IRS unfairly targeting Conservatives (Tea Party groups)

[American Patriot]

Tempers flare as GOP questions Lew over IRS targeting timetable
By Peter Schroeder - 05/22/13 01:31 PM ET

Tempers flared as House Republicans pushed for cracks in Treasury Secretary Jack Lew's testimony over the ongoing scandal around the Internal Revenue Service.

Lew told the House Financial Services Committee that he became aware of an Inspector General investigation into possible targeting of conservative groups on March 15, and discovered the full extent of the improper practice when that report was made public earlier this month.

But Republicans insisted that Lew, who has served several years in the Obama administration and was most recently the president's chief of staff, could not have been oblivious to the matter until just recently. And they made their dissatisfaction with his timeline known.

"Is it malice or is it incompetence?" said Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), who suggested Lew could have flagged potential problems at the IRS for the president's reelection campaign.

"You're dodging me," said Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.). "The bottom line is you knew before the IG's report came out that the IRS was targeting Americans.

"It's evident that you knew before March 15," he added. "You don't want to lie before Congress!"

Duffy in particular was visibly agitated, practically yelling as he repeated the same question to Lew over and over: "When did you become aware that the IRS was targeting citizens?"

Duffy's questioning became so aggressive that Democrats complained to Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) that he was badgering Lew. Hensarling allowed Duffy's questioning to continue.

But Lew was resolute, maintaining that he only recently learned of the problems at the IRS.

He added that, even if he had learned of them as the president's right-hand man, he would not have done anything about it until the Treasury Inspector General had completed his report. He said it would have been improper for the White House to take action at the first inklings of problems before a proper, independent investigation had run its course.

"I didn't pay an awful lot of attention to the administration of our tax system, because it's not something I would have intervened in," he said. "Let's not get into the world where we have the White House jump into the administration of our tax system."

Any suggestions from Republicans that he knew anything beyond what he testified was false, Lew contended.

"You're creating a narrative that doesn't exist," he told McHenry.

For their part, Democrats on the committee sought to express their concern over the IRS's actions while protecting Lew from heated GOP questions.

"The only difference between overall our side, and their side, is that we're willing to give you the benefit of the doubt," said Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.).

As he told a Senate panel a day earlier, Lew maintained that the actions taken by IRS officials in tagging Tea Party groups for additional scrutiny were "unacceptable and inexcusable," and vowed to make rectifying the matter a top priority.

He told lawmakers that he would be meeting later Wednesday with Danny Werfel, who began work as the new acting commissioner of the IRS, following the resignation of Steven Miller.

He also emphasized that the report on the targeting found no evidence of political pressure to do so — another claim that Republicans found hard to swallow.

"If somebody robs a bank, it is reasonable to conclude they did it for the money," said Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) "When someone targets organizations entirely of one political bent, it is reasonable to conclude that was the reason for doing it."

Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) asked Lew if he agreed with the claim made earlier Wednesday at a separate hearing by the IRS official at the center of the scandal.

Lois Lerner, the director of the exempt organizations office at the IRS, told the House Overisght Committee that she did nothing wrong, before being dismissed for refusing to answer questions from lawmakers.

Lew did not directly answer whether he agreed with her assessment, and later said he has never met Lerner.

Lew was largely subjected to measured questions on the IRS scandal from Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday.

But he was under pressure almost immediately Wednesday in the House.

Hensarling pressed Lew on whether it was appropriate for the IRS to ask a conservative group about the content of their public prayers, or their Facebook postings.

When news of the targeting first became public, so did IRS documents requesting that information from groups seeking tax-exempt status.

Lew said he was not familiar with the specific documents in question, and could not respond then and there.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mone...#ixzz2U2tvVDk9
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

[American Patriot]

From the detroit News.... Lou grant would not be happy. LOL (Technically, Lou Grant worked for the Free Press, but the Free Press bought out Detroit News a few years back to squelch the facts, and Conservatism).

May 22, 2013, 9:35 am National Politics | Politics Lois Lerner is taking the 5th – make the Obama administration own it

• By Robert Laurie
• comments

Robert Laurie is a Michigan based conservative columnist and freelance writer.

AP photo

Lois Lerner, the embattled IRS agent who likely oversaw the agency’s systematic targeting of conservative political groups, will plead the Fifth. She’s decided that answering questions before the House Oversight Committee could be incriminating, so she’s just going to clam up. This means we’ve learned two things:


First, someone in Obama’s government has finally found a piece of the Constitution that they actually like.


The statist left clearly has no regard for the 4th Amendment. They’ve been tapping phones, spying on reporters, and digging through the private correspondence of reporters of at least three major news outlets. Meanwhile, the inaccurately-named “Department of Homeland Security” has been violating the search and seizure clause so often it’s become accepted as a way of life.


They also don’t care much about the 1st Amendment. After all, the IRS was targeting groups based on religious and political beliefs. Democrats are urging people to report friends and neighbors who speak out against the government, and lefties routinely throw charges of racism and “hate speech” at virtually everyone who would dare disagree with their agenda.


And let’s not even bother with the 2nd Amendment. It’s so reviled that their constant, relentless, anti-gun drumbeat is deafening.


But the 5th Amendment? The one that puts their monumental hubris on display while protecting them from revealing their crimes? That one they love.


The second thing we’ve learned is that there’s finally someone who knows something.


This isn’t another “I can’t recall” situation. Nor is it a “I read about it the papers just like you” moment. Lois Lerner was the person in charge, and everyone knows it. For anyone connected to the left-wing cause, this kind of clarity is a rare.


We’re used to the president pretending he’s completely in the dark. Time and time again he and his lackeys have pleaded ignorance of events and actions committed by those within “history’s most transparent administration.”


They didn’t know what was happening in Benghazi.


They had no idea about the AP wiretaps.


They were unaware of the IRS scandal.


Now, finally, we have a person who can’t tell one of those lies. Amazingly, we’ve found an honest-to-goodness responsible party. This is a woman – an employee of the American people – who knows of criminal activity severe enough that it would probably put her in jail.


So she’s decided, defiantly, that she’s not going to tell you what it is.


During the hearings, Darrel Issa should put her on the stand – for as long as it takes – and ask her every single imaginable question. He should force her, over and over again, to sit for the cameras and repeat:


“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I may incriminate myself.”


