.
Tags: Barbara Mikulski, Cybersecurity, douchebag, Halts, Hearing, leftist, Respond, Tweet, video
Tag Archives: leftist
*VIDEO* Megyn Kelly Confronts Parasitic Leftist Rep. McDermott Over His Vile Treatment Of IRS Victims
5 Jun
.
16,000 Colorado Citizens Sign Petition To Recall Leftist, Anti-Gun State Senator
4 JunRecall Of Colorado Anti-Gun Pol Gets 16,000 Signatures – Daily Caller
Opponents of Colorado Senate President John Morse on Monday turned in more than 16,000 signatures demanding the Democratic leader’s recall. That’s more than twice the number required to trigger a special election that’s expected to be fought behind the scenes by national interests on both sides of the gun control debate.
.
Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler has 15 days to certify that at least 7,178 of the signatures are valid for the recall election to proceed.
One of the main organizers of the effort told Denver’s 9News that she feels “very comfortable” meeting the threshold.
“With that much of a cushion, having half of them get tossed out, I’ve never seen that many be invalid,” Laura Carno, a political strategist, told the station.
Meanwhile, Morse and his supporters have charged that many of the signatures were gathered under false pretenses. The Denver Post reports that some of its readers said petitioners told them that Morse wanted to repeal Colorado’s “Make My Day” law, which immunizes homeowners from prosecution if they’re defending themselves against intruders.
In fact, Morse had proposed holding the owners, sellers and manufacturers of sporting rifles liable for any damage they cause, but he dropped the legislation before it could be voted on. Even a fellow Democrat called the proposal “absolutely nuts.”
Morse was the highest-profile Democrat in the state legislature supporting a wide range of gun control bills. Of seven bills that were introduced, five passed and will become law next month.
Morse can challenge the signatures in court, which he told 9News he was considering.
“Thousands of those signatures were obtained inappropriately,” Morse said. “Now, will we be able to prove that? We’ll have 15 days to figure that out. That’s going to be tricky.”
If petitioners have met the threshold, Morse can either go through with an election or he can resign and have the Democrats choose a replacement to serve out his term, an option he has said in the past he wouldn’t take.
An election will cost taxpayers about $150,000, El Paso County Clerk Wayne Williams told the Denver Post, but many expect the race to attract national attention and campaigning.
“It does look increasingly like Morse is going to be fighting for his political life, and Morse is almost a bit player in all this,” Denver political analyst Floyd Ciruli said in the Colorado Observer.
“It’s going to be national behemoths squaring off against each other in the form of [New York City Mayor Michael] Bloomberg and the NRA,” he said.
Just the news that Morse’s opponents are submitting signatures has garnered national comment.
In a statement released Monday, Michael Sargeant, the director of the Washington, D.C.-based Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee blasted Morse’s opponents as “extremists in Colorado [who] want to waste hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to recall Senator Morse, for the supposed ‘malfeasance’ of working to make his community safer.”
Morse is term- limited and ineligible to run again after 2014. Democrat Mike Merrifield, a former state representative and former state coordinator for Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, has already filed paperwork to run for the seat. Speculation has been that if Morse chooses to resign rather than run in a special election, Merrifield would be the obvious replacement.
.
IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman Aided Leftist Tax Cheat Charlie Rangel
4 JunIRS Commissioner Aided Tax Cheat Congressman – American Spectator
.
And the Liberal Dog Whistle Blows.
Congressman Charles Rangel of New York.
Ex-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman.
The new chairman of the president’s Council on Economic Advisors, Jason Furman.
And George Soros, Media Matters, Gail Furman – Jason Furman’s mother – and Susan Anderson, Douglas Shulman’s wife. Did I mention President Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Joe Biden – and a post-IRS job for Douglas Shulman? A job he has now had to give up in the wake of the IRS scandal.
Did I mention Fox News?
Let’s get to it.
January 30, 2009.
The New York Post headlined the story this way:
IRS BIG PAYS RANGEL A VISIT
Wrote the Post:
The IRS’s top man came to Harlem – and shared a stage with an accused tax cheat, Rep. Charles Rangel.
Commissioner Douglas Shulman and other officials yesterday urged New Yorkers to get the most out of their tax returns.
Asked about appearing with a pol who’s being probed for failing to pay taxes, Shulman said, “He’s one of the leaders in this country on tax policy issues. I work closely with him every day, and I’m honored to be on this stage with him.
You read that right.
As the tax waters were quite publicly rising on Congressman Rangel – he would eventually be censured by the House for among other things having “shortchanged the IRS for 17 years by failing to pay taxes on income” and forced to step aside as chairman of the tax writing House Ways and Means Committee – IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman personally rode to Rangel’s rescue.
The Harlem event was a campaign-style public relations function featuring Rangel with Shulman and local officials at the Food Bank for New York City. Rangel would in fact face not one but five challengers in the looming 2010 primary, with his opponents making much of his IRS problems. The food bank benignly advertised the occasion this way:
As New York taxpayers begin the February rush to file tax returns, IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman joins Congressman Charles Rangel, NYC DCA Commissioner Jonathan Mintz, Food Bank Pres. & CEO Dr. Lucy Cabrera, & Food Bank Chairman of the Board, the Rev. Henry Belin, to discuss the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for low-wage workers and options for free tax preparation.
Safe to say, IRS commissioners are not famous for campaigning with politicians, much less showing up for photo ops at a food bank. So why was Shulman lending the prestige of the IRS to a man under withering fire as a tax cheat? And doing so at a food bank event, of all things?
We’ll come back to that question.
But the tax-cheating powerful Rangel wasn’t the only one for whom the then-tax chief Shulman had a soft spot.
The famous 157 White House visits made by Shulman – more than any other senior Obama appointee – included six to Jason Furman.
Who is Jason Furman?
You may now recognize the name since just last week the Obama White House aide was promoted by President Obama to the non-Senate confirmable post of Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers. In 2009 Furman was Deputy Director of the National Economic Council in the White House.
But there’s a lot more to Jason Furman than being just another promoted White House aide with a lofty governmental title, so we’ll come back to him in a minute.
LET’S START WITH the Rangel-Shulman tale.
January 30, 2009.
Congressman Charlie Rangel is in very big, very personal tax trouble with the IRS. As noted in that news story – one of many news stories all over the mainstream media – Rangel had “shortchanged” the IRS for 17 years. Seventeen years!
But IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman was only too happy to lend a very public IRS hand to assist the liberal, tax-challenged Rangel.
Rangel’s tax problems began in July of 2008, a mere eight months before the Harlem Rangel/Shulman event when the Washington Post reported the following:
Rangel’s Pet Cause Bears His Own Name
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel is soliciting donations from corporations with business interests before his panel, hoping to raise $30 million for a new academic center that will house his papers when he retires.
The story launched a tornado of ethics problems for the longtime Harlem congressman. Stories flowed from the mainstream media, including the New York Times, that swirled around accusations of not paying federal taxes on various assets. There was the villa in the Dominican Republic – on which he owed years of back taxes. Then came issues of renting Harlem apartments at below-market value, using a House of Representatives garage as a storage unit for his Mercedes-Benz, and questions on unreported assets and income.
On September 14, 2008, even the New York Times editorial board had had enough of Rangel’s tax problems, in an editorial titled “Chairman Rangel,” said:
Mounting embarrassment for taxpayers and Congress makes it imperative that Representative Charles Rangel step aside as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee while his ethical problems are investigated.
None of this, apparently, was a red flag for IRS Commissioner Shulman. Why not? After months of a barrage of stories about Rangel’s problems with taxes and a mere four-plus months after the liberal New York Times was calling for Rangel to step aside, the IRS Commissioner was in Harlem at that food bank to personally lend the quite public support of the IRS to the embattled, left-leaning, tax-challenged Rangel.
Well aside from the issue of political judgment for the head of the supposedly nonpartisan IRS to be publicly campaigning for a man so publicly and repeatedly charged with tax cheating – the Rangel episode raised the obvious issue of whether, under the circumstances, Shulman was as obtuse as he appeared.
Was Douglas Shulman really that politically dumb? Or was he, in the ways of the left-leaning Washington Beltway crowd, clever, canny and smart?
Rangel was at the time the head of the uber-powerful tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. The Food Bank of New York City lists as one of its “Mission Partners” the “Soros Management Fund LLC” – that being the firm of George Soros, the left-wing financial Godfather and funder of all manner of leftwing tax-exempt groups. The latter including Media Matters.
If you are the IRS Commissioner – and know you will eventually not be the IRS Commissioner and yet still need a job – isn’t it smart to schmooze Mr. Chairman Rangel at a Soros Funded food bank? After all, other than an unflattering story in the New York Post – who cares?
But Shulman was a Bush appointee, Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats like to point out.
In fact, when it came time to pick a new IRS Commissioner at the end of the Bush administration, as Bush White House press secretary Dana Perino has noted Democrats were not about to approve a Bushie for the IRS job that carried a five-year term. Bush was at the end of his second term, the GOP had already lost the 2006 election that made Pelosi Speaker and Harry Reid the Majority Leader of the Senate – the latter the place where IRS Commissioners are confirmed. Thus the IRS nominee had to be acceptable to Democrats. This was the supposedly “non-partisan” IRS, so the Bush administration simply decided this was one fight they didn’t need in the middle of two wars and all the rest of Bush troubles. At the end of November 2007, Shulman was nominated by Bush.
The last Bush Secretary of the Treasury – for whom the IRS Commissioner works – was Hank Paulson. Paulson, whose wife Wendy was an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter, had already drawn attention from columnist Robert Novak for giving major Treasury appointments to liberal Democrats. While the wealthy ex-Goldman Sachs head Paulson had in fact given money to Republicans, he was also a big giver to Democrats like Bill Clinton, Bill Bradley, Chuck Schumer and the left-wing feminist group Emily’s List. Paulson, as Secretary, had a big voice in selecting an IRS Commissioner. Concluded Novak of the people populating the Paulson Treasury Department :
It should be no surprise then that he (Paulson) is regarded in his own administration as less a true Republican secretary than a transition to the next Democratic Treasury – a trademark of a lame-duck regime.
Thus – the Bush appointment of Shulman, who is recorded by the Federal Elections Commission as a 2004 donor to the DNC in the year Bush won a close re-election over DNC candidate John Kerry. The same Douglas Shulman whose wife Susan Anderson, as noted here in the Daily Caller’s story by Patrick Howley, “works for liberal group fighting open campaign spending” as “the senior program advisor.”
The FEC also records Shulman’s wife Susan Anderson, the “Senior Program Adv” (adviser) for “Public Campaign,” as a donor to the left-wing Progressive Majority. In the so-far-an-interesting-coincidence category, Progressive Majority president Gloria Totten was listed as attending “Dinner 7” in a series of dinners for the liberal Women’s Campaign Fund, a 501(c)(4). Listed as a “co-host” of “Dinner 1” was – Gail Furman. Jason Furman’s mother.
