Friday, May 31, 2013

**FILE** President Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius leave the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington on Feb. 10, 2012, after the president announced the revamp of his contraception policy requiring religious institutions to fully pay for birth control. (Associated Press)GOP senators want IG probe of Sebelius’ ‘Obamacare’ fundraising

Senior Republican senators on Thursday asked the Health and Human Services’ inspector general to investigate Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ fundraising drive to promote the new health care law — a practice ethics specialists have said is anything from a legal stretch to a shakedown for cash.

In a letter to Inspector General Daniel R. Levinson, the top GOP senators on three influential committees asked if Mrs. Sebelius broke any laws or violated ethics guidelines by soliciting insurance companies and other health care industry entities to contribute to a nonprofit that says it will educate Americans about the health law.

“These activities call into question whether appropriations and ethics laws are being followed,” said the letter signed by Utah Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican and the ranking member of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.

Watchdogs and good-government groups disagree over whether Mrs. Sebelius violated federal laws by seeking funds on behalf of a nonprofit group, called Enroll America, to promote “Obamacare,” but all say asking private companies and entities to financially support the rollout of the massive and complex law raises serious ethical questions for the Obama administration, which is already reeling from a string of recent controversies.

The administration and its critics were also sparring over whether Mrs. Sebelius was targeting private companies and other groups that she would soon be regulating as part of the health bill, or that could be in line for contracts to help implement the law.

“Obviously, there’s an appearance problem,” said Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “If she was soliciting for a Girl Scout troop in her neighborhood — something totally unrelated to health care — I don’t think you would have these questions, but she is charged with implementing the most significant health care changes in a generation.”

Cleta Mitchell, a Republican elections and ethics attorney, said the HHS effort amounted to a precedent-setting government intimidation campaign targeting private companies and entities.

“This is really quite scandalous,” she said. “The government is soliciting money from companies regulated by those doing the soliciting. [There is] nothing like a regulator asking for ‘voluntary’ contributions.”

Mr. Obama’s former campaign backers set up Enroll America as a nonprofit geared to pitch the health law to the public, and to encourage citizens to sign up for benefits.

HHS officials have confirmed that since March, Mrs. Sebelius directly solicited donations from tax preparation giant H&R Block and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a nonprofit that supports anti-obesity and other health outreach campaigns. H&R Block has yet to respond to the appeal, but the foundation has donated a total of $14 million to Enroll America, although it hasn’t said how much of that was in response to Mrs. Sebelius’ appeals.

Mrs. Sebelius’ efforts on behalf of Enroll America, which is made up of Obama campaign loyalists, are stoking additional concerns over the new ways Mr. Obama is using outside campaign-style groups to promote his agenda.

Shortly after the 2012 campaign was over, his campaign committee morphed into an independent nonprofit group run by campaign manager Jim Messina and aimed at supporting the president’s legislative agenda. Organizing for Action, as the group dubbed itself, can accept unlimited donations.

Republicans say the Sebelius fundraising drive may violate the federal “anti-deficiency” act, which prohibits government agencies from accepting voluntary services or donations. But HHS officials contend that a section of the Public Service Act specifically permits the secretary to ask outside companies and entities to write checks to support health programs.

Craig Holman, an ethics specialist at Public Citizen, said Mrs. Sebelius’ initiative is likely protected under the Public Service Act because the law provides specific allowances for HHS officials to accept gifts as long as the funds are being used specifically to carry out the agency’s function — and implementing the president’s health care law is clearly part of its mandate.

Even if it’s legal, however, Mr. Holman calls the fundraising idea “very problematic.”

“It’s problematic that we have a federal law that allows Sebelius to apply pressure on those she regulates to chip in to promote Obamacare,” he said. “Even though they have a stake in getting more people to enroll, they may or may not disagree with the rest of the program.”

Republicans are calling for more details to be released.

Last week, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee wrote to more than a dozen companies, including top insurers, to ask whether anyone at HHS tried to solicit funds from them to support the overhaul.

In their letter Thursday, the three senators cited a recent Washington Post editorial that accused Mrs. Sebelius of “dancing around serious ethical lines.”

“We believe the [office of inspector general] is well-positioned to impartially examine any and all evidence regarding these practices on the part of Secretary Sebelius or other HHS officials,” they wrote.

It’s Time To Fire Eric Holder

by / Personal Liberty Digest


It’s Time To Fire Eric Holder
UPI
Attorney General Eric Holder appeared before a House Judiciary Committee hearing on judicial oversight on May 15.
Did the Attorney General of the United States commit perjury when he appeared before the House Judiciary Committee two weeks ago? It sure looks like it.

Eric Holder was testifying about the growing scandal over the Justice Department’s seizure of telephone records of some Associated Press reporters and editors. Representative Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), one of the committee members, asked him if the Justice Department thought it could use the Espionage Act of 1917 to prosecute reporters.

Holder offered what appeared to be a straightforward reply. He said, “In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material — this is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.”

Ah, but we later learned that is precisely what Holder’s agency had done against James Rosen, a reporter for FOX News. The Justice Department warrant authorizing the seizure of Rosen’s emails declared that there was “probable cause” to believe the reporter violated the Espionage Act “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator.”

Based on this extraordinary accusation, a Federal judge agreed to the Justice Department’s request for a secret search warrant for Rosen’s private Gmail account. And guess what? The person who signed the Justice Department affidavit making those allegations was none other than the head man himself, Holder.

And while some of Holder’s defenders claim that he had just scribbled his signature on a whole bunch of papers his staff put in front of him, apparently this isn’t true either. Several reports say that he “carefully vetted” the Rosen paperwork.

It appears that the top boss at Justice knew exactly what he was doing when he ordered the surreptitious search of a reporter’s emails. So much for Holder’s claim that this is “not something I’ve ever been involved in.” As Desi Arnaz used to say to Lucille Ball, the Attorney General has “got some ’splainin’ to do.”

Of course, this was also the case three years ago, when Congress tried to find out what went wrong in Operation Fast and Furious. You’ll recall that this was a botched effort by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to trace how weapons went from the United States to Mexican drug cartels. Some 2,000 firearms went missing from the program. One of those weapons subsequently was used in Arizona to kill U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian A. Terry.

Congressional investigators looking into the fiasco asked Holder to give them certain documents relating to the Fast and Furious program, since ATF is a part of the Justice Department. When he refused, they served him with a subpoena demanding them. President Barack Obama then asserted executive privilege, and the Administration refused to surrender them.

