On a podcast with Andrew Malcolm of Investor’s Business Daily and Melissa Clouthier , they asked which scandal will prove most damaging to the Obama administration. I think it will be the IRS, even though it probably ought to be Benghazi, considering how lives were lost in that event. Almost every American deals with the IRS. Even those who pay no net federal income taxes still have to fill out all of their forms in April. Almost everyone has heard some story about getting audited, and what a nightmarish process that is. I suspect most taxpayers feel like they filled out their tax forms right, but they’re not entirely sure, considering how ludicrously complicated the U.S. tax code is. I suspect everyone fears that someday there will be a knock at your door, and some guy who looks like Agent Smith from The Matrix will be there, demanding your financial records for the past ten years, and if anything is out of order, you’ll go to jail for the rest of your life. So unlike Benghazi or the Department of Justice looking through the phone records of Associated Press reporters, everybody feels in their guts what the IRS scandal is about: a person with enormous power over you having an unjustified, arbitrary grudge against you, and abusing that authority. The Internal Revenue Service has been a cultural villain for quite some time. Just ask Rockwell, back in the 1980s.
View post:
Why Every American Can Understand the IRS Scandal
Associated Press. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin posted a lengthy message to her Facebook wall Thursday criticizing the Obama administration for its handling the Benghazi, IRS, and Associated Press phone records scandals: Scandalous Hat Trick Mr. President, when it rains it pours, but most Americans hold their own umbrellas. Today in the Rose Garden you dismissed the idea of a Special Counsel to investigate the IRS scandal. With that, your galling political hubris shined bright in the midst of today’s dark clouds. Mr. President, how can we trust your Justice Department to conduct an independent investigation when there is a systemic violation of the Hatch Act throughout your administration? Surely you are aware that the Hatch Act prevents certain federal employees from engaging in political activity. Specifically, it’s illegal for these federal employees to engage in action in support of or in opposition to a political party, a candidate for partisan political office, or a partisan political group. Yet that is exactly what’s happened within the IRS, the Justice Department, and in the Benghazi cover-up. This scandalous hat trick is on your watch. It is not believable that you knew nothing about Obama administration actions in dealing with these scandals. And in regards to Benghazi, when you should have taken appropriate action to save American lives – for instance by calling in the Marines – you were AWOL. Just weeks before the election your team scrubbed the Benghazi talking points in 12 different versions, lied to the American people about some YouTube video being to blame for the deaths of brave Americans who put our country first, and you prove Michael Barone right when he writes, “What actually happened in Benghazi was out of sync with the Obama campaign line.” That’s why you all did what you did. Pure raw politics were at play during a horrific time of loss. For more evidence of Hatch Act violations right under your nose, simply consider DOJ’s “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into the free press. Do you think they picked up some political talk when tapping the phones in the House press gallery? Your team is out of control. Those who cannot remember the past and learn from it are doomed to repeat it, and that is exactly what is happening. Look back exactly 40 years ago this week and apply that disheartening chapter of American history to the team you’ve chosen and lead today. Some of us warned America; we cautioned voters in 2008 that a community organizer with no executive experience and no sense of accountability would be a very poor choice for the nation’s top management position. Mr. President, you said today that you have “complete confidence” in the Attorney General. America doesn’t. Eric Holder needs to appoint an unbiased Special Counsel to investigate the illegal political action of this administration. And then Eric Holder needs to resign. Most Americans see ominous dark clouds looming beyond the White House Rose Garden, Mr. President. They’ll roll away only when light is shined on the Obama administration’s antics, and America will only recover when you cease avoiding responsibility in this mission of yours to fundamentally transform America. For that to happen, the press had better learn from their experiences of being duped and provide a deserving public fairer, more intelligent coverage. Speaking of coverage, glad you finally called in the Marines… shame it was just to hold your umbrella. – Sarah Palin Well then. Tell us how you really feel. – Follow Becket Adams ( @BecketAdams ) on Twitter (H/T: Right Scoop ). Featured image Getty Images. Follow Becket Adams on Twitter Read more stories from TheBlaze Baby Dies After Man Allegedly Tricks Girlfriend Into Taking an Abortion Pill Obama Dodges Big Question on IRS Scandal Joe Scarborough Blows Up at David Axelrod Over DOJ/AP Records: ‘Save That for Somebody Else That’s Going to Buy Into That’ Incredible: Official in Charge of IRS Office Responsible for Conservative Targeting Now Heads Agency’s Obamacare Office Confused by Obama’s Incredibly Brief IRS Statement? Here’s Krauthammer’s Take
