President Asshat Humiliated As Allies Rush To Join China’s New Bank

Diplomatic Disaster: Obama Humiliated By Allies’ Rush To Join China’s New Bank – Washington Times

.

.
The battle of wills between Beijing and Washington over a China-sponsored development bank for Asia is turning into a rout, and the Obama administration has found itself isolated and embarrassed as its top allies lined up this week to join the proposed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

In what one analyst dubbed a “diplomatic disaster” for the U.S., Britain became the first major European ally to sign on as a founding member of the Shanghai-based investment bank, joined quickly by France, Germany and Italy, which dismissed public and private warnings from the U.S. about the bank’s potential impact on global lending standards and the competition it could provide to existing institutions such as the U.S.-dominated World Bank.

Luxembourg, a major global financial center, revealed this week that it would sign up. China also is also wooing Australia and South Korea, two of America’s closest Asian allies, to join before the March 31 deadline. A South Korean wire service reported Wednesday that Seoul was “seriously considering” the offer.

The reason for the stampede is clear: China’s market and its huge hoard of cash to invest override any concerns voiced by the U.S. Treasury Department and State Department over Beijing’s half-ownership stake in the bank.

“Simply put, if you partake, you have a stake,” Thomas Koenig, a policy analyst with the European Union Chamber of Commerce, told the German broadcast service Deutsche Welle.

With 32 countries on board and more expected in the coming days, Chinese state media have begun to gloat about the failure of the Obama administration to rally even its closest allies and trading partners to shun the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. They noted that U.S. officials have long lectured China, now the world’s second-largest economy, to take a more active “stakeholder” role in global economic affairs, but then tried to undermine the investment bank almost from the time Chinese President Xi Jinping floated the idea of an Asian development fund during a trip to Indonesia in October 2013.

“Welcome Germany! Welcome France! Welcome Italy!” the official Chinese Xinhua News Agency wrote in a commentary published Wednesday.

“Despite a petulant and cynical Washington,” more and more major countries are joining, the commentary noted. “Holding sour grapes over the AIIB makes America look isolated and hypocritical.”

Chinese officials noted Wednesday that the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will be on the agenda for the summit of top Chinese, Japanese and South Korean diplomats Saturday in Seoul. Chinese Deputy Finance Minister Shi Yaobin told reporters in Beijing that the U.S. would still be welcomed as a founding partner.

Saying Asia’s booming infrastructure financing needs – estimated at a staggering $700 billion annually – aren’t being met by institutions such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, China is putting up half of the planned initial $50 billion financing to launch the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. India, another U.S. ally, is the second-biggest investor, and a group of developing countries from Asia and the Middle East quickly signed on.

The Obama administration has been skeptical of the idea from the start, arguing that the proposed bank could prove redundant and could undercut lending standards on such issues as worker protections and the environment. China’s large stake also raised red flags, U.S. officials said, about whether the bank would favor Beijing’s economic and strategic priorities.

Clash over clout

Underlying the public debate was a clear clash between Washington and Beijing over clout in the globe’s leading financial infrastructure, set up largely by the United States in the wake of World War II and still largely dominated in the senior ranks by U.S., European and Japanese officials.

“We are wary about a trend toward constant accommodation of China, which is not the best way to engage a rising power,” an unidentified U.S. official told the Financial Times newspaper after news broke that Britain would join the bank.

Rising powers such as China, Brazil and India also have expressed mounting frustration that a proposed overhaul of the International Monetary Fund to reset voting rights to reflect the new global pecking order has been blocked because the Obama administration and the Republican-dominated Congress have been unable to pass it.

Analysts say Chinese officials have skillfully tried to meet concerns that Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank members will be drawn into a power clash. During a visit to Australia last month, Zhou Qiangwu, a point man for Beijing’s selling efforts, noted that the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank would be run by a multinational secretariat and use the same management structure as the Asian Development Bank and World Bank.

The proposed bank would “follow the international practice and give highest attention to environmental impact and resettlement” issues, he said, with strong safeguards against corruption.