Do it for hours. Preserve it for posterity.


Make it a signature moment for this arrogant, scandal-ridden, administration.

[American Patriot]

17 MINs agoOpinionWhy Did Lois Lerner Take the Fifth?

Perhaps to protect herself from Obama.

Perhaps to protect herself from Obama.



By James Taranto
Lois Lerner swears.
Associated Press



Among the criteria by which the Internal Revenue Service selected groups in for its political targeting program in 2012 was “educating on the constitution and bill of rights” (lowercase in original), according to the Inspector General’s Report. Lois Lerner, who directs the office at the center of that effort, has received her own education in the Constitution.


This morning Lerner made a brief appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Here’s her testimony:

Members of this committee have accused me of providing false information when I responded to questions about the IRS processing of applications for tax exemption. I have not done anything wrong, I have not broken any laws, I have not violated any IRS rules and regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.

And while I would very much like to answer the committee’s questions today, I’ve been advised by my counsel to assert my constitutional right not to testify or answer questions related to the subject matter of this hearing. After very careful consideration, I have decided to follow my counsel’s advice and not testify or answer any of the questions today.

Because I’m asserting my right not to testify, I know that some people will assume that I have done something wrong. I have not. One of the basic functions of the Fifth Amendment is to protect innocent individuals, and that is the protection I am invoking today.

By the time this is all over, one hopes she’ll understand the First Amendment too.
Lerner is quite right that one cannot read her refusal to testify as an admission of criminal wrongdoing. Blogger Doug Mataconis quotes the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1956 decision in

We must condemn the practice of imputing a sinister meaning to the exercise of a person’s constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment. The right of an accused person to refuse to testify, which had been in England merely a rule of evidence, was so important to our forefathers that they raised it to the dignity of a constitutional enactment, and it has been recognized as “one of the most valuable prerogatives of the citizen.”

Josh Marshall, proprietor of TalkingPointsMemo.com, concedes that Lerner “has every right” to invoke the Fifth Amendment “and may be wise to do so. But that’s a decision that simply is not consistent with her remaining in her job. Whether or not she should be fired for whatever she did in the scandal itself, deciding to take the fifth means she needs to be removed from her position.”


Well, here’s a constitutional lesson for Marshall. The Fifth Amendment protects against more than just criminal convictions. struck down a provision of the New York City Charter that provided: “Whenever an employee of the City utilizes the privilege against self-incrimination to avoid answering a question relating to his official conduct, his term or tenure of office or employment shall terminate and such office or employment shall be vacant, and he shall not be eligible to election or appointment to any office or employment under the city or any agency.”


Marshall writes that he “was chatting with people yesterday” who said civil service rules may make it “extremely difficult or even impossible” to fire Lerner. Doing so she exercised her rights under the Fifth Amendment would be unconstitutional.


Now, who were these “people” with whom Marshall was “chatting” yesterday? Might they have had an interest in the case? The Weekly Standard takes note of a tweet from NPR’s Ari Shapiro at 3:25 ET yesterday afternoon: “Spotted: @joshtpm @CapehartJ @ezraklein & other lefty columnists headed into the West Wing as a group. POTUS coffee? Carney meeting? Anyone?”


Those Twitter IDs belong, respectively, to Marshall, Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post and Journolist founder Ezra Klein, also of the Post. Marshall’s post calling for Lerner’s defenestration appeared at 10:15 this morning. Exactly half an hour, Klein had a post along similar lines: “Yes, Heads Should Roll at the IRS.” Capehart is busy with another topic, “Gay Inclusion.” But the similarity between Marshall’s and Klein’s posts suggests that they may be acting in the capacity of unofficial White House spokesmen.
The White House seems to have an inkling it can’t fire Lerner: Klein as well as Marshall emphasized the stringency of civil-service rules. But encouraging the public to draw adverse conclusions from her assertion of her rights under the Fifth Amendment would have a similar effect of turning her into a scapegoat.


The American people have a right to know both how deep and how high the corruption of our government runs. The White House has an interest in minimizing the scandal, and surely that is Obama’s objective if he is trying to throw Lerner under the bus. Let’s reserve judgment on her and make sure not to let off the hook the man whose re-election the IRS’s abuse of power helped to advance.


Who Are the Watchdogs Guarding?
In a Daily Beast piece on the Obama administration’s disrespect for the traditions governing federal law-enforcement agencies’ dealings with the press, Nick Gillispie describes the Obama-era media as “more prone to being lapdogs than watchdogs.” That has a nice ring to it, but it seems to us the metaphor is a little off. The pro-Obama media are acting like watchdogs–but watchdogs whose master is Obama rather than the public.


A good example is the continuing example to scare Republicans away from the Obama scandals. Here’s an example from Greg Sargent, another Washington Post Journolister:

A few of us on the left have been arguing that the current scandal-mania gripping the GOP risks bringing about a rerun of 1998, when the frenzy amid the Monica Lewinsky revelations led the GOP to overreach, resulting in backlash.

If Sargent’s yapping doesn’t convince you, he’s got a big dog to back him up: “Now we have a longtime respected nonpartisan observer, Charlie Cook, arguing that this possibility is very real.” Here’s National Journal’s Cook:

The simple fact is that although the Republican sharks are circling, at least so far, there isn’t a trace of blood in the water. A new CNN/ORC survey of 923 Americans this past Friday and Saturday, May 17-18, pegged Obama’s job-approval rating at 53 percent, up a statistically insignificant 2 points since their last poll, April 5-7, which was taken before the Benghazi, IRS, and AP-wiretap stories came to dominate the news and congressional hearing rooms. His disapproval rating was down 2 points since that last survey.

In Gallup’s tracking poll, Obama’s average job-approval rating so far this year is 50 percent. For this past week, May 13-19, his average was 49 percent, the same as the week before. The most recent three-day moving average, through Sunday, May 19, was also 49 percent. Over the past two weeks, even as these three stories/scandals have dominated the news, they have had precisely zero effect on the president’s job-approval numbers. His ratings are still bouncing around in the same narrow range they have been for weeks. . . .