Whatever else this network of well-connected liberals says about the ex-IRS Commissioner, it is plain that Shulman himself is well connected in the world of Washington and liberal politics and big money.
In fact, after Shulman’s exit from the IRS but before the IRS scandal exploded, Shulman was on track to take a director’s job at CBOE Holdings Inc. in Chicago. The scandal exploded and Shulman has withdrawn. But the publicity brought attention to this telling boast of connections by CBOE inside the Obama White House. Said outgoing CBOE chairman William Brodsky in the Chicago Tribune, reflecting on a possible job offer for himself in the Obama administration:
“I have a whole bunch of friends in this administration, including that guy there,” Brodsky said, gesturing toward several photos, including one with a handwritten note from President Barack Obama. “(Vice President Joe) Biden and I went to law school together, and Valerie Jarrett and I have been friends for 20-some-odd years. If it were a different administration, it probably would not be a consideration. But this is not the top of my mind right now. The top of my mind is to make sure we have a good transition here.”
Up until May 21 that “good transition” included plans for Shulman to become a director of CBOE.
This liberal network can easily explain Shulman’s 157 visits to the White House. It explains as well how Shulman could sit before an investigating committee of Congress and smirk that the only trip to the White House he could recall was for the Easter Egg Roll. It also makes perfect sense that Shulman would get a post-IRS job offer from a company whose CEO boasted of long relationships with the President himself, with Vice President Biden, and with Valerie Jarrett.
So too can the liberal network easily explain why Douglas Shulman felt it necessary to be calling on Jason Furman, the senior White House economic aide whose mother was well known in left-wing circles as, along with George Soros the Harlem Food Bank funder, a serious funder for Media Matters. Media Matters, the left-wing 501(c)(3) that mysteriously escaped the attention of the Shulman-run IRS.
On the surface? Maybe Shulman and Furman were just talking economic matters. But nothing is as it seems in Washington. A President covered-up Watergate while saying he would never dream of it. Another President really did have “sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky,” even though he insisted that he would never dream of such a thing.
SO. LET’S MOVE ON from Shulman’s politicking ways with the liberal and powerful Charlie Rangel to Shulman’s White House meetings with Jason Furman.
Just appointed the other day as the new Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, Furman received 6 of those 157 White House visits from Shulman when Furman was still just Deputy Director of the National Economic Council, a job he took when President Obama entered the White House in 2009.
It is a common mistake to look at lofty government titles that seemingly proclaim political neutrality when in fact the person occupying that job has considerable personal political ties. Jason Furman is exactly this kind of government official. Furman was visited by Mr. Shulman at least 6 of those 157 times, none of them, it seems, in the month in which the Easter Egg Roll took place. The White House records those visits as follows, with the letters “Ww” standing for “West Wing” – as in West Wing of the White House, home to both the Oval Office and the president’s most powerful senior aides.
Shulman, Douglas Furman, Jason 09/25/2009 16:30
Meeting Room: Ww […]Shulman, Douglas Furman, Jason 12/01/2009 13:00
Meeting Room: Ww […]Shulman, Douglas Furman, Jason 01/06/2010 14:00
Meeting Room: Ww […]Shulman, Douglas Furman, Jason 02/17/2010 14:30
Meeting Room: Ww […]Shulman, Douglas Furman, Jason 10/29/2010 17:00
Meeting Room: Ww […]Shulman, Douglas Furman, Jason 11/16/2010 15:30
Meeting Room: Ww
What, in fact, is Jason Furman’s background?
Why all this personal attention to Furman from the IRS Commissioner? What are Furman’s political relationships that would raise a red flag about Douglas Shulman spending even one of his 157 White House visits with Jason Furman, much less six? What is it about the IRS that means it has to be coordinated with left-wing economic policy? Furman’s formal job, after all, was about economic policy – not the in-the-weeds implementation of Obamacare. The latter in which the IRS has a most serious role indeed.
And what does Jason Furman have in common with – Congressman Charlie Rangel?
Answer?
What Rangel and Furman have common is the perception of real power and influence in that liberal network – the kind of power and influence that goes well beyond the surface job descriptions of being a mere Congressman from Harlem or some economic staff guy to the president.
For Rangel, this power was his position as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
And Furman?
If one reads his official White House biography (here) you get the standard bureaucratese.
Not mentioned is that Jason Furman is the son of Gail Furman, a wealthy Manhattan psychologist and philanthropist who heads the left-wing Furman Foundation. Gail Furman is a donor to Media Matters and served as a board member of the similarly George Soros-funded Democracy Alliance. She is also a donor to the Soros-backed J Street, the Tides Foundation, and the Center for American Progress. Jason Furman’s brother Jesse Furman, a lawyer and one-time treasurer of the Furman Foundation, was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 2009 by President Obama and was confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
The power of the Furman Foundation was more than enough to elicit this question in Jesse Furman’s confirmation hearing from Iowa Republican Senator Charles Grassley:
GRASSLEY: You served as Treasurer of The Furman Foundation, a family foundation. This Foundation has donated money to a number of liberal organizations and causes, such as the Alliance for Justice, Media Matters, and People for the American Way. While there is nothing wrong with that, it may concern future litigants, should you be confirmed.
a. Did you have any decision-making authority regarding where or to whom the Foundation donated money?
FURMAN: As Treasurer of the Furman Foundation from 2000 to 2008, I did not have any decision-making authority regarding where or to whom the Foundation donated money. The Foundation was established and funded entirely by my mother, and she exercised exclusive authority over decisions about where and to whom the Foundation donated money.”
So the obvious question.
If the relationship of the Furman Foundation to Obama judicial nominee Jesse Furman was enough of a red flag to have Senator Grassley inquiring, was that reputation strong enough to quietly motivate the IRS not to look into the tax exempt status of the Furman-funded Media Matters? As well as other left-leaning 501(c)(3)’s?
Just as in the fashion that caused IRS Commissioner Shulman to play the Washington power game and lend the prestige of the IRS to an embattled, tax-challenged but powerful Congressman Rangel – the same IRS Commissioner was repeatedly trooping into Jason Furman’s White House West Wing office. While at the same time the IRS that somehow found the time to investigate the tax exempt status of conservative groups mysteriously couldn’t find the time to investigate Media Matters. The very same Media Matters that is funded by Jason and Obama judicial nominee Jesse’s mother Gail. In the same liberal network where a group – the Progressive Majority – gets a contribution from Shulman’s wife – and sends its president, Gloria Totten, to a series of dinners for yet another liberal group where a co-host is…Jason Furman’s mother.
Coincidence?
Ahhhhh. But what was going on with Fox News and the Obama Administration while Shulman of the IRS was busy visiting Jason Furman in the White House in all those recorded visits between September of 2009 and November of 2010?
Recall?
Sure you do. That was the time when the Obama had declared war on Fox News.
On October 19, 2009 – less than a month after IRS Commissioner Shulman paid his first visit on Jason Furman in the White House West Wing – the Associated Press was headlining this story:
White House steps up attacks on Fox News
Wrote the AP:
WASHINGTON – White House advisers have stepped up their attacks on Fox News, claiming the cable television network is a Republican mouthpiece whose programming “is geared toward making money.”
…Last week, White House communications director Anita Dunn said Fox News operates “almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party.”
On Sunday, Rahm Emanuel, President Barack Obama’s chief of staff, said, “It is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective.”
Tough looks at the administration
Fox News commentators Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have been strong Obama critics, and Bill O’Reilly has taken tough looks at the administration. Obama avoided “Fox News Sunday” when he visited five Sunday morning news shows last month; three aides carried the administration’s message on Afghanistan, health care and the economy this Sunday to ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC, but not Fox; and a recent White House blog post accused Beck of lying. Beck has called Obama a racist.
Over at Media Matters, the Daily Caller would later report that “Media Matters for America founder David Brock and president Eric Burns” were in receipt of a memo explaining that “Media Matters should launch a ‘Fox Fund’ whose mission would be to attack the Fox News Channel.”
Now.
STAY FOCUSED ON IRS Commissioner Shulman.
By the fall of 2009, Shulman has already – nine months earlier – had a quiver in his political antennae that told him – appearances be damned – he should show up at the literal side of the tax-challenged Congressman Charlie Rangel at a Soros-funded Food Bank in New York to send the message that tax challenged or not, the IRS loved Charlie.
Now, the Obama White House is in full-blown attack mode against Fox News. And the man Shulman is seeing for the first of 6 meetings in those 157 that are not the Easter Egg Role — is with the Obama aide who is the son of a serious funder with Soros not just of Media Matters but other liberal 501(c)(3)’s as well.
For a man with the exquisite sense of Inside-the-Beltway and liberal network politics that Shulman possesses – it’s a reasonable question to ask: Where was the IRS scrutiny of Media Matters? Or was that very exquisite sense of liberal network politics – watching the Obama White House itself at its most senior levels go after the same target as the Soros/Furman funded Media Matters while simultaneously attacking the Tea Party – a signal not just to the bureaucrats in the IRS but the Commissioner as well?
By 2011, Media Matters was virtually begging for IRS attention.
As Politico headlined here on March 27, 2011:
Media Matters’ war against Fox
The liberal group Media Matters has quietly transformed itself in preparation for what its founder, David Brock, described in an interview as an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” aimed at the Fox News Channel.
The group, launched as a more traditional media critic, has all but abandoned its monitoring of newspapers and other television networks and is narrowing its focus to Fox and a handful of conservative websites, which its leaders view as political organizations and the “nerve center” of the conservative movement…
No sooner was this transformation of the group’s original purpose publicly stated than Fox itself picked up the challenge, as Politico also noted – bold print for emphasis:
Fox News takes on Media Matters
For seven years, Fox News has pushed back against the daily scrutiny and criticism leveled at it by Media Matters, the liberal watchdog group. But after founder David Brock said in March that his group’s new strategy amounted to a “war on Fox,” the network ratcheted up its response.
In the past 10 days, Fox has run more than 30 segments calling for the nonprofit group to be stripped of its tax-exempt status. Its Fox Nation website has even provided a link to pre-completed complaint forms against Media Matters to send to the Internal Revenue Service.
…“Media Matters is not a media investigative organization,” Fox News contributor and Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer said on “Special Report With Bret Baier” last week. “It’s a war on Fox. And you’re allowed to do that in a democracy. You can be as nasty as you want. The only thing is, don’t ask for a government subsidy.”
To get tax-free status, educational nonprofits have to support their claims with facts and refrain from directly engaging in politics – though they can be as ideological as they like. Fox argues that Media Matters has veered from that educational mission and should be stripped of its special status.
