Pro-Life Rights & SOPRA


Jim Bridenstine

John R. Houk

© August 4, 2016

 

Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R) was elected to Congress in 2012 by first defeating the GOP incumbent in the Primary then winning the seat to the 1st Congressional District of Oklahoma in the November 2012 vote. He came in as a Tea Party candidate supporting less government and less taxes. He is my Congressional Representative.

 

I set this up because I received an email update that highlights two very bills that I suspect if it makes the Leftist-in-Chief’s desk they will be vetoed. At any rate they still represent the civil rights of Pro-Life medical professionals and the other bill more specifically defines what each branch of government can and cannot do pre-empting bureaucratic rules as laws that are not enacted by Congress,

 

Rep. Bridenstine first highlights the Conscience Protection Act which enables a medical professional or hospital to NOT be forced to perform abortions if it violates their conscience. This would not only undercut Obama’s Executive Orders that instruct the Obama Administration bureaucrats to force otherwise BUT ALSO prevent a State apparatus under the thumb of Leftists from forcing conscience violations.

 

The next Congressional Rep. Bridenstine looks at is Separation of Powers Restoration Act. SCOTUS is case law oriented more than interpreting the Constitution with Original Intent standards. The result has led to the slow watering down of the intended Liberties and Rights of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and Amendments ratified after the Bill of Rights. Thus the unconstitutional doctrine of the Living Constitution has superseded Original Intent that has led to Executive Branch superiority in a system in which Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches were originally arranged as separate but equal with a concept of Checks and Balances institutionalized in the Constitution.

 

The Separation of Powers Act (SOPRA) is specifically designed to reverse the course of Federal Bureaucratic Agencies from turning regulations into the force of law without action from Congress. SOPRA would eliminate the case law that established the Chevron Deference (1984) standards in which Courts would uphold bureaucratic regulatory interpretation of legislation as the force of law.

 

The Bridenstine email below is editorially focused on the two Acts mentioned above. The Congressman addresses other issues as well but these two piqued my interest.

 

Of SOPRA Interest

 

“YES” ON SEPARATION OF POWERS RESTORATION ACT (H.R. 4768); Heritage Action for America; 6/22/16

 

FreedomWorks Applauds Passage of the Separation of Powers Restoration Act; Freedom Works; 7/12/16

 

H.R.4768: Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2016; ProjectsProPublica.org

 

How To Fight The Fourth Branch Of Government; Economics21.org; 7/19/16

 

Who Will Regulate the Regulators? Administrative Agencies, the Separation of Powers, and Chevron Deference; Heritage.org; 5/2015

 

JRH 8.4/16

Please Support NCCR

******************

Protecting Those Who Refuse To Perform Abortions

Conscience Protection Act - Bridenstine 

By Jim Bridenstine

Sent 8/3/2016 5:02 PM

 

The House recently passed landmark pro-life legislation to stop abortion coercion. The Conscience Protection Act prohibits government from penalizing or retaliating against any health care provider who refuses to participate in abortion activities, or insurers who refuse to provide coverage. The bill also creates a right to sue for anybody forced to violate their consciences on abortion.

I believe that abortion takes the life of an unborn child and harms women. Even if some disagree with that, we can all agree that government should respect everyone’s freedom to NOT participate in abortions. Government should not require hospitals, doctors, nurses and insurances plans to carry out, assist in, or pay for abortions. The Conscience Protection Act enhances important protections against abortion coercion. The Senate should waste no time in getting this bill to the President’s desk.

Federal law has protected conscience rights on abortion since the 1970s across the private sector.  In 2005, the “Weldon Amendment” expanded these rights to cover institutions receiving government funds. Now, state and local governments, including California and New York, are increasingly threatening to withhold funding to coerce insurers to provide abortion coverage and pro-life hospitals, doctors, and nurses to participate in abortion activities.

When government engages in abortion coercion, the only available remedy is filing complaints to the Department of Health and Human Services. Predictably, HHS has slow-rolled its response. That’s why the Conscience Protection Act is so important: the pro-life community needs standing to sue, not more paperwork to fill out.

 

VIDEO: Conscience Protection Act

 

 

Posted by Congressman Jim Bridenstine

Published on Jul 14, 2016

 

Today, the House passed landmark pro-life legislation to stop abortion coercion. The Conscience Protection Act prohibits government from penalizing or retaliating against any health care provider who refuses to participate in abortion activities, or insurers who refuse to provide coverage. The bill also creates a right to sue for anybody forced to violate their consciences on abortion. – Read More at: http://bridenstine.house.gov/blog/?postid=741

 

+++

VIDEO: Seperation [sic] of Powers Act

 

 

 

Posted by Congressman Jim Bridenstine

Published on Aug 3, 2016

 

Recently, the House passed the Separation of Powers Restoration Act (SOPRA), a bill that aims to take back Congress’s legislative power. President Obama has consistently used bureaucratic rules and regulations to bypass Congress and implement his liberal agenda.

The Separation of Powers Restoration Act is a good step towards reining in the executive branch’s ability to essentially create laws through regulations, however, more must be done. Congress must use the power of the purse to defund harmful rules and regulations when the executive branch steps outside its Constitutional authority.

_______________

Pro-Life Rights & SOPRA

John R. Houk

© August 4, 2016

__________________

Protecting Those Who Refuse To Perform Abortions

 

About Rep. Jim Bridenstine

 

 

Obama v. 9/11 Families


911 Terrorism by frames

Blog Editor Intro to: Obama v. 9/11 Families

John R. Houk, Editor

 

I suspect President Barack Hussein Obama will continue to betray the American citizens and the U.S. Constitution by bowing to the wishes of Saudi government pertaining to Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act:

 

JASTA allows terrorism victims, like victims of the September 11th attacks, the right to pursue foreign states and sponsors of terrorism in federal court. The bill allows Americans to direct financial damage claims against those who funded the attacks. The legislation would also afford this right to families of other American victims of terrorism, that have occurred since September 11, 2001.

 

The following is a summary of the bill:

 

  • First, JASTA amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSA) so that foreign sponsors of terrorism cannot invoke “sovereign immunity” in cases arising from a terrorist attack that kills an American on American soil.

 

 

If JASTA becomes law and President Obama declassifies 28 pages of sealed documents that many in-the-know have hinted, links Saudi Arabia to financial involvement in the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers. The Saudis have threatened to sell off their USA Treasury Securities if JASTA becomes law. A Fox News story says the Saudis believe that amount is in the area of 750 BILLION bucks.

 

I suspect President Obama will continue to heinously betray America by fighting and preventing JASTA from becoming law. After all, BHO simply needs to veto JASTA and not declassify the 28 documents that may indeed implicate Saudi Arabia in some manner to 9/11.

 

Alisa Flatow & scene of terrorist bombing

Alisa Platow

 

JRH 4/19/16 (Hat Tip Donald Moore of Blind Conservatives)

Please Support NCCR

*******************

Obama v. 9/11 Families

 

By Editorial of The New York Sun 

April 18, 2016

 

President Obama owes Americans a public explanation for why his administration is lobbying Congress to protect Saudi Arabia from lawsuits by families of those killed in the attacks of 9/11. The lobbying was disclosed Friday in a scoop by the New York Times. It reported that the kingdom threatening to sell hundreds of billions of dollars in American assets if Congress exposed it to suits related to the attacks, most of whose perpetrators, including Osama bin Laden, were Saudis.

 

Alisa Flatow Memorial in Israel

Gilabrand / via Wikipedia commons

NEVER FORGET: The Obama administration owes America an explanation for why it is fighting against a bill in Congress that would allow 9/11 families to pierce Saudi Arabia’s sovereign immunity from civil suits and be brought to book for its role in the terrorist attacks of 2001, most of whose perpetrators, including Osama bin Laden, were Saudis. The use of tort law against terror was pioneered by the Estate of Alisa Flatow, slain by Iran in 1995; her campaign to seize Iranian assets was also opposed by the State Department. She is remembered widely, including at a memorial, above, in the Jewish state.

 

Mr. Obama’s administration isn’t alone. Its truckling to the Saudis, its siding against Americans, is part of a long scandal going back to the Clinton administration, which fetched up in court on the side of Iran against the estate of Alisa Flatow. She was the Brandeis coed who was slain in 1995 by Iran in a bus bombing at Israel. Her heroic father, Stephen Flatow, pressed her case in an early test of whether American tort law could be used in this war.

 

The estate of Alisa Flatow won that case, and was awarded something like $247 million dollars. Come time to collect, however, the Clinton administration appeared in court against Alisa Flatow’s estate. In the settlement that followed, the Flatows got a pittance of the court’s award — only $16 million. The government, using taxpayers’ money, essentially bought the Flatows’ claim, giving it the right to keep whatever it can wrest from the Iranians. It’s unclear as yet what that will be.

 

Saudi Arabia can’t be sued under the same law that the Flatows used against Iran, however; that law, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, covered only certain nations officially listed by our State Department as sponsors of terror. The families suing Saudi Arabia tried to pierce its sovereign immunity under more traditional law, but they lost in United States district court and are now appealing. The law the administration opposes would end the sovereign immunity defense for the Saudis.

 

It may well be that Mr. Obama could make a case for what it is doing. The administration argues that by piercing sovereign immunity in these kinds of cases we would open ourselves and our allies to a reciprocal strategy. It wouldn’t surprise us were the State Department animated by baser instincts, including a notorious pro-Arab bias. In any event, despite the danger of reciprocity State has been warning against, no one has laid a legal glove on us in a generation.

 

Whatever case the administration wants to make, though, will be difficult to advance while skulking around Capitol Hill — or bowing to Saudi Kings in their opulent tents. Mr. Obama is scheduled to visit Saudi Arabia this week. The measure Mr. Obama opposes passed early tests in the Congress by overwhelming votes. We’d like to think that this reflects growing ire in a Congress the administration has attempted over and over again to sideline from foreign policy.

 

It’s been more than 20 years since Alisa Flatow was slain, and the only thing Iran has received is Obama’s appeasement. It’s been 15 years since 9/11 and our government still won’t come clean on what it knows about the Saudi role. The bill to which the administration objects is called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. It’s a marker of the American retreat that the battle in the Middle East is being left to the tort lawyers — and that the administration opposes even that.

__________________________

Obama v. 9/11 Families

 

© 2002-2016 TWO SL LLC, New York, NY. All rights reserved.

THE IRS SCANDAL: TIMELINE


Something that has nearly evaporated from media scrutiny is the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Scandal in which America’s tax collecting organization singled out Conservative organizations and Tea Party Movement organizations in particular. Obama’s managed IRS intended to stall, prevent and investigate those organizations from attaining a tax-exempt status as 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4). The apparent goal was to hamper Conservatives from educating American voters about the suspicious anti-American transformation agenda of President Barack Hussein Obama.

Lois Lerner – AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

One of the most nefarious acts of the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) was to NOT prosecute IRS Conservative-hating and pro-Obama minion Lois Lerner. The Left-Stream Media has nearly ignored this fact of Obama favoritism to loyal minions.

Below is a Determine the Networks (DTN) timeline of this IRS scandal that stretches from August 2010 to December 23, 2014. I kind of wish had taken this timeline to the next level with a conclusion enumerating the failings of DOJ investigations and prosecution of Lois Lerner and other IRS involved employees that have been given the full Teflon treatment that American Leftists typically receive.

JRH 1/13/16

Please Support NCCR

********************

THE IRS SCANDAL: TIMELINE

DTN Alert Sent: Jan 11 at 9:15 AM

Determine the Networks

In May 2013, it was learned that from April 2010 to April 2012, the Internal Revenue Service had placed on hold the processing of applications for tax-exempt status that it had received from hundreds of organizations with such presumably conservative indicators as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” or “9/12” in their names. During that period, the IRS approved only four applications from conservative groups while green-lighting applications from several dozen organizations whose names included the likely left-leaning terms “Progressive,” “Progress,” “Liberal,” or “Equality.”

In February 2014, it was further learned that of the already-existing nonprofits that were flagged for IRS surveillance (including monitoring of the groups’ activities, websites, and any other publicly available information), 83% were conservative. And, of the groups that the IRS selected for audit, 100% were conservative.

This section of Discover The Networks provides a timeline of this illegal, blatantly partisan practice by the IRS.

February to March 2010: An email string from February – March 2010 includes a message from a California Exempt Organizations Determinations manager discussing a Tea Party application “currently being held in the Screening group.” The manager urges, “Please let ‘Washington’ know about this potentially embarrassing political case involving a ‘Tea Party’ organization. Recent media attention to this type of organization indicates to me that this is a ‘high profile’ case.” A co-worker responds: “I think sending it up here [DC] is a good idea given the potential for media interest.” (Source)

March 31 to April 1, 2010: Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU)—the 150,000-member union that represents employees of the IRS and 30 other government agencies—visits President Obama at the White House. NTEU’s Political Action Committee endorsed Obama in both 2008 and 2012, and gave hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles to anti-Tea Party candidates. (Source)

The day after Colleen Kelley’s White House visit, IRS employees begin applying extra scrutiny to tax-exempt-status applications from conservative organizations whose names contain the words “Tea Party,” “Patriot,” “9-12,” “’Take Back the Country,” or “We the People.” (Source and Source)

July 6, 2010: IRS official Holly Paz writes an email to Washington-based IRS lawyer Steven Grodnitzky “to let Cindy and Sharon know how we have been handling Tea Party applications in the last few months.” Grodnitzky replies to the email, confirming that the Washington-based Exempt Organization Technical unit (EOT) is designing the targeting in the nation’s capital.

“EOT is working the Tea party applications in coordination with Cincy. We are developing a few applications here in DC and providing copies of our development letters with the agent to use as examples in the development of their cases,” Grodnitzky writes.

“Chip Hull [another lawyer in IRS headquarters] is working these cases in EOT and working with the agent in Cincy, so any communication should include him as well. Because the Tea party applications are the subject of an SCR [Sensitive Case Report], we cannot resolve any of the cases without coordinating with Rob,” Grodnitzky writes. [“Rob” is believed to be then-IRS director of rulings and agreements Rob Choi, based at the agency’s Washington headquarters.]
(Source)

August 2010: The IRS issues its first “BOLO” (“Be On The Lookout”) alert for “various local organizations in the Tea Party movement” that are seeking tax-exempt status as 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) groups. The IRS is also flagging applications by organizations that: (a) address such issues as government spending, government debt, and taxes; (b) promote the use of education, advocacy, and lobbying to “make America a better place to live”; or (c) criticize how the country is being run by the Obama administration. (Source and Source)

October 2010: In a meeting arranged at the direction of Jack Smith, chief of the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, the DOJ asks IRS official Lois Lerner to help the Department build criminal cases against conservative nonprofit groups that have been conducting political activity. (Source)

Winter 2010-2011: Judith Kindell, senior advisor to IRS Exempt Organizations Division Director Lois Lerner, tells IRS attorney Carter Hull, who oversaw the review of some tax-exemption applications by conservative Tea Party groups, that the IRS Chief Counsel’s office — headed by Obama appointee William Wilkins — will henceforth need to review all applications from conservative groups whose names contain the aforementioned trigger words. According to Hull, this is the first time in his 48-year career at the IRS that he has been instructed to forward any tax-exemption applications to another office. (Source and Source)

February 2011: In an email, IRS Exempt Organizations Division Director Lois Lerner advises her staff—including then Exempt Organizations Technical Manager Michael Seto and then Rulings and Agreements director Holly Paz—that a Tea Party matter is “very dangerous,” and that this is something “Counsel and [Lerner adviser] Judy Kindell need to be in on.” Lerner adds that Tea Party groups’ tax-exemption applications could end up being the “vehicle to go to court” to get more clarity on a 2010 Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance rules. Thus, at this point, Lerner—contrary to false statements she will subsequently make—is well aware of the fact that groups with “Tea Party,” “Patriot,” or “9/12 Project” in their names are being flagged for additional and often burdensome scrutiny by the IRS. (Source and Source)

February 2011: In an email to Lois Lerner, a Federal Election Commission (FEC) investigator inquires about the status of the tax-exemption application of the American Future Fund, a conservative group. (The FEC and IRS have no authority to share this information under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code.) Soon after this FEC inquiry, the American Future Fund receives a questionnaire from the IRS. (Source)

June 3, 2011:
David Camp, Republican Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, sends a letter to then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman inquiring about a report that the IRS has been conducting an unusually large number of audits of conservative 501(c)(4) groups and taxpayers who have donated money to them. Lawmakers will subsequently send at least seven more letters asking the IRS to address complaints that conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status are being subjected to burdensome screening. (Source and Source)

June 13, 2011: Lois Lerner’s computer allegedly crashes, causing all emails that Lerner sent and received between January 2009 and April 2011, to be lost. (Source)

July 1, 2011:The IRS responds to David Camp’s June 3 letter by stating that its “actions in this area were in no way influenced by political considerations.” According to the Agency, Exempt Organizations Division Director Lois Lerner has ordered the criteria for flagging tax-exempt applications for extra scrutiny to be changed, so as to apply more broadly to “organizations involved with political, lobbying, or advocacy for exemption under 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4).” (Source)

August 4, 2011: Staffers in the IRS’s Rulings and Agreements office hold a meeting with the Chief Counsel’s office which is headed by William Wilkins. At this meeting, Wilkins is made aware that conservative groups are being targeted by the IRS. Appointed by President Obama in 2009, Wilkins is one of only two presidential appointees in the entire agency. In subsequent interviews, IRS lawyer Carter Hull, who oversaw the review of some tax-exemption applications by conservative Tea Party groups, tells congressional investigators that his superiors have told him that Wilkins’ office needs to be involved in additional reviews of previously screened tax-exemption applications because of “potential political activity.” (Source and Source)

September 8, 2011: The IRS abruptly cancels its longtime (2005-11) relationship with Sonasoft, a San Jose-based email-archiving company and email-storage contractor specializing in quickly and thoroughly saving its clients’ emails after computer crashes. (Source)

Note: Federal law (the Federal Records Act) requires the IRS to keep records of all agency emails and to print out hard copies of those correspondences to ensure that they get saved in the event of a computer mishap. An instructional page for employees on the IRS website states:

“The Federal Records Act applies to email records just as it does to records you create using other media. Emails are records when they are: Created or received in the transaction of agency business; Appropriate for preservation as evidence of the government’s function and activities; or Valuable because of the information they contain.

