The IRS Scandal involved:
At least 292 conservative groups targeted
At least 5 pro-Israel groups targeted
Constitutional groups targeted
Groups that criticized Obama administration were targeted
At least two pro-life groups targeted
A Texas voting-rights group was targeted
Conservative activists and businesses were targeted
At least one conservative Hispanic group was targeted
IRS continued to target groups even after the scandal was exposed
The Obama FBI will not file charges against the IRS for targeting conservative groups. The agency never once interviewed a single Tea Party group.
The WSJ.com reported:
The Journal reports that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is unlikely to file any criminal charges in the targeting of conservative political organizations by the Internal Revenue Service. Yet Cleta Mitchell, an attorney who represents many of the targets, says that the FBI has never contacted any of her clients to discuss their treatment at the hands of the IRS. “Shouldn’t law enforcement talk to the victims in an investigation?,” she asks in an email. “That’s like investigating a burglary without interviewing the burgled,” notes a Journal editorial…
…Beyond the harassment of Tea Party groups and the leaking of confidential taxpayer data to political opponents, the IRS case also involved senior government officials falsely assuring Congress for a year that there was no targeting. IRS brass then falsely and publicly claimed that the targeting was the work of low-level employees. Yet when it comes to allegations of misleading Congress, the Obama Justice Department was more interested in trying to prosecute baseball pitcher Roger Clemens for comments about steroids than it was in pursuing a case involving the use of the nation’s tax-collecting authority against the President’s opponents.
Playing with my niece, Savannah Grace, that name was my idea BTW, who is now 4, I learn a lot. She likes to pretend to be a princess, or a knight, of a firefighter, or a dragon, and she likes me to pretend to. And, it is obvious that although she is just 4 she understands pretend from reality. Why does she not confuse the two? Because she is a normal child, and normal people can distinguish between fantasy and reality, which brings me to this post at American Power which lays out the case against zero tolerance policies in schools
From Glenn Reynolds, at USA Today, “Educators can’t distinguish between childish games and real threats“:
Last week, the Wall Street Journal’s Alison Gopnik reported on research from professors Jacqueline Wooley at the University of Texas and Paul Harris at Harvard that showed a surprising degree of sophistication among preschool kids. Apparently, though they spend a lot of time in fantasy pursuits, they’re actually quite good at distinguishing fantasy from reality:
Children understand the difference. They know that their beloved imaginary friend isn’t actually real and that the terrifying monster in their closet doesn’t actually exist (though that makes them no less beloved or scary). But children do spend more time than we do thinking about the world of imagination. They don’t actually confuse the fantasy world with the real one; they just prefer to hang out there.
So simple really isn’t it? So very, very simple. Yet, some Conservatives forget this when some nut shoots up a school, or movie theater. They will play the “it is video games” card. Ignoring the fact that millions and millions of other people played those same games and never caused any harm to anyone. So, to my fellow Conservatives who continue to beat that dead horse of stupidity, I offer two words of advice “STOP” and “THINK”
If things are going badly, we’re told the GOP should compromise on what it believes in to start winning elections again. If things are going well, we’re told we must turn a blind eye to the GOP abandoning its beliefs so as not to ruin the great year we’re going to have. The establishment Republicans who are always arguing in favor of trading off dearly held principles in return for magic beans always claim they’re doing it to win elections, but it’s hard to miss the fact that they don’t actually seem to be any better at winning elections than the grassroots conservatives they seem to write off as amateurs. Setting that aside, winning elections isn’t an end unto itself. You win elections in order to implement your agenda, which win or lose, the GOP never seems to be all that interested in. If you disagree with that, point out all the great domestic victories we achieved when the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. When Democrats pulled that same trick off, they attempted to fundamentally transform America while Republicans passed tax cuts and then moved on to big government wish list items like Medicare Part D, raising spending on the Arts and the now universally hated No Child Left Behind.
The sad fact of the matter is that while liberals have a very good idea of where their representatives stand on almost everything, there’s NOT A SINGLE ISSUE where conservatives can just trust Republicans to live up to their campaign promises. If the Republicans could simply be counted on to do what they said they were going to do and showed a modicum of respect for the people who put them in office, there would be very little intraparty fighting. Instead, politicians in D.C. incessantly do things to aggravate their own supporters and then ask the people who put them in office to set aside their disappointment in the name of party loyalty. That seems a little backwards given that the politicians and the Party don’t elect the base; the base elects the Republican Party. The politicians who make promises to get elected are the ones who owe people, not the grassroots conservatives who put them in office and are now dismayed at their behavior.
If the Republican Party wants to end all these primary challenges, stop the intraparty fighting and get everyone to sing Kumbayah, it’s really not that hard to do. Do what you say you’re going to do, treat the opinions of your base with respect, and stop picking fights with the people who put you in power by saying things like…
1) “Read my lips: no new taxes.” – George H. W. Bush’s famous pledge not to raise taxes, which he broke.
2) “The Budget Control Act (Sequestration) represents a victory for those committed to controlling government spending and growing our economy. I applaud Speaker Boehner’s leadership in stopping tax increases on job creators, rejecting President Obama’s demands for a blank check to keep borrowing, and advancing real spending cuts and controls. The agreement – while far from perfect – underscores the extent to which the new House majority has successfully changed Washington’s culture of spending. No longer can Washington endlessly spend money it does not have.” – Paul Ryan, who just worked with Democrat to gut the sequester cuts he called a “victory” and “real spending cuts and controls.”
3) “I am strongly against amnesty. The most important thing we need to do is enforce our existing laws. We have existing immigration laws that are not being adequately enforced. Nothing will make it harder to enforce the existing laws, if you reward people who broke them. It demoralizes people who are going through the legal process, it’s a very clear signal of why go through the legal process, if you can accomplish the same thing if you go through the illegal process. And number two, it demoralizes the people enforcing the laws. I am not, and I will never support any effort to grant blanket legalization/amnesty to folks who have entered, stayed in this country illegally.” – Marco Rubio, who led the charge for a path to citizenship in 2013.
4) “They were elected, nobody believes that there was a corrupt election, anything else,” McCain said. “But I also think that when, you know, it’s always the wacko birds on right and left that get the media megaphone.” Asked to clarify, McCain said he was referencing ”Rand Paul, Cruz, Amash, whoever.” – Former GOP Presidential nominee John McCain on the most popular conservative politicians with the conservative grassroots.
