THE DAILY CALLER by VINCE CAGLIANESE http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/31/white-house-defense-visitor-logs-too-unreliable-to-reveal-whether-shulman-actually-visited-157-times/
White House defense: Visitor logs too unreliable to reveal whether Shulman actually visited 157 times
2:24 PM 05/31/2013
The White House on Friday pushed back against news that former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman visited the White House at least 157 times from 2009 to 2012.
Shulman is a central figure in the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups, having led the agency while those groups were singled out for harassment.
When challenged last week by congressional investigators about just 118 of the 157 apparent White House visits, Shulman did not dispute the number, only identifying several reasons why he visited so often.
“Um, the Easter Egg Roll with my kids,” Shulman said. “Questions about the administrability of tax policy they were thinking of; our budget; us helping the Department of Education streamline application processes for financial aid.”
The Daily Caller first reported on Thursday that White House visitor access records show “Douglas Shulman” with 157 publicly disclosed visits in that time frame. By comparison, no Obama cabinet member comes close in terms of publicly disclosed visits.
The liberal Atlantic website published a piece Friday morning speculating that the number of Shulman’s actual White House visits could be as low as 11, despite widespread coverage of those revelations on Thursday.
“Complicating the picture is the fact that just because a meeting was scheduled and Shulman was cleared to attend it does not mean that he actually went,” wrote The Atlantic, suggesting that Shulman may have skipped out on up to 146 different White House meetings he was expected at — despite his name appearing on the visitors logs for those meetings.
The Atlantic offers no source for that claim, but Dan Pfeiffer — White House senior adviser to the president for strategy and communications — latched onto the article Friday morning on his official White House Twitter account. “Def Worth a Read,” Pfeiffer tweeted, marking the first time the White House has addressed Shulman’s unusually frequent visits.
The claim that White House visitor records might only show information about a visitor’s pre-clearance — and not an actual visit — is not something the White House reveals in its disclosure policy. Additionally, as TheDC has previously reported, not every visit by top administration officials requires that the official physically signs in.
Some visits by top officials are never even noted in the visitors logs. A comparison of the situation room photo from the night of the bin Laden raid — May 1, 2011 — to the visitor logs, for example, shows that several of the officials in the photo never appear in the public access records.
The White House voluntary disclosure policy does reveal that visitor names are often left off the logs for a variety of reasons — listed below — including personal visitors of the president and national security.
While the White House has fought to keep individuals who fall under those exceptions away from the public eye, Friday’s pushback against Shulman’s name appearing 157 times in the logs appears to mark the first time the White House has suggested that visitors who appear in the access records may not have visited at all.
The White House did not respond to The Daily Caller’s multiple requests for comment for clarification, for either this report or Thursday’s.
When asked about Pfeiffer’s tweet in the White House press briefing Friday afternoon, White House Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest did not dispute that Shulman visited the White House at least 157 times, only saying that the president was committed to “transparency” and that most of the meetings Shulman attended involved Obamacare.
See the reasons why the White House says it leaves names off the visitors logs:
The White House will not release fields within the access records that implicate personal privacy or law enforcement concerns (e.g., dates of birth, social security numbers, and contact phone numbers); records that implicate the personal safety of EOP staff (their daily arrival and departure); or records whose release would threaten national security interests.
The White House will not release access records related to purely personal guests of the first and second families (i.e., visits that do not involve any official or political business).
The White House will not release access records related to a small group of particularly sensitive meetings (e.g., visits of potential Supreme Court nominees). The White House will disclose each month the number of records withheld on this basis, and it will release such records once they are no longer sensitive.
Visitor information for the Vice President and his staff at the White House Complex will be disclosed pursuant to the policy outlined above. It is not possible, however, to release visitor information for the Vice President’s Residence in an identical format to the White House Complex at this time because the Residence is not equipped with the WAVES and ACR systems that are in place at the White House Complex. The Office of the Vice President will, instead, release the guest lists for official events at the Residence and will also review the Vice President’s and Dr. Biden’s daily schedules and release the names and dates of visitors to the Residence who appear on those schedules. The Vice President’s staff is working with the Secret Service to upgrade the visitor records system at the Residence. When the electronic update is complete, visitor information for the White House Complex and the Residence will be released in a common format.
EXPOSED: IRS Chief Visited WH More Than Any Cabinet Head (patdollard.com)
118 times to the White House and can’t remember why? (floppingaces.net)
TRAYVON MARTIN NOT INNOCENT BOY
APNewsBreak: Ohio State president jabs Notre Dame, Roman Catholics, SEC in recorded remarks
Published May 30, 2013
Ohio St. president takes shots at ND, Catholics (espn.go.com)
APNewsBreak: OSU head jabs Notre Dame, Catholics (seattletimes.com)
OSU head jabs Notre Dame, Catholics (newsnet5.com)
OSU President Apologizes For Notre Dame Jab: ‘Those Damn Catholics’ (cleveland.cbslocal.com)
Golson banned for ‘poor academic judgment’ (espn.go.com)
Obama Hosts Illegal Aliens in Oval Office – After Refusing Meeting with Immigration Agents
Obama’s White House door is always open to illegal aliens.
American schoolchildren and ICE agents? Not so much.
Barack Obama continues to show his utter contempt for the rule of law, law enforcement officials, and American citizens.
Obama and his V.P. Joe Biden on Tuesday met with three illegal aliens in the Oval Office who have been granted his controversial “deferred action legal status” – which is being challenged in court by ICE agents.
Remember that back in March, using the phony “sequestration” excuse, Obama canceled all White House tours for American schoolchildren and others, generating widespread outrage. Apparently the only young people welcome in the White House are those who came here illegally.
Meanwhile, Obama still refuses to meet with any border security enforcement officers about any aspect of so-called ”immigration reform”.
“From Justino Mora, Angie Kim and Mehdi Mahraoui, to Diana Colin and Kevin Lee,” a White House blog entry reads, “all of the stories they shared were full of hope and optimism that one day their family members and their broader communities could realize the dream of becoming citizens of a country that has provided them with the opportunity to work hard and to succeed.”
All three of these illegal aliens apparently received “deferred action” legal status. Obama, in July 2012, said people younger than 30 brought to the U.S. before they turned 16 could apply for “deferred action”. They will be granted work permits and Social Security numbers. As SWA detailed at the time, Obama’s amnesty order is ripe for abuse, as it has almost no safeguards against fraud.
Virtually every illegal alien who has applied for deferred action, 99 percent, has been granted legal status.
The union of law enforcement officers charged with protecting our nation’s borders, the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, has been highly critical of the program because it makes their jobs almost impossible to perform. But Obama has refused to meet with them on that issue, or the immigration bill currently in the Senate.
This, despite his multiple meetings with the National Council of La Raza (“The Race”) and other radical groups, to shape the ‘Gang of 8′ bill.
On Thursday, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., co-signed a letter to Obama asking him to meet with the ICE officers.
“To be effective any immigration reform bill must heed the warnings from our federal immigration agents,” the letter reads. “Unfortunately, far from being included in the process, ICE officers have been shut out and have even had their day-to-day operations handcuffed by DHS officials to the point of being unable to carry out their sworn duties. These brave whistleblowers have been left with no other option but to file a lawsuit in federal court to fight the abuse of power from DHS leadership.”
ICE union president Chris Crane and his 7,200 immigration agents are suing Obama and Napolitano to end this DACA travesty, and they are having unexpected success towards that aim.