Former White House Counsel in the Bush 41 administration, Boyden Gray, laid out the case in a Washington Times column, pointing out:
MMA was originally established as an Internal Revenue Service Section 501(c)(3) organization, that is, an organization that can receive tax-deductible contributions to engage in educational activities.
What MMA actually is doing, however, moves far afield from identifying possible bias to mounting a campaign to undermine a major media outlet and to promote the Democratic Party and progressive causes associated with it. Mr. Brock himself has described this new strategy as “a war on Fox,” an effort “to disrupt [Rupert Murdoch‘s] commercial interests” and look for ways to turn regulators against News Corp.’s media outlets.
MMA’s activities should disallow its tax-exempt status in two fundamental ways. First, IRS rulings make clear that attacks on individuals, statement of positions that are unsupported by facts and use of inflammatory language and other distortions will cost an organization its tax-free status. Second, in declaring “guerrilla warfare” on Fox as the “leader” and “mouthpiece” of the Republican Party and in developing a sophisticated Democratic-leaning media training boot camp, MMA has transformed itself into an aggressive advocate for Democratic and progressive causes and thus produced a second deviation from exempt educational activities.
The call for the IRS to take another look at Media Matters could not have been louder or more public.
But IRS Commissioner Shulman was missing in action. The IRS was now well down the path in investigating conservative groups and various Tea Parties.
Media Matters? Have the IRS apply the same standards to Media Matters that it was applying to these conservative and Tea Party groups? The IRS Commissioner himself had been having frequent meetings with the son of one of the Media Matters donors. In a White House that was itself very publicly attacking the same target Media Matters had declared war against — Fox News. In fact, in 2010, Douglas Shulman’s own wife was giving money to the Progressive Majority whose president was attending 2010 anti-conservative fundraising dinners.
The liberal dog whistle was blowing loud and clear to any and every liberal in the liberal network.
The IRS Commissioner who thought himself savvy enough to go to Harlem and stand with one of the most famous tax cheaters in America was surely not thinking himself dumb enough to launch an investigation of Media Matters.
Did Douglas Shulman ever discuss Media Matters or liberal groups or tax exempt status or the Tea Party or Fox News with White House aide Jason Furman during his many visits? Did Douglas Shulman have to discuss Charlie Rangel’s tax status with Charlie Rangel during his visit to Harlem? Did Douglas Shulman need to discuss a job offer in Chicago with the President, the Vice President or Valerie Jarrett during those 157 visits?
Maybe.
Maybe not.
Just maybe he didn’t need to.
Because IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman heard the Liberal Dog Whistle blow.
.
Your Daley Gator Obamafia Lying Leftist Douchebag Hall Of Fame
3 Jun.
BARACK (Wizard Of Uhs) OBAMA
DOUCHEBAG EXTRAORDINAIRE
Former U.S. Senator
President Of The United States
.
HILLARY (Rotten) CLINTON
DOUCHEBAG EMERITUS
Former U.S. Senator
Former U.S. Secretary Of State
.
ERIC (Fast & Furious) HOLDER
DOUCHEBAG CUM LAUDE
Former U.S. Superior Court Judge For The District Of Columbia
Attorney General Of The United States
.
DOUGLAS (Egg Roller) SHULMAN
DOUCHEBAG SECOND CLASS
Former Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Vice Chairman
Former U.S. Internal Revenue Service Commissioner
.
LOIS (Fifth Amendment) LERNER
DOUCHEBAG SECOND CLASS
Former Federal Elections Commission Director
U.S. Internal Revenue Service Tax Exempt & Government Entities Division Director
.
SARAH (Tea Party Pooper) INGRAM
DOUCHEBAG THIRD CLASS
Former U.S. Internal Revenue Service Tax Exempt & Government Entities Division Director
U.S. Internal Revenue Service Affordable Care Act Office Director
.
LISA (Greenie Meanie) JACKSON
DOUCHEBAG THIRD CLASS
Former New Jersey Department Of Environmental Protection Assistant Commissioner Of Compliance And Enforcement
Former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator
.
JAY (Goebbels) CARNEY
DOUCHEBAG APPERTENANTI
Former Time Magazine Washington Bureau Chief
White House Press Secretary
.
SUSAN (YouTube) RICE
DOUCHEBAG HONORARIUS
Former Assistant Secretary Of State For African Affairs
U.S. Ambassador To The United Nations
.
Your Daley Gator Lying Leftist Liars IRS Scandal Roundup For Friday (Videos)
31 May‘Rogue’ IRS Agent Who Wrote Threatening Letters Gets Promotion – Washington Examiner
President Obama may have promised “to hold the responsible parties accountable” for the Internal Revenue Service targeting of conservative non-profit groups, but one of the agents at the center of the scandal was recently promoted, an IRS source tells The Washington Examiner.
.
Through 2012, then-Exempt Organization Specialist Stephen Seok signed many of the intimidating letters sent to conservative nonprofits. For example, this January 2012 letter sent to the Richmond Tea Party demanded the date, time and location of all group events, as well as copies of all handouts provided at the events, and the names and credentials of all organizers. Seok also demanded the names of all speakers and the contents of the speeches they made.
According to WXIX-TV/Fox 19 in Cincinnati, Seok is no longer an exempt organization specialist. He has since been promoted to “supervisor IRS agent.”
Contacted for comment on when and why Seok was promoted, the Cincinnati IRS office had no comment and referred all inquiries to the Washington office. The Washington office, when contacted, also refused comment on Seok’s promotion, citing the Privacy Act of 1974.
It appears some of the “rogue agents” in the Cincinnati office are being rewarded for targeting conservatives, not punished.
.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.
Related article:
.
The Other IRS Scandal – Powerline
It wasn’t just the Tea Party: it has been widely reported that the IRS also has harassed and discriminated against pro-Israel charities, in particular those that support settlements in Judea and Samaria. In the Free Beacon, Alana Goodman pursues the story:
A Washington Free Beacon investigation has identified at least five pro-Israel organizations that have been audited by the IRS in the wake of a coordinated campaign by White House-allied activist groups in 2009 and 2010.
These organizations, some of which are too afraid of government reprisals to speak publicly, say in interviews with the Free Beacon that they now believe the IRS actions may have been coordinated by the Obama administration.
I missed it at the time, but there was a campaign by anti-Israel forces to deprive these charities of their tax-exempt status because their aims conflicted with Obama administration policies:
The media scrutiny began as early as March 26, 2009, when the Washington Post’s David Ignatius published a column questioning the groups’ tax-exempt status.
Ignatius’s column is here. Ignatius displayed a remarkable obtuseness with regard to the First Amendment:
For many years, the United States has had a policy against spending aid money to fund Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which successive administrations have regarded as an obstacle to peace. Yet private organizations in the United States continue to raise tax-exempt contributions for the very activities that the government opposes.
But the tax laws do not depend, obviously, on whether a charitable organization supports or opposes the policies of the current U.S. administration. Groups like the Sierra Club and the ACLU have often promoted policies at odds with administration policies, but no one has suggested that they should therefore lose their tax-exempt status. And, of course, you can contribute to tax-exempt organizations like the Free Gaza Movement. But somehow the idea took hold that charities lending support to Israeli settlements are somehow different. This idea was promoted by pro-Palestinian groups, who encouraged IRS scrutiny of such organizations:
The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) announced the [day after the Ignatius column appeared] that it would begin a campaign of filing legal complaints with the IRS and the Treasury Department to investigate groups “allegedly raising funds for the development of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.”
ADC is closely tied to the Obama White House. The president recorded a video greeting to the group’s annual conference and sent two senior administration officials to attend.
The ADC announced in October 2009 that it had expanded its legal campaign against pro-Israel charities and was “working with a number of coalition partners, both nationally and internationally, in conducting this ongoing campaign.”
In July 2010, the New York Times chimed in with a long article titled Tax-Exempt Funds Aid Settlements in West Bank. The Times acknowledged that tax-exempt contributions to pro-Israel organizations are entirely legal, but advanced the idea that they are somehow suspect:
The use of charities to promote a foreign policy goal is neither new nor unique – Americans also take tax breaks in giving to pro-Palestinian groups. But the donations to the settler movement stand out because of the centrality of the settlement issue in the current talks and the fact that Washington has consistently refused to allow Israel to spend American government aid in the settlements. Tax breaks for the donations remain largely unchallenged, and unexamined by the American government. The Internal Revenue Service declined to discuss donations for West Bank settlements. State Department officials would comment only generally, and on condition of anonymity.
“It’s a problem,” a senior State Department official said, adding, “It’s unhelpful to the efforts that we’re trying to make.”…
Palestinian officials expressed outrage at the tax breaks.
The IRS appears to have taken complaints about pro-Israel charities to heart. The Free Beacon reports:
One pro-Israel targets was HaYovel, which was featured prominently in the New York Times article. Six months after the article was published, the IRS audited the Nashville-based charity, which sends volunteers to work in vineyards across the Green Line.
“We bookend that [New York Times] story. We were the first [group mentioned]. They really kind of focused on us,” said HaYovel’s founder Tommy Waller. “Then six months later we had an audit.”…
Two other organizations – the American arm of an educational institution that operates across the Green Line and the American arm of a well-known Israeli charity that was mentioned in the New York Times article – say they were also audited.
Another organization that was criticized in multiple articles during 2009 and 2010 was audited last year. The organization, like many of the groups with whom the Free Beacon spoke, asked to remain anonymous out of fear of political retaliation and concern that exposure would harm fundraising efforts…
Concerns that the IRS was targeting pro-Israel groups were first raised publicly by Z Street, a pro-Israel organization run by Lori Lowenthal Marcus.
Z Street filed a lawsuit against the IRS in 2010, alleging its application for tax-exempt status was delayed because it disagreed with the Obama administration’s Israel policy.
The House committees that are looking into the IRS scandal should put this topic high on their agenda. Did President Obama or someone acting at his direction order the IRS to crack down on organizations that disagree with his Middle East policies? Was any similar scrutiny applied to pro-Palestinian groups? Or, perhaps, did IRS officials take their cue from the Washington Post, the New York Times and pro-Palestinian pressure groups and initiate discriminatory policies on their own initiative?
Possibly an investigation will show that audits and delays to which pro-Israel groups have been subjected are random, and not the result of political animus. But given the impressive record of lawlessness that the Obama administration has compiled, no one will take that conclusion for granted.
.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.
McClatchy: IRS Targeting Of Conservatives May Go Beyond Tax-Exempt Applications – Hot Air
Could the situation at the IRS get any worse? McClatchy joins CBS News in postulating that the scandal may well expand to more than just applications for tax-exempt status. Both news agencies are starting to take complaints about predatory and punitive audits and other actions and put them into a very ugly pattern – and ask some very difficult questions of the Obama administration:
While the developing scandal over the targeting of conservatives by the tax agency has largely focused to date on its scrutiny of groups with words such as “tea party” or “patriot” in their names, these examples suggest the government was looking at a broader array of conservative groups and perhaps individuals. Their collective experiences at a minimum could spread skepticism about the fairness of a powerful agency that should be above reproach and at worst could point to a secret political vendetta within the government against conservatives.
