries from IRS offices from “coast to coast.” Of ACLJ’s 27 clients, 15 finally had their status approved after 6-7 months with legal help. There are 12 groups whose status remains in limbo.

Update: I meant to add that a 2011 letter from Rep. Darrell Issa and Rep. Jim Jordan laid out 16 areas of the Tea Party questionnaires that seemed to overreach. Here they are.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

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

Related video:

.

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

Related articles:

.
Obama’s Abuse Of The IRS… This Isn’t The First Time – Powerline

Today’s big news story was the IRS’s admission that it had targeted conservative organizations – specifically, Tea Party groups – for audits. Not to be overlooked is the further admission that the IRS improperly demanded donor lists from some of these organizations, presumably so that conservative donors, too, could be harassed.

This is a shocking news story – one that would be a major scandal in a Republican administration – but it is not the first time the Obama administration has abused the IRS. In August 2010, Austin Goolsbee, who directed Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board and later chaired his Council of Economic Advisers, gave a press briefing in which he discussed corporate income taxes. In that briefing, he suggested that he had access to confidential IRS data, and falsely accused the administration’s beta noire, Koch Industries, of not paying corporate income taxes:

So in this country we have partnerships, we have S corps, we have LLCs, we have a series of entities that do not pay corporate income tax. Some of which are really giant firms, you know Koch Industries is a multibillion dollar businesses. So that creates a narrower base because we’ve literally got something like 50 percent of the business income in the U.S. is going to businesses that don’t pay any corporate income tax.

How would an Obama administration official have access to records showing how much a particular company pays in taxes? Unless the administration has some good explanation, such access would be illegal. As it happens, the claim that Koch doesn’t pay taxes (much like the equally absurd assertion that Mitt Romney didn’t pay taxes) is false. But that doesn’t excuse the Obama administration for misrepresenting confidential tax information to smear a political enemy.

After Goolsbee’s smear became public, Koch asked whether its tax returns had been improperly accessed by members of the Obama administration. As always, the administration stonewalled and refused to answer. The administration’s experience has been that it can endlessly abuse its powers, break the law with impunity, and if caught, brazen it out. Thus, in the absence of an independent mass news media, are habits developed which culminate in the scandals in which the administration is now engulfed.

UPDATE: Also, let’s not forget Obama’s joke, during the first days of his presidency, in a speech at Arizona State University:

I really thought this was much ado about nothing, but I do think we all learned an important lesson. I learned never again to pick another team over the Sun Devils in my NCAA brackets… President [Michael] Crowe and the Board of Regents will soon learn all about being audited by the IRS.

At the time, most people thought he was kidding. But as Glenn Reynolds pointed out at the time, jokes about presidential abuse of power are not funny when they come from the president. With hindsight, more attention should have been paid.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

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

.
Ways And Means To IRS: ‘Provide All Communications Containing Words ‘Tea Party,’ ‘Patriot,’ Or ‘Conservative’ By Wednesday – CNS

The House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight has thrown down an investigative gauntlet to the Internal Revenue Service, demanding that the agency hand over by next Wednesday every communication in its records that includes the words “tea party,” “patriot” or “conservative.”

The committee is also demanding of the IRS that by next Wednesday it provide the committee with the names and titles of all individuals who were involved in targeting conservative non-profit groups for more intensive review of their applications for non-profit status.

The request follows a report from the Associated Press that Lois Lerner, director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division, said at an American Bar Association conference that the IRS had targeted for special review applications of non-profit groups that included the words “tea party” or “patriot.”

“That was wrong,” the AP quoted Lerner as saying. “That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and inappropriate. That’s not how we go about selecting cases for further review.”

“The IRS would like to apologize for that,” Lerner said.

Lerner’s statement at the ABA conference, however, seems to contradict testimony that then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman made in the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight on March 22, 2012.

At that hearing, Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Charles Boustany (R.-La.) specifically asked Shulman about allegations that the IRS had been targeting Tea Party groups.

“I’ve gotten a number of letters,” Boustany said at that hearing. “Just recently, we’ve seen some recent press allegations that the IRS is targeting certain Tea Party groups across the country requesting what have been described as owner’s document requests, delaying approval for tax-exempt status, and that kind of thing. Can you elaborate on what’s going on with that? I mean, can you give us assurances that the IRS is not targeting particular groups based on political leanings?”

“Yes,” said Shulman. “No, thanks for bringing this up, because I think there’s been a lot of press about this and a lot of moving information. So, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify. First, let me start by saying, yes, I can give you assurances.”

“And so, what’s been happening has been the normal back-and-forth that happens with the IRS,” Shulman testified. “None of the alleged taxpayers and obviously, I can’t talk about individual taxpayers, and I’m not involved in these, are in examination process. They’re in an application process which they moved into, voluntarily. And so, there’s absolutely no targeting. This is the kind of back-and-forth that happens when people apply for 501(c)(4) status.”

Shulman was nominated as IRS commissioner by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the Senate on March 14, 2008. He left the position on Nov. 9, 2012, and was replaced by acting Commissioner Steve Miller.

After the Associated Press story about Lerner’s statement to the IRS broke on Friday, Chairman Boustany sent a letter to IRS Acting Commissioner Miller pointing out that the Ways and Means Committee had been investigating this matter for more than a year, citing Lerner’s “apology” at the ABA conference, and demanding that the IRS produce certain communications and names by next Wednesday.

“As you know, for more than a year, the Committee on the Ways and Means has been pursuing an active investigation into the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups seeking tax exempt status,” Boustany wrote. “To help the committee fully understand the extent of the agency’s practices, provide the following information by no later than Wednesday, May 15, 2013: 1) Provide all communications containing the words ‘tea party’ ‘patriot’ or ‘conservative.’ 2) Provide names and titles of all individuals involved in this discrimination.”

As reported by the Associated Press, Lerner told the ABA conference that the targeting of groups that included the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their applications had been started by low-level IRS workers in Cincinnati. The AP said that after her talk Lerner told the news agency that high level IRS officials had not known about this targeting.

Back on March 23, 2010, the day after Shulman testified, Mark Levin, president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, wrote to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration calling for an investigation of IRS misconduct in its treatment of Tea Party organizations.

“Recent media reports indicate that the EO Division is using inappropriate and intimidating investigation tactics in the administration of applications for exempt status submitted by organizations associated with the Tea Party movement,” Levin wrote to the IG.

“Landmark Legal Foundation respectfully requests an immediate and thorough investigation to determine whether IRS employees are acting improperly in the evaluation of exempt status applications,” wrote Levin. “This investigation also must determine whether the relevant IRS employees are acting at the direction of politically motivated superiors.”

Three months after Landmark Legal requested the IG investigation, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R.-Calif.) and Oversight Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs Chairman Jim Jordan (R.-Ohio) sent a letter to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration also requesting an investigation.

Today, Issa released a July 11, 2012 letter from the inspector general stating that his office “recently began work on the issue.” An IG audit is currently underway.

On Friday afternoon, CNSNews.com asked the IRS if it intended to comply with the Ways and Means Committee’s request for the names and titles of people involved in discriminating against Tea Party or conservative organizations and all communications containing the words “tea party” “patriot” or “conservative.” A spokesman said he would check. As this story was posted – only a little more than an hour after the question was first posed – the IRS had not yet responded.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

The Benghazi Scandal Grows (Stephen Hayes)

The Benghazi Scandal Grows – Stephen Hayes

CIA director David Petraeus was surprised when he read the freshly rewritten talking points an aide had emailed him in the early afternoon of Saturday, September 15. One day earlier, analysts with the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis had drafted a set of unclassified talking points policymakers could use to discuss the attacks in Benghazi, Libya. But this new version ​- produced with input from senior Obama administration policymakers​ – ​was a shadow of the original.

.

The original CIA talking points had been blunt: The assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi was a terrorist attack conducted by a large group of Islamic extremists, including some with ties to al Qaeda.

These were strong claims. The CIA usually qualifies its assessments, providing policymakers a sense of whether the conclusions of its analysis are offered with “high confidence,” “moderate confidence,” or “low confidence.” That first draft signaled confidence, even certainty: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.”

There was good reason for this conviction. Within 24 hours of the attack, the U.S. government had intercepted communications between two al Qaeda-linked terrorists discussing the attacks in Benghazi. One of the jihadists, a member of Ansar al Sharia, reported to the other that he had participated in the assault on the U.S. diplomatic post. Solid evidence. And there was more. Later that same day, the CIA station chief in Libya had sent a memo back to Washington, reporting that eyewitnesses to the attack said the participants were known jihadists, with ties to al Qaeda.

Before circulating the talking points to administration policymakers in the early evening of Friday, September 14, CIA officials changed “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda” to simply “Islamic extremists.” But elsewhere, they added new contextual references to radical Islamists. They noted that initial press reports pointed to Ansar al Sharia involvement and added a bullet point highlighting the fact that the agency had warned about another potential attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in the region. “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.” All told, the draft of the CIA talking points that was sent to top Obama administration officials that Friday evening included more than a half-dozen references to the enemy​ – ​al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, and so on.

The version Petraeus received in his inbox Saturday, however, had none. The only remaining allusion to the bad guys noted that “extremists” might have participated in “violent demonstrations.”

In an email at 2:44 p.m. to Chip Walter, head of the CIA’s legislative affairs office, Petraeus expressed frustration at the new, scrubbed talking points, noting that they had been stripped of much of the content his agency had provided. Petraeus noted with evident disappointment that the policymakers had even taken out the line about the CIA’s warning on Cairo. The CIA director, long regarded as a team player, declined to pick a fight with the White House and seemed resigned to the propagation of the administration’s preferred narrative. The final decisions about what to tell the American people rest with the national security staff, he reminded Walter, and not with the CIA.

This candid, real-time assessment from then-CIA director Petraeus offers a glimpse of what many intelligence officials were saying privately as top Obama officials set aside the truth about Benghazi and spun a fanciful tale about a movie that never mattered and a demonstration that never happened.

“The YouTube video was a nonevent in Libya,” said Gregory Hicks, a 22-year veteran diplomat and deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli at the time of the attacks, in testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on May 8. “The only report that our mission made through every channel was that there had been an attack on a consulate… no protest.”

So how did Jay Carney, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and others come to sell the country a spurious narrative about a movie and a protest?

There are still more questions than answers. But one previously opaque aspect of the Obama administration’s efforts is becoming somewhat clearer. An email sent to Susan Rice following a key White House meeting where officials coordinated their public story lays out what happened in that meeting and offers more clues about who might have rewritten the talking points.

The CIA’s talking points, the ones that went out that Friday evening, were distributed via email to a group of top Obama administration officials. Forty-five minutes after receiving them, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland expressed concerns about their contents, particularly the likelihood that members of Congress would criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.” CIA officials responded with a new draft, stripped of all references to Ansar al Sharia.

In an email a short time later, Nuland wrote that the changes did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership.” She did not specify whom she meant by State Department “building leadership.” Ben Rhodes, a top Obama foreign policy and national security adviser, responded to the group, explaining that Nuland had raised valid concerns and advising that the issues would be resolved at a meeting of the National Security Council’s Deputies Committee the following morning. The Deputies Committee consists of high-ranking officials at the agencies with responsibility for national security​ – including State, Defense, and the CIA​ – ​as well as senior White House national security staffers.

The Deputies Committee convened the next morning, Saturday the 15th. Some participants met in person, while others joined via a Secure Video Teleconference System (abbreviated SVTS and pronounced “siv-its”).

The proceedings were summarized in an email to U.N. ambassador Rice shortly after the meeting ended. The subject line read: “SVTS on Movie/Protests/violence.” The name of the sender is redacted, but whoever it was had an email address suggesting a job working for the United States at the United Nations.

According to the email, several officials in the meeting shared the concern of Nuland, who was not part of the deliberations, that the CIA’s talking points might lead to criticism that the State Department had ignored the CIA’s warning about an attack. Mike Morell, deputy director of the CIA, agreed to work with Jake Sullivan and Rhodes to edit the talking points. At the time, Sullivan was deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the State Department’s director of policy planning; he is now the top national security adviser to Vice President Joe Biden. Denis McDonough, then a top national security adviser to Obama and now his chief of staff, deferred on Rhodes’s behalf to Sullivan.

The email to Rice reported that Sullivan would work with a small group of individuals from the intelligence community to finalize the talking points on Saturday before sending them on to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which had originated the request for talking points.

The sender of the email spoke with Sullivan after the meeting, reminding him that Rice would be doing the Sunday morning shows and needed to receive the final talking points. Sullivan committed to making sure Rice was updated before the Sunday shows. The sender told Sullivan the name of the staffer (redacted in the email) who would be running Rice’s prep session and encouraged the team to keep Rice in the loop.

At 2:44 p.m., the author of the email to Rice followed up directly with Sullivan, asking for a copy of the talking points to help with Rice’s preparation for TV. Sullivan promised to provide them.

A senior Obama administration official did not challenge the accuracy of the email to Rice, but disputed any implication that Sullivan was responsible for rewriting the talking points. “The CIA circulated revised talking points to the interagency after the Deputies Committee meeting and Jake Sullivan did not comment substantively on those points.”

This official pointed to Jay Carney’s comments this week. “What we said and what remains true to this day is that the intelligence community drafted and redrafted these points.”

But Carney’s claim raises an obvious question: Why would intelligence community officials want to redraft talking points they’d already finalized?

The major substantive changes came Friday evening, after a State Department official expressed concerns about criticism from members of Congress, and Saturday morning, following the Deputies Committee meeting, where, according to internal Obama administration emails, officials further revised the talking points.

What’s clear is that the final version did not reflect the views of the top intelligence official on the ground in Benghazi, who had reported days earlier that the assault had been a terrorist attack conducted by jihadists with links to al Qaeda, or the top U.S. diplomat in Libya, Gregory Hicks.

Hicks testified last week that he was not consulted on the talking points and was surprised when he saw Rice make a case that had little to do with what had happened in Benghazi. “I was stunned,” he said. “My jaw dropped.”