As a result, the House of Representatives voted to hold the Attorney General in contempt of Congress. To no one’s surprise, the Justice Department refused to prosecute the case.

The Administration was able to protect its guy back then. But even many Democrats are starting to question Holder’s veracity now. Representative John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, says he is “deeply troubled” by some of the Justice Department’s actions. But he’s willing to give Holder the benefit of the doubt… at least for now.

“Certainly, it is fair to ask additional questions about the Rosen investigation, and any role the attorney general may have played in it,” Conyers said in a statement. Then he added, “[B]ut I do not believe it credible to level charges that he may have intentionally misled the committee on this matter before we know the facts of the case in question.”

So what will the facts ultimately reveal? Did the Attorney General perjure himself this time around? Representative Peter King (R-N.Y.) is one of many people who seem to think so. He said, “There’ve been other people over the years indicted for perjury or tried for perjury on a lot less evidence than that.”

The House Judiciary Committee has sent Holder a letter, asking him to explain the apparent discrepancy between his actions against Rosen and what he told the committee when he testified under oath on May 15. Representative Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va.), the committee chairman, said, “We will withhold judgment on what the attorney general’s actions constitute until we give an opportunity for him to explain himself.”

Even Obama said a couple of days ago that he is “troubled” about these apparent assaults on the freedom of the press by the Justice Department. But, hey, not to worry: He is going to ask Holder to investigate matters and report back to him.

In other words, the President will ask the fox to look into what’s been happening in the chicken coop. That should make everyone feel better, shouldn’t it?

One liberal law professor has had enough. In a powerful column in USA Today, Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, said that a hallmark of Holder’s service as attorney general has been his unquestioned loyalty to Obama:

“When the president promised CIA employees early in his first term that they would not be investigated for torture, it was the attorney general who shielded officials from prosecution.

“When the Obama Administration decided it would expand secret and warrantless surveillance, it was Holder who justified it.

“When the president wanted the authority to kill any American he deemed a threat without charge or trial, it was Holder who went public to announce the ‘kill list’ policy.”

But now, Turley says, the Justice Department has gone too far. “The attorney general has done little in his tenure to protect civil liberties or the free press,” the law professor wrote. “Rather, Holder has supervised a comprehensive erosion of privacy rights, press freedom and due process.”

Turley says the Justice Department’s sweeping surveillance of journalists represents “the greatest attack on the free press in decades.” And he has had enough. “I am neither a Republican nor conservative,” he declared, “and I believe Holder should be fired.”

Right now, the Attorney General is scrambling to protect himself. While he claims that the Justice Department hasn’t violated any laws or guidelines, he admits that the rules “need to be updated.” And he called the controversy “an opportunity for the department to consider how we strike the right balance between the interests of law enforcement and freedom of the press.”

Nice try, Holder, but it won’t work. Better dust off your resume and start exploring opportunities in the private sector, as the soon-to-be-departed like to say. Looks like we can color you gone. And it’s about time.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

Obama Is In Charge; This Is on Him 

By: David Limbaugh / Townhall Columnist 


Well, let's see. Obama promised to get the economy moving, greatly improve our health care system and reduce its costs, give us the most transparent government, and usher in a new era of bipartisanship and racial harmony.
Some 4 1/2 years into Obama's presidency, his economy is still as lethargic as a basset hound, and we're seeing disastrous developments on Obamacare. A smorgasbord of major scandals is unfolding, and we've got record levels of partisan angst and heightened racial tensions stoked by this administration.

So many shocking stories are emerging that we probably miss half of them. Did you see the Washington Post report about how Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius personally asked health industry groups to contribute to Enroll America, a pro-Obamacare front group that is, according to The Heritage Foundation, working to "educate" the public about the law's supposed benefits?

Obama and his band of fellow liberal ideologues have an agenda of fundamentally transforming America, and they're sticking to it -- no matter what kind of problems it creates, corruption and lies it entails, or disharmony it generates among Americans.

Perhaps this is another reason Obama never bothers to admit, much less apologize for, his failures. In his mind, his agenda is moving forward and that's what matters. The plethora of scandals and the myriad economic and health care failures may be an annoyance to him, but in the end, he's getting his way. If things don't change, we are moving rapidly toward statism overall and toward a single-payer health insurance system. To paraphrase him, "it may take 15 years, but we'll get there."

Meanwhile, the "What, me worry?" president is, yet again, busy fundraising and campaigning in his hometown of Chicago, insisting to his adoring die-hard fans that "Washington is not broken" and that he could not be more eager for Democrats to recapture control of the House in order to have Nancy Pelosi back as speaker. Not only is Obama not contrite but he wants more authority.

Obama seemingly has endless time to play golf, take vacations and hopscotch the United States on Air Force One to fundraise and campaign, but he's too busy to know or even be bothered about an unfolding crisis in Benghazi, the deliberate alteration of talking points to mislead the press and public about the cause of the consulate attack, the selective targeting of conservative groups by an unscrupulous Internal Revenue Service (which just so happened to do his bidding in successfully suppressing Republican voter turnout), and the criminal investigation of innocent journalists.

It's one thing for Obama not to be a details man, but how about a little focus -- or even a superficial awareness -- on very serious matters?

What we are seeing from Obama (and his administration) is what we should expect from a person who has been mostly a political agitator and activist for his entire adult life, without any experience in rolling up his sleeves and getting his hands dirty in actually solving the problems.

His style of governance is best-depicted by his frustrated utterance at the failure of BP to plug the Gulf oil leak fast enough to suit him: "Just plug the damn hole."

Obama doesn't really understand how business or even government works, but it doesn't keep him from making specific promises he doesn't know he can keep.

He repeatedly asserted, unequivocally, that Obamacare would bend the cost curve down and wouldn't infringe on religious liberty. He told us that if we liked our insurance plan, we would be able to keep it.

Have you been reading the headlines lately? "Obamacare Is Driving Some Doctors To Stop Taking Insurance Altogether." "In California, Obamacare to Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums by 64-146 Percent." "ObamaCare to trigger health insurance cancellation notices." "Like your health care policy? You may be losing it." "Obamacare's Liberty-Crushing Mandate in Court."

Could it be that the public is finally waking up and at least willing to reconsider its foolish blindness to this administration? A new Quinnipiac University poll finds that American voters say -- by a 76-17 percent margin, including 63-30 percent among Democrats -- that a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate charges that the IRS targeted conservative groups.

Further, voters aren't keen on Attorney General Eric Holder's investigating the matter himself, and he has only a 23-29 percent job approval rating. As Holder is President Obama's alter ego, this is significant.