“If you create or receive email messages during the course of your daily work, you are responsible for ensuring that you manage them properly. The Treasury Department’s current email policy requires emails and attachments that meet the definition of a federal record be added to the organization’s files by printing them (including the essential transmission data) and filing them with related paper records. If transmission and receipt data are not printed by the email system, annotate the paper copy.

“Please note that maintaining a copy of an email or its attachments within the IRS email MS Outlook application does not meet the requirements of maintaining an official record. Therefore, print and file email and its attachments if they are either permanent records or if they relate to a specific case.” (Source)

September 2011 to June 2012: As the IRS cancels its relationship with Sonasoft, the agency is also in the midst of “retiring” and throwing away numerous sophisticated data-storage devices in the IRS’s national IT offices in Maryland — even though the IRS is still paying maintenance fees ($6,692 per month) on the devices. (Source)

October 6, 2011: Charles Boustany, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee, sends a letter to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman requesting information about the agency’s dealings with the tax-exempt sector. (Source)

November 18, 2011: The IRS responds to Chairman Boustany by providing some of the information he requested, but makes no mention of any knowledge that conservative groups are being targeted. (Source)

December 16, 2011: House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee members meet with Exempt Organizations Division Director Lois Lerner and other IRS staff. Neither Lerner nor her colleagues mention that their agency has targeted conservative groups. (Source and Source)

January 2012: The IRS begins sending follow-up letters requesting that conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status provide voluminous and sensitive information, such as the names of all donors and the amounts of all their donations; a list of all issues important to the groups; an explanation of where the groups stand on those issues; and all emails sent to members of the groups. (Source)

February 22, 2012: Lois Lerner sends an email to an IRS information technology specialist, with the message line: “Virus on Home PC.” In the exchange, Lerner indicates that she keeps work information on her home computer, and that some of it may have been lost. That computer, says Lerner, may have been “simply hacked because my password was too simple.” (Source) [This information was made public on July 30, 2014, when House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Michigan Republican) turned it over to the Justice Department in support of an investigation into criminal wrongdoing at the IRS.]

February 24, 2012:During a briefing on the onerous follow-up letters received by some conservative organizations, Oversight and Government Reform Committee staffers ask IRS Exempt Organizations Division Director Lois Lerner whether the criteria for evaluating tax-exempt applications have changed at any point. Lerner replies that the criteria have not changed. (Source)

February 29, 2012: The IRS issues a 60-day extension (for compliance) to all groups that have received follow-up letters, and Lerner orders that no additional developmental letters be sent. (Source)

March 1, 2012: Charles Boustany, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee, sends a follow-up letter to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman with additional queries about reports that “the IRS has been questioning new tax-exempt applicants, including grassroots political entities such as Tea Party groups.” (Source)

March 1, 2012 – Top IRS officials meet to discuss media reports that conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status are being harassed/targeted. (Source)

March 12, 2012: The IRS responds to Boustany’s letter with no mention of any knowledge that conservative groups are being targeted. (Source)

March 12, 2012: Democratic Senators Charles Schumer, Michael Bennet, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall, Jeanne Shaheen, and Al Franken write a letter calling on the IRS to scrutinize conservative groups allegedly masquerading as 501(c)(4) “social welfare organizations.” A press release from Senator Schumer’s office, asserting that “the lack of clarity in the IRS rules has allowed political groups to improperly claim 501(c)4 status and may even be allowing donors to these groups to wrongly claim tax deductions for their contributions,” summarizes the terms of the letter:

“We urge the IRS to take these steps immediately to prevent abuse of the tax code by political groups focused on federal election activities. But if the IRS is unable to issue administrative guidance in this area then we plan to introduce legislation to accomplish these important changes.” (Source)

March 22, 2012: The House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee holds its regularly scheduled 2012 hearing on the tax-return filing season and general IRS operations. Chairman Charles Boustany asks then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman about reports that the IRS has been targeting Tea Party groups. Shulman responds, “I can give you assurances…[t]here is absolutely no targeting.” (Source, Source, Source, and Source)

March 23, 2012: The IRS sends a supplementary response (containing additional information) to the House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee, and again makes no mention of any knowledge that conservative groups are being targeted. (Source)

March 27, 2012: Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa and Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) send Exempt Organizations Division Director Lois Lerner a letter requesting information related to the reports that conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status have been receiving extra scrutiny from the IRS. (Source)

March 2012:Oversight and Government Reform Committee representatives meet with staffers from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) to discuss IRS policies for scrutinizing organizations applying for tax-exempt status. In response, then-Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement Steven Miller directs the IRS to launch an internal review of the actions taken by the Exempt Organizations Division. (Source)

March 30, 2012: Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs’ permanent subcommittee on investigations, writes a March 30, 2012 letter to then-IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman discussing the “urgency” of the issue of possible political activity by nonprofit applicants. Levin asks if the IRS has been sending out additional information requests to applicant groups, and he cites an IRS rejection letter to a conservative group as an example of how the IRS should be conducting its business.

“Some entities claiming tax-exempt status as social welfare organizations under 26 U.S.C.&501(c)(4) appear to be engaged in political activities more appropriate for political organizations claiming tax-exempt status under 26 U.S.C.&527,” Sen. Levin writes. “Because of the urgency of the issues involved in this matter, please provide the following information by April 20, 2012.”

Levin asks ”if it is not provided on a routine basis, approximately what percentage of such applicants receive an IRS questionnaire seeking information about any political activities, and how the IRS determines whether and when to send that questionnaire; and approximately how many days after an application is filed that questionnaire is typically sent.”

Levin cites a 1997 IRS rejection letter to the conservative group National Policy Forum, formed by former Republican National Committee chairman Haley Barbour, and asks Shulman, “Is it still the position of the IRS that a 501(c)(4) organization cannot engage in any partisan political activity, even as a secondary activity?” (Source)

April 4, 2012: During a telephone briefing, Lois Lerner tells Oversight and Government Reform Committee staff that the information which the IRS has been requesting in its additional follow-up letters to conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status is not beyond the bounds of ordinary practice. (Source)

April 23, 2012: House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Charles Boustany and 61 other House Republicans send a letter to IRS Deputy Director Steven Miller, inquiring about discriminatory practices against conservative groups. (Source and Source)

April 23, 2012: IRS Chief Counsel William Wilkins, who was appointed by President Obama in 2009, meets with Obama in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. (Source)

April 24, 2012: IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman (William Wilkins’ boss) and two other IRS officials—Shulman’s chief-of-staff and political aide Jonathan Davis and IRS spokesman Frank Keith—meet for eight-and-a-half hours with a top White House official, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director Jeffrey Zients, at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building located at the White House complex. (Source and Source)

April 25, 2012: The IRS Chief Counsel’s office (led by William Wilkins) sends Washington-based IRS officials new guidelines on how to scrutinize Tea Party and conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status. (Source)

April 26, 2012: The IRS sends a second supplementary response to the House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee but includes no information about its practice of targeting conservative groups. (Source)

April 26, 2012: Exempt Organizations Division Director Lois Lerner, responding to the March 27th letter from Chairmen Issa and Jordan, writes that the IRS letters to targeted conservative organizations were “in the ordinary course of the application process to obtain the information as the IRS deems necessary to make a determination whether the organization meets the legal requirements for tax-exempt status.” (Source)

May 3, 2012: The IRS, having completed its own internal review of the targeting scandal, concludes that there has been a substantial, inappropriate bias against conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. IRS Deputy Director Steven Miller is informed of this finding. (Source, Source, and Source)

May 15, 2012: IRS Acting Commissioner Steven Miller identifies two “rogue” employees in the agency’s Cincinnati office as being mainly responsible for the “overly aggressive” handling of requests by conservative groups for tax-exempt status. Miller says the staffers have already been disciplined. (Source)

May 2012: David Camp, Republican Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, sends a letter to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman requesting copies of all 501(c)(4) applications from 2010 and 2011. (Source)

May 2012: In 45-page letters to two lawmakers who inquired about the IRS targeting of conservative groups, Exempt Organizations Division Director Lois Lerner makes no mention of any such practice. (Source)

May 2012: IRS officials determine that there were seven types of information asked of conservative applicants, including donor information, that were inappropriate. (Source)

June 4, 2012: In response to Sen. Carl Levin’s March 30, 2012 letter, then-IRS deputy commissioner Steven T. Miller sends Levin a 16-page response explaining that the flexibility of IRS rules allow for the agency to “prepare individualized questions and requests.”

“There is no standard questionnaire used to obtain information about political activities,” Miller writes. “Although there is a template development letter that describes the general information on the case development process, the letter does not specify the information to be requested from any particular organization … Consequently, revenue agents prepare individualized questions and requests for documents relevant to the application. . .” (Source and Source)

June 4, 2012: The Inspector General (IG) informs the Treasury Department’s general counsel that he has been auditing the IRS’s screening of politically active groups seeking tax exemptions. The IG then gives the same information to Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin “shortly after.” This means that Obama administration officials are now fully aware of the matter. (Source)

June 14, 2012: In an email to IRS official Lois Lerner and others, Treasury official Ruth Madrigal writes: “Don’t know who in your organizations is keeping tabs on c4s, but since we mentioned potentially addressing them (off-plan) in 2013, I’ve got my radar up and this seemed interesting…”

This email demonstrates that the Treasury Department and Lerner have been conspiring to draft new 501(c)(4) regulations to restrict the activity of conservative groups in a manner that would be “off-plan” — meaning that they would not be disclosed publicly and would not be published on the public schedule. According to the Daily Caller:

“The rules place would place much more stringent controls on what would be considered political activity by the IRS, effectively limiting the standard practices of a wide array of non-profit groups…. The new rules define more previously acceptable activities by nonprofit groups as prohibited ‘candidate-related political activity.’ Communications and activities including voter registration drives and publishing voter guides, among others, are now classified as political activity. Grants and donations that 501(c)(4)’s give to other nonprofits are now subject to new record-keeping and increased scrutiny to prevent the money’s use for broadly-defined political activity.” (Source)

June 15, 2012: IRS Deputy Director Steven Miller responds to an April 23 letter signed by Charles Boustany, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee, and 61 other House Republicans, but includes no information about the IRS’s discriminatory practices against conservative groups. Stating generally that the IRS has recently been seeing more tax-exempt applications from politically active groups and has been striving to “coordinate the handling of the case to ensure consistency,” Lerner does not concede that conservatives have been singled out. (Source and Source)

June 25, 2012: The House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee holds a hearing on charitable organizations. When asked about IRS harassment of conservative groups, IRS Deputy Director Steven Miller makes no reference to any discriminatory practices but says: “I am aware that some two hundred 501(c)(4) applications fell into this category [the determinations letter process]. We did group those organizations together to ensure consistency, to ensure quality.” During his testimony, Miller does not disclose what he was told on May 3 regarding the targeting of Tea Party groups. (Source and Source)

July 10, 2012: Sharon Light, then-advisor to Exempt Organizations Division Director Lois Lerner, emails Lerner a National Public Radio story on how outside money was making it difficult for Democrats to hold onto their Senate majority. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has already complained to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) that conservative groups should be treated as political committees, rather than as tax-exempt social welfare groups. “Perhaps the FEC will save the day,” Ms. Lerner replies later that morning in an email. (Source)

July 30, 2012: In a letter, Senator Carl Levin singles out 12 groups he wants investigated for “political activity.” Of the groups, only one – Priorities USA – is left-leaning. (Source)

September 11, 2012: IRS Deputy Commissioner Steven Miller writes a letter responding to Senator Orrin Hatch, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, who has already written three times to the IRS about complaints related to the targeting of conservative groups. Miller again does not acknowledge the scrutiny to which conservative groups were subjected. (Source)

September 27, 2012: Senator Carl Levin asks for copies of the answers to IRS exemption application question 15 – a question about planned political expenditures – from four specific groups: Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, Priorities USA, Americans for Prosperity, and Patriot Majority USA. (Source)

October 17, 2012: IRS Deputy Commissioner Steven Miller informs Senator Carl Levin, “As discussed in our previous responses dated June 4, 2012, and August 24, 2012, the IRS cannot legally disclose whether the organizations on your list have applied for tax exemptions unless and until such application is approved.” Miller, however, then informs Levin that Americans for Prosperity and Patriot Majority have been approved, but the IRS has no records for Crossroads and Priorities USA. (Source)

October 23, 2012: Senator Carl Levin writes to again express his dissatisfaction with the IRS handling of “social welfare” (501(c)(4) organizations insisting that IRS guidance “misinterprets the law” by allowing any political activity. He again demands an answer as to whether the four organizations he listed in his previous letter (of September 27, 2012) were primarily engaged in the promotion of social welfare. He also seeks copies of tax exempt revocation letters sent due to c4 political activities, as well as statistics on how many c4s have been notified that they may be in violation due to political activities. (Source)

Fall 2012: Pursuant to a request by David Camp, Republican Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the IRS makes all 501(c)(4) applications from 2010 and 2011 available to that Committee. (Source)

November 9, 2012: In an email exchange that Lois Lerner conducts via her official IRS email account with an unnamed colleague at the agency, the colleague writes: “Well, you should hear the whacko wing of the GOP. The US is through; too many foreigners sucking the teat; time to hunker down, buy ammo and food, and prepare for the end. The right wing radio shows are scary to listen to. And I’m talking about the hosts of the shows. The callers are rabid.” Lerner replies, “Great. Maybe we are through if there are that many assholes.” She adds: “So we don’t need to worry about teRroists [sic]. It’s our own crazies that will take us down.” (Source)

In an email to another colleague, Lerner, responding to a news article about the pro-Obama non-profit Action, writes: “Oh – maybe I can get the DC office job!” (Source) [This information was made public on July 30, 2014, when House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Michigan Republican) turned it over to the Justice Department in support of an investigation into criminal wrongdoing at the IRS.]

November 11, 2012: Douglas Shulman steps down as IRS Director and is replaced by Steven Miller. (Source)

November 15, 2012: Exempt Organizations Division Director Lois Lerner and IRS staffers meet with House Ways and Means Committee staff but again do not mention their knowledge about the targeting of conservative groups. (Source and Source)

March 15, 2013 – New Treasury Secretary Jack Lew is informed of the IRS targeting probe. (Source)

March 27, 2013: In an email to a top staffer at the IRS, Lois Lerner writes: “As I mentioned yesterday — there are several groups of folks from the FEC [Federal Election Commission] world that are pushing tax fraud prosecution for [501]c4s who report they are not conducting political activity when they are (or these folks think they are). One is my ex-boss Larry Noble (former General Counsel at the FEC), who is now president of Americans for Campaign Reform. This is their latest push to shut these down. One IRS prosecution would make an impact and they wouldn’t feel so comfortable doing the stuff. So, don’t be fooled about how this is being articulated – it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political activity.” (Source)

April 2, 2013: Lois Lerner sends an email to internal IRS investigators that tries to explain the “Be on the Lookout” (BOLO) criteria used to select organizations for screening and scrutiny:

… Because the BOLO only contained a brief reference to “Organizations involved with the Tea Party movement applying for exemption under 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4)” in June 2011, the EO Determinations manager asked the manager of the screening group, John Shafer [IRS Cincinnati field office manager], what criteria were being used to label cases as “tea party” cases. (“Do the applications specify/state ‘tea party’? If not, how do we know applicant is involved with the tea party movement?”) The screening group manager asked his employees how they were applying the BOLO’s short –hand reference to “tea party.” His employees responded that they were including organizations meeting any of the following criteria as falling within the BOLO’s reference to “tea party” organizations: “1. ‘Tea Party’, ‘Patriots’ or ’9/12 Project’ is referenced in the case file. 2. Issues include government spending, government debt and taxes. 3. Educate the public through advocacy/legislative activities to make America a better place to live. 4. Statements in the case file that are critical of the how the country is being run. . .” So, we believe we have provided information that shows that no one in EO “developed” the criteria. Rather, staff used their own interpretations of the brief reference to “organizations involved with the Tea Party movement,” which was what was on the BOLO list.