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew tried to moderate the U.S. line against the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank in testimony on Capitol Hill this week, insisting that the administration’s primary goal was to ensure that the bank did not undermine lending standards.

“I hope before the final commitments are made anyone who lends their name to this organization will make sure that the governance is appropriate,” Mr. Lew said.

But the White House and the State Department said this week that it was the “sovereign decision” of each country on whether to participate in the bank.

Mr. Lew did acknowledge that the longtime U.S. and Western primacy in the global financial sphere was being challenged by China and other rising powers, which may not share Washington’s priorities.

“New players are challenging U.S. leadership in the multilateral system,” Mr. Lew said, pleading for passage of the IMF reform package. “Our international credibility and influence are being threatened.”

But private analysts say that credibility and influence have taken major hits from the rush to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

C. Fred Bergsten, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Peterson Institute for International Economics, wrote this week that the Obama administration made a huge mistake by trying to undermine the bank, not only failing to persuade allies to stay out but also strengthening the voices in Beijing who argue that the U.S. is trying to keep China down.

“The U.S. hostility reinforces the Chinese view that U.S. strategy is to contain and suppress it,” he wrote, “so increasing rather than decreasing the prospect of uncooperative Chinese behavior.”

Financial Times columnist Gideon Rachman said this week that the saga “is turning into a diplomatic debacle for the U.S.”

“By setting up and then losing a power struggle with China,” he said, “Washington has sent an unintended signal about the drift of power and influence in the 21st century.”

.

.

New Docudrama Deals Death Blow To Loathsome, Leftist Lies About Vietnam War (Video)

Movie Deals Death Blow To Vicious Lies About Vietnam – WorldNetDaily

.

.
Crazed, drug-addicted “baby-killers” and “murderers” – for more than 40 years, that’s how many in the American media portrayed U.S. troops who fought in the Vietnam War.

And America’s Vietnamese allies didn’t fare much better; they were often depicted as corrupt, cowardly and unworthy of U.S. troops’ sacrifice.

In the 1960s, negative television coverage helped turn American public opinion against the war, the veterans and even the Vietnamese who fought to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam.

Actress Jane Fonda, who called U.S. troops murderers, was famously shown sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gunner used to shoot at American planes.

By 1971, John Kerry, a Vietnam veteran and now secretary of state, declared on national TV, “We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service.”

But is what Americans saw on television and in the movies an accurate portrayal of those warriors and their mission to halt the spread of communism?

Executive Producer Richard Botkin and Producer Fred Koster take a provocative look at the Vietnam War and the troops who fought it in the new documentary film, “Ride the Thunder: A Vietnam War Story of Honor and Triumph.” The movie portrays the inspirational story the media neglected – one of friendship, bravery, patriotism and sacrifice.

Botkin says, quite frankly, Americans have been duped.

“The men who served in Vietnam are every bit as great as their dads and uncles who served in World War II,” he told WND. “The reason they’re not called the Greatest Generation is because Vietnam’s generation had people like Jane Fonda out there muddying up the waters and John Kerry. There were several hundred thousand junior officers who served in the Marine Corps and Army, and yet the only name that is ever recalled is Lt. William Calley. We’ve got to change that.”

After the war had been over for several years, former President Richard Nixon lamented, “No event in American history is more misunderstood than the Vietnam War. It was misreported then. It is misremembered now.”

.

.
Many popular films dealing with Vietnam – such as “Apocalypse Now,” “The Deer Hunter,” “Good Morning, Vietnam,” “Rambo” and “Full Metal Jacket” – serve as great entertainment, Botkin said, but they often grossly distort the reality of the warriors who fought courageously to stop the spread of communism.

“They portray the American fighting man as doped, duped, a victim, in it for the wrong reason. And, when he comes home, he’s definitely marginalized and at the mercy of the military industrial complex,” Botkin said. “And our Vietnamese allies are portrayed even more negatively. They’re portrayed as corrupt, effete, not wanting to fight, not worth fighting for.”

