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



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.]

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

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. 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.”

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:

The Only Evolution I Trust is Conservative Evolution

John R. Houk

© October 10, 2015

Yesterday I received a donation exhortation from the under the guise of Ron Dove. I get these fundraising emails quite often from various Tea Party organizations and Conservative organizations as you probably do as well (If you happen to be a Leftie you probably receive the fundraiser emails also but from the other side of political spectrum). Many of these organizations are quite worthy of support while others probably pad their non-profit salary base more than they should. Nearly all the legitimate Tea Party/Conservative fundraising base have the correct message that you have an affinity toward. In my case, as a rule, I tend not to make political donations until it closer to an election and funding is more defined to whence it is designated.

I am about to cross post fund raiser not because I am promoting them in particular but rather because Ron Dove gives some background from growing up in a Liberal family then in adulthood migrating to Conservatism. That story is similar to mine and I suspect many others as well. It is good to know that I was not the only one to become disgusted the Left/Democrat Party paradigm.

Give if you want to, but perhaps you should a little digging into the Tea Party/Conservative organization best fits your thoughts on a national level. For that matter a local Tea Party organization (one Tea Party directory) might be closer to your heart because they are more aware of combatting Leftist concepts in your community.

JRH 10/10/15

Please Support NCCR


I want to tell you why I’m with the Tea Party

By Ron Dove

Sent: 10/9/2015 1:02 PM

Sent from:

It’s supporters like you that make the TEA Party great. I want to thank you for your past support of the TEA Party and encourage you to take a moment to initiate a monthly donation, and here’s why.

I became involved in the TEA Party Movement because I wanted to encourage people to think for themselves. I grew up in a Liberal household. As I was growing up it seemed like most decisions liberals made were because they were always made that way in the past. They did not even think about an issue or who to vote for. They always toed the party line. How many minority voters have voted as Democrats simply because they do not know any different? I, and we, should be educating all voters on what the Tea Party and Conservative Politics has to offer. And that’s why I got involved – to make some kind of difference.

But, if you are like me, you are also sick and tired of the same big Political game going on in Washington. It appears that regardless who our “Representatives” are, they are in their positions for themselves and not for us. How can someone represent me and us if they are there for themselves?

What issues are important to you? This is what is important to me:

o Immigration/Secure Our Borders – I live 40 miles from the Mexican border in Southern Arizona. I know about the illegal immigration problem because I see it and live it every day. My Grandparents came to this Country as immigrants. I appreciate that people want and need to come here to make a better life for themselves and their families. However, it has to be done the proper way! Our Government needs to enforce existing laws and come up with new ways to keep undocumented people out of Our Country.

o Our 2nd Amendment Rights – It seems like we are constantly trying to protect our 2nd Amendment rights. I am sick of this constant occurrence. Are you?

o Health Care – The Affordable Health Act is not affordable and is one of the worst legislations ever adopted. We need a leader/leaders that can do better than this!

o Taxes – Is the current system fair? Does everyone pay in? This system is not only flawed, but many of the deductions, loopholes and exemptions make no sense. Do we even need the IRS?

o The Economy and Small Business – My father started his own Dental Practice in 1950. Small business is what grows the Economy and is the life blood of small towns and cities. When was the last time we had an Administration that was small business friendly? We need leaders who understand this and cultivate employment and economic opportunities.

Finally, what ever happened to personal responsibility? We live in the time where everyone thinks they deserve a hand out. We need our Representatives to respect those who are truly in need, but instill the sense of personal responsibility in every program and fund created and maintained by Our Government.

I can think of many more issues that are important to me, us and Our Country. The TEA Party needs your continued help so we unite Conservatives, expose non-Conservatives to another way of thinking and to help to ensure we have nominees that reflect our values. We have expanded our member base vastly in the five years I have been involved; but we desperately need your continued support right away to continue to do what we do. Please, take a moment to “CLICK HERE” and renew your monthly donation so we can continue to be relevant over the critical next 14 months!


Ron Dove
Tea Party since 2009

P.S. it’s not going to be easy but we can do this – we can take our American democracy back from the special interest-dominated Washington political elites who are driving our freedom and prosperity into the ground. Be a part of our historic effort to turn things around by becoming a Monthly Sustaining Member of the Tea Party today.


Our mailing address is:

The Tea Party
211 North Union Street
Suite 100
Alexandria, VA 22314
United States


Thank you for your support. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.




Our mission is to recruit like-minded Americans to the Tea Party Movement in order to advance the principles of limited government, fiscal restraint, and individual liberty at all levels of government through promotion and education. The Tea Party Movement is a grassroots movement of millions of like-minded Americans from all backgrounds and political parties. Tea Party members share similar core principles supporting the United States Constitution as the Founders intended.

Poke Establishment in Eye – Support Tea Party Candidates

T Party Stands For logo


John R. Houk

© May 25, 2015


There are special elections and primaries occurring now prior to the 2016 election cycle. I found out from a Conservative Campaign Committee PAC that a Tea Party Republican running against an Establishment Republican candidate won in the Kentucky Gubernatorial Primary by 83 votes.


Kentucky businessman and tea-party favorite Matt Bevin surprised the media Tuesday night by winning the Kentucky Republican gubernatorial primary, edging out James Comer, the state’s agriculture commissioner, by 83 votes.


Mr. Comer has sought a recanvass of the results, and a final tally is due next week. But whatever the outcome, there is one big message out of the Kentucky race: If you are an establishment GOP candidate, don’t sleep on the tea party. (Tea Party Wins Kentucky Primary But Bigger Challenge Awaits; By DANTE CHINNI; Washington Wire Blog – WSJ; 5/22/15 6:58 am ET)


The WSJ blog author Dante Chinni pens the similar sentiments of other Mainstream Media outlets reasoning that Bevin’s victory was based on low voter turn-out. Chinni then cites a WSJ/NBC poll that only 20% had a favorable opinion of the Tea Party Movement. The problem I have with the WSJ/NBC data is that anything associated with NBC is often slanted toward the uber-Left. So I have to ask, “Who exactly was involved in taking the poll?” And, “Was the poll even taken from among likely Kentucky voters in relation to the Bevin-Comer Primary?” AND in reality who is to say a higher voter turn-out would have meant a higher margin of victory for Matt Bevin over James Comer?