Republicans and conservatives who are so consumed by these “scandals” should ask themselves why, despite wall-to-wall media attention and the constant focus inside the Beltway–some are even talking about grounds for impeachment–Obama’s job-approval needle hasn’t moved.

For one thing, it’s still early. The game’s only in the top of the Fifth (sorry Lois, couldn’t resist). If, as Sargent and Cook seem to wish, Republicans were so weak as to be dissuaded from doing their duty by a handful of dubious poll numbers, it’s unlikely they’d win many elections and certain they wouldn’t deserve to.
It’s true that some on the right have expressed genuine concerns that are in line with Sargent and Cook’s feigned ones. Ramesh Ponnuru makes this good point:

If the evidence leads to the conclusion that the IRS bureaucracy acted on its own, that is scandal enough; it would serve to strengthen the public’s conservative instincts about the dangers of trusting the government, whoever happens to be in the Oval Office. Republicans shouldn’t be obsessed with Obama, who won’t be on the ballot again, and shouldn’t make a legitimate inquiry into potential abuses of power appear to be–or, worse, actually be–part of a personal vendetta.

As we’ve argued, the scandal is actually much worse if the IRS was acting without guidance from the White House. A corrupt administration can be ousted through resignation or impeachment, as in 1974. If the IRS and other permanent institutions of government are fundamentally corrupt, reforming them would be much more complicated and effortful.


Howard Fineman of the Puffington Host dissents from his fellow liberals:

So far, voters don’t seem to be abandoning President Barack Obama over controversies gripping the Beltway world. But White House aides are tempting fate with their reluctant, piecemeal and contradictory disclosures of what they knew and when they knew it, especially about a report on the Internal Revenue Service’s 18-month effort to target tea party and other conservative groups for special scrutiny.

The aides either have forgetten [sic] or are unable to implement the basic lesson of scandal control in Washington: Get the full story out–all of it–as fast as you can before your critics accuse you of a cover-up or worse.

That advice doesn’t always apply. If Bill Clinton had acknowledged his affair with Monica Lewinsky in January 1998, the shock might very well have left him without political support, compelling him to resign. His months of lying and evading–including in sworn testimony–ended up getting him impeached, but it didn’t end his term in office. By the time he admitted the truth, his supporters had reconciled themselves to it, and to supporting him in spite of it.


Whether getting the full story out is the most advantageous course for Obama depends a great deal on what the full story is. If there is a White House link to the IRS abuses, Obama has every reason to conceal the truth for as long as possible. One suspects his watchdogs, trying to protect their master by scaring Republicans away, are at least fearful that is the case. But maybe they’re just being reflexively protective and the White House really has nothing to hide. In that case, this would be a classic example of the Taranto Principle.

[American Patriot]

Alright... so perhaps she didn't do anything wrong HERSELF, but someone else in the administration trickled down on her and told her to do something shady.

And perhaps that was Barack Obama.

And perhaps Obama told her, "If you tell on me, you will vanish..."

And perhaps she believes him....

Seriously now, how difficult is it to stand in front of a Congressional hearing, in front of television cameras and come clean and say "Yeah, I did x because so-and-so TOLD me to do it and then threatened to make me vanish/kill me/destroy my career/etc"

Look at the witnesses. Television crew, cameras, citizens, Congressional House members - and the White House themselves.

Nothing would happen to her.

If someone threatened me like that I'd go public so bloody fast everyone's heads would spin.

So - the article above merely postulates (as have I) that someone might have scared her in to shutting up.

I don't believe it.

If anything she's the worm that caused all the problems to begin with, she's an Obama supporter, and my money is on her having given money to the Obama campaign (a LOT of money - look at the bonus she got, look at the amount of money she made)

[vector7]

Report: Top IRS Official Who Plead the Fifth Placed on Administrative Leave — What Does It Mean?

May. 23, 2013 5:12pm Jason Howerton



Internal Revenue Service Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner. Credit: AFP/Getty Images

Lois Lerner, a top IRS official at the center of the agency’s targeting scandal, has been placed on administrative leave, a source in the IRS’ Cincinnati official told National Review.

Lerner, director of exempt organizations at the IRS, reportedly sent an email to employees on Thursday announcing that she would be on administrative leave.

“Due to the events of recent days, I am on administrative leave starting today,” Lerner reportedly wrote.

“An announcement will be made shortly informing you who will be acting while I am on administrative leave. I know all of you will continue to support EO’s mission during these difficult times,” she continued. “I thank you for all your hard work and dedication…The work you do is important.”

During Wednesday’s House Oversight Committee hearing, Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and did not answer any questions from lawmakers. However, she did deliver an opening statements, saying “I did nothing wrong.”

“She has been at the center of the scandal roiling the IRS and the Obama administration since she clumsily planted the question that allowed her to reveal — and apologize for — the agency’s improper targeting of tea party and other conservative groups,” NRO reports.

[American Patriot]

Wednesday, May 29th, 2013 | Posted by Malia Zimmerman | Print This Article
25 Conservative Groups - Including Two Hawaii Tea Parties - File Lawsuit Against IRS and Other Federal Agencies



BY MALIA ZIMMERMAN - The American Center for Law and Justice filed a federal lawsuit today in Washington DC on behalf of The Honolulu Tea Party, Hawaii Tea Party and nearly two-dozen other conservative groups across the country.


The 29-page lawsuit, which names the U.S. Attorney General, Treasury Secretary and Internal Revenue Service including top IRS officials as defendants, comes after a May 10 admission and apology from Lois Lerner, head of the IRS unit overseeing tax-exempt groups, that tea party groups were wrongfully targeted.


The admission confirmed what tea party and conservative group leaders already believed: The IRS was used by the Obama administration to harass and intimidate groups viewed as a political threat.


Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, said the IRS and the federal government will not get away with unlawful targeting of conservative groups.


He maintained the “unconstitutional scheme” continues even today, and that the only way to stop the abuse is through legal action.


Adrienne King headed the Honolulu Tea Party in 2011 and 2012 (photo by Mel Ah Ching)



“The lawsuit sends a very powerful message to the IRS and the Obama Administration – including the White House: Americans are not going to be bullied and intimidated by our government,” Sekulow said. “They will not be subjected to unconstitutional treatment and unlawfully singled out and punished because of their ideological beliefs. Those responsible for this unprecedented intimidation ploy must be held accountable.”