Crane’s lawsuit, Crane v. Napolitano, received a big boost two weeks ago when Federal Judge Judge Reed O’Connor told DHS that they had no power to refuse to deport illegal aliens, and that he was likely to strike down Obama’s virtual “DACA” amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. The judge is expected to give his final ruling in the next week or two, which the Obama Administration will no doubt appeal.
We stand with Crane and his agents and their lawsuit, and salute Sen. Sessions and Chairman Goodlatte for standing with law enforcement and against illegal immigration.
TO HELP CHRIS CRANE AND THE ICE AGENTS WIN THEIR LAWSUIT AND RESTORE THE RULE OF LAW TO IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT – PLEASE DONATE AT THIS LINK.
Immigrant Who Met Obama: ‘You’re Dealing With Human Lives’ (huffingtonpost.com)
Obama meets with illegals in Oval Office (wnd.com)
Obama Meets in Oval Office with Illegal Aliens (amren.com)
Fox News Panel Clashes After Alan Colmes Says IRS Went After ‘Only a Handful’ of Tea Party Groups
May. 27, 2013 2:36pm
In an appearance on Fox News today, conservative writer Jim Pinkerton and liberal radio host Alan Colmes clashed over the media’s perceived ideological attachment to the Obama administration and coverage of the ongoing Internal Revenue Service (IRS) scandal.
The center of their discussion? Whether the media are being complicit in covering up potential political motivation for the government’s targeting of the Tea Party and conservative groups.
Pinkerton argued that the media are more in bed with the Obama administration than any other preceding Democratic presidency. Colmes, naturally, disagreed.
“To say that never before has the media been so in line with the party in power is to me just patently absurd,” Colmes said, highlighting his view that the media seemingly pressed for and supported the War in Iraq under President George W. Bush.
“I don’t see the marriage between the media and what the administration is doing on the left as much as Jim does,” he added.
While the liberal commentator attempted to downplay the number of conservative organizations being targeted by the IRS (he said it was “only a handful”), Pinkerton shot back, noting that nearly one quarter of the groups were ideologically right-of-center. The conservative writer and pundit also charged that groups funded by billionaire George Soros seemed to be defending the IRS’s actions.
Here’s how Mediaite frames the rest of the discussion:
Colmes noted that editorial writers and columnists with the New York Times and The Washington Post have criticized the IRS unequivocally. “This isn’t a liberal consortium supporting what’s going on,” Colmes said.
Pinkerton noted that it is not all left-leaning media outlets, but there has been a nearly uniform defense of the IRS by organizations funded by Soros. Colmes and Pinkerton battled over the connection that was being drawn between Soros and liberal outlets defending the IRS. […]
Pinkerton and Colmes then exploded over the assertion that the IRS evenly targeted liberal and conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.
“Every show on MSNBC, except for Morning Joe, is saying that the IRS did the right thing,” Pinkerton asserted. “That’s where the bias comes in.”
Watch the clip, below:
<iframe src=”http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?content_type=content_item&layout=&playlist_cid=&content=BVM4QJ04F3RMS0CJ&widget_type_cid=svp&read_more=1″ width=”420″ height=”421″ frameborder=”0″ marginheight=”0″ marginwidth=”0″ scrolling=”no” allowtransparency=”true”>
VIDEO MUST SEES by MY TWO SENSE: As my grandmother used to say, “You just cain’t never tell ’bout some folk.” But she always could tell a politician from an honest man. JUST ME)
COMMON CORE Look out, Parents, here it comes.
BENGHAZI–My, oh my! This week should be very interesting.
GO GOWDY See to it, Senator Gowdy, that you keep on them as tough as you did in this video.
AL FRANKEN should have stuck to stand up comedy. He is still as rediculous as ever.
IN THE STATE OF MAINE WERE TWO HONORABLE JOURNALISTS
Michaels and Consiglio, who have a combined 12½ years’ service at WVII (Channel 7) and sister station WFVX (Channel 22), shocked staff members and viewers with their joint resignations Tuesday evening.
“I just wanted to know that I was doing the best job I could and was being honest and ethical as a journalist, and I thought there were times when I wasn’t able to do that,” said Consiglio, a northeastern Connecticut native who broke in with WVII as a sports reporter in April 2006.
“It’s a culmination of ongoing occurrences that took place the last several years and basically involved upper management practices that we both strongly disagreed with,” she explained. “It’s a little complicated, but we were expected to do somewhat unbalanced news, politically, in general.”
Neither Michaels nor Consiglio would say what specific political leaning they were expected to adopt.
Consiglio, who also was executive producer, said the balanced journalistic approach they use for all their stories was sometimes frowned upon.
Emails Released: Congress Was Asking for Updates on IG’s IRS Audit Before 2012 Election
May. 23, 2013 9:22am
Members of the House Oversight committee were promised in 2012 that they’d be provided with updates on the inspector general’s audit of the Internal Revenue Service, a promise that was apparently broken.
The following letter — which came out this weekend — shows that J. Russell George, the inspector general who uncovered the scandal, most definitely agreed to provide committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Cali.) with details of the IRS audit:
Obviously, this didn’t happen. Congress only became aware of the details of the the IG’s report after the presidential election.
And it’s not as if the Oversight committee didn’t try to learn more about the IG audit.
The following emails — released late Wednesday — show that the Oversight committee in 2012 repeatedly asked for updates on the audit, but didn’t receive them:
Rep. Issa on Wednesday brought up these emails and questioned George about why he didn’t keep Congress informed of the audit’s findings. The IG excused his keeping Congress in the dark, but he did not dispute the congressman’s timeline:
Was the report withheld because it wasn’t ready? Was it withheld so that it wouldn’t sway the presidential election?
We can speculate all day long as to why the IG didn’t release the audit on schedule. But what is beyond speculation, according to committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), is that the IG should have kept Oversight members updated about the report’s findings. From POLITICO:
Issa is referring to part of the Inspector General Act that requires watchdogs to report serious problems to Congress through the head of an agency within seven days. It’s known as the “seven-day rule” — but it’s often used sparingly.
The Oversight Committee asked the inspector general about conservative group targeting a number of times, and Issa read some of the emails in the hearing Wednesday.
George also raised concerns that incremental information provided to lawmakers would ultimately leak to the public.
“That is not fair to the people we are investigating,” George said.
Issa responded that the White House is the source of plenty of leaks as well.
True, Rep. Issa said last year that he knew the basics of the report. But as Hot Air notes, “it’s one thing to think you know based on a leak and another for the IG to confirm it with an update.”
Furthermore, it’s important to note that the IG kept details of its delayed report a secret even after the IRS had conducted its own internal investigation and found that its targeting of conservative groups was “inappropriate” (that report was also hidden from Congress).
“Just yesterday the committee interviewed Holly Paz, the director of exempt organizations, rulings and agreements, division of the IRS,” Congressman Issa said Wednesday.
“While a tremendous amount of attention is centered about the Inspector General’s report, or investigation, the committee has learned from Ms. Paz that she in fact participated in an IRS internal investigation that concluded in May of 2012 – May 3 of 2012 – and found essentially the same thing that Mr. George found more than a year later,” he added:
“Think about it,” the congressman continued. “For more than a year, the IRS knew that it had inappropriately targeted groups of Americans based on their political beliefs, and without mentioning it, and in fact without honestly answering questions that were the result of this internal investigation.”