The emerging stories from real people raise questions about whether the IRS scrutiny extended beyond applicants for tax-exempt status and whether individuals who donated to these tax-exempt organizations or to conservative causes also were targeted.
Former IRS leaders have apologized for inappropriate scrutiny of conservative organizations. They haven’t to date, however, divulged who developed the criteria, how they were developed or when and how they extended to groups associated with conservative causes that didn’t have “tea party,” “patriot” or similar catchwords in their names.
Widening congressional investigations and federal lawsuits are likely to reveal more about the scope and intent of the inappropriate treatment of conservative groups by the IRS. The House Ways and Means Committee plans a hearing Tuesday to allow victims to testify for the first time. In earlier hearings, one IRS official pleaded the Fifth to avoid answering questions.
McClatchy includes the case of Catherine Engelbrecht, which CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson co-reported yesterday. That case, of course, goes far beyond the IRS; Engelbrecht’s business got harassed by the FBI, ATF, and OSHA as well, which would mean coordination far above the Treasury Department. They also include the case of an anti-abortion group that was told they couldn’t picket Planned Parenthood locations if they wanted to keep their exemption, and a Nebraska veteran who got hassled in an IRS audit over his donations to his church once he began donating to conservative causes.
That may end up being the undercard next week, however. The House Oversight Committee will hold hearings over the next two weeks to take testimony from the low-level employees in Cincinnati that Lois Lerner and her former bosses Douglas Shulman and Steven Miller tried to turn into scapegoats:
House investigators will interview four Internal Revenue Service employees over the next two weeks, POLITICO has learned.
The House Ways and Means and Oversight committees hope the four front-line employees from the agency’s Cincinnati office will help lawmakers better understand how the IRS targeting of conservative groups first began.
A committee aide declined to name the employees to be interviewed. But House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said earlier this month he wants the IRS to make available five employees for transcribed interviews including John Shafer, a screening group manager, Gary Muthert, a screener in the tax-exempt division, Liz Hofacre, a former case coordinator from April to October 2010, and Joseph Herr, a former advocacy group manager.
What will be the likelihood that these five will fall on swords and swear that no one told them to target these groups? I’d put the odds on the low side for that outcome.
John Eastman wants a closer look at an already-known outrage in this scandal, too (via Instapundit):
In March of 2012 the Human Rights Campaign published a confidential tax return of the National Organization for Marriage, which was immediately republished by The Huffington Post and other liberal news media outlets. The HRC and NOM are the leading national groups on opposing sides of the fight over gay marriage. HRC wants to redefine marriage to make it genderless, while NOM wishes to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
My organization was not the only conservative-linked political group or business that appears to have faced shady actions from IRS employees. ProPublica reported this week that the IRS handed over to them confidential documents of nine conservative organizations whose applications for non-profit status were still pending. Among them: Crossroads GPS, a key group backing Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.
Our case was particularly egregious because the IRS leak of confidential information fed directly into an ongoing political battle. For months before March 2012, the pro-gay marriage HRC had been demanding that my group, NOM, publicly identify its major donors, something that NOM and many other non-profits refuse to do. The reason is simple. In the past, gay marriage advocates have used such information to launch campaigns of intimidation against traditional marriage supporters…
At this stage, nobody is accusing the White House or the Obama re-election campaign of illegal activity. But there is a serious question about whether there was communication or possible collusion between the IRS and the HRC, and if there was, whether anyone at the White House or the Obama re-election campaign was involved.
It is imperative that congressional investigators get to the bottom of the issue. If the IRS can get away with leaking NOM’s confidential tax return to its chief political opponent, then no taxpayer is safe from political retribution by the federal government.
The retribution part has already been established. We need to know who ordered it, and how that information got networked.
.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.
Must Watch: The Obama/IRS Islamic Terror Connection – Right Scoop
As you probably know from interviews we’ve posted of Walid Shoebat, he has exposed the Islamic terrorist connections of Malik Obama, brother of President Obama, and how Malik Obama funds terrorism with his IRS-granted tax exempt organization, Barack H. Obama foundation, signed off on by none other than Lois Lerner.
Interested yet? Just watch:
.
.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story
.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.
Related video:
.
.
Your Daley Gator Lying Leftist Liars IRS Cover-up News Roundup For Monday (Videos)
20 MayObama And The IRS: The Smoking Gun? – American Spectator
President met with anti-Tea Party IRS union chief the day before agency targeted Tea Party.
.
“For me, it’s about collaboration.” – National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley on the relationship between the anti-Tea Party IRS union and the Obama White House
Is President Obama directly implicated in the IRS scandal?
Is the White House Visitors Log the trail to the smoking gun?
The stunning questions are raised by the following set of new facts.
March 31, 2010.
According to the White House Visitors Log, provided here in searchable form by U.S. News and World Report, the president of the anti-Tea Party National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelley, visited the White House at 12:30pm that Wednesday noon time of March 31st.
The White House lists the IRS union leader’s visit this way:
Kelley, Colleen Potus 03/31/2010 12:30
In White House language, “POTUS” stands for “President of the United States.”
The very next day after her White House meeting with the President, according to the Treasury Department’s Inspector General’s Report, IRS employees – the same employees who belong to the NTEU – set to work in earnest targeting the Tea Party and conservative groups around America. The IG report wrote it up this way:
April 1-2, 2010: The new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed.
In short: the very day after the president of the quite publicly anti-Tea Party labor union – the union for IRS employees – met with President Obama, the manager of the IRS “Determinations Unit Program agreed” to open a “Sensitive Case report on the Tea party cases.” As stated by the IG report.
The NTEU is the 150,000 member union that represents IRS employees along with 30 other separate government agencies. Kelley herself is a 14-year IRS veteran agent. The union’s PAC endorsed President Obama in both 2008 and 2012, and gave hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles to anti-Tea Party candidates.
Putting IRS employees in the position of actively financing anti-Tea Party candidates themselves, while in their official positions in the IRS blocking, auditing, or intimidating Tea Party and conservative groups around the country.
The IG report contained a timeline prepared by examining internal IRS e-mails. The IG report did not examine White House Visitor Logs, e-mails, or phone records relating to the relationship between the IRS union, the IRS, and the White House.
In fact, this record in the White House Visitors Log of a 12:30 Wednesday, March 31, 2010 meeting between President Obama and the IRS union’s Kelley was not unusual.
On yet another occasion, Kelley’s presence at the White House was followed shortly afterwards by the President issuing Executive Order 13522. A presidential directive that gave the anti-Tea Party NTEU – the IRS union – a greater role in the day-to-day operation of the IRS than it had already – which was considerable.
Kelley is recorded as visiting the White House over a year earlier, listed in this fashion:
Kelley, Colleen Potus/Flotus 12/03/2009 18:30
The inclusion of “FLOTUS” – First Lady Michelle Obama – and the 6:30 pm time of the December event on this entry in the Visitors Log indicates this was the White House Christmas Party held that evening and written up here in the Chicago Sun-Times. The Sun-Times focused on party guests from the President’s home state of Illinois and did not mention Kelley. Notably, the Illinois guests, who are reported to have attended the same party as Kelley, included what the paper described as four labor “activists”: Dennis Gannon of the Chicago Federation of Labor, Tom Balanoff of the Service Employees International Union, Henry Tamarin of UNITE, and Ron Powell of the United Food and Commercial Workers.
Six days following Kelley’s attendance at the White House Christmas party with labor activists like herself, the President issued Executive Order 13522 (text found here, with an explanation here). The Executive Order, titled: “Creating Labor-Management Forums To Improve Delivery of Government Services” applied across the federal government and included the IRS. The directive was designed to:
Allow employees and unions to have pre-decisional involvement in all workplace matters…
However else this December 2009 Executive Order can be described, the directive was a serious grant of authority within the IRS to the powerful anti-Tea Party union. A union that by this time already had the clout to determine the rules for IRS employees, right down to who would be allowed a Blackberry or what size office the employee was entitled to. The same union that would shortly be doling out serious 2010 (and later 2012) campaign contributions to anti-Tea Party candidates with money supplied from IRS employees. The union, as noted last week here in this space, already has the authority to decide all manner of IRS matters, right down to who does and does not get a Blackberry.
It is the same union whose IRS employee-members were being urged in 2012 by Senate Democrats (Chuck Schumer, Al Franken, Max Baucus, and others) to target Tea Party and other conservative groups.
Which, as the IG records, they did.
Both Mr. Obama and the NTEU’s Kelley have been by turns evasive and tight-lipped about their roles in the blossoming IRS scandal.
Kelley refused to open up to the Washington Post. In an article titled ”IRS, union mum on employees held accountable in ‘sin’ of political targeting,” the Post quoted the following:
“NTEU is working to get the facts but does not have any specifics at this time. Moreover, IRS employees are not permitted to discuss taxpayer cases. We cannot comment further at this time,” NTEU President Colleen M. Kelley said via e-mail.
A call to the NTEU office in Cincinnati resulted in a similar response: “We’ve been directed by national office. We have no comment.”
The President approached things in a more evasive manner.
Last Thursday at the President’s press conference with the Turkish prime minister, Julianna Goldman of Bloomberg News asked the following question:
“Mr. President, I want to ask you about the IRS. Can you assure the American people that nobody in the White House knew about the agency’s actions before your Counsel’s Office found out on April 22nd? And when they did find out, do you think that you should have learned about it before you learned about it from news reports as you said last Friday? And also, are you opposed to there being a special counsel appointed to lead the Justice Department investigation?”
The President’s response?
“But let me make sure that I answer your specific question. I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press.”
Take note: Goldman’s question was:
“Can you assure the American people that nobody in the White House knew about the agency’s actions before your Counsel’s Office found out on April 22nd?”
The President evaded by answering:
“I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report…”
The question was not whether he knew about the IG report ahead of time. The question was whether he could “assure the American people that nobody in the White House knew about the agency’s actions.”
In response, the President ducked.
In other words, the IRS union chief went to the White House to meet personally with the president on March 31. The union already had Executive Order 13522 behind it, issued by the President barely three months earlier. An Executive Order directing that the IRS must “allow employees and unions to have pre-decisional involvement in all workplace matters…”.
The very next day after that March 31 meeting at the White House, the IRS, with the union involved in its decision-making, was setting up its “Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party.”
Which raises the famous question from Watergate: What did the President know and when did he know it?
While potentially explosive now, in fact the Obama Administration hadn’t been in office a month before Kelley was boasting of the IRS union’s influence in the White House.
In a February 15, 2009 interview given to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pittsburgh is Kelley’s home town), there was this question from the PG reporter, with the now Washington-based Kelley boasting as below:
Q: Has the Obama staff been receptive?