But Botkin – who also authored the WND book that inspired the movie, “Ride the Thunder,” and has toured former battlefields in Vietnam and chronicled accounts of the Vietnamese Marines and their American Marine advisers – is adamant in his assertion that “those representations are just simply wrong.”

“The film is our effort to try and right the historical wrongs, to leave a more positive record of the American fighting man and also our Vietnamese allies,” he said. “Communism is evil. We were right to oppose it.”

Watch the trailer for the film, which will be released on March 27 at the Regency 10 theaters in Westminster, California, where it will be shown eight times a day for a week:

.

.
In the early 1970s, under President Richard Nixon’s “Vietnamization” program, the war was being turned over to South Vietnam. Botkin’s film tells the little-known story of a few courageous American and Vietnamese Marines who fought valiantly to thwart the Communist invasion – nearly saving South Vietnam – during North Vietnam’s all-out attack on South Vietnam from the DMZ known as the 1972 Easter Offensive.

In a true-life story, the film shows how, when the unrelenting North Viet­namese Army of 20,000 soldiers and 200 tanks reached the bridge at Dong Ha, their offensive was stopped in its tracks by a small force of just over 700 Vietnamese Marines and U.S. military advisers.

Even though the South Vietnamese Marines had nearly won on the battlefield, they would suffer terribly, starving and spending long years at hard labor after the war as part of the communists’ re-education process.

.

.
The film follows Vietnamese Marine Maj. Le Ba Binh, the main character played by Joseph Hieu, during his time at the communist camp in Nam Ha in 1979.

“We start with him in a re-education camp and having all these flashbacks,” Botkin explained. “During the flashbacks, we go to Vietnam, post-World War II, with him as a boy. We go to all the American people and Vietnamese people who were interviewed and appropriately tell the story through Binh’s life experience.”

Binh, a man with few equals in the war-fighting profession, served 13 years in heavy combat and another 11 years in prison camps. Despite numerous battle wounds and lost comrades, he showed unwavering courage in the face of extreme hardship. He was wounded nine times and awarded the American Silver Star.

“When the Americans went to Vietnam, they typically would go for 12 or 13 months,” Botkin explained. “But Binh was there for the whole thing. It’s through him that we tell the story, hoping to make the Americans see that their sacrifice was justified.”

.

.
As the war ended, millions of displaced Vietnamese citizens fled the communist invasion. Hopeless citizens faced imprisonment and execution. On the morning of April 30, 1975, the Vietnamese Marine Corps ceased to exist after 21 years of combat.

The film cast includes many Vietnamese refugees.

“For them, telling the story has become more than just a job. It really is something they passionately believe in,” Botkin said. “All of these people are strongly anti-communist. They’re passionate, because they’ve suffered at the hands of communists. Their families have been killed or brutally tortured. They risked a lot and paid a heavy price for their freedom. I have nothing but respect for them.”

.

.
As for the U.S. mission in Vietnam, Botkin said the effort bought time for the rest of developing Asia to grow free of communist influence.

“When we went ashore in 1965, there were active communist insurgencies in the Philippines, in Malaysia, in Indonesia, Thailand,” he said. “The American effort – for all its flaws that people point out – stalled the communist expansion and allowed those economies time to grow. I just don’t think there’s any question that our effort was the right one.”

As for America’s reputation today, Botkin said, “We’re fighting a battle for our nation’s soul. People think America is a bad country. But America is the light of the world. We’re the good guys.

“We were the good guys in World War II. We were the good guys in the Korean War. And believe it or not, we were the good guys in Vietnam.”

.

.

.

Leftist Politicians Beg Obama To Illegally Change Obamacare Rules So Their Constituents Can Avoid New Tax Penalties

Democrats Beg Obama To Bend Obamacare Rules To Avoid Tax Penalties For Millions – Big Government

.

.
Three senior House Democrats are pleading with the Obama administration to bend the Obamacare rules to prevent their constituents and millions of Americans from being hit with Obamacare tax penalties.