Adrienne King, head of the Honolulu Tea Party on Oahu, joined the lawsuit because for her members, the IRS apology was enough.


King, who is an attorney, was shocked and angered last year when she received an inquiry from the IRS demanding she provide detailed information on tea party activities, materials, pictures, videos, names of speakers and attendees as well as copies and recordings of actual speeches made at the events. The IRS also wanted to know how the speakers were selected, how much time was devoted to each speaker, and the topics that were discussed.


The Maui Tea Party on Maui and Hawaii Tea Party on Hawaii Island received similar letters. The local tea party groups had previously retained the American Center for Law and Justice to help them combat what they saw as a troubling inquiry. Currently, the Maui Tea Party is not named in the lawsuit.


The federal lawsuit claims the Obama Administration overstepped its authority, violating the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. The lawsuit also claims the IRS violated its own rules and regulations.


The U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, the Internal Revenue Service; Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew; Steven Miller, former acting commissioner of the IRS; Lois Lerner, Director of Exempt Organizations Division for the IRS; Holly Paz, Director, Office of Rulings and Agreements; and unknown named officials inside the IRS, are named as defendants.


Senate Minority Leader Sam Slom was one of several lawmakers to speak at the Honolulu Tea Party rallies (photo by Mel Ah Ching)



The plaintiffs are asking the court to issue a declaratory judgment to confirm the defendants delayed and obstructed the organizations applications for a determination of tax-exempt status.


The lawsuit also seeks to protect conservative groups and their officers and directors from “further IRS abuse or retaliation.” They also seeking monetary damages.
The American Center for Law and Justice may add groups as legal proceedings progress.


Of the 25 groups they represent, 13 organizations received tax-exempt status after lengthy delays, 10 are still pending, and two withdrew applications “because of frustration with the IRS process.”


While Lerner of the IRS claimed just a couple of rogue IRS agents in the Cincinnati, Ohio, office initiated the abusive behavior, and were subsequently stopped, the American Center for Law and Justice said they have evidence that this tactic was used in other IRS offices including the headquarters in Washington, D.C.


The American Center for Law and Justice also obtained letters that show Lerner was personally involved in sending “invasive questionnaires” to 15 of their clients in March 2012. That is nine months after she said she learned about the scheme and pledged to stop it.


More than 100,000 Americans have called on President and members of Congress to end the IRS abuse, Sekulow said.


See more on the web at www.aclj.org

[vector7]

Cincinnati IRS Agent: Special ‘task force’ in DC made decisions about processing Tea Party applications

Posted by The Right Scoop on May 29th, 2013 in Featured Politics | 46 Comments

NBC News has an article out this morning that is mostly a rehash of information we already know. But there was something else in the article that caught my eye:

Cleta Mitchell, another attorney representing conservative groups that allege they were targeted, said an IRS agent in Cincinnati told her a “task force” IRS office in Washington, D.C., was making the decisions about the processing of applications, and that she subsequently dealt with IRS representatives there.
“(The IRS agent in Cincinnati) told me that in fact the case would be transferred to a special task force out of Washington, and that he was told – he was the originally assigned agent – that he wasn’t allowed to make decisions, the decisions were all going to be made in Washington,” Mitchell said. “I know that this process was going on in Washington because I’ve dealt with those people.”

I’m betting this Cincinnati agent also knows names since he dealt directly with these people. Let’s hope it doesn’t take Issa long to follow this lead because I’m betting this one’s gonna make some people in the White House a little nervous.

[American Patriot]

This is HORSESHIT.

Get Holder back in there. Get that IRS woman back in there. Waterboard them.

Or use rubber hoses. I don't care. Congress better get to the bottom of this A-fucking-SAP

[American Patriot]

Holder got a letter today from Congress.

They are opening an investigation against him now.

The House Judiciary Committee is asking him to step down.

[American Patriot]

Holder runs into roadblocks on off-the-record meetings with news organizations

Published May 30, 2013

FoxNews.com


Attorney General Eric Holder is running into early resistance from news organizations as he tries to hold meetings with their Washington bureau chiefs over his department's surveillance of reporters -- with the organizations balking at Holder's attempt to keep the sessions off the record.

Holder, who agreed to conduct a review of DOJ guidelines over investigations that involve journalists, has set up meetings with members of the media for Thursday and Friday. Fox News was invited to attend the Friday session at Justice Department headquarters in Washington.

The department, though, wants the meetings to be off the record, meaning the discussions would not be reportable.

The Associated Press issued a statement saying it wants any meeting to be on the record, meaning it could be the subject of news stories. And The New York Times said it won't attend because of the department's off-the-record ground rules.

Both the Associated Press and Fox News had their phone records pulled by the Justice Department, in the course of two separate leak investigations. The department went a step further in the Fox News case, seizing the personal emails of correspondent James Rosen, while accusing him of being a criminal "co-conspirator" in the application for the search warrant.

The AP raised early questions about the terms for this week's meetings.

AP media relations manager Erin Madigan White said that if the session is not on the record, the news cooperative will offer its views in an open letter on how Justice Department regulations should be updated.

If the AP's meeting with the attorney general is on the record, AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll will attend, White said. She said AP expects its attorneys to be included in any planned meetings between the attorney general's office and media lawyers on the legal specifics.

New York Times Executive Editor Jill Abramson said in a statement: "It isn't appropriate for us to attend an off the record meeting with the attorney general. Our Washington bureau is aggressively covering the department's handling of leak investigations at this time."

The Huffington Post also announced it would not attend the meeting at DOJ headquarters. CNN similarly said it would not attend an off-record meeting, but would agree to go if the attorney general made the session on the record.

Politico's editor-in-chief, John Harris, though, said on Thursday that he would attend.

The planned meetings are to take place over the coming weeks. The department said Holder plans to engage with news media organizations, including print media, wire services, radio, television, online media and news and trade associations. Discussions are to include news media executives and general counsels as well as government experts in intelligence and investigative agencies.