The hearings last week produced fresh details on virtually every aspect of the Benghazi controversy and raised new questions. By the end of some six hours of testimony, several Democrats on the committee had joined their Republican colleagues in calling for more hearings, additional witnesses, and the release of unclassified documents related to the attacks in Benghazi.

On May 9, House speaker John Boehner echoed the calls for those unclassified Benghazi documents to be made public. He had two specific requests. First, Boehner called for the release of an email from Beth Jones, acting assistant secretary for Near East affairs, sent on September 12. Jones wrote to her colleagues to describe a conversation she’d had with Libya’s ambassador to the United States. When the Libyan raised the possibility that loyalists to Muammar Qaddafi might have been involved, Jones corrected him. “When he said his government suspected that former Gadhafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.” Among those copied on the email: Jake Sullivan, Victoria Nuland, Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns, and Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff and longtime confidante.

Second, Boehner asked the White House to release the 100 pages of internal administration emails related to the drafting and editing of the talking points. Sources tell The Weekly Standard that House Republicans will subpoena them if the administration does not turn them over voluntarily.

Two weeks ago, Secretary of State John Kerry said it was time to “move on” from Benghazi. More recently, Jay Carney suggested the same thing, explaining that Benghazi had happened “a long time ago.”

But it’s increasingly clear that congressional Republicans, and many Americans, will not move on until the outstanding questions about Benghazi are answered.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

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

Related articles:

.
Top GOP Senator Says Obama Could Be Impeached Over ‘Most Egregious Cover-Up In American History’ – The Blaze

The top-ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee said President Barack Obama could possibly be impeached over what happened in Benghazi.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said in a radio interview Thursday that “of all the great cover-ups in history” – including the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra and Watergate – Benghazi “is going to go down as most serious, most egregious cover-up in American history.”

“We may be starting to use the I-word before too long,” Inhofe said on the Las Vegas-based “Rusty Humphries Show.”

“The I-word meaning impeachment?” Humphries asked.

“Yeah,” Inhofe confirmed.

When Humphries questioned the likelihood of impeachment, Inhofe said it wouldn’t be immediate.

“I’m not talking about it now, this is something that could endure until after the ’14 election – this is not a short story, this is something that was re-discovered after eight months… this is clearly an orchestrated coverup,” he said.

Listen to the full interview here.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

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

Top Obama Official’s Brother Is President Of CBS News, May Drop Reporter Over Benghazi Coverage – Daily Caller

The brother of a top Obama administration official is also the president of CBS News, and the network may be days away from dropping one of its top investigative reporters for covering the administration’s scandals too aggressively.

CBS News executives have reportedly expressed frustration with their own reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, who has steadily covered the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi terrorist attack in Libya since late last year.

“Network sources” told Politico Wednesday that CBS executives feel Attkisson’s Benghazi coverage is bordering on advocacy, and Attkisson “can’t get some of her stories on the air.”

Attkisson, who is in talks to leave the network before her contract expires, has been attempting to figure out who changed the Benghazi talking points for more than five months.

“We still don’t know who changed talking points but have had at least 4 diff explanations so far,” Attkisson tweeted on November 27, 2012.

But on Friday, ABC News reported that the Benghazi talking points went through 12 revisions before they were used on the public. The White House was intimately involved in that process, ABC reported, and the talking points were scrubbed free of their original references to a terror attack.

That reporting revealed that President Obama’s deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes – brother of CBS News president David Rhodes – was instrumental in changing the talking points in September 2012.

ABC’s reporting revealed that Ben Rhodes, who has a masters in fiction from NYU, called a meeting to discuss the talking points at the White House on September 15, 2012.

“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation,” Rhodes wrote to his colleagues in the Obama administration. “We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

Ben Rhodes, a 35-year old New York City native and former Giuliani staffer who has worked for Obama since the president’s tenure in the U.S. Senate, has established himself as a hawkish force on the Obama foreign policy team, advocating for military intervention in Libya during the president’s first term and reportedly advocating for intervention in Syria, as well.

But despite his hawkish views, Rhodes identifies himself first and foremost as a strategist and mouthpiece for the president’s agenda.

“My main job, which has always been my job, is to be the person who represents the president’s view on these issues,” Rhodes said in March.

David Rhodes has been the president of CBS News since February 2011.

Neither the White House nor CBS News responded to requests for comment for this report.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman: More Benghazi Hearings Coming

Exclusive: House Foreign Affairs Chair: More Benghazi Hearings Coming – Big Peace

.

The day after the House Oversight Committee’s blockbuster hearing on the Benghazi terrorist attack of September 11, 2012, House Foreign Relations Committee chair Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) told Breitbart News that the Oversight Committee would hold more hearings:

The Committee continues its examination of the deadly Benghazi terrorist attacks so we can ensure that the bureaucratic failures that left State Department personnel vulnerable are not repeated. The Committee will continue to review the responsibility of senior State Department officials for the failure to provide proper security prior to the Benghazi attacks and needed improvements in embassy security.

Based on testimony in Wednesday’s Benghazi hearing that contradicted the rosy findings of the Obama-appointed Accountability Review Board, Royce has also introduced the Accountability Review Board Reform Act of 2013. He penned a letter to other House members on Thursday encouraging such reforms to the Accountability Review Board process. “Yesterday,” Royce wrote, “the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing that reaffirmed the flaws in the Benghazi ARB’s review. Specifically, the ARB found that the responsibility for the ‘systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies within the State Department stopped at the Assistant Secretary level. As we heard throughout the hearing, this was simply not the case.”

Royce’s proposed legislation would help sever the bond between the ARB and the State Department – currently, the Secretary of State “appoints four out of the ARB’s five members – a clear majority that could influence the outcome of any investigation.” It would change the ARB staffing so that it isn’t as reliant on the State Department. Board members with conflicts of interest would be banned. The Secretary of State would have to hand over a list of staffers to Congress. And the ARB report would have to go to Congress, not merely the Secretary of State.

“These improvements seek to strengthen future ARB investigations to help avoid disasters like Benghazi,” Royce wrote. “Please join me in co-sponsoring this legislation.”

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Obama’s IRS Admits It Targeted Conservatives For Extra Scrutiny During 2012 Election

IRS Admits, Apologizes For Targeting Conservatives During 2012 Election – Zero Hedge

Just because you are a conservative and paranoid, doesn’t mean the IRS is not after you. And, assuming the AP was not hacked again, this is precisely what happened. In a stunning disclosure, the supposedly impartial Internal Revenue Service has admitted and apologized for flagging and subjecting to extra reviews, conservative political groups – those that included the words “tea party” or “patriot” – during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status. No such privilege was apparently afforded to groups identifying themselves as “liberal.”

.

From AP:

The Internal Revenue Service is apologizing for inappropriately flagging conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status.

Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS unit that oversees tax-exempt groups, said organizations that included the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their applications for tax-exempt status were singled out for additional reviews.

Lerner said the practice, initiated by low-level workers in Cincinnati, was wrong and she apologized while speaking at a conference in Washington.

Many conservative groups complained during the election that they were being harassed by the IRS. They said the agency asked them an inordinate number of questions to justify their tax-exempt status.

Certain tax-exempt charitable groups can conduct political activities but it cannot be their primary activity.

It does make one wonder, just how far the IRS goes to make the lives of conservatives a living hell: will all 2012 tax audits be those who on their facebook profile admit to liking Ron Paul? And just how far does the IRS invade personal privacy to determine how any one tax filer is indeed, a “conservative?” But don’t worry – aside from the obvious persecutions, America is a free country for one and all.

One wonders: how long until “conservatives” engage in “tax-avoiding” blowback and really give the IRS reason to persecute them. Alternatively, one wonders the IRS is simply limited by logistical considerations, due to the notional difference in number of actual tax filings submitted by “conservatives” vs “liberals” and the prepondrance of one group over the other…

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

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

Related articles:

.
Flashback: Mark Levin Asks IG To Probe Possible IRS Misconduct In Dealing With Tea Party – CNS

March 23, 2012

Landmark Legal Foundation sent a letter on Friday to the Treasury Department’s Inspector General for Tax Administration requesting an investigation to determine whether officials with the Internal Revenue Service have engaged in misconduct in dealing with applications from Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

“Landmark Legal Foundation requests an immediate investigation into possible misconduct by the Internal Revenue Service’s Exempt Organization (EO) Divisoin that calls into question the integrity of federal tax administration and IRS programs,” said the letter signed by Landmark President Mark Levin.

“Recent media reports indicate that the EO Division is using inappropriate and intimidating investigation tactics in the administration of applications for exempt status submitted by organizations associated with the Tea Party movement,” Levin wrote.

As CNSNews.com reported earlier this month, the American Center for Law and Justice, which says it represents nearly 20 Tea Party organizations nationwide, put out a statement on March 7 complaining about what it perceived to be improper treatment of Tea Party groups by the IRS.

“This appears to be a coordinated attempt to intimidate Tea Party organizations by demanding information that is outside the scope of legitimate inquiry and violates the First Amendment,” ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow said in a statement.

“These organizations have followed the law and applied for tax exempt status for their activities as Americans have done for decades,” Sekulow said. “The problem here is the IRS has gone beyond legitimate inquiries and is demanding that these organizations answer questions that actually violate the First Amendment rights of our clients.”

“This intimidation campaign is as onerous as what the IRS did to the NAACP in the 1950′s and is simply unacceptable,” said Sekulow. “We will aggressively defend our clients and are prepared to take the IRS to court if necessary.”

In his letter to the inspector general, Landmark’s Levin said that the types of inquiries the IRS was making of Tea Party groups were inappropriate.

“The information demanded in many cases goes far beyond the appropriate level of inquiry regarding the religious, charitable and/or educational activities of a tax exempt entity,” said Levin.

“The inquiries are not relevant to these permitted activities,” Levin wrote. “Inquiries extend to organizational policy positions and priorities, personal and poltiical affiliations, and associations of staff, board members and even family members of staff and board members.”

“Finally,” said Levin, “reports that Tea Party-related organizations are being singled out for the IRS’s intrusive inquries raises serious questions about the propriety of the personnel involved in the evaluation of tax exemption applications.”

Landmark Legal Foundation also asked the inspector general to “determine whether the relevant IRS employees are acting at the direction of politically motivated superiors.”

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration provides “independent oversight of IRS activities.”

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

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

Tax Audits Are No Laughing Matter – Wall Street Journal

Barack Obama owes his presidency in no small part to the power of rhetoric. It’s too bad he doesn’t appreciate the damage that loose talk can do to America’s tax system, even as exploding federal deficits make revenues more important than ever.

At his Arizona State University commencement speech last Wednesday, Mr. Obama noted that ASU had refused to grant him an honorary degree, citing his lack of experience, and the controversy this had caused. He then demonstrated ASU’s point by remarking, “I really thought this was much ado about nothing, but I do think we all learned an important lesson. I learned never again to pick another team over the Sun Devils in my NCAA brackets… President [Michael] Crowe and the Board of Regents will soon learn all about being audited by the IRS.”

Just a joke about the power of the presidency. Made by Jay Leno it might have been funny. But as told by Mr. Obama, the actual president of the United States, it’s hard to see the humor. Surely he’s aware that other presidents, most notably Richard Nixon, have abused the power of the Internal Revenue Service to harass their political opponents. But that abuse generated a powerful backlash and with good reason. Should the IRS come to be seen as just a bunch of enforcers for whoever is in political power, the result would be an enormous loss of legitimacy for the tax system.

Our income-tax system is based on voluntary compliance and honest reporting by citizens. It couldn’t possibly function if most people decided to cheat. Sure, the system is backed up by the dreaded IRS audit. But the threat is, while not exactly hollow, limited: The IRS can’t audit more than a tiny fraction of taxpayers. If Americans started acting like Italians, who famously see tax evasion as a national pastime, the system would collapse.

One reason why Americans don’t act like Italians is that they see the income-tax system as basically fair in execution. A tax audit or a tax-fraud prosecution is still seen, usually, as evidence that someone has done something wrong. If it comes instead to be seen as “just politics” then the moral component of the system will be gone. For the system to work, people have to believe that it is fundamentally fair.

This is why the IRS is so strict with its own employees. Paul Caron, a professor at the University of Cincinnati who writes the TaxProf blog, noted in response to Mr. Obama’s remarks that the law calls for the termination of IRS employees who make audit threats for illegitimate reasons. He suggested that Mr. Obama’s “joke” might be grounds for firing if he were an IRS employee.

He’s not, of course, but as the president his words carry much more weight and he should be much more careful. That’s particularly true given that people still haven’t forgotten about the Obama administration’s other tax issues – the appointment of Tim Geithner as Treasury secretary despite an inexcusable failure to pay $34,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes while working for the International Monetary Fund, and the scandals involving Tom Daschle and others whose appointments failed. (When the Geithner issue came up, news reports indicated that IRS employees were very upset. They can be fired over a simple late filing or a failure to report a mere $500 in income, making Mr. Geithner’s “pass” on much more serious questions quite demoralizing.)

The notion that people who are audited are probably just “enemies of the regime,” coupled with the idea that big shots get a pass – that, as Leona Helmsley is reputed to have said, “taxes are for the little people” – is a recipe for widespread tax evasion. That’s how things work in Italy, and in many other countries around the world. But do we want things to work that way here?

Mr. Obama has been accused of not appreciating the importance of financial capital to the proper functioning of the economy. But ill-chosen remarks like his ASU audit threat suggest that he also doesn’t appreciate the role of moral capital. That, too, is essential to the proper functioning of a modern economy. As he looks for ways to pay for the spending campaign he’s already embarked upon, he’d be well-advised to avoid comments that undercut the very tax system he’ll be depending on.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Benghazi Talking Points Changed 12 Times By Obama Regime, Scrubbed Of Terror References

ABC Releases Big Benghazi Report: Talking Points Changed 12 Times, ‘Dramatically Edited By Administration,’ And Scrubbed Of Terror References – The Blaze

The talking points used by Amb. Susan Rice on the Sunday shows on the weekend after the 9/11/12 terror attack in Benghazi underwent at least 12 edits – including revisions by the Obama administration’s State Department – new emails obtained by ABC News show. Those revisions included scrubbing all references to an Al Qaeda-affiliated group and all references to previous CIA warnings about a terror threat.