Read more:
‘Scandalous Hat Trick’: Sarah Palin Shreds Obama & His Scandal-Embroiled White House
The White House released 100 pages of emails Wednesday pertaining to the September 11, 2012, attack on a U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. There were no explosive revelations in the emails, but it appears CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell is possibly responsible for editing the administration’s talking points on the events in Libya that day, for example changing attack to “violent demonstration.” Then-CIA director David Petraeus had received rewritten unclassified talking points with input from senior Obama administration policymakers regarding the September 11 attack on September 15 that diverged significantly from the talking points he received from the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis on September 14, The Weekly Standard reports : The original CIA talking points had been blunt: The assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi was a terrorist attack conducted by a large group of Islamic extremists, including some with ties to al Qaeda. Before circulating the talking points to administration policymakers in the early evening of Friday, September 14, CIA officials changed “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda” to simply “Islamic extremists.” But elsewhere, they added new contextual references to radical Islamists. They noted that initial press reports pointed to Ansar al Sharia involvement and added a bullet point highlighting the fact that the agency had warned about another potential attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in the region. “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.” All told, the draft of the CIA talking points that was sent to top Obama administration officials that Friday evening included more than a half-dozen references to the enemy—al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, and so on. The version Petraeus received in his inbox Saturday, however, had none. The only remaining allusion to the bad guys noted that “extremists” might have participated in “violent demonstrations.” In an email at 2:44 p.m. to Chip Walter, head of the CIA’s legislative affairs office, Petraeus expressed frustration at the new, scrubbed talking points, noting that they had been stripped of much of the content his agency had provided. CNN has also refuted a key point of last week’s ABC News report about the edits to the Benghazi talking points — specifically, the role of then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes wanting to protect the State Department’s interests. TheBlaze notes the email obtained by CNN from Rhodes contains no mention of the State Department, as opposed to what ABC reported Rhodes wrote; “We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation.” Buck Sexton of ‘ Real News’ joined ‘ Wilkow!’ Thursday to discuss the emails and the latest information surrounding the Benghazi attacks. Follow Christopher Santarelli on Twitter Read more stories from TheBlaze Baby Dies After Man Allegedly Tricks Girlfriend Into Taking an Abortion Pill Obama Dodges Big Question on IRS Scandal Joe Scarborough Blows Up at David Axelrod Over DOJ/AP Records: ‘Save That for Somebody Else That’s Going to Buy Into That’ Incredible: Official in Charge of IRS Office Responsible for Conservative Targeting Now Heads Agency’s Obamacare Office Confused by Obama’s Incredibly Brief IRS Statement? Here’s Krauthammer’s Take
Read the original:
Buck and Wilkow Discuss Latest on Benghazi: ‘They Knew From the Beginning…’
It seems like with every new report, Obamacare just gets better and better. Here’s the latest [from the Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein]: When President Obama was selling his health care legislation to Congress, he declared that “the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years.” But with the law’s major provisions set to kick in next year, a new analysis by the Congressional Budget Office projects that the law will cost double that, or $1.8 trillion. That’s trillion with a “T.”