Reps. Sander Levin (D-MI), Jim McDermott (D-WA), and Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) have strongly requested a special sign-up for the uninsured who will all be hit with a $325 fine or two percent of their income (whichever is higher) for failure to enroll in 2015. In 2016, the Obamacare tax penalty will be an average $1,100, reports the Associated Press. For 2014, the Obamacare tax was $95 or one percent of income.

“Open enrollment period ended before many Americans filed their taxes,” the three lawmakers said in a statement. “Without a special enrollment period, many people (who will be paying fines) will not have another opportunity to get health coverage this year.”

The lawmakers’ pleas come on the heels of a devastating New York Times article published last week titled, “Insured, but Not Covered,” which revealed that many Obamacare customers are hitting the harsh wall of reality about how expensive and flimsy their Obamacare plans truly are. As the Times notes, “A recent New York Times/CBS poll found that 46 percent of Americans said they had trouble affording health care, up 10 percentage points in just one year.”

Obamacare remains deeply unpopular. According to the RealClearPolitics average of polls, just 39% of Americans support Obama’s signature legislative achievement.

.

.

*VIDEO* Pat Condell: Laughing At The New Inquisition


.

.

Sniper In Afghanistan Sets New World Record For Longest Kill Shot

New World Record Set For Longest Sniper Kill In Afghanistan – The Examiner

.

.
According to a report in the Telegraph newspaper there has been a new record set for the longest kill shot in Afghanistan.

GPS aids supposedly “measured the distance the bullet traveled at 2815 meters”, beating the previous record of 2475 meters for a confirmed kill.

The shot was taken by a commando sniper team in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

“Through binoculars at a distance invisible to the naked eye they spotted a group of Taliban. The soldiers having means of identifying targets went through a process of obtaining verification and permission to engage. Two marksmen using Barrett M82A1 50 caliber rifles simultaneously fired. The bullets were six seconds in the air. One killed the Taliban commander. It is not known for certain which sniper fired the fatal shot. While there have been no triumphant press releases, in the tight global Special Forces sniper community the shot is much discussed, because it seems certain to be a world record” (source: Taliban remain in fear of lethal strikes, writes Chris Masters http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/taliban-remain-in-fear-of-lethal-strikes-writes-chris-masters/story-e6frezz0-1226504862496).

The M82A1 50 caliber is a recoil-operated, semi-automatic anti-materiel rifle developed by the American Barrett Firearms Manufacturing company. A heavy SASR (Special Application Scoped Rifle), is in use by many units and armies around the world.

At that distance the targeted Taliban would not have heard the gunfire that killed him.

The article noted that the previous world record achieved by British Corporal Craig Harrison occurred also in Helmand in November 2009. Firing from a distance of 2475m, Harrison killed two Taliban.

See video: Longest Sniper Kill Ever 1.5 Miles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MK4SEoBFXk

The names of the snipers involved are not known but they are thought to be members of the Australian Defense Force Delta Company of 2 Commando Regiment, based on the information in the Telegraph report, which was dated less than 24 hours ago.

See video: Aussie Joint Sniper Training – Very cool… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzSEARd065I

See also: Marine sniper engages Taliban with Barrett M107 .50 cal rifle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2JZgkLIzSg&feature=related

.

.

New IRS Form Proves President Asshat Lied About Obamacare Tax (Video)

New IRS Form Proves Obama Lied About Individual Mandate Tax – ATR

On Thursday the IRS released a slew of draft 2014 tax forms. The new draft Form 1040 shows a new surtax line has been created for the payment of the individual mandate surtax – see line 61 of the 1040:

.

.
President Obama has repeatedly denied that the surtax is in fact actually a tax. The most prominent example was a heated exchange on ABC’s This Week in Sept. 2009, when George Stephanopoulos confronted Obama with a dictionary:

STEPHANOPOULOS: I – I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax – “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…

OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that.

Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion. [Transcript]

.