Lerner neglects to mention that her office was “developing” the applications for all Tea Party groups. (Source)

April 9, 2013: Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) chairs a hearing in which he discusses the abuse of the 501(c)(4) tax-exempt designation. During that hearing, he makes his leftist agenda clear, insisting that “after the Supreme Court opened the floodgates to big money in elections in its disgraceful Citizens United decision, big donors like to use these non-profit entities to launder campaign spending and hide their identities.” Whitehouse also asks witnesses from DOJ and IRS why they haven’t prosecuted 501(c)(4) groups who have made false statements about their activities, or donors who have used shell companies to mask their donations to Super PACs. He urges both entities to “put together a criminal case showing a fairly straightforward false statement or a fairly [straightforward] shell corporation disclosure violation.”(Source)

April 9, 2013: In an email exchange with fellow IRS employees, Lois Lerner writes: “I was cautioning folks about email and how we have had several occasions where Congress has asked for emails and there has been an electronic search for responsive emails — so we need to be cautious about what we say in emails.” Lerner then goes on to ask a tech staffer whether instant-message communications are stored automatically. When that staffer tells her that such messages are not stored anywhere (unless one of the parties makes copies of them), Lerner replies, “Perfect.”

April 22, 2013: According to White House spokesman Jay Carney, this is the date when the White House Counsel first learns that the Inspector General will soon be completing its report about the IRS office in Cincinnati, which handles tax-exempt applications. (Source and Source)

May 1, 2013: After receiving an email from an assistant showing that 501(c)(4) applications have increased from 1,591 in 2010 to 3,398 in 2012, Lois Lerner writes back, “Looks to me like 2010-2012 doubled too. Oh well – thanks.” (Source)

May 2, 2013: Discussing an upcoming conference call with approximately 100 congressional staffers, Lerner cautions aides, “Need to be careful not to mention sequester/furlough unless asked although can allude to budget and resources restraints.” (Source)

May 2, 2013: In response to an email reminding her about the upcoming conference call with congressional staffers, Lerner responds, “Arrgh – I just saw it. Sharon [White] could skate, but Cindy [Thomas] is the person who could answer that stuff. We need to give them some type of language in the event that type of question comes up” [apparently in reference to earlier email referencing “sensitive issues”]. (Source)

May 8, 2013: Lois Lerner sends the following email to Nikole C. Flax, then-Chief of Staff to then-Acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller: “I got a call today from Richard Pilger Director Elections Crimes Branch at DOJ … He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ folk s [sic] could talk to about Sen. Whitehouse idea at the hearing that DOJ could piece together false statement cases about applicants who ‘lied’ on their 1024s – saying they weren’t planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures. DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs. I told him that sounded like we might need several folks from IRS…” (Source)

May 9, 2013: Flax responds to Lois Lerner: “I think we should do it – also need to include CI [Criminal Investigation Division], which we can help coordinate. Also, we need to reach out to FEC. Does it make sense to consider including them in this or keep it separate? (Source)

May 9, 2013: At an American Bar Association (ABA) conference, attorney Celia Roady asks a planted question of Exempt Organizations Division Director Lois Lerner regarding the IRS targeting scandal. The Inspector General’s report on the scandal was slated to be given to the White House the next day, and Lerner chose the ABA event as a venue for issuing a preemptive apology in advance of that report. Several days later, Cecilia Roady explains how this was arranged:

“On May 9, I received a call from Lois Lerner, who told me that she wanted to address an issue after her prepared remarks … and asked if I would pose a question to her after her remarks. I agreed to do so.… We had no discussion thereafter on the topic of the question, nor had we spoken about any of this before I received her call. She did not tell me, and I did not know, how she would answer the question.” (Source and Source)

May 10, 2013: Blaming low-level IRS employees in Cincinnati, Exempt Organizations Division Director Lois Lerner says that no high-level officials were aware of the IRS targeting of conservative groups until she began “seeing information in the press that raised questions for us.” She apologizes on behalf of the IRS for the “inappropriate” targeting. This same day, White House counsel receives the Inspector General’s report, and President Barack Obama is said to have heard of the matter for the first time. (Source, Source, and Source)
May 10, 2013: In an email to an aide responding to a request for information from a Washington Post reporter, Lerner admits that she “can’t confirm that there was anyone on the other side of the political spectrum” who was targeted by the IRS. She then adds that “The one with the names used were only know [sic] because they have been very loud in the press.” (Source)

May 10, 2013: An email from former Cincinnati program manager Cindy Thomas excoriates Lois Lerner for her comments blaming low-level IRS employees. Highlighting the words “low-level workers” in bold-face type each of the seven times she used it in a short email, Thomas asks, “How am I supposed to keep the low-level workers motivated when the public believes they are nothing more than low-level workers and now will have no respect for how they are working cases?” Lerner responds tersely nearly an hour later: “I will be back shortly and give you a call.” (Source)

May 13, 2013: President Obama claims to have learned about the IRS targeting just three days earlier: ”I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this. I think it was on Friday.” He says that if the IRS intentionally targeted conservatives, it was “outrageous.” The Democratic-controlled Senate Finance Committee joins Republican-led House committees in planning new investigations into the matter. (Source, Source, and Source)

May 13, 2013: The Daily Mail reports that the IRS, in many of its audits of conservative groups, “demanded to know the names of all its financial donors and volunteers, as part of a 55-question inquisition into its application for tax-exempt status.” For example, the questionnaire: (a) wanted to know “the names of the donors, contributors, and grantors” for every year “from inception to the present”; (b) demanded a listing of “the amounts of each of the donations, contributions, and grants and the dates you received them”; and (c) and asked the targeted groups to “provide the details” about how they had “use[d] these donations, contributions, and grants.”

May 14, 2013: White House press secretary Jay Carney says in a press conference that the White House was notified about the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups “several weeks ago.” Later in the press conference, however, Carney says that that he nor the President were notified individually. (Source)

May 14, 2013: IRS Director Steven Miller says that his agency demonstrated “a lack of sensitivity” in trying to determine whether conservative groups were eligible for tax exemption. The Justice Department says it will conduct a criminal investigation, the Inspector General’s report (titled “Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review”) is released to the public, and President Obama calls the findings “intolerable and inexcusable.” (Source and Source)

May 14, 2013: A Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report reveals that the IRS has singled out groups with conservative-sounding terms such as “patriot” and “Tea Party” in their titles when applying for tax-exempt status. The TIGTA probe determined that “Early in Calendar Year 2010, the IRS began using inappropriate criteria to identify organizations applying for tax-exempt status (e.g., lists of past and future donors).” The illegal IRS reviews continued for more than 18 months and “delayed processing of targeted groups applications” preparing for the 2012 presidential election. (Source)

May 15, 2013 – The IRS announces that IRS Director Steven Miller will be resigning in June, at which time he was already scheduled to leave anyway. (Source)

May 15, 2013: In an email to Lois Lerner, an aide specifically mentions “Tea Party Organizations,” the “Tea Party movement,” and “Tea Party Patriots” as organizations targeted by the IRS. (Source)

May 16, 2013: At a press conference, Julianna Goldman of Bloomberg News asks President Obama the following question (italics added for emphasis):

“Mr. President, I want to ask you about the IRS. Can you assure the American people that nobody in the White House knew about the agency’s actions before your Counsel’s Office found out on April 22nd? And when they did find out, do you think that you should have learned about it before you learned about it from news reports as you said last Friday? And also, are you opposed to there being a special counsel appointed to lead the Justice Department investigation?”

Obama replies, evasively:

“[L]et me make sure that I answer your specific question. I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press.” (Source)


May 16, 2013:
President Obama calls the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups “outrageous and unacceptable.” He also reiterates that he was unaware of the targeting until news reports began coming out six days earlier. (Source)

May 17, 2013: The New York Times reports that the White House actually learned of the IRS targeting on June 4, 2012—five months prior to the 2012 elections. (Source and Source)

May 17, 2013: In a congressional hearing, acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller apologizes for “foolish mistakes” carried out by IRS employees “trying to be more efficient in their workload selection.” But he strongly pushes back against Republican assertions that the agency is politicized. Moreover, he maintains that he did not lie to Congress—even though he never revealed the targeting program in response to repeated requests from Republican lawmakers in recent years. “I did not mislead Congress,” he says. “I answered the questions as they were asked.” Miller also says that he takes “exception” to the term “targeting” because “It’s a loaded term.” (Source)

May 20, 2013: The Colfax, California-based NorCal Tea Party—claiming that its application for tax-exempt status has been wrongfully subjected to extra scrutiny—launches a lawsuit against the IRS. (Source)

May 21, 2013: In a congressional hearing, former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, who stepped down from that post when his five-year term expired in November 2012, tells the Senate Finance Committee he did not learn all the facts about the targeting of conservative groups until he read the preceding week’s Inspector General report confirming the targeting strategy. “I agree this is an issue that when someone spotted it, they should have brought it up the chain,” he says. “And they didn’t. I don’t know why.” Also during the hearing:

  • Shulman says he first heard about the targeting and about the Inspector General’s investigation in the spring of 2012, during the presidential election.
  • When Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Montana) asks Shulman how the improper screening system could have occurred in the first place, Shulman says, “Mr. Chairman, I can’t say. I can’t say that I know that answer.”
  • When Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) asks Shulman whether he owes conservative groups an apology, the former IRS commissioner says: “I’m certainly not personally responsible for creating a list that had inappropriate criteria on it”—a reference to the list of words (e.g., “Tea Party” and “Patriot”) which IRS workers looked for when deciding which groups to scrutinize. “I very much regret that it happened and that it happened on my watch,” he adds. (Source)

May 21, 2013: True the Vote, a conservative organization that fights for electoral integrity and was targeted by the IRS, files suit against the IRS in federal court. (Source)

May 22, 2013: At a congressional hearing into the targeting scandal, Lois Lerner (Director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division) gives a self-serving opening statement and then immediately pleads the Fifth Amendment, refusing to answer any questions. Says Lerner:

“… My professional career has been devoted to fulfilling responsibilities of the agencies for which I have worked, and I am very proud of the work that I have done in government…. I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws, I have not violated any IRS rules or 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…. I know that some people will assume that I’ve 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’m invoking today.” (Source)

May 23, 2013: Lois Lerner is placed on administrative leave from the IRS. (Source)

May 29, 2013: CBS News reports that after Texas businesswoman Catherine Engelbrecht founded two conservative organizations, she was harassed to an extreme degree by the IRS as well as other government agencies. That prompted her to file a federal lawsuit in May 2013. According to CBS:

The trouble began shortly after Engelbrecht founded True the Vote, which trains election volunteers and aims to root out voter fraud, and King Street Patriots, a group with ideals similar to the Tea Party. Both sought tax-exempt status from the IRS in July 2010. And both organizations drew the ire of Democrats. Democrats accused True the Vote of intimidating voters in its poll watching efforts, which the group denies. And the Texas Democratic Party successfully sued King Street Patriots, arguing that it’s an unregistered political action committee.

But Engelbrecht’s attorney, Cleta Mitchell, says it’s not just the Democratic Party that went after the conservative causes, but also the federal government. Within months of the groups filing for tax-exempt status, Engelbrecht claims she started getting hit by an onslaught of harassment: six FBI domestic terrorism inquiries, an IRS visit, two IRS business audits, two IRS personal audits, and inspections of her equipment manufacturing company by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Texas environmental quality officials….

All the while, the IRS tax-exempt applications seemed to languish. Engelbrecht says the IRS requested additional information from True the Vote five times, requiring thousands of pages of documentation. Engelbrecht estimates she’s spent more than $100,000 in attorney and accountant fees to process the IRS requests. With its tax-exempt status in limbo, she says True the Vote had to return a $35,000 grant and cannot effectively fundraise. “I just kept thinking this can’t be happening.” Engelbrecht says, “it never ends.”

Engelbrecht’s attorney, Mitchell, says the IRS process for conservative groups was relatively painless, often taking just a few months, until about 2010 when there was an abrupt shift: simple questions became intrusive, lengthy interrogations requiring professional legal help. Applicants sometimes had to spend tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees, they lost revenue, and in some cases, got so discouraged that they gave up on tax-exempt status altogether.

Washington, DC attorney John Pomeranz represents liberal organizations seeking tax-exemption. He told CBS News that he has found some of the IRS requests of tea party groups “new” and “very troubling,” and said he doesn’t recall getting similar demands for his liberal clients. (Source)

May 31, 2013: It is reported that the IRS is being sued by 25 Tea Party groups in federal court over its illegal targeting practices. (Source)

June 2013: The Treasury Department’s Inspector General reveals that just 6 liberal/left groups were targeted by the IRS, compared to 292 conservative groups. The IG also says that 100% of conservative groups seeking special tax status— i.e., all 292 of them—were put under IRS review, while only 30% of the liberal/left groups were put under such review. (Source, Source, and Source)

June 5, 2013: It is reported that Sarah Hall Ingram, who headed the IRS’s Exempt Organizations Division in 2010 when the scandal-ridden agency began improperly targeting the tax-exempt nonprofit status of conservative groups, has logged 165 recorded visits to the White House since 2011. (Fully 155 of those were hosted by Jeanne Lambrew, deputy assistant to the president for health policy.) None of Ingram’s 165 meetings overlapped with those of former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, whose name has appeared in the White House visitor logs 157 times since September 15, 2009. In short, these two IRS officials have been responsible for more than 300 White House visits since the beginning of the Obama administration. (Source and Source)

June 11, 2013: Pepperdine University Law School professor Paul L. Caron reveals the astonishing extent to which IRS attorneys supported Barack Obama over Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential campaign:

Of the IRS lawyers who made contributions in the 2012 election, 95% contributed to Obama rather than to Romney. So among IRS lawyers, the ratio of Obama contributors to Romney contributors was not merely 4-to-1 at previously reported, but more like 20-to-1. The ratio of funds to Obama was even more lopsided, with about 32 times as much money going to Obama as to Romney from IRS lawyers….

The data show, however, that the partisanship of the lawyers in the IRS is not unusual or even particularly extreme among federal agencies. In fact, the lawyers in every single federal government agency–from the Department of Education [100%] to the Department of Defense [68%] — contributed overwhelmingly to Obama compared to Romney.

July 18, 2013: Testifying before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, top IRS attorney Carter Hull—a 48-year IRS veteran who will soon retire—says that in the winter of 2010-11:

“[I] was assigned by my supervisor to work on two applications of tea party groups. In that same month, I became aware that a group of tea party applications were being held by EO (Exempt Organizations) determinations in Cincinnati. It was my understanding that the applications assigned to me would be ‘test cases’ to provide guidance for those other applications. I was also told by my supervisor that I was to coordinate the review of the tea party applications that were assigned to Elizabeth Hofacre in Cincinnati.”

The most damning part of Hull’s testimony involves a directive from Lois Lerner’s senior advisor, who told him that the applications would require further review and “should go to the [IRS] chief counsel”—i.e., William Wilkins, an Obama appointee. (Source and Source)

July 24, 2013: During an economic address at Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois, President Obama charges that Republicans have turned the IRS matter into part of “an endless parade of distractions, political posturing and phony scandals.” (Source)

August 13, 2013: According to House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa and his colleague, Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan, Exempt Organizations Division Director Lois Lerner has been using a non-official, personal email account to conduct official government business. This is a violation of U.S. law, which requires those employed by federal agencies to retain all of their emails in the event that they are someday needed for lawsuits or congressional investigations. (Source)

August 2013: Congress issues its first subpoena for all emails sent or received by Lois Lerner from Jan. 1, 2009 to Aug. 2, 2013. (Source)

September 23, 2013: Lois Lerner, the woman at the center of the IRS Tea Party targeting scandal, retires from the agency after an internal investigation finds that she was guilty of “neglect of duties” and prepares to call for her dismissal. (Source)

October 9, 2013: It is learned that top IRS official Sarah Hall Ingram in 2012 discussed confidential taxpayer information with senior Obama White House officials — including Lois Lerner, then head of the IRS Tax Exempt Organizations division — as evidenced by a series of 2012 emails obtained by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. At that time, Ingram headed the IRS office responsible for overseeing tax-exempt nonprofit groups.