.

From ABC:

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

ABC’s Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl said on Friday morning that the talking points were “dramatically edited by the administration” and that State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland played a major role in them.

From the report:

State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:

“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned…”

Karl explained the new information:

.

.
In a addition, a new report by the Weekly Standard says then-CIA director David Petraeus “was surprised when he read the freshly rewritten talking points an aide had emailed him in the early afternoon of Saturday, September 15″:

Before circulating the talking points to administration policymakers in the early evening of Friday, September 14, CIA officials changed “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda” to simply “Islamic extremists.” But elsewhere, they added new contextual references to radical Islamists. They noted that initial press reports pointed to Ansar al Sharia involvement and added a bullet point highlighting the fact that the agency had warned about another potential attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in the region. “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.” All told, the draft of the CIA talking points that was sent to top Obama administration officials that Friday evening included more than a half-dozen references to the enemy​ – ​al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, and so on.

The version Petraeus received in his inbox Saturday, however, had none. The only remaining allusion to the bad guys noted that “extremists” might have participated in “violent demonstrations.”

In an email at 2:44 p.m. to Chip Walter, head of the CIA’s legislative affairs office, Petraeus expressed frustration at the new, scrubbed talking points, noting that they had been stripped of much of the content his agency had provided. Petraeus noted with evident disappointment that the policymakers had even taken out the line about the CIA’s warning on Cairo. The CIA director, long regarded as a team player, declined to pick a fight with the White House and seemed resigned to the propagation of the administration’s preferred narrative. The final decisions about what to tell the American people rest with the national security staff, he reminded Walter, and not with the CIA.

All of the information doesn’t seem to bode well for Press Secretary Jay Carney, who said back in November that only a “single adjustment” had been made.

.

“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney said on November 28, 2012. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Still, Carney is standing by the remarks, and now seems to be carefully clarifying the difference between the White House and the “administration” and noting the CIA still signed off on them.

“The CIA drafted these talking points and redrafted these talking points,” Carney told ABC. “The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this, but the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from consulate to diplomatic facility and the like. And ultimately, this all has been discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of detail by the administration to Congressional investigators, and the attempt to politicize the talking points, again, is part of an effort to, you know, chase after what isn’t the substance here.”

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Obama Regime Allowed Radical Cleric To Curse U.S. Navy SEAL Heroes At Funeral Services (Video)

Outrage! Obama Administration Allowed Radical Cleric To Curse U.S. Navy SEAL Heroes At Funeral Services (Video & Transcript) – Gateway Pundit

.

This combo shows the 30 troops killed in a helicopter downing in Afghanistan on Saturday, Aug. 6, 2011. The Pentagon on Thursday, Aug. 11, 2011 identified the Americans as 17 members of the elite Navy SEALs, five Naval Special Warfare personnel who support the SEALs, three Air Force Special Operations personnel and an Army helicopter crew of five. (AP Photo)

Today three families of Navy SEAL Team VI special forces servicemen, along with one family of an Army National Guardsman, appeared at a press conference to disclose never before revealed information about how and why their sons along with 26 others died in a fatal helicopter crash in Afghanistan on August 6, 2011. This was just months after the successful raid on the Bin Laden compound in Pakistan.

At the press conference today the families released video on how military brass, while prohibiting any mention of a Judeo-Christian God, invited a Muslim cleric to the funeral for the fallen Navy SEAL Team VI heroes. This cleric disparaged in Arabic the memory of these servicemen by damning them as infidels to Allah. A video of the Muslim cleric’s “prayer” was shown this morning with a certified translation.

This will break your heart.

From the funeral services at Bagram Air Force Base

.

.
Here is the radical cleric’s curse on our fallen SEALs.

Amen. I shelter in Allah from the devil who has been cast with stones.
In the name of Allah the merciful forgiver.
The companions of “THE FIRE”
(The sinners and infidels who are fodder for the hell fire)
ARE NOT EQUAL WITH the companions of heaven.
The companions of heaven (Muslims) are the WINNERS.
Had he sent this Koran to the mountain, you would have seen the mountain prostrated in fear of Allah.
(Mocking the GOD of Moses)
Such examples are what we present to the people, so that they would think.
(repent and convert to Islam)
Blessings are to your God (Allah) the God of glory and what they describe.
And peace be upon the messengers (prophets) and thanks be to Allah the lord of both universes (mankind and Jinn).

For the record – Political correctness killed these heroes.

Are there any courageous Christians left in this country?

Are there any Christians willing to stand up for their faith?

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

12 Terrorists Who Are Now (Or Were) University Professors

12 Terrorists Who Are Now (Or Were) University Professors – Fire Andrea Mitchell

Note: the information in the following article is derived from THIS one written by Ryan James Girdusky.

.

Did you know that there at at least Twelve former members of domestic terrorist groups indoctrinating college students as professors? Twelve may be a bit on the conservative side, but there are at least this many who are or have been professors at American colleges. The most recent of course is Kathy Boudin at Columbia University. Here are the others from Viral Read:

Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn. You’ve heard enough about them I’m sure. Ayers was a professor at the University of Illinois before retiring to his shithole in Chicago. His wife Bernadine Dohrn is still teaching at Northwestern Law.

Howard Machtinger was charged with conspiring to bomb the Detroit Police Officers Association Building and was on the run from 1973 to 1978. Machtinger now works for the School of Education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Mark Naison was a part of SDS and was part of the Columbia University occupation in 1967 and 1968. He was arrested in 1969. Mark Naisonhas been a professor at Fordham University for the last 43 years.

Eleanor Raskin Stein was a member of the Weather Underground. In 1979 her home was raided for bomb-making materials In 1981 Eleanor Raskin Stein was arrested and prosecuted for unlawful flight to avoid prosecution. Stein began to teach at the State University of New York in Albany and then later at Albany Law School. She currently is an administrative law judge.

Mark Rudd was the spokesman for students in the Columbia student revolt of 1969 and Weatherman. Rudd avoided a long prison sentence due to a technicality. Now retired, Mark Rudd was a math instructor at the Central New Mexico Community College.

Jamal Joseph, formerly Eddie Joseph or Black Panther Eddie was part of the Black Panther group that were arrested for conspiring to blow up railroad lines, department stores and the Botanical Gardens. The Panther 21 were found not guilty. Jamal Joseph is a professor at Columbia University.

Ericka Huggins was the founder of the New Haven Black Panthers in 1969. According to court testimony Huggins was present and assisted in torturing Rackley; another Black Panther member, George Sams, implicated Huggins in the call to murder Rackley. Huggins’ charges were dismissed after the jury was unable to reach a verdict. Ericka Huggins is currently a professor at Laney & Berkeley City College and has been an invited lecturer at Stanford and Cornell.

Angela Davis had several close ties to the Black Panthers but was never a member. Davis spent time on the FBI’s Top Ten Most Wanted List. She had purchased a shotgun two days before it was used in a hostage situation, which left six people dead. She would later be acquitted and run for Vice President in 1980 and 1984 under the Communist Party USA ticket. Angela Davis is a Professor Emerita from University of California, Santa Cruz in the History of Consciousness and the Feminist Studies departments.

David Hilliard was a Black Panther Chief of Staff. Hilliard was convicted on two counts of assault with a deadly weapon in 1968. David Hilliard is currently a visiting instructor at the University of New Mexico.

And last but not least:

Steve Best – technically, not an accused terrorist. Best is the founder of the Animal Liberation Press Office which acts as the media office for several animal rights groups, including the Animal Liberation Front, which is a domestic terrorist group. In 2004, the British Home Office told him that they intended to use counter-terrorist measures to prevent him from speaking at an animal rights rally in the UK. Steve Best is a philosopher professor from the University of Texas at El Paso.

Why are domestic terrorists allowed to indoctrinate our so called future? What’s next? Is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev going to be teaching at Berkeley in the year 2036?

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

7 Things We Learned From The Benghazi Whistleblower Hearing

7 Things We Learned From The Benghazi Whistleblower Hearing – PJ Media

The Republicans mishandled the Benghazi whistleblowers’ hearing. What should have been stretched across several days to give the nation time to digest it all, was instead packed into a single day filled with an overwhelming amount of information. The media’s attention span is not that long. The verdict in the Jodi Arias trial came along in the afternoon and blew Benghazi off the networks, most of which didn’t want to cover it at all. Even Fox joined the drive-by media, taking Benghazi off the air in favor of the irrelevant Arias trial. Following the announcement of the Arias verdict, charges were read in the Cleveland kidnapping case. Those were aired live as well, relegating Benghazi again.

.

Nevertheless, for those who slogged through the entire day of hearings and ignored local crime stories, new information was there to be learned.

1. There were multiple stand-down orders, not just one.

Special operations forces were told, twice, by their chain of command not to board aircraft to Benghazi to rescue the Americans then under attack. The U.S. deputy diplomat, Greg Hicks, testified that the military commander, Lt. Col. Gibson, had his team ready to go twice. They were on the runway about to board a flight to Benghazi in the middle of the attack. They were ordered to stand down and remain in Tripoli to receive wounded who would be coming out of Benghazi. One of the orders came in the middle of the attack, the other came toward the end after Hicks’ team had traveled from Tripoli to Benghazi. The fact that Hicks’ team was able get to Benghazi before the end of the assault strongly suggests that the special operations team could have made a real difference.

At the same time, the State Department’s commander on the scene, Hicks, ordered his personnel into Benghazi and went there himself. Hicks testified that Gibson never told him who issued the stand-down orders. He commented that Gibson told him that the military stand-down was a shock: “This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than someone in the military.”

Hicks also testified that the U.S. government never even requested military overflight to support the Americans in Benghazi. The U.S. had an unarmed drone overhead and could have gotten permission to fly fighters over the scene, at least, but never asked.

2. Ambassador Stevens’ reason for going to Benghazi has been cleared up.

Hicks testified that Ambassador Stevens traveled to Benghazi to fulfill one of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s wishes. Despite the fact that security was worsening in Benghazi for months leading up to the 9-11 attack, Clinton wanted to make the post there permanent. Her State Department had denied repeated requests from the U.S. team in Libya to upgrade security there, but she wanted to use the permanent post as a symbol of goodwill. Stevens was committed to that goal and told Clinton he would “make it happen.” He was in Benghazi on 9-11 furthering Clinton’s goal. She had denied requests to beef up security at Benghazi and then blamed his death on a YouTube movie. Hicks’ testimony raises the question of Clinton’s competence and grasp on reality, strongly suggesting that she put political perceptions ahead of the facts on the ground in Benghazi.

3. Clinton was briefed at 2 am on the night of the attack, was never told that a movie had anything to do with the attack by those on the ground in Libya, yet blamed the movie anyway.

Hicks also testified that he was shocked when Ambassador Susan Rice blamed a YouTube movie for inspiring the 9-11 attack. He testified that he had briefed Secretary Clinton directly via phone at 2 a.m. and told her that Benghazi was a terrorist attack. He never mentioned a YouTube video, which he never once believed had anything to do with the attack. But Clinton shocked him by blaming the movie on Sept 12. She would blame it, again, while standing before the coffins of the slain Americans, on Sept. 14. During the attack, Clinton told Hicks that no help would be on the way to relieve the Americans under sustained assault.

4. Whistleblowers were intimidated into silence.

Hicks testified to a pattern of behavior that leads to the reasonable conclusion that many officials within the State Department wanted him to remain silent after the Benghazi attack. He said that on the night of the attack he was personally commended both by Secretary Clinton and President Barack Obama. But he later questioned why Ambassador Rice blamed the YouTube movie, and from that point on his superior, Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones, questioned his “management style” and told him directly that no one in State should want him on their team in the field again. He was eventually demoted to a desk job after having been deputy to Ambassador Stevens, and remains in that post. Hick also testified that the Accountability Review Board, convened by Clinton last fall allegedly to determine the facts of the attack, never had stenographers in the room during his tw0-hour interview. Nordstrom concurred. Thompson was not even allowed to testify to the ARB despite having direct knowledge of the attacks due to his position on the U.S. Foreign Emergency Support Team. Thompson testified that the FEST was designed to go from zero to wheels up very quickly but was not deployed at all. He wanted to tell his story to the ARB, but was not allowed to. Hicks also testified that for the first time in his career, the State Department assigned a lawyer/minder to attend witness interviews with the ARB. He also testified that Jones told him not to be personally interviewed by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the Republican House member who was investigating the attack on behalf of the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee. It all adds up to a pattern of witness control and intimidation.

5. “The YouTube movie was a non-event in Libya.”

Hicks directly testified that the YouTube movie, for which a man remains in jail, was not in any way relevant to the attack in Benghazi. Why Obama, Clinton, Rice et al blamed that movie for the attack remains an unanswered question. Hicks said that no American on the ground in Libya that night believed the movie was to blame. He also testified that there was no protest prior to the attack. When the attack began, he was in Tripoli. He texted Stevens, who was in Benghazi, to advise him of the riot in Cairo at the U.S. embassy. In that riot, jihadists had stormed the walls and replaced the American flag with the black flag of Islam. Stevens had not been aware of the Cairo situation at all, but shortly after Hicks texted him about it, Stevens called and told Hicks that the Benghazi consulate was under attack. He never mentioned a protest.

Hicks also testified that blaming the movie had strongly adverse real-world effects. According to him, it humiliated Libya’s president, who had correctly stated that Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Blaming the movie, Hicks said, did “immeasurable damage” to our relations with Libya and delayed the FBI investigation. On Sept. 12, Ambassador Susan Rice told the first of her many untruths, claiming in an email that the FBI investigation into the attack was already underway. It would not actually get underway for 17 days after the attack, by which time the scene of the attack had been compromised and contaminated.