The meetings come as Holder faces intense scrutiny from lawmakers over his May 15 testimony in which he claimed to be unaware of any "potential prosecution" of the press, despite knowing about the investigation that targeted Fox News' James Rosen.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Rep. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., R-Wis., voiced "great concern" in a letter to Holder on Wednesday, asking a number of questions about the department's dealings with the press, and alleging that the Fox News case "contradicts" his testimony at the hearing two weeks ago.

The committee confirmed earlier this week it was looking into Holder's testimony. Appearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Holder insisted that "the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material" is not something he was involved in or knew about.

It emerged days later that the Justice Department obtained access to Rosen's emails -- after filing an affidavit that accused him of being a likely criminal "co-conspirator" in the leak of sensitive material regarding North Korea. Rosen was never charged, and never prosecuted. But he was effectively accused of violating the federal Espionage Act.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said on Wednesday that it appears Holder testified truthfully. He said President Obama "absolutely" has confidence in him.

Obama has asked Holder to report to him on any recommended policy changes on Justice Department investigations involving reporters by July 12.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2UmSf0pNP

[American Patriot]

House Republicans challenge Holder testimony on reporter surveillance

Published May 29, 2013
FoxNews.com

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2UmTOuFC5

Top Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee openly challenged Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday over his testimony two weeks ago in which he claimed to be unaware of any "potential prosecution" of the press, despite knowing about an investigation that targeted a Fox News reporter.

Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Rep. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., R-Wis., voiced "great concern" in a letter to Holder. They asked a litany of questions about the department's dealings with the press, and pointedly alleged that the Fox News case "contradicts" his testimony at a May 15 hearing.

"It is imperative that the committee, the Congress, and the American people be provided a full and accurate account of your involvement," they wrote.

The letter comes a day after the committee confirmed it was looking into Holder's testimony. Appearing before the House Judiciary Committee on May 15, Holder insisted that "the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material" is not something he was involved in or knew about.

But days later, it emerged that the Justice Department obtained access to the emails of Fox News reporter James Rosen -- after filing an affidavit that accused him of being a likely criminal "co-conspirator" in the leak of sensitive material regarding North Korea. Rosen was never charged, and never prosecuted. But he was effectively accused of violating the federal Espionage Act.

"The media reports and statements issued by the Department regarding the search warrants for Mr. Rosen's emails appear to be at odds with your sworn testimony before the Committee," Goodlatte and Sensenbrenner wrote in the letter Wednesday. They did not accuse Holder of committing perjury, but noted he was "under oath."

Among other questions, they asked Holder how he could claim to have never heard of the potential prosecution of the press. And they asked him to clarify whether he "personally approved" the search warrant request. Sensenbrenner, in an interview on Fox News, threatened to subpoena Holder to come before the committee if necessary.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, though, said on Wednesday that it appears Holder testified truthfully. He said President Obama "absolutely" has confidence in him.

The top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Michigan Rep. John Conyers, said he thinks Holder "was forthright and did not mislead the Committee."

"Certainly, there are policy disagreements as to how the First Amendment should apply to these series of leak investigations being conducted by the Justice Department, and that is and should be an area for the committee to consider. However, there is no need to turn a policy disagreement into allegations of misconduct," he said.

Holder could argue that, in fact, Rosen was never prosecuted -- and so his testimony was not misleading.

A federal law enforcement official said last week that the department had to establish probable cause in the affidavit in order to obtain the search warrant, per the terms of the Privacy Protection Act.

"Saying that there is probable cause to believe that someone has committed a crime and actually charging the person with that crime are two very different things," the official said.

Meanwhile, one of the country's most prominent liberal legal scholars called Wednesday for Holder to be "fired," joining the growing list of left-leaning pundits slamming his department's pursuit of journalists' phone and email records.

Jonathan Turley, an attorney and law professor at George Washington University, hammered Holder in a USA Today column Wednesday. He charged that Holder has "supervised a comprehensive erosion of privacy rights, press freedom and due process," aided by Democrats who looked the other way.

But in the wake of the reporter records scandal, Democrats are starting to join with Republicans in questioning whether Holder continues to be the right man to lead the Department of Justice in President Obama's second term.

Turley, in his column, referenced a recent call by the Republican National Committee chairman for Holder's resignation. "Unlike the head of the RNC, I am neither a Republican nor conservative, and I believe Holder should be fired," Turley wrote.

While Democrats largely defended Holder when his department came under fire for the botched anti-gunrunning sting Operation Fast and Furious, they've been less forgiving over the move this year to seize two months of phone records from Associated Press offices. That bombshell was compounded by the revelation that the department seized phone and email records for Fox News offices. The scandal grew as the department acknowledged Friday that Holder was involved in the court document that accused Rosen of being a likely criminal "co-conspirator," as part of the department's successful argument for obtaining a search warrant for Rosen's emails.

According to a report in The Daily Beast, aides say Holder has started to feel regret for the investigations. Under Obama's direction, he is starting a review of DOJ policies and meeting with representatives from the media.

A Justice Department official said Wednesday that Holder will hold meetings with several Washington bureau chiefs of national news organizations over the next two days.

"These meetings will begin a series of discussions that will continue to take place over the coming weeks. During these sessions, the Attorney General will engage with a diverse and representative group of news media organizations, including print, wires, radio, television, online media and news and trade associations," the official said.

Turley, in his column, scoffed at this course of action, since Holder was involved in the surveillance -- at least the surveillance involving Fox News -- in the first place. "Such an inquiry offers no reason to trust its conclusions," Turley wrote.

He described Holder as a trusted Obama "sin eater," swallowing the worst criticisms to shield the president.

"Indeed, these sins should be fatal for any attorney general," Turley wrote.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2UmTLV2RT

[American Patriot]

This is what it's all about..... redirect the lightning from Obama to someone else.

As Anger at Eric Holder Grows, So Does His Value as Obama’s Lightning Rod

by Nick Gillespie May 30, 2013 4:45 AM EDT Holder is the latest in a long line of attorney generals who do the boss’s dirty work and absorb anger that would otherwise reach the president, writes Nick Gillespie.

Eric Holder may not be the worst attorney general in American history, but he is the most recent—which amounts to nearly the same thing.