So why didn’t the IG keep Congress informed? As of this writing, it’s not entirely clear. Here, this excerpt from Hot Air sums up where things stand right now:
The media starts picking up reports of tea-party complaints in February 2012, and soon thereafter the director of the exempt organizations puts a halt to IRS demands for more intrusive info from conservative groups. Three months later, in May, they hold a “workshop” providing guidance on tax-exempt groups to its analysts and approv more neutral criteria for scrutinizing applications.
That’s probably why Issa’s committee had an inkling at the time — because the IRS itself already knew it had done wrong and was moving to undo it to some extent. And yet no one, including the IG, felt moved to confirm for the committee until this month that yes, “mistakes were made” and it was now safe to tell the public that.
Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter
Featured image courtesy AFP.
IRS Inspector General, Darrell Issa Communicated Multiple Times In 2012 (huffingtonpost.com)
THE BLAZE by BECKET ADAMS (MY TWO SENSE: Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina is my hero–do you hear me NBA’s gay spokesperson, Collins? Standing up against anyone in bed with this administration, takes guts. I hope he keeps it up. And Trey, if you have any secrets in your background which you would find embarrassing if made public, you had better come out with it before this administration does. They will stop at nothing to bring you down. Unfortunate, I know, that whistle blowers are now intimidated into silence, but I certainly hope that the latest show of arrogance, from Lerner, will enrage one of them and force a public confrontation! JM)
Trey Gowdy at It Again — This Time with a Jack Bauer Reference!
May. 23, 2013 1:44pm
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) became a viral sensation on Wednesday with his tough questioning of former IRS head Doug Shulman during a House hearing on the IRS targeting of conservatives.
And if you liked him then, you may love him today after he delivered an interview where he was able to sneak in a Jack Bauer reference.
Lois Lerner, the IRS official at the center of the increasingly serious IRS scandal, caused a stir on Wednesday after she declared her innocence before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and then invoked her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
She steadily refused to answer the committee’s questions and was later excused from the hearing by Congressman Darrell Issa, R-Calif.
However, Lerner’s decision to claim innocence in her opening remarks has raised some people questioning whether she accidentally waived her Fifth Amendment right.
“You don’t get to say, ‘I didn’t rob the bank but I’m not going to answer the prosecutor’s questions,’” Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, explained in an interview Thursday morning. “That would never happen.”
Rep. Gowdy continued, explaining Rep. Issa’s options.
“Let’s play this out. Let’s assume he brings her back. I promise she’s not going to make the same mistake today that she made yesterday,” he said. “She’s going to invoke — you can’t make someone talk unless you’re name is Jack Bauer.”
“You can’t force some to talk,” Gowdy continued. “You can’t make people talk unless you’re will(sic) to do what Jack Bauer does.”
Jack Bauer is the main character in the hit Fox TV series “24,” an action-drama about counterterrorism in the US. Played by Kiefer Sutherland, Bauer is an agent with the fictional Counter Terrorist Unit who “plays by his own rules,” “is a one-man wrecking crew,” etc.
“So are we going to hold her in contempt? Are we going to put her in jail? Are we going to offer her immunity, which I would not be a fan of, or are we going to try to build a case without using her testimony?” the congressman asked.
Gowdy continued, adding that these questions will be reviewed and answered at the chairman speaker level:
The South Carolina congressman isn’t alone in thinking Lerner may have accidentally waived her Fifth Amendment right. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said Wednesday that she could be held in contempt of court and jailed for refusing to testify before Congress.
“She’s in trouble. She can be held in contempt,” Dershowitz told the “Steve Malzberg Show.” “Congress . . . can actually hold you in contempt and put you in the Congressional jail.”
“You can’t simply make statements about a subject and then plead the Fifth in response to questions about the very same subject,” he added. “Once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right . . . you’ve waived your self-incrimination right on that subject matter.”
“The law is as clear as could be, that once you open up an area of inquiry, you can’t shut off the spigot – that’s the metaphor that the Supreme Court has used,” he said.
However, a few pundits think there may be a problem with this argument.
“While you may not selectively invoke the 5th in a criminal trial, you probably can at a Congressional hearing, so she won’t be held in contempt,” the Ace of Spades HQ blog notes.
“She will, however, be made to look awful, which sounds about right,” it adds.
Then there’s this from New York magazine:
First, unlike in a trial, where she could choose to take the stand or not, Lerner had no choice but to appear before the committee. Second, in a trial there would be a justifiable concern about compromising a judge or jury by providing them with “selective, partial presentation of the facts.” But Congress is merely pursuing information as part of an investigation, not making a definitive ruling on Lerner’s guilt or innocence.
“When somebody is in this situation,” says Duane, a Harvard Law graduate whose 2008 lecture on invoking the Fifth Amendment with police has been viewed on YouTube nearly 2.5 million times, “when they are involuntarily summoned before grand jury or before legislative body, it is well settled that they have a right to make a ‘selective invocation,’ as it’s called, with respect to questions that they think might raise a meaningful risk of incriminating themselves.”
In fact, Duane says, “even if Ms. Lerner had given answers to a few questions — five, ten, twenty questions — before she decided, ‘That’s where I draw the line, I’m not answering any more questions,’ she would be able to do that as well.” Such uses of selective invocation “happen all the time.”
And this excerpt from Hot Air is worth considering:
What happens when Issa brings her back and the questions begin? Could be that she’ll cave and start answering, but I assume her lawyer will tell her to take the Fifth again, in which case it’s Issa’s move. He could try to hold her in contempt, which would probably ignite a court battle and would certainly ignite lots of media concern-trolling about the GOP crushing Lerner’s rights as a way to change the subject from the underlying scandal. The court battle would slow down the investigation and might spark a bit of public sympathy for Lerner and the IRS…
Politically, it might even be worth losing the court battle: Litigation will only call more attention to the fact that Lerner doesn’t want to talk for mysterious reasons, which makes the IRS’s actions look that much shadier.
… why not bring her back and make her sit through an hour or so of serially re-asserting her privilege to dozens of questions? Worst-case scenario, the dodginess of the spectacle puts even more pressure on the IRS. Best-case scenario, she’ll decide to answer questions selectively, which will add a bit more information to what the committee knows.
SC congressman grills IRS officials (thestate.com)
Trey Gowdy: Believes Lois Lerner Waived Her Fifth Amendment Right (freebeacon.com)
Issa: Lois Lerner lost her 5th Amendment Rights (conservativebyte.com)
Who is this man?
Submitted by sosadmin on Mon, 11/26/2012 – 15:37
Please note that by playing this clip YouTube and Google will place a long term cookie on your computer.