.
It was always obvious that the penalty for not complying with Obamacare’s individual mandate was just another surtax:

* The surtax is collected by, and enforced by, the IRS.
* As shown by the newly released draft Form 1040, the surtax is paid as part of normal income tax filing by taxpayers.
* The individual mandate surtax was written into tax law itself by the Obamacare statute.
* Revenues derived from the individual mandate surtax have always been scored by the Congressional Budget Office as tax revenue.

Famously, Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out that the individual mandate surtax is in fact a tax. However, that does not compel conservatives to agree that Obamacare’s individual mandate is Constitutional. The same decision declared the individual mandate unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. Conservatives can accept that this surtax is a tax increase without accepting the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

The Obamacare individual mandate non-compliance surtax is one of at least seven Obamacare taxes that violate the President’s “firm pledge” not to raise any tax on any American making less than $250,000 per year. Thorough documentation of Obama’s promise can be found here.

.

.

New IRS Bombshell: ‘Most Audacious Power Play Yet’

New IRS Bombshell: ‘Most Audacious Power Play Yet’ – WorldNetDaily

.
…………

.
It was the nearly silent bombshell of the IRS scandal, but it may have been one of the most significant.

That is especially true considering the target is primarily known as one of the fiercest critics of President Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton, the latter considered the Democrat’s leading presidential contender in 2016.

When the IRS stripped the Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, or PHC, of its tax-exempt status, it did not cause splashy headlines and a chorus of the nation’s leading conservatives did not howl in protest.

However, the IRS’ revocation of the center’s 501(c)(3) status may have been the most audacious power play yet by the left in its use of the department to wage war on conservatives.

The action indicates the IRS still feels free to pursue conservatives with impunity, even after all the adverse publicity it has received since former tax-exempt division chief Lois Lerner revealed last May that the department had improperly targeted conservative groups applying for 501(c)(3) status.

Additionally, the PHC is unique among the IRS’ recent known victims:

• The tea-party groups came to the IRS; the IRS went after the PHC. Unlike the delay tactics it used on tea-party groups when processing their tax-exempt applications, the IRS actively targeted the PHC as a group that already had 501(c)(3) status.

• The department applied the worst penalty at its disposal, by disallowing tax-exempt contributions to the organization.

• Unlike the tea-party groups, the PHC did not spring up after the 2008 election of President Obama, but has been around since the 1990s. It was approved in January 1998 as a 501(c)(3). Based in Manassas, Va., the center was founded by former FBI agent and best-selling author, Gary Aldrich, a ferocious critic of Obama and the Clintons.

• The IRS appeared to go out of its way to target and punish the center. It had to go back a decade to find a mere two instances of alleged transgressions committed by the PHC.

• And, as WND reported, the supposed violations of IRS rules are miniscule compared to the hyper-partisan articles published daily by the gargantuan, George Soros-financed and leftist 501(c)(3) website Media Matters.

Despite the brazenness of the IRS in giving its tax-exempt “death-penalty” to the PHC, the news was met with an almost deafening silence by conservatives. However, those conservatives who are speaking out are scathing in their criticism.

“Americans should be outraged at the banana republic intimidation tactics of this administration and Congress needs to take a hard look at the IRS’s abuses of power,” Scott Hogenson, communications director for Tea Party Patriots, the nation’s largest grassroots organization, told WND.

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, which has forced the IRS to reveal a series of incriminating documents, told WND, “The IRS can’t be trusted to impartially apply its own regulations or the law.”

“Liberals at the local, state and federal level are increasingly abusing the powers of government agencies to smear and attack conservatives. The time has come for Congress to rein in these attacks on free speech,” Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, told WND.

Floyd G. Brown, president of the Western Center for Journalism, told WND, “The IRS actions concerning the Patrick Henry Center are an outrage. The IRS has no jurisdiction to censor or control the speech of individuals involved in nonprofit work. The IRS has become the favorite tool of the political apparatchiks who run the Democratic Party. They use the IRS and other agencies to bully opponents until they are too tired to continue to fight.”