At any rate the CCC PAC email announcement as expected was an announcement to garner donations for another special election in Illinois District 18 between Republicans Tea Party Mike Flynn and Establishment Darin LaHood.


As usual I am neither encouraging nor discouraging you to donate to the CCC PAC because more than likely other Tea Party organizations will be requesting donations as well. On the other hand you should do the research and which Conservative best uses its donation process in supporting that which you support.


One thing is certain about CCC PAC and other Conservative organizations devoted to the Election 2016 cycle is the info disseminated to the public will be closer to reality than the MSM info. If a Tea Party Conservative is doing well, Tea Party & Conservative organization will tell you and ask for the donations to keep streaming in to keep the momentum rolling. If the Candidate is struggling the donations solicited will tell you more money is needed to offset Leftist and Establishment GOP propaganda. With that bit of revelation below you are about to read the CCC PAC cross post of email sent.


JRH 5/25/15

Please Support NCCR


Huge Victory for the Tea Party


Sent from Mary Parker

Sent: 5/24/2015 6:36 PM

Sent by CCC PAC


The Wall Street Journal has the report on the great news for the Tea Party movement – as we scored a major victory when Conservative Republican Matt Bevin bested his establishment opponent by 83 votes in the Kentucky Republican Primary for Governor.


Now we have another important battle we must win:  the Special Election for Congress in IL-18 where Conservative Republican hero Mike Flynn is taking on the establishment’s candidate, Darin LaHood.


Matt Bevin wins Kentucky GOP Primary


We are so excited about Conservative Republican Mike Flynn’s campaign for Congress.  Mr. Flynn was a close confidant of the late Andrew Breitbart.  Serving as editor of he helped educate and inform conservatives about the rampant push for Big Government by liberals, the media and the occasional misguided Republican.


Now Mike Flynn is running for Congress and he needs our immediate support.


To help us launch our ad campaigns and Get Out The Vote efforts, we still need 92 more conservatives to step forward and make a contribution of $100 or more.  The reason?  Advertising rates, and the costs of printing campaign materials and running Get Out The Vote efforts are significant, and our opponent in the race is backed by a liberal PAC which receives it’s funding from well-financed labor unions.


Mike Flynn is an accomplished constitutional conservative who has been endorsed by conservative leaders such as Erick Erickson of and conservative radio host Dana Loesch.


If you can step forward and make a contribution of $100 or more to our independent expenditure campaign to elect Conservative Republican Mike Flynn – PLEASE CLICK HERE.


More About This Important Special Election

You’ve probably seen Mike Flynn’s appearances on cable news outlets such as Fox News Channel and read his columns and reports on


Mike Flynn in an appearance on the Fox News Channel


Mike Flynn on Fox News Channel


A major battle has emerged between our Conservative Republican candidate, Mike Flynn (a close friend and associate of the late Andrew Breitbart) and Darin LaHood, son of Barack Obama’s Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood.


Obama fixes the tie of his Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood

Obama fixes the tie of his Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood


While conservatives are lining up to support Mike Flynn, Darin LaHood received the maximum-allowed contribution from the union-funded Main Street Partnership, who has been described as having the sole purpose “is to attack conservatives in primaries.”

National Review reports that this election will be a critically important battle between constitutional conservatives of the Tea Party movement and the corrupt political establishment that keeps growing government, expanding out deficits and compromising our personal liberties:


NRO bi-line- Establishment-Tea Party IL face off


You can support our campaign to elect Mike Flynn, a proven constitutional conservative, by making a contribution of $25, $50, $100, $200 or more up to a maximum contribution of $5,000.  To make a contribution – CLICK HERE.


If you are able to do so, you can make a more generous contribution of $250, $500, $1,000 or more up to the maximum allowed contribution of $5,000 – JUST CLICK HERE.


If you prefer you can also mail in a contribution to our headquarters:

Conservative Campaign Committee
ATTN:  Mike Flynn for Congress
P.O. Box 278855
Sacramento, CA 95827


Thank You!


Thank you for supporting our independent expenditure campaign to elect Conservative Republican Mike Flynn to Congress in the upcoming Special Election in IL-18.

P.S. Remember, we still need 92 more people to contribute $100 or more so we can fund the launch of our advertising campaign to elect Conservative Republican Mike Flynn to Congress.  If you can make a contribution of $100 or moreSIMPLY CLICK HERE.


Poke Establishment in Eye – Support Tea Party Candidates

John R. Houk

© May 25, 2015


Huge Victory for the Tea Party


Pd for & Authorized by CCC - not any candidate or candidate comm. 

Conservative Campaign Committee

Ted Cruz Just Made a Bold Prediction About Harry Reid …

Ted Cruz - Scottie Hughes TPNN

Scottie Nell Hughes interviews Senator Ted Cruz in a TPNN interview. In summary Cruz tells Scottie that the GOP will fire Senator Harry Reid in 2014 as the Majority Leader of the Senate. Cruz proceeds to talk about the need for strong leadership among the potential GOP Presidential candidates in the 2016 election as opposed to  the namby-pamby contrast the Republicans have offered the last two Presidential election cycles. “Namby-pamby” is my word not Senator Cruz’s.


Cruz talks about the Paul Ryan-Tea Party semi-feud currently taking place saying roughly that no Conservative Republican should criticize another Conservative. By the way, Ryan and Hughes have exchanged barbs between each other. Hughes is not the only Tea Party person who feels Ryan abandoned the Tea Party Movement to join the GOP Establishment.


Cruz is upset about the Dem party with the aid of the Left-stream media portraying the GOP as at fault for shutting down the government. Cruz tells the truth that the no-compromise Dems were responsible for that shutdown.


Below is the Matthew Burke summary of the interview which is followed by the near seven minute interview between Senator Cruz and Scottie Nell Hughes.


JRH 9/1/14

Please Support NCCR


EXCLUSIVE: Ted Cruz Just Made a Bold Prediction About Harry Reid that Will Make Conservatives Across America Stand up and Cheer


By Matthew Burke

August 30, 2014

Tea Party News Network


Ted Cruz sat down with TPNN News Director Scottie Nell Hughes, for an exclusive and wide-ranging interview at the 2014  Americans for Prosperity Defending the American Dream Summit,  taking place in Dallas this weekend.