Specifically, Ingram sought to counsel the White House on how to handle a lawsuit filed by religious organizations opposing Obamacare’s mandate for contraception coverage. As the Daily Caller reports: “Email exchanges involving Ingram and White House officials — including White House health policy advisor Ellen Montz and deputy assistant to the president for health policy Jeanne Lambrew — contained confidential taxpayer information, according to Oversight.” This was a violation of Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, which forbids — on pain of up to five years in prison — a federal employee from “disclos[ing] any return or return information obtained by him in any manner in connection with his service as such an officer or an employee.”

in [sic] her October 9 testimony before Rep. Darrell Issa’s House Oversight Committee, Ingram says she cannot recall a document that contained confidential taxpayer information. (Source)

November 2013: The House Oversight Committee subpoenas all emails sent or received by Lois Lerner from Jan. 1, 2009 to Aug. 2, 2013. (Source)

February 2, 2014: In an interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, President Obama adamantly rejects the suggestion that the IRS had been used for political purposes by targeting Tea Party groups that sought tax-exempt status. “That’s not what happened,” Obama says, explaining that certain IRS officials had simply made some “some bone-headed decisions” due to their confusion about the proper procedure for implementing the law governing tax-exempt organizations. When asked whether corruption, or mass corruption, had been a factor, Obama replies: “Not even mass corruption—not even a smidgen of corruption.” Obama also acknowledges that then-IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman had been to the White House more than 100 times, but says he cannot recall speaking to him on any of those occasions. (Source)

February 2, 2014: IRS officials first learn that many of Lois Lerner’s emails are missing. (Source)

February 4, 2014: Lois Lerner’s computer crashes. (Source)

February 11, 2014: House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-Michigan) says that his committee’s continuing investigation has found that the IRS targeting of conservative groups extended far beyond merely placing hurdles in the path of organizations that were seeking 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status. Says Camp:

“We now know that the IRS targeted not only right-leaning applicants, but also right-leaning groups that were already operating as 501(c)(4)s. At Washington, DC’s direction, dozens of groups operating as 501(c)(4)s were flagged for IRS surveillance, including monitoring of the groups’ activities, websites and any other publicly available information. Of these groups, 83% were right-leaning. And of the groups the IRS selected for audit, 100% were right-leaning.” (Source)

March 5, 2014: Former IRS official Lois Lerner once again invokes her Fifth Amendment right not to testify at a House Oversight Committee hearing, just as she previously did on May 22, 2013. Though Republicans argue that Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment right by giving a statement during that May 22 hearing, Lerner, in response to several questions, says: “On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer that question.” (Source)

After the hearing is adjourned, Lerner’s attorney, Bill Taylor, says that his client will make no further statements or give any testimony unless forced to. According to Taylor, the Oversight Committee “would have to start all over” in its investigation to compel Lerner back to the witness stand. (Source)

March 11, 2014: Darrell Issa’s Committee on Oversight and Government Reform issues a staff report on Lois Lerner and her involvement in the IRS targeting of conservative groups. According to Brietbart.com:

The [Oversight Committee] report suggests Lerner misled Congress in four instances and attempted to downplay the inappropriate targeting after it came to light.

The report says Lerner was concerned about the political implications of allowing 501(c)(4) groups to spend money on election related activity in the wake of the Citizens United decision. The Oversight Committee report concludes that Lerner was involved in three separate efforts to curb such spending. From the report’s conclusion:

Evidence indicates Lerner and her Exempt Organizations unit took a three pronged approach to “do something about it” to “fix the problem” of nonprofit political speech:

1) Scrutiny of new applicants for tax-exempt status (which began as Tea Party targeting);

2) Plans to scrutinize organizations, like those supported by the “Koch Brothers,” that were already acting as 501(c)(4) organizations; and

3) “[O]ff plan” efforts to write new rules cracking down on political activity to replace those that had been in place since 1959.

The sense conveyed in the report is that Lerner was concerned IRS activity might appear to be “per se political” (as she warned in one email) even as she helped slow walk any movement toward approval on cases which were, overwhelmingly, conservative groups.

In the summer of 2011, Lerner learned about the criteria used to gather the Tea Party cases, which included “[s]tatements in the case file [that] criticize how the country is being run.” As a result she adjusted the criteria for selection so it would not appear to be focused on right-leaning groups. However, while her adjusting of the criteria represents an admission that the prior criteria had been problematic, she apparently made no effort to release the cases selected under that criteria. Tea Party cases remained gummed up in the multi-tier review process she had recommended.

The same briefing prepared for Lerner noted that one of the groups under scrutiny “stated it will conduct advocacy and political campaign intervention, but political campaign intervention will account for 20% or less of activities.” That’s far below the 49% threshold set by law. The briefing for Lerner added, “A proposed favorable letter has been sent to Counsel for review.” But the report notes that as of June 2013, a full two years later, the application was still pending.

And there is no doubt Lerner was aware who was being scrutinized. In July 2012, Lerner was notified by email that of the 199 501(c)(4) cases which had been set aside “approximately 3/4 appear to be conservative leaning while fewer than 10 appear to be liberal/progressive leaning groups…”

Earlier in 2012, Lerner was asked a series of questions by Committee staff. The report lays out four instances where she appears to have misled them in her answers. For instance, Lerner was asked whether criteria for examining 501(c)(4) cases had been changed at any time. She said no. But, as noted above, she had changed the criteria used to identify cases for scrutiny herself in 2011.

In response to another Committee question about letters sent to conservative groups demanding donor lists, Lerner replied this had been done “in the ordinary course of the application process.”

Later, in 2013, the Committee learned from the IRS Commissioner’s Chief of Staff, Nikole Flax, that she was unable to find another instance in the IRS’ history where such a request had been made.

Finally, the report is critical of Lerner’s attempt to downplay the import of the TIGTA findings by arranging a planted question to which Lerner could give a scripted answer claiming the targeting had been a mistake, not “a political vendetta.” Internally, Lerner wrote an email saying of the forthcoming report, “It is what it is … we will get dinged.” But a few months later, just before the report was released, she was exploring her retirement options. (Source)

March 26, 2014: In testimony before the House Oversight Committee, IRS commissioner John Koskinen makes no mention of Lois Lerner’s computer hard-drive crash. Under questioning by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), Koskinen says that IRS emails “get taken off and stored in servers.” He also acknowledges that seven months after Congress first asked the IRS to supply Lerner’s emails request, the agency has not yet begun serious work to find them and turn them over. But he assures: “We can find, and we are in fact searching, we can find Lois Lerner’s emails.” (Source)

April 7, 2014: A new report by aides to Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, reveals that IRS agents have testified before Congress that — contrary to recent claims by Democrats — the agency’s political targeting did not apply to liberal/left organizations. A Daily Caller story explains:

IRS agents testified before Oversight that ACORN groups were scrutinized because the agency thought they were old organizations applying as new ones. Emerge America was scrutinized for potential “improper private benefit.” No evidence exists that the IRS requested additional information from any Occupy Wall Street group.

“Only seven applications in the IRS backlog contained the word ‘progressive,’ all of which were then approved by the IRS, while Tea Party groups received unprecedented review and experienced years-long delays. While some liberal-oriented groups were singled out for scrutiny, evidence shows it was due to non-political reasons,” according to the Oversight staff report….

“[T]he Administration and congressional Democrats have seized upon the notion that the IRS’s targeting was not just limited to conservative applicants,” the report states. “These Democratic claims are flat-out wrong and have no basis in any thorough examination of the facts. Yet, the Administration’s chief defenders continue to make these assertions in a concerted effort to deflect and distract from the truth about the IRS’s targeting of tax-exempt applicants.”

“[T]here is simply no evidence that any liberal or progressive group received enhanced scrutiny because its application reflected the organization’s political views,” the report stated.

April 9, 2014: The Washington Times reports that a government watchdog is pursuing cases against three IRS employees and offices suspected of engaging in illegal political activity in support of President Obama and fellow Democrats:

In one case the Office of Special Counsel, which investigates federal employees who conduct politics on government time, said it was “commonplace” in a Dallas IRS office for employees to have pro-Obama screensavers on their computers, and to have campaign-style buttons and stickers at their office.

In another case, a worker at the tax agency’s customer help line urged taxpayers “to re-elect President Obama in 2012 by repeatedly reciting a chant based on the spelling of his last name,” the Office of Special Counsel said in a statement. OSC said it is seeking “significant disciplinary action” against that employee.

Another IRS employee in Kentucky has agreed to serve a 14-day suspension for blasting Republicans in a conversation with a taxpayer.

“They’re going to take women back 40 years,” the IRS employee said in a conversation that was recorded. The employee also said that “if you vote for a Republican, the rich are going to get richer and the poor are going to get poorer.”

That employee went on to tell the taxpayer she knew she wasn’t supposed to be voicing her political opinions, and asked the taxpayer not to say anything.

In the Dallas situation, the OSC issued a letter to employees reminding them they aren’t allowed to do anything that would appear to be campaigning. “Specifically, it was alleged that employees have worn partisan political stickers, buttons, and clothing to work and have displayed partisan political screensavers on their IRS computers. It was alleged that these items expressed support for President Barack Obama,” the OSC said.

The IRS issued a statement saying it couldn’t comment on specifics, but vowing it took complaints of politicking seriously.

May 6, 2014: The House of Representatives, in a 231-187 vote, decides to hold Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify about the scandal in which the IRS targeted conservative groups, despite a subpoena that demanded her testimony. Six Democrats side with Republicans in the vote.

May 14, 2014: The Daily Caller reports the following:

The IRS’ Washington, D.C. headquarters targeted conservative groups in part due to pressure from Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, according to emails obtained by the watchdog group Judicial Watch and reviewed by The Daily Caller [DC].

Levin, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs’ permanent subcommittee on investigations, wrote a March 30, 2012 letter to then-IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman discussing the “urgency” of the issue of possible political activity by nonprofit applicants. Levin asked if the IRS was sending out additional information requests to applicant groups and cit[ed] an IRS rejection letter to a conservative group as an example of how the IRS should be conducting its business.

A top IRS official replied that the agency could send out “individualized questions and requests.”

“Some entities claiming tax-exempt status as social welfare organizations under 26 U.S.C.&501(c)(4) appear to be engaged in political activities more appropriate for political organizations claiming tax-exempt status under 26 U.S.C.&527,” Sen. Levin wrote. “Because of the urgency of the issues involved in this matter, please provide the following information by April 20, 2012.”

Levin asked ”if it is not provided on a routine basis, approximately what percentage of such applicants receive an IRS questionnaire seeking information about any political activities, and how the IRS determines whether and when to send that questionnaire; and approximately how many days after an application is filed that questionnaire is typically sent.”

Levin cited a 1997 IRS rejection letter to the conservative group National Policy Forum, formed by former Republican National Committee chairman Haley Barbour, and asked Shulman, “Is it still the position of the IRS that a 501(c)(4) organization cannot engage in any partisan political activity, even as a secondary activity?”

Then-IRS deputy commissioner Steven T. Miller sent Levin a 16-page response explaining that the flexibility of IRS rules allow for the agency to “prepare individualized questions and requests.”

“There is no standard questionnaire used to obtain information about political activities,” Miller wrote. “Although there is a template development letter that describes the general information on the case development process, the letter does not specify the information to be requested from any particular organization … Consequently, revenue agents prepare individualized questions and requests for documents relevant to the application. . .”

As TheDC has extensively reported, IRS agents targeted groups’ donors, seized training information, demanded personal information on college interns, and even targeted individuals by name.

The emails obtained by Judicial Watch clearly demonstrate that the targeting was based in Washington, D.C.

IRS official Holly Paz wrote a July 6, 2010 email to Washington-based IRS lawyer Steven Grodnitzky “to let Cindy and Sharon know how we have been handling Tea Party applications in the last few months.” Grodnitzky replied to the email, confirming that the Washington-based Exempt Organization Technical unit (EOT) was designing the targeting in the nation’s capital.

“EOT is working the Tea party applications in coordination with Cincy. We are developing a few applications here in DC and providing copies of our development letters with the agent to use as examples in the development of their cases,” Grodnitzky wrote.

“Chip Hull [another lawyer in IRS headquarters] is working these cases in EOT and working with the agent in Cincy, so any communication should include him as well. Because the Tea party applications are the subject of an SCR [Sensitive Case Report], we cannot resolve any of the cases without coordinating with Rob,” Grodnitzky wrote.

“Rob” is believed to be then-IRS director of rulings and agreements Rob Choi, who was based at the agency’s Washington headquarters, according to Judicial Watch.

Lois Lerner also sent an April 2013 email to IRS internal investigators shortly before the scandal broke, explaining that “staff used their own interpretations of the brief reference to ‘organizations involved with the Tea Party movement,’ which was what was on the BOLO list.” (Source)

June 13, 2014: The IRS tells Congress that due to a computer crash, it has lost many of former employee Lois Lerner’s emails from 2009-11 — specifically, those she transmitted to other federal agencies including the White House, the Justice Department, the Federal Election Commission, the Treasury Department, and Democratic Members of Congress.

Rep. Dave Camp, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, says: “The fact that I am just learning about this, over a year into the investigation, is completely unacceptable and now calls into question the credibility of the IRS’s response to congressional inquiries…. Frankly, these are the critical years [2009-11] of the targeting of conservative groups that could explain who knew what when, and what, if any, coordination there was between agencies. Instead, because of this loss of documents, we are conveniently left to believe that Lois Lerner acted alone.”

In a letter to IRS commissioner John Koskinen, House oversight committee chairman Darrell Issa, who issued a subpoena seeking IRS documents, says that more than 1 million pertinent documents have yet to be produced.

“At this rate, the IRS’ response to the committee’s subpoena will drag on for years,” he wrote. (Source)

June 17, 2014: The IRS reports that due to computer crashes, it cannot produce e-mails from six more employees — in addition to Lois Lerner — who were involved in the targeting of conservative groups. Among the lost emails were those sent by Nikole Flax, chief of staff to former IRS commissioner Steven Miller. (Source)

June 18, 2014: When Information Technology experts say they are confident that they would be able to retrieve the lost emails from Lois Lerner’s crashed computer hard drive, the IRS announces that the hard drive has been thrown away. (Source)

June 20, 2014: IRS Commissioner John Koskinen tells Congress that Lerner’s hard drive had been “recycled and destroyed in the normal process.” (Source)

June 20, 2014: In an angry exchange with IRS Commissioner John Koskinen during a Congressional hearing, Rep. Paul Ryan says:

“I’m sitting here, listening to this testimony, I don’t believe it. That’s your problem. Nobody believes you. The Internal Revenue Service comes to us a couple years ago and misleads us and tells us no targeting is occurring. Then it said it was a few rogue agents in Cincinnati. Then it said it was also on progressives. All of those things have been proven untrue….

“You are the Internal Revenue Service. You can reach into the lives of hard-working taxpayers and with a phone call, an e-mail or a letter you can turn their lives upside down. You ask taxpayers to hand onto seven years of their personal tax information in case they are ever audited and you can’t keep six months worth of employee e-mails? And now that we are seeing this investigation, you don’t have the e-mails, hard drives crashed. You learned about this months ago. You just told us, and we had to ask you on Monday.”

Koskinen replies that this was the first time in his career that someone did not believe him.

“I don’t believe you,” Ryan said again.

When the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Dave Camp (R-Michigan), notes that the IRS has not issued any apology for not having informed anyone that the emails were lost long ago. “I don’t think an apology is owed,” Koskinen says. “Not a single email has been lost since the start of this investigation. Every email has been preserved that we have.”

Koskinen also says that the appointment of a special federal prosecutor to investigate how the IRS handled tax-exempt applications would be a “monumental waste of taxpayer funds.” (Source)

June 25, 2014: Under a federal court order, the IRS pays a $50,000 settlement to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) — a group opposed to same-sex marriage — after having admitted that it was at fault for the publication of the names and addresses of NOM donors who had been identified on the organization’s tax returns; their personal information was supposed to be confidential.

Breitbart.com reports:

“The case began when the pro-marriage group sued the IRS in 2013 because a 2008 form was leaked, and then the Human Rights Campaign, which advocates gay rights, published the information in 2012 [so that gay rights activists could target the donors of the organization for harassment]…. (Source)


July 14, 2014:
The Daily Caller reports that the Federal Election Commission has recycled the computer hard drive of April Sands — an African American woman and a former co-worker of Lois Lerner’s — hindering an investigation into Sands’ partisan political activities. The report adds:

Sands resigned from the Federal Election Commission in April [2014] after she admitted to violating the Hatch Act, which bars executive branch employees from engaging in partisan political activities on federal time and at federal facilities.

The twist is that Sands also worked under Lois Lerner when the ex-IRS agent — who is currently embroiled in a scandal over the targeting of conservative political groups — worked at the FEC’s enforcement division.

In a letter to FEC chairman Lee Goodman, Oversight chairman Darrell Issa and committee member Jim Jordan laid out Sands’ partisan activities and asked for records pertaining to the recycling of her hard drive and of the agency’s records retention policies.

Sands took part in a heavily partisan online webcam discussion from FEC offices and also operated a Twitter account with the handle @ReignOfApril which were sent during Sands’ normal working hours.

One of Sands’ tweets, from June 4, 2012 read “I just don’t understand how anyone but straight white men can vote Republican. What kind of delusional rhetorical does one use?” …

“Dear every single Republican ever, When will U learn that Barack Hussein Obama is simply smarter than U? Stand down, Signed #Obama2012 #p2,” Sands wrote on May 1, 2012.

In a message from Aug. 25, 2012, Sands called Republicans her “enemy.”

In others, Sands issued fundraising pleas on behalf of Obama. “Our #POTUS’s birthday is August 4. He’ll be 51. I’m donating $51 to give him the best birthday present ever: a second term,” she wrote on July 18, 2012.

“The bias in these messages is striking, especially for an attorney charged with the responsibility to enforce federal election laws fairly and dispassionately,” read the Oversight letter to Goodman, an Obama appointee.

The FEC’s Office of Inspector General [OIG] sought to conduct a criminal investigation into Sands’ activities but were stymied when they found that the agency had recycled her computer hard drive.

“Therefore the OIG was unable to show that Ms. Sands’ solicitations and political activity were done from an FEC computer,” reads the letter.

Because of this, the U.S. attorney’s office for the District of Columbia declined criminal prosecution.

“The FEC’s failure to retain Ms. Sands’ hard drive prevented the FEC OIG from fully pursuing appropriate criminal sanctions for Ms. Sands’ admitted violation of federal law,” wrote Issa and Jordan.