“The IRS political targeting of Gary Aldrich’s Patrick Henry Center is stunning in its brazenness,” said WND Editor Joseph Farah, who exposed the broad pattern of IRS political targeting during the Clinton administration and whose own organization was the focus of an audit at the time.

“This action by the IRS is a clear signal the Obama administration is out of control and in no way deterred by congressional investigations into the use of the IRS as an attack dog against domestic political enemies. The silence from Aldrich’s fellow conservatives is deafening and invites even more blatant abuse of this kind by the Obama administration,” added Farah.

Aldrich has been a target of the left stretching back to Clinton administration, in which he served.

He spent 26 years in the FBI and was a private investigator in the Clinton White House, vetting the backgrounds and character of the president’s choices for top-level government positions. Shocked by what he experienced, Aldrich left the White House in 1996.

In 1998, Aldrich wrote the New York Times’ bestseller “Unlimited Access,” a devastating critique and insider’s look at an administration he saw as run amok. Aldrich said he repeatedly rejected Clinton nominees as corrupt and/or unqualified, only to have the president ignore his findings and put those people in positions of authority.

Aldrich also considered the behavior of Hillary to be especially corrupt, vulgar and even obscene, describing her decorating the White House Christmas tree with sex toys and drug paraphernalia.

Aldrich wrote:

“[I] could not let these threats to national security and attacks on basic American values continue … With firsthand knowledge of the hardship facing those who dare to speak the truth in the face of corrupt power, [I] determined to make a difference by helping others. Thus was conceived a non-profit foundation to assist [other] whistleblowers and to protect their First Amendment rights.”

And what a whistleblower he found.

The very first client of his Patrick Henry Center was Linda Tripp, the Pentagon employee who instigated the impeachment of President Clinton by recording her calls with Monica Lewinsky.

Conservatives, understandably, might see that as a reason for top Democrats to hold a grudge.

When Aldrich began working with tea-party groups in 2010, Politico described “Unlimited Access” as a “widely discredited exposé of the Clinton White House.”

Aldrich related to WND how “Hillary Clinton called it a “pack of lies,” political fabrication that could not be believed … and Bill Clinton said he had no idea who I was or what I was saying, but it couldn’t be true. Then (former White House aide) George Stephanopoulous was the lead character who came on ABC News and declared to the nation that I was a pathological liar.”

However, the facts that have emerged ever since the book was published point to just the opposite, and indicate the author has been vindicated.

The book sounded the alarm about national security risks, security risks in the White House and the sexual escapades of President Clinton. In 2004, Aldrich explained, “The book was designed to alert the public in 1996, before the election, that Bill Clinton was soft on national security and… he had weakened the nation to the degree that I felt we were in danger of an attack.”

Aldrich told WND in 2000 that after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke in 1998, “I received a call from (NBC “Meet the Press” host Tim) Russert at my residence. Don’t know how he got my number. But he said, ‘Gary, congratulations. It looks like you’ve been fully vindicated. I don’t know anyone who could now claim your book wasn’t true.’”

Aldrich said another journalist who had publicly doubted his story, ABC’s Sam Donaldson, also told him he’d been vindicated.

As for former Clinton insider Stephanopoulos, who went on to host Donaldson’s old show, ABC’s “This Week,” Aldrich told WND, “The man’s a liar and he worked inside the Clinton White House and he knew what I wrote was true and yet he went on national TV and said I’m a ‘pathological liar.’ Who’s a pathological liar now?”

Aldrich told WND in 2000 that it was the sex scandal that the media fixated upon, but it was the risk the Clinton administration posed to national security that was the bigger threat:

“We didn’t clear anybody. They didn’t care about security. They just wanted to test the political loyalty of employees. There’s no provision in the law to allow for that. It’s nuts. It’s a misuse and an abuse. Early on in the staffing of the Clinton administration, they discovered that the FBI (background) investigations could be an impediment to the appointment of people they really wanted to have. And these people don’t want to be denied, frankly. Hillary Clinton in particular does not want to be told, ‘No,’ when she wants to bring somebody into the White House.”