Scottie offered a tactical attempt to get Senator Cruz to budge on announcing whether he was going to make a run for the presidency in 2016, pressing Cruz, “Is there a timeline that you will be thinking of making an announcement? Let’s just say someone was thinking of running for 2016, when would be that time that you would think of that.”

“I am happy to make an announcement right now–which is 66 days from now, I am convinced we’re going to retake the U.S. Senate and we’re going to retire Harry Reid’s as majority leader,” Cruz confidently predicted about the upcoming 2014 midterm elections, a proclamation that will make principled conservatives give a standing ovation to hear.

“Next year, we’re going to see the presidential race get moving,” Cruz elaborated. “Let me tell you the test I intend to apply as a voter, it’s the test I intend to apply as a voter who will be voting in the Republican primary in 2016. Republicans should nominate whoever is standing up and leading,” Cruz advised.

Cruz referred to the upcoming election as “the most important election of our lifetime,” then expanded on the urgency of America’s dire direction under Democrat President Barack Obama:


“Our country is in crisis. It’s now or never. Whoever is standing up and leading, making the case that the Obama agenda isn’t working–economically it’s a disaster, our constitutional rights are under assault–abroad, America’s receded from leadership in the world.”


It would be easy to make the case that Cruz is slightly hinting at a 2016 presidential run, as Cruz has certainly provided bold leadership in fighting against Obamacare, amnesty, and various other acts of Obama’s lawlessness, and has been viciously attacked for it by the establishment leadership in both political parties.

Cruz’s message to other prospective GOP presidential candidates, which so far is looking like it may be another crowded field, is “stand up and lead.” Cruz encouraged voters to look at candidates who’ve “stood up and engaged” on the important issues facing the nation over the last two or three years.

“We’ve seen two elections in a row where Republicans didn’t take it to the Democrats, didn’t draw a clear contrast. If we hide in the corner, Hillary Clinton will run right over us,” Cruz predicted. “Margaret Thatcher famously said, ‘First you win the argument, then you win the vote,’” Cruz explained.

Cruz told Scottie that what the GOP needs for the next presidential candidate is someone who paints a positive, bold, optimistic vision, that we can get back to the principles that built this country.”

It sounds like Senator Ted Cruz may have just been describing President Ted Cruz.



Scottie then asked the senator from Texas to weigh in on the somewhat of an ongoing feud between the establishment RINO wing of the GOP, versus the grassroots, pro-Constitution, pro-freedom Tea Party and libertarian wing of the Republican Party. Specifically, Scottie asked Cruz to comment on Paul Ryan’s new book in which he bashed the Tea Party and the Cruz push to stop the funding of Obamacare by using the threat of a government shutdown as leverage.


RELATED:  Paul Ryan Pushes Back Against TPNN’s Scottie Hughes, Defends His Record as Conservative 


“I like Paul Ryan. He’s a good man,” Cruz responded. “I will say that I don’t think it’s beneficial when Republican leadership throws rocks at conservatives, at conservative activists across this country,” Cruz answered about Ryan’s attacks against the Tea Party.

Cruz then blasted the leftstream Democrat media complex, who he referred to as “useful idiots,”  for perpetuating the lie that Republicans shut down the government:

“One of the greatest lies that the mainstream media repeats ad nauseam, is the lie that Republicans shut down the government. It’s simply not true. The House of Representatives, House Republicans voted over-and-over-and-over again to fully fund the federal government, but to defund Obamacare. The reason the government shutdown is because President Obama and Harry Reid wanted to shut down the government, and they said very publicly that they thought it benefited them politically to shut down the government, in part, because they could count on the useful idiots in the media, and sadly on a fair number of Senate Republicans, to go on television and blame the shutdown on Republicans.”

Cruz told Scottie that when Republicans voted to fully fund the government except for Obamacare, and Democrats refused to negotiate, it was the Democrats who chose to close down the full government, not the Republicans.

Cruz said the fight to defund Obamacare, was a fight against “the most disastrous legislation in modern times.”

“How many Americans wished Republicans had stood together and Democrats hadn’t shut down the government, but had been willing to work to avoid the disaster, the train wreck that is Obamacare?” Cruz asked rhetorically. 



VIDEO: Ted Cruz Just Made a Prediction About Harry Reid That Will Make Conservatives Stand up and Cheer


Posted by TPNNVideos

Published on Aug 30, 2014


In an exclusive and wide-ranging interview, Ted Cruz sat down with TPNN’s Scottie Nell Hughes at the “Defending the American Dream Summit” to discuss his presidential possibilities, the upcoming midterms, defunding Obamacare, the government shutdown, and more!



About Matthew Burke


Matthew Burke is a former Financial Advisor/Planner for 24 years. He was a 2010 Constitutional Conservative candidate for U.S. Congress in Washington State.




TPNN Mission


The goal of the Tea Party News Network (TPNN) is to provide a rapid, up-to-date political news service that is relevant to the Tea Party movement of Constitutional conservatives.  Our team of researchers and writers aim to cut through the smoke and spin of the “mainstream” media so as to provide an alternative hard hitting news product across a spectrum of current issues. TPNN is available 24 hours a day on desktop, tablet and mobile devices.

Illicit Piranha Feeding over WaPo Stats on Tea Party Spending Habits

USS GOP - Tea Party vs GOP Establishment

John R. Houk

© June 11, 2014


I often post relevant emails from PACs that are also fund raising for a cause. I don’t necessarily support the fund raising but I always include that info to give the reader the choice to do so.


While in the course of looking for background info on one those emails from the Conservative Campaign Committee (CCC) I ran into some information that I found disappointing about various Tea Party organizations. One of those organizations is one of my favorites as far as the Tea Party Movement goes which is the Tea Party Express (let’s abbreviate as TPX). The TPX has a few offshoot PACs of which I also have a close affinity for; such as Move America Forward and the CCC.