We still do not know who decided to change the original CIA talking points and blame the movie, but the finger is pointing directly at Hillary Clinton. She was briefed by Hicks during the attack, the movie was never mentioned, but in her first public statement on September 12, she blamed the movie. Her subordinate, Ambassador Susan Rice, also blamed the movie the following weekend. The fact that Obama himself blamed the movie repeatedly, though, strongly suggests that he took part in the decision as well.

6. Democrats were uninterested in getting at most of the facts, but were very interested in destroying Mark Thompson.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) set the tone for the Democrats’ angle on the hearings in his opening remarks. He used his opening to attack the committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, and to pre-question the witnesses. Most of the Democrats who followed him failed to ask many questions of the witnesses. Instead, they delivered speeches or blamed budget cuts, an argument that has already been debunked by the State Department itself. One sadly hilarious moment came during Rep. William Clay’s questioning. The Missouri Democrat blamed the repeated denials to enhance security at Benghazi on budget cuts. Issa reminded him that the State Department has debunked that line, in the person of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb. She testified last fall that budget cuts had not impacted the decisions not to enhance security at Benghazi. Clay claimed not to remember Lamb’s testimony, then moved quickly to cite the ARB, which backed his side. His selective memory proved politically, if not factually, reliable. Mark Thompson, member of the Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST) testified that his section had been cut out of decision making during the attack.
The Democrats consistently circled on him to try to get him to contradict himself or attack his boss, Daniel Benjamin, who has claimed FEST was included throughout the attack. They never really succeeded, and now Benjamin will be called to testify in a future hearing to clear up the dispute. The heads of the ARB, Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Admiral Michael Mullen, will now be called as well.

7. House hearings are a poor way to determine who did what and why during and after the attack.

The Republicans, as I said, should have broken today’s hearing out across several days. When they did question the witnesses, they kept their speeches short and focused on getting answers. Their Democratic counterparts consistently gave speeches and raised red herrings. They were able to waste time and stall long enough for the Arias trial to push the hearing off the TV, and for energy to flag and boredom to set in. The Benghazi attack needs to be properly investigated by someone outside the political process and outside the Obama administration. State cannot be trusted; its own investigation failed even to interview Clinton. Defense may also have officers and political appointees to protect. A special prosecutor is in order and should be appointed.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

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

Related article:

.
Benghazi Continues: Hillary De Medici – Roger L. Simon

The Benghazi scandal is not over. You will be told that by a lot of people. There is no smoking gun, etc. (Actually, there are many.)

Some folks on the right, because they have been so accustomed to failure in the face of a monolithic media, will be ready to throw in the towel.

That group is particularly disturbing because they are the very people who should be pushing this forward. Without realizing it, their proclamations of pessimism are a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I urge them to overcome it for the sake of our country, because – trust me – Benghazi is not over. It has only just begun.

Anyone paying attention to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearings Wednesday would have plenty of reasons for optimism. To begin with, the testimony underscored (and how!) what we already knew – that the events of September 11, 2012, were a terrorist attack and not a demonstration over a YouTube video.

Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, told the committee that Ambassador Stevens said precisely that – that he was “under attack” – when he made his very first emergency phone call from Benghazi to Hicks on that fateful night.

But don’t take Hicks’ word for it. Take the word of one of his superiors – Beth Jones, the State Department’s own acting assistant secretary for Near Eastern Affairs.

In the closest thing to a coup de théâtre at the hearing, Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) revealed a September 12 email from Jones to Hicks, State Department officials Victoria Nuland and Patrick Kennedy, and Hillary Clinton’s personal counsel Cheryl Mills, stating that she (Jones) had informed Libyan leadership that the attack at Benghazi was the work of Ansar al Sharia – one of the world’s most well-known Islamic terror groups.

.

.
This was four days before Ambassador Rice appeared on five Sunday shows and lied to the American people by blaming the events on the YouTube video and long before Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton repeated that lie, he in front of the United Nations, and she in front of the very Chris Stevens’ coffin with family and friends in attendance.

Hillary de Medici, indeed.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Complete Benghazi Whistleblower Hearing

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

.

*LIVE STREAMING* House Benghazi Whistleblower Hearings – Wednesday, May 8, 11:30 AM (Eastern Time)

THIS EVENT HAS ENDED.

Click HERE to watch the hearings on video.

.

……Click on the image above to watch the C-SPAN3 live stream.

.
Witnesses scheduled to testify:

Mr. Mark Thompson – Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism (State Department)

Mr. Eric Nordstrom – Diplomatic Security Officer and former Regional Security Officer in Libya (State Department)

Mr. Gregory Hicks – Foreign Service Officer and former Deputy Chief of Mission/Chargé d’Affairs in Libya (State Department)

.

Click HERE to visit the official website of the U.S. House Committee On Oversight And Government Reform.

.

.

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

Related video:

.

.

*VIDEOS* 2013 NRA Leadership Forum: Featuring Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin & Rick Perry

.
…SARAH PALIN

.
…WAYNE LAPIERRE

.
…JOHN BOLTON

.
…TED CRUZ

.
…RICK PERRY

.
…CHRIS COX

.
…ASA HUTCHINSON

.
…BOBBY JINDAL

.
…JEANINE PIRRO

.
…RICK SANTORUM

.
…DAN ROONEY

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

Related video:

.
…GLENN BECK – NRA STAND AND FIGHT RALLY

.

The Government Has No Idea How Many Agencies It Has

The Government Has No Idea How Many Agencies It Has – Daily Caller

The U.S. government does not know how many agencies and programs it is asking taxpayers to fund, The Daily Caller has learned.

.

Even though the editors of Wikipedia have been able to assemble a list of federal agencies, no complete official government list of federal agencies and programs currently exists.

The Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) – which became law on January 4, 2011 – established required quarterly performance assessments of government programs.

That bill also mandated that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) create a website that would publish quarterly performance reports by the heads of each agency.

Currently that website – Performance.gov, which was launched in 2011 – contains only a partial list of government programs, and important agencies such as the FCC aren’t on the list.

OMB is an office within the executive that is responsible for budget development and agency oversight. A spokesperson for the OMB did not respond to The Daily Caller’s request for comment.

A spokesperson for the Congressional Budget Office also confirmed to The Daily Caller that the CBO did not have a list of agencies and programs, and instead referred The Daily Caller to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

A GAO spokesman, in turn, referred The Daily Caller to OMB, stating that no list of programs has existed in the past because of the lack of a consensus within the federal government about what constitutes a program.

“OMB has not released the list of federal programs but has an effort underway to develop a count,” said another GAO official.

The CBO is a non-partisan legislative branch agency responsible for providing the “budget committees and Congress with objective, impartial information about budgetary and economic issues.”

The GAO is an independent legislative branch agency that acts as “the congressional watchdog,” responsible for investigating “how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars.”

GPRAMA also required agencies to publish their strategic and performance plans in searchable, machine-readable formats for fiscal year 2012.

Machine-readable formats are data formats that can be easily understood by computers, such as XML or StratML.

Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute, told The Daily Caller that no useful list of government agencies exists.

Harper has been advocating for the creation a machine-readable federal government organization chart of several years.

The chart would map out how the federal government’s agencies and subagencies, bureaus and programs all interconnect.

“There are several lists, but none of them are machine-readable and they are by no means complete registries of the organizational units of government,” said Harper.

Harper made a similar point in a January 2012 essay about the lack of a machine-readable federal government organization chart.

Many reports, he wrote, are currently published in formats like PDF, which make it more difficult for the data to be useful to a computer.

A bill to establish reporting standards, which was supported by House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, successfully made it through the House in 2012 only to die in the Senate.

That bill, called the Digital Transparency and Accountability Act (DATA Act), is currently awaiting reintroduction in the House.

Hudson Hollister, founder and executive director of the Data Transparency Coalition, told The Daily Caller that it is currently nobody’s job within the federal government to set data standards, which include both consistent identifying numbers for agencies and federal grantees, as well as consistent data formats that are machine-readable.

“When I was working for the House, I asked everybody because I was doing oversight, and I wanted to have a list of agencies,” said Hollister, who previously served as counsel for the House Oversight Committee.

“I asked CRS, and I asked GAO, and I asked OMB, and they all disagreed” about the number of agencies that exist in the federal government, Hollister said.

CRS, or Congressional Research Service, is a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress that provides legal and policy analysis to committees and members.

Hollister pointed out that federal contractors and grantees are also identified differently by each agency.

The lack of a consistent identifier, he said, makes it difficult to track federal spending across the government.

“OMB and Treasury use different identification numbers for agencies, and nobody agrees on the number of federal agencies we have,” said Hollister.

“Without data standards – both identifiers and consistent formats – its impossible to find systemic risk from the data that’s submitted to the regulators,” he said.

“The government is a single enterprise, but it is not managed as one,” he said.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Pentagon Defends Unconstitutional Policy Against Soldiers Sharing Faith

Pentagon Defends Unconstitutional Policy Against Soldiers Sharing Faith – Big Government

Pentagon personnel responded to Breitbart News’ report about court-martialing service members who share their faith in the military, which the Pentagon confirmed on May 1, and the Air Force on May 2 separately confirmed a second time.

.

Now the Pentagon claims the opposite. But these new statements instead only compound the problem, as the Pentagon’s new definitions for terms squarely contradict what the dictionary says those terms mean. All this has taken place as the first flag officer in the military has stepped forward to defy the unconstitutional policy.

In an official statement yesterday, Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a spokesman for the Pentagon’s Defense Press Office, responded to Breitbart News’ reports by saying, “Service members can share their faith (evangelize), but must not force unwanted, intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith to one’s beliefs (proselytization).”

Unfortunately for the Obama administration’s leaders in the Pentagon, those definitions are absurdly false, and only confirm a central concern in the earlier columns. These definitions of evangelizing and proselytizing are contradicted by (1) general dictionaries, (2) legal dictionaries, and (3) theological dictionaries. We have not located any dictionary that supports the Pentagon’s novel and unprecedented definitions for these well-known words.

Evidently it all depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is, which is a debate the country thought was resolved in 2000. Even so, when trying to say the press is wrong, don’t do it by inventing new definitions that anyone with a sixth-grade education and access to a dictionary can confirm are utterly false.

The words “evangelize” and “proselytize” have identical meanings when referring to Christians. So to make proselyting illegal is to make evangelizing illegal.

The dictionary defines “evangelize” as “to convert to Christianity,” or “to preach the [Christian] gospel.” Likewise, the dictionary defines “proselytize” as “to convert or attempt to convert.” They both mean sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Two things to note. First, “evangelizing” means to try to persuade your listener to become a Christian, which the Pentagon just reaffirmed for the second time in two days is forbidden in the military. Second, contrary to the Obama-Holder DoD’s definition, “proselytizing” carries no connotation whatsoever of “force,” or “intrusive attempts” to do anything.

Everyone can agree that no military commander should use his authority to coerce a subordinate to adopt religious views that violate the subordinate’s conscience. But that suggestion is a strawman argument, as “proselytizing” is something entirely different.

Not only that, but this suggestion is further confirmed as false because then our earlier reports discussing chaplains would be irrelevant. An infantry sergeant answers to an infantry lieutenant, who answers to an infantry captain, and so on up to the general commanding the infantry division.

So why was the Washington Post reporting that the Pentagon’s meeting(s) with Weinstein discussed chaplains being court martialed (that is – criminally prosecuted under military law) for sharing the gospel with a fellow service-member? The chaplain is not in the chain of command. The chaplain has no authority with which to coerce the other service member.

Instead, it looks like the Obama-Hagel administration was caught red-handed contemplating policies that violate the rights of American service members, and they are literally attempting to rewrite the dictionary through a press release to offer a disingenuous explanation of why things are not as disturbing as they appear.

A second problem for the Obama administration is this proposed new rule makes it illegal for millions of Americans to serve in the military in a manner consistent with their faith. Millions of Americans who call themselves Christians – including Evangelicals, devout Catholics, and observant Mormons – believe they are required by Matthew 28 in the Bible to share the gospel with other people.

This is to be done respectfully and peacefully, at appropriate times and in an appropriate manner, but it must be done when such opportunities present themselves. To say that sharing the gospel is a crime under military law (as we reported, Weinstein in his own words calls it an act of “treason” that should be “punished” – right after calling those who do so “monsters” and “enemies” of the Constitution), is to say that tens of millions of Americans are not allowed to serve in our military. And those already serving could be prosecuted for a crime and perhaps expelled from the military.

The third problem is that it is unconstitutional. When someone joins the military their First Amendment rights are diminished, but they are not eradicated. A solider cannot write an op-ed criticizing the Commander-in-Chief, but he can live and share his faith with others. Evangelizing does not disrupt discipline and good order in the military, and therefore the Constitution does not permit the military to forbid it.

Military officers take an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” There are honorable Christian service members who will not in good conscience be able to abide by this unconstitutional and unconscionable decree.

And this week it began. Rear Adm. William D. Lee of the Coast Guard said that he will “defy any efforts to stop military personnel from openly sharing their Christian faith.” Told that sharing the gospel is crossing the line, Lee said, “I’m so glad we’ve crossed that line so many times.” He then pledged to exercise his “right under the Constitution to tell a young man that there is hope.”

The U.S. military is the most noble and honorable institution in America. Officers like Rear Adm. Lee are an essential part of making it so. Congress should step forward to enact whatever legislation is needed to safeguard their rights, as they continue to protect ours.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Alfonzo Rachel: Left-Wing Media Ignore The Gosnell House Of Horrors

.

Obama Regime To Meet With Delegation Of War Criminals, Terror Sponsors For High-Level Talks

Welcoming War Criminals – Washington Free Beacon

The Obama administration has agreed to host high-level talks with a Sudanese delegation that includes known war criminals and state sponsors of terror.

.