A: Yes. We have worked with the transition team, given them suggestions; and throughout the campaign, President Obama talked about working with the federal employees and unions. He’s recognized the contributions federal employees make. I was just at the White House (Jan. 30) while he was signing some executive orders to undo some things the prior administration did.
Catch that?
The boast?
“I was just at the White House…”
Which is to say, the election of 2008, in which the union had endorsed Obama, was no sooner over than the head of the IRS union had “worked with the transition team” and “given them suggestions.” Literally ten days after the Obama January 20 inaugural in 2009 – January 30 the article notes – Kelley was boasting that “I was just at the White House while he (the President) was signing some executive orders to undo some things the prior administration did.”
And what did Kelley see as the IRS union’s relationship with the White House she had already visited ten days into the President’s first term?
Kelley responded candidly:
“We are looking for a return to what we used to call partnership. I don’t really care what it’s called. For me, it’s about collaboration.”
Catch those words?
Collaboration. Partnership.
In addition to Kelley’s three visits to see the President – in January of 2009, December of 2009, and March of 2010 – she is listed for three other visits, the contact names those of presidential aides:
“Kelley, Colleen Weiss, Margaret 11/04/2009 10:00”
“Kelley, Colleen Weiss, Margaret 12/01/2009 12:00”
“Kelley, Colleen Nelson, Greg 01/14/2010 13:40”
The obvious question instantly arises with the revelation that Kelley was meeting with the President personally – the day before the IRS kicked into high gear with its “Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party”.
Were the President of the United States and the President of the NTEU meeting in the White House at 12:30 on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 – and engaged in “collaboration” and “partnership”? A “collaboration” and “partnership” that was all about targeting the Tea Party?
And did that collaboration and partnership result in the IRS letting loose the hounds on the Tea Party and conservative groups – the very next day after the Obama-Kelley meeting?
To add to the administration’s IRS-NTEU woes is the fact that beyond the Inspector General, there is another IRS-connected agency in the Treasury Department: the IRS Oversight Board.
And on that board sits a presidential appointee named Robert M. Tobias. Tobias, oddly, was a Clinton appointee in 2005, confirmed by the Senate for a five-year term. He is still there. He is the longtime NTEU general counsel and Kelley’s predecessor as the union president. Here’s the statement, from the IRS Oversight Board, on all of this. It is headed:
IRS Oversight Board Deeply Troubled by Breakdown in IRS Process in Reviewing Tax-Exempt Applications.
There was no reference to the influence of the anti-Tea Party NTEU in the statement. Why would there be when the union’s ex-president sits on the Oversight Board itself?
Obama’s problem here is considerable.
By not forthrightly answering Goldman’s question, he seems to be evading the issue in the manner that brought so much trouble in the form of congressional investigations, special prosecutors, and impeachment threats to Presidents Nixon and Clinton, with Nixon being forced to resign the presidency and Clinton brought to a Senate trial.
The President’s too-clever-by half evasion added to Kelley’s silence leaves open the question of whether the union and the White House, not to mention the IRS Oversight Board, are collaborating – collaborating right now – on a cover-up.
Nixon looked the American people in the television eye and flatly lied about his personal involvement in the Watergate scandal, lies that came from a frantic attempt to conduct a cover-up.
Clinton looked the American people in the eye and famously wagged his finger as he lied that he “did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.” In Clinton’s case this extended to lying to a federal grand jury.
For a good long while, the American people in fact believed both Nixon and Clinton. The stories are now legion of Nixon cabinet and staff believing their man, and Clinton’s cabinet and staff believing their man’s protestations of innocence as well.
Finally, in both cases, the truth was out.
As Washington and the country have long since twice-learned the hard way, the parsing of presidential words in cases like this, not to mention looking into the cameras and boldly lying on the prayer of getting away with the lie, always bodes ill for presidents. It leads inevitably to that simple question famously uttered by then-Tennessee GOP Senator Howard Baker and posed of Nixon at the Senate Watergate hearings: “What did the President know and when did he know it?”
Twice in recent American history the answer to this question, once for Nixon and once for Clinton, has landed popular, powerful presidents in impeachment hot water. Ending Republican Nixon’s presidency altogether and coming close to doing the same with Democrat Clinton. Leaving the legacy of each permanently scarred.
The notion that the players in the IRS scandal did what they did to get past the 2012 election will only add to an Obama presidential reputation as borrowing the Nixon playbook on skirting scandal in a presidential election year.
Ironically re-casting the image of America’s first black president as the black Nixon.
With the examples of how Nixon and Clinton dodged, evaded, and lied, Obama’s non-answer to Juliana Goldman’s question at last week’s press conference comes in for much more scrutiny. Matched to the silence of Kelley it begins raising obvious questions. Such as:
• Did the President himself ever discuss the Tea Party with Kelley?
• Did the President ever communicate his thoughts on the Tea Party to Kelley — in any fashion other than a face-to-face conversation such as e-mail, text, or by phone?
• What was the subject of the Obama-Kelley March 31, 2010 meeting?
• Who was present at the Obama-Kelley March 31 meeting?
• Was the Tea Party or any other group opposing the President’s agenda discussed at the March 31 meeting, or before or after that meeting?
• Is the White House going to release any e-mails, text, or phone records that detail Kelley’s contacts with not only Mr. Obama but his staff?
• Will the IRS release all e-mail, text, or phone records between Kelley or any other leader of the NTEU with IRS employees?
• What role did Executive Order 13522 play in the IRS investigations of the Tea Party and all these other conservative groups?
Doubtless there are others, considerable others and the list of questions will grow.
Not to be lost sight of here is the role of the NTEU in raising money for Democrats in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles – the exact period when the IRS was busy going after the Tea Party and the others to curb any possible influence the groups could have in the elections of 2010 and 2012.
The NTEU, through its political action committee, raised $613,633 in the 2010 cycle, giving 98% of its contributions to anti-Tea Party Democrats. In 2012 the figure was $729,708, with 94% going to anti-Tea Party candidates. One NTEU candidate after another, as discussed last week in this space, campaigned vigorously against the Tea Party.
So the motivations here – defeating the Tea Party in 2010, and failing at that, making sure that the news of the metastasizing cancer in the IRS was kept quiet until after the 2012 presidential election was over – are clear.
What is particularly interesting here are the automatic assumptions of the mainstream media in all of this.
Like this “given” from the Washington Post’s Dan Balz, bold print added for emphasis.
The most corrosive of the controversies is what happened at the IRS, which singled out tea party and other conservative groups for special scrutiny in their applications for tax-exempt status. That Obama knew nothing about it does little to quell concerns that one of the most-feared units in government was operating out of control.
But if in fact the President did know about it?
Here’s the Washington Post’s “Journolist” Ezra Klein:
The crucial ingredient for a scandal is the prospect of high-level White House involvement and wide political repercussions…
If new information emerges showing a connection between the Determination Unit’s decisions and the Obama campaign, or the Obama administration, it would crack this White House wide open. That would be a genuine scandal. But the IG report says that there’s no evidence of that. And so it’s hard to see where this one goes from here.
Exactly.
Which is why it will be a curious sight indeed to see the efforts the media will go to ignore/dismiss the tight, on-the-record connection between the President personally and a vociferously anti-Tea Party union. A union that has the literal run of the IRS – and whose union chief is recorded as having met with the President in the White House the day before the IRS launched “a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases.” A decision with which, according to the IG report: “The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed.” Check those words from Mr. Klein again:
If new information emerges showing a connection between the Determination Unit’s decisions and the Obama campaign, or the Obama administration, it would crack this White House wide open. That would be a genuine scandal.
The question now is a simple one.
In 1974, “the smoking gun” was a tape recording that ended the Nixon presidency.
In 1998, the smoking gun was a blue dress – and it almost undid Bill Clinton’s White House.
Now the all-too-familiar pattern of scandal and its day-by-day drip-drip-drip nature has begun to set in. Newsmax is now quoting Washington attorney and conservative activist Cleta Mitchell as saying:
“There were nearly 100 groups across the country that got the very egregious set of letters from the IRS that were almost identical and they came from offices all over the country, so I know of at least 85 to 90, maybe more, organizations.”
Regular American all over the country are coming forward with their stories. Understanding the relationship between the Obama White House and the IRS union will be a must for congressional investigators.
President Obama is coming perilously closer to becoming the new Nixon. The next Bill Clinton.
And once again, as news of exactly what a president was doing in the Oval Office on a particular day and time goes public, yet again the old question becomes new.
What did the President know? And when did he know it?
.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story
.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.
Related articles:
.
Obama’s Chief Lawyer Knew About IRS Targeting Weeks Ago – Townhall
The IRS scandal keeps getting closer and closer to the top of the White House food chain as Obama officials desperately try to spin their way out of mounting evidence and foul play. The Wall Street Journal is reporting President Obama’s top attorney knew about the IRS targeting weeks ago before news broke, but of course, Obama still didn’t know about it until he learned about it “from the news.”
The White House’s chief lawyer learned weeks ago that an audit of the Internal Revenue Service likely would show that agency employees inappropriately targeted conservative groups, a senior White House official said Sunday.
That disclosure has prompted a debate over whether the president should have been notified at that time.
In the week of April 22, the Office of the White House Counsel and its head, Kathryn Ruemmler, were told by Treasury Department attorneys that an inspector general’s report was nearing completion, the White House official said. In that conversation, Ms. Ruemmler learned that “a small number of line IRS employees had improperly scrutinized certain…organizations by using words like ‘tea party’ and ‘patriot,’ ” the official said.
President Barack Obama said last week he learned about the controversy at the same time as the public, on May 10, when an IRS official revealed it to a conference of lawyers.
The main question since this whole thing broke on May 10th is whether President Obama ordered the targeting, knew of targeting, or encouraged the targeting through his statements. Did this thing come from the top? Kim Strassel says of course it did.
Was the White House involved in the IRS’s targeting of conservatives? No investigation needed to answer that one. Of course it was.
President Obama and Co. are in full deniability mode, noting that the IRS is an “independent” agency and that they knew nothing about its abuse. The media and Congress are sleuthing for some hint that Mr. Obama picked up the phone and sicced the tax dogs on his enemies.
But that’s not how things work in post-Watergate Washington. Mr. Obama didn’t need to pick up the phone. All he needed to do was exactly what he did do, in full view, for three years: Publicly suggest that conservative political groups were engaged in nefarious deeds; publicly call out by name political opponents whom he’d like to see harassed; and publicly have his party pressure the IRS to take action.
Mr. Obama now professes shock and outrage that bureaucrats at the IRS did exactly what the president of the United States said was the right and honorable thing to do. “He put a target on our backs, and he’s now going to blame the people who are shooting at us?” asks Idaho businessman and longtime Republican donor Frank VanderSloot.
.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story
.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.