The disturbing information I discovered was the accusation that TPX leadership pocket substantial amounts of their donations for personal use and only utilize a small percentage for the actual Tea Party agenda. So I wrote a kind of a full disclosure paragraph prior to posting the CCC email entitled “Benghazi Bombshell: Allen West’s Stunning Report” on May 26, 2014. Here is that paragraph:


The Conservative Campaign Committee (CCC) sent a donation request via email and in doing so talked about the subject of Benghazigate. Just a heads up about donations to this particular Tea Party connected PAC is that there appears to be a lineage questionable spending of those donations. Apparently this lineage of Tea Party organizations spend most of their donated money on salaries than they do on the causes they promote. Of course donation mismanagement accusations might be an attack job by the Republican Establishment elites growing weary of Tea Party organizations telling voters they can make a difference by not voting for RINOs and/or Republicans with a semi-Conservative agenda but refuse to change the air of political corruption plaguing Congress. A lot of fiefdoms would topple among Dems and the GOP Establishment that maintain the power structure of do-nothing to solve budget and debt crises in America (Perhaps there is a suggestion GOP elite response HERE and HERE.)


The first link (other than the CCC link) is to Before discussing that link here is a very brief description from their about page:


The Right On Daily Blog – is now a collaborative effort of several conservative activists in Placer County. As such, individual identities are not specified.


Please note that the primary purpose of is about exposing fraud in the Republican Party and the agendas of government.


Posted – 2:47 am

Aaron F Park

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


The Placer County spoken of on the about page has been a Republican Party stronghold for some time with a population of nearly 350,000 people that stretches from near Sacramento to its west to the Nevada border on its east. So for clarification’s sake it is true to say that supports a Conservative agenda.


Aaron F. Park authored the post of the critical information of various Tea Party organizations of which the TPX lineage is also included. The post is entitled “Finally! National Exposure “Tea Party” PAC’s exposed for the frauds they are…” Park quotes a story that he only identifies as MSM so I am unsure of the actual source:


Three well-known groups — the Tea Party Patriots, the Tea Party Express and the Madison Project — have spent 5 percent or less of their money directly on election-related activity during this election cycle. Two other prominent tea party groups, the Senate Conservatives Fund and FreedomWorks, have devoted about 40 percent of their money to direct candidate support such as ads and yard signs.


On average, super PACs had spent 64 percent of their funds on directly helping candidates by roughly this stage in the 2012 election cycle, according to Federal Election Commission data.


I have a limited familiarity with the Tea Party Patriots and the Senate Fund so I will let them off the hook with my thoughts. The accusation that the TPX (and probably related affiliates) have only spent 5% of their donations on “election related activity” as compared to the 40% or the larger 64% is quite the accusation.


It took some random Googling to stumble upon the article that Aaron Park spoke of. I was not surprised the article was in the Washington Post written by Matea Gold. The article written by Ms. Gold is entitled “Tea party PACs reap money for midterms, but spend little on candidates”. Gold’s article is probably more fodder for Establishment Republicans than for Dems. If the Dems overtly and specifically criticize the fiscal management of Tea Party organizations, there is a good chance blow back on Dem campaign tactics like ballot stuffing of ineligible voters (e.g. Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and dead people etc.) and more nefarious practices by Community activist Dem or Leftist PACs. Leftist PACs campaign practices go way beyond pouring money into individual Dem candidates and would dwarf any significance to any fiscal mismanagement Gold accuses Tea Party organizations of. 


I found a Hot Air article which tries to be even handed but in my opinion leans toward Establishment favoritism managed a fair and balanced quote from Sal Russo of the Tea Party Express that places Gold’s statistics in a better perspective:


The Tea Party Express, a PAC run out of Sacramento by longtime Republican consultant Sal Russo, has paid Russo’s firm $2.75 million since the beginning of 2013, while donating just $45,000 to candidates and spending less than $162,000 on ads and bus tours supporting their election.


Russo said that figure was misleading because most of the payments to his firm were reimbursements for the cost of staffing the elaborate bus tours and rallies that the group holds around the country.


“Everything goes on our credit card,” he said. “Sometimes there’s up to 45 people that we’ve got to feed and house.”


Those activities, while not explicit political expenditures, give a bigger return than expensive television ads, Russo said. (WaPo: Tea Party PACs spend most of their cash on themselves; By Ed Morrissey; Hot Air; 4/28/14 2:01 PM) 


It sounds to me like Russo is saying TPX spends most of its money on grass roots organizing. HELLO! Building grass roots voters is what will build a strong voting bloc. Ultimately rallies and meetings spreading the Conservative message of fair taxes, less government, fiscal responsibility and constitutional Originalism. People that vote for a political party out of a family heritage, Union pressures or popularity due to name recognition are typically ignorant voters. Committed Leftists know what they are voting for and will mislead the young, the minorities and the elderly based on government hand-outs. This group of people may not realize they are voting for bigger taxes, bigger and more intrusive government, the delusion that a fetus is a part of a person’s body like an appendix and an immoral society. Tea Party voters know they are voting for Conservative principles. Now it may be true that many Tea Partiers may disagree on certain degrees of Social Conservatism yet it is my sense Social Liberal values is a minority while Social Conservative values is more the norm.


The grass roots nature of the Tea Party Movement is more than the solidifying the Conservative like-minded. Grass roots also means educating voters. A knowledgeable voter can make up their mind based on what they know rather than what they are told in America’s voting system. In this grass roots vein, a highly organized Tea Party organization like TPX and affiliates will benefit real Conservative candidates in the long run. This will irritate the odd GOP Establishment political spectrum of Left leaning RINOs through slanted Right Republicans that may talk a good Conservative game but vote to not rock the political boat.


It is these GOP Establishment types that utilize the journalism of WaPo’s journalist Matea Gold to slam various Tea Party organizations by warping statistics to imply personal pocketing of donations. Now I can see the comeback for my assertion might be something like, “So why do these Tea Party leaders pay themselves big salaries and pay their own private businesses for product and services rendered to their Tea Party PAC organization?”


Well let’s see. We live in America. America is a Capitalist entrepreneurial system. It may nepotistic for a politician to influence taxpayer money to their own business or to a business that benefits a family member, but PAC is private funding. There is nothing wrong with using your own business to provide goods and services for a non-taxpayer funded PAC. Dear god! If you can help with sourcing a political agenda you believe in more power to you. I mean billionaire George Soros has his money in so many PACs I’d have to Google a list to find them all. Old Soros has bought into the Leftist transformation of society whole sale steer voters to his way of thinking. Do you think Soros might own something that benefits from providing goods and services to one of the Leftist PAC organizations? It may be more difficult to discover because Soros is a billionaire that supports a society that will eliminate the wealthy that disagrees with a Left a wing utopian society. He makes the same kind of money he derides the wealthy for. So Soros uses shell companies that own shell companies that own companies which own another company. That makes it difficult to trace the power behind the money to a Left Wing PAC.