* Klein continues: What accounts for the dramatic difference? It’s true that at the time of passage, the CBO said the gross cost of the law’s provisions to expand insurance coverage would be $940 billion over a decade. But as many critics of the health care law pointed out at the time, this number was deceptive because it estimated spending from 2010 through 2019 even though the program’s major spending provisions weren’t scheduled to go into effect until 2014. Effectively, the original estimate measured the cost of six years of Obamacare instead of 10. The CBO’s trillion dollar projection accounts for fiscal years 2014-2023, the first full decade of Obamacare: But wait! That’s not all! “CBO now expects the Medicaid expansion to cover an additional 13 million people by 2023 (up 1 million from its February estimate) and the new government-run insurance exchanges to cover 24 million (1 million fewer than previously projected) [emphasis added],” Klein writes. “CBO estimates that under Obamacare, 7 million fewer people in the United States will have employment-based insurance by 2023,” he adds. Meanwhile, the White House’s twitter account reminded everyone on Thursday that the president’s health care overhaul is, in fact, the law of the land: – Follow Becket Adams ( @BecketAdams ) on Twitter *That rhymes with “P” and that stands for pool. Follow Becket Adams on Twitter Read more stories from TheBlaze Baby Dies After Man Allegedly Tricks Girlfriend Into Taking an Abortion Pill Obama Dodges Big Question on IRS Scandal Joe Scarborough Blows Up at David Axelrod Over DOJ/AP Records: ‘Save That for Somebody Else That’s Going to Buy Into That’ Incredible: Official in Charge of IRS Office Responsible for Conservative Targeting Now Heads Agency’s Obamacare Office Confused by Obama’s Incredibly Brief IRS Statement? Here’s Krauthammer’s Take
Originally posted here:
CBO: Obamacare in its First Decade Will Cost Double What the President Promised
What does the U.S. Constitution — specifically the First Amendment — really say about the separation of church and state? This question has been at the center of public debate for decades, as atheist activists, in particular, have advanced the notion that the nation’s founders envisioned a particularly fervent imposition of the segregation of God and government. But is this really the case? Dr. John Eastman, a distinguished law professor at Chapman University, told TheBlaze that he believes these non-believers have their story wrong. “They think the phrase separation of church and state is the First Amendment,” he said, going on to note that these words don’t appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. Photo Credit: YouTube Just in case you need a refresher, the amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The first line creates the most contention, as it involves two separate religious articles — the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. It is the former that most atheist activists tend to focus on, and according to Eastman, their assessments are generally wrong-headed. Rather than a decry waged against any inclusion of faith in the public square, the professor claims that this portion of the document speaks against a state-imposed faith. “It tells us that you don’t want a national religion — a state-coerced national religion, a one-size-fits-all, everybody-has-to-join [system],” he said of the Establishment Clause, going on to highlight a bit of history. “[The Founders] were concerned that with a strong national government there would be a national religion … they wanted to allow the states a free hand to collaborate [with] religion in their important work of fostering a citizenry.” Dr. John Eastman (Photo Credit: YouTube) Eastman called the provision one that was rooted in federalism. Over the past 50 years, he charged the U.S. Supreme Court with misunderstanding the Establishment Clause to mean that religion must be removed entirely from public life. Atheist activists have seized upon this interpretation as well. “We’re on the threshold of success,” he said, though, of reversing the trend. As far as nativities on courthouse lawns and other similar religious imagery goes, Eastman said that communities should be allowed to express their views so long as citizens are not being coerced by the government to subscribe to specific ideologies. The professor recently recorded a short course on this very subject for Prager University . The video was released earlier this week and TheBlaze spoke with Eastman in conjunction with the clip. Here’s the clip: – Other Must-Read Stories: Baby Dies After Man Allegedly Tricks Girlfriend Into Taking an Abortion Pill ‘Very Frightening’: Prominent Catholic Prof. Claims IRS Audited Her After Speaking Out Against Obama and Demanded to Know Who Was Paying Her Here’s What Pope Francis Did When Pilgrims Gave Him Doves in Front of a Live Audience NBC Reporter Calls Out Jay Carney Over Obama’s Support of Press During Contentious News Conference Whites-Only Fellowship Sparks Major Conundrum for Columbia University — Here’s How Officials Want to Fix It Which Prominent Faith Leader Is Now Claiming to Have Been Targeted by the IRS? Follow Billy Hallowell on Twitter Follow Billy Hallowell on Facebook Read more stories from TheBlaze Baby Dies After Man Allegedly Tricks Girlfriend Into Taking an Abortion Pill Obama Dodges Big Question on IRS Scandal Joe Scarborough Blows Up at David Axelrod Over DOJ/AP Records: ‘Save That for Somebody Else That’s Going to Buy Into That’ Incredible: Official in Charge of IRS Office Responsible for Conservative Targeting Now Heads Agency’s Obamacare Office Confused by Obama’s Incredibly Brief IRS Statement? Here’s Krauthammer’s Take
Read more from the original source:
God vs. Gov’t: What Does the Constitution Really Say About the Separation of Church and State?