5) “Frankly, I just think (conservative groups have) lost all credibility.” – House Minority Leader, John Boehner on conservative groups who, unlike him, actually believe in all the things he campaigns on when he runs for election.
6) “And then, he says, the next president, whoever he is, ‘would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,’ until the economic issues are resolved.” – Former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels suggested we blow off tens of millions of social conservatives who make up part of the core of the GOP base.
7) “I’ll just say this about the so-called porkbusters. I’m getting damn tired of hearing from them. They have been nothing but trouble ever since Katrina.” – Former Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott complains about the Porkbusters group that demanded he cut spending and kill earmarks.
8) “With his record of reform in Florida, I know that Governor Crist will bring a fresh perspective to Washington in our efforts to fight for lower taxes, less government, and new job creation for all Americans.” – Senator John Cornyn, the Senate’s Minority Whip, endorsing Charlie Crist, who ended up switching parties and speaking at the Democrat Convention.
9) “The problem with the Tea Party, I think it’s just unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country. It will die out.” – Lindsey Graham
10) “I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system.” – George W. Bush explaining his support for the corporate bailouts in TARP.
Incidentally, the solution to all of this is not to leave the Republican Party. To the contrary, it’s to treat the Republican Party like a puppy that’s having difficulty with house training. When Republicans do the right thing, praise them, support them and do what you can to help them out. When they do the wrong thing, rub their noses in it. Attack Republicans who betray their principles relentlessly, primary them at every opportunity and take over the Republican Party so we can shove the politicians who won’t listen to us to the side. While we will never be able to build an entire party full of men like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Rand Paul, we can make it miserable enough for bad actors that the go-along-to-get-along Republicans will conclude it’s better to work with us than face primaries and incessant attacks from their own side in the new media. Most people don’t realize it, but we have already started moving the Republican Party to the Right and the time will come when Republicans are just as afraid of their base as Democrats are of Planned Parenthood and the unions. It’s not going to happen overnight, but if we keep going after Republicans who sell us out, even the ones that are as hostile as John McCain, Peter King and Lindsey Graham will eventually have to get on board if they want to keep their jobs.
Wyblog leads off with some sage advice for the Senate GOP
The Other McCain: family values
Donald Douglas has Sunday Rule 5 links a plenty
Theo Spark has the sad truth about small cars
Stephen Green has a reality check for those demonizing video games
Zion’s Trumpet notes the latest bit of BS from the Left, Christian Privilege!
Knuckledraggin has a dirty mind
I Love Bacon gets Texas
Hookers and Booze makes us laugh
Right Way has a great Friday Babe
Victory Girls has an important post up!
Wine Women and Politics has a GREAT statement about those offended by guns
Double Trouble has Santa’s take on Obama
Soylent Siberia: NOW it is a party! NSFW
Miss K has some inspiration from nature
Guns and Bikinis has a NSFW gal
Feral Irishman has some classic guitar
Weasel Zippers has your moral retardation of the day
The Lonely Conservative has no patience for the scum at LGF
Classic Liberal: Chyler Leigh is hot and ponzi schemes suck
That MR. G Guy: South Carolina gets it!
Stogie: White Snowman? RAAAAACIST!
Reaganite Republican: Now THIS is funny!
Randy has WOW
Regular Right Guy: Leftism=Racism
Say Anything has a reporter in trouble for reporting
Protein Wisdom: Mike Rowe on college
Pitsnipes has some motivation for us all
Carol needs some prayers, and some encourgaement
Old Virginia notes the close ties between the Scots, and Southerners!
Nice Deb has movies, lots of movies, mostly mocking ObamaCare, or FailCare if you prefer
Motor City Times, has the latest inanity from the Gore Cult of Climate Change
Moonbattery has Obama Scandal Commemorative Plates
American Perspective compares Houston and Chicago gun control zealots hardest hit
Maggie’s Notebook: Some people take being on the debate team way too seriously
Mad Jewess has a great thought on Offended Liberals
Lowering the Boom lowers the Boom on higher-priced groping at airports
Just a Conservative Girl sums up the Santa is White dust up
It Ain’t Holy Water has video of the dangers of walking in windy Finland
There is a new Intellectual Froglegs out, check it out!
I’m 41 notes the Left’s War on Megyn Kelly
Legal Insurrection has more bad news about ObamaCare
He is Pretty Fly compares ObamaCare price hikes to well………..
Postal Dog has some nice Rule 5 NSFW
Grandpa John introduces Obama’s new press secretary
Girls Just Wanna Have Guns exposes the ignorance of gun grabbers
Doug Ross: Lawless
Doug Powers: Now OFA is screwing up Christmas too!
Doug Giles warns men that looking at women is the new taboo
Cordite in the Morning makes me laugh
Matt has some great Links, and Christmas music
Bob Belvedere has Rule 5 Saturday
Blackmailers Don’t Shoot has lots of volleyball girls
Bearing Arms- Arapahoe High shooter was stopped by armed officer on school grounds
That noted “used to be” that “never really was” is Charles Johnson, an intellectual coward who writes some of the most inane things, as Robert Stacy McCain notes
Yeah, a lot of readers are asking, “Charles Who?” But the dude actually used to be somebody, and now he’s reduced to playing silly Media Matters/Crooks & Liars “gotcha” games with blog commenters:
Oh, that silly CJ!. How silly to point his finger at Right Wing Lynch Mobs! I mean come on, has he not seen how the Left reacts to any Conservative who dares speak his or her mind? Talk about lynch mobs! And, I must point out here that I never demanded Bashir be fired. Frankly, losing him means I am losing one of my favorite Trees of Low-Hanging Blogging Fruit. So, did I want him fired? Or Alec Baldwin fired? No, I mean those two are constant sources of blogging material. Now I will have to work HARDER to get blogging material. Plus I am not a big fan of people losing their gigs every time they “offend someone”. Especially since the folks getting 86ed are usually Conservatives. So, no, CJ I did not want Bashir, who is an even bigger douche than you, to get axed, and now I wonder where we will find a man with a terminal case of “Serious Face” as Bashir has to poke fun at? Oh well, One less moron to laugh at, unless they hire you there CJ. I bet you would be a vast source of blogging material.