“Like the IRS’s destruction of Lois Lerner’s hard drive, the FEC’s recycling of Ms. Sands’ hard drive may have also destroyed material responsive to Freedom of Information Act and congressional oversight requests,” the letter continued. (Source)

July 22, 2014: It is learned that ex-IRS official Lois Lerner’s computer hard drive was only “scratched” in February 2014 (when Lerner’s computer crashed). At that time, the IRS’s in-house IT experts stated that the lost data was still recoverable, and they advised the agency to outsource the recovery project. But instead, the IRS simply destroyed the hard drive.

“It is unbelievable that we cannot get a simple, straight answer from the IRS about this hard drive,” says Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Dave Camp. “The Committee was told no data was recoverable and the physical drive was recycled and potentially shredded. To now learn that the hard drive was only scratched, yet the IRS refused to utilize outside experts to recover the data, raises more questions about potential criminal wrong doing at the IRS.”
(Source)

August 14, 2014: After documents obtained in the nonprofit group Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the IRS show that that IRS technology officials have contradicted sworn testimony about damage to Lois Lerner’s computer hard drive, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan orders the IRS to file a sworn Declaration by no later than August 22 on four specific issues: the IRS’s efforts to recover Lerner’s lost emails after her computer allegedly crashed; bar codes that may have been on the hard drive; IRS policies vis a vis hard drive destruction; and information about an outside vendor who worked on IRS hard drives. Noting that a court filing which the IRS had made to the House Ways and Means Committee indicated that Lerner’s hard drive was “scratched” and then “shredded,” The Daily Caller reports:

“Aaron Signor, an IRS technician that looked at Lerner’s hard drive in June 2011, said in IRS court filings that he saw no damage to the drive before sending it off to another IRS technician … But Signor’s statement, issued in response to the Judicial Watch lawsuit, does not jibe with sworn congressional testimony…. The IRS technology official who served as the source of the ‘scratched’ and ‘shredded’ revelation is believed to have looked at the hard drive after Signor. [Judge] Sullivan’s order seems to have been motivated by the obvious contradiction.” (Source)

September 5, 2014: It is reported that computer crashes have caused the IRS to lose emails from five more employees who are under investigation by Congress, including two agents who worked in a Cincinnati office processing applications for tax-exempt status. This brings the total number of alleged computer-crash victims tied to the IRS scandal to more than 20. (Source) and (Source)

November 21, 2014: The U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) informs congressional staffers from several committees that up to 30,000 missing emails sent (between 2009-11) by former IRS official Lois Lerner have finally been recovered from among hundreds of “disaster recovery tapes” that were used to back up the IRS email system. “They just said it took them several weeks and some forensic effort to get these emails off these tapes,” said a congressional aide. (Source)

November 27, 2014: The Daily Caller reports: “Now, with 30,000 Lerner emails set to be turned over to Congress, new information is surfacing about the White House-IRS information pipeline.” Specifically, it has been learned that there exist nearly 2,500 documents pertaining to occasions where the IRS improperly disclosed confidential taxpayer information to the White House. (Source)

December 23, 2014: The Washington Times reports that according to a Congressional Oversight Committee report released on December 23, IRS employees who gave extra scrutiny to Tea Party groups’ nonprofit status applications “showed a marked antipathy to the organizations, with one examiner calling a group ‘icky’ and others saying they were searching for ways to deny the requests.” “The staff report,” says the Times, “… also found that IRS officials ‘repeatedly changed their stories’ about what went on and who was responsible for targeting the conservative and tea party groups.” (Source)

DTN Resource List

The IRS Harassment Scandal: A Timeline of “Reform”
By The Center for Competitive Politics

The Complete IRS Scandal Timeline in Spreadsheet Format
By DirectorBlue.blogspot

IRS and the Tea Party: A Timeline
By The Center for Competitive Politics

IRS investigation: Who Knew What, and When
By Darla Cameron, Zachary A. Goldfarb, and Alberto Cuadra
May 21, 2013

Issa Report Slams Dem Collaboration with the IRS
By Arnold Ahlert
April 8, 2014

New Documents Show IRS HQ Control of Tea Party Targeting
By Judicial Watch
May 14, 2014

______________________

Copyright 2003-2015: DiscoverTheNetworks.org

2016 AND OUR RENDEZVOUS WITH DESTINY


After reading the below Danny Jeffrey cross post it will become apparent the reason for beginning blog post with the Battle Hymn of the Republic:

VIDEO: BATTLE HYMN OF THE REPUBLIC – Johnny Cash

 

Danny Jeffrey is one of my favorite bloggers. I don’t always share his pessimistic outlook for America, but for those who read him you have to admit he is correct in predictions to date more often than incorrect.

In Danny’s latest blog post he looks back over the last few years – interestingly the last few years of Obama. Danny sets the stage for more dire predictions by pointing out his success rate in the past then hits his American readers in the gut for what he believes is the stark truth of our future that only a revival of the old American sense of Liberty will see if we cease to exist in relevance or rise from the ashes of near national oblivion.

Here is a quote from his post “2016 AND OUR RENDEZVOUS WITH DESTINY’ that should whet your appetite to experience this gut check:

2016 and our rendezvous with destiny is now an undeniable event and that destiny can be attributed to many causes: Part of the cause is quite naturally the unrelenting assault by the Globalists, our sellout political leaders and courts, our churches defecting to the enemy camp in pursuit of easy cash, our growing welfare state, militant racists, and the list goes on. But, I put the bulk of the problem right where it belongs; in the laps of our apathetic, under informed citizens.

A GOOD DAY TO DIE…

… It dates back to the Lakota Sioux before Custer and The Little Big Horn. Those people saw their nation, their very way of life, under attack from the white man and knew that they faced a do or die situation such as we find ourselves in today.

The major difference between the Lakota and the 21st century American is that the Sioux were willing to die in defense of their way of life and the futures of their offspring. We, on the other hand, face the future waiting for the next election and shunning any possibility of blood shed, and this is what our modern day patriots call fighting for freedom.

Now here’s the rest of the story.

JRH 1/4/16

Please Support NCCR

***********************

2016 AND OUR RENDEZVOUS WITH DESTINY

 

By Danny Jeffrey

January 2, 2016 4:57 AM

Fix Bayonets:

Seeking answers to today’s issues.

I have not written an essay since October of 2015 when a problem with my heart reminded me that it was time to slow down. If I were granted one wish that I knew would come true it would be that I live long enough to see the American people rise in protest, armed I might add, and be prepared to engage the forces of evil. To this end I have slowed my efforts to warn of coming events as those with the wisdom to understand are already making preparations, and sad to say, the others simply do not matter.

I have spent many years in the effort to understand the Globalist agenda, studying their history, grasping the unrelenting evil that they are employing against us, and predicting their future attacks.

In 2010 I wrote that gaining the House of Representatives would do nothing as the newly elected members of the GOP would promptly sell us out. In 2012 I told all that RINO Mitt Romney was a shill whose only purpose was to make certain that Obama was reelected. Then in 2014 I warned that retaking the Senate would accomplish nothing that we sought. I also promised that the Globalist agenda would quicken in 2015 and quicken still more in 2016. ‘Late 2015 or early 2016’ was my exact words in predicting the onset of America’s death spiral.

Now the entire west is being flooded with Muslims, militant blacks are becoming more aggressive, and the open border is being crossed in record breaking numbers in a cold part of the year when illegal crossings typically slow down.

2016 and our rendezvous with destiny is now an undeniable event and that destiny can be attributed to many causes: Part of the cause is quite naturally the unrelenting assault by the Globalists, our sellout political leaders and courts, our churches defecting to the enemy camp in pursuit of easy cash, our growing welfare state, militant racists, and the list goes on. But, I put the bulk of the problem right where it belongs; in the laps of our apathetic, under informed citizens.

Five plus years ago I was warning that we were heading for civil war and was regarded by most to be on the lunatic fringe. The only reason that I had any readers at all was that I always provided links from reliable sources and logic from my own mind. Now that dreaded term ‘Civil War’ is becoming common place, Texas has just passed an open carry law, Black Friday broke all time records for gun purchases, and the administration is hell bent on passing as many laws as possible before the actual shooting starts.

Long term readers are well aware that I have long predicted that there would be no election at all in 2016 and it the odd event there is it would be known by all in advance that such an election would be but a farce to appease the hopeful and buy more time for the Globalists to get all of their forces in place. Personally I reject that final proposition as they can trigger this top down/bottom up revolution any time that they want with a financial crash.

Think, if you will, what would happen overnight on the first day of any given month should the government put an end to welfare, EBT cards and such and blamed it on the Republican Party that officially ‘controls’ Congress.

There would be hell to pay, and that hell would take the form of terrorism nationwide, of rioters and looters burning our cities, of the ‘minorities’ we so blindly serve, that are on the verge of outnumbering the people who created the greatest nation on Earth.

A GOOD DAY TO DIE…

Most would see that last line and think of Klingons and Star Trek, but ‘A good day to die’ did not originate on our TVs. It dates back to the Lakota Sioux before Custer and The Little Big Horn. Those people saw their nation, their very way of life, under attack from the white man and knew that they faced a do or die situation such as we find ourselves in today.

The major difference between the Lakota and the 21st century American is that the Sioux were willing to die in defense of their way of life and the futures of their offspring. We, on the other hand, face the future waiting for the next election and shunning any possibility of blood shed, and this is what our modern day patriots call fighting for freedom.

Vote em Out…The battle cry of a people gone soft; the rallying cry of a people who know not history and most certainly do not want to know the future; the trembling voice of a people who would rather compromise than fight; the apologetic echo of a craven people that have compromised for so long they cannot imagine that it may well be a good day to die.

Oh those many years ago when I began writing on the internet, foolishly believing that I could light a fire in the souls of those who live in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. I had so much to learn. Today we are no longer free, and the only bravery I see is when our people, with a degree of self satisfaction and blind optimism, vote for their chosen candidate, knowing full well that the Soros owned and operated voting machines will produce the prearranged winner, selected by the Globalist elites.

On second thought, that is not bravery but a self congratulatory effort at those mired in their own little world of escapism, denial, and fantasy.

As Joseph Stalin said “It not the people who vote that matter….it’s the people who count the votes that matter.”

I have no doubt that 2016 will go down in history as the year America fell. The civil war I speak of will not begin until that fall has taken place. One or more 911 events will occur, Anarchy and Chaos will ensue, terrorism will shake America to her very core, and martial law will be declared. Then and only then will we find out if bravery still exists in America.

A GOOD DAY TO DIE…

For the liberal, the self serving, the ignorant, and the coward, there is never a good day to die. These people are so fearful that they want to control everything we eat, drink, breathe, and smoke. In believing their own superiority they are even convinced that they and their superior thinking should control the climate. As for me, I have come to terms with my own mortality long ago and today the only thing I fear is for the future of this nation, this world, and our offspring.

I can only hope that when I leave this world it will be fighting evil. It would be so meaningless to die of old age.

I shall close this effort with a thought that has long bothered me, and that is how the liberals managed to dilute and alter the meaning of what is perhaps the greatest song ever written about America; The Battle Hymn Of The Republic. As a child I learned and loved that song. In it there is one line that states “As he died to make men holy let us die to make men free.” Today’s liberals and their cowardly ways altered that great piece of patriotic music to read “As he died to make men holy let us live to make men free.”

One word; one concept; one thought that borders on all that is noble was changed and with it the outlook of what once was America died.


SHARE this essay…
This feature will allow you to share the above essay to your timeline, a friend’s timeline, a group, to a page you manage, or in a private message. It also allows you to leave a comment about the essay. If that comment is meant for me please use the comment section below Suggested Reading.
Danny

Suggested Reading…Click the red link to read:

TIME IS RUNNING OUT

OF THOSE WHO DENY REALITY AND THE APPROACHING CIVIL WAR

THE WINDS OF CIVIL WAR ARE BLOWING ACROSS EUROPE AND AMERICA

MINE EYES HAVE SEEN THE GLORY

_____________________

Some see, few know, many choose to wander aimlessly in a fog, devoid of sunlight. I seek the light of day and leave the others to their chosen realm of ignorance. They are the ones who have brought this great nation down. I write only for the benefit of those who possess the courage required to restore our birthright. – Danny Jeffrey intro to blog

CAN YOU HANDLE THE TRUTH? A compilation of essays by topic.

Govt. Temporarily Refunded – Baby Parts Keep Rolling


John R. Houk

© October 1, 2015

WARNING! – Graphic Video toward bottom – Children should not see this

Congress passed a Continuing Resolution (CR) yesterday to keep the government funded yesterday. The controversy in this 9/30/15 CR was it kept the baby killing and baby parts selling organization Planned Parenthood fully funded. Apparently ALL the Democrats made sure the baby killing and the trafficking in baby parts continued. Sadly the Republicans split on murdering babies and trafficking in live baby parts with the majority voting no for the CR.

The Senate easily approved the interim funding measure earlier Wednesday on a vote of 78-20.

While Congress has funded the government at least through December, the the [sic] funding of Planned Parenthood has angered conservative Republicans who argue GOP leadership has not fought hard enough for their values.

Indeed, the measure passed with a majority of Democratic votes — 186 Democrats voted in favor of the spending bill and 151 Republicans voted against it. Ninety-one Republicans voted for the short-term funding measure. President Obama is expected to sign it today, before funding expires at midnight. (SHUTDOWN AVERTED: HOUSE PASSES FUNDING BILL DESPITE MAJORITY OF GOP ‘NO’ VOTES; By CAROLINE MAY; Breitbart.comBig Government; 9/30/15)

I haven’t checked to see how many GOP Senators voted for the CR but it must have been a bunch for a 70-20 favorable vote. In the HOUSE NINETY-ONE Republicans voted for baby killing and marketing live baby parts in the name of keeping the government afloat.

On Wednesday September 16 on the CNN-GOP debate Carly Fiorina gave a vivid description of harvesting a live baby for body parts (which means a live birth then murdered and then dissected for internal organs). The Leftists cried boohoo and foul for the CMP video exposés implicating Planned Parenthood had no action of Fiorina’s description but only a description. THE THING IS Carly was talking about some video action that was not a part of CMP video releases. As a reminder, here’s what Carly Fiorina ACCURATELY described:

VIDEO: Carly Fiorina Response to Planned Parenthood on CNN Debate | The Blaze

 

I can’t assert this is the specific video that Presidential candidate for the GOP nomination viewed, but it is remarkably similar to her description. Due to the graphic nature I am beginning with the Youtube description first. Then I will show the roughly fifteen minute video.

Carly Fiorina was right

Published by AbortionNo

Published on Sep 29, 2015

Carly Fiorina, CNN Republican presidential debate, September 16, 2015:

“Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says, ‘We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.’ This is about the character of our nation, and if we will not stand up and force President Obama to veto this [Planned Parenthood defunding] bill, shame on us.”

Ms. Fiorina was referring to a Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) video depicting a few seconds of a 17-½ week fetus, still alive and moving, following an intact-delivery abortion. Here we post the entire unedited video. The total running time is approximately 13 minutes and the video is in five segments as the camera operator turns the camera on and off.

CBR and the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), in whose undercover Planned Parenthood investigative video the CBR abortion footage appears, have been falsely accused of misrepresenting a miscarriage as an abortion. The first segment of the unedited video depicts the abortion itself, with the baby delivered alive and struggling in the abortionist’s gloved hand. Segments 2 and 3 depict the baby still moving in a stainless steel pan after repeatedly being handled abusively by the abortionist. Segments 4 and 5 are static gynecological shots of the baby’s mother.

This unedited version of the disputed footage proves incontestably that this termination is an abortion. Mothers at risk of miscarriage present at hospitals, not abortion clinics. Hospitals are in the business of sustaining pregnancies and saving babies. Abortion clinics are in the business of terminating pregnancies and killing babies. This video depicts a termination and the subsequent abuse and neglect of a preemie obviously delivered alive. No attempt is made to provide the neonatal intensive care a hospital would extend to a wanted baby. It is possible that the abortionists performing this termination violated both state and federal law by withholding care from a baby who survived an abortion.

Ms. Fiorina made reference to a baby’s heart still beating while its brain was being harvested (a process which Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services calls “digging”) and a former StemExpress “procurement technician” says, “I’m sitting here and I’m looking at this fetus and its heart is beating, and I don’t know what to think” (National Review, August 19, 2015). The article adds that “… her StemExpress supervisor instructed her to cut through the face of the fetus in order to get the brain.”

The unedited version of this abortion depicts an intact-delivery termination and Planned Parenthood partner StemExpress admits through its CEO (Cate Dyer), “Oh yeah, if you had intact cases, which we’ve done a lot, we sometimes ship those back to our lab in its entirety …” (The Daily Signal, August 21, 2015).

A World Magazine article, August 19, 2015, describes “… an aborted baby’s beating heart, a post-abortion occurrence that’s not uncommon, according to Ben Van Handel, executive director of Novogenix Laboratories.”

Ms. Fiorina’s characterizations are not hyperbole.

The terms of our abortion clinic access agreements explicitly forbid us from disclosing any information which could identify the abortion providers from whose clinics we obtain imagery. Dates, locations, affiliations and staff and patient information are confidential. Violating these prohibitions could subject CBR to legal liability and jeopardize clinic access for current and future projects. We are even obligated to delete the audio track on all of our videos.