But what we've yet to see is Obama himself being held accountable for his fraudulent promises, his policy failures and this staggering corruption.

Like it or not, these things are his doing. He is in charge; he is the one who made the false promises; he established the policy goals that are to be achieved at almost any cost; and he has created the climate leading to this lawlessness. In the modern vernacular, this is on him.

A short quiz you must take...and I bet most will miss all of these

Communism is creeping in one step at a time, exactly as planned
By: Lynnie Sager


Six trivia questions to see how much history you know. Be honest, it's kinda fun and revealing. If you don't know the answer make your best guess. Answer all the questions (no peeking) before looking at the answers.


Who said it?...
 

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
 

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...... And to replace it with shared responsibility ,,,,,for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above

3) "(We) .....can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground."

A. Mao Tse Tung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."


A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above
Scroll down for answers

 

Answers
(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005

 
Wanna know something scary? She may be the next socialist president if you don't forward this to everyone that you know.
Op-ed:
The scandals might do what the voting booth couldn't
By: Diane Sori
                                                            
We all know the federal government has grown even more fat and complacent than it already was, that it doesn’t answer to ‘We the People’, and that it concentrates power in the hands of a few corrupt lying individuals…individuals like Attorney General Eric ‘Fast & Furious’ Holder, former Secretary of State Hillary ‘What does it matter’ Clinton, and of course Chicago bully, liberal media anointed ‘savior’ of us all Barack HUSSEIN ‘I don’t know what my administration does’ Obama.

And we all know that ‘Bumps in the Road’ (a phrase now come back to haunt) like Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP scandal, and the FOX reporter scandal (and who knows what other scandals wait in the wings) show this administration’s total disregard for our Constitution and for ‘We the People’, but maybe, just maybe, these scandals will do what the voting booth couldn’t…for maybe now the time has finally come when those who dishonor both America and the American people will finally be called to task and taken down.

And that taking down just might have started with three whistleblowers coming forward in regards to Benghazi with more wanting to testify. At the end of the House Oversight Committee Benghazi hearings two weeks ago, two former diplomats implied that they have additional information about what happened that fateful night that goes beyond what whistleblowers Greg Hicks, Eric Nordstrom, and Mark Thompson had already given...information that is potentially NOT only damaging but devastating to both Obama and Clinton. But as expected they need legal protection before they can speak and you can’t blame them as repercussions have already happened to the three who already testified, including job demotions.

Now into the scandal mix comes Lois Lerner, the just put on administrative leave Director of the IRS Tax Exempt Organization…former whistleblower turned person of interest turned suspect and presumed fall gal for Obama. As the woman who basically ratted out her co-workers by issuing a public apology just days before the IRS inspector general was going to issue a report detailing the IRS’s use of keywords (like Tea Party and patriot ) to tag for additional scrutiny conservative groups applying for 501(c)4 tax-exempt status, it's now been proven that Lerner's apology was staged. Planting a question with a member of the audience that required her to respond with an apology allowed Lerner to set the stage to deflect blame from and protect higher-ups…higher-ups as in Barack HUSSEIN Obama, perhaps.

And then throw in something the in-the-pocket for Obama liberal media NEVER saw coming …something that completely blindsided them…for the very media that helped Obama steal an election suddenly was in his cross hairs and they had NO idea why.

Well, the why is really quite simple for narcissistic blowhards like Obama and his minions will NOT allow their flunkies to upstage them, because people like Obama and those who orbit around him believe everything is all about them. So the reason why can be put into one simple word…retaliation… retaliation because the previously Obama-friendly AP (Associated Press) wouldn’t let the Obama administration gloat about a ‘supposed’ counter terrorism victory.

The AP was holding off on printing a story about a foiled al-Qaeda plot (a plot that centered on an attempt to get a bomb into an assailant’s underwear that could pass airport screening) for a few days at the request of CIA officials. Eventually it was decided that they would run the story on a certain day, but with the deadline fast approaching were now suspiciously asked by CIA officials to hold off on publishing the story for just one more day.

The CIA cited national security concerns as the reason for once again asking for a delay in publication, but the truth was that the delay was wanted so that the Obama administration could announce the successful operation instead of the AP reporting what was their story from the get-go.

The AP said, ‘NO way’, that they had acquiesced to the CIA long enough as there was NO national security issues to contend with, and proceeded to publish the story on the day they said they would, thus denying Obama and his people the chance to puff themselves up once again for something they did NOT do…just like Obama did NOT take out Osama.

So the AP had to be taught a lesson…you don’t mess with Obama and NOT expect some retaliation.

Well guess what, instead of the Obama administration being able to gloat over their retaliation, the media came together to say this time Obama and crew overstepped their bounds in denying them their right to a free press…who’d have thunk it.

And finally add in FOX News reporter James Rosen being investigated in an affidavit signed off on by none other than 'Mr. Fast & Furious' himself...Rosen being deemed a criminal for ‘supposedly’ leaking information about North Korea given to him by a whistleblower...Holder saying Rosen broke the law by jeopardized national security (in NO way was national security ever jeopardized)...and Holder saying that criminal charges against Rosen could shortly be filed...and you now have one very unhappy, angry, pissed off media.

And I must admit that I’m happy the media is pissed, for maybe they'll finally see the monster they created for what he is…a nightmare…a nightmare that hopefully now they can help America finally wake up from.

So bring on the scandals for maybe these scandals and all the media attention they garner will be the hoped for end of NOT only a lying contemptuous Attorney General named Eric Holder and a arrogant self-serving former Secretary of State, but will also do what couldn’t be done at the voting booth…give a one-way ticket out of the White House to a man who had NO business occupying that White House in the first place…and wouldn’t have succeeded if the very media now in his cross hairs hadn’t anointed him as the ‘savior’ of us all.

Payback is a bitch and it just might be the media that bitch-slaps Obama but good.

Thursday, May 30, 2013


Former IRS Head Went To White House 118 Times During Scandal Years

by / Personal Liberty Digest

Former IRS Head Went To White House 118 Times During Scandal Years
UPI
Douglas Shulman served as Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service from 2008 until late 2012.
Douglas Shulman, who served as Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from 2008 until late 2012, was a tremendously frequent visitor to President Barack Obama’s White House during the time the agency was involved in actively discriminating against Tea Party conservatives.

According to the Washington Examiner, Shulman, a George W. Bush appointee who nonetheless made campaign donation to the Democratic National Committee, visited with the Presidential Administration an average of one time a week between 2010 and 2011. His five-year term expired in November.