Now there is one less reason to watch MSNBS. Really the only reason I ever watch is to see Tamron Hall, who has stolen my heart. I know she is likely a Liberal but, that face slays me.
Dozens of conservative groups that support Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker reportedly have been subpoenaed by a special prosecutor demanding donor lists and other documents pertaining to their backing of Walker’s union overhaul and recall fight.
The so-called “John Doe” investigation bars those subpoenaed from talking publicly.
But Eric O’Keefe, director of the Wisconsin Club for Growth, told The Wall Street Journal recently that investigators have raided at least three homes and that he “wants the public to know what is going on,” despite the personal risk.
He also suggested the probe is having a chilling effect on conservative groups as Walker approaches a 2014 re-election effort.
He said the subpoenas, including the one he received in early October, “froze my communications and frightened many allies and vendors of the pro-taxpayer political movement in Wisconsin… The process is the punishment.”
Watchdog.org reported in late October that authorities were confiscating equipment and files from targets of the probe, and demanding phone and email records. Watchdog.org also reported this week that three of the unidentified targets have hired top First Amendment and campaign finance experts as part of their defense team.
The Journal piece states more than two dozen groups received subpoenas – ranging from the Walker campaign and state-level organizations such as O’Keefe’s and Wisconsin Family Action to the national Republican Governors Association and American Crossroads, co-founded by former Bush administration adviser Karl Rove.
This is the second time in less than four years that Walker has been investigated.
In 2010, Milwaukee County Democratic District Attorney John Chisholm investigated whether staffers for Walker, when he was county executive, used government offices for political purposes. The probe closed in February with findings that included an aide sending campaign email on government time but no charges against Walker.
Both probes were first reported by The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
The new investigation purportedly asks for donor information from nonprofit groups not required to reveal such information and follows revelations this spring that conservative-leaning groups seeking tax-exempt status from the IRS were also targeted for extra scrutiny.
It began in the office of Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney Bruce Landgraf, according to the Journal, and is being led by special prosecutor Francis Schmitz. Landgraf did not return a call this week seeking comment, and Schmitz also could not be reached.
The author of the Journal article says that he has seen copies of two subpoenas related to the 2011-12 recall effort on Walker and state senators, and that one demands: “all records of income received, including fundraising information and the identity of persons contributing to the corporation.”
He writes the subpoenas don’t make clear a specific allegation but the demands suggest the government is looking at the possibility of independent groups illegally coordinating with candidate campaigns.
Bernard Goldberg joined Bill O’Reilly Monday night to address what he believes is a “potentially fatal split” in the Republican party’s immediate future. He said that if the tea party keeps rejecting anyone who isn’t basically Ted Cruz for the 2016 presidential nomination, the party’s going to be in some big trouble and invite in a strong Democratic victory.
O’Reilly framed the fight as a “classic moderate Republican versus hard-right Republican” feud, and Goldberg rejected the “ideological rigidity” of people who will sit on their hands and refuse to vote for a Republican presidential nominee if they aren’t sufficiently conservative enough. And this is what led Goldberg to accuse these tea partiers of being the real RINOs in the GOP.
“As far as the tea partiers are concerned, anybody to the left of Ted Cruz is a RINO… but you know what? The real RINOs are the real people in the tea party and on the hard right, because they have made it clear over and over again that their allegiance is not to the Republican party, but to their particular brand of conservatism, so they’re the RINOs.”
O’Reilly suggested Cruz, if he ran, could rally the nation behind him if Obamacare continues to be a disaster, but Goldberg said anything short of “horrendously bad” will not be enough to help them. He also warned that if someone like Cruz gets the nomination, “every registered Democrat will vote, and that’s a recipe for a Democratic victory?”
Watch the video below, via Fox News:
Pacific Legal Foundation’s legal challenge to Obamacare received important backing in the form of an amicus brief filed by Congressman Trent Franks, R-Arizona, Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, joined by several dozen other members of the House.
The amicus brief was filed Friday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in PLF’s case, Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
“We are grateful for this powerful support from Congressman Franks, a leading authority on the Constitution, and from many other key lawmakers,” said PLF Principal Attorney Paul J. Beard II. “This support from members of the House is especially significant because PLF’s lawsuit defends the constitutional authority of the lower chamber, the legislative body that is closest to the people. We argue that Obamacare was enacted in a way that deprived the House of its authority to ‘originate’ new taxation. By extension, taxpayers were deprived of a core constitutional protection against reckless and oppressive use of the federal taxing power.”
In addition to Representative Franks, House members who have joined the brief as amici in support of PLF’s Obamacare challenge include: Michele Bachmann (MN); Joe Barton (TX); Kerry L. Bentivolio (MI); Marsha Blackburn (TN); Jim Bridenstine (OK); Mo Brooks (AL); K. Michael Conaway (TX); Steve Chabot (OH); Jeff Duncan (SC); John J. Duncan, Jr. (TN); John Fleming (LA); Bob Gibbs (OH); Louie Gohmert (TX); Andy Harris (MD); Tim Huelskamp (KS); Walter B. Jones, Jr. (NC); Steve King (IA); Doug Lamborn (CO); Doug LaMalfa (CA); Bob Latta (OH); Thomas Massie (KY); Mark Meadows (NC); Randy Neugebauer (TX); Steve Pearce (NM); Robert Pittenger (NC); Trey Radel (FL); David P. Roe (TN); Todd Rokita (IN); Matt Salmon (AZ); Mark Sanford (SC); David Schweikert (AZ); Marlin A. Stutzman (IN); Lee Terry (NE); Tim Walberg (MI); Randy K. Weber, Sr. (TX), Brad R. Wenstrup (OH); Lynn A. Westmoreland (GA); Rob Wittman (VA); and Ted S. Yoho (FL).
Obamacare: A massive tax bill that started on the wrong side of the Capitol Building
PLF’s challenge focuses on the individual mandate, which requires nearly all Americans to buy a federally prescribed health insurance plan or pay a penalty to the federal government – a charge that the U.S. Supreme Court identified as a “tax” in its 2012 ruling on Obamacare.