So what if a Tea Party leader is not trying to hide his personal involvement for what he believes in, right?


But then there are other Conservatives and Tea Party organizations that view doing business with yourself as a sign of corruption. In asking why I can only speculate. Conservatives like Aaron Park representing a Conservative organization like might be displaying a legitimate even if misguiding suspicion. The term “misguided” is best description I can give of a legitimate Conservative criticizing another legitimate Conservative’s financial methods. Disagreement with the organizational management might be irritating, but I would hesitate to smear a fellow Conservative with nefarious financial practices. Business decisions don’t always work out for the person that may lose a profit to another business. I’m just speculating in Park’s case but perhaps he had a bad business transaction, watched a bad business transaction or heard of a bad business transaction by say someone like a TPX leadership person such as Sal Russo which may have rubbed Park the wrong way.


There may be the case of Tea Party organization rivalry as well since the Tea Party Movement is not monolithic. There are the large Tea Party organizations like TPX, but realize most Tea Party organizations are localized by State and even in some cases by County. Connectivity between Tea Party organizations is purely voluntary. If a large organization like TPX plans an event on another local Tea Party organization’s turf and there is disagreement or a lack of agenda coordination, sour grapes are bound to be the produce.


Personally I’d like to see the Tea Party Movement become a little more monolithic perhaps even as a political party to eliminate the Establishment portion of the GOP. But that is just me. I suspect a large number of Tea Parties have an affinity to the local independence of a Tea Party organization to push the Conservative agenda that is relevant to the locality. National issues often do not equate well with a local issue.


For an Op/Ed article to WaPo’s Gold article, a very good perspective defending how a Tea Party’s fiscal spending agenda can be found at the Tea Party News Network (TPNN) by Greg Campbell entitled “The Left Simply Doesn’t Get it: WaPo Slams Tea Party for Grassroots Commitment”. In that Op/Ed Campbell quotes a great thought from Sal Russo:


“All of the tea party Senate victories over the last two cycles have been candidates who had strong grassroots support, but were outspent by their establishment opponents.  The facts are there, but the Washington mentality refuses to see reality.  In 2010, when we didn’t have a presidential nominee to dominate the messaging, we won 10 straight Senate primaries for the underdog who was out-spent by the establishment.  So it obviously shows that good campaigns that are adequately finance with grassroots support can consistently beat big-spending establishment candidates.


They obviously ignore the fact that most of our activity is not allocable to specific candidates under the FEC laws and regulations.  When we do rallies and encourage people who either attend, see us on the internet or in the media to get engaged in the political process, it has a profound effect on the election, but it is not reportable as a direct expenditure.  If they are right that engaging people in the political process is irrelevant, why does the establishment spend millions of dollars to defeat tea party candidates?”


Ryan Gill of TPX affiliate CCC wrote an email pertaining to that short paragraph I had written on May 26 that informed readers to be cognizant before donating to CCC. That email was a reassurance that there was no hanky-panky going on at CCC. Ryan didn’t go into specifics about those reassurances. I discovered those reassurances in studying for this post. I had asked for permission to post Mr. Gill’s email. Mr. Gill responded to my permission request with this email sent on June 1:


I was a little non-specific in my email to you just because I just wanted to reassure you and let you know I can answer questions. But sure, you’re welcome to post it and I’d be happy to see your readers reassured as well. Thanks.


Being typically behind in reading my emails I did not get to Mr. Gill’s permission email until June 10. So I decided to investigate the opposite of “non-specific” before I posted Mr. Gill’s original reassurance.


I am reassured.


Below is the reassurance email. I originally intended to lead off with, but I thought it better to write what I discovered first.


JRH 6/11/14

Please Support NCCR


Re: CCC and spending


By Ryan Gill

Website: Conservative Campaign Committee

Sent: June 1, 2014 3:58 PM

Original Response Date: May 27, 2014 at 7:19 PM

Sharing by Permission


Just saw your post with lengthy disclaimer about CCC and wanted to reassure you that we really value the contributions people make and we’re proud of how we’re able to use those funds to be effective on behalf of the conservative movement.


Of course there’s a lot of confusing and sometimes misleading information out there and it’s often convenient for liberal reporters or others not to dig deeper and actually find out what’s going on. So I appreciate that you want to do your due diligence and you want readers to be apprised. So it’s a constant battle for us explaining what we do, how and why…and often to people who have already decided that they just don’t like us or what we do.


So I just wanted to reassure you about our organization and efforts and make sure you know that I’m available to answer questions (though I may be slow at times) if there’s something you don’t understand.


And of course: thanks so much for sharing our email and for all the good work you do! We’re glad you’re out there.


I feel good about donating to CCC as a Tea Party Movement cause. Here is their donation page if you are in a position as a giver.



Oklahoma, Agenda 21, Al Gerhart and Cliff Branan


Al Gerhart

Cliff Branan
















John R. Houk

© April 4, 2013


I live in the State of Oklahoma. Many States have wised up about the intrusive nature of the international body known as the United Nations and a global plan known collectively as Agenda 21 to create a UN managed policy Eco-Marxism (oft times called the Green Agenda or Global Warming), international management of food resources (which include land management) and the depopulation of the earth to maintain sustainable resources for the good of all mankinderr check that – I mean humankind.


Senate Energy Committee Chairman Cliff Branan appears to be a Conservative voting State Senator yet he has fallen for the propaganda that those that expose the nefarious nature of Agenda 21 are a part of a loony Right Wing fringe Conspiracy Theory:


Republican Sen. Cliff Branan, chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, told The Associated Press late Tuesday afternoon that he’d decided not to hear the measure at the panel’s Thursday meeting, likely killing it for this year’s legislative session.


Branan said the bill is based on a “fringe conspiracy” that the U.N. wants to use its Agenda 21 plan to encroach on the private property rights of Americans.