The State Department announced Monday that a Sudanese delegation led by senior figures in the National Congress Party (NCP) has agreed to visit Washington, D.C., for “candid discussion on the conflicts and humanitarian crises within Sudan,” according to the Associated Press.

U.S. policy has traditionally shunned genocidal Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir and his NCP, which is considered a state sponsor of terror for crimes carried out in Sudan’s Darfur region where ethnic cleansing began in 2003.

The talks will be be helmed by Nafie Ali Nafie, an al-Bashir adviser and key NCP official who has been cited by watchdog groups for his role in the Darfur massacres.

“The man the Obama administration will be speaking with has blood on his hands, quite literally,” the Sudanese peace activist group Girifna wrote in a letter to President Barack Obama on Monday.

“As one of the most brutal members of the National Islamic Front regime and head of the National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS) in the 1990′s, Nafie masterminded a savage campaign of torture and killing in compounds known as ‘Ghost Houses,’ ” Girifna wrote. “Thousands of people were tortured and hundreds disappeared in a campaign that saw the annihilation of voices of dissent.”

“Leaders of civil society and professional and student unions were persecuted under his direct orders,” the letter states. “He himself is known to have tortured individuals directly.”

Former Pentagon adviser Michael Rubin said Nafie was “a key player” in al-Bashir’s genocidal regime, which is responsible for systematically killing upwards of 400,000 people, according to estimates by watchdog groups.

The United Nations International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for al-Bashir in 2004 for crimes against humanity and genocide.

Sudan is also reported to be harboring Ugandan warlord Joseph Kony, who is notorious for murdering and enslaving children. Kony is believed to be receiving support from the Sudanese army.

In addition to sponsoring the atrocities in Darfur, Sudan’s NCP has become a chief ally of Iran, helping it to transport weapons and other illicit materials that could be part of Tehran’s rogue nuclear program.

Nafie is “Iran-trained and was a key player in Omar al-Bashir’s reign of terror,” Rubin said. “To dismiss him as a bit player would be akin to dismissing Himmler and Goebbels as bit players in Hitler’s rise.”

Other longtime Darfur activists chided the administration for taking what they say is a docile approach toward al-Bashir and his regime.

“Just two days ago it was revealed that the mass murderer Joseph Kony has been harbored and protected by the army of Sudan, which is led by President Omar Bashir, architect of the Darfur genocide,” said Rafael Medoff, director of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies.

Medoff’s organization has been pressing the Obama administration to take action against al-Bashir for his role in the Darfur massacres.

“Bashir and his representatives should be jailed, not invited for negotiations,” Medoff said. “The Obama administration, in continuing its kid-gloves treatment of the ‘Butcher of Darfur,’ is sending a message to would-be perpetrators of genocide everywhere that the United States will not take serious steps against them.”

United to End Genocide, one of the nation’s top peace groups, also condemned Obama’s decision to hold talks with murderers.

“United to End Genocide believes that the delegates of Sudan’s National Congress Party (NCP) do not deserve to be rewarded by the United States government and invited to Washington, D.C. until they stop committing crimes against the civilians throughout Sudan,” the group said in a statement, which labeled the talks an undeserved “reward”.

The Sudanese activist group Girifna maintains that the Obama administration is ignoring the NCP’s history of violence.

“The U.S. government must understand that the NCP has lost all legitimacy and has never represented the Sudanese people,” the group wrote to Obama. “Rather, it represents a tiny cabal of individuals that have exploited us, killed hundreds of thousands of our innocent brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, and continues to commit mass atrocities and crimes against humanity until this day.”

“The regime of Omar al-Bashir has proved itself unwilling to accept the rule of law, or implement any of the myriad agreements it has signed with the various armed groups and the civilian opposition,” the letter adds.

“If the United States is genuinely interested in stability and peace in the region, it must not fall into the false paradigm that the NCP is the only harbinger of stability,” Girifna stated in its open letter. “In fact, the NCP’s prolonged rule will ensure that South Sudan will remain unstable, and that various armed conflicts in Sudan will continue.”

Rubin said the Obama administration’s outreach to suspect Sudanese leaders is part and parcel of a misguided foreign policy that embraces foe over friend.

“There’s a certain irony about the Obama administration: It talks about a responsibility to protect, and then looks the other ways as tens of thousands are slaughtered in Syria,” Rubin said. “It issues red lines on chemical weapons, and then signals to the world that it has no intention of enforcing them.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

The Obama Borg (Victor Davis Hanson)

The Obama Borg – Victor Davis Hanson

.

In Star Trek lore, the Borg was a collective of servile drone operatives that sought to assimilate other species into its “hive mind.”

Something akin to that creepy groupthink arose when the Obama administration took power and sought to reformulate the so-called war on terror. Almost immediately, Obama operatives suggested that radical Islamists were no more likely than any other group to commit acts of terrorism. In fact, the very idea of terrorism – not to mention a war against it – was supposedly a Bush-administration construct unfairly aimed at Muslims.

Obama apparently sincerely believed that there was no intrinsic connection between Islamism and terror; or, if there was, Islamic radicalism was no more dangerous than right-wing or supposedly Christian-inspired terror. Or if Islamic radicalism did arise, it might be mitigated by multicultural sympathy and outreach, mostly by contextualizing the violence as an inevitable result of prior Western culpability.

Precisely because the Bush-Cheney protocols had thwarted over 40 post-9/11 Islamist plots, Senator Obama had the latitude, in 2008, to campaign for the presidency on the premise that these measures were both unlawful and superfluous. After he became president and learned of their utility – and assumed the political responsibility for the consequences of abandoning his effective anti-terrorism inheritance – Obama squared the circle of embracing or expanding all the elements of the war against terror by politically correct euphemism.

The result has been that ever since 2009, various members of the administration collective have sought, each according to his station, to bring us into the network of not associating Islamism with terror. And the Borg have certainly been diverse, as all sorts of political appointees, opportunists, and career officers plugged themselves into the hive. Obama may have killed ten times as many suspected Muslim terrorists by drone as did Bush, but we were to assume that the fact that there were no Christian, Jewish, or Buddhist victims of Hellfire missiles was irrelevant.

Shortly after assuming office as the head of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano associated the prior “war on terror” with a “politics of fear”: “In my speech, although I did not use the word ‘terrorism,’ I referred to ‘man-caused’ disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.” Again, one wishes to ask her how many Christians have been targeted by Obama-administration Predator drones.

Various members of the Defense Department soon were plugged into the new narrative of “this administration” and, as good automatons, were eager to spread the Borg directives. A memo sent by the Defense Department’s security office to Pentagon staff members read, “This administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror.’ Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’”

After the Fort Hood shootings, the Defense Department characterized the murders as “workplace violence,” despite the known fact that Major Hasan had been interviewed by the FBI because of his correspondence with the radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki, and even though he yelled “Allahu Akbar!” as he killed twelve soldiers and one civilian and wounded more than 30 others. The military was absorbed into the non-Islamic groupthink to such a degree that Army Chief of Staff George Casey editorialized of the mass murder of his soldiers: “Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.” Dismantling the “diversity program” would be worse than the slaughter at Fort Hood? These days our martyrs are to die not on the altar of freedom, but on the altar of diversity?

The hive thinking quickly spread throughout the Obama administration’s intelligence apparat, as even those who once worked for George W. Bush and, in fact, had been deeply embedded in the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism efforts were drawn into the Borg – quite willingly and for careerist reasons. Despite the Muslim Brotherhood’s long history of Islamist-inspired violence, and its decades-long anti-American efforts, James Clapper, director of national intelligence (who had worked for the Bush administration and defended its launching the Iraq War by claiming that Saddam Hussein had sent his WMD stockpiles to Syria on the eve of the American invasion), offered an absurd illustration of hive thinking: “The term ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ is an umbrella term for a variety of movements. In the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried al-Qaeda as a perversion of Islam.”

John Brennan – who, like Clapper, in his pre-Borg days both worked in the Bush administration and was criticized for his anti-Islamic-terrorism zealotry (among other things, for supposedly promoting enhanced interrogations in Guantanamo of the now-politically-incorrect category of “enemy combatants”) – also was rewired when he became Obama’s counter-terrorism advisor. Soon he duly opined of the now-taboo idea of jihadism, “Jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself or one’s community.” Apparently the Tsarnaevs got a bit out of hand as they were purifying themselves in their holy struggle on the streets of Boston.

Sometimes the Borg drew in those well outside the military, intelligence, and national-security communities. According to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, when President Obama set out the “foremost” task of NASA, it had nothing to do with space exploration. Rather, the president “wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science… and math and engineering.” I think the Borg logic here is something like the following: Thanks to the legacy of Averroes, America can still get to Mars – and thanks to our recognition of that debt, the Tsarnaevs and Hasans of the world will “feel good” and are going to celebrate diversity rather than kill lots of innocent people.

These examples of the Borg could be vastly expanded, from Homeland Security’s warning of future violence not from Muslim males but rather from “right-wing extremism” — emanating from returning war veterans and anti-abortion activists – to the mandatory substitution of “militant extremism” and “violent extremism” for “Islamic extremism.”

When so many in government have been recircuited into the hive, it is no surprise that the FBI in the field has dropped its proper focus on militant Islam, or that the thug Vladimir Putin proved more helpful than did our own FBI and CIA directors in the Tsarnaev case. After all, the FBI had interviewed, but not detained, a number of men who later proved to be Islamic terrorists, such as the Tsarnaevs, Nidal Hasan, Anwar al-Awlaki, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, and David Coleman Headley. One wonders what common complaint or malady these subjects shared – anti-abortion zealotry, tax resistance, homophobia, secret tea-party sympathies, several tours in Anbar Province, nativist anger at illegal immigrants, or simple head injuries?

What will break up the Borg? Tragically, it may take another Boston-style bombing to send enough rogue voltage through the system to explode the circuitry and free the drones from the hive.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Obama State Department Blocking Lawyers From Representing Benghazi Whistleblowers (Audio)

State Dept Blocking Lawyers From Representing Benghazi Whistleblowers – Big Government

According to former US Attorney Joe DiGenova, the State Department is standing in the way of lawyers trying to represent whistleblowers in the ongoing investigation into the events at the US Consolate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.

.

DiGenova appeared with me and co-host Brian Wilson this morning on “Mornings on the Mall” on WMAL-FM in Washington DC.

“The Department of State is refusing to grant clearances to Victoria (Toensing) and other people who want to represent the whistleblowers in an attempt to prevent the testimony,” DiGenova said, referring to the upcoming hearing before Rep. Darrel Issa’s House Oversight Committee.

DiGenova called the stand-off a “constitutional showdown” and added, “Congress is going to win. The administration’s effort to cover up what happened in Benghazi is going to fail.”

Listen to the entire interview here:

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Senator Ted Cruz Makes Surprise Visit To FreedomWorks Texas Summit

.

2013 NFL Draft Picks – Rounds 4 Through 7

Click HERE to view results of ROUND 1.

Click HERE to view results of ROUNDS 2 & 3.

.

Note: for the following 4 rounds, I have only posted the draft picks of last season’s playoff teams. They are the Bengtals, the Texans, the Broncos, the Colts, the Patriots, the Ravens, the Vikings, the Packers, the Redskins, the Seahawks, the Falcons and the 49ers.

Click HERE for all other draft results.

.
ROUND 4

.
Patriots – Boyce, Josh – WR – 5’11″ – 206 – TCU – 72.2
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “A very “Belichickian” pick for the Patriots. Boyce had an injury that dropped him down boards, but he is a great down-the-field pick who reminds me a lot of the Aaron Dobson pick from Day 2. Doubling down on a big need is a path toward success for a team that is already in contention.” – Grade: B+

Packers – Bakhtiari, David – OT – 6’4″ – 299 – Colorado – 70.5
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Great pick and great value for Ted Thompson (redundancy alert!). I think Bakhtiari has upside as a left tackle, but I’ve been told that some teams had him as a top center in this draft class. Others had him as a top guard.” – Grade: A-

Bengals – Porter, Sean – LB – 6’1″ – 229 – Texas A&M – 71.1
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “The Bengals wanted depth in the linebacking corps, and Porter is a good prospect who can chase in pursuit as well as blitz the QB from both the interior and the exterior. Great depth for an already-great defense.” – Grade: B

Redskins – Thomas, Phillip – S – 6’0″ – 208 – Fresno St. – 74.1
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Another defensive pick for the Redskins, who needed a lot of help in their defensive backfield. Thomas has a better chance to start early on than their first pick, David Amerson. Thomas has good athleticism and great ball skills.” – Grade: A

Vikings – Hodges, Gerald – LB – 6’1″ – 243 – Penn St. – 72.4
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Great fit for Hodges who could come in and start as a middle linebacker by year two in Minnesota. They’re desperate for a player there and are lucky Hodges fell to them. He’s a heady defender and a great young man to add to the locker room. It’s a bit of a reach, in my opinion, but I definitely understand what they saw in him.” – Grade: A-

Colts – Holmes, Khaled – C – 6’3″ – 302 – USC – 71.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Holmes was my top-rated zone-blocking center in this draft class. In a non-ZBS scheme, I wouldn’t have touched him until the seventh, but in the Colts’ scheme, he should be fantastic. They had a need at the position and picked up the perfect player to fill it. I think he starts in his first year because of where he landed.” – Grade: A

Packers – Tretter, J.C. – OT – 6’4″ – 307 – Cornell – 64.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Tretter has been on a lot of lists as a “small school stud,” but I never saw it up close or on tape. He’s a tweener in the worst sense of the word, and I’m not sure he’ll ever find a starting position on even the Packers offensive line. Think they could’ve gotten a better player at guard in Round 5.” – Grade: C-

Seahawks – Harper, Chris – WR – 6’1″ – 229 – Kansas St. – 68.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “I think Harper ends up as one of the better receivers on the Seahawks roster. He caught everything at Senior Bowl practices and has a little Percy Harvin in his game, as he has enough body size to line up at a bunch of different places. I love his physicality down the field.” – Grade: A