Because Obamacare’s individual mandate is a tax – and, indeed, Obamacare includes more than $500 billion in new taxation, in all – the law should have been initiated in the House, where Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution says new taxes must “originate,” in order to keep the taxing power close to the people. However, in defiance of this constitutional requirement, Majority Leader Harry Reid launched the law in the Senate, by taking an entirely unrelated House bill on housing for veterans, stripping it, and inserting the language that became Obamacare.
Obamacare’s fiascos aren’t new: They started with the violation of the Origination Clause
“The current attempts to roll out Obamacare are frankly a fiasco,” said Beard. “These chaotic problems are symbolic of how, from the first, this law was foisted on the American people in a rushed and arbitrary way that ignored the careful and considered process laid down in the Constitution. The Constitution’s requirement that new taxes must start in the House is not a dusty formality. It’s an important safeguard for taxpayers, and for care and deliberation in the enactment of new taxes. Because this mandate was violated so flagrantly with Obamacare, and because the individual mandate is so central to Obamacare’s structure, our suit argues that the entire law must be struck down.”
Plaintiff Matt Sissel: “I am grateful for this support from members of the House”
Matt SisselPLF attorneys represent Matt Sissel, a small business owner who chooses to pay for medical expenses on his own, rather than buy health insurance. He objects on financial, philosophical, and constitutional grounds to being ordered by the federal government to purchase a health care plan he does not need or want, on pain of a penalty tax.
“I’m in this case to defend freedom and the Constitution,” said Sissel. “I am grateful for support from members of the House in this important litigation. I strongly believe that I should be free – and all Americans should be free – to decide how to provide for our medical needs, and not be forced to purchase a federally dictated health care plan. I’m very concerned that Obamacare was enacted in violation of the constitutional roadmap for enacting taxes, because those procedures are there for a purpose – to protect our freedom.”
An artist and self-employed business owner, Matt is also a soldier in the Army National Guard, and has more than eight years of service. He spent two years in Iraq as a combat medic, the second of which he volunteered for, providing medical care to the sick and wounded. On top of those duties, his second year was spent training and advising the Iraqi military. During his second tour, he received the Bronze Star for his service.
The case is Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. PLF’s opening appellate brief, a detailed litigation backgrounder, video, and a podcast may be found at PLF’s website: pacificlegal.org.
Following the epic, 21-hour speech by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, supporting the defunding of Obamacare, either voters made so many calls to establishment Republicans that their phone lines melted, or those GOP leaders took their phones off the hook.
Even in this age of digital wizardry and limitless voicemail, callers could not get through at all to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
A message said the senator was experiencing a high volume of calls and directed members of the public to call back later or visit his website.
It was the same story with the man who was the face of the GOP in the 2008 elections, former GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
His phone was off the hook, too. Callers got a message stating his voicemail box was full.
The Arizona senator apparently had other matters on his mind during the Cruz speech, tweeting, “Final episode of #Broadchurch tonight – one of the most entertaining shows on TV right now.”
That prompted conservative commentator Michelle Malkin to tweet, “Meanwhile, McCain is tweeting about a TV show. See the problem here, America?”
Callers to Minority Whip Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, also got a message saying the line was busy, but at least those callers were sent to voicemail.
“Vile” calls from Cruz supporters
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., who has called Cruz a “fraud” for his efforts to defund Obamacare, said Thursday supporters of the Texas senator have been bombarding his office with “vile” phone calls.
“The vehemence of the phone calls coming into the office. I don’t care, people can call me whatever they want… I haven’t heard such vile, profane, obscene language,” King said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Thursday.
“I’m not saying Ted Cruz is responsible for all his supporters, but he has tapped into a dark strain here in the American political psyche here, and again, the most obscene, profane stuff you can imagine all from people who say they support the Constitution,” King said. “I think what we have to do is reach out to his people and let them know that they’re following a false leader here.”
GOP leader opposes defunding
McConnell announced Monday he does not support the attempt by Cruz to defund Obamacare.
The GOP Senate leader claimed he opposes Obamacare, but he refused to support Cruz’s effort to block a vote on cloture, which effectively doomed the House bill that would have defunded Obamacare.
McConnell would have needed to get only 41 out of 46 Republican senators to vote to block cloture, but he would not support the effort.
He, and other establishment Republicans, fear they would take the blame for any government shutdown, even though the House bill is specifically designed to force Democrats to be the ones to shut down the government, should they refuse to defund Obamacare.
Neither party supporting Americans
That puts most Americans in the odd position of having neither the Democratic Party, nor the Republican Party, supporting their position on Obamacare.
A CBS News poll found most Americans, 52 percent, disapprove of Obamacare.
Congressman-physician reveals Obamacare skeletons: Rep. Michael Burgess, a medical doctor for three decades, shows how to preserve top-quality care, cuts costs and reject socialism in his blockbuster book, “Doctor in the House: A Physician-Turned-Congressman Offers His Prescription for Scrapping Obamacare – and Saving America’s Medical System”
Democrats favor the health-care law because they consider it the president’s signature achievement.
Analysts believe GOP leaders refuse to mobilize their rank-and-file to fight Obamcare because they are afraid a government shutdown could cost them at the polls in the 2014 elections.
GOP leader blasted
Since McConnell directed his constituents to go to the Internet to express their views to him, WND went to his Facebook page to see what voters have to say.
At 1:20 p.m. ET on Wednesday, McConnell posted this message on his Facebook page:
“All we need are 5 Senate Democrats to show enough courage to stand against their party and with the American people on this vote”
He got more than 100 responses, and almost all of them were extremely critical of the senator.
Only two messages supported McConnell.
Where were you last night, Senator? No where in sight and working to undermine Senator Ted Cruz.
Courage????? where were you when Ted Cruz was fighting to stop this monster!
If you do not, you are finished in politics, we will send you packing!
Shame on your Senator McConnell a vote for cloture is a vote for Obamacare, did you run on voting in Obamacare? Are you supporting your voters wants? Turn your vote around and support Ted Cruz and Mike Lee!
You sir, are a total sell-out of the people of this country.
We stand with Senator Cruz! If you are not supporting him you are against us and will be voted out! Do the right thing and DEFUND OBAMACARE!!!!!
Shame on you. Stop spreading lies and fear
if you don’t vote NO on cloture McConnell, consider your political career FINITO!!
Defund Obamacare listen to the people for a change.
Carl C. Norman
Stop with the diversion, you need to vote NO to cloture to really want to defund Obamacare. We see what you are doing and we will work hard to see you lose in the next primary.