“I check each bill one at a time, and that was really more of a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist at all,” he told the AP in a phone interview. “It’s a fringe conspiracy-type issue that’s frankly bad public policy.” (READ ENTIRITY; Oklahoma panel won’t hear bill banning Agenda 21 plan; By Dan Holtmeyer;, 4/2/2013 – Bold Emphasis Mine)


State Senator Branan’s predilection to ignore the international intrusion of our National Sovereignty that could lead to future intrusion that is beyond the scope Eco-Marxism led this GOP Energy Chairman to find an excuse to keep anti-Agenda 21 legislation from even being heard in his committee. Agenda 21 is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the UN trying to exert a Left Wing will against the tenets of the U.S. Constitution. A couple of examples are the UN’s international support of gun control and the UN’s agreement with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to prevent criticism of Islam yet allow Muslim nations to persecute Christians.


Senator Branan’s excuse came in a threatening email written by Al Gerhart of the Sooner Tea Party. This is excerpted from an Al Gerhart email sent for the Soone4 Tea Party email list:


— On Tue, 3/26/13, xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx wrote:

Subject: HB 1412
Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2013, 9:09 PM


Senator Branan: Pass HB 1412 out of committee NOW!!


All of my acquaintances and I are watching to see how you handle this bill.

This bill must be voted into law this year.


Bcc recipients: Forward your version of this email to Sen. Branan ASAP.


The only day the bill can move is April 4th–just a few days from now!



Xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx

+1-405-xxx-xxxx (Text OK)


Al Gerhart’s answer to the Sooner Tea Party member, the Bcc list, and Senator Branan:




Get that bill heard or I will make sure you regret not doing it. I will make you the laughing stock of the Senate if I don’t hear that this bill will be heard and passed. We will dig into your past, your family, your associates, and once we start on you there will be no end to it.


This is a promise.


Al Gerhart

Sooner Tea Party


I understand Gerhart’s frustration with an Oklahoma State politician that would describe himself as a Conservative not following through with legislation the Oklahoma State House already voted for in an overwhelming majority. BUT threatening political leverage based on looking for dirt to force Branan to at least pass the legislation through Committee and allow the entire Senate is reprehensible. I mean that is what Left Wing Democrats do to throw mud on Conservatives to get the mud to stick on the minds of public opinion.


Gerhart has attempted to explain the email by saying it was not blackmail as the Oklahoma Bureau of Investigation is investigating, but rather the email was political advocacy. I am willing to give Gerhart a pass on the blackmail charge. As far as political advocacy goes Gerhart must redeem himself by standing against both Agenda 21 and Leftist style propaganda mud throwing. Gerhart stepped his advocacy by actually accusing Cliff Branan of infidelity without any proof of the accusation. Because of this I believe Al Gerhart needs to withdraw from any public face connected to the Tea Party Movement. Gerhart has provided kindling to inspire the Left to say something to the equivalent of ‘See, Tea Partiers are a part of the evil Right Wing fringe and the public cannot rely on the validity of any Tea Party Advocacy or Activism.’


Here is the email in its entirety from Al Gerhart:


May 2nd, 2013

Sooner Tea Party press release


Senate Leadership Ramps up Intimidation

Tactics against Tea Party

Senate Demands Blackmail Charges

Against Tea Party Leader


The current controversy isn’t about Senator Branan feigning concern over an email. The fight is about HB 1412; the Agenda 21 nullification bill that Senator Branan is determined to kill in the Senate Energy Committee.


HB 1412 passed the House on a bi partisan vote of 67 to 17.


Agenda 21 is about taking private property through use restrictions.


Agenda 21 is promoted by radical environmentalists, animal rights activists, and those with extreme social agendas.


Agenda 21 is about submitting to global control instead of local control.


They want to tell us how to live our lives and use our property.


Senate Leadership has taken the unprecedented step of asking the OSBI to investigate me on blackmail charges but originally their intent was to investigate me on a physical threat charge. We published the entire email thread in question on Monday in our regular newsletter and pointed out that a physical threat charge must have two points present:


There must be an actual physical threat that must be explicitly stated.


And it must be an imminent physical threat, i.e., it must set a time frame that the threat will be carried out.


Stymied by the facts Senate Leadership has switched tactics and is pushing the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (OSBI) to investigate based upon blackmail statues.


The legal definition of blackmail is:


“verbal, written, or printed communication with the intent to extort or gain anything of value from another or to compel another to do an act against his or her will”

Political advocacy however is not blackmail. It is a core First Amendment right, legally permissible and constitutionally protected.


The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Petitioning the government in a matter pending before the legislature is a basic U.S. and Oklahoma Constitutional right. Criminal statutes cannot criminalize what is legally considered constitutionally permissible speech. If that is to be the standard then arrest every leader of the House and Senate; in particular arrest the House and Senate whips. Whips are legislative “enforcers”, who can offer inducements or threaten punishments for legislators to force them to vote according to the leadership’s agenda. Their only job is to get legislators to do things they don’t want to do.


The implications of Senate leadership’s actions are enormous for grassroots activists, journalists, or any citizen that works to hold politicians politically accountable. Any citizen who works for openness, transparency, and accountability of elected officials or wishes to expose corruption is now at risk. Those that think they are untouchable because they are term limited are the beneficiaries of this criminalization of First Amendment speech.


Yes there are those that can convolute our criminal statutes into a criminalizing free speech. They can take a blackmail criminal statute that covers those communicating in private about a private matter and twist the statute into criminalizing communications about a public matter that was communicated in a very public fashion. Blackmail has always been limited to threats on issues that are not made public; indeed once the issue has been publicized the blackmailer loses his power over the victim. Remember that the email in particular was sent not only to Senator Branan but to the individual that had copied his email to the Sooner Tea Party.


Remember that that individual had an extensive Bcc list and had encouraged them to forward his email. Is it not obvious that this email was intended to be spread far and wide in a most public fashion?


Core First Amendment speech and petitioning the government on a matter of public concern must be protected at all costs. There are those that will take issue with the Sooner Tea Party tactics. Perhaps they are not able to stomach what must be done or they might take offense of how we do things but they cannot deny that our tactics are what makes the Sooner Tea Party different, unique, and effective Politics is a battle over ideas and values that is fought mostly in individual battles or over individual legislation where both side tries to move the ball forward while defending ideas, principles, and legislation. The battle is not fought with guns and knives; it is fought with pen and paper, and with emails and phone calls. As in all battles there will be winners and losers as well as collateral damage.