The news makes sense to me — after all, he probably has more experience with them than anyone else on DC’s city council. As you might recall, Barry spent six months in federal prison after the FBI caught the DC mayor smoking crack cocaine in a sting operation in 1990. For some reason, however, the Huffington Post calls Barry, now a city council member, an “unlikely” proponent of the decriminalization of marijuana: The fight to decriminalize marijuana possession in Washington, D.C., just got an unlikely ally: former mayor and current city councilman Marion Barry (D-Ward 8). Barry and fellow council member Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6) are drafting legislation that would reduce or eliminate criminal penalties for people caught with small amounts of marijuana. “It’s time we enter the 21st century and stop criminalizing people… for what is not really a major crime,” Wells told The Washington Post . Related: Obama is marred by scandals, but Bush & Cheney are still the bad guys Surprise: Obama brother’s charity faced no hurdles in IRS approval Bad medicine: Pediatric doctors on Capitol Hill lobbying for… gun control? Follow Meredith Jessup on Twitter Follow Meredith Jessup on Facebook Read more stories from TheBlaze Baby Dies After Man Allegedly Tricks Girlfriend Into Taking an Abortion Pill Obama Dodges Big Question on IRS Scandal Joe Scarborough Blows Up at David Axelrod Over DOJ/AP Records: ‘Save That for Somebody Else That’s Going to Buy Into That’ Incredible: Official in Charge of IRS Office Responsible for Conservative Targeting Now Heads Agency’s Obamacare Office Beck Ties Together Benghazi, IRS, & AP Scandals: ‘Fundamental Transformation’
Link:
Surprise: DC’s Marion Barry is working to decriminalize drugs
It’s well known that the relationship between the whole of Fox News and the Obama administration has been a contentious one. With the news that the Department of Justice secretly seized the phone records of Associates Press staffers in 2012, Fox News anchor Bret Baier suggested Wednesday night that things may be worse than previously thought. Responding to a viewer question submitted online as to whether Baier thought it was possible Fox News or other news outlets have been “tapped or looked into,” Baier said yes. “In fact, the Attorney General told NPR yesterday that he can’t remember how many he’s approved, in that he has turned down some but he can’t remember how many he’s approved,” Baier said. “That suggests that there are numerous. So, yes, I do think there are other outlets who have experienced the same thing, but we don’t know which ones.” h/t Real Clear Politics @eScarry Related: Richard Cohen and ‘Benghazi Syndrome’ The reason Sean Hannity wasn’t fired when he first started at Fox News O’Reilly on Associated Press-DOJ scandal: Not ‘that big a deal’ Follow Eddie Scarry on Twitter Read more stories from TheBlaze Baby Dies After Man Allegedly Tricks Girlfriend Into Taking an Abortion Pill Obama Dodges Big Question on IRS Scandal Joe Scarborough Blows Up at David Axelrod Over DOJ/AP Records: ‘Save That for Somebody Else That’s Going to Buy Into That’ Incredible: Official in Charge of IRS Office Responsible for Conservative Targeting Now Heads Agency’s Obamacare Office Beck Ties Together Benghazi, IRS, & AP Scandals: ‘Fundamental Transformation’
Excerpt from:
Bret Baier thinks it’s possible Fox News was ‘looked into’ by DOJ
A local council in the U.K. just voted down the nation’s flag of St. George allegedly due to the fact that its link to the Crusades might offend the town’s 16 Muslim residents. The Telegraph reportes that university lecturer Eleanor Jackson said the iconic red and white symbol could cause upset in in the town of Radstock, Somerset, because it was used 1,000 years ago during the Christian Crusades. The council met to determine the fate of the flag, which flew atop the town’s civic flagpole. “My big problem is that it is offensive to some Muslims, but even more so that it has been hijacked by the far right,” Jackson said. “My thoughts are we ought to drop it for 20 years.” The Telegraph provides background: Radstock Town Council, which serves a local population of more than 5,600 residents, eventually decided to purchase a Union flag to fly on Armistice Day. The rainbow flag of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender pride movement will be flown at “appropriate” times of the year while an In