By 2000, WND was reporting that slowly, with each new report of security lapses, Aldrich’s story of loose security and reckless conduct had been confirmed. At the White House, drug and gun smugglers were waved into fundraising coffees with the president and vice president. One Clinton donor with Beijing ties even managed to sneak a foreigner past the Secret Service using a bogus driver’s license.

Fearful fellow law-enforcement agents failed to back his story. But Aldrich did not call them out, even though he knew where the dirt was, having read their sensitive FBI “302″ reports while vetting them for jobs.

By 2010, PHC merged with Liberty Central, an advocacy group run by Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese serves on the center’s board.

But the center has never been very big, declaring less than $350,000 in revenues for the year 2012.

The IRS apparently had to strain to build a case against the small, obscure outfit, reaching back a decade to find just a mere two alleged transgressions.

USA Today reported last Monday that the PHC was among several organizations that had lost their tax-exempt status in February, after the IRS letter released a letter on April 18, explaining its reasoning.

The IRS cited a pair of articles on the center’s website: one Aldrich wrote in 2004 that was critical of presidential candidate John Kerry and one in 2005 which was critical of Hillary Clinton.

(Farah said he suspects the IRS didn’t use any of Aldrich’s criticisms of Obama in making its case because “that would have been unseemly and too obvious.”)

In 2004, Aldrich wrote, “Let’s see what happens when he brings his medals to the first presidential debate. I’m willing to bet George W. Bush will have no trouble dealing with this coward.” In a 2005 piece called “Stop Hillary Now!” Aldrich encouraged “Clinton haters” to get out the word on Hillary’s “atrocious conduct.”

The IRS said the PHC served as an “action organization” in promoting those articles by issuing alerts, and had “shown a pattern of deliberate and consistent intervention in political campaigns” and made “repeated statements supporting or opposing various candidates by expressing its opinion of the respective candidate’s character and qualifications.”

Those who know Aldrich well strongly doubt that he would endanger the viability of his organization by crossing the line.

“I know Gary Aldrich personally, Judicial Watch has worked with him in the past, and, in my experience, he is a stickler for the rules,” Judicial Watch’s Fitton told WND.

“I’ve known Gary Aldrich for 20 years,” said Farah. “He knows the law. Few people are more cautious about observing every jot and tittle of the law in their political activism than Gary Aldrich. If Obama’s IRS can suspend his organization’s tax-exempt status in the midst of their own high-profile scandalous abuse of the IRS, the First Amendment is gravely threatened. In fact, it appears Obama is trying to suspend not just the tax-exempt status of his political enemies, but the First Amendment itself.”

Even if the PHC truly violated IRS rules, the two actions done nearly a decade ago are dwarfed by the vast number of hyper-partisan political articles published everyday by the extreme liberal website Media Matters, as documented by WND. Media Matters is also a 501(c)(3) but operates with little apparent interference from the IRS.

Farah noted the discrepancy, observing, “Meanwhile, left-wing partisan tax-exempt groups like Media Matters run rings around their conservative counterparts with impunity. America will never be the same kind of free-and-open society we have known when people with different points of view are treated so unequally by the government. We are one short step away from police-state totalitarianism.”

Hogenson added, “This is symptomatic of the on-going IRS targeting of people and organizations with whom President Obama disagrees. Once again, the IRS is targeting a conservative group while turning a blind eye to the questionable activities of left-wing organizations that share the same tax status as the Patrick Henry Center.”

Rep. Stockman told WND, “Not only did the Patrick Henry Center never engage in any activity that actually intervened in any campaign, what they are accused of is standard operating procedure for leftist groups. Nothing in the report rises to the level of an activity that disqualifies the Center from tax-exempt status. This appears to be yet another case of liberal officials using government agencies to defame and harass conservative activists. Their goal is simple. They want to intimidate and silence those who differ with their agenda.”