Debi Lester Doyle
DO NOT VOTE FOR CLOTURE TO CLOSE THE DEBATE UNTIL THERE IS A GUARANTEE OF A CLEAN VOTE FOR THE HOUSE CR. If you are not standing with Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, you are standing with Harry Reid and propping up Obamacare!
Socialist shave taken over the Democratic Party and Weakness has taken over the Republican party. Can’t stand up for Conservatism and lose elections. Thats what we have in our Party.
I want my subsidy like you have.
Do not side with the President and the others that would enslave us and allow ObamaCare to stand. Stop fighting about when and how the best time/way is to fight. Use them all!
Joanna McGrath Reynolds
We want this dangerous government takeover stopped! Defund Obamacare. The 1995 government shutdown didn’t hurt this country, nor did the sequester. The demogogues & fearmongers on the left will say whatever they have to to keep Obamacare alive!
Be true to Republicans. Stand with Senator Ted Cruz!
Sen. McConnell, I surely hope you’ve heard the American People. It sounds as if you have. Vote NO on Cloture!
stop playing games Mitch!!! YOU get on the side of Ted and defund Obama Care!!!
We need You to stop the cloture.
How about some republicans standing with the TEA PARTY to do what they promised the people LAST ELECTION, HUH???????
You should have been supporting Ted Cruz 100% in his fight to get Obamacare defunded. What are you getting out of dog-and-pony show you’re putting on to deceive those who don’t know your true colors?
Thank you Senator Ted Cruz for standing up for the people. Unfortunately you are one of the few politicians that are supporting the will of the people.
America is watching to see which Senators vote “symbolically” and which cast a vote that will actually end ObamaCare.
Really Mitch??? You only need 41 out of 46 Republicans to Defund Obamacare… quit playing games!
Lana Oikle Shannon
Hard to do when you have your own party members bashing one of the few Republicans that really stand for Freedom and with the American Ppl. We’re on to ya’wl. We’ve about had enough.
It was difficult to tell if one comment supporting McConnell came from one of his constituents.
Tell them Mitch… stop giving them pipe dreams
The other supportive comment merely read:
Oneta Nicholson Henry
Thank you Senator.
On Sept. 18, McConnell posted, “The only person who seems happy with Obamacare is the guy it’s named after.”
That received more than 4,000 responses, but they were also overwhelmingly critical of the senator.
McConnell was also heavily criticized on Twitter for not supporting Cruz during his speech.
Power of public opinion
Cruz is hoping for a more positive response from voters, hoping to harness the power of public opinion to persuade GOP leaders and wavering Democrats to defund Obamacare.
Cruz and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, have collected more than 1.7 million signatures on their online petition to stop Obamacare called “Don’t Fund It!“
The next vote, Friday or Saturday, Cruz said, is “the vote that matters.”
That’s a vote on cloture, a proposal to cut off debate, and it will determine whether there will be a 50- or a 60-vote threshold for making changes to the bill.
If it passes, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., could easily add language to the bill restoring funding for Obamacare, because he would need only 50 votes. Republicans have only 46 votes in the Senate, Democrats have 52 and there are two independents. Cruz wants to make sure the threshold to change the bill would be 60 votes.
Cruz said, if the GOP goes along with Democrats and votes for cloture it will doom the effort to defund Obamacare.
Up to the people, now
Following the Texan’s marathon speech, Lee’s communications director Brian Phillips told WND, “It’s up to the American people, now. If they want their senator to vote the right way, their senator has to hear from them.”
But if voters can’t call their senators because the phones are off the hook, they can contact them on social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook.
Or voters could try calling the senators at their home offices.
The Tea Party Express collected much of that contact information.
Key contact information
Concerned individuals may contact what the Tea Party Express calls the key senators:
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas
DC PHONE: 202.224.2934
SAN ANTONIO: 210.224.7485
Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho
DC PHONE: 202.224.2752
On Tuesday, Senator Ted Cruz began a filibuster of the worst law passed by the worst President in American history. He vowed to “speak in support of defunding Obamacare until I am no longer able to stand.” And after 21 hours on his feet, in the true fashion of an “anarchist,” as Harry Reid and the mainstream media smeared him, he politely followed parliamentary procedure, yielded the floor, and exited the Senate chamber.
The Senator knew there would come a time when he could no longer stand, but Cruz is from Texas, where you can find the Alamo, the Alamo Bowl, the Alamo Inn, the Alamo Economic Development Corporation, the North Alamo Elementary School, and the Alamo Bar and Grill. In other words, Cruz and his fellow Texans know a lot about what it means to stand boldly on principle even in the face of certain defeat.
What’s not as well known is that there’s another fight to defund Obamacare, and in this other fight, President Obama doesn’t get a veto. This is a fight completely within the reach of conservatives to win. But it’s a fight too many Republican governors are afraid to wage.
I’m talking about the decision every state government faces of whether to accept Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. Democrats wanted to coerce states into expanding their Medicaid programs to achieve his vision of universal health care, so the original version of Obamacare included a huge costly punishment of states that refused to expand Medicaid. In the Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision last year, it struck down as unconstitutional Obamacare’s plan to punish uncooperative states. Now, thanks to that court decision, every state has the option of rejecting the Medicaid expansion without the threat of any punishment from Obama.
Fortunately, about half the states have refused to expand Medicaid. Unfortunately, the remaining states include Republican governors. If you hate Obamacare, you should know who they are. It’s time to name names.
Republican Governors Jan Brewer of Arizona and Jack Dalrymple of North Dakota are the most egregious offenders. They represent states that voted for Mitt Romney – very red states where rejection of the Medicaid expansion would come at little-to-no political cost for them. Those states’ constituents are conservative. It’s a shame that on this issue, their governors aren’t.
Five other Republican Governors are in the second-to-worst class of offenders. John Kasich of Ohio, Susana Martinez of New Mexico, Terry Branstad of Iowa, Brian Sandoval of Nevada, and Rick Scott of Florida lead states that George W. Bush was able to carry. These are not die-hard blue states, but their governors are acting like blue-state governors by accepting Obamacare’s invitation to expand Medicaid. (Florida’s legislature has thus far succeeded in blocking Scott’s attempt at expansion, but the same sadly can’t be said elsewhere.)