It is impossible to draw a full and complete picture of a politician without looking at their family, friends, and associates. Digging into a politician’s background is basic political strategy that has and is being practiced by every political opponent in the state and it is practiced by every journalist in the world. There will be those individuals that are close to a politician that will pay a price for standing so close. If you don’t believe me ask Billy Carter, ask former presidential candidate John Edward’s wife, or ask former District Attorney Wes Lane about how his wife was treated.


The Senate’s attempt to criminalize constitutionally protected speech and to cast a chill upon citizens and grassroots activists is nothing more than an admission that they are losing control over the individual Senators. If we weren’t effective then they would not have attacked us. Political pain and embarrassment will be necessary if the citizens expect to regain control over the Senate and to regain their right to representation. Special interests want things to remain like they are but this country and this state is spiraling into uncertainty so the time for “nice” behavior is long past.


The political games where the House, the Senate, and the Governor take turns killing needed legislation to protect special interests is over. If they think they can use a term limited politician to kill legislation that the public supports then we will be sure that that term limited politician has that treachery attached to his name from now on. We are not afraid of the politicians or the stooges that do their bidding. We don’t want anything from them except that the public interest come first. We are here to stay and we will never back down.


We ask the citizens of Oklahoma to contact Senator Branan at and demand that he allow HB 1412 to be heard.


You can call the Senate switchboard and ask for him by name at (405) 524-0126.


We also ask the citizens of Oklahoma to contact their own senator and ask them to fight for HB 1412 and stop Agenda 21 from stealing property rights from Oklahoma citizens.


This fight isn’t about rough language in an email; this fight is about the ability of Senator Branan acting on Senate leadership orders, to override the other 148 legislators to steal property rights from over three million Oklahomans.


Original email sent to Senator Branan by a Sooner Tea Party member responding to an STP Action Alert on HB1412:


— On Tue, 3/26/13, xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx wrote:

Subject: HB 1412
Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2013, 9:09 PM


Senator Branam: Pass HB 1412 out of committee NOW!!


All of my acquaintances and I are watching to see how you handle this bill.

This bill must be voted into law this year.


Bcc recipients: Forward your version of this email to Sen. Branan ASAP.


The only day the bill can move is April 4th–just a few days from now!



Xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx

+1-405-xxx-xxxx (Text OK)


Al Gerhart’s answer to the Sooner Tea Party member, the Bcc list, and Senator Branan:




Get that bill heard or I will make sure you regret not doing it. I will make you the laughing stock of the Senate if I don’t hear that this bill will be heard and passed. We will dig into your past, your family, your associates, and once we start on you there will be no end to it.


This is a promise.


Al Gerhart

Sooner Tea Party


Gerhart’s self-defense of his email and unsubstantiated accusation probably is not felony blackmail, but it definitely is dirty politics of the kind the Tea Party Movement should not utilize. Rather the Tea Party Movement should collectively condemn the Al Gerhart kind of “advocacy” whether it is down in a Conservative or Liberal-Left camp and whether it is from the GOP or the Dems. Part of the First Principles to defend the Founding Father implementation of Constitutional Law by and for the People through a Republic form of government is the maintenance of Christian honor. Political smearing especially when the smearing is a lie that cannot be proven is not honorable. As far as I know the Gerhart accusation of Branan infidelity is a baseless created rumor for the effect of defaming Branan’s character. Rather than going for a blackmail charge Branan needs to litigate against Gerhart as part of preventing this kind of political “advocacy” from darkening Tea Partiers.


On the other hand Oklahoma State Senator Cliff Branan is either a Conservative moron or is in the pockets of Oklahoman Establishment Republicans to advocate Agenda 21 as something good for local Oklahomans. Branan is a moron to make an unsubstantiated statement saying roughly this message:


The chairman of the Oklahoma Senate Energy Committee says he won’t hear a bill intending to outlaw state organizations from following suggestions from the UN’s Agenda 21 sustainability plan.


Republican Sen. Cliff Branan says he decided not to hear HB1412 at the Energy Committee’s Thursday meeting. He says the bill is based on a “fringe conspiracy” that the UN wants to use Agenda 21 to infringe on American’s private property rights.


The bill would prohibit towns or counties from implementing any part of the nonbinding, voluntary plan. It also prohibits working with UN-affiliated groups. The bill passed the House 67-17. (READ THE REST; Okla. panel won’t hear bill banning Agenda 21 plan; OKNews9; Updated: Apr 02, 2013 5:15 PM CDT)


I found this lengthy article that utilizes United Nations’ documentation to demonstrate that anti-Agenda 21 exposés is not the work of fringe Right Wingers. Rather exposing Agenda 21 is an imperative Conservative process to protect the Rights established by our U.S. Constitution particularly America’s Bill of Rights.


I am excerpting from the article entitled, “Agenda 21 Declares War On Mankind.” The article is written by Jurriaan Maessen and posted on 8/8/12 on the blog Pragmatic Witness.


Related Info:


JRH 4/4/13

Please Support NCCR



In the last couple of years the omnipresent force known as Agenda 21 is meeting with increasing resistance worldwide. With the rise of the alternative media, the flow of decade-long propaganda efforts is finally being hindered. As a result of rocks thrown in the stream- the once steady water flow is now exposing itself at every turn as it’s forced to bend and twist its way forward. Ironically, the UN and its affiliate accomplices have themselves to thank for the counter-effort. The internet- as well as some pretty thorough archiving on the part of these transnational bureaucracies- have allowed researchers to withdraw information directly from the lion’s den. As a result of this development, we can display a plethora of documents, often written by UN personnel and ideologues, that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a concerted strategy in place to brainwash (there’s no other name for it) the human population of the planet into accepting Agenda 21 and its inherent depopulation proposals. Furthermore, this pool of document has revealed a plan to de-industrialize the west and to use the “green agenda” to do so. In the last few decades Agenda 21 has been UN policy, and all of its subdivisions were commanded to fall in line.



This is the word- Agenda 21: the UN strategy for redistributing the wealth accumulated by the “North” in order to create a completely “balanced” world society- under auspices of the United Nations of course and the private central banks controlling it. This can only come about by destroying the middle-class. A sudden redistribution and industrialization would not do- for the middle-class would undoubtedly rise in defiance against it. Therefore, Sachs argues for an incremental and carefully planned dissolution of the middle-class phase by phase:


“To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the time-span. The retooling of industries, even in periods of rapid growth, requires ten to twenty years. The restructuration and the expansion of the infrastructures requires several decades and this is a crucially important sector from the point of view of environment.”