Start the clip at 3:50 and prepare to be totally shocked. When you suspend habeas corpus, which has been a principle — even before our country, it’s the foundation of Anglo-American law — which says very simply that if the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask ‘Why was I grabbed?’ and say ‘Maybe you’ve got the wrong person.’ You know, the reason you have that safeguard is because we don’t always have the right person. We don’t always catch the right person. We may think this is Mohammed the terrorist — it might be Mohammed the cab driver. You may think it’s Barack the bomb thrower, but it might be Barack the guy running for president. So the point is, so the reason that you have this principle is not to be ‘soft on terrorism’. It’s because that’s who we are. That’s what we’re protecting. Don’t mock the Constitution. Don’t make fun of it. Don’t suggest that it’s un-American to abide by what the Founding Fathers set up. It’s done pretty well for over 200 years. That was Senator Obama in 2008 on the campaign trail during his first of two successful presidential campaigns. Barack Obama of 2008, I’d like to introduce you to Barack Obama of 2012, who authorizes assassination by flying robot of people whose names the United States government does not know, but who fit some kind of “terrorist signature” pattern. Obama of 2008 should also meet the Obama of 2012 who will not explain whether his drones got “the right person” when they exploded 16 year old American citizen Abdulrahman al Aulaqi in 2011, or give any explanation whatsoever for the due process-less killing of this child from Denver. I don’t think that these two gentlemen would get along very well. In fact I think the one in the video above would find today’s President Obama to be a bit of a Constitution-mocker.
h/t Glenn Greenwald for the video sosadmin’s blog
UK Headline: ‘Barack Obama Is Rapidly Losing His Halo’ (pjmedia.com)
TOWNHALL by BEN SHAPIRO ( http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2013/05/22/obama-america-racist-sexist-homophobic-n1602717/page/full )
Benjamin Shapiro was born in 1984 in Burbank, Calif. Brought up in the home of two Reagan Republicans, where intelligent conversation about politics and philosophy was encouraged, Ben Shapiro quickly developed into a reasoned political thinker and a powerful writer.
Ben Shapiro entered UCLA at the age of 16. Never afraid to antagonize his political opposition, he was the only counter-protester at an Affirmative Action Rally that drew over 1,500 people on UCLA’s campus, and he has repeatedly challenged liberal professors and faculty.
As a staunch conservative on the modern politically correct campus, Ben Shapiro faces the political liberals head-on. From exposing the leftist tilt of the professoriate on college campuses to addressing the conflict in the Middle East, Shapiro’s confrontational approach always draws a hailstorm of response.
Ben Shapiro was hired at age 17 to become the youngest nationally syndicated columnist in the U.S. His columns are printed nationwide in major newspapers and websites, including Townhall.com, WorldNetDaily.com, Frontpagemag.com, the Riverside Press-Enterprise and the Conservative Chronicle. His columns have also appeared in the Orlando Sentinel, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, RealClearPolitics.com, Jewish World Review, and he has been quoted on the O’Reilly Factor, in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Press, and in The American Conservative magazine, among many others.
Ben Shapiro is a regular guest on dozens of radio shows around the United States and Canada. He is also the author of the national bestseller, Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America’s Youth (May 2004, Thomas Nelson Inc./WND Books).
An Orthodox Jew, virtuosic violinist and hack golfer, Ben Shapiro graduated UCLA in June 2004 with a B.A. in Political Science. He is currently a student at Harvard Law School.
America has major problems.
Our economy has been stagnating for years on end, and the so-called recovery under way will have to continue at this pace for years simply to get us back to where we started. When it comes to the social ills plaguing America, the prospectus doesn’t look any rosier: increased rates of unwed motherhood, continuation of vast killing of the unborn, and cycles of bad decision-making leading to generations of crushing poverty.
None of the solutions to these problems can be found in greater government action. Yet the left suggests that only greater government can fix the issues that trouble Americans.
That’s because, according to the left, one grand, unifying problem underlies all the other problems: Americans are nasty.
Some Americans are poor because other Americans are greedy. Minorities are disproportionately poor because white Americans are racist. Women are trapped in socioeconomic oblivion because male Americans are sexist. America is not a melting pot. America is a hell pit designed to consume its non-white, male, Christian inhabitants.
How then can the patriarchal, xenophobic majority be defeated?
Only with a coalition of victims.
That is a coalition the left has been building for decades. Back in 1970, it was not unjustified to think of certain groups as victims of the majority. In 2013, however, it’s downright poisonous.
That poison spews from the mouth of the president of the United States. Preaching to the graduating class at Morehouse College last Sunday, President Obama told the black students that they would “have to work twice as hard as anyone else if you want to get by.” This, he said, made blacks in America very much like Hispanics, gays and women, all of whom are victims: “Many of you know what it’s like to be an outsider; to be marginalized; to feel the sting of discrimination. That’s an experience that so many other Americans share.
Hispanic Americans know that feeling when someone asks where they come from or tells them to go back. Gay and lesbian Americans feel it when a stranger passes judgment on their parenting skills or the love they share. Muslim Americans feel it when they’re stared at with suspicion because of their faith. Any woman who knows the injustice of earning less pay for doing the same work — she sure feels it.”
The true American experience, according to Obama — the shared experience that forges a unified view of our country — is marginalization. And marginalization justifies massive government interventionism to foster e pluribus unum.
But what happens when that marginalization ends? What happens when blacks in America are treated according to the content of their character rather than the color of their skin? What happens when Hispanics are welcomed with open arms? What happens when Americans become apathetic about the sex lives of others? What happens when women are treated with the same level of expectation and reward as men?
The liberal agenda goes bust. Obama knows that. And that’s why he must never allow consonance to be reached. It’s why America must remain a nasty, bigoted place: The moment that America becomes the melting pot, liberalism dies. We can go about our business without fear and without need for a huge government to wipe the slate clean for us.
And so the left inculcates victimhood. Generation after generation, children are taught that they are the victims of the society that raises them. Some Americans are indeed victims. But the vast majority of Americans — of every subgroup — are not. There is no real coalition of victims. There is merely a coalition of liberals masquerading as victims in need of a savior government.
- Obama: America Racist, Sexist, Homophobic (conservativeread.com)
- Ben Shapiro’s a beanie wearin’ homosexual!? (lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com)
- Conservative Writer Gets Owned By The Internet After Mocking NBA Player’s Coming Out (businessinsider.com)
- Ben Shapiro, Breitbart Columnist: Gay NBA Player Jason Collins Isn’t A ‘Hero’ (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)
- Ring-Wing Site Goes In On Obama’s Morehouse Speech: “Blacks Are Victimized For Being Black In Racist, Sexist, And Homophobic America” (bossip.com)
Pakistan: Calls for attacks on Christians emanate from Mosque loudspeakers
Tensions high where politician who lost election strives to incite violence.
By: Morning Star News
Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 12:05 (EST)
A Muslim political candidate suspected of murdering a Christian has instigated calls from mosque loudspeakers for attacks on Christians, whom he blames for his May 11 election loss.
Tensions were high in Punjab Province’s Okara district after provincial assembly seat candidate Mehr Abdul Sattar, sought by police in connection with a 2008 murder, on May 13 arranged for mosque calls for violence against Christian villages.
“Burn their homes to the ground … Punish them such that they forget Gojra and Joseph Colony,” blared village mosques in the district, according to Younas Iqbal, chairman of the Anjuman-e-Mazareen Punjab, a peasant movement fighting for land rights.
Iqbal told Morning Star News by phone that that when unofficial election results were announced on May 12, Sattar’s supporters ambushed a convoy of about 100 Christians on their way to congratulate his opponent on his victory.
“They destroyed two motorcycles and threw them in the canal, besides damaging a tractor,” Iqbal said. “We went to the Okara Saddar Police Station to register a case, but the police officials refused to move against Mehr.”
Recent religious furor has been easily stoked in Pakistan. In Lahore on March 9, about 3,000 Muslims attacked Christians in Joseph Colony, destroying 175 homes, after rumors spread of an alleged remark against Islam by a Christian. In Gojra in 2009, eight Christians were burned alive, 100 houses looted and 50 homes set ablaze after a blasphemy accusation.