By contrast, former IRS Commissioner Mark Everson, who served under George W. Bush from 2003-2007,told the Examiner he visited the White House only a single time during his entire tenure, saying that experience left him feeling like he’d “moved to Siberia” because of the aloofness of the Bush Administration from the agency’s operational activities.

IRS Acting Director Steven Miller, who succeeded Shulman in November, also made repeated visits to the White House.
Shulman said he couldn’t remember why he went to the White House so frequently, though some of the visits were probably about the IRS’ role in implementing Obama’s health care reforms, he told a congressional committee. Logs show Shulman met with two West Wing officials working on health care.
“The IRS has a major role in the money flow,” Shulman explained to Congress.
But while the health care-related visits were explained in the logs, many others included no explanation. Other sources said the IRS and White House were also talking at the time about an investigation into excessive IRS spending on employee conferences, travel and awards.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said Shulman’s frequent visits make it hard to believe that the IRS and White House never talked about the investigation into the IRS targeting of conservative groups, which was going on at the time — something the White House vigorously denies.
Indeed, the extent of the ongoing interaction between the Obama Administration and the IRS casts doubt on the President’s already implausible claim that, under his leadership, the agency had operated independently of influence from the executive branch. And aside from its own sinister implications, the oft-repeated excuse that Obamacare would need the IRS as a deployment, data-gathering and enforcement arm doesn’t line up with the number or timing of the 118 visits — a fact not lost on Commentary magazine’s John Steele Gordon:
Obama’s sole interest in the tax code has been to raise rates on high earners. So what was the commissioner doing going to the White House more than once a week on average?
One explanation would be the statutory involvement of the IRS in implementing Obamacare. But that bill was signed into law in early 2010. White House logs show on several occasions that he [Shulman] talked with White House staff about health care, but many other times no reason is given for his visit or whom he saw, which in itself is odd.
By his own admission he knew by the spring of 2012 (he resigned in November, 2012) that organizations with the words “Tea Party” in their names were being targeted for extra scrutiny. Is it really believable that someone who had a Wall Street career before coming to Washington five years ago was so politically naïve that he didn’t see the potential for scandal in that information and give the White House a heads-up? And, assuming he did so, is it believable that none of those White House staffers–who can hardly claim political naiveté–did not pass the information along to the president, leaving him to learn of it in the papers?
If so, there are a lot of potential customers to snap up the Brooklyn Bridge at a bargain rate.
Shulman testified before the U.S. House Committee on Oversight last week that, of those 118 times, he met with the President on four occasions, the last of which he said took place on June 5, 2012. He also testified he’d not once discussed any Tea Party complaints with any Administration official during any of his visits.

During that same two-year period, Shulman received more than 130 separate complaints from conservative members of Congress requesting the IRS look into the targeting of conservative nonprofit groups.
Criminal Minds at the IRS  
Robert Knight/ Townhall Columnist


It’s pretty clear that the Internal Revenue Service acted illegally in its abuse of tea parties and other conservative groups and individuals since 2009
.
Why else would Lois G. Lerner, director of the IRS’s division of exempt organizations, plead the Fifth before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee?

She invoked it last Wednesday after reading a statement in which she claimed, “I have not done anything wrong.” My lying eyes conclude that the lady has something to hide but hates the idea that we think so. By contrast, most organized crime figures who are dragged before congressional committees shrug, look down, plead the Fifth, and don’t bother pretending that they’re innocent.

That’s why they have lawyers.

For the past three years, the IRS has behaved like Soviet-style apparatchiks, using power and fear to stunt a grassroots movement that flexed mightily in 2010 but then mysteriously quieted down. Now we know why. When the IRS began carpet bombing conservatives with punitive audits and demanded to know things like what kind of prayers were uttered at meetings, the Big Chill was under way.

In fact, it’s still going on despite misleading media reports that all that bad stuff was in the distant past, such as 2012. As Hillary Clinton might insist, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

A 40-page memorandum released on May 20 by Cleta Mitchell, a prominent attorney representing conservative nonprofit organizations, shows exactly why the IRS is still a threat to our constitutional republic.

“Prior to 2010, the time frame for review and receipt of IRS tax exempt status would
typically be three months to one year for a 501(c)(3) organization and 3 to 6 months for a 501(c)(4) or (c)(6) organization,” she writes. In 2010, the IRS “changed its system for reviewing and processing applications. The timeline for some of the clients I currently represent demonstrates that the IRS is STILL holding up the applications for exempt status recognition of dozens — if not hundreds — of conservative organizations.”

In four cases, she reveals a pattern of years-long indifference, followed by ever increasing scrutiny.

Here are some of the questions the IRS posed in letters that follow a statement warning respondents that they risk a criminal charge of perjury if they get anything wrong or leave anything out:

--Provide a list of all issues that are important to your organization. Indicate your position regarding each issue.”

--Have you conducted or will you conduct rallies or exhibitions for or against any public
policies, legislations, public officers, political candidates, or like kinds?

--Provide the following for all the events you have conducted and will conduct for 2012 and 2013:
a. The time, location, and content schedule of each rally or exhibition.
b. Provide copies of handouts you provided or will provide to the public.
c. The names of persons from your organization and the amount of time they have spent or will spend on the event. Indicate the name and amount of time they spent on the event. Indicate the name and amount of compensation paid or will be paid to each person.

--Provide details regarding all of your activity on Facebook and Twitter.

Let’s see. “We took the dog to the beach today….”

Addressing the obvious targeting of tea parties, one IRS official claimed, “what happened here was that foolish mistakes were made by people who were trying to be more efficient in their workload selection."

Really? So changing the application from one with five to six short questions “to one that consisted of dozens of questions, necessitating volumes of materials and documents to be filed with the IRS was done in order to 'be more efficient'?” Mrs. Mitchell asks.

The agency first tried to finger two "rogue" employees in the Cincinnati IRS office as culprits. That ploy was “completely false,” Mrs. Mitchell writes. “In 2011, at least one of the Cincinnati IRS agents assigned to handle two clients' applications advised me that the Washington, DC office was actively involved in the decisions and processing.... The effort by senior IRS officials to lay this scheme at the hands of ‘a few low level' IRS employees is despicable and must not be tolerated.”

Mark D. West, founder and chairman of the Chattanooga Tea Party, told me that his group finally got its C-4 letter last month after nearly four years. He contrasted it with the treatment of a leftist group called Chattanooga Organizing for Action (COA), which applied in the summer of 2011 and received its tax letter in January 2013.