Attorney General Eric Holder takes his seat before a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee on May 15. (Alex Wong/Getty)

Despite its exalted status as the nation’s “top cop,” the job is best understood as a dumping ground for intermittently competent bulldogs who take out the president’s trash and act as his public-relations human shield. That was the basic duty of George W. Bush’s troika of torture apologists: John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, and Michael Mukasey. Ashcroft went so far after the 9/11 attacks as to argue that dissent itself verged on the unconstitutional.

"Those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty,” Ashcroft told Congress, "your tactics only aid terrorists.”

For his part, Holder has dissolved completely into his cabinet role like George C. Scott becoming George Patton. Such perfection may well be his undoing as observers from across the ideological spectrum—and in both houses of Congress—voice increasingly loud howls of anger and dissatisfaction with the former federal prosecutor.

As Michael A. Walsh notes in the New York Post, Holder is directly involved in essentially every aspect of President Obama’s second-term scandalpalooza. Not only did he sign off on the search warrant for Fox News’s James Rosen’s personal emails, he is at the center of questions over the state’s broad surveillance of the AP, an operation that has raised hackles across the political spectrum regarding First Amendment issues and civil-liberties concerns. (Holder did himself no favors by recusing himself from the AP case in vague and uncertain terms). Walsh notes that “even the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative and Tea Party groups for special scrutiny—[finds its] nexus at the top of the Justice Department.”

Such conservative ire is nothing new. Less than a year ago, congressional Republicans—along with 17 Democrats—voted to hold Holder in contempt for failing to deliver documents and testimony related to the “Fast and Furious” gun-walking operation directed out an Arizona office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, which answers to the attorney general. Although timed to the confirmation vote of CIA Director John Brennan, Sen. Rand Paul’s epic filibuster in March was specifically targeted at Holder’s refusal to give a simple answer to questions about the use of domestic drones. Now the House Judiciary Committee is reportedly looking to investigate whether Holder perjured himself before Congress in relation to the press probes.

But it’s not just right-wingers who are up in arms over Holder. Apart from his casual approach to civil liberties and the First Amendment, folks on the left are livid that the attorney general can find no one on Wall Street to perp-walk directly from the corner offices of JPMorgan into federal prison. Progressive senators such as Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) are asking the DOJ exactly when “too big to fail” morphed into “too big to jail.” Pathetically, Holder told Congress that he is daunted by the size of the institutions he is investigating and that the sheer bigness of financial institutions “has an inhibiting influence—impact on our ability to bring resolutions that I think would be more appropriate ... I think that is something that we—you all—need to consider.”


Is Eric Holder really investigating himself? If so, what does the world think about that?

That sort of special pleading is unlikely to win friends and influence people on Capitol Hill. Nor is Holder’s newfound willingness to acknowledge that mistakes were made, “Look, Eric sees himself fundamentally as a progressive, not some Torquemada out to silence the press,” an unnamed friend told The Daily Beast on Tuesday.

There’s no reason to believe that Holder will be sent packing anytime soon or that he’s somehow at cross-purposes with the president. Obama has voiced nothing but support for his attorney general, which means that there’s every reason to keep questioning Holder’s truthfulness.One of his first actions upon taking office was to underscore the Obama administration’s position that federal resources would not be targeted at medical-marijuana users and providers who complied with laws in states where the stuff is legal. The result? A record number of raids against medical-marijuana dispensaries in California and elsewhere in Obama’s “war on weed.” And yet Holder continues to insist, as he did last year before Congress, that "we limit our enforcement efforts to those individuals and organizations that are acting out of conformity with state laws." So Holder is either out of touch with reality or following a script scribbled together in the Oval Office. Neither prospect is comforting given that Obama’s DOJ has yet to state its position regarding the full legalization of pot in Colorado and Washinton state.

It’s daunting to remember that Holder served as a deputy attorney general in Janet Reno’s Justice Department during the Clinton years. What lessons in self-preservation and executive-branch overreach might he have learned under Reno, the second-longest-serving attorney general in American history and surely one of the worst?

Recall that Reno was at best Clinton’s third pick for the position, being selected only after his first two selections were undone by revelations that they had employed illegal aliens as nannies. Reno’s tenure was marked by horrifyingly misguided law-enforcement debacles such as the deadly standoff between federal agents and the Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas, and the armed raid to separate 6-year-old Elián González from his American relatives and return him to his father in Cuba. But she held on as a political lightning rod, absorbing political punishment before it could reach her boss.

Reno spent much of her time in office threatening censorship of violent videogames and other forms of popular culture and was an active proponent of mandating technology standards such as the Clipper chip and “key escrow” that would have given the federal government full access to all electronic communications at the dawn of the Internet age. She was by all accounts a driving force behind 1996’s Communications Decency Act, legislations that would have essentially regulated the Internet akin to broadcast television and radio stations (most of its provisions were struck down in the 1997 Supreme Court case, Reno v. ACLU, with a unanimous ruling that the law eviscerated the First Amendment).

For all that, Reno was the one cabinet member who stayed for the entire run of the Clinton administration. She did the ugly jobs on behalf of the president, and took the political heat for them.

Now Holder is doing the same for the Obama White House—and perhaps no one understands the essential role of the attorney general better than our current president. In 2007, then-senator Obama told Larry King that he voted against confirming Albert Gonzales as attorney general because Gonzo “seemed to conceive his role as being the president’s attorney instead of being the people’s attorney.”

Upon taking over the Oval Office, Obama quickly rethought many long-held beliefs, including his views on executive power. It’s no wonder he now has a “president’s attorney” of his own, and every reason to retain his scandal-plagued counsel.

[American Patriot]

Eric Holder on hot seat after report refutes denial
Thursday, May 30, 2013
By:
Gary J. Remal

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee are questioning U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s honesty in denying he played a role in targeting journalists as part of a Justice Department probe of classified leaks in light of reports that Holder himself approved a grab for Fox News reporter James Rosen’s emails.

Holder told Congress at a May 15 hearing he had removed himself from decisions to collect Associated Press phone records, but The Washington Post reported that he had signed off on the search warrant for Rosen’s emails.

Judiciary Chairman U.S. Rep. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia and U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, both Republicans, wrote to Holder yesterday saying news reports 
“appear to be at odds with your sworn testimony.”