Sattar has targeted Christians in several villages, designated by number-letter combinations from British colonial times, particularly village 8/4-L, for voting against him, Iqbal said. Christians largely voted for Mian Yawar Zaman, also a Muslim, for a provincial assembly seat in the general election on May 11.
Iqbal said that early on May 13, Sattar’s men prevented the Christian principal of the Government Primary School, Shamoun Masih, men from entering the institution.
“They told Shamoun that since the Christians had voted against Mehr, he wouldn’t be allowed inside,” he said. “They also roughed him up, but there were no serious injuries. In 3/4-L village, Amjad Masih was harassed.”
Iqbal added that Sattar’s supporters had also forcibly occupied land of some Christians.
“The threat of violence in 8/4-L is most serious because of the tiny Christian population there,” Iqbal said of the village of roughly 600 Christians. “Sensing the gravity of the situation, we immediately informed Zaman, the legislator-elect, who pressed the police to deploy personnel in the village.”
Okara Police Chief Rao Jabbar told Morning Star News that officers would take all necessary measures to protect the Christian peasants.
“We have taken notice of the inciting speeches made by Mehr Abdul Sattar, and I have assured the Christians that we will initiate legal action against him,” Jabbar said. “Meantime, I’ve directed all police officers concerned to remain vigilant and ensure that there is no damage to life and property of the Christians.”
Police have been helpless in the face of Sattar, though, Iqbal said.
“Even though the district police chief has promised to protect the area’s Christians, the danger will always remain there,” he said. “Several cases have been registered against Mehr, but no action has been taken against him. In January this year, the police tried to arrest Mehr and his men in a murder case, but his supporters blocked three main highways for several hours, forcing the police to abandon action against him.”
Police sought Sattar in connection with the murder of Javed Masih, a Christian who had opposed Sattar in a 2008 election.
“The late Javed Masih used to tell the peasants to vote according to their conscience and not get intimidated by gangsters like Mehr,” Iqbal said. “His efforts bore fruit, and Mehr lost the general election in 2008. Unfortunately, Masih had to sacrifice his life for the cause, while several others were injured in an armed attack by Mehr’s men.”
In this month’s election, Iqbal likewise told Christians to vote for the person they thought best. Zaman belongs to the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, which has emerged as the single largest party in national and Punjab assemblies.
“The humiliating defeat further stoked anger in Mehr, and he’s now bent upon punishing us,” he said, adding that Sattar has targeted no Muslims for opposing him.
“Our application against Mehr Abdul Sattar is still pending with the police, but it seems more Christian blood will be shed before he is brought to justice,” Iqbal said. “But this will not deter us from using our right to vote. We refuse to give in to the tyranny of criminals like Mehr.”
Besides village 8/4-L, the threatened Christian areas in provincial constituency PP-191 are village 10/4-L, with an estimated Christian population of 3,000; 11/4-L, where 2,000 Christians live; and 26/4-L, in which around 1,000 Christians are settled.
The peasant land movement that became the issue of contention for Sattar arose more than 10 years ago in response to what Iqbal calls the Pakistan Army’s illegal occupation of 64,000 acres in some 10 districts of Punjab. Catholic Capuchins had relocated Christians to the area of central Punjab Province to provide dairy products to the British Army during World War II, and the British turned the land over to the Pakistan Army when the sub-continent was partitioned, Iqbal said.
“At the time of partition of the sub-continent, the Christians were not given the land rights which were promised to them by the Capuchin fathers,” he said. “Because of this, Christians are at the forefront of the peasants’ movement, which is facing the powerful Pakistan Army for their due right, as the Britons had handed over the lands to the Army after the partition.”
Sattar had initially worked with the peasant cause, he said.
“But then he began creating fissures in the movement, coaxing the Muslim members not to take directions from the Christian leadership,” Iqbal said. “He then left the movement and got involved in criminal activities, subsequently landing in politics. However, Mehr’s political career failed to take off because thousands of Christians of the area don’t vote for him.”
Muslims attack Christian village in Pakistan, murder Christian teenager (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)
You: MQM being pushed against the wall: Sattar (nation.com.pk)
Christians vote for protection in Pakistan (dawn.com)
Khushpur Faisalabad Pakistan: Christian Muslim clashes leave 1 dead. (ireport.cnn.com)
Pakistan acquits Christian on death row (bigpondnews.com)
Allen West schools bobama what real courage is. Well, what can you expect from a president who likes Common Core.
Anti-Obama filmmaker charges harassment by IRS
Suspects feds gave bank information to ‘leftist journalist’
Published: 17 hours ago
Jerome R. Corsi About
Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., is a WND senior staff reporter. He has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers “The Obama Nation” and “Unfit for Command.” Corsi’s latest book is “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”
NEW YORK – Amid disclosures of IRS harassment of conservatives, the maker of the controversial film “Dreams from My Real Father” now suspects he was the victim of tag-team harassment by the IRS and a leftist journalist apparently working in concert to intimidate him and his investors.
WND previously reported director Joel Gilbert was concerned a journalist investigating his documentary used information that could only have been obtained by hacking into his company’s bank account.
Gilbert now believes the confidential information supplied to the journalist could have come from a continuing IRS audit initiated in early 2012, possibly in retaliation for Gilbert’s documentary arguing Frank Marshall Davis is the president’s biological father, not the Kenyan Barack Obama.
Gilbert says the IRS in Los Angeles may have provided confidential information on his corporate financing to Seth Rosenfeld, a San Francisco-based reporter affiliated with the Soros-funded Center for Investigative Reporting. Rosenfeld, in turn, used the guise of writing a story as an excuse to telephone and confront Gilbert’s financial backers with details of their financial transactions recorded in Gilbert’s corporate bank accounts.
In an email to WND, Rosenfeld denied the IRS was the source of his information identifying Gilbert’s customers and investors and providing specification of their financial transactions as recorded in Gilbert’s corporate bank account.
In responding to questions posed by WND, Rosenfeld declined to disclose how he came to possess the detailed financial information he exhibited when telephoning Gilbert and various Gilbert customers and investors claiming he was researching a story.
Gilbert told WND he is meeting with legal counsel Monday to determine if he has a cause of civil or criminal legal action against the IRS and/or Rosenfeld.
In early 2012, the IRS reopened Gilbert’s 2009 tax return and denied all of his business expenses, even though they were well documented.
To resolve the issue, Gilbert’s accountant met the IRS auditor in Los Angeles.
“To our shock, the IRS agent who met with my accountant had a printout of the home page of the “Dreams from My Real Father” official film website on her desk,” Gilbert told WND.
Despite Gilbert resubmitting the 2009 expenses, the IRS has still not closed the case, with the next meeting between Gilbert’s account and the IRS set for next week.
The IRS spokesman in Los Angeles did not respond to a WND request for comment.
How did journalist know?
Gilbert began to suspect the IRS had distributed his information to left-leaning journalists when Rosenfeld telephoned him Oct. 26, 2012, near the end of the presidential campaign, and began citing specific deposits from Gilbert’s corporate bank account, asking Gilbert to explain the purpose of the deposits.
Rosenfeld is listed on the Center for Investigative Reporting website as a “correspondent,” suggesting he does not have a staff position with the organization.
The Center for Investigative Reporting did not respond to a WND request for comment.
“I was so shocked that Rosenfeld had my confidential bank information that I asked him to send me an email detailing his questions and hung up,” Gilbert said. “Not surprisingly, Rosenfeld never sent me the email I asked for.”