Let’s be clear about what’s at stake. The Medicaid expansion is absolutely central to Obamacare. It will cost federal taxpayers at least $800 billion over the next ten years. Obamacare raises taxes by $500 billion in order to (help) pay for the expansion. Although Obamacare’s individual mandate has attracted most of the attention, there’s nothing about Obamacare, from the perspective of those of us who think government taxes too much and spends too much, that is worse than the Medicaid expansion.
Republican Governors who want to expand Medicaid make two arguments. First, they say that a rejection of the Medicaid expansion in their states would mean that federal tax dollars from their citizens fund the expansion in other states. But that’s only true if there are other states that expand. If all 30 Republican governors joined with the Democratic governors of Montana, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia (5 red states that voted for Romney), there would only be 15 states expanding Medicaid – which would save federal taxpayers in all 50 states hundreds of billions of dollars.
Second, at least one Republican Governor, John Kasich, has argued that rejecting the Medicaid expansion is un-Christian. Kasich told an interviewer that “we will be held accountable” by God for not expanding Medicaid because “the right way to live is to make sure that those who do not have the blessings that we have, those who are beleaguered, those who have fallen on hard times – we can’t ignore them. We have to help them. And we’re expected to do that, and I believe the Lord expects us to do that. And it’s spelled out pretty clearly in that Old and New Testament, consistently.”
Unlike John Kasich, I’ll let the Lord speak for himself, but I have three questions for Kasich and governors like him. If spending $800 billion by a government already $17 trillion in debt is actually some kind of Eleventh Commandment prescribed by the Almighty, as Reverend Kasich apparently believes, why did Kasich campaign in 2010 in favor of repealing all of Obamacare? Why did he support a suit by 26 states in 2011 challenging the Medicaid expansion’s legality? And since nothing in “that Old and New Testament” changed between then and his Come-to-Obama moment, what did?
The House will vote on a continuing resolution that will keep spending at sequester levels and defund Obamacare.
Leadership announced the plan to the Republican conference at a meeting Wednesday morning.
“This week the House will pass a CR that locks sequester savings in and defunds Obamacare,” Speaker of the House John Boehner told reporters at a press conference after the meeting. The CR will fund the government until the end of the year.
House leaders had initially proposed a legislative procedure by which the House would have voted on the same thing, except the CR portion and the health-care portion would have been separated.
House leaders felt that, given that the Senate will almost definitely vote against the Obamacare portion, separating the two parts made it more likely that a CR would be passed with spending at sequester levels.
That plan met with huge pushback from the more conservative faction of the party who saw it as a “trick,” and leadership backed off.
House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy said he had never seen the conference so “united” as they headed toward this vote.
It is all but inevitable that the necessary votes will not be found in the Democratic Senate to defund Obamacare, but Boehner declined to say what would happen if and when the Senate sends the bill back to the House, looking very different than when it left.
“The fight over here has been won… It’s time for the Senate to have this fight,” Boehner said, declining to “speculate” on what the Senate might do.
What will not happen, Boehner said, is a government shutdown, which is what would happen if the Senate and the House could not come to an agreement and pass a CR to fund the government past Sept. 30.
“There should be no conversation about shutting the government down,” Boehner said. “That’s not the goal… There is no interest in our part in shutting down the government.”
Rep. John Fleming of Louisiana said that if Senate Republicans like Sens. Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, who have been clamoring to defund Obamacare using the CR, are unable to rally the necessary votes to do so, then the back up plan is to pass a clean CR and trade a debt ceiling raise for a one year delay of Obamacare.
“We’d much rather defund it,” Fleming said, “but if we can’t, then we want to delay it.” Fleming said, however, he himself was not sure if he could vote for the CR without the defund component.
Ah yes, the favorite two words Leftists use to Conservatives are shut up! Shut up or we will call you a racist, or Homophobe, or sexist, or try to ruin your good name in some other way. In this case it seems that it is shut up or I will “out” you. RS McCain has the details
North Carolina Democrats have apparently adopted the radical motto “By Any Means Necessary” in their war to destroy conservative opposition, as the intimidation tactics employed by Democrat operative Greg Flynnagainst a citizen-activist make clear:
So, what has Lady liberty done to draw the ire of miscreant bullies like Flynn? Why she dared to oppose Common Core, so she must pay.
Lady Liberty is a blogger, but she is also a mother worried about herchildren. Greg Flynn (an editor at the left-wing blog BlueNC.com, aformer employee of the state department of education and a Democrat Party activist) apparently decided that identifying Lady Liberty by name would be a good way to shut her up, exposing her family to harassment from his radical Democrat allies. Every conservative in North Carolina — no, by God, every conservative in America — should be mad as hell aboutGreg Flynn‘s vicious intimidation tactics.
Every blogger needs to speak out on her behalf.
Hell yes we do! And I think we have two choice words for the Greg Flynns of the world. When they say Shut Up, we should all answer Fuck Off!
On most issues, I am Conservative, I know this because on most issues I agree with other Conservatives. But what of issues where I disagree with the majority of Conservatives? I am Libertarian on those issues? Or are the other Conservatives NOT Conservative on those issues? One such issue is school uniforms. Most Conservatives I hear comment on the topic seem to think school unis are DA BOMB, as the kids say these days. Me? I think school unis are obnoxious and fall into the Collectivist mentality Liberals adore.
I got to pondering this after reading this piece at Chicks on the Right
According to this, the Keller school district in TX has implemented some new dress code policies for its students. Starting with this school year, skirts or shorts must be at mid-thigh and not shorter, yoga pants or leggings have to be covered by a long top, no tank tops are allowed, and undergarments can’t be exposed. Plus, no visible tattoos or piercings (other than ear piercings) are allowed. Hats are banned.
I don’t know about you all, but I think this is kinda awesome. Uniforms would be more awesome, but this is a good first step. Have you SEEN what high schoolers wear nowadays?
Well, I agree in dress codes, and I agree that short skirts, shorts, etc are unfit for school attire. I agree that tank tops ought to be out, and do not get me started on baggy britches that expose drawers. But why would school unis be awesome? To me they take conformity too far, and squash Individualism, which is the backbone of Conservatism. I like people to express themselves, and see no real benefit in everyone looking the same. To me, this is just another sign of one of the problems with today’s America. Everything is scripted, boring, stale, and anyone who strays outside those boundaries is seen as weird, or dangerous somehow.