A Bushel Of Pinocchios For IRS’s Lois Lerner – Washington Post
In the days since the Internal Revenue Service first disclosed that it had targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, new information has emerged from both the Treasury Inspector General’s report and congressional testimony Friday that calls into question key statements made by Lois G. Lerner, the IRS’s director of the exempt organizations division.
The clumsy way the IRS disclosed the issue as well as Lerner’s press briefing by phone were seen at the time as a public relations disaster. But even so, it is worth reviewing three key statements made by Lerner and comparing them to the facts that have since emerged.
“But between 2010 and 2012 we started seeing a very big uptick in the number of 501(c)(4) applications we were receiving and many of these organizations applying more than doubled, about 1500 in 2010 and over 3400 in 2012.”
Lerner made this comment while issuing a seemingly impromptu apology at an American Bar Association panel (it was later learned that this was a planted question – more on that below.) In her telling, the tax-exempt branch was simply overwhelmed by applications and so unfortunate shortcuts were taken.
But this claim of “more than doubled” appears to be a red herring. The targeting of groups began in early 2010, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizen’s United was announced on Jan. 21. The ruling paved the way for political groups to apply under a tax-exempt status known as 501(c)4. Most charities apply under 501(c)3, but under 501(c)4 nonprofit groups that engage in “social welfare” can also perform a limited amount of election activity.
At first glance, the Inspector General’s report appears to show that the number of 501(c)(4) applications actually went down that year, from 1,751 in 2009 to 1,735.
But it turns out that these are federal fiscal-year figures, meaning “2010” is actually Oct. 1, 2009 to Sept. 30, 2010, so the “2010” year includes more than three months before the Supreme Court decision was announced.
Astonishingly, despite Lerner’s public claim, an IRS spokeswoman was not able to provide the actual calendar year numbers. By allocating one-quarter of the fiscal year numbers to the prior year, we can get a very rough sense of the increase on a calendar-year basis.(Figures are rounded to avoid false precision; 2012 is not possible to calculate)
2009: 1745
2010: 1865
2011: 2540
In other words, while there was an increase in 2010, it was relatively small. The real jump did not come until 2011, long after the targeting of conservative groups had been implemented. Also, it appears Lerner significantly understated the number of applications in 2010 (“1500”) in order to make her claim of “more than doubled.”
“I think you guys were reading the paper as much as I was. So it was pretty much we started seeing information in the press that raised questions for us and we went back and took a look.”
Here, Lerner suggests that she only found out about this issue when news reports appeared in February and March 2012 about tea party groups complaining that they were being targeted. But the IG timeline shows this claim to be false.
According the IG, Lerner had a briefing on the issue on June 29, 2011, in which she was told about the BOLO (“Be On the Look Out”) criteria that included phrases such as “Tea Party” or “Patriots.” The report says she raised concerns about the wording and “instructed that the criteria be immediately revised.” She continued to be heavily involved in the issue in the months preceding the new reports, according to the timeline.
“I don’t believe anyone ever asked me that question before.”
This was Lerner’s excuse during the media call for why she had not publicly addressed the issue before.
But in congressional testimony Friday, former acting director Steven T. Miller said he had discussed with Lerner about arranging to make a statement at a May 10 conference sponsored by the American Bar Association, knowing that the IG report would soon be released.
Lerner then contacted a friend, Celia Roady, a tax attorney with the Washington firm Morgan Lewis, to ask a question about the targeting, according to a statement by Roady on Friday. (Roady had previously denied this was a planted question when asked directly by participants at the meeting.)
So Lerner was dissembling when she suggested that a simple well-aimed question prompted the disclosure.
In fact, just two days before the ABA conference, Lerner appeared before Congress and was asked about the status of investigations into 501(c)(4) companies by Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.). She provided a bland answer about a questionnaire on the IRS Web site, failing to take the opportunity to disclose the results of the probe. (The clip is embedded below, with the question coming at 5:09.) Small wonder that Crowley is now calling for her to resign, saying that Lerner lied to him.
.
.
We gave the IRS the weekend to provide a response. A spokeswoman said they were not able to offer an explanation for Lerner’s remarks in time for our deadline.
The Pinocchio Test
In some ways, this is just scratching the surface of Lerner’s misstatements and weasely wording when the revelations about the IRS’s activities first came to light on May 10. But, taken together, it’s certainly enough to earn her four Pinocchios.
Four Pinocchios
.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story
.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.
Two IRS Offices Targeted Hawaii GOP Leader At The Same Time – Daily Caller
In what former Republican executive and activist Dylan Nonaka is calling a massive invasion of privacy that suggests a coordinated effort to target conservative groups, two IRS offices last year independently and simultaneously conducted costly audits and sought tea party-related training materials that they apparently believed could be tied to Nonaka.
Nonaka, who is the former executive director of the Hawaii Republican Party and a faculty member of the Arlington, Va.-based conservative activist training organization the Leadership Institute, is little-known outside of Hawaii. So when the now-infamous Cincinnati IRS office in 2012 demanded that the Hawaii Tea Party explain its “relationship with Dylan Nonaka” and the Leadership Institute, and “provide copies of the training material used by Dylan Nonaka” – all almost at the same time that the Baltimore IRS office separately began auditing the Leadership Institute and requesting its training materials – it wasn’t long before Nonaka became suspicious.
“It’s a little bit scary,” Nonaka told The Daily Caller, adding that the apparent coordination made it extremely unlikely that only two IRS officials were primarily behind the agency’s efforts to target conservative groups, as the IRS has claimed.
“To say that these were are a couple of rogue IRS agents, there’s just no way,” Nonaka said. “They obviously had to have done research into the state of Hawaii.”
BELOW – Four of the IRS’ questions for the Hawaii Tea Party. (Read the full request here)
The Hawaii Tea Party, based in Maui, was audited in 2011. But despite the IRS’ inquiries, Nonaka said he had only limited interaction with the group.
“I think I did one training with [the Hawaii Tea Party] through the Leadership Institute, when the Leadership Institute came to Hawaii,” Nonaka told TheDC.”I was never a member of the Hawaii Tea Party. I was never involved with them.”
Meanwhile, also in 2011, the Leadership Institute was under the IRS’ microscope.
“Our audit began June 1, 2011,” Leadership Institute spokeswoman Abigail Alger told TheDC. “We were asked for additional documentation in February 2012″ – just 19 days after the Hawaii Tea Party was asked for additional information.
“The Baltimore office asked for copies of our training material,” Alger said. “The questions ranged from turning over the content of our 2008 training materials, to giving them all the information on our 2008 interns. These were just college kids, but they asked who our 2008 interns went on to work for.”
“In May, the IRS had an internal workshop. Our audit was closed July of that year, with no evidence of wrongdoing,” Alger said. “By that point, we had spent $50,000 in legal fees.”
The Hawaii Tea Party was also cleared of wrongdoing by the Cincinnati office.
“It’s a pretty big invasion of privacy,” Nonaka said.
Hawaii Tea Party IRS Inquiries
.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story
.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.
Related videos:
.
.
.
.
.
.
Your Daley Gator Lying Leftist Liars IRS Cover-up News Roundup For Saturday (Videos)
18 MayAn Internal Revenue Service watchdog testified Friday that he told Obama administration officials in June that he was looking into allegations the IRS targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status.
The revelation by Inspector General Russell George came at the first congressional hearing on the IRS misconduct, which has generated a political firestorm since it was disclosed a week ago.
.
George’s testimony represented the first evidence that officials in the Obama administration knew of the allegations as long as a year ago, during the presidential campaign.
Appearing Friday before the House Ways and Means Committee, George said he told the Treasury Department’s general counsel of his investigation on June 4, in a routine briefing of what his office was working on.
George said he did not disclose that he had concluded the targeting was improper.
But his testimony that knowledge of the allegations was not limited to the IRS is likely to fuel efforts by Republicans to link the scandal to the White House and congressional Democrats.
Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said Friday that he was briefed in March that an investigation was underway of IRS screening of conservative groups – though he didn’t learn the substance of the findings until last week.
In an interview with Bloomberg Television, Lew said he had “a getting-to-know-you conversation” with George in mid-March, a couple of weeks after he was sworn in as treasury secretary, and the investigation “was one of the things he briefed me was ongoing.”
“I didn’t know any of the details of it until last Friday,” Lew said.
Lew also disclosed that he has ordered Danny Werfel, whom President Obama named Thursday to take over as acting IRS commissioner, to come up with an action plan within 30 days to address the handling of applications for tax-exempt status.
Obama also has said he first learned of the matter last Friday – when a Treasury Department official, Lois Lerner, revealed during an American Bar Association conference that IRS workers in a Cincinnati office had subjected groups with “Tea Party” or “patriots” in their names for extra scrutiny to determine if they should be tax exempt.
During yesterday’s testimony, Steven Miller, who was forced to resign this week week as the IRS acting commissioner, revealed that Lerner made her disclosure in response to a planted question at the bar association conference.
“We talked about what would be said and how we might do it,” he said.
The revelation irked lawmakers already angry the IRS never told them it had been improperly targeting conservative groups, despite numerous inquiries by members of Congress.
Reps. Joe Crowley (D-Queens) and Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) demanded Lerner resign or be fired.
.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story
.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.
Related article:
.
Congressman: IRS Asked Pro-Life Group About ‘The Content Of Their Prayers’ – Washington Examiner
.
.
During a House Ways and Means Committee hearing today, Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., grilled outgoing IRS commissioner Steven Miller about the IRS targeting a pro-life group in Iowa.
“Their question, specifically asked from the IRS to the Coalition for Life of Iowa: ‘Please detail the content of the members of your organization’s prayers,’” Schock declared.
“Would that be an inappropriate question to a 501 c3 applicant?” asked Schock. “The content of one’s prayers?”
“It pains me to say I can’t speak to that one either,” Miller replied.
After Schock pressed him further, Miller explained that although he couldn’t comment on the specific case, it would “surprise him” if that question was asked.
The report comes from the Thomas More Society, a national public interest law firm for religious liberty.
From their report:
Coalition for Life of Iowa found itself in the IRS’s crosshairs when the group applied for tax exempt status in October 2008. Nearly ten months of interrogation about the group’s opposition to Planned Parenthood included a demand by a Ms. Richards from the IRS’ Cincinnati office unlawfully insisted that all board members sign a sworn declaration promising not to picket/protest Planned Parenthood. Further questioning by the IRS requested detailed information about the content of the group’s prayer meetings, educational seminars, and signs their members hold outside Planned Parenthood.
.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story
.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.
No kidding, you mean it wasn’t done for “efficiency”?
Via Breitbart:
In House testimony Friday, former Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller explained that the IRS mistakes in handling applications for non-profit status from tea party groups were due, in large part, to a flood of applications following the Citizens United decision. Miller said the targeting was a botched attempt to centralize the process to account for the increased workload. There were fewer applications in 2010, when the IRS began targeting conservative groups, than the year before, however.