Next, Gilbert told WND, Rosenfeld called one of Gilbert’s corporation’s limited partners on his private telephone number, fraudulently introduced himself as being with the Romney campaign and asked for a campaign donation.
“When my business partner said he wasn’t interested, Rosenfeld admitted to being a reporter and began citing my partner’s confidential bank wiring history sending funds to my corporate account,” Gilbert explained. “My partner hung up on him.”
Next, Rosenfeld called the elderly mother of a Gilbert customer who had purchased a large number of “Dreams from My Real Father” DVDs and paid for them by check.
“Rosenfeld tricked the woman into giving out her son’s home phone number by pretending to be an old friend,” Gilbert continued. “When Rosenfeld called the customer, he cited the amount of the check and asked the customer about his political opinions. Not being satisfied at this, Rosenfeld asked if my customer could identify by name any others he knew had made similar large purchases of my DVD.”
Gilbert told WND he has documented that Rosenfeld contacted several of his customers on their private unlisted phone numbers, citing for them various payments or wire transfers to Gilbert’s corporate account. Rosenfeld asked the customers for their political opinions and whether or not the customers had made any campaign contributions to Republicans, including to presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
Gilbert told WND he now believes an IRS leak was the likely source of Rosenfeld’s information.
He also believes Rosenfeld’s phone calls, armed with specific records regarding customer transactions in Gilbert’s corporate banking account, has damaged his business.
“My private banking information was used to intimidate investors and purchasers of ‘Dreams from My Real Father,’ Gilbert told WND. “I could no longer in good conscience seek out new investors knowing that their transactions could not be kept private. I will be meeting with my attorneys this week in Los Angeles to discuss legal options and recourse.”
“It is true that as a freelance journalist I was researching a story about people who anonymously funded the distribution of the Joel Gilbert film that attacks President Obama, claims his election is a part of a vast communist conspiracy and displays pornographic photos of his mother,” Rosenfeld emailed WND in response to a request for comment.
Rosenfeld denied that he misrepresented himself or engaged in any improper or illegal conduct.
“I spoke with Gilbert twice on the phone and at his request sent him an email seeking his reply to my inquiry,” Rosenfeld continued. “He declined to comment in our phone conversations, did not call me back and did not respond to my email.”
Rosenfeld said he again sought comment from Gilbert by phone and email and never got a response.
Rosenfeld denied that he received any information concerning Gilbert’s corporate accounts from the IRS.
He also denied representing himself as being associated with the Romney campaign, and he denied asking any of Gilbert’s contacts for contributions to the Romney campaign.
Gilbert rejoined Rosenfeld’s charges, arguing that Rosenfeld’s negative characterization of “Dreams from My Real Father” raised the question of whether Rosenfeld had actually viewed the DVD.
“The response further reinforces my concern that Rosenfeld was recruited to do the dirty work, to intimidate me from continuing to market the firm, for political purposes on behalf of higher powers,” Gilbert said.
Gilbert told WND that he and the customers and investors Rosenfeld contacted have documented all phone calls and conversations for presentation in any legal proceedings that may occur.
“Rosenfeld and those who provided him with my private bank information should come clean now, because the story will only get bigger if they do not,” Gilbert threatened.
Gilbert believes the IRS and Rosenfeld targeted him for political reasons.
“Why didn’t Rosenfeld publish anything from his investigations into my film and my investors?” Gilbert asked.
“I believe I was targeted because ‘Dreams from My Real Father’ exposes Obama as a pathological liar,” he said. “Obama intentionally obscured a deeply disturbing family background in order to hide a Marxist agenda, completely incompatible with American values. It was an unacceptable manipulation of the electorate and unquestionably the biggest scandal in American history.”
He also believes the IRS and Rosenfeld may have been working together to intimidate investors and discredit his film by identifying him as a Republican Party operative.
“The fact that the IRS targeted me and Rosenfeld subsequently made his phone calls suggests to me they were working in concert, both equally afraid of the information in my film becoming public knowledge,” Gilbert charged.
“President Obama is not the son of a Kenyan goat herder who stands above politics. I demonstrated in my documentary that Obama is the child of Communist Party USA member and Soviet Agent Frank Marshall Davis. I also presented compelling evidence that Davis indoctrinated Obama into his Marxist ideology during his formative years.”
Gilbert believes Rosenfeld was not being sincere in his representation that he was writing an article but that his true intent was intimidation.
“The use of the Internal Revenue Service to intimidate Americans is criminal,” Gilbert asserted. “A conspiracy to deny the First Amendment rights of free speech to Americans is criminal.”
Gilbert’s documentary “Dreams from My Real Father” has been available at the WND Superstore since it was produced and also on Amazon.com and Netflix.
During the presidential campaign, WND reported Gilbert mailed more than 3 million free copies of the documentary to voters in swing states.
Fox News reported in May 2012 that the Center for Investigative Journalism has received close to $1 million from the George Soros-funded Open Society Foundation.
Gilbert is also producer of the 2012 award winning documentary “Atomic Jihad: Ahmadinejad’s Coming War and Obama’s Politics of Defeat.”
Rosenfeld is the author of the 2012 book “Subversives: The FBI’s War on Student Radicals, and Reagan’s Rise to Power.” In the book, he objects to what he characterizes as Ronald Reagan’s involvement for political purposes in a covert war the FBI waged in the 1960s against anti-war student radicals.
Ew. Dead baby. (bokertov.typepad.com)
For Birthers Only (bokertov.typepad.com)
White House Lied About Editing Benghazi Talking Points
Posted 05/16/2013 07:28 PM ET
Scandal In Libya: A new email dump shows that the White House, contrary to public statements, was heavily involved in editing the Benghazi talking points to remove all references to it being a terrorist attack.
The limited, heavily redacted package of emails released by the administration Wednesday is noteworthy for what the emails don’t say and reflect a concerted effort by the White House and State Department not to get at the truth but to put something together to help President Obama in an election two months out.
The email package begins some 67 hours after the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi. It does not discuss the infamous YouTube video that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice would refer to in her Sept. 16 foray on five Sunday talk shows or that President Obama would refer to six times in a Sept. 26 speech before the United Nations.
The video is mentioned only briefly in the subject line of emails coming out of an important meeting where further revisions were made.
The emails do show that Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor were alerted that the intelligence community was drafting talking points that as late as 3:04 p.m. on Friday, Sept. 14, still included references to extremists tied to al-Qaida and an “attack.”
The terms “al-Qaida” and “attack” were stripped out by 4:42 p.m., and shortly afterward Vietor thanked colleagues for revisions and said they would be vetted “here,” as in the White House. He then forwarded “edits” from John Brennan, the current CIA chief who then was a White House counterterrorism adviser (see editorial upper left).
As we’ve written, in a White House meeting on Saturday morning, Sept. 15, the CIA, at the direction of the State Department and White House, drafted the final version of the talking points from which all references to al-Qaida and security warnings in Benghazi prior to the attack had been deleted. Ambassador Rice was now ready for her close-up.
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland — “Toria” to her friends, as the emails reveal — represented the department in the negotiations over Benghazi. She was concerned that the public would get the impression the Obama administration was warned about the potential for violence in Benghazi.
Nuland , who insisted throughout the process that the State Department’s concerns be addressed, worried in one email that references to terrorist involvement “could be abused by members (of Congress) to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency (CIA) warnings, so why do we want to feed that either?”