Yes, I know, unis are good because “discipline”, yeah, so I hear. Working in the restaurant business for years, I have seen first hand that everyone dressing alike does not equal discipline. Neither does demanding that servers and bartender give scripted sales pitches rather than genuine greetings, but that is another rant for another day. You know what does enforce discipline? Having a few simple rules, rules that are enforced. I get a few simple rules on how to dress at school, I get that enforcing those rules works. But seriously, trying to plug everyone into a cookie cutter mentality? No thanks!
But, I am adding Chicks on the Right to my blogroll, because, those ladies do rock, and maybe they will add this blog to theirs. I mean really can you be a truly Conservative blog and NOT link Ed and I?
Embattled Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner and an attorney in the Federal Election Commission’s general counsel’s office appear to have twice colluded to influence the record before the FEC’s vote in the case of a conservative non-profit organization, according to e-mails unearthed by the House Ways and Means Committee and obtained exclusively by National Review Online. The correspondence suggests the discrimination of conservative groups extended beyond the IRS and into the FEC, where an attorney from the agency’s enforcement division in at least one case sought and received tax information about the status of a conservative group, the American Future Fund, before recommending that the commission prosecute it for violations of campaign-finance law. Lerner, the former head of the IRS’s exempt-organizations division, worked at the FEC from 1986 to 1995, and was known for aggressive investigation of conservative groups during her tenure there, too.
“Several months ago… I spoke with you about the American Future Fund, a 501(c)(4) organization that had submitted an exemption application the IRS [sic],” the FEC attorney wrote Lerner in February 2009. The FEC, which polices violations of campaign-finance laws, is not exempted under Rule 6103, which prohibits the IRS from sharing confidential taxpayer information, but the e-mail indicates Lerner may have provided that information nonetheless: “When we spoke last July, you had told us that the American Future Fund had not received an exemption letter from the IRS,” the FEC attorney wrote.
The timing of the correspondence between Lerner and the FEC suggests the FEC attorney sought information from the IRS in order to influence an upcoming vote by the six FEC commissioners. The FEC received a complaint in March 2008 from the Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party alleging that the American Future Fund had violated campaign-finance law by engaging in political advocacy without registering as a political-action committee. The American Future Fund responded to that complaint in June 2008, telling the commission that it had applied for tax exemption in March of that year and was a “501(c)(4) social-welfare organization that was organized to provide Americans with a conservative and free-market viewpoint and mechanism to communicate and advocate on the issues that most interest and concern them.” According to the e-mail correspondence, a month after receiving the American Future Fund’s response, the FEC general counsel’s office – which is prohibited under law from conducting an investigation into an organization before the FEC’s six commissioners have voted to do so – contacted Lerner to investigate the agency’s tax-exempt status.
The FEC general counsel’s office, in its recommendation on the case, apparently didn’t tell the agency’s commissioners about how it had obtained the information about the group’s tax-exempt status. Recommending that the commissioners prosecute the American Future Fund, the general counsel’s office wrote, “According to its response, AFF submitted an application for tax-exempt status to the Internal Revenue Service… on March 18, 2008.” The footnote to that sentence reads, “The IRS has not yet issued a determination letter regarding AFF’s application for exempt status. Based on the information from the response and the IRS website, it is likely that the application is still under review.” In fact, an FEC lawyer knew that the organization had yet to obtain tax-exempt status because Lerner provided the confidential information.
The general counsel’s report was issued in September 2008, but it was over five months before the six FEC commissioners voted, in late-February 2009, on whether to prosecute the American Future Fund for violations of campaign-finance laws. (The typical lag time between the submission of a general counsel’s recommendation and a commission vote is about a month, according to a source familiar with the workings of the commission.) As the vote approached, on February 3, 2009, the FEC lawyer went back to Lerner for an update on the status of the American Future Fund’s application. “Could you please tell me whether the IRS has since issued an exemption letter to the American Future Fund? Also if the IRS has granted American Future Fund’s exemption, would it be possible for you to send me the publicly available information and documents related to American Future Fund?”
Despite the recommendations of the general counsel’s office, the six FEC commissioners split on whether to pursue the American Future Fund’s case and voted six-to-zero to close the case.
House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dave Camp and oversight-subcommittee chairman Charles Boustany are calling on the IRS, in the wake of these revelations, to provide all communications between the agency and the FEC between 2008 and 2012. “The American public is entitled to know whether the IRS is inappropriately sharing their confidential tax information with other agencies,” Camp and Boustany write in a letter they will send to acting IRS administrator Danny Werfel on Wednesday.
The FEC enforcement attorney also inquired about the tax-exempt status of another conservative organization, the American Issues Project. “I was also wondering if you could tell me whether the IRS had issued an exemption letter to a group called the American Issues Project? The group also appears to be the successor of two other organizations, Citizens for the Republic and Avenger, Inc.” Also sought were “any information and documents that would be publicly available in relation to the American Issues Project, Citizens for the Republic, or Avenger, Inc.”
Lerner was placed on paid administrative leave in late May after she revealed the IRS had inappropriately targeted conservative groups. The IRS has yet to respond to requests from lawmakers about her current employment status with the agency.
……………………………………….Or click HERE.
Ms. Elizabeth Hofacre
Revenue Agent, Exempt Organizations, Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division
Internal Revenue Service
Mr. Carter Hull (Recently Retired)
Tax Law Specialist, Exempt Organizations, Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division
The Honorable J. Russell George
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
Mr. Michael McCarthy
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
Mr. Gregory Kutz
Assistant Inspector General for Management Services and Exempt Organizations
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
Click HERE to visit the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee’s webpage titled ‘The IRS’ Systematic Delay And Scrutiny Of Tea Party Applications’.
The conservative rank-and-file have a loud and clear message for Republican officials: Support citizenship for illegal immigrants at your own peril.
A sizable plurality of registered GOP voters say they will be less likely to support their incumbent lawmaker if he or she votes for immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship for those currently living illegally in the United States, according to the latest United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll. The findings show that even as national Republican leaders tout the Senate’s reform measure as a political necessity for the party, it remains a risky vote for individual GOP lawmakers wary of a primary challenger.