Bloom flag will celebrate the town’s achievements in the gardening competition. The objections raised about the flag of St George were branded “oversensitive” by the local Muslim community while the Muslim Council of Britain said England’s patron saint should not be associated with “any hatred of Muslims”. But some British Muslims do not agree with the decision to remove the flag of St. George. Spokeswoman Nasima Begum said, “St. George needs to take his rightful place as a national symbol of inclusivity rather than a symbol of hatred.” Rizwan Ahmed, spokesman for the Bristol Muslim Cultural Society even noted that she believes the decision is political correctness run amok. “I think they are going a bit far here … It is political correctness going a bit too far,” she said. “Use by the far right is one thing, but to say that Muslims are offended I don’t think is correct. We understand the flag is part of this country’s heritage, and in fact many many Muslims will identify as being British themselves.” While council chair Lesley Mansell insisted that Jackson’s objection to the flag ”was not really taken into consideration,” they have opted to fly the Union flag instead. – ( h/t: WeaselZippers ) Follow Tiffany Gabbay on Twitter Read more stories from TheBlaze German Homeschooling Family’s Request for Asylum Denied by the U.S. Government White Family (Including 14-Year-Old Daughter) Reportedly Attacked for Being in the ‘Wrong Neighborhood’ of Baton Rouge Another Teen Atheist Successfully Gets 10 Commandments Removed at His High School Gay Gym Teacher Continues Fight After Being Fired by Catholic School Over Revelations of Her Same-Sex Relationship Here’s Why This NAACP Official Thinks It’s Good the IRS Targeted Tea Party Groups (Hint: It Involves the Taliban)
View post:
Why, Exactly, Did the UK Just Vote Down Flying One of Its Own Flags?
Attorney General Eric Holder pauses during a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington, Tuesday, May 14, 2013. Holder said he’s ordered a Justice Department investigation into the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative groups for extra tax scrutiny. (Photo: AP/J. Scott Applewhite) Attorney General Eric Holder might not have been the one to sign off on the subpoena that allowed two months of Associated Press reporters’ and editors’ phone records to be obtained , but he has authorized similar subpoenas in the past. Speaking with NRP’s Carrie Johnson on Morning Edition , Holder couldn’t say just how often this happens though. “I’m not sure how many of those cases … I have actually signed off on,” Holder said. “I take them very seriously. I know that I have refused to sign a few [and] pushed a few back for modifications.” TheBlaze pointed out that according to the DOJ’s U.S. Attorneys’ Manual , Holder’s signature would generally be required for the “issuance of any subpoena to a member of the news media or for the telephone toll records of a member of the news media.” In the case of the leak for which the Associated Press was being investigated, Holder said he wasn’t involved as he had recused himself of the case in order to avoid a conflict of interest. At a press conference Tuesday , Holder was asked if the phone records of other news organizations were obtained during the investigation. Holder said he couldn’t answer that as he wasn’t sure since he had been recused. News organizations through the Reporters Committee for Freedom of Press sent a letter to Holder Tuesday asking that the department “return the telephone toll records obtained and destroy all copies” and “announce whether it has served any other pending news media-related subpoenas that have not yet been disclosed,” among other requests. (H/T: Huffington Post ) Follow Liz Klimas on Twitter Read more stories from TheBlaze German Homeschooling Family’s Request for Asylum Denied by the U.S. Government White Family (Including 14-Year-Old Daughter) Reportedly Attacked for Being in the ‘Wrong Neighborhood’ of Baton Rouge Another Teen Atheist Successfully Gets 10 Commandments Removed at His High School Gay Gym Teacher Continues Fight After Being Fired by Catholic School Over Revelations of Her Same-Sex Relationship Here’s Why This NAACP Official Thinks It’s Good the IRS Targeted Tea Party Groups (Hint: It Involves the Taliban)
Continue reading here:
Holder ‘Not Sure’ How Often Media Phone Records Are Obtained But ‘Takes Them Very Seriously’