“I’m with Toria,” Democratic operative David Adams chimed in at one point. “The last bullet (point) especially will read to members like we had been repeatedly warned.”
In fact, the State Department was warned numerous times, including by Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was murdered in the attack. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was told that night by Gregory Hicks, deputy chief of mission, that a terrorist attack, not a video protest, was under way.
The emails show that the FBI already concluded that al-Qaida (not just al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb) was involved. This information was kept from the American people as the administration claimed that eliminating such references was done to protect the FBI investigation.
That investigation was impeded, Hicks said, by Rice’s humiliation of the president of Libya on one talk show where he said Benghazi was a terrorist attack while she claimed it was provoked by the video.
So we have a collection of spokespersons and Democratic operatives conspiring with White House staff to edit talking points not to report how and why four Americans died but merely to make the Obama administration look good in the middle of a political campaign.
GOP not satisfied by Benghazi email release (news.yahoo.com)
Petraeus email objected to Benghazi talking points (timesofisrael.com)
GOP demands more despite Benghazi email release (cnsnews.com)
Report: Republicans were source of bogus Benghazi quotes (rawstory.com)
White House releases additional documents related to Benghazi response (firstread.nbcnews.com)
Newly Released Benghazi Emails Directly Contradict White House Claims (weeklystandard.com)
Congressmen: Were Conservative Car Dealers Targeted for GM Closures?
Two Congressmen are asking the Treasury Department if it inappropriately scrutinized conservative-owned businesses the same way it targeted Tea Party groups filing for tax-exempt status.
Republicans Mike Kelly (PA-03) and Jim Renacci (OH-16) circulated a letter Thursday requesting Treasury Secretary Jack Lew release documents detailing the process and methodology the Automotive Task Force used to shut down General Motors dealerships in 2009 during the automotive industry crisis.
Renacci’s Northeast Ohio Chevrolet dealership was closed in 2010 after losing a battle with General Motors. Congress loaned General Motors $50 billion in 2009 after declaring bankruptcy, which resulted in the federal government owning a majority share of the company. Roughly 2000 dealerships received “wind-down” agreements, and while hundreds were able to survive an exhaustive arbitration process, Renacci-Doraty Chevrolet in Wadsworth did not. Renacci, then a Congressional candidate challenging incumbent John Boccieri, placed the blame squarely on President Obama.
Did bias extend to targeting conservative companies? (breitbart.com)
Nassau gives tax breaks to Chevy dealer (newsday.com)
The Clinton Scandal Playbook and Benghazi
May 17, 2013 By
The punditocracy is pulling out its collective hair, wanting to know why there have apparently been multiple layers of cover-ups in the evolving Benghazi story. An early scandal from the Clinton administration, the so-called “Travelgate” scandal, may be instructive.
Recall that in the 1993 firings of employees at the White House Travel Office, a determination was made early on by the new president Bill Clinton and then-First Lady Hillary Clinton that the Travel Office workers, who served at the pleasure of the president, could be fired and that the Travel Office business, and the commissions that came with it, given to a cousin of President Clinton’s, Catherine Cornelius, who had a travel agency of her own.
But simply handing over government business to a relative would have been politically embarrassing, so the Clintons concocted a story whereby the Travel Office was rife with corruption and the workers there needed to be fired. An audit was conducted on Travel Office finances, and while the record-keeping at the office was found to have been pretty inadequate, there was no smoking gun of corruption or embezzlement. No matter. The FBI was pressured to make arrests, and the local US Attorney was charged with prosecuting the employees for corruption.
White House denials of any scheme, and leaks by those involved, led to a firestorm of media criticism. Most of the Travel Office employees were eventually given other government jobs or retired. A prosecution for corruption of the head of the Travel Office, Billy Dale, ended in an acquittal. Clinton’s cousin was removed as new head of the Travel Office. A later report written by Independent Counsel Robert Ray concluded that, while she did not make any knowingly-false statements under oath, First Lady Hillary Clinton had made a number of inaccurate statements concerning the firings and her role in them.
In retrospect, it is kind of funny that the Clintons would ever complain about corruption from anyone. Pot, meet Kettle. That kind of thing.
But the point is that the initial decision to replace government employees with the president’s cousin, so that she could make commissions from arranging White House travel, was a bad decision. Everything following that decision — the firings, the made-up charges of corruption, the federal prosecution, and the denials from the Clintons that later proven to be untrue — were an effort to distract people from the initial bad decision.
Fast forward to the fall of 2012, when the State Department repeatedly denied requests by officials at the American consulate in Benghazi for more security. This was the initial bad decision from which flowed all other obfuscations.
Who would make such a bad decision? In his recent congressional testimony, consulate security officer Eric Nordstrom blamed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, pointing to a memo signed by Secretary Clinton, denying additional security.
What would lead Clinton to make such a bad decision? Remember that in the summer of 2008, when her presidential campaign had ended and the Russians invaded South Ossetia, Hillary Clinton was formulating what would later be her “reset” policy towards Russia. Such a policy assumed that whatever frostiness existed between the United States and Russia had been caused by American belligerence. If only the American side would initiate a fresh “reset,” then the Russians would be more accommodative to United States interests, like our policies concerning Iran’s nukes.
It may be difficult to grasp, but liberals, Hillary Clinton included, actually believe that bullies like Russia can be appeased by weakness of others, hence the “reset” policy towards Russia, and the later denial of more security for the consulate at Benghazi. Clinton probably thought that a strong American military presence at the Benghazi consulate would be provocative.
Obviously this was a bad decision. On September 11, 2012, the American consulate was attacked and overrun by terrorists in a planned, coordinated attack. While under attack, officials at the consulate called for help, which could have made it from Italy in time. But if provided, this military help would have highlighted the earlier, bad decision to keep security there weak, so the request for military help during the attack was denied.
When the smoke had cleared, an American ambassador and three other Americans were dead. Anything besides a narrative that this attack was a spontaneous uprising because of an anti-Muslim You Tube video would have led people to question the initial, bad decision by the State Department to keep consulate security weak to begin with. The following week, UN Representative Susan Rice appeared on five television news shows to reiterate the story that the deaths were caused by a spontaneous uprising related to the video. A few days later, President Obama stated at a forum hosted by Univision, and again later at the United Nations, that the Benghazi attacks were provoked by the video.
President Obama and Secretary Clinton even filmed their own public service announcement, played in Pakistan, apologizing for a private American production of the anti-Muslim video and calling for calm. This PSA later became a self-fulfilling prophecy, when its reference to an anti-Muslim video caused riots in Pakistan that led to the deaths of 18, and scores of injured Pakistanis.