Then Sachs plunges into his most shocking statement:


“However, the single most important reason to consider the transition strategies over a minimum of thirty-five to forty years stems from the non-linearity of these strategies; they should be devised as a succession of changing priorities over time. A good illustration is provided by the population transition. In order to stabilize the populations of the South by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient.”


Sachs argues that “an accelerated programme of social and economic development of the rural areas should be the outmost priority in the first phase of a realistic population stabilization scheme.”



The other, more sinister element of Agenda 21 is of course the concerted effort on the part of the global elite, through multilateral treaties and regulations, to not only control the populations of the world but to cull them.


Exhibit B: Using the Mass-Media To Cull the Overall Human Population


The 1973 document Mass Media, Family Planning and Development: Country Case Studies on Media Strategy is a good example of how the UN utilizes mass media to propogandize (sic) people into cutting their numbers. In this particular document we learn something about the strategies to be implemented in the eugenics-based family planning project of the future. Based on case studies in third world countries, the document proposes the creation of a “family planning communication resource unit” for every nation concerned. The reason being, so the report states, that “culturally, there is an emphasis on fertility, and the birth of children to the family is celebrated, as a symbol of prosperity and for status for women.” Because UNESCO-chieftains can’t have that, the reduction of a population should be accomplished through an elaborate media campaign, utilizing all possible avenues. Ancient tribal instincts, revolving around procreation and creativity, become suspect- as does religion and tribal mythology. The following strategies dates back from the early 1970s- but have now been formalized worldwide by Agenda 21 as enshrined within its dark articles.


The writers of the 1973 document mean not to destroy the human tendencies, they mean to use them to their own advantage and that of their masters. “The religion”, they say, “supports the idea that children are ‘God’s Greatest Blessing’ but can also be used to encourage the idea that every child should be given the best opportunities parents can offer. There is also a favourable attitude to economic development, a desire to raise living standards, and a desire for education. These factors are helpful in the development of a Preliminary Media Strategy.”



… The famous 1994 population conference in Cairo, held in the wake of Agenda 21?s formal kick-off, outlined some of the proposed strategies to be implemented. Then Secretary-General of the UN, Boutros Boutros-Ghali in his opening statement on the International Conference on Population and Development, stated that:


“I am not exaggerating when I say that not only does the future of the human society depend on this Conference but also the efficacy of the economic order of the planet on which we live.”


During a follow-up-meeting held in New York on December 1994, the United Nations’ participants came up with some practical solutions to the “population problem”– one of which is the integration of population issues with matters of “environment” and “human development”:



The report goes on to list these arguments with which populations worldwide should be lured into embracing modern-day eugenics as a sensible policy:


“The “Statement of Commitment on Population and Development by the United Nations System”, drafted by the Working Group, is divided into three sections: a general introduction stressing the commitment by the UN agencies and organizations to implement ICPD (International Conference on Population and Development); a section on the linkages between population issues and other development issues; and a concluding section calling for global partnership in addressing these interrelated issues.”



The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research


Oklahoma, Agenda 21, Al Gerhart and Cliff Branan

John R. Houk

© April 4, 2013


Agenda 21 Declares War On Mankind


About northerntruthseeker


Canadian citizen sickened by the BS of our media, governments, and our failed educaton (sic) system. I am in this for the truth and as far as the truth gets me! READ THE REST


About Whitewraithe


I am a mother and grandmother. Educated in both public and private institutions, and attended university for a brief period. The majority of my work background was in the group health insurance industry as a claims analyst and agent. I am non partisan and define myself as a passive constitutional patriot. READ THE REST


Rally Around the Sarah Palins of America

Scottie Nell Hughes 2

Scottie Hughes

John R. Houk

© March 27, 2013


A few days ago Tea Party journalist Scottie Hughes was critical of Sarah Palin after her CPAC speech as being a rousing speaker but lacking in Conservative work to get the ball moving on a Conservative agenda to offset America’s Leftists.


An Open Letter to Sarah Palin


You are beginning to worry me. I am afraid you are losing touch with the people of whom your fame is based. I, after all, was one of your biggest supporters once. I am thrilled that you get invitations to go to NBA games, that you display your Chick-fil-A shirt, and that you go and support your daughter and her celebrity friends on Dancing with the Stars.


But at CPAC last week you made a rush for the exits. After you gave an inspiring speech where you said to a thrilled audience, “At a time when our country is desperate for leadership, we get instead a permanent campaign”. Instead of coming out and shaking the hands of those who you inspire, you quickly left the building without even a second glance.


You called out the liberal media as being unashamed, so at least you took notice of them. Not so for those of us on the right who had hoped that the woman from Wasilla, Alaska might understand our plight and give us a chance to engage one of the top names in the movement.


We were, to put it bluntly, disappointed. And while I wish this was a solo occurrence, unfortunately this seems to be your pattern.


I know we in the Tea Party movement don’t throw the best parties or live the most glamorous lives, but we are the ones who faithfully donated to the McCain campaign once you joined the ticket. We are the ones who defended you publicly when the liberal media made fun of you and when your own campaign advisors turned on you. We are the ones who add you and your family to our prayers every night at bedtime.


Yet it seems those in Hollywood who have made their money making you the butt of their jokes get more of your attention than the movement you helped inspire.


As a working mother in political journalism, I always looked to your journey as a source of inspiration. It was a testament to the fact that a woman can use her professional talents and not let her family suffer. The other side wants to make female conservatives feel like we are put in binders and READ THE REST


Has Hughes been looking at the same Sarah Palin I have been look at? Palin has gone to Tea Party rallies and campaign stumped for Conservative pro-Tea Party plenty! My only disappoint with Sarah Palin was her decision to not run for the Office of President. I have no doubt that decision was based on the negative attacks by Establishment Republicans. The most notable of those Establishment Republicans was (and is) Karl Rove.


Let’s face it. Although the electorate power base of the Republican Party are Conservatives and of those on the Right it is the grassroots oriented Tea Partiers. BUT those who pull the finance strings in the Republican Party is the GOP’s version of Pharisees that favor a more Liberal Social