The Western Journalism Center’s Brown said, “For the IRS to revoke the tax exempt status of an independent foundation for comments the organization’s president, Gary Aldrich wrote in a column on the independent news website TownHall.com only increases the outrage.”

Fitton implied the punitive action did not come out of the blue, but is part of the same conflict going back to Aldrich’s time with the Clintons.

“In many ways, this is the culmination of the ‘long war’ against Gary that began with the whistleblowing on corruption in Washington, D.C., nearly 20 years ago.”

It also appears to be part of a larger pattern of targeting conservatives.

In addition to the targeting of tea-party groups, the IRS is apparently going after even the few conservatives in Hollywood, as the New York Times reported in January:

“A collection of perhaps 1,500 right-leaning players in the entertainment industry, Friends of Abe keeps a low profile and fiercely protects its membership list, to avoid what it presumes would result in a sort of 21st-century blacklist, albeit on the other side of the partisan spectrum.

“Now the Internal Revenue Service is reviewing the group’s activities in connection with its application for tax-exempt status. Last week, federal tax authorities presented the group with a 10-point request for detailed information about its meetings with politicians like Paul D. Ryan, Thaddeus McCotter and Herman Cain, among other matters, according to people briefed on the inquiry.”

Conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza is even facing prosecution on campaign-finance charges that many believe are payback for his film “2016: Obama’s America.”

Gerald Molen, the producer of D’Souza’s two full-length feature film documentaries, characterized D’Souza’s criminal indictment as a Soviet-style “political prosecution.”

In turn, D’Souza told WND that Molen also was harassed by the Obama administration for his role producing D’Souza’s full-length feature film documentaries.

“Right after ’2016′ came out, Molen got a call from the IRS,” D’Souza said.

Republican Sens. Charles E. Grassley, Jeff Sessions, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee are among the lawmakers who have signed a letter to the FBI demanding details of the D’Souza investigation, saying it smacks of “selective prosecution.”

Further evidence that the IRS targeting of Aldrich is not happening in a vacuum came to light after an investigation by WND that revealed the agency contracts with an avowedly “progressive” organization supported by George Soros to process data filed by smaller tax-exempt groups.

The IRS sends details contained in the annual filings for organizations with $50,000 in annual receipts or less to the Urban Institute, which is funded, at least in part, by contributions from far-left activist Soros.

A tax form page directs groups to file with the Urban Institute, although apparently other providers also can file the Form 990 documentation (postcard), which is required of every nonprofit, small and large.

“The organization that fails to file required e-Postcards… for three consecutive years will automatically lose its tax-exempt status,” the IRS warns.

The supposedly nonpartisan organization’s employees have a record of donating nearly 100 percent of their political contributions to Democrats, and officially, the Urban Institute advocates for totally socialized medicine, carbon taxes and amnesty for illegal aliens.

The institute’s president, Sarah Rosen Wartell, is the co-founder of the Center for American Progress, widely considered ground zero for the development of many of the Obama administration’s progressive policies.

As for Aldrich, when news of his targeting broke it didn’t cause the kind of sensational headlines as when America learned the IRS had been demanding tea-party groups report what prayers they had been saying and which books they had been reading.

But this latest development may indicate, somewhere along the way, a turning point had been reached, one in which the IRS went from defense to offense, and instead of just stalling applications, went on the attack.

That seemed to be what Lois Lerner and the Justice Department had in mind, when it was recently revealed how they plotted how to prosecute conservatives for merely exercising their rights to free speech.

Even more ominously, the order to have the IRS dig up information to prosecute conservatives was given to the Justice Department’s director of the Election Crimes Branch of the Public Integrity Section by “someone” higher up in the chain of command.

That means the orders either came from someone in a position of top authority at the Justice Department, or, someone at the White House.

As Floyd Brown told WND, “The authoritarianism of the federal government should frighten every American. The new slogan of big government has changed from ‘we won’t listen,’ and it has become ‘you can’t speak.’”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.