All these actions were taken to distract people from the initial, bad decision made by Secretary Clinton to keep consulate security in Benghazi weak. Apparently, when defending a bad decision by Hillary Clinton, anything goes. The standard operating procedure was apparent as far back as 1993.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
The Clinton Scandal Playbook and Benghazi (frontpagemag.com)
Hillary Clinton Willfully Disregarded Security Needs in Benghazi (adamgladhill.com)
Rand Paul: Benghazi Should End Hillary Clinton (conservativeread.com)
The Benghazi Emails: What Do They Show? (powerlineblog.com)
Pat Smith, Mother Of Benghazi Victim, Blames Hillary Clinton (Video) (opposingviews.com)
MSNBC Censors Jon Stewart – deletes references to Bill Ayers, firing drones and praying at a Mosque
Jon Stewart Destroys Obama Over The IRS Scandal (businessinsider.com)
Jon Stewart Calls The Media ‘Concussed Goldfish’ Over Fruitless Speculation About 2016 (businessinsider.com)
Jon Stewart’s Lesson On Trust (ethicsalarms.com)
Jon Stewart blasts Obama over AP, IRS scandals (washingtontimes.com)
Bill Ayers and His Media Groupies (canadafreepress.com)
Bill Ayers responds to Illinois’ John Ruberry? (illinoisreview.typepad.com)
The first high-profile hearing on the IRS scandal is being held today before the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees the IRS. Lawmakers in both chambers are seeking answers about why they weren’t told that the IRS had singled out conservative groups for scrutiny despite multiple inquiries in recent years.The hearing is the first of several sessions in coming weeks in which lawmakers will grill current and former officials about the IRS’s screening practices.
9:43 amJosh Hicks
Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) asked Miller what corrective actions the IRS had taken to ensure improper targeting of tax-exempt applicants does not happen again.
Miller responded that the agency provided verbal counseling for “the person we thought, at the time, to be responsible for the listing.” Earlier, he told committee chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) that he did not know who was responsible for establishing the inappropriate search criteria.
Addressing discrepancies in his statements and a look of disbelief from Camp, Miller explained that IRS officials eventually determined that the person in question might not be the one responsible for the targeting, and that the agency eventually held a meeting with all managers in the determinations division to walk them through the appropriate processes for reviewing tax-exemption applications.
9:42 am Ed O’Keefe
After almost two hours, the House Ways and Means Committee will recess briefly while members go vote on legislation under consideration by the full House.
Members have occupied their seats along the dais for most of the morning, suggesting that virtually everyone intends to spend at least a few moments probing Steven Miller and J. Russell George.
Our updates will resume when the panel returns.
9:24 amJosh Hicks
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) said there’s a difference between “stupid mistakes” and “malicious mistakes.” He said IRS examiners took a shortcut that “they deeply regret” by singling out groups for their policy positions instead of their activities.
McDermott noted that the Inspector General’s report found no political motivation behind the establishment of search criteria that targeted “tea party” and other conservative groups. He asked the IG, J. Russell George, to confirm.
9:19 amEd O’Keefe
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) pushed Steven Miller to explain why he resigned as acting head of the IRS if, as he’s said repeatedly during the hearing, he didn’t know details of the scandal enveloping his former employer, or didn’t do anything wrong.
“I never said I didn’t do anything wrong, Mr. Nunes,” Miller replied.
“I resigned, because … what happens at the IRS, whether it was involved or not, stops at my desk. I should be held accountable,” he said.
8:56 amEd O’Keefe
Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) attempted to get former IRS Acting Commissioner Steven Miller to admit that his former boss, former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, knowingly lied to Congress.
Boustany played video of Shulman telling lawmakers that the IRS hadn’t targeted conservative-leaning groups.
Under questioning, Miller said that Shulman’s statement was “incorrect, but not untruthful.”
“When you talk about targeting, it’s a pejorative term,” Miller told the committee. He noted that during the time in question, the Supreme Court had just considered the Citizens United case that granted more freedoms to political groups and that there was general concern that some groups might be seeking social welfare tax-exempt status despite conducting political activities.
But Boustany seized on what Miller said about Shulman being “incorrect, but not untruthful.”
“To my knowledge, I don’t believe he knew at the time,” about targeting, Miller said of Shulman.
Shulman was appointed to lead the IRS in March 2008 by George W. Bush and stepped down in November.
8:54 amJosh Hicks
Miller said the reviews of tax-exemption applicants were mainly handled by staff at the “determinations” unit in Cincinnati, but also by “a hundred or so people who report into Cincinnati” as well.
A previous Washington Post article showed that the reviews extended beyond Cincinnati, to offices in D.C. and California. Miller’s comment confirms what Juliet Eilperin reported.
8:41 amEd O’Keefe
President Obama moved Thursday to install new leadership atop the Internal Revenue Service, tapping Danny Werfel to lead the scandal-plagued agency.
So who is Werfel? Where did he work before? Make sure to read our profile of him published in Friday’s Washington Post:
Werfel, 42, rose through the ranks at the Office of Management and Budget and the Justice Department as a budget analyst and lawyer before Obama tapped him to serve as OMB controller in 2009. As controller he was responsible for the government’s financial management, contracting, information technology and personnel policy.
Now he has the unenviable task of overhauling the IRS, which is reeling after admitting that employees aggressively targeted certain groups applying for tax-exempt status. Werfel will serve as acting director through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year, the White House said.
Werfel may be well liked by colleagues at the OMB and the White House, but some lawmakers seemed skeptical or said they didn’t know much about him.
Read our full profile here.
8:31 amJosh Hicks
The Treasury Department’s Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George tells the committee the IRS asked for donor information from the groups it targeted for extra scrutiny.
He said the IRS reported to his office that it had destroyed the donor information after realizing it wasn’t supposed to collect such information from tax-exemption applicants.
8:26 amEd O’Keefe
Former IRS Acting Commissioner Steven Miller apologized to lawmakers Friday for the scandal that led to his ouster.
“First and foremost, as acting commissioner, I want to apologize on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service,” he told the panel.
“The affected organizations and the American public deserve better,” Miller said later, adding that “Partisanship has no place at the IRS.”
“I do not believe that partisanship motivated the people that engaged in the practices described in the inspector general’s report,” he said.
So then why did they do it?
“Foolish mistakes were made by people who were trying to be more efficient in their work,” he concluded.
8:22 amEd O’Keefe
<script height=”293px” width=”520px” src=”http://player.ooyala.com/iframe.js#pbid=336bd638bbee4ff393f4f71598a17afa&ec=J3aWVwYjr36tPOrPP3izkLT2Qc9SzKfj”></script>
Top IRS officials in Washington first learned of the tax-exempt office’s targeting of conservative-leaning groups in June 2011, while others didn’t learn about it until April or May of last year, according to a federal watchdog.
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George verbally laid out for the committee his office’s findings, saying that IRS officials used “inappropriate criteria” to probe these groups.
“The criteria included the words ‘tea party,’ ‘Patriot,” or ’9/12 Project,’” George said. “Another listed criterion was that the group’s issues included government spending, government debt or taxes. Yet another listed criterion appeared as education of the public by advocacy or lobbying to, quote, ‘Make America a better place to live.’ Finally, the criterion consisted of any statements in the case file criticizing how the country is being run,” George said.
“The reason that these criteria were inappropriate is that they did not focus on tax-exempt laws and Treasury Regulations,” he added. “For example, 501(C)(3) organizations may not engage in political campaign intervention. 501(C)(4) organizations can, but it must not be their primary activity. Political campaign intervention is action taken on behalf of, or against, a particular candidate running for office.”
“According to our findings, the first time that executives from Washington, D.C. became aware of the use of these criteria was June 2011, with some executives not becoming aware of the criteria until April or May 2012,” he said later.
Read George’s full oral statement below, as provided by TIGTA: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/17/hearing-on-irs-scandal-live-updates/#liveblog-entry-41777
IG On IRS Scandal: ‘Clear Evidence’ of Wrongdoing (cnsnews.com)
Live: House Hearing on IRS Targeting (drudge.com)
Congress grills top IRS official (wnd.com)