COA, which is not affiliated with Barack Obama’s Organizing for America campaign, says its mission is “to assist individuals and organizations in becoming the essential agents of real systemic change to achieve social, economic and environmental justice.” Not exactly a red flag to the current IRS.

The good news in all this is that the IRS itself is finally being put under a hot light at the table of public disclosure. It’s a little like the EPA getting caught dumping its garbage in a wildlife preserve.

And the Tea Parties are stirring again.

“Some of the perceived loss in enthusiasm and activity has been valid,” said Mr. West. “But it’s also been that we got smarter. Instead of time and treasure spent at rallies in Washington, D.C., we refocused our energies on more productive and effective efforts.”

In Chattanooga, that meant replacing a three-term, liberal city council member with a Chattanooga Tea Party board member in the April election, plus two more conservatives joining the council.

“This goes back to 2010, and a property tax increase,” said Mr. West. “Every single council member who voted for the tax increase was defeated. These are the battles that the mainstream media won’t focus on.”

Last Tuesday, with 24 hours’ notice, the Chattanooga Tea Party mounted a rally of 100 people at an IRS office as part of a national protest, he said.

“They think we’re dead,” he said.
Obama on the Ropes
By: Rich Galen / Townhall Columnist


All right. It's darn near June of the off year.

Over the past few weeks I've been writing like Grandma Moses painted: Sooooo very sweet.

Well, that's over. I don't have to write a sweet column again until Back to School on Labor day, so as Bette Davis (as Margo Channing) said in "All About Eve" in 1950:

"Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night"

The IRS is going to be the death of the Obama Administration.

NOBODY LIKES THE IRS

I'm not saying all IRS employees are bad people, but neither are all meter maids bad people - we just don't like to see them sniffing around our stuff.

Actually the IRS is not Obama's biggest strategic problem.

James Rosen is.

If you haven't been following the story, the Obama Administration has been trying to stop leaks from Executive Branch employees to the press corps.

James Rosen is one of the most senior - and most respected - reporters at Fox News. Unlike some of the night time hosts on Fox, Rosen is seen as a seasoned journalist who could be working at any major news outlet in Washington.

The Obama Administration decided that Rosen's reporting on North Korea was a national security issue and the Attorney General, Eric Holder, not only approved tapping into his email account(s), but also suggested that the investigation might have to go on for years.

The Department of Justice said that Rosen was "at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator" in the leaks about North Korea.

This is not new. Every administration - probably since Washington - has been trying to plug leaks to the press corps.

Henry Kissinger, in 1969 and 1970, allegedly authorized the FBI to employ wiretaps on 13 National Security Council Staff and at least four national reporters to find out who was leaking national security material to the press.

It is well documented that Richard Nixon didn't have the highest possible regard for the role and operating methods of the press corps.

That Barack Obama is being compared to Richard Nixon is ample evidence that his administration or, at a minimum, his legacy, is in big, big trouble.

So why is the Rosen case a bigger strategic problem than the IRS? Because if receiving information from an Executive Branch employee is a crime then, as one reporter said to me last week, "We are reduced to rewriting government press releases."

Because of the Rosen case, the Washington press corps - which contains some of Obama's most ardent defenders and supporters - is turning on him.

A week or so ago MSNBC's Chris Matthews said on the air that Obama, "Obviously likes giving speeches more than he does running the executive branch."

Politico.com reported Matthews as saying: "He doesn't like lobbying for the bills he cares about. He doesn't like selling to the press. He doesn't like giving orders or giving somebody the power to give orders. He doesn't seem to like being an executive."

As Lyndon Johnson is quoted as having said after a negative statement by Walter Cronkite about Viet Nam "If we've lost Cronkite, we've lost the war."

If Obama has lost Matthews, he's lost his Administration.

From this point onward there will be no such thing as a technical error in the Obama Administration. Like a lover scorned, Obama's former supporters in the press corps will see everything as a potential scandal unless proved otherwise.

He has no more Get Out Of Jail Free cards from national reporters.

The Internal Revenue Service is in business because Americans trust it to treat everyone equally without regard to politics or position.

The reports that the IRS was targeting that it believed were opposed to Obama's policies turned out to be true.

The woman who ran that shop refused to answer questions from a Committee of Congress, was asked to resign, refused, and was put on administrative leave meaning she is on a paid vacation.

If Obama's IRS was being used as a political tool, there is no one who will defend it, or him.

We are coming close to the beginning of the 2014 mid-term election cycle.

If House and Senate Democrats come to believe that Obama has become a negative in their districts, they will turn on him like, like Chris Matthews.

We have a lot going on: IRS, Rosen, Associated Press, Benghazi and who knows what else.

Barack Obama is losing his hold on the American people.

He has demonstrated zero skills that would lead us to believe he can get it back.
Has life on Mars been discovered 
By: Diane Sori


I have always said that we are NOT alone in the vastness of the universe...well guess what...the days of humans...of man...thinking we are all there is might just be over.

NASA's Mars Curiosity rover has again been scouring the Red Planet for traces of life, and this time it’s captured a rodent-shaped ‘creature’ among dusty orange rocks.

These recently released photos were taken at the sandy ‘Rocknest’ site on the surface of Aeolis Palus, between Peace Vallis and Aeolis Mons. Here NASA was collecting sand samples to test for basaltic materials.

Some say the shape in the image could just be a rock, but NASA officially revealed that the Curiosity rover had indeed found evidence that suggested ancient Mars could have and still might support living microbes.

Well, if this image is truly what it appears to be (and I say 'if') then microbiotic life is NOT the only life on Mars...and that would be MAJOR.

Mars Science Laboratory project scientist John Grotzinger from the California Institute of Technology explained: "We have characterized a very ancient, but strangely new 'gray Mars', where conditions once were favorable for life...and still might be."

"Curiosity is on a mission of discovery and exploration, and as a team we feel there are many more exciting discoveries ahead of us in the months and years to come."

YES there are, and who knows what awaits us as we explore the unknown, and I am beyond proud that someone in my


family will be part of that exploration
Op-ed:
The actors are in place...the trial is ready to take center stage
By: Diane Sori


While everybody is focused on the three-ring circus that is Attorney General Eric 'Fast & Furious' Holder, the theater of the absurd continues as Nidal Hasan, the Army psychiatrist charged in the 2009 Ft. Hood shooting...you know the one Obama deemed 'workplace violence'...is now petitioning the court to represent himself when he goes to trial.