In 2009, before IRS began targeting tea party organizations, 1,751 groups applied for 501 (c)4 status. That number dropped in 2010 to 1,735. In fact, applications were down across all areas in the Tax Exempt division’s jurisdiction. So, they had more staff available for processing. While the number of applications did increase in 2011 and 2012, there was no increase in applications when the IRS began isolating tea party groups.
Moreover, the IRS reportedly abandoned the targeting in early 2012. It presumably had little trouble handling the increased number of applicants in advance of the 2012 election.
For whatever reason the IRS chose to target tea party organizations for special scrutiny, it wasn’t due to a flood of new applications.
.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story
.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
IT GETS WORSE!
The Obama IRS demanded that several Tea Party groups provide back-end access to their websites.
And, from reliable sources: This happened to several Tea Party groups!
The source has this in writing. It states they wanted access to everything the members had access to, which would be chats, email, contact information, etc. The group raised less than $600. She was targeted as early as October 2010.
Central Texas 912 President, Maria Acosta joined Kristina Ribali from FreedomWorks to discuss being singled out by the Feds.
The IRS asked for back-end access to the group’s website.
And this is a tax question?
Here is the latest creepy story of IRS harassment and abuse.
.
UPDATE: The IRS also demanded the Richmond Tea Party in Virginia to provide access to the back-end of their website.
.
.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story
.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.
IRS Says Release Of Groups’ Materials To ProPublica Was ‘Inadvertent And Unintentional’ – TPM
The Internal Revenue Service on Friday issued a statement to ProPublica saying that the agency’s release of pending confidential tax-exempt applications from conservative groups last year had been found to be “inadvertent and unintentional disclosures by the employees involved.”
In the statement, the IRS said the cases had been referred to and reviewed by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.
“When these two issues were previously raised concerning the potential unauthorized disclosures of 501(c)(4) application information, we immediately referred these cases to TIGTA [Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration] for a comprehensive review,” the statement said. “In both instances, TIGTA found these instances to be inadvertent and unintentional disclosures by the employees involved.”
.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story
.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
This is not my country. The Chicago thugocracy we have in the White House is every bit what Michelle Malkin has always said it was, using government to target and oppress political ‘enemies’.
In this segment, Frank Vandersloot tells BillO that after he gave Romney one million to help his campaign, he was then targeted by the Obama campaign on their official website along with seven others. Shortly after that he received a letter from the IRS saying he would be audited. And then on top of that, he also had the Labor Dept. come calling because they wanted to look at his books.
He tells BillO his story:
.
.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story
.
Leftist Blogger And Friend Of Bill Ayers Charged With Faking Hate Crime
1 MayThink Progress Award-Winning Blogger Charged With Faking Her Own Hate Crime – This Ain’t Hell
.
Yeah, who could have seen this one coming.
The University of Wyoming Police Department says Meg Lanker-Simons created the anonymous threat of sexual violence targeted at her on social media last week.
The university announced Tuesday that campus police cited Lanker-Simons for misdemeanor interference with a police investigation.
Lanker-Simons accused an anonymous source of posting a threat of rape on the Facebook page “UW Crushes” on April 24. But the citation issued Monday claims Lanker-Simons admitted to making the post, then lying about it…
“I want to hatef— Meg Lanker- so hard,” the Facebook post read. “That chick that runs her liberal mouth all the time and doesn’t care who knows it. I think its hot and it makes me angry. One night with me and she’s gonna be a good Republican b—-.”
Here she is being honored by Think Progress and Mother Jones.
Here’s her deleted Twitter Page.
She sounds like Regan-Wolf, the lesbian pirate infantry battalion commander busted for beating the shit out of herself.
BTW- Welcome to Malkin and AoSHQ readers. We love Ms Malkin, and while not quite “Collins” about Ace, we admit to being somewhat curious. With enough Valu-Rite we would consider it.
UPDATE: Here’s the stuff about her and Ayers working together:
University of Wyoming student Meg Lanker and University of Illinois-Chicago Professor Dr. William Ayers filed suit against UW and UW President Tom Buchanan in federal court in Cheyenne Thursday afternoon seeking an immediate injunction against the university for the “current and imminent violations of plaintiff’s (Lanker and Ayers) rights guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”
University of Wyoming Communications Director Jessica Lowell had no comment.
Filed by attorney David Lane, the complaint alleges that UW “acting under color of state law” has barred Ayers from speaking on campus and further declared that such actions are prior restraint against the rights of Ayers and Lanker to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association.
One of the specific threats allegedly was this:
Maybe someone could take him out and show him the Matthew Sheppard (sic) Commerative (sic) Fence and he could bless it or something
Only source I can find on that one right now is Ayers himself. But, maybe some more digging.
.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story
.
*VIDEO* Leftist Rep. Johnson Asks Us To “Imagine A World Without Balloons”… I Have No Idea Why
26 Apr
.
Leftist, Neo-Nazi Parasites Suspend, Arrest 8th Grader Over NRA T-Shirt (Video)
22 AprQuestions Remain Unanswered For 8th Grade Student Arrested Over Shirt – WOWK
From the moment 13 News first broke this story on 13 News at 11 on Thursday, emails, Facebook posts and phone calls from people all across the country have been pouring in. Despite all of the attention, Jared Marcum and his family say they’re no closer to a resolution than they were when it all began.
.
Jared Marcum, an 8th grade student, was suspended, arrested and is now facing two charges after refusing to change his shirt.
“People are saying that I did the right thing, that they’re proud,” Jared said.
The 14-year-old student at Logan Middle School in Logan, West Virginia says the NRA shirt that sparked the controversy now symbolizes a fight that is just getting started.
“What they’re doing is trying to take away my rights, my freedom of speech and my second amendment,” Jared said.
“You can take the firearms out of the equation, what this about is fundamental rights,” Jared’s father Allen Lardieri said.
Lardieri says his questions for the school district remain unanswered.
“I’m still confused, thoroughly confused,” he said. “They school didn’t even make a statement to the news agencies, much less myself.”
After several attempts the only comment 13 News received from the Logan County School District was no comment.
“They gave me no paperwork, all they said to my mother was not to bring me back to school the next day,” Jared said.
So, while Jared spent the first day of his suspension at home, some of his friends showed their support for Jared at school.
“I did try to wear a shirt with guns on it and I was told to take it off,” Jared’s friend Dustin Vickers said.
One question that many are asking is how clothing that displays images of firearms can be punishable when a statue with a soldier carrying both a gun and a grenade stands proudly in the school parking lot.
“No matter all the attention, I have a genuine fear for my son,” Lardieri said. “I do not know where his future lies. He has criminal charges, he has a bright future, this could do a lot to damage that”
13 News was contacted by Benjamin White, the attorney handling Jared’s case. White says first, they’ll be working on getting the charges, obstruction and disturbing the education process, dropped. Then, they plan on filing any federal or civil suit that is in order.
.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story
.
Unhinged Leftist Professor Arrested For Profane Rant At Pro-Life Students (Video)
17 AprCollege Professor Arrested For Profane Rant At Pro-Life Students – Life News
A college professor has been arrested for a profane rant at pro-life students at the University of Buffalo.
.
…………………
Professor Laura Curry screamed at students, yelling at them: “Where does it say I can’t use the f**k word in public. I can swear because that’s part of my vocabulary. That’s part of my First Amendment rights.”
According to a report by Fox News, Curry, an adjunct instructor of media study, was lashing out at the University’s Students for Life organization. The group had erected a pro-life display featuring images that offended Curry.
“I can swear in public because that is profane,” she said referring to the display. “That image is swearing to me. That is profane to me.”
More from the Fox News report:
.
An unidentified individual filmed the incident and posted the video on Creative Minority Report.
“That image is profane but f**k is,” she yelled at police officers responding to the disturbance.
A university spokesman told Fox News confirmed Curry’s arrest but declined to provide information about her current employment status.
“Would you let my class know I’m under arrest,” she asked as officers slapped a pair of handcuffs on the profane professor and carted her off to jail.
Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students For Life of America, said pro-life students are typically singled out for attacks on campus.
“As we’ve seen again and again, a pro-abortion supporter couldn’t handle the ugly truth of abortion and lashed out,” Hawkins told Fox News. “She had to resort to yelling and using profane language with police officers.”
Hawkins said Curry’s behavior sets the wrong example for students.
“We stand with UB Students for Life for courageously fighting to bring the truth of abortion to a liberal campus, despite attempts to shout them down, cover the display, and personally attack group leaders like President Christian Andzel,” she said. “UB SFL is the pro-life generation and they are already showing they know how to behave like better adults than the ones opposing them.”
The University of Buffalo did not offer any apology to the students who were subjected to the professor’s public outburst.
.
Gun-Grabbing, Leftist Parasites Fail To Pass Expanded Background Checks Bill In Senate
17 AprLawmakers Kill Expanded Background Checks Gun Proposal In Senate – Daily Caller
President Barack Obama was hoping the emotions from the Newtown elementary school massacre would lead to new gun control measures.
.
But the president’s hopes for new laws placing new restrictions on gun owners may have ended Wednesday, as the Democratic-controlled Senate voted against a watered down gun-control proposal seen as having the best chance of passing.
The Manchin/Toomey amendment expanding mandatory background checks – billed as a compromise proposal that both parties could back – failed to get the 60 required votes in the body. Fifty-four senators voted for the legislation, while 46 voted against it. The bill is named for Republican Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey and Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who collaborated to craft it.
“This isn’t gun control,” Toomey argued on the floor before the vote. “It’s common-sense.”
But gun rights activists scoffed at the proposal – which requires background checks for all commercial transactions – saying it would do nothing to stop another mass shooting.
“Expanded background checks would not have prevented Newtown,” Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley said before the vote.
The Senate was also poised to vote on eight other amendments having to do with guns on Wednesday afternoon, including a conservative alternative offered by Grassley and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, and a federal “assault weapons” ban sponsored by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
“Shame on you,” a woman in the gallery shouted when the vote tally was announced.
Four Republican senators voted for the measure: Toomey, Susan Collins of Maine, Mark Kirk of Illinois and John McCain of Arizona.
Four Democrats – Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota – voted against the measure. The first three face re-election in red-leaning states next year.
New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg, who has not cast a vote since Feb. 28 due to health issues, made his first return to the floor to vote in favor of the bill in a wheelchair.
He was greeted by a smattering of applause led by Maryland Rep. Barbara Mikulski. West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin leaned down to kiss him on the cheek.
When Lautenberg cast his “aye” vote, he got a loud round of applause from Democrats, causing the presiding member to call for order.
Vice President Joe Biden presided over the Senate for the vote.
.