Texans – Williams, Trevardo – DE – 6’1″ – 241 – Connecticut – 66.1
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Another great pass-rushing prospect for Houston. This is a reach for the Texans, but they clearly have a “type” in this class. Williams will need to stick on special teams to get a lot of burn, but in a rotation at outside linebacker, he’ll provide a little spark once he warms up to the NFL game.” – Grade: B

Packers – Franklin, Johnathan – RB – 5’10″ – 205 – UCLA – 72.3
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Think the Packers targeted a certain position this offseason? “Jetski” Franklin is one of my favorite young men in this draft class and a fantastic football player. I know of a few teams that had second-round grades on Franklin, and I thought he could potentially sneak into the first. Great pick even if it wasn’t a great need.” – Grade: B+

Falcons – Goodman, Malliciah – DE – 6’4″ – 276 – Clemson – 67.7
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “This is a rotational pass-rusher for a team that was looking for an eventual starter, which I’m not sure Goodman can ever be. That said, he’ll provide them some burst on third downs and could be useful in a “NASCAR” pass-rushing front.” – Grade: B+

49ers – Patton, Quinton – WR – 6’0″ – 204 – Louisiana Tech – 83.8
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “I wasn’t alone when I thought Patton could’ve snuck into the first two rounds. Big hands that he’s able to get up both down the field and across the middle. He is physical, uses his body well and can play inside and out. Impressive pick from a team that’s had a bunch of those in this draft.” – Grade: A+

Ravens – Simon, John – DE – 6’1″ – 257 – Ohio St. – 70.5
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Simon is smaller than Paul Kruger, but he reminds me a little bit of the player the Ravens lost this offseason. He doesn’t have a true position in either a 3-4 or a 4-3, but the Ravens have gotten where they are by finding roles and molding that type of player. A reach, in my opinion, but I hate to argue with Ozzie Newsome.” – Grade: B+

Ravens – Juszczyk, Kyle – FB – 6’1″ – 248 – Harvard – 53.7
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “A nice H-back prospect for the Ravens, who love smart, high-character players. More than just a great Scrabble play, Juszczyk is an athletic player who can catch the ball. He won’t play FB over Vonta Leach, but he’ll be a nice Swiss Army knife for Joe Flacco and that offense.” – Grade: B+

49ers – Lattimore, Marcus – RB – 5’11″ – 221 – South Carolina – 74.9
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Goodness gracious… The Niners aren’t playing around today and grabbed a player who could end up being the best running back in this class. He’s such a fantastic talent, but leg injuries have made some question if he’ll ever make an impact. They have the ability to sit him and even put him on the IR his rookie year if he’s not healthy.” – Grade: A+

Falcons – Toilolo, Levine – TE – 6’8″ – 260 – Stanford – 66.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Off of 2011 tape, Toilolo is a value pick, but some thought he could fall much later after a disappointing 2012. Tall and athletic, the Falcons will hope Tony Gonzalez rubs off on him, and Toilolo reaches some of that untapped potential.” – Grade: C+

.
ROUND 5

.
Seahawks – Williams, Jesse – DT – 6’3″ – 323 – Alabama – 85.5
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Knee injuries concerned teams enough to drop him to this point, but Williams has first-round talent. He’ll end up as the “elephant” end on the Seahawks and provide a lot of nastiness to a defense that is already full of it.” – Grade: A

Seahawks – Simon, Tharold – CB – 6’2″ – 202 – LSU – 70.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “A tall corner? For Seattle? Consider me shocked! Simon is a perfect fit for the Seahawks defense. I think it’s a reach and he has some off-the-field concerns, but it isn’t a surprising selection.” – Grade: B

.
Colts – Hughes, Montori – DT – 6’4″ – 329 – Tennessee-Martin – 68.7
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “An absolute physical specimen for a nose tackle prospect. There aren’t many people at his size and his athleticism in this draft class. If his effort level is what it should be, he could start by year two and rotate in right away.” – Grade: B+

Broncos – Smith, Quanterus – DE – 6’5″ – 250 – Western Kentucky – 75.7
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Fantastic, athletic edge-rusher, who is a long-term upside pick for a team that needs more help on the edge. The Broncos will have some time to bring him around.” – Grade: B

.
Falcons – Maponga, Stansly – DE – 6’2″ – 256 – TCU – 68.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Another high-upside pass-rusher for the Falcons. Maponga is a good athlete who needs a lot of polish before he contributes at the NFL level. Had a lot of high-impact plays at college and loves to strip the football from ball-carriers.” – Grade: B-

Redskins – Thompson, Chris – RB – 5’7″ – 192 – Florida St. – 52.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Not a fan of Thompson, but I’m not going to argue with the Shanahans taking a mid-round back. He has injury issues and may be a long-term project as a scatback.” – Grade: C+

Vikings – Locke, Jeff – P – 6’0″ – 209 – UCLA – #
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Don’t know why the Vikings need a punter with Chris Kluwe around, and Locke wasn’t even my highest-ranked punter (although I know some who had him above LSU’s Brad Wing). Seems like a wasted pick.” – Grade: D+

Bengals – Hawkinson, Tanner – OT- 6’5″- 298- Kansas- 54.5
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “”Hawk” is a great athlete and will have time to develop in Cincinnati. I had him a couple rounds later, but this is an upside selection.” – Grade: B-

49ers – Dial, Quinton – DE – 6’5″ – 318 – Alabama – 55.7
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “This is a potential replacement for Justin Smith down the road. Dial is very athletic but underwhelmed at times with so much talent around him at Alabama. He’ll have the same amount of talent around him in San Francisco.” – Grade: C+

Seahawks – Willson, Luke – TE – 6’5″ – 251 – Rice – 56.9
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Willson is a great athlete and would’ve been a top combine performer had he been invited. Rice has a history of producing good multifaceted tight ends, and Willson should have some upside down the road. Not sure I would’ve drafted him, however, let alone in the fifth.” – Grade: D

Packers – Hyde, Micah – S – 6’0″ – 197 – Iowa – 61.7
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “High-character guy with positional flexibility. He’ll end up contributing to the Green Bay Packers defense, but may always be a backup because the athleticism isn’t there.” – Grade: B-

Broncos – King, Tavarres – WR- 6’0″- 189- Georgia- 69.8
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “I like King as a prospect. He has the quickness to be a slot receiver at the next level with a little more consistent quarterbacking. Will have an uphill climb on that roster.” – Grade: C+

.
Redskins – Jenkins, Brandon – DE – 6’2″ – 251 – Florida St. – 82.9
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “A great athlete with some health and production issues. So, pretty much what we’ve come to expect out of a Florida State defender. In a few years, he could make in impact. The Redskins are doing a good job adding potential playmakers, but not sure they’ll help much in 2013.” – Grade: B-

.
Packers – Boyd, Josh – DT – 6’3″ – 310 – Mississippi St. – 69.8
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “A good nose tackle in college, but probably doesn’t have the size to play there at the next level. The Packers love movable pieces on their front, and Boyd has good talent.” – Grade: B

.
Ravens – Wagner, Ricky – OT – 6’6″ – 308 – Wisconsin – 69.1
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “A great right tackle prospect. He’ll allow Kelechi Osemele to play guard and fits in the Ravens’ physical style of play. Love this pick and wouldn’t be surprised if he starts in his rookie year.” – Grade: A

.
ROUND 6

.
Broncos – Painter, Vinston – OT – 6’4″ – 306 – Virginia Tech – 51.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “I don’t see Painter as a starter, but he can be down the road because of his athleticism. He’s actually a converted defensive tackle and could be a late-round gem if the Broncos have some patience with him.” – Grade: C+

Texans – Quessenberry, David – OT – 6’5″ – 302 – San Jose St. – 69.2
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “A good but not great lineman who can play a few different positions. He passes the look test and has enough athleticism to succeed in the Texans’ zone-blocking scheme.” – Grade: B-

49ers – Moody, Nick – LB – 6’1″ – 236 – Florida St. – 50.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Played linebacker in college but has some snaps at safety as well. I think he’ll be a long-term special teamer and a backup in the defensive backfield.” – Grade: C

Bengals – Burkhead, Rex – RB – 5’10″ – 214 – Nebraska – 56.5
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Will probably be used as a fullback in Cincinnati and has good enough hands to help Andy Dalton as a security blanket. A productive runner, he could also see time in the backfield if BenJarvus Green-Ellis goes down.” – Grade: B

Redskins – Rambo, Bacarri – S – 6’0″ – 211 – Georgia – 61.4
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Good in-the-box safety against the pass game, but he is inconsistent against the run and launches himself, often missing tackles against stronger ball-carriers. He’ll be good depth and a core special teams player.” – Grade: B-

Colts – Boyett, John – S – 5’10″ – 204 – Oregon – 67.5
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Didn’t play much in 2012 thanks to a knee injury, but was incredibly productive in the previous years in Eugene. Was the Ducks’ leading tackler in 2011.” – Grade: C

Packers – Palmer, Nate – LB – 6’3″ – 240 – Illinois St. – 54.5
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Talented pass-rusher as a linebacker and even tried out as defensive end for a few teams. Had visited the Packers earlier this year.” – Grade: C+

Seahawks – Ware, Spencer – RB – 5’10″ – 228 – LSU – 59.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Fringe draftable grade on my board, but I have no idea how he sees the field on anything other than covering kicks.” – Grade: D

Texans – Bonner, Alan – WR – 5’10″ – 193 – Jacksonville St. – 50.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Productive receiver from a small school who may stick as a slot receiver. Don’t see him on the roster in three years, however.” – Grade: D

Vikings – Baca, Jeff – OG – 6’3″ – 302 – UCLA – 59.7
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “A natural football player, Baca needs to spend more time in the weight room and on the practice field before he’s even a depth player for the Vikings.” – Grade: C-

Bengals – Hamilton, Cobi – WR – 6’2″ – 212 – Arkansas – 72.9
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Big-bodied receiver who has the skills to get deep but lacks elite speed. He’ll be a fourth or fifth wide receiver depending on their skill grouping.” – Grade: B-

Texans – Jones, Chris – DT – 6’2″ – 302 – Bowling Green – 55.3
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Will get a lot of sacks and tackles on pure effort, but he doesn’t have a lot of size or athleticism. Jones will provide good depth as a 3-4 DE.” – Grade: C-

Ravens – Lewis-Moore, Kapron – DE – 6’4″ – 298 – Notre Dame – 55.6
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Didn’t have a draftable grade because of a recent ACL injury. He’ll be a good player down the road, but he may need to be on the IR for his entire rookie season.” – Grade: C-

Texans – Griffin, Ryan – TE – 6’6″ – 247 – Connecticut – 51.4
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Great hands, but isn’t going to start at tight end because he’s too slight to block. The Texans have a lot of players like Griffin, so he may struggle to find snaps.” – Grade: C

Ravens – Jensen, Ryan – OT – 6’3″ – 317 – Colorado State-Pueblo – 63.1
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “I had a Round 6-7 grade on Jensen, so this is a perfect landing spot for him. He fits as a backup right tackle, but could find some snaps at guard as well.” – Grade: B-

.
ROUND 7

.
Vikings – Mauti, Michael – LB – 6’2″ – 243 – Penn St. – 71.8
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Excellent pick, as Mauti could end up as the starting MLB two or three years down the road. Injuries could keep him down through his pro career, but a great talent when he’s healthy.” – Grade: A

Vikings – Bond, Travis – OG – 6’6″ – 329 – North Carolina – 54.6
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Road grading offensive guard that fits the Vikings’ offensive system. This is another value pick and a great fit.” – Grade: B+

Packers – Johnson, Charles – WR – 6’2″ – 215 – Grand Valley St. – 50.4
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “A big receiver (6’2″ 215) with good over-the-shoulder catching. Was very productive at a small level. Great upside, but it’s a numbers game on that Packers roster.” – Grade: B

Seahawks – Seymour, Ryan – G – 6’5″ – 300 – Vanderbilt – 50.2
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Productive lineman who played both guard and center for Vandy, he’ll end up as a long-term backup in the NFL.” – Grade: C+

Packers – Dorsey, Kevin – WR – 6’3″ – 210 – Maryland – 50.1
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Big receiver with great hands. Dorsey didn’t have a draftable grade, but this is the kind of time where teams like the Packers just need to make sure that they don’t let their targets get to free agency.” – Grade: C-

Patriots – Buchanan, Michael – DE – 6’5″ – 255 – Illinois – 69.5
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Terrific value for a team that can seriously use more pass-rushes. Buchanan was one of my favorite players at the Senior Bowl and I could see him contributing very quickly for the Patriots.” – Grade: A

Redskins – Jamison, Jawan – RB – 5’7″ – 203 – Rutgers – 71.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “A good fit for the Redskins because of his one-cut running ability. He’s short, but not a very shifty runner.” – Grade: B-

Vikings – Dawkins, Everett – DT – 6’2″ – 292 – Florida St. – 71.4
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Great athlete but a marginal player because Dawkins plays with little-to-no instincts. This is a great upside pick for a seventh rounder.” – Grade: A-

Colts – Williams, Kerwynn – RB – 5’8″ – 195 – Utah St. – 56.7
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Short back, but thickly built, Williams reminds me of a poor man’s Ray Rice. Very productive and could see some burn this season for the Colts.” – Grade: B+

Seahawks – Powell, Ty – DE – 6’2″ – 249 – Harding – 68.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “This is incredible value and fit for a player who played at all three levels of the defense in college. Freakish athlete who could end up as a top player wherever the Seahawks play him.” – Grade: A-

Packers – Barrington, Sam – LB – 6’1″ – 246 – South Florida – 53.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Didn’t have a draftable grade on Barrington and I think he’s a better fit in a 4-3. Decent pass rusher and very athletic but better in pursuit and against the run.” – Grade: C+

Broncos – Dysert, Zac – QB – 6’3″ – 231 – Miami (OH) – 83.5
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Awesome value here for Dysert. Needs a ton of polish with his footwork, but he offers as much upside as Brock Osweiler. It will be a great competition once Peyton Manning retires.” – Grade: A-