Civil libertarian Harvey A. Silverglate predicted Holder will not survive the remainder of the Obama 
administration and will likely be gone in months.

“He is in trouble … for a simple reason, either he lied or he is incompetent. Take your choice,” Silverglate said. “When you’re talking about the chief law enforcement officer in the country, either one is enough to sink you.”

Silverglate said he has followed Holder’s career for years, and even if he did not directly order the seizure of journalists’ communications, Silverglate concluded Justice Department prosecutors would not have dared do it on their own without believing Holder would approve.

“All he has to do is let it be known that this kind of behavior is OK, otherwise I don’t believe any lawyer in that department would do it on their own,” Silverglate said. “Or if the troops are out of control, that’s just as bad.”

Holder’s spokesman ack*nowledged receipt of the GOP letter, but said officials were ready to show Holder didn’t lie. White House spokesman Jay Carney yesterday pointed to a “distinction” between calling Rosen a co-conspirator in a document and charging him with a crime. He said Rosen would not be prosecuted.

[American Patriot]

Eric Holder, Incompetent

"Oh, My, God! What just happened?"

[American Patriot]

Obama Job Approval Goes Negative in Wake of IRS Scandal

Thursday, 30 May 2013 08:22 AM

By Melanie Batley


President Barack Obama's job approval rating has taken a huge hit in the wake of the scandals surrounding the White House, a new poll has found.

Fewer than half the registered voters surveyed now believe Obama is "honest and trustworthy," according to the poll conducted by Quinnipiac University. That figure had stood at 58 percent the last time the question was asked in September 2011. Now it is at 49 percent.

And it is the scandal involving the Internal Revenue Service that is hitting Obama hardest, the survey found. The voters, who were surveyed between Wednesday last week and Tuesday of this week, believe that controversy is more worrying than those surrounding the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya or the seizure of phone records from journalists.

Urgent: Is Obama Telling the Truth on IRS, Benghazi Scandals?

According to the Connecticut university's survey, more people now view the president negatively than positively. Slightly under half — 49 percent — say they have a negative view of Obama, while 45 percent have a positive view.

Just one month ago, before news of the IRS controversy broke, the president's job approval rating was positive at 48–45 percent.

When it comes to the individual controversies swirling around the Obama administration, 44 percent of voters see the IRS prying into conservative groups as the most important, while 24 percent say they are most concerned about the administration's handling of the terrorist attack in Benghazi, and 15 percent say the records seizure at news organizations.

Many voters believe criticism of the handling of the Benghazi attack as "just politics," the survey shows with 43 percent describing it that way

Meanwhile, more than three out of four voters — 76 percent — believe a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the IRS scandal. That figure includes 63 percent of Democrats, 88 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of independent voters.

"There is overwhelming bipartisan support for a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the university's Polling Institute.

"Voters apparently don't like the idea of Attorney General Eric Holder investigating the matter himself, perhaps because they don't exactly think highly of him. Holder gets a negative 23–39 percent job approval rating."

But the poll also shows that almost three-quarters of voters, or 73 percent, believe dealing with the economy and unemployment is a higher priority than investigating these three issues. Only 22 percent disagree.

But the survey showed that those asked are optimistic that the economy is finally improving.

"The fact that voters say 34–25 percent that the economy is getting better also may be a reason the president's job approval numbers have not dropped further," said Brown.

Other points from the poll include:

• Political parties and groups are generally held in distain. Voters have an unfavorable view of both the main parties and the tea party. The Republican Party fares worst with an unfavorable rating of 50-35 percent. The same is said of the Democrats by 47-42 percent and the tea party by 38-28 percent;

• A minuscule 3 percent says it trusts the federal government to do the right thing all of the time. Twelve percent says it trusts the feds most of the time, 47 percent says some of the time and 36 percent says hardly ever;

• A congressional election today would be evenly split with 38 percent saying they would vote for a Republican to sit in the House of Representatives and the same number saying they would vote Democrat.


A total of 1,419 registered voters were polled for the survey, Quinnipiac said.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/obam...#ixzz2UmXW6icW
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

[vector7]

Friday, 24 May 2013 10:30
Department Homeland Security “POLICE” Monitored Tea Party IRS Protests

Written by Alex Newman



Agents from the Department of Homeland Security posing as national “police” were deployed across the country this week to monitor and intimidate Tea Party activists, who were peacefully protesting the Obama administration and its abuse of the IRS to target conservative groups. The apparently unlawful spying and bullying has drawn outrage from analysts, experts, and commentators from across the political spectrum worried that the federal government is going off the rails.

From California to Florida and everywhere in between, armed DHS functionaries — part of the so-called “Federal Protective Service” (FPS) — intimidated and spied on peaceful activists, according to protesters in attendance. News reports were filled with pictures and videos of large Homeland Security trucks that said “police” in giant letters, along with armed DHS personnel dressed in “police” outfits. At a rally in Los Angeles, a DHS helicopter was even spotted flying overhead as federal “police” ordered protesters to get off of government property.

More than a few attendees at the rallies expressed fears about being spied on by authorities in the future — or even being targeted by the IRS. Some analysts said the federal show of force was probably an effort by the administration to intimidate Americans into remaining silent, while others speculated that the U.S. government was hoping to provoke a reaction out of the protesters that could be used to demonize activists concerned about lawless federal activities.

Among the most serious concerns cited by critics — aside from federal spying and intimidation of citizens exercising rights guaranteed under the First Amendment — were the giant letters reading “police” emblazoned on DHS vehicles and personnel. Of course, the Constitution does not grant the U.S. government any power to establish a national police force or anything even remotely resembling one.

Indeed, outside of a few federal crimes such as counterfeiting, treason, and piracy, law enforcement is supposed to be a function of state and local government. Analysts also noted that there was absolutely no reason for armed federal bureaucrats to be keeping tabs on a peaceful protest — especially when local police with legitimate jurisdiction could have secured the rallies if needed.

“If you have a police force and it’s out of control, you go down to your mayor and you take care of it with your mayor,” commented conservative pundit Glenn Beck about the latest DHS tactics aimed at Tea Party activists this week. ”But if a national police force is out of control, who exactly do you have?”