Instead of just turning a blind eye to yet another of Hasan's never ending requests, yesterday, military judge Colonel Tara Osborn ordered Hasan to undergo a physical exam to determine whether he’s physically capable to do so (Hasan is paralyzed from the chest down from gunshots fired during the attack by two Ft. Hood police officers) after ruling him mentally capable to defend himself, and issued a statement through a Ft. Hood spokesman, “The judge noted that a prior inquiry into Hasan’s mental health indicated that he had the mental capacity to conduct and assist in his own defense."

Now ordering the government to conduct the physical exam and file a medical report by tomorrow so she can rule on the results at Monday's scheduled hearing, this judge has been trying to keep the trial on schedule after countless Hasan initiated stalling tactics, including his stellar performance that as a muslim he should NOT be required to shave his beard to comply with military rules (Osborn set that issue aside).

And if by some chance the judge refuses Hasan’s request to defend himself, rest assured he will appeal to higher courts and request the trial be stayed, causing even further delays.

And so the delays will continue one way or another while we taxpayers foot the bill to keep Hasan well fed and laughing at how he's made a mockery of our justice system, because he knows that by defending himself new avenues for appeal become available if he's found guilty, and we all know he's guilty as charged. Defending himself also means that he’ll be able to question and cross-examine witnesses, including the very people he's charged with wounding, along with the family members of those he murdered in what was, whether Barack HUSSEIN Obama likes it or NOT, a terrorist attack.

But gentleman that he is (insert sarcasm and look of utter disgust here), Hasan has graciously offered to plead guilty on all charges if the death penalty is taken off the table (something he has previously twice asked for). Judge Osborn again refused the request because under military law a defendant cannot plead guilty to a capital death penalty crime, making Hasan's offer just more theater, and believe me he knows damn well the military rules regarding his type of case.

And it gets even more bombastically infuriating as in this theater of the absurd Nadal Hasan continues to get paid, racking up at least $278,000 in salary to date as he awaits the court-martial proceedings to begin, because under the Military Code of Justice, Hasan’s salary cannot be suspended unless he's proven guilty.

Never mind that the people he injured all saw who shot them...never mind that he was seen murdering 13...never mind all that because the Military Code says he has to be officially adjudicated with a guilty verdict before his pay can be suspended or forfeited.

Does anyone else see the absurdity in all this...

And this is being played out while the victims are still being denied the Purple Hearts they so rightly deserve...Purple Hearts deserved because they were indeed injured in battle NOT in an act of 'workplace violence' for this muslim bast*rd kept shouting 'allahu akbar' as he pumped bullets into them...Purple Hearts that would allow the victims additional medical care and benefits for their families.

And while the judge will explain to Hasan the many disadvantages of defending himself against 13 premeditated murder charges and 32 attempted premeditated murder charges, if she does rule Hasan is physically competent to represent himself at trial, she most probably will insist that defense attorneys be present to assist Hasan if he needs it, as military rules allow a judge to require a defendant representing himself pro se to still be advised by military lawyers thus preventing a possible mistrial due to what will assuredly be theatrical outbursts by the defendant.

And what will Hasan do in representing himself...what will his defense be...NOTHING but jihadist rhetoric and rants using the qur'an to justify his actions, and the liberals sitting in the jury box...and rest assured there will be some bleeding heart liberals in that box...will lap it up so as NOT to appear racist against muslims (who are NOT a race by the way, but are people of all colors and nationalities who follow the pseudo-religious cult known as islam and NOTHING more).

But if Hasan does become disruptive by spewing muslim garbage instead of questioning witnesses, which is very likely to happen, Hasan could lose the right to defend himself leaving it up to the judge and government lawyers to hold him accountable.

Oh what theater we're all in for as the judge's ruling on Monday will determine if this trial becomes just more play acting at political correctness or if justice finally prevails for the Ft. Hood victims and their families.

I've got my front row TV seat saved and my popcorn ready to be 'nuked'...it should be interesting to say the least.


Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Obamacare "Navigators": Another Sebelius Snitch Brigade?  
By: Michelle Malkin / Townhall Columnist
 
U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius controls a $54 million slush fund to hire thousands of "navigators," "in-person assisters" and counselors who will propagandize and enroll Obamacare recipients in government-run health insurance exchanges. This nanny-state navigator corps is the Mother of all Community Organizing Boondoggles. It's also yet another Obama threat to Americans' privacy.

A reminder about Secretary Sebelius' sordid snooping history is in order here. In August 2009, HHS and the White House Office of Health Reform called on their ground troops to report on fellow citizens who dared to criticize their federal health care takeover. Team Obama issued an all-points bulletin on the taxpayer-funded White House website soliciting informant emails. Remember?

"If you get an email or see something on the Web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov," the Obamacare overlords urged. The feds even singled out conservative Internet powerhouse Matt Drudge because he had featured a video compilation of Obama and other Democrats -- in their own words -- exposing the "public option" as a Trojan Horse for government-run health care and the elimination of private industry.

Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn protested at the time that "these actions taken by your White House staff raise the specter of a data collection program." The flagging operation was shut down, but a plethora of federal disclosure exemptions protect the Obama administration from revealing what was collected, who was targeted and what was done with the database information.

White House lapdogs dismissed the concerns of conservatives as paranoid delusions. Now, fast-forward three years. In light of the draconian IRS witch hunt against tea party groups and the Justice Department's plundering of journalists' phone records and email accounts, every tax-subsidized Obama "outreach" initiative warrants heightened scrutiny.

Obamacare navigators will have access to highly personal data from potential "customers" to assess their "needs." That means income levels, birthdates, addresses, eligibility for government assistance, Social Security numbers and sensitive medical information. They'll be targeting both individuals and small businesses. Anyone they can lay their grubby hands on. Who's getting the navigator grants and training? "Community groups" in 33 states that naturally include socialized medicine-supporting unions and Saul Alinsky-steeped activist outfits.

On Capitol Hill last week, a top Obamacare official told GOP lawmakers that navigators will not be required to undergo background checks. Criminal records are not automatically disqualifying -- and that includes identity theft. The federal rule-makers will require online training of a measly 20 hours. Health care regulations watchdog Betsy McCaughey adds that navigators "don't have to know math or insurance, but rules announced April 5 specify you have to match the race, ethnicity and language preferences of the neighborhood that will be targeted."

The Obamacare navigator corps smacks of ACORN redux, stocked with demographically tailored Democratic Party recruitment operatives, not objective, informed insurance experts.