Among all adults surveyed, immigration is something of a moot issue: 42 percent of them said a vote either for or against immigration reform would not greatly affect their support for their senator or representative. Thirty-three percent said it would make them less likely to support him or her, and 21 percent said such a vote would make them more likely to back the incumbent.
But among Republicans, the issue elicits much more passion, none of it good for immigration-reform advocates within the GOP. Nearly half, 49 percent, said lawmakers who back a proposal offering a pathway to citizenship will lose their support. Only 15 percent said it would make them more likely to back their incumbent; 30 percent said it would not make a difference in their vote.
The antipathy runs deepest among the most conservative bloc of voters–blue-collar whites–and in places where many Republicans draw their support, rural areas. Forty-five percent of whites without a college degree said they are less likely to support lawmakers voting for the measure. Just 15 percent said they would be more likely to back them, while 33 percent said it wouldn’t make a difference.
Among rural voters, 45 percent said they’d be less likely to back the incumbent, while 41 percent of them said it wouldn’t make a difference. Just 12 percent said supporting the measure would improve the sitting lawmaker’s chance of drawing their vote.
The conservative base’s continued opposition to a pathway to citizenship–and their promise to seek retribution on elected officials who think differently–highlights a central problem facing Republicans as party leaders try to retrofit the GOP’s message and agenda on this and other issues: In many cases, it’s simply not in a GOP lawmaker’s self-interest to adopt a centrist, moderate position. Adjustments that might be necessary for the party to win back the White House in 2016 often conflict with short-term interests of House or Senate members more worried about their own reelection in 2014.
But GOP lawmakers in upscale, suburban states and districts might find greater forgiveness.
College-educated whites are almost perfectly split on the question: 30 percent said it would make them more likely to support their representative in Congress, 33 percent said the opposite, and 32 percent said it wouldn’t make a difference. Suburban voters were less tolerant, but still more open than their rural counterparts. Thirty-six percent said backing the measure would make them less likely to support their lawmaker, while 37 percent said it wouldn’t affect their vote.
For their part, Democrats are not likely to shower favor upon incumbents who support the bill. Many, 49 percent, said it won’t affect their vote; otherwise, by a 29-19 percent margin, they said support for comprehensive immigration reform makes them more likely to back the incumbent rather than less likely.
Independents side with Republicans on the question, although with less fervency. Thirty-five percent of them said they will be less likely to back a lawmaker who supports comprehensive immigration reform, while only 19 percent said it would make them more likely to support the incumbent. Still, a plurality, 44 percent, said the issue won’t weigh on their decision during next year’s midterms.
The relative lack of interest from Democrats, combined with the GOP-leaning position among independents, creates further disincentive for Republicans, who are unlikely to find much general-election reward for their vote if they survive a primary.
The poll of 1,005 adults, conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International from June 20 to June 23, included both landline and cell-phone respondents. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.
Twelve different groups within the IRS targeted conservative organizations applying for tax-exempt nonprofit status, according to the attorneys representing tea party plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against the IRS.
The revelation disproves the suggestion by a top congressional Democrat that only one IRS group was responsible for scrutinizing tea party and conservative applications.
Group 7821, Group 7822, Group 7823, Group 7824, Group 7827, Group 7828, Group 7829, Group 7830, Group 7838, EOG-7887, and EOG-7888, and the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division in Washington, D.C. all targeted conservative groups between 2010 and 2012, according to documentation compiled by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which has filed a class-action suit against the IRS.
Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee investigating the IRS targeting scandal, previously suggested that tea party applications were sent only to Group 7822 for scrutiny. Cummings released transcripts of an interview his staff conducted with John Shafer, an employee of the Cincinnati IRS office, who claimed that he sent tea party applications specifically to Group 7822.
“Based upon everything I’ve seen the case is solved,” Cummings said on CNN during a June 9 interview.
The ACLJ disagrees.
“[John] Shafer was just one individual describing his experience interacting with one group [Group 7822]. If he was only interacting with one group then his involvement in this process was minimal,” ACLJ senior counsel David French told The Daily Caller.
“Group 7822 was pinpointed because of the release from Rep. Cummings, which created the impression that there were one or two agents that referred to a single group,” French said. “In fact we are dealing with multiple IRS offices across the nation that were targeting conservative groups, and eleven different IRS groups beside Group 7822, including the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division in Washington. Each of these groups was working on tea party and conservative cases.”
“After Rep. Cummings’ statement, the media fixated on Group 7822 as the patient zero of the outbreak when the reality is it was many groups, so the IRS hierarchy is much more implicated,” French said.
Between 2010 and 2012, the IRS sent letters to tea party applicants across the country demanding more information before their tax-exempt applications could be approved. On the upper left-hand corner of these letters, the IRS identified the working group within the agency requesting the information. Twelve different groups appeared on these letters, according to French.
The El Monte, California IRS office, for instance, sent a letter requesting additional information to Oklahoma City Patriots in Action, dated February 9, 2012, which listed the IRS group EOG-7887 in the upper left-hand corner.
“We’re going to find out the differences between these IRS groups in litigation,” French said. “Which personnel were in each group? Was there overlap in personnel?”
It remains unclear whether these IRS groups existed prior to the targeting. It is also unclear whether these groups each had their own physical locations, according to French.
Despite claims by IRS officials that the targeting occurred only in the agency’s Cincinnati office, the ACLJ compiled letters proving that IRS offices in Washington, D.C. and the California cities of El Monte and Laguna Niguel also targeted conservatives. The Daily Caller has also reported that the agency’s Baltimore and Chicago offices engaged in the improper targeting.
Cincinnati-based IRS employee Elizabeth Hofacre told congressional investigators that Washington-based IRS lawyer Carter Hull oversaw her office’s targeting, and even instructed her on how to demand additional information from tea party groups. “I was essentially a front person, because I had no autonomy or no authority to act on [applications] without Carter Hull’s influence or input,” Hofacre said.
“We know that the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division in Washington, D.C. was involved, and that’s where Carter Hull and Lois Lerner were working. We have 14 letters directly from Lois Lerner,” French said. “When Lois Lerner said on May 10 that this was just a few agents in Cincinnati, we were literally holding in our hands 14 letters that she wrote to conservative groups.”
The IRS did not immediately return a request for comment.