Leftist Teacher Who Asked Students To ‘Argue That Jews Are Evil’ Reportedly Put On Leave
15 AprNY Teacher Who Asked Students To ‘Argue That Jews Are Evil’ Reportedly Put On Leave – The Blaze
Parents were horrified when it was revealed that a teacher at Albany High School in New York was making students in her sophomore English classes argue that “Jews are evil” as part of an exercise in persuasive writing.
.
TheBlaze’s Tiffany Gabbay explained the assignment and its wider implications:
“You must argue that Jews are evil, and use solid rationale from government propaganda to convince me of your loyalty to the Third Reich!” read the description on the assignment, which the school superintendent said reflects the kind of sophisticated writing expected of students under the new Common Core standards and was meant to hone students’ persuasive argument abilities.
According to the Times Union, which broke the story, the teacher was not in class Friday and has been placed on leave.
District Superintendent Marguerite Vanden Wyngaard held a news conference apologizing for the assignment, but said it was too early to determine what punishment the teacher will receive.
It could apparently range from a letter of reprimand to termination.
“You asked a child to support the notion that the Holocaust was justified, that’s my struggle,” she said. “It’s an illogical leap for a student to make.”
.
……….
Albany Public Schools Superintendent Marguerite Vanden Wyngaard
The school district has not named the teacher, who has been described as a veteran who likes to “challenge” students. Monday’s assignment was brought to administrators’ attention by a horrified parent, before making national news. Some of the children reportedly refused to write the essay, but others were concerned it would irreparably affect their grade.
“I was putting it off because I didn’t want to think about it and I didn’t want to say anything bad about Jewish people,” 16-year-old Emily Karandy remarked. “We thought it would make more sense if we were Jews arguing against Nazis.”
She said she felt “horrible” when she turned it in.
New York City Councilman David Greenfield was one of many to call for the unnamed teacher’s resignation, concluding: “The teacher responsible for coming up with and assigning students with this task must be held accountable for attempting to indoctrinate children with anti-Semitic beliefs… Quite obviously, this teacher lacks the judgment and common sense necessary to have a position of such great responsibility and is clearly not fit to return to the classroom.”
.
The ongoing war against God
13 AprThere are certain truths in life, maybe I will make a list of them one day, kind of like Rush Limbaugh did years ago, but for now, allow me to focus on just one of these truths. Leftists HATE God. Yes, I know any Leftist reading this will howl in outrage. They will say that they merely wish to keep the “separation” of church and state that our Founders placed in the Constitution. Of course, the fact that there is no such separation never stops Leftists, and Liberals, who are just Leftists in training from finding it. And, sadly, enough Leftists judges have also found, or rather imagined, or maybe invented is a better term, such a constitutional standard.
Now, you might be thinking that just because the Left gets the Constitution wrong does not necessarily mean that they hate God. And I would agree, if, and this is a massive if, the Left did not spend so much time trying to use that imaginary clause in the Constitution to stamp out every last mention of God in the public realm. The sad fact is that wherever you can find a display of the Ten Commandments in a school, or a public park, or a courthouse, you will find an outraged Atheist speed dialing the ACLU, or some other Left wing organization. The sad fact is that these same miscreants have done their level best to erase Christmas displays anywhere. In an odd twist, these very same Intolerants will gladly tell you that Santa Claus, and Christmas Trees are NOT Christian symbols, but rather pagan, or secular symbols of the “Winter Solstice”, or whatever generic name they are currently using for CHRISTmas! But, let a city put Santa and his reindeer up in a city park, or let a school have a Christmas party, or even dare to have red and green cups and napkins at that party and the same freak shows will be screaming to high Heaven. Come on, make up your minds already.
Again, the excuse often used for waging war on cup cakes with the dreaded red or green icing at a school party, or for raising hell over a manger scene or a Christmas Tree in the local library, is that someone might be, hold your breath, offended! The right not to be offended is another right found in the Constitution according to Leftist’s deluded mind. Of course that right against having your feelings hurt only protects Leftist whiners and agitators from offense. Every one else, A.K.A. Normal Americans are not protected. Odd isn’t it? The Left will argue passionately about fairness and equality, until something they do offends a normal American. then the “right not to be offended” morphs into the right to fuck off and die.
For those still not convinced that the Left hates God let me give you on more item to ruminate on. The Left wraps itself up in the first amendment, especially the freedom of speech part. It also wraps itself up in the “community”. Leftists are always talking about community, the Black Community, the Hispanic Community, the LGBT Community, this community that community. But let the Normal American Community express themselves by putting up a war memorial in a city park that dares to mention God in any way, even if that is just a simple cross, and the same Leftists are there to try to take that memorial down.
So, the Left loves fairness, and equality, they hate when anyone is offended, they love freedom of expression, and “community”, as long as it benefits their agenda. And in this case erasing public mentions or displays of Christianity IS the sole agenda. So, what else can we assume here but that Leftists hate God. But, why do they hate God? Why would radical Atheists be so vehement about forcing everyone else to submit to their beliefs? Note, I said radical Atheists because most Atheists really do not give a flip about a Santa Claus in a park. They do not believe, and do not have time to worry about your beliefs, which is fine with me. So, again the question. Why do Leftists hate God? Well, because they hate liberty and individualism.
Think of America. Is there a greater target for Leftist hate than America? Is there a nation more maligned among Leftists than America? The answer is no. And, when you dissect all the protests against America, you find a common theme. The hatred of liberty. And where does liberty, as honored in America come from? Liberty comes from God. The American ideal is that we are created with certain rights. These rights have a source, and that source is God. Nothing will agitate a Leftists more than any value system that dares challenge their core ideal, that rights are NOT individual rights. Leftists hold that rights are collective, and that these rights come not from God, but from government. And as the source of these collective rights, government can restrict, limit, or take certain rights at will.
So it comes down to a basic, fundamental issue. If the Individualists are right, then God is the source of our rights, and those rights are inherently OURS. If Individualists are correct, then government does not have the authority to give, take, or restrict these natural rights. To a Leftist/Collectivist, the source of all our rights is government, and all those right are collective. Leftists can never form their Utopian State as long as we, the people recognize God as the source of our liberty. So, for that Utopia to grow God must go. That is why Leftists hate God.
Parasitic Leftist School Principal (And Likely Obama Supporter) Bans Easter
27 MarIf Easter Can Be Banned In Alabama School, It Can Be Banned Anywhere – Washington Times
An Alabama elementary school has banned the word “Easter” this year in order to respect religious diversity.
…………………
“We had in the past a parent question us about some of the things we do here at school,” Heritage Elementary School Principal Lydia Davenport told WHNT. “So we’re just trying to make sure we respect and honor everybody’s differences.”
The boys and girls can are still going to be able to hunt for eggs, they just can’t call them “Easter eggs.”
According to the station, teachers had originally planned to participate in a “quiz bowl” egg hunt where students would use egg buzzers to answer quiz questions in Easter eggs. But a school administrator told WHNT that they came up with a compromise to allow the game to continue.
“We compromised by allowing teachers to use other different kinds of shapes besides eggs in the classroom to put those questions in [that] the students will be answering.”
Ms. Davenport said the kids love the bunny, they just can’t call him the Easter bunny, “so that we don’t infringe on the rights of others because people relate the Easter bunny to religion; a bunny is a bunny and a rabbit is a rabbit.”
One parent wrote in an email response:
“I don’t get upset about too many things, but this upsets me. What is this world coming to? I am a Christian and proud to announce it. But even non-believers enjoy a good egg hunt. Kids need to enjoy being kids.”
Parasitic, Leftist Educators Now Teaching Kids That U.S. Is Responsible For 9/11 Terrorist Attacks (Video)
22 MarA Texas mom is furious after discovering that her son’s school is teaching students that the United States is partly to blame for the 9/11 terrorist attacks that claimed the lives of nearly 3,000 people.
Kara Sands, of Corpus Christi, Texas, took to her Facebook and posted photos of the test administered by Flour Bluff Intermediate School. The test reportedly covered content in a video fifth-grade students watched in class.
Of all the questions about the 9/11 attacks, Sands was most disturbed by question three:
“Why might the United States be a target for terrorism?” The answer? “Decisions we made in the United States have had negative effects on people elsewhere.”
Unsurprisingly, the stunningly controversial lesson plan is part of the CSCOPE curriculum system that has come under fire recently. The same system includes lessons asking students to design a flag for a “new socialist nation” and dubs the Boston Tea Party as an “act of terrorism.”
“I’m not going to justify radical terrorists by saying we did anything to deserve that – over 3,000 people died,” Sands told KRIS-TV.
The irate mother immediately contacted her son’s principal and teacher and set up meetings with them. The school then reached out to the video’s distributor, Safari Montage.
“Representatives say they stand behind the video, but have already changed the corresponding quiz that may have caused confusion,” according to the report.
Another worksheet on the Bill of Rights apparently names food and medicine as “rights,” not a personal responsibility, according to Sands. She said her son’s answer was falsely marked wrong because he labeled food and medicine as the latter.
As a Texas parent, Sands said she is very concerned about what CSCOPE is teaching children. But the Flour Bluff Independent School District released a statement defending the use of CSCOPE.
Several parents are reportedly planning to bring the issue up during the next school board meeting on March 28 and Sands is encouraging more parents to get involved.
“When I teach my children that you have to work hard and you have to earn a living and they go to school and learn something different I absolutely take issue with that,” she added.
.
.
Read TheBlaze’s most recent report on CSCOPE, here.
Messages left by TheBlaze for Sands were not immediately returned. However, this story may be updated with additional information.
Gallup Poll Shows Global Image Of America Plummeting, Leftist “Citizens Of The World” Hardest Hit
14 MarGallup: Global Image Of America Tanks – Weasel Zippers
Most conservatives couldn’t care less what the world thinks of us (myself included), but for whatever reason the left is obsessed with the rest of the world “liking” us so this has to sting.
Via Politico:
Worldwide approval of U.S. leadership dipped considerably during President Barack Obama’s fourth year in office – but it increased in some countries, including Mexico.
The median approval rating for U.S. leadership for 130 countries was 41 percent in 2012, down 8 percentage points from the 49 percent approval during Obama’s first year in office, according to a Gallup poll released Wednesday.
“This shift suggests that the president and the new secretary of state may not find global audiences as receptive to the U.S. agenda as they have in the past. In fact, they may even find even once-warm audiences increasingly critical,” Gallup’s Julie Ray wrote.
In Mexico, U.S. leadership had a 37 percent approval – an 11-percentage-point increase from 2011, according to Gallup.
“Some of the increase may stem from Mexicans’ optimism about future U.S.-Mexican relations after Obama welcomed then-President-elect Enrique Pena Nieto to the White House in late November 2012 and pledged cooperation on trade and immigration reform,” Ray wrote.
In Europe, U.S. leadership dipped from 42 percent in 2011 to 36 percent for last year.
darcprynce
Dave C
Gatordoug