Patriots – Beauharnais, Steve – LB – 6’1″ – 240 – Rutgers – 60.3
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “An average athlete, but a better linebacker—Beauharnais will fit in New England because he can play SLB in their 4-3 and ILB in their 3-4. Love him downhill against the run.” – Grade: B+

49ers – Daniels, B.J. – QB – 6’0″ – 217 – South Florida – 50.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Not a very talented passer, but room to grow with an above-average arm. He’ll probably have to cut his teeth as a practice squad player, but he works as a back up to Colin Kaepernick.” – Grade: D+

Ravens – Mellette, Aaron – WR – 6’2″ – 217 – Elon – 61.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Mellette has a great body control and decent hands but needs more speed and route-running polish before he’s a productive player.” – Grade: C-

Bengaks- Fragel, Reid – OT – 6’8″ – 308 – Ohio St. – 77.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Another athletic lineman and a player who easily could have gone two or three rounds higher. Fragel will be a great player in two or three years and could end up as the right tackle of the future.” – Grade: A-

Seahawks- Smith, Jared – DT – 6’3″ – 302 – New Hampshire – 52.1
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Another big lineman, Smith didn’t have a draftable grade on my board because he’s a below average athlete. Still, he’s got a lot of hustle that could easily keep him on the edge of an NFL roster as he acclimates to the NFL.” – Grade: C+

Seahawks- Bowie, Michael – OT – 6’5″ – 330 – NE Oklahoma St. – 50.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “This is a developmental right tackle pick who was an D2 Honorable Mention All-American. He played well at the Raycom All-Star Classic.” – Grade: B-

Falcons- Ishmael, Kemal – DB – 5’11″ – 206 – Central Florida – 50.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Central Florida’s all-time leading tackler, I could see Ismael as a core special teamer for a long time.” – Grade: C+

Falcons- Motta, Zeke – S – 6’2″ – 213 – Notre Dame – 71.2
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Motta is an underrated prospect and a typical Falcons high-character pick. Don’t see him as being more than a special teamer because he doesn’t have NFL athleticism.” – Grade: C

49ers- Bykowski, Carter – OT – 6’6″ – 306 – Iowa St. – #
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “A lumberer, Bykowski is a right tackle only. I expected him to be a big target in undrafted free agency because he’s a tough player with strong hands.” – Grade: B+

Ravens- Anthony, Marc – CB – 5’11″ – 196 – California – 68.3
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “A great nickleback prospect, I’m surprised Anthony wasn’t drafted in the fifth round. He’ll see the field on special teams this year and in subpackages starting in 2013.” – Grade: A-

Falcons- Renfree, Sean – QB – 6’3″ – 219 – Duke – 52.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “This is excellent value and I had a sixth-round grade on the David Cutcliffe-trained prospect. He and Connor Vernon set all sorts of records at Duke and Renfree should step up as a No. 2 QB for the Falcons.” – Grade: A-

Bengaks- Johnson, T.J. – C – 6’4″ – 310 – South Carolina – 59.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “ohnson was one of my last players with a draftable grade. Johnson is a smart player but doesn’t always play with that intelligence. He has the ability to make line calls, but his footwork and hand placement need a lot of work.” – Grade: B+

49ers- Cooper, Marcus – CB – 6’2″ – 192 – Rutgers – 50.2
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Another Rutgers corner with a bunch of size, Cooper has enough talent to play down the road, but needs to work on his balance in and out of his breaks. He could play safety as well.” – Grade: B-

Colts- Cunningham, Justice – TE – 6’3″ – 258 – South Carolina – 63.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Cunningham is a good fit for Mr. Irrelevant and could see some time as a third tight end for the Indianapolis Colts because he is such a great blocker.” – Grade: B+

.

2013 NFL Draft Picks – Rounds 2 & 3

Click HERE to view results of ROUND 1.

.

.
ROUND 2

.
Jaguars – Cyprien, John – FS – 6’0″ – 217 – Florida International – 90.6
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Great opening pick for the Jaguars as they get a big, strong and physical safety to set the tone for their defense. I question if Cyprien will be great in deep coverage at the next level, because it is not something he’s done a lot of in college. However, he’s got the athleticism to be fantastic in that regard. In the box, though, he’s the best safety in the draft.” – Grade: A

Titans – Hunter, Justin – WR – 6’4″ – 196 – Tennessee – 81.8
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “I’ve been pumping the need for another receiver in Tennessee for a while, and it’s shaping up to be a fantastic draft for Jake Locker who needs some assistance on the offensive side of the ball. Now, with Chance Warmack and Andy Levitre on the interior and Hunter joining Kendall Wright on the outside, the Titans should be able to do a lot more than just run Chris Johnson to death.” – Grade: A-

Eagles – Ertz, Zach – TE – 6’5″ – 249 – Stanford – 82.2
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Awesome fit for Ertz in Chip Kelly’s offense! He’s a sub-par blocker, but on the move, Ertz might be the best pure matchup threat in this draft class. He’ll be able to bust the seam and give extra room for the receivers on the outside. He doesn’t really replace Brent Celek, but is a fantastic complement that will see a lot of targets.” – Grade: A

Lions – Slay, Darius – CB – 6’0″ – 192 – Mississippi St. – 71.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Huge reach for the Lions and it’s not even at a position that is their greatest need. Slay steps in as the No. 2 cornerback on the roster and is a tall, lean prospect who isn’t going to be able to press as much as the Lions would like. Fantastic athlete, but needs to be a much better football player to prove he’s anything other than a huge reach at the top of Round 2.” – Grade: B-

Bengals – Bernard, Giovani – RB – 5’8″ – 202 – North Carolina – 84.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Bernard is a great complement to Benjarvus Green-Ellis who is a tough runner while Bernard has great vision and fantastic quicks in the open field. He’ll join Tyler Eifert (their first-round pick) in giving the Bengals a much more dynamic offense in 2013. Eddie Lacy is the better back in my opinion. Johnathan Franklin might be better as well, but Bernard is a great fit for the Bengals.” – Grade: B+

Chargers – Te’o, Manti – LB – 6’1″ – 241 – Notre Dame – 87.5
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Solid pick for the Chargers, though I’m not sure it was necessary to trade up to get him with other talented linebackers still on the board (Kevin Minter from LSU, for example). Te’o has limited upside in the NFL, but can be very good with his football intelligence and his quick reaction time. The steps he loses in terms of athleticism, he makes up for diagnosing plays quicker than anyone in this class.” – Grade: A-

Jets – Smith, Geno – QB – 6’2″ – 218 – West Virginia – 88.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “EJ Manuel might have more raw physical tools, but Geno Smith is the best quarterback in this draft class. The Jets should immediately start accepting low-ball offers for the rest of the QBs on their roster, because this is their franchise passer for the next decade. He offers more athleticism, arm strength and accuracy than Mark Sanchez and is a fantastic fit for a short-range, timing offense.” – Grade: A+

49ers – Carradine, Cornellius – DE – 6’4″ – 276 – Florida St. – 85.4
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “The 49ers need another pass-rusher and Tank Carradine is a great addition. While he’ll spend a lot of time out on the edge, he can also put his hand down in the 3-4 as a rotational player on passing downs. He was the best pure pass-rusher on the board and is going to look great as a piece to that Pro Bowl-player-laden defense.” – Grade: A

Bills – Woods, Robert – WR – 6’0″ – 201 – USC – 83.1
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Woods is a prototypical high-end No. 2 receiver with good (but not great) hands, and the ability to take over games—although, had he done so more often at USC, he’d have gone last night. The fit is great next to Stevie Johnson in an offense that is going to look to get vertical early and often.” – Grade: A

Raiders – Watson, Menelik – OT – 6’5″ – 310 – Florida St. – 85.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Watson was the best offensive tackle left on a lot of boards and gives the Raiders a lot of flexibility on their offensive line. Look for them to keep Jared Veldheer at left tackle until Watson is healthy and eventually play the two side-by-side for a great blindside tandem.” – Grade: A

Buccaneers – Banks, Johnthan – CB – 6’2″ – 185 – Mississippi St. – 84.4
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “I think there are better uses for a first pick than a No. 2 cornerback, but the Buccaneers clearly wanted to upgrade their defensive backfield this season. This pick moves Eric Wright to his rightful role in subpackages and gives the Buccaneers a lot more freedom to blitz and manufacture some pressure on opposing quarterbacks in the NFC South.” – Grade: A-

Panthers – Short, Kawann – DT – 6’3″ – 299 – Purdue – 80.6
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Wow, some Panthers fans might not be happy with doubling down on defensive tackles, but this is a great pickup and a fantastic fit next to Star Lotulelei. Luke Kuechly is a happy man this evening as he’ll have room to maneuver with two stud tackles in front of him. In a division with so much offensive talent, this is a defining pickup for the Panthers.” – Grade: A

Cardinals – Minter, Kevin – LB – 6’0″ – 246 – LSU – 84.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Great value and fit for the draft’s best interior linebacker. I question the need, however, as the Cardinals’ defense wasn’t the problem last season. This is a best player available pick and he should be good, so I’m not criticizing too much. Yet, the grade is a little lower than perfect because there were other needs to be filled.” – Grade: A-

Bills – Alonso, Kiko – LB- 6’3″- 238- Oregon- 67.1
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “This is a high-upside pick with plenty of room to be a huge bust. Mostly a blitzer up the middle, Alonso will look great behind that Bills defensive line and give quarterbacks something to worry about when they step up in the pocket.” – Grade: A-

Cowboys – Escobar, Gavin – TE – 6’6″ – 254 – San Diego St. – 79.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Escobar is going to be a great weapon in the Cowboys offense, but Jerry Jones needs to be removed from the room before Tony Romo finds a sharp object. How does anyone expect Romo to deliver the ball to these weapons with zero interior blocking – save a huge reach at center – and a right tackle that consistently does a great turnstile impression?” – Grade: B

Steelers – Bell, Le’Veon – RB – 6’1″ – 230 – Michigan St. – 71.2
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “This would be a terrible pick if not for the need and the fit in the Steelers’ physical offense. The Steelers needed a back, and Bell fits their physical style. Still, he’s not even close to the best back on the board and this will probably be a pick they end up regretting.” – Grade: B

Giants – Hankins, Johnathan – DT – 6’3″ – 320 – Ohio St. – 83.6
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Love this pick for the Giants as they struggled to get pressure up the middle last season. On a defense that is predicated around pressure, that’s a huge reason they weren’t able to get back to the playoffs. Hankins will provide pocket-collapsing pressure up the middle and allow the ends to be a lot more productive.” – Grade: A

Bears – Bostic, Jon – LB – 6’1″ – 245 – Florida – 62.2
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “This is Brian Urlacher’s replacement? He’s not going to make anyone forget about Urlacher, but he’ll be a terrific run-stopper in the middle of the Bears defense and is a clear sign that the middle linebacker in Chicago won’t spend as much time in coverage as the position used to.” – Grade: B+

Redskins – Amerson, David – CB – 6’1″ – 205 – N.C. State – 74.4
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “After trading up for Robert Griffin III last year, the Redskins defense was a year behind and needs to add a bunch of talent on every level if they want to keep up with the trajectory of their offense. Amerson is a reach in my opinion, but he’s a prospect the Redskins know well who can be a huge steal if he plays like he did in 2011. His 2012 tape, however, says that he should’ve gone a round later.” – Grade: A-

Patriots – Collins, Jamie – LB – 6’3″ – 250 – Southern Miss – 68.8
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “This pick makes a lot of sense for the Patriots, and Collins is a player I really like. He fits their hybrid scheme and will play both end and outside linebacker. He’ll help the Patriots’ pass rush almost immediately.” – Grade: A

Bengals – Hunt, Margus – DE – 6’8″ – 277 – SMU – 75.4
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “The Bengals already have a great front-four and could’ve used this pick on a number of defensive back prospects. Instead, they get a player without a real position in their defense who will need to find either a great weight-gain plan to become an interior rusher or learn to get lower as he rushes around the edge.” – Grade: B-

Dolphins – Taylor, Jamar – CB – 5’11″ – 192 – Boise St. – 85.5
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “The Dolphins needed another cornerback after Sean Smith left, and Taylor had a higher grade on my board than Desmond Trufant or Johnathan Banks. He’s physical, athletic and has great ball skills. He’s been one of my favorite players since the Senior Bowl, and Dolphins fans will learn to love him as well.” – Grade: A

49ers – McDonald, Vance – TE – 6’4″ – 267 – Rice – 76.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “A No. 2 tight end might seem like a bit of a luxury, but the 49ers love the dual-tight end set and lost Delanie Walker this offseason. While many projected Zach Ertz to the Niners earlier, McDonald is the better blocker and more of an H-back who can line up at multiple positions. Great pick.” – Grade: B+

Ravens – Brown, Arthur – LB – 6’0″ – 241 – Kansas St. – 90.3
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Wow, the rich get richer! This is a great player to take over for Ray Lewis and a player who fell down draft boards for really no good reason—much like Lewis did when they drafted him. This is terrific value, and he already looks great in purple.” – Grade: A+

Texans – Swearinger, D.J. – S – 5’10″ – 208 – South Carolina – 81.4
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “This is the Texans’ starting strong safety in 2014 and beyond as Ed Reed continues to decline. Until then, this is a great depth pick and Swearinger will probably end up playing in nickle and dime packages – as well as on special teams.” – Grade: A-

Broncos – Ball, Montee – RB – 5’10″ – 214 – Wisconsin – 75.6
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “The Broncos needed a bell cow this offseason and Ball is a true workhorse. (Mixed zoological metaphors for the win!) Ball won’t see a ton of carries in the Peyton Manning-led offense, but when Ball gets the ball, he’ll deliver.” – Grade: A

Patriots – Dobson, Aaron – WR – 6’3″ – 210 – Marshall – 71.7
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Dobson isn’t the highest receiver left on my board, but this is a terrific pick. It’s also one I’ve made for the Patriots in quite a few mocks. Dobson is a great down-the-field receiver and has great hands and body control. He’ll become what Brandon Lloyd was supposed to be.” – Grade: A