The Grantham Collection is a component of the CBR abortion imagery archive. Questions related to this very disturbing video should be directed to Gregg Cunningham, cbr@cbrinfo.org, 949-206-0600.

Addendum: Medical malpractice lawsuits have become so common that OB/GYNs practice defensive medicine. They protect themselves by over-diagnosing, over-treating and over-prescribing. No doctor delivering this baby as a preemie in a hospital would fail to provide neonatal intensive care. Even if he had no compassion for the baby or his parents, he would provide care to avoid being sued for negligence. Warren Hern, in his book “Abortion Practice” warns of the difficulty in estimating fetal ages. A baby moving as vigorously as this one is presumptively entitled to care and would receive it — unless the attending physician is an abortionist, which is the case here.

Miscarried embryos and fetuses are virtually all still births involving a baby who expired in the uterus and was later born dead. A preemie in a hospital is born alive and given intensive care — not slapped around in a pan as happened here with a baby who survived the abortion depicted at the beginning of the video.

Notice: Age-restricted video (based on Community Guidelines).

Category: Education

The VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=6X8_WEFq15Q

 

God have mercy on the voters that voted for Senators and Representatives who supported the Continued Resolution without defunding Planned Parenthood. The baby killing entrepreneurs of Planned Parenthood has made America complicit in the murder of children.

I am pleased my Oklahoma District One Representative Jim Bridenstine voted NO.

JRH 10/1/15 (Hat Tip: Weasel Zippers)

Please Support NCCR

***************************

A Failure To Govern

Rep. Bridenstine Votes “No” on Continuing Resolution

By Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK 1)

Sent: 9/30/2015 8:30 PM

Jim’s Blog

House.gov Website

Today I voted “No” on the Continuing Resolution (CR). Continuing Resolutions are a failure to govern, a failure to represent the people, and a failure to exercise the power of the purse.

The House passed the bills to fund the government in the proper process. The Senate failed to take up any of them due to Democrat filibusters. Accordingly, a CR was presented as the only option for funding the federal government.

Representatives should be able to appropriate funds for programs the people approve and withdraw funds from those they oppose. In Federalist 58, James Madison said, “The power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people…”

I have never voted for a CR. Those who voted for the “clean” CR today, or any of the numerous CRs over the past 7 years, voted to fund Planned Parenthood, the President’s unconstitutional executive amnesty, sanctuary cities, Obamacare, and the Iran nuclear deal. There is nothing “clean” about this process. In passing a CR, Congress abandons its representative duty and fails to fulfill the role given to it by the Constitution.

Rep. Jim Bridenstine Votes to Stop the Iran Deal

 

On September 11th the House voted on three bills to stop President Obama’s atrocious Iran nuclear agreement. These bills make clear that the American people, acting through their elected representatives, reject the President’s capitulation to Iran. America’s next President can — and should — end the agreement on day one and restart the most effective sanctions regime ever created. The Iran deal will endanger the security of America and our closest allies and partners, as I have explained at length (here and here).

Read More

_____________

Govt. Temporarily Refunded – Baby Parts Keep Rolling

John R. Houk

© October 1, 2015

________________________

A Failure To Govern

 

Copyright © 2015 Congressman Jim Bridenstine, All rights reserved.

 

Our mailing address is:

Congressman Jim Bridenstine

2448 E 81st St

Suite 5150

Tulsa, OK 74137

MAF – Stop Obama’s Iran Deal!


Move America Forward (MAF) and a number of Conservative websites and Conservative fund raisers are promoting what is billed as a David Zucker ad lambasting the Iran Nuke Deal pushed by President Barack Hussein Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry. The ad parody is quite humorous and only a minute and a half or so long.

I have no doubt many Conservatives and Conservative organization will use the anti-Iran Nuke Deal parody as a fund raiser. Whether or not any particular organization is actually fronting money for paid ad time is irrelevant. This parody is truth in ironic smiles. In the case of MAF, this organization does great work in taking care of our military men and women fighting Islamic terrorists and defending the USA in general overseas with essential needs care packages. MAF is a worthy organization to donate toward.

EVEN IF YOU HAVE HEARD Obama/Kerry’s nefarious selling out America and Israel is a done deal. It is worthy to resist right up to any Congressional votes against the deal or any veto override votes that will take place. Even after the obvious damage to our National Security occurs, our American dislike will make it easier for the next President of the United States of America to undo Obama’s Executive Order by-passing the Constitution’s Treaty process.

Interesting Interview with David Zucker at the Weekly Standard – “Hollywood Takes on the Left” 8/11/08

JRH 9/15/15

Please Support NCCR

***********************

Stop Obama’s Iran Deal!

Sent from: Move America Forward

Sent: 9/15/2015 10:09 AM

New Anti-Iran Nuclear Deal Ad “Side Effects”!
We need your help to spread the word

We are continuing the fight against President Obama’s suicidal Nuclear deal with Iran. The latest phase is now underway, as we are partnering with our friends at IranSideEffects.Com who have just come out with a new ad directed by famed Hollywood comedic director David Zucker (Airplane, The Naked Gun, An American Carol.)

The new ad aims to break through the traditional political chatter and offer a fresh view on Obama’s Iran deal by using Zucker’s satire skills to show how the “side effects” of Obama’s Iran deal are too much of a bitter pill to swallow.

Click here to view the new ad “Side Affects”

[Blog Editor: VIDEO: Side Effects – From David Zucker

Published by Iran Side Effects

Published on Sep 10, 2015

Hollywood comedy legend David Zucker (“Airplane,” “Scary Movie,” “Naked Gun” films among many others) has written and produced this hilarious spoof on the disastrous Iran Nuclear Deal. In his trademark style, Zucker skewers the deal’s primary architects – President Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry warns of the possible “Side Effects” that may result from the absurd agreement.]

 

This is a bad-to-worse deal that we MUST STOP. The Iranian deal represents a monumental shift in foreign policy and it’s a gamble that could go down in history as the single greatest national security blunder ever made by an American President.

Obama’s deal with Iran is dangerous and must be stopped! Here are just some of the negative “side effects”

Removes all the economic sanctions that forced Iran to the negotiating table in the first place
Gives $150 billion in cash assistance and from freeing up frozen Iranian assets to Iran’s extremist government.
No stipulations on how funds are spent. Iran will be able to sponsor more terror attacks through groups they support and fund.
Iran provides their own inspectors to monitor their own facilities and they choose which samples to provide.
International inspectors have no access to Iran’s military facilities which could hide nuclear material.
Iran can delay any scheduled inspections for up to 24 days, plenty of time to hide incriminating evidence.
No plan is in place to re-impose sanctions if Iran does not comply with their end of the bargain.
US is forced to “…strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against and respond to nuclear security threats including sabotage…”

(quoted directly from the Iran-Obama Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action)

We need your help to spread the message of his ad and get it out on the web and help to help build opposition to Obama’s dangerous deal with Iran!


Please make a donation to help keep our efforts going!

All Donations are Tax Deductible
Please make all checks payable to “Move America Forward”

Donations by Check Can be Sent To:
ATTN: Scott Raab
Move America Forward
8795 Folsom Blvd. Suite 103
Sacramento, CA 95826

To sign up a deployed service member to receive a care package or
to request care packages if you are a deployed service member, visit
www.moveamericaforward.org or call (916) 441-6197

++++++++++++++++

Blog Editor: The Side Effects” link in the MAF email has much of the same info in this email. Except the link has a series of photos that include Democrat Senators, Barack Hussein Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of State John Kerry. Each photo has click and contact to either email or Twitter or both. And below those photos is a paragraph excerpt of the “Side Effects” press release with a continued reading link below that paragraph. Below is that Press Release.

+++++++++++++++++++

Never David Zucker Video Lambastes Iran Deal

Hollywood Comedy Legend Warns of Deal’s Dangerous “Side Effects”

For Immediate Release

September 15, 2015

Contact: Brent Lowder

(310) 720-3470

brentjlowder@gmail.com

Los Angeles – Hollywood legend David Zucker (“Airplane,” “Scary Movie,” “Naked Gun” films, among many other others) a new video that spoofs the Iran Nuclear Deal and its primary architects – President Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. Zucker’s latest political piece warns of the “Side Effects” that surely could result from the absurd agreement opposed by congressional majorities and a majority of Americans.

“While the President, Secretary Kerry and Hillary Clinton are committed to this deal long term, even with clear majorities of Americans and members of Congress opposing it, it’s time to focus on the side effects we’ll experience as a result” said Zucker. “There’s no shortage of serious ads explaining how horrible the deal is, so maybe injecting some satire will engage a broader audience and ensure the leadership allowing this deal to happen is held responsible for the inevitable dangerous side effects.”

The Zucker piece entitled, “Side Effects” spoofs the popular prescription drug advertisement formats which include a litany of possible drug side effects. Vision for America (VFA) is releasing the video as part of a national advocacy effort to highlight misguided efforts of Democrat leaders and their policies. VFA will ensure public awareness of the negative side effects of the deal and drive national policies and leadership in a safer, more secure direction in 2016.

See the video at IranSideEffects.com.

“We are proud to work with David on this important issue while looking for smarter, more engaging ways to build wider public support for conservative policies and leadership” said Eric Beach, Executive Director VFA. “We share David’s view that humor and satire are rare in today’s hyper-negative political environment, and we look forward to build on this effort, which will ensure a broader audience engages in these important national issue debates in 2016 and beyond.”

David Zucker is an American film director, producer and screenwriter. A master of parody comedies, Zucker wrote and directed the critically acclaimed “Airplane!” film, created “The Naked Gun” franchise, and helped create many other fan favorites such as “Ruthless People”, “Scary Movie 3 and 4”, “Top Secret” and “BASEketball”.

Vision for America is a non-profit organization founded in 2012; their mission is promote principles of fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets through grassroots education, mobilization and advocacy.

___________________________

About Move America Forward

 

History

 

Move America Forward was initially formed in response to concerns raised by U.S. troops that the news media was frequently presenting inaccurate coverage that often ignored the success of their missions and accomplishments in the War on Terror.

 

MAF began holding rallies to support the troops where patriots could display their flags and it quickly transformed into a year round care package program. Conducting national bus tours, sending delegations overseas, working with military servicemen and women, pro troop companies, service organizations, and many other supporters from all across the nation to benefit our troops.

 

About

 

Move America Forward (MAF) is a military charity and the nation’s largest grassroots pro-troop organization, MAF is dedicated to supporting the brave men and women of our Armed Forces and their missions to defeat terrorism.  MAF is supported by hundreds of thousands of pro-troop activists, veterans, and military families all across the nation who share in our unwavering support.

 

We work with other non-profits, military service organizations, corporate sponsors, community networks and private citizens to support our Military and demonstrate affirmatively our appreciation and admiration for their service to America.

 

It is our strong belief that American citizens must be enlisted in the effort to let our troops know that they are in our hearts and prayers and that we will defend their service and honor them here on the homefront while they protect America on the frontlines overseas.

 

LEARN MORE AND SUPPORT THE TROOPS TODAY

 

  • MAF’s Care Package Program has delivered over 315 tons of care packages to the front lines of Afghanistan and Iraq. In partnership with our supporters each Care Package comes with a wide array of popular items requested by our troops. Most importantly they include a personal message from the person who donated the care package. To find out more about other Care Package features like the “Candy Diplomacy” program with our partner the Jelly Belly Candy Company and the other great items in please visit our Troop Care Package Page or see the latest on our Home Page.

 

  • Troopathon – Is an annual eight-hour event we hold every year to READ THE REST

A Heaven or Hell Decision


Intro to Smith ‘A Heaven or Hell Decision’

Intro by John R. Houk

Author: Justin O. Smith

Posted September 11, 2015

Kim Davis should contemplate changing her political affiliation from a Democrat to a Republican or Independent. Ms. Davis was recently incarcerated for being in contempt to a judicial order to issue same-sex Marriage Certificates to homosexual couples. She refused to violate the conscience of her Biblical faith. Ms. Davis’ Democrat political party’s platform is supportive of various Biblically ungodly stands including the Dem’s homosexual rights stand (1980 and 2012).

Justin Smith addresses the constitutional issues and judicial activism in relation to Kim Davis’ persecution for her Christian convictions. In relation to the Christian faith Justin looks at the majority opinion of Justice Hugo Black (examining Justice Black through the lens of Everson v. Board of Education – looks at consistency more than criticism) in the 1947 decision attached to Everson v. Board of Education. That SCOTUS case made words written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church pertaining the separation of Church and State as part of America’s rule of law over 150 after the U.S. Constitution was ratified. The thing is there is NO SUCH LANGUAGE in the U.S. Constitution including the first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights.

Justice Hugo Black tossed out constitutional Original Intent in favor of the fallacious concept of a Living Constitution that can be judicially modified to fit any court’s concept of what is a valid right for the present. The Living Constitution concept essentially circumvents the Constitution’s paradigm for alterations to said Constitution. Understand this: The Constitution does not empower the Judicial Branch to create law on any level including the Supreme Court.

The Christian Answers Network takes a brief look at judicial case law that led up Justice Black’s 1947 decision in Everson v. Board of Education. If you at that web page you will notice how SCOTUS slowly began to assert Judicial Activism for creating law ex nihilo. Here is a great quote on SCOTUS judicial fiat/law ex nihilo:

In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the Judiciary would be the weakest of the three branches of government, but over time and with the expansion of the power of judicial review it has arguably become the strongest. The problem with this is that justices now routinely substitute their own personal judgment for what is equitable rather than deferring to the Constitution. What has resulted is unelected, unaccountable judges making policy decisions for the country.

Far from the intent of the Founders, this is neither democracy nor representative government; it is five judges imposing their desire for social change on the country by judicial fiat. READ ENTIRETY (The Same-Sex Marriage Decision: Ruling by Judicial Fiat; By Zack Pruitt; Acton InstitutePower Blog; 6/26/15)

The Zack Pruitt quote above was inspired by five Justices forcing same-sex marriage upon the all the States of the Union by fabricating meanings from words in the Constitution that plain and simply DO NOT match the judicial logic of the SCOTUS majority; viz. Obergefell v. Hodges.

It is this Judicial Fiat by five Justices that another Judge in a lower court jailed Kim Davis for her Christian refusal to issue Marriage Licenses to homosexuals.

JRH 9/11/15

Please Support NCCR

***********************

A Heaven or Hell Decision

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 9/10/2015 12:12 PM

“To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision.” – Kim Davis

America was founded on religious freedom and the right to sustain and protect one’s beliefs and conscience, and yet, the American people were recently forced to bear witness to one of the most ignominious and unconscionable acts perpetrated by the third branch of government, the judiciary, in over 150 years, as a U.S. citizen was jailed for staying true to her own Christian belief and her conscience.

With the Ten Commandments still carved in stone above the entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court, Kim Davis, a Christian Democrat and Rowan County Clerk (Kentucky), was jailed by U.S. District Judge David Bunning on September 3, 2015 for contempt of court. He erroneously asserted that Mrs. Davis “arguably violated the First Amendment by openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expense of others,” because she steadfastly has refused to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals.

Keeping in mind that religious liberty is protected by the First Amendment; that marriage is defined in the Kentucky Constitution as being between “one man and one woman”; and that over 75% of voters in Kentucky passed the Kentucky Religious Freedom restoration Act (2013), which provides for accommodations to be made for just such religious objections as Kim Davis holds, one must ask the following question: Aren’t the courts “adopting” their “policy” and agenda when they magically create “law” based on mythical “rights” that cannot be found and are not presented anywhere within the U.S. Constitution?

Instead of deciding an issue with any new law through the actual text of the U.S. Constitution and through logical and full consideration of all available historical evidence, the Supreme Court, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and judge Bunning have perpetuated the same bad law and judicial activism that started with the abuse of the Constitution by Justice Hugo Black in Everson v Board of education (1947) and has not yet ended with Obergefell v Hodges (2015). Through their hubris and their ignorance or contempt of the U.S. Constitution, they have advanced a fallacious understanding of the Constitution and the First Amendment, which has resulted in judicial tyranny.

Before Everson, the states were not prohibited under the First Amendment from establishing religion, and nowhere in the debate on freedom of religion in the first Congress is there any mention of “separation of church and state.” Our Founders own writings clearly show that they never intended for public officials to check their convictions and beliefs at the door to their offices. They would have been shocked by the Court’s excessively broad interpretation of the First Amendment, given the language the Founders crafted with the belief it would protect open expression of religious beliefs in America. The Founders most certainly would have rebelled against the idea of an absolute “separation of church and state” and the use of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to eradicate all Judeo-Christian references to God from the public square, because these ideas are incompatible with the Original Intent and unalienable rights granted to each of us by our Creator, thus making them erroneous and historically unsupportable.

On New Year’s Day 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists to assuage their fear that the federal government might one day attempt to condition religious freedom as a right granted by the state. Jefferson, an anti-Federalist, clearly stated his intention to keep government out of religious affairs rather than empower it to remove religion from the public arena: “Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in the behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties.”

If anyone’s First Amendment rights have been violated, they were Kim Davis’s rights, as she was jailed illegally and denied habeas corpus, in order to coerce her to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals. This violated her right to freedom of religious conscience.