Beck, who has a sizeable following and a growing media machine, also said Homeland Security was supposed to be for airports. “They were the guys with the really crappy uniforms that have the rubber gloves who were feeling you up at the airport and you’re laughing at them,” he continued. “This is a labor union police force, a federal labor union police force. This is not good.”

A caller on the show who helped organize a 400-person rally targeted by DHS in Cincinnati, meanwhile, noted that it was not the first time he had seen federal functionaries sporting “police” outfits. “Congress needs to wake up,” the caller said on the program. “Maybe they’re part of it, I don’t know, but they need to look into this. We are creating a national police force that’s keeping an eye on us and intimidating us.”

The Tea Party demonstrations against the U.S. tax agency at IRS offices across the country, held on May 22, were sparked by recent admissions from senior officials that conservative groups had been singled out for special scrutiny and inappropriate questioning by authorities. Outraged lawmakers in both political parties and much of the establishment press agreed that the IRS behavior was absolutely unacceptable. More than seven out of ten Americans thought so, too, and even President Obama publicly feigned concern about the scandal.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet “Big Sis” Napolitano and the increasingly intrusive domestic espionage apparatus, however, evidently did not see it that way. Under the Obama administration, multiple federal agencies and departments — including DHS — have issued absurd “intelligence” reports based on discredited sources claiming that the real threat to the “Homeland” is actually conservatives. Pro-life activists, Ron Paul supporters, constitutionalists, veterans, people who believe in individual liberty, and countless others are officially in the crosshairs.

Based on recent polls, that includes almost 70 percent of American voters, who in a survey released this week said they “feel like the federal government has gotten out of control and is threatening the basic civil liberties of Americans.” Even among Democrats, almost half agree that Washington, D.C., is out of control — more than the number who disagreed. Left-wing organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union have also blasted Homeland Security’s lawless spying on peaceful protesters.

“This type of government monitoring and tracking of lawful demonstrations and political speech can have a chilling effect on Americans’ exercise of their rights to free speech and assembly,” Robyn Greene with the ACLU Washington Legislative Office noted in 2011 after learning that DHS “police” were spying on activists, apparently under the false impression that such behavior was legal. “This is especially true when those demonstrations advocate positions that are in opposition to government policy…. No agency or department in government has the right to monitor the peaceful and lawful political activities and speech of Americans.”

While only a tiny fraction of the growing number of Americans worried about lawless government attended rallies on Tuesday, Homeland Security made sure that its presence was felt. According to news reports, self-styled federal “police” were observed scoping out protests or intimidating activists all across California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and other states. Analysts lashed out at the perceived abuse of power.

“Why aren't DHS officers protecting the homeland against foreign enemies armed with explosives and hate? Perhaps because the Obama Administration is more worried about domestic ‘enemies’ armed with the Constitution and love of country,” wrote Sally Zelikovsky about the scandal in the American Thinker. She also said the administration sending out DHS agents to spy on Tea Party protests was “further evidence of the Soviet-style ‘War on Dissent.’ ”

“One would think they would be just a bit more circumspect and maybe even exercise a modicum of restraint before dispersing KGB, I mean, DHS agents to free speech rallies protected under the Constitution,” Zelikovsky continued in her stinging criticism of the department’s latest activities. “The fact that they did this so blatantly despite the scrutiny they are under is symptomatic of a government on the verge of a constitutional breakdown — a government that doesn't hesitate to bully the little guy while giving the Constitution the proverbial political finger.”

The New American reached out to DHS with a series of questions: Why were the agents at these protests? How does DHS respond to critics of this who say it was spying, intimidation, unnecessary, and chilling? Why did the DHS vehicles and personnel have "police" written on them? Does DHS operate a federal police force now? If so, under what statutory or constitutional authority has DHS established a police force? Was permission for the DHS presence obtained from local authorities?

DHS Federal Protective Service Chief of Public Affairs Jacqueline C. Yost responded with a brief statement. “The Federal Protective Service (FPS) protects more than 9,000 federal buildings and 1.4 million federal employees and visitors who occupy them throughout the country every day,” she said. “FPS is committed to carrying out this mission in a manner that protects the public’s civil rights and civil liberties including freedom of speech and the right to peacefully protest.”

Of course, along with the rest of the Obama administration, DHS has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years amid a wide assortment of scandals. Among the most outrageous: Spying on peaceful protesters, sealing contracts for massive amounts of ammunition, stockpiling “weapons of war,” molesting air travelers, expanding its powers, defying court orders, issuing wild reports painting regular Americans as potential terrorists, squandering huge sums of money on extra-constitutional “fusion centers,” training local authorities to become extensions of the federal government, and more.

Congress has held hearings and a few lawmakers have introduced legislation to rein in the department, which is perceived by critics as an out-of-control behemoth that could easily be abused. As the outcry among Americans continues to mount, calls for abolishing the DHS are growing as well. Unsurprisingly, the latest developments have already contributed to the furor. Whether any action will be taken by Congress, however, remains to be seen.

[Ryan Ruck]

Will people PLEASE stop "calling for Holder's resignation"?

We all know his weasel ass will never resign! Just throw his and Obama's asses in jail already.

[American Patriot]

Agents from the Department of Homeland Security posing as national “police” were deployed across the country this week to monitor and intimidate Tea Party activists, who were peacefully protesting the Obama administration and its abuse of the IRS to target conservative groups. The apparently unlawful spying and bullying has drawn outrage from analysts, experts, and commentators from across the political spectrum worried that the federal government is going off the rails.

Refresh my memory... there was an "incident" this last couple of weeks. OH WaIT, nm

It was the arrest of that guy touting the "Armed March on DC" - arrested at some stupid drug thing. He's still in jail I heard by the way.

The point of my question was I saw the words "national police" or "federal police" which to me is a bit irksome. There ARE no such thing as "National Police" and there should NOT be "national police" either.

it's one thing to have "Federal Marshals" and "FBI Agents".... but the rest of it... that's a whole 'nother bailiwick.

[American Patriot]

I couldn't agree more, Ryan. Arrest him, jail him, try him. Then put him back in jail when they find him guilty.

[Ryan Ruck]

People Sign "Thank You" Card to IRS for Targeting Conservatives





Thank God for the 2nd Amendment...