Sebelius and her enforcers promise strict neutrality and clean conduct. The bureaucrats say there will be severe consequences for violating citizens' privacy or breaking any other laws. Pffft. The Office of Special Counsel determined that Secretary Sebelius herself violated the federal Hatch Act prohibition on exploiting her HHS leadership position for partisan activity last fall. She then tried to cover up her breach after the fact by classifying the event in which she electioneered for Obama as a "personal" appearance.

Consequences? What consequences?

Sebelius has zero credibility when it comes to reining in overzealous partisans. But she's darned good at unleashing them. During the White House pressure campaign for Obamacare, Sebelius goaded her "brothers and sisters" from the brass-knuckled SEIU. SEIU goon Dennis Rivera joined her on a White House conference call in which he lambasted tea party activists as the "radical fringe" of "right-wingers" whose protests amounted to "terrorist tactics."

Now, the SEIU is on the board of directors of Enroll America, the left-wing, Obamacare advocacy nonprofit for whom shakedown artist Sebelius has been soliciting funds.

Sebelius' corruptocracy runs deep. While she was governor of Kansas, an independent inspector general reported that her appointed health policy board had "applied pressure to alter an audit report, restricted access to legal advice and threatened to fire her for meeting independently with legislators," according to the Topeka Capital-Journal.

Team Sebelius was also embroiled in a ruthless vendetta and obstruction campaign against then-GOP Attorney General Phill Kline, who unearthed damning evidence that the Sebelius administration had shredded key documents related to felony charges against Sebelius' abortion racketeering friends at Planned Parenthood.

Sebelius notoriously threatened private companies and insurers who increased rates to cope with Obamacare coverage mandates. She bullied private companies to meet discriminatory and arbitrary disclosure demands. And she lashed out at newspapers that dared to report on the true costs of the Obamacare regulatory leviathan.

You can't trust sleazy Sebelius to navigate anything with her broken ethical compass. This is worse than the fox guarding the henhouse. She has unfettered authority and a bottomless budget to weaponize legions more foxes who will serve as Obamacare's eyes and ears on the ground. The snitch brigade lives.


Last week, a guy named Barack Obama gave a speech in which he expressed appropriate concern about the abuse of government power in the name of fighting terrorism. Too bad he's not in a position to do anything about it.

Obama, who used to teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago, quoted James Madison's warning that "no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." Yet by declaring war against al-Qaida and its shifting and proliferating allies and offshoots -- groups that will not disappear or surrender anytime in the foreseeable future -- he has reinforced the rationale for a never-ending military struggle that sacrifices civil liberties on the altar of national security.

Regarding one especially controversial aspect of that struggle, the use of unmanned aircraft to execute people the president identifies as terrorists, Obama incoherently argues that such assassinations are legitimate acts of war and that they are governed by due process (at least when the targets are U.S. citizens). To make matters even more confusing, he says the requirements of due process can be met through secret deliberations within the executive branch.

Obama nevertheless raised the possibility of establishing "a special court to evaluate and authorize lethal action," which he said "has the benefit of bringing a third branch of government into the process but raises serious constitutional issues about presidential and judicial authority." In other words, the advantage of consulting a court is that it would subject Obama's death warrants to independent review; the disadvantage is that it would subject Obama's death warrants to independent review.

News outlets such as NBC, Time and The New York Times reported that Obama had announced stricter criteria for targeted killings. But his assurance that "we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people" was consistent with the secret Justice Department white paper that NBC published last February, which defines "imminent threat" so loosely that it loses all force as an independent requirement for adding someone to the president's kill list.

In addition to worrying about his assassination program, which he said could "lead a president and his team to view drone strikes as a cure-all for terrorism" and "end up shielding our government from the public scrutiny that a troop deployment invites," Obama worried about his practice of indefinitely detaining people without charge. He called the military prison at Guantanamo Bay "a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law."

While it's true that Republican legislators have interfered with Obama's attempt to close Guantanamo, he has considerable leeway to reduce the prison's population without congressional approval, as he demonstrated by lifting a self-imposed moratorium on freeing Yemenis, who account for two-thirds of the 86 low-level detainees cleared for release. And even without Republican obstruction, Obama plans to keep some Guantanamo detainees in the legal limbo he decries as an affront to the rule of law -- just at a different location.

Similarly, the same president who has used the "state secrets" doctrine to block lawsuits by victims of torture and targets of warrantless surveillance also called for "careful constraints on the tools the government uses to protect sensitive information, such as the state secrets doctrine." Obama doubled down on the hypocrisy by condemning torture and calling for "privacy protections" (even while advocating an expansion of the government's snooping abilities)
.
What else about Obama's national security policies bothers Obama? "I'm troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable," he said, presumably referring to the FBI's use of administrative subpoenas to demand two months of Associated Press telephone records after the organization published a story about a foiled terrorist raid. Maybe he also had in mind the Justice Department's consideration of criminal charges against journalists who obtain classified information.

In short, Obama raised many valid points about executive power run amuck. If only he had the president's ear.

Pamela Geller: Obama surrenders

From Jihad Watch


In "Obama surrenders" at WND, May 26, Pamela Geller points out the obvious fact that Obama has never acknowledged: while the U.S. is not at war with Islam, as he constantly reminds us, a "significant part of Islam that is at war with us."
The president decided last Thursday – five years into his presidency – to finally address the gravest threat to our nation and the West in the wake of a bloody wave of jihad attacks under his sloppy and feckless watch. 
He said, “Victory will be measured in parents taking their kids to school; immigrants coming to our shores; fans taking in a ballgame; a veteran starting a business; a bustling city street.”
What does that even mean? He speaks of “victory” when he is the architect of defeat. He speaks of victory while the Fort Hood victims languish and slaughtering jihadist Nidal Hasan still has not been brought to trial, but has received more than a quarter-of-a-million dollars in compensation. He speaks of victory when he won’t even call the jihad attack on a London street “terrorism,” instead terming it “senseless violence.”
Jihad beheading victim Lee Rigby will receive the same tribute as soldiers who die in action, but Fort Hood jihad victims are victims of a “criminal act of single individual,” not international terrorism. Why would Obama authorize a drone hit on Anwar al-Awlaki (who never killed anyone) but not give the victims of his Islamic preachings the same military designation?
What is his plan? It’s to partner with Muslim Brotherhood groups in America that work feverishly to “eliminate and destroy” America from within. Obama said Thursday that “the best way to prevent violent extremism is to work with the Muslim American community – which has consistently rejected terrorism – to identify signs of radicalization, and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting toward violence.”
Work with the Muslim American community? Just as Obama said this, former Hamas-CAIR official Cyrus McGoldrick urged Muslims not to talk to law enforcement.
“And never let them in your home.” This is Hamas-CAIR’s policy as well. They urge Muslims not to cooperate with the authorities. Really, Obama? You’re counting on these Islamic supremacists?
Robert Spencer said, “The Muslim American community has consistently rejected terrorism? Four separate studies since 1998 have all found that 80 percent of U.S. mosques were teaching jihad, Islamic supremacism, and hatred and contempt for Jews and Christians. … And in the summer of 2011 came another study showing that only 19 percent of mosques in U.S. don’t teach jihad violence and/or Islamic supremacism.”
But Obama wants to work with the Muslim American community – despite the fact that all the major Muslim groups in the U.S. are linked in various ways to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is dedicated in its own words to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.” What’s his plan? To close Gitmo and release the killers, when we know the recidivism rate is extraordinarily high. He stands by his drone attacks while having denied the motive of jihadic doctrine. He is killing Americans and yet he whines that we “compromised our basic values – by using torture to interrogate our enemies.”