Kim Davis asked the perfect question before she was jailed in Carter County detention Center: “Under what law am I authorized to issue homosexual couples a marriage license?”

Only Congress can make law according to the U.S. Constitution, so exactly what “law” did the Supreme Court make with its ruling on Obergefell v Hodges? No law has been written and passed that allows same-sex couples to marry, although the Supreme Court and five black-robed tyrants are claiming this is “the law” after Justice Kennedy “found” this imaginary “right” to homosexual marriage in the 14th Amendment, which dealt with states’ rights, citizenship for freed slaves and ending the Civil war.

During her incarceration, Kim Davis’s lawyer, Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel founder, worked towards her release, since the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act already provided for accommodations that should have been immediately sought in order to save her from Bunning’s abusive order. Massive crowds of supporters arrived in Grayson, KY to protest her confinement, and presidential candidates Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz came to her aid, and they all stood by her side on the day of her release.

Bunning released Mrs. Davis, because her deputy clerks were signing marriage licenses with “Rowan County,” thus satisfying “the law”; however, Mat Staver’s comments before the crowd seemed to suggest that this fight may not be over until these “marriage” licenses for homosexuals are issued through a different office and someone else’s authority, which the Governor could handle by executive order. Both Staver and Davis reiterated her intent to do her job without violating her Christian beliefs and conscience.

On a larger front, this battle over the definition of “marriage” and against homosexual marriages is far from over, all across the nation. Millions of other Americans, such as Nick Williams – a probate judge in Washington County, Alabama and Molly Criner – a clerk in Irion County, Texas, are declaring that “natural marriage cannot be redefined by government,” and currently, numerous counties across America are following the example set by Kim Davis, including eleven counties from Alabama alone.

Judge Williams told the New York Times: “When you’re elected you don’t check your beliefs at the door. If you’re a true believer, you can’t separate that from who you are.” Judge Williams was evidently well versed, by someone in his youth, on the Founding Fathers’ beliefs.

Even though Kim Davis was released on September 8th, she never should have been arrested it the first place. She broke no Kentucky law. She broke no federal law in her efforts to uphold her Christian convictions. And never again, for all times hereafter, should any American be jailed simply for standing by their religious conscience.

With traditional Christian and Jewish faith and their civilizing principles under increasing attack by black-robed tyrants, who have shown a willingness now to jail people of deeply held religious beliefs, all God-loving Americans must stand in defense of religious liberty and the right to one’s freedom of conscience in the manner envisioned by our Founders, otherwise all Americans will suffer terrible consequences. we must refuse to obey unjust and unConstitutional “laws”, that seek to silence and punish religious speech and diminish the God-ordained institution of marriage and the family to a distant memory, just as prescribed by St. Augustine, rather than allow our society to be reduced to the shambles of a secular and humanist cesspool of sick, demented, twisted criminal and immoral perversion ___ Hell on Earth.

By Justin O. Smith

___________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Justin O. Smith

Leading up to Clare Lopez on Iran Nuke Deal


Clare Lopez and evil POTUS

John R. Houk

© September 6, 2015

Tom Trento of The United West sent a roughly ten minute video link of Clare Lopez explaining the reason why the Obama-Kerry Iran Nuke deal will be disastrous for the United States of America. This is a very important video to watch! As an American voter of the Left or Right you will gain an understanding of the reason this deal is an act of lunacy for America’s part AND a deal of brilliance for Iran’s nuclear weapons program and the continued financial support for Iran’s Islamic terrorist clients.

In order to add some credibility to Ms. Lopez you should know some of her background:

You’ll never meet a nicer person than Clare Lopez and she is stunningly brilliant. She’s also honest to a fault and extremely ethical. I agree with her, Obama has actively allowed the infiltration of our government by the Muslim Brotherhood. He has had America switch sides in the War on Terror. We are now in bed with our enemies and we are standing against Israel. Obama is seeking the destruction of the Jewish State and America. We are no longer stemming the spread of Shariah law… we are assisting in the proliferation of it. Everything he has done since he has been in office is to spread Islamic doctrine and influence, while populating the US with Islamic refugees and helping Iran become THE strong horse in the Middle East.

From The Political Insider:

Clare Lopez is a former CIA officer, and she is risking her professional career to call out President Barack Obama in the biggest way possible.

Lopez is well respected in the intelligence community and worked in the Reagan White House. After two decades in the field with the CIA, and as an instructor for special forces and intelligence students, Lopez is now with the Center for Security Policy managing the counter-jihad and Shariah programs.

Now, she is claiming Obama is why America has completely “switched sides” during the war on terrorism. America is now supporting the enemy, especially through the Muslim Brotherhood.

Lopez has been unwilling to speak in public, but has confided with a few members of the House of Representatives her serious concerns about Obama’s motivations about foreign policy decisions.

Lopez noted that the war on terrorism has always been about stopping the spread of Shariah Islamic law, until Obama started to make major changes which clearly supported the Muslim Brotherhood’s jihadist interests.

She said the global war on terror had been an effort to “stay free of Shariah,” or repressive Islamic law, until the Obama administration began siding with such jihadist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates.

The transition was easy for Obama, who already hates American values and principles as an ideologically radical…

Why the switch?

Lopez explained, when the so-called Arab Spring appeared in late 2010, “It was time to bring down the secular Muslim rulers who did not enforce Islamic law. And America helped.”

And why would Obama want to do that?

As she told WND earlier this month, Lopez believed the Muslim Brotherhood has thoroughly infiltrated the Obama administration and other branches of the federal government.

She also came to the conclusion Obama had essentially the same goals in the Mideast as the late Osama bin Laden: “to remove American power and influence, including military forces, from Islamic lands.”

And,

The former CIA operative said, “as Israel fought enemies on all sides to remain free, secure and Jewish, America began to move away from Israel and toward its Muslim enemies. And, as Iran moved inexorably toward a deliverable nuclear weapons capability, America helped.”

via WND

In addition, Lopez claims that the only reason Obama approved of the killing of Osama bin Laden is he simply couldn’t ignore the chance without looking suspicious. The opportunity presented himself, and he “couldn’t delay it any longer.”

I concur with Clare on Osama bin Laden having to be taken down because otherwise it would have been impossible to deny Obama’s Islamic sympathies. However, I also think that bin Laden had outlived his usefulness and there is a possibility he could have been a willing martyr as he was dying from a kidney condition. Just a thought. This is all orchestrated and planned. What you are seeing is an agenda that is being faithfully implemented and followed. Just as the Iran deal is just a pretext. The whole point here was not the deal, it was redistributing $150 billion back to Iran and to make sure they become a nuclear power. Obama has almost accomplished everything he set out to do with help from both sides of the political aisle. History will look back on this presidency as the greatest betrayal of America ever to occur. That’s if we have a history to look back upon when this is done. (Former CIA Officer, Clare Lopez, Just EXPOSED OBAMA… Our Worst Fears Are TRUE! ByTerresa Monroe-Hamilton; Right Wing News; 9/4/15)

Clare Lopez is not a run-of-mill pundit, rather she is a gal that knows what she is talking about.

The media on the Left and Right have been hailing an Obama victory after Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) went public supporting Obama’s Iran Nuke Deal. For people doing the math she became the 34th supporter meaning a veto override would fall one vote short of the 67 needed in the Senate. You haven’t heard much in the media about the House also having to override the veto. That vote must be at least 290 to override. There is a Republican majority in the House of 246; ergo to override a veto the GOP must pick up 44 votes. In the case of the House this is assuming no RINOs flip to Obama and 44 Dems will join the GOP. (Source for the math)

A vote will be no later than September 17, 2015. Regardless of the media Obama seal, that means the constituents of the treasonous Dems still have ample opportunity to harangue their Senator or Representative to think America more than the Obama sell-out.

JRH 9/6/15

Please Support NCCR

**********************

VIDEO: Clare Lopez: Stop Iran Briefing – California

 

Published by theunitedwest

Published on Sep 3, 2015

Clare Lopez is a retired CIA Operations Officer, currently VP of Research & Analysis at Center for Security Policy. Recently in Montecito California she presented an amazing, short, insightful deconstruction of this horrendous deal that President Obama has made with the Iranian Ayatollah. Don’t miss this informative video!

++++

The Email: CLARE LOPEZ – Stop Iran Briefing

Sent by Tom Trento

Sent 9/6/2015 6:42 AM

Sent from The United West

Clare Lopez is a retired CIA Operations Officer, currently VP of Research & Analysis at Center for Security Policy. Recently in Montecito California she presented an amazing, short, insightful deconstruction of this horrendous deal that President Obama has made with the Iranian Ayatollah. Don’t miss this informative video!

***

DO ALL YOU CAN OVER THE NEXT

TWO WEEKS TO KILL THIS DEAL

CLICK HERE TO WATCH PAST SHOWS

ON OUR ARCHIVES

Follow The United West on Twitter

@TheUnitedWest

***

THE UNITED WEST

PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL

_____________________________

Leading up to Clare Lopez on Iran Nuke Deal

John R. Houk

© September 6, 2015

___________________________

Clare Lopez: Stop Iran Briefing – California

 

PLEASE GENEROUSLY DONATE TO TOM AND HIS TEAM AS THEY WORK TO STOP THE IRAN DEAL. [Blog Editor: If the PayPal link doesn’t work go to The United West home page and click the “DONATE SECURELY” button on the top right of the page.]

 

Iran Nuke Deal Hubris will Eventually Succumb to True American Spirit


John R. Houk

© September 4, 2015

Yesterday I posted “Get on Board with Anti-Iran Nuke Deal Rally in DC”. I posted about the rally not realizing that on Wednesday it was reported that Maryland’s Sen. Barbara Mikulski became the 34th senator to support Obama’s nuclear deal. Not a few pointed out that out to me yesterday after I had posted. One detractor of whom I have immense respect for his analytical acumen conversed with me via a comment interaction over some Facebook groups.

All that my detractor share was categorically accurate. I was left only refuting him with a football analogy to wit: The game is never over until the clock hits zeros. I alluded in hope that a massive public outcry to the Senators selling America and Israel out to a nuclear armed Iran could change enough Senators or Congressmen to override Obama’s veto just as the clock ran out.

I called this thinking “hope”. My learned detractor probably correctly called the thinking a fantasy. Even if “fantasy” is a more apt description than “hope,” I was disturbed with the futility that hope was useless. I still finding hopeless futility disturbing.

Just think how futile many American colonialists and British lawmakers believed an American rebellion would work to change the oppression slowly overshadowing colonial British citizens. Indeed, I wonder how many signers of the Declaration of Independence felt they signed their own death warrant gloomily expecting the British military to brutally hunt down the minority rebellious colonialists and execute them for treason via the noose or firing squad. The last sentence of the Declaration of Independence:

“And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” (The Declaration of Independence; The Heritage Foundation (analysis on First Principles Series)

The 56 signers knew that death was probable but signed anyway.

Mark Folkertsma writes about how many of the signers and family members indeed met nefarious ends at the hands of the British during the fight for independence:

… Pretty heady stuff for a group of heroes who knew that their actions exposed them all to charges of treason, for which the penalty was swift and sure execution at the hands of the colonial masters whose authority they defied.

Indeed, during the revolutionary war that followed this event, almost all of the signers of the Declaration of Independence lost their property; many lost their families or saw them waste away in imperial prisons. More than a few died in infamy, penniless, and forgotten. All for the sake of the Declaration; all for the sake of their “sacred honor.”

Is there a way out? Yes, and that way is the Declaration of Independence. After all, a decent respect for its moral principles – God-authored rights, equality before the law, contract theory of government – demands our attention, claims our reverence. And, in the final analysis, our sacred honor. This truly is the Spirit of ’76. (A Decent Respect: Renewing the Spirit of ’76; By Marvin Folkertsma; The Patriot Post; 7/1/14)

It is my belief that the American Spirit birthed in 1776 is a part of our mental DNA. If that DNA fails to act in one of those Dem Senators and Congressmen that have committed themselves to the delusions (or worse – the nefarious intentions) of President Barack Hussein Obama pertaining to Iran. AND follows through with an idiotic commitment that will end in the nuclear warhead arming of Iran, then Americans who love their Liberty more than a Left Wing utopian illusions will again arise to a decent respect for moral principles willing to pledge their sacred honor even in war to correct the wrongs of America’s most Leftist President, then:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. (1st paragraph of Declaration of Independence 1776)

It is in light of this indomitable American spirit that I share the words of an Israeli citizen born in the USA – Caroline Glick.

JRH 9/4/15

Please Support NCCR

*****************************

Column One: A glorious defeat

By CAROLINE B. GLICK

July 3, 2015

Jerusalem Post

Over the past seven years Washington has sent a steady stream of senior officials to “oversee joint Israeli-American efforts” regarding Iran.

Sometimes you have to fight battles you cannot win because fighting – regardless of the outcome – advances a larger cause.

Israel’s fight against the nuclear deal the major powers, led by US President Barack Obama concluded with Iran was such a battle.

The battle’s futility became clear on July 20, just six days after it was concluded in Vienna.

On July 20, the US administration anchored the deal – which paves the way for Iran to become a nuclear power and enriches the terrorism-sponsoring ayatollahs to the tune of $150 billion – in a binding UN Security Council resolution. Once the resolution passed, the deal became unstoppable.

Most of the frozen funds that comprise the $150 [billion] would have been released regardless of congressional action. And the nonproliferation regime the US developed over the past 70 years was upended the moment the deal was concluded in Vienna.

The fight in Congress itself probably couldn’t have succeeded even if the administration hadn’t made an end run around the lawmakers at the Security Council.

After Sen. Bob Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, passed the law obligating Obama to secure the support of a mere third of the members of either House to implement his nuclear deal, its implementation was a foregone conclusion. The US Constitution gives sole power to approve international treaties to the Senate and requires a minimum of two-thirds approval for passage. Corker turned the Constitution on its head when he went forward with his bill. Far from curbing Obama’s executive overreach, Corker gave Obama unprecedented power to enact his radical, reckless nuclear agenda.

So if the fight against the deal was doomed to fail, why did the Israeli government decide to fight it for all it was worth? And why is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu still fighting it even though there is no longer any way to stop Obama from enabling Iran to sprint across the nuclear finish line? By fighting Obama’s nuclear deal, Israel seeks to advance two larger efforts. First, it uses the battle to expand its capacity to act without the US to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Second, it is shaping its relations with the US both for the duration of Obama’s presidency and for the day after he leaves office.

As far as Iran’s nuclear program is concerned, Obama’s deal has not impacted Israel’s options for preventing the mullahs from getting the bomb.

Even before the US betrayed Israel, its Arab allies and its own national security interests and closed a deal that will transform Iran into a nuclear power and a regional hegemon, there was no chance that the Americans would take action to prevent Iran from developing atomic warheads.

That prospect was taken off the table in November 2007. The National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program published that month falsely – and scandalously – asserted that Tehran abandoned its nuclear weapons program at the end of 2003.

The NIE was a bureaucratic coup. CIA analysts, notorious since the 1970s for their biased and politicized analyses, used the falsified NIE to block then-president George W. Bush from dealing with Iran. After losing the public’s support for the war in Iraq, and after failing to find Saddam’s WMD (which magically fell into the hands of Islamic State 11 years after the US invasion), Bush was powerless to oppose an official assessment of the intelligence community that claimed Iran was not a nuclear proliferator.

As for Obama, in early 2008, even before he secured the Democratic presidential nomination, he announced that he wanted to negotiate with then-Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

At no time since was there any evidence supporting the notion that Obama would lift a finger to prevent Iran from going nuclear.

In other words, for the past eight years it has been apparent to everyone willing to see that Israel has but option for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

By fighting so strenuously against Obama’s nuclear deal, Israel improved its ability to carry out a military strike against Iran’s nuclear installations in two ways.

First, it removed the most serious domestic obstacle to carrying out such a strike.

Last week’s publication of audio recordings of former defense minister Ehud Barak discussing of Iran’s nuclear program revealed that for the past several years, Israel’s military and intelligence brass have blocked operations against Iran’s nuclear installations three times. In 2010, 2011 and 2012 the IDF chief of General Staff and senior generals supported by hesitant cabinet members refused to carry out instructions they received from Netanyahu and Barak to prepare to carry out such a strike.

There is no doubt that one of the main reasons they opposed lawful instructions was their faith in Obama’s security pledges.

For their part, the Americans did their best to subvert the authority of Israel’s elected leadership.

Over the past seven years Washington has sent a steady stream of senior officials to “oversee joint Israeli-American efforts” regarding Iran. It is now obvious that this “unprecedented cooperation” was never aimed at strengthening Israel against Iran. Rather, its aim has been to erode the government’s power to make independent decisions regarding Iran’s nuclear installations.

Had Netanyahu kept his criticism of Obama’s decision to give Iran a free hand to develop nuclear weapons quiet, the generals might have shrugged their shoulders and expressed gratitude for the shiny new weapons Obama will throw at them to “compensate” for giving nukes to a regime sworn to annihilate the country.

By making his opposition public, Netanyahu alerted the nation to the dangers. The top commanders can no longer pretend that US security guarantees are credible. Now they will be forced to kick their psychological addiction to worthless American security guarantees, accept reality and act accordingly.