Falcons – Alford, Robert – CB – 5’10″ – 188 – Southeastern Louisiana – 81.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “The Falcons draft board must have been someone’s defensive back rankings, because they’re adamant at shoring it up at all costs. Alford is a solid player with decent upside. He won’t start until 2014 (if then), and the Falcons have bigger needs. Still, love the player and his ball skills.” – Grade: A-

Packers – Lacy, Eddie – RB – 5’11″ – 231 – Alabama – 82.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “The Packers will never ask Lacy to carry the ball as much as Nick Saban did, and the only reason Lacy fell is because teams were worried he had already worn too much tread off of his tires. This is a great value as I had this exact pick in my last mock draft… in the first round.” – Grade: A+

Seahawks – Michael, Christine – RB – 5’10″ – 220 – Texas A&M – 71.4
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Can’t believe Johnathan Franklin wasn’t the pick here if it was going to be a back. Also, this shouldn’t have been a back. With Marshawn Lynch and Robert Turbin, adding a speedster might be intriguing, but the Seahawks have much bigger needs on offense. The redeeming quality here is that Michael is a great fit in the zone-blocking scheme. Otherwise, I wouldn’t want any part of him. He has poor vision and will often grab big chunks of yardage in one play, but run into tackles the rest of his carries.” – Grade: C+

.
ROUND 3

.
Chiefs – Kelce, Travis – TE – 6’5″ – 255 – Cincinnati – 80.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “This is a pick I’ve had mocked to the Chiefs at the end of the third round, but it works here because tight ends went off the board a little earlier than expected. Honestly, the only reason Kelce wasn’t drafted higher is because of off-the-field issues. He reminds me of Brent Celek who played under Andy Reid in Philadelphia.” – Grade: A-

Jaguars – Gratz, Dwayne – CB – 5’11″ – 201 – Connecticut – 62.1
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “There’s no mystery here about what the Jacksonville Jaguars are trying to do. Another big, strong defensive back to help emulate what the Seattle Seahawks have built under Pete Carroll. The scheme is set and the fit is fantastic. Gratz picked up steam after the combine and it’s no surprise the Jaguars coveted him. Things are looking up in Northern Florida.” – Grade: A

Lions – Warford, Larry – OG – 6’3″ – 332 – Kentucky – 88.3
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Great pickup for the Lions as many considered this a possible target for a round earlier. Warford shines on tape, but opened a lot of eyes at the Senior Bowl when he was one of the most agile offensive linemen and did extremely well throughout the week. He’ll step right in at RG and start from day one.” – Grade: A

Raiders – Moore, Sio – LB – 6’1″ – 245 – Connecticut – 68.4
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Moore will provide a huge upgrade to the Raiders pass rush from the linebacker position. He’ll need some help over the top in coverage and is a work-in-progress against the run, but in terms of pressuring the quarterbacks of the AFC West, this is a great selection.” – Grade: A

Eagles – Logan, Bennie – DT – 6’2″ – 309 – LSU – 78.7
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “I know a lot of media analysts that had Logan higher than I did, but I think this is a serious reach for the Eagles. As they switch to a 3-4 defense, however, this is a great fit. Logan can play both nose tackle and defensive end.” – Grade: B

Browns – McFadden, Leon – CB – 5’10″ – 193 – San Diego St. – 80.7
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Good pick for the Browns who need a corner opposite Joe Haden pretty badly. Along with Barkevious Mingo from the first round, McFadden will help shore up a Browns defense that was already taking big strides last year and had a good free agency period. McFadden will also likely return kicks.” – Grade: B+

Cardinals – Mathieu, Tyrann – CB – 5’9″ – 186 – LSU – 73.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “You play to win your division and the Cardinals just got a great player to track down the newest St. Louis Rams weapon – Tavon Austin. Mathieu is a nickle corner. He will not be anything more than that. Yet, in an NFL that utilizes a slot receiver more and more, Mathieu might as well be considered a starter. If he keeps his nose clean, he can be great.” – Grade: A-

Titans – Wreh-Wilson, Blidi – CB – 6’1″ – 195 – Connecticut – 77.2
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “The Titans didn’t desperately need a corner, but with the additions they’ve made on the offensive side of the ball already in this draft, a depth pick on defense is understandable. Wreh-Wilson had a third-round grade on my board. He’s tall and has great skills in zone coverage.” – Grade: A-

Rams – McDonald, T.J. – FS – 6’2″ – 219 – USC – 66.5
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “While Rams fans likely wanted a safety earlier, McDonald is a great pick here. Jeff Fisher will send him heading downhill where McDonald is a vicious hitter. He’s a little stiff in coverage, but he’s a perfect in-the-box safety for a team with lots of good ball skills in the secondary.” – Grade: A

Jets – Winters, Brian – OG – 6’4″ – 320 – Kent St. – 71.1
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Winters isn’t one of my favorite players in the draft, but after Warford he was the best guard available and the Jets need some help on the right side of the line. They’ll look to run early and often behind Winters who should step in as a starter right away at either guard or possibly tackle.” – Grade: A-

Buccaneers – Glennon, Mike – QB – 6’7″ – 225 – N.C. State – 79.4
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Glennon will get his shot to compete with Josh Freeman who lives in Greg Schiano’s doghouse. There is a bunch of offensive talent and Glennon has the arm (if not the decision making or accuracy) to make big plays.” – Grade: B+

Cowboys – Williams, Terrance – WR – 6’2″ – 208 – Baylor – 83.6
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Seriously, Jerry Jones? Stop. Just stop. This is a terrible pick on a team with so many offensive weapons already. It’s proof that Jones shouldn’t be scouting tape and he certainly shouldn’t be making personnel decisions. Get a real lineman – one that you’re not reaching two rounds for. Williams is going to get lost in the shuffle as the Cowboys’ third (or fourth) receiver.” – Grade: C-

Saints – Armstead, Terron – OT – 6’5″ – 306 – Arkansas-Pine Bluff – 84.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “This wasn’t a need pick for the Saints who are OK at left tackle, but Armstead could easily overtake Charles Brown by 2014. He’s a freak athlete who should be a plus pass-protector at the next level. He dominated everything in the pre-draft process – a must for small-school prospects.” – Grade: A-

Chargers – Allen, Keenan – WR – 6’2″ – 206 – California – 86.3
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Huge pick for the Chargers as they get a position they need with a player who had a fringe first-round grade on a lot of people’s boards. On my personal list, he was my top wideout. He fell because of some lingering injury issues, but when healthy, he can be a stud in this offense. He’s a possession receiver with enough ball skills to still be a great target downfield.” – Grade: A

Dolphins – Thomas, Dallas – OT – 6’5″ – 300 – Tennessee – 82.7
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “The Dolphins certainly needed a lineman in this draft, but I’m worried that Thomas is too slow-footed and too much of a tweener to really separate himself from the pack. At best, he could start for the Dolphins by 2014 at either guard or tackle. At worst, he’s an NFL journeyman who will consistently be a liability.” – Grade: B+

Bills – Goodwin, Marquise – WR – 5’9″ – 183 – Texas – 68.5
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Love Marquise Goodwin as a prospect because he’s not just a deep threat with his speed. While that’s really all he did at Texas other than a bunch of designed runs, he has the polish to run a decent crossing route and can leave defenders in his dust once the ball is in his hands. Adding a player with Goodwin’s speed was a luxury after taking Robert Woods, but this offense should be fun to watch in 2014 and beyond.” – Grade: B+

Steelers – Wheaton, Markus – WR – 5’11″ – 189 – Oregon St. – 81.8
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “I had WR as a need for the Steelers and a second-round grade on Wheaton. This is a great pick and he fits with the receiver pieces the Steelers already have. While Emmanuel Sanders and Antonio Brown head deep, Wheaton should dominate the middle of the field. He’ll start over one of those two sooner rather than later.” – Grade: A

Cowboys – Wilcox, J.J. – FS – 6’0″ – 213 – Georgia Southern – 77.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “OK, I’ve been ragging on Jerry Jones, but this is a solid pick—if a bit of a reach. Wilcox has the athleticism (but not the acquired skills) to cover the deep middle and is extremely physical. He shined during Senior Bowl practices and has a lot of upside. Will not be an immediate impact player, however.” – Grade: B+

Giants – Moore, Damontre – DE – 6’4″ – 250 – Texas A&M – 87.9
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Oh, look… another pass-rusher for the New York Giants. Like I said with their last selection, they couldn’t get as much pressure as they wanted last season, so this is an understandable pick on a team that has the time to bring Moore along slowly and plenty of mentors to teach him the finer points of pass-rushing.” – Grade: A

Saints – Jenkins, John – DT – 6’4″ – 346 – Georgia – 81.3
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “One of my favorite picks of Day 2. This is the starting nose tackle for the Saints new 3-4 – possibly for the next decade. As the pivot point, Jenkins is going to make life a lot easier for just about everyone on the Saints defense.” – Grade: A

Patriots – Ryan, Logan – CB – 5’11″ – 191 – Rutgers – 69.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “The Patriots need depth at cornerback and Ryan has the potential to become a starter for them down the road. As a tall, physical player, Bill Belichick may be tempted to move him to safety.” – Grade: B+

Bengals – Williams, Shawn – S – 6’0″ – 213 – Georgia – 74.8
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “It’s a really deep safety class and the Bengals reached for a player I wouldn’t have touched for another round or more. I don’t think he cracks the starting lineup and will have to contribute on special teams early on.” – Grade: B

Redskins – Reed, Jordan – TE – 6’2″ – 236 – Florida – 80.5
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Don’t understand this pick for the Redskins as tight end might never be a focal point for their offense and Logan Paulsen was more-than-adequate with Fred Davis sidelined. It fits, because Reed is a lot like Davis as a matchup threat, but I don’t see him getting a lot of burn in Washington. They had much bigger needs. ” – Grade: B-

Colts – Thornton, Hugh – OG – 6’3″ – 320 – Illinois – 67.9
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “The Colts need a lot of offensive line help, and this is a good fit. While I think this is a really big reach, Thornton has more value for zone-blocking teams and should be able to play sooner rather than later because of the fit.” – Grade: B+

Seahawks – Hill, Jordan – DT – 6’1″ – 303 – Penn St. – 64.6
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Good pick here for the Seahawks as they look to rotate heavily with flexible pieces along the defensive line. Hill has enough talent that he could easily start as the 1-Tech tackle early on in his career.” – Grade: B+

49ers – Lemonier, Corey – DE – 6’3″ – 255 – Auburn – 71.2
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Complete luxury pick so the grade drops even though I’m a huge fan of the selection. The 49ers traded up to get another fantastic pass-rusher who can rotate in and put a ton of pressure on the NFC West passers. The Niners are having one of the best drafts this year.” – Grade: B+

Texans – Williams, Brennan – OT – 6’6″ – 318 – North Carolina – 71.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “It’s a complete reach, but this is probably the right tackle of the future for the Texans. Great fit in the zone-blocking scheme and he has enough athletic upside to be that guy in year two.” – Grade: B+

Broncos – Webster, Kayvon – CB – 5’10″ – 195 – South Florida – 52.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “This is a pretty big reach for an athletic defensive back prospect who may or may not start at any point in his career. I had a draftable grade on Webster, but as a long-term backup. He has the athletic tools, and one can see how cut he is, but he’s not beating out Rahim Moore or any of the cornerbacks.” – Grade: C

Patriots – Harmon, Duron – S – 6’1″ – 200 – Rutgers – 50.3
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Of course New England was going to take a defensive back that most of us have never heard of. Harmon has good size and can run, but they could’ve gotten him rounds later – if not after the draft.” – Grade: D+

Rams – Bailey, Stedman – WR – 5’10″ – 193 – West Virginia – 79.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Tavon Austin and Stedman Bailey? I’m now a St. Louis Rams fan. Great pick and Sam Bradford is going to have a lot of fun getting the ball to these two in the open field.” – Grade: A-

Dolphins – Davis, Will – CB – 5’11″ – 186 – Utah St. – 71.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “This pick has all the markings of a player that the Dolphins were thinking about with an earlier pick and were surprised he was falling. I have a fringe-starter grade on Davis, but he’s a good press-corner and physical like the Dolphins like. It’s a great landing spot.” – Grade: B

Ravens – Williams, Brandon – DT – 6’1″ – 335 – Missouri Southern St. – 73.1
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Another amazing pick for Ozzie Newsome, grabbing a player that introduced himself to the world at the Senior Bowl. Williams sent hundreds of media and scouts back to look for tape on him. He’s a classic one-gapper and will rotate in on the Ravens’ defensive line until he grows into the NFL starter he’s capable of being.” – Grade: A-

Texans – Montgomery, Sam – DE – 6’3″ – 262 – LSU – 71.4
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “The Texans need to get more pass-rushers aside from J.J. Watt, and Montgomery has as much upside as anyone on the board. He’ll need to be pushed, but there are plenty of great mentors on that Texans team. This is a best-case scenario for his landing spot.” – Grade: A-

Chiefs – Davis, Knile – RB – 5’10″ – 227 – Arkansas – 60.4
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “Yeesh…I had Davis as a Round 7 target because his injury history is so extensive that it is a risk to take him much earlier. If healthy, he can contribute, but the Chiefs have a bunch of other needs and could’ve gotten a productive backup runner that wasn’t such a gamble later.” – Grade: C+

Titans – Gooden, Zaviar – LB – 6’1″ – 234 – Missouri – 70.0
Michael Schottey’s pick analysis: “I had a third-round grade on Gooden who fits the Titans as a weak-side linebacker. Since they already have Zach Brown, this is a bit of a duplication. However, Gooden can back up a number of linebacker positions and be a great special teamer. Love the player – good depth pick.” – Grade: B+

.
Click HERE to view results of ROUNDS 4 THROUGH 7.

.