He is denigrating the Bush administration’s waterboarding of three killers that saved thousands of lives and led to the killing of Osama bin Laden. Our soldiers are waterboarded so they understand the process. Who does this poser think he’s kidding?
He kills people, spies on journalists and abandons our ambassador and other Americans in Libya, and he is preaching to us?
Obama says that there have been no large-scale attacks in the U.S. I disagree. Scores of large scale attacks were thwarted. That counts. And Fort Hood and Boston were large scale. Hundreds of people living with shrapnel, broken flesh and bone – and the dead.
Our delusional president claims our standing in the world is what it was. I beg to differ.
We are much weaker under his reign. Obama’s abandonment of our allies in Egypt, Libya, Israel and Eastern Europe has weakened our hegemony and influence in those regions. And he has effectively surrendered to the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Obama claims that “unrest in the Arab World has also allowed extremists to gain a foothold in countries like Libya and Syria.” That, too, is a deliberate misrepresentation of what happened. Obama backed jihadists. That’s what happened in the Muslim world. Did he think that backing jihadists in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and now Syria would end well?
What’s his plan? Why didn’t Obama mention that his administration scrubbed all counter terrorism materials and manuals of jihad and Islam – disarming law enforcement and counter terrorism officials? Where did that get us? Boston.
When Obama speaks of the threat on our shores, he only cites the rare non-Muslim attacks: “Finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it’s a shooter at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin; a plane flying into a building in Texas; or the extremists who killed 168 people at the federal building in Oklahoma City.”
He doesn’t say a word about the hundreds of thwarted, and in some cases successful, acts of jihad. He goes on to explain that jihadists are lying when they quote Quran chapter and verse and wage war in the case of Islam. Obama said, “This ideology is based on a lie, for the United States is not at war with Islam.” No, it is Obama who is lying about the ideology. And while we may not be at war with Islam, clearly there is a significant part of Islam that is at war with us. Are we going to fight back?

Iran's primary target not Israel?

See which countries are on hit list in any future war

House investigator subpoenas all communications on Benghazi ‘talking points’


House Republicans’ chief investigator issued a subpoena Tuesday for State Department documents that he said would shed light on how the administration wrote the “talking points” that were used to give a wrong impression of the September terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.
 
Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell E. Issa told Secretary of State John F. Kerry to provide all communications regarding the talking points from 10 department officials, including Victoria Nuland, who was chief spokeswoman at the time, and Deputy Secretary William Burns.

 “The State Department has not lived up to the administration’s broad and unambiguous promises of cooperation with Congress,” Mr. Issa said in a letter to Mr. Kerry that accompanied the subpena.

The White House released some emails two weeks ago that showed Ms. Nuland expressing reservations about some of the information in early versions of the talking points, which then were edited to delete references to al Qaeda. Mr. Issa said those emails only raise more questions about who else was involved in the editing process.

The final talking points used by Susan E. Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, five days after the Sept. 11 assault, linked the attack to protests in Cairo, reportedly fueled by anger against an American-made video denigrating Islam’s Prophet Muhammad.

The State Department said Tuesday that it “remains committed to working cooperatively with the Congress” and promised to “take stock of any new or outstanding requests for information, and determine the appropriate next steps.”

“All of us — in the administration, in the Congress, in the media — we should all be focused on the issue of protecting the American diplomats and development experts who are working every day to advance America’s national interest and global leadership,” department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said.

Republicans have charged that the administration altered the talking points to try to improve President Obama’s re-election chances by obfuscating al Qaeda links to the attack, which killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

“This is an evidence-based follow-up,” said committee spokesman Frederick R. Hill Jr., referring to the White House release May 15 of 100 pages of email printouts showing the voluminous interagency correspondence about what to say in the talking points.

The administration counters that the intelligence evaluation was fluid in the days immediately after the attack and that parts of the early draft of the talking points have been proved to be incorrect, justifying the editing.

Republicans say the emails already released show that officials at Foggy Bottom were trying to shield the State Department — and its leaders, principally Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton — from criticism for having ignored warnings about deteriorating security in Benghazi.

In one email among those released, Ms. Nuland, a career department official who was serving as spokeswoman, said early edits didn’t go far enough to “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership.”

“It is very clear that there were broader discussions [about the talking points] within the State Department that have not yet been divulged,” Mr. Hill said.

In his letter, Mr. Issa said that despite Mr. Kerry’s pledges to be transparent with Congress, and the appointment of his chief of staff as the point man for document production, the committee’s requests have been “largely ignored.”

The subpoena gives the department until June 7 to comply.

The subpoena is the second Mr. Issa has issued during his investigation, which began more than eight months ago. Earlier this month, he issued one to the veteran career diplomat who led the State Department-chartered investigation into the assault, in which dozens of heavily armed extremists attacked first the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi and then a nearby CIA base known as the annex.

The subpoena to Thomas R. Pickering was withdrawn last week after the retired ambassador voluntarily agreed to be interviewed by House investigators behind closed doors.

The 10 officials whose communications were subpoenaed Tuesday are: Mr. Burns, Ms. Nuland, Principle Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Elizabeth Dibble, Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones, Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy, Counselor and Chief of Staff to Mrs. Clinton Cheryl Mills, Deputy Secretary for Management Thomas Nides, Deputy Assistant Secretary Philippe Reines, Director of Policy Planning Jake Sullivan and Assistant Secretary for State for Legislative Affairs David Adams.