Better eight years late than never.

The Americans weren’t the only ones paying attention to Israel’s fight. Israel’s Arab neighbors also saw how Netanyahu and Ambassador to the US Ron Dermer left no stone unturned in their efforts to convince Democratic lawmakers to oppose it. And the regional implications are already becoming clear.

As the Saudis’ willingness to stand with Israel in public to oppose this deal has shown, our neighbors have been deeply impressed by the diplomatic courage Israel has shown. If and when Israel strikes Iran’s nuclear installations, our willingness to openly oppose the administration will weigh in our favor. It will impact our neighbors’ willingness to cooperate in action aimed at removing Iran’s nuclear sword from their necks and ours.

By fighting the deal, Israel has also worked to shape our relations with the US in a favorable way both in the short and long term.

Obama has another year and four months in office. (503 days, but who’s counting?) Even before the fight over his nuclear deal began in earnest, Obama made clear that he intends to use his remaining time in office to undermine the US-Israel alliance and to weaken Israel internationally.

In the first instance, his Democratic and progressive surrogates’ anti-Semitic assaults against New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, and the Justice Department’s coincidental indictment of pro-Israel New Jersey Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez communicated a clear message to Democratic lawmakers: Any Democrat who supports Israel against Obama will be targeted.

By acting in this way, Obama has communicated the clear goal of transforming support for Israel into the foreign policy equivalent of opposing abortion: a Republicans-only position.

Internationally, there can be little doubt that until Obama leaves office, he will seek to harm Israel and the UN. He may as well seek to harm our economy by quietly instituting administrative trade barriers with the US and Europe.

Israel’s fight against Obama’s nuclear deal has diminished Obama’s ability to use his full power to harm it while preparing the ground for relations to be repaired under his successor.

Until Netanyahu spoke before the joint houses of Congress in March, Obama’s nuclear deal was largely outside the American discourse. The fierce public debate began only after Netanyahu’s address. True, on Wednesday Obama got the support of his 34th Democratic senator and so blocked Israel’s efforts to convince Congress to vote down the deal. But his victory will be Pyrrhic.

Obama’s success will backfire first and foremost because thanks to Netanyahu’s move to spearhead the public debate in the US, today two-thirds of Americans oppose the deal. Since Iran will waste no time proving just how devastating a mistake Obama and his fellow Democrats have just made, Obama’s success makes him far less free to enact further steps against Israel than he was before the deal was concluded. The public no longer will give him the benefit of the doubt.

Moreover, since the deal is as bad as its opponents say it is, and given that most Americans oppose it, Obama’s successor will face no impediments in canceling the deal and adopting a new policy towards Israel and Iran.

Then there are Obama’s Democratic followers in Congress.

Today some commentators argue that Obama’s victory over opponents of his nuclear deal – first and foremost AIPAC – spells the demise of the pro-Israel lobby in the US.

Thankfully, they are mistaken.

Just as it failed to prevent then-president Ronald Reagan from selling AWACs to Saudi Arabia in 1981, so AIPAC had no chance of preventing Obama from moving ahead with his Iran deal.

AIPAC has never had the power to defeat a president intent on advancing an anti-Israel policy.

We will only be able to measure AIPAC’s power after the 2016 elections.

Given that the nuclear pact will fail, there will be plenty of Democrats challengers who will be eager to use their Democratic incumbent opponents’ support for Obama’s nuclear madness against them. AIPAC’s public fight against the deal has set the conditions for it to extract a political price from its supporters who preferred Obama to US national security.

If AIPAC extracts a price from key Democratic lawmakers who played crucial roles in approving the nuclear deal with Iran, it will prevent Obama from turning support for Israel into a partisan issue and emerge strengthened from the fight.

On Wednesday, after Maryland’s Sen. Barbara Mikulski became the 34th senator to support Obama’s nuclear deal, PBS’s senior anchorwoman Gwen Ifill tweeted, “Take that, Bibi.”

Obama’s win is Bibi’s loss. Bibi failed to convince 12 Democratic senators and 44 Democratic congressmen to vote against the head of their party. But by fighting against this deal, Netanyahu removed the main obstacle that kept Israel from taking action that will prevent Iran from going nuclear. He reduced Obama’s power to harm Israel.

The fight strengthened American and American- Jewish opposition to the nuclear deal, paving the way for a Democratic renewal after Obama leaves office. And finally, Israel’s public battle against Obama’s deal paved the way its abrogation by his successor.

All in all, a rather glorious defeat.

_____________________

Iran Nuke Deal Hubris will Eventually Succumb to True American Spirit

John R. Houk

© September 4, 2015

____________________

Column One: A glorious defeat

Copyright © Jpost Inc. All rights reserved

Caroline’s website: http://carolineglick.com/

About Caroline B. Glick

I grew up in Chicago’s ultra-liberal Hyde Park neighborhood. Hyde Park’s most famous resident is Barack Obama.

I made aliyah to Israel in 1991, two weeks after receiving my BA in Political Science from another radical liberal stronghold — Columbia University in New York, otherwise known as Beir Zeit on the Hudson.

I joined the Israel Defense Forces that summer and served as an officer for five and a half years.

From 1994-1996, as an IDF captain, I served as Coordinator of Negotiations with the PLO in the office of the Coordinator of Government Activities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. In this capacity I was a core member of Israel’s negotiating team with the Palestinians.

In 1997 and 1998 I served as assistant foreign policy advisor Binyamin Netanyahu during his first stint as Prime Minister.

From 1998-2000 I returned to the US for graduate school. I received a Master’s in Public Policy from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. Although I spent most of my free time hiking in New England, it did not escape my attention that much of the faculty at the Kennedy School was not particularly fond of America, (Alinsky’s organizing methods were taught in a required first year course for MPP candidates) — or of Israel.

The latter truth was exposed for all the world to see when my former professor Steve Walt co-wrote the updated version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion with his friend from my childhood hometown – University of Chicago’s John Mearshimer.

After I finished graduate school I returned to Israel and began writing at Makor Rishon newspaper, (Hebrew). I served as READ THE REST

Get on Board with Anti-Iran Nuke Deal Rally in DC


John R. Houk

© September 3, 2015

 

There is a Stop Obama’s Iran Nuke Deal rally scheduled for September 9 in Washington DC. The two main speakers will be Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz. According to the movements advertising photo-op Glen Beck and Mark Levin will be there as well. Here’s the quote:

Stop Iran Rally DC is a movement led by volunteers who believe America will be worse off living in a world where the Iranian regime has nuclear weapons capabilities to menace other nations and unfettered access to the world economy to earn more money to pay more terrorists.

The Iranian regime is the main financial sponsor of Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Gaza’s Hamas and is responsible for the chaos in Yemen. The Syrian regime, which used chemical weapons against its own people, is also funded by Iran.

The world agreed to sanction this dangerous regime because it refuse to play by our rules. Nothing has changed since 1979 when it came to power.

As Americans, we have read this deal and don’t like what our side has brought back from their bargaining.

If IAEA inspectors suspect wrongdoing, why must we wait up to 24 days to inspect? If (or, rather, when) Iran breaks its commitments, after two months of talking about it, the sanctions could be re-applied — but only for new business deals. In other words, after companies from around the world rush to sign deals with Iran in the coming months, there is no “snap back” for those deals. In other words, the threat of more sanctions is hollow.

If you agree that America deserves a better deal, please come to Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, September 9, to make our elected leaders hear your voice. (Stop Iran Rally, Washington, D.C.! Let’s March on the White House! September 9; By Editor; Stop Iran Rally; 9/3/15)

The organization Never Again is Now alerted me to this email via email. The authors of the email are the founders of the organization – Stanley Zir and Buddy Macy. Anytime one sees the words “Never Again” it is a reference to the Holocaust that killed nearly 6 MILLION Jews between 1939 and 1945. Out of the ravages of the Holocaust and WWII Israel was born in 1948 – not peacefully. Surrounding Arab nations sent in armies to destroy the nascent Israel and drive the Jews into the Mediterranean Sea. These Arabs were not talking about a leisurely swim, rather they were talk about another mass killing of Jews. One of the great miracles of the 20th century is that a group Jewish underground paramilitary groups managed their differences to unite and still outnumbered managed to hold off invading Arab armies to secure the Jewish State of Israel. There was not another Jewish Holocaust. Arab nations neighboring Israel fought a total of FOUR wars between 1948 and 1974 attempting another Jewish Holocaust.

If you look at map. Israel is a speck on a Middle Eastern map. You can’t tell me there wasn’t any Divine intervention in that Israel won every single war including liberating all of Jerusalem from the land thieves of Jordan in 1967 who destroyed anything of Jewish heritage between then East Jerusalem and what the rest of the world calls the West Bank and what Jews who understand their heritage call Judea and Samaria in 1948-49. Thousands of years of the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem was destroyed by 1949 by Jordanian occupation.

TODAY! Iran still makes the threat of a Jewish holocaust against Israel and in their hubris also threaten the destruction of the USA and Americans. President Barack Hussein Obama has given Iran a road map to arm with nuclear WMDs with his so-called historic deal with the crazed Twelver-Shia Islamic nation.

THIS CANNOT STAND!

This Zir and Macy email encourages ALL the Republican Candidates for POTUS (to date) to unite at this Washington DC rally against the Obama-Kerry Deal that essentially sells Western culture to an eventual nuclear with Iran. Call, write or email your Senator and Congressman to make sure they vote to OVERRIDE any Obama veto that secures his Executive Order (i.e. not a Treaty ratified by the Senate) enabling a nuclear armed Iran.

JRH 9/3/15

Please Support NCCR

**************************

Converge on DC: Join Trump & Cruz to Stop Obama’s Veto

Sent by Stanley Zir and Buddy Macy

Of Never Again is Now

Sent: 9/1/2015 12:14 PM

On two days’ notice, Mr. Trump was able to gather 30 thousand people in a football stadium in Alabama.

All of the Republican Presidential candidates must converge on our nation’s Capital on September 9, 2015 and join with frontrunner Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz to stop Obama’s veto. And, all Tea Party members, American Patriots and pro-Zionists must gather there in numbers unlike anything witnessed since Martin Luther King’s historic march on Washington, DC!

Stanley Zir, Buddy Macy
Founders of Never Again is Now

See Article Below:

++++

Op-Ed: National Emergency for America

By Stanley Zir

August 28, 2015 11:22 AM

Israel National News – Arutz Sheva 7

If this deal goes forward, America relinquishes her crown as the leader of the free world. Clear talk of the threat facing America and the world.

The Constitution is the guideline I will never abandon.” – George Washington

The United States of America was born out of a resolve to protect the freedoms of the individual from the tyranny of the state. Its Constitution was written to safeguard those freedoms at all costs – ad infinitum. America’s Founding Fathers were excellent physicians who could fully detect the disease of tyranny in all its forms. They left the American people the Constitution as a preventive vaccine to eliminate this cancer.

Therefore, upholding the Constitution and its firm stance against tyranny or any government or enterprise, foreign or domestic that seeks to destroy the United States, its values, democracy, or “western ways” is a non-debatable issue.

There are no parties here, no sides, and no disparities to discuss. If you are an American, as I am, the Constitution is the law of your land and it is the premier reference guide that protects Americans from those who seek to tamper with our freedoms.

Either we stand with the Constitution’s sacred covenant of freedom, the basis upon which this republic rests, or our very foundation faces collapse.

Stopping the Iranian Nuclear Threat and removing the ultimate mass destructive weapon known to man from getting into the hands of a heinous, tyrannical nation, that openly threatens to destroy America, is then neither a Democratic nor a Republican issue; rather it’s a Constitutional mandate.

Our government must rule and abide by our Constitution whose stance against tyranny is its rule law. Congress must commit to stopping President Obama, who is acting as if he is Iran’s nuclear terrorist-enabling acolyte.

The Republican Debate

Let’s face it; the Republican debate was a side- show extravaganza. A lot of entertainment was provided with a juggling of theories and elixirs for the most common social and economic ailments. The one obvious omittance was a serious discussion about Iranian’s nuclear threat. Not one candidate made stopping President Obama’s veto a top priority.

With less than 20 days left to defeat Obama’s veto, it is obvious these candidates have already abandoned their pledge (if elected) to uphold the Constitution’s stance against tyranny. Instead they are treading lightly in shark-infested waters while Obama is waving the white flag of surrender to Iran.

Even though the election is still 15 months away, at which point the Iranian deal and its veto will be a moot point, these candidates are not displaying the sense of urgency necessary. No one is breaking from the pack as the conscientious leader and saying, “Let’s put our collective heads together and get this business done first for the good of the country and the world.” The first candidate to do that has my vote.

The Republican Party has never made stopping Iran their top priority, before or after the deal was made. Overriding President Obama’s veto might be their last chance to save our country. What will our future be if Iran gets access to the bomb a year before the elections in 2016?

Mr. Trump, as the front runner who is proposing to make America great again, you must realize that honoring a deal that cedes victory to Iran and Islamic fascism over our Constitution means we have relinquished what makes us great and exceptional among nations. It is only through the commitment against tyranny and enforcement of our Constitution that our country thrives with capitalism and free markets; not the other way around. As one of the most successful businessmen in our country, you know the importance of a good business plan. The Constitution is the preeminent business plan for a free nation.

The business of America is to establish, support, and defend the contents of its Constitution, at all costs. Obama’s deal with Iran is in direct conflict with our Constitution in that we are not only negotiating with a tyranny that consistently promotes its hatred of our freedoms, but we are aiding and abetting that tyranny in its quest to obtain a nuclear bomb.

If this deal goes forward, America relinquishes her crown as the leader of the free world. Can she ever be trusted again to keep the flame of liberty lit from those who are bent on extinguishing it?

Mr. Trump, if we have to wait 15 months to put your plan in action, how do you propose to make America great again if you don’t lead the charge to stop Obama’s veto?

For a dozen years, I have been writing the same screed over and over. “It’s Iran, you blind imbeciles!” It’s not Obamacare! It’s not Isis! It’s not the Muslim Brotherhood, Russia, or China! It’s not the ceiling debt or Hillary. Even the illegal immigration issue must take a back seat to the Iranian threat.

There will be time later to build Trump’s wall and seal the border, but if we don’t eliminate Iran’s ability to obtain nuclear weapons, we won’t have to worry about a wall, or immigrants, or anchor babies. The politicians are being diverted while Iran’s end game is to run out the clock. Congress wants to put out campfires as the whole forest is burning down around us.

President Obama confirmed Iran is, at most, six months away from enriching enough nuclear fuel for an atomic bomb and that walking away from the deal would render any sanctions useless. Overlooked is the fact that there is no repeal process unlike Obamacare, once Iran holds nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile Russia and China will have sufficiently armed Iran to protect their own oil interests and the European Union will have secured lucrative financial deals with Iran to guard its vital interests.

So, as all the other self-satisfying nations are bartering their economic and political securities with tyrannical madmen, America must remain the only sensible “voice of reason” as the leader of the free world; the court of last resort

Overriding Obama’s veto, however, is only half the story. Without coupling the veto with the destruction of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, it is only a piece of paper. Additionally crippling sanctions at that point would be useless.

What other assurance is there that the world is not threatened by an indiscriminate nuclear attack? If Iran crosses the nuclear threshold there will be no safe haven left in the free world. We will find ourselves at the mercy of Iranian madmen armed with nuclear devices.

For the sake of our Union, all Republican Party candidates must temporarily put their differences aside and unite to stop Obama’s veto, then call for the destruction of Iran’s nuclear capacity.

The successful candidate for the next position of Commander and Chief must be able to awaken the American people to the fact that the greatest threat to our nation, our economy and the future of the world is the Iranian Nuclear terrorist threat. Stopping Obama’s veto now must be their top priority.

_______________________

Get on Board with Anti-Iran Nuke Deal Rally in DC

John R. Houk

© September 3, 2015

______________________

Converge on DC: Join Trump & Cruz to Stop Obama’s Veto

Never Again is Now Mission:

1) SEEK and support those things that are true, uplifting and unifying.

2) STAND with out fear for the right of conscience by renewing ourselves.

3) DECLARE that all lives matter and political correctness is destroying truth.

4) BRIDGE the gap as we serve and comfort others in non-violence.

5) UNITE despite all attempts of the world to divide us along lines of Race, political and religious affiliation, or sexual orientation.

Mercury One – The Nazarene Fund donation

What is Never Again is Now – Mercury One

“This summer is a call to action. If you’re like me and you’re not really ready, continue to prepare, because mark my words, never again is right now.” -Glenn Beck

This summer Mercury One helped launch the start of a new movement, Never Again Is Now. Asking “What will unite us?” Glenn Beck revealed his calling to act against the genocides in the Middle East and mobilize our nation towards the efforts to provide aid for the refugees, support for the suppressed, and to show the world that Americans will not stand idle to the terror.

WHY NOW?

The brutality and injustice happening in the Middle East is not something that is hidden from the world. It is posted daily to social media and strung across news headlines, yet as a country, we have averted our eyes, choosing to do nothing. But it is now that we are called to be brave, to face the atrocities and say NEVER AGAIN.

ABOUT THE VISION:

CALLING THE NATION

We want to encourage you to take action. These victims are crying out to God and looking to America for compassion. Now is the time we step out of our comfort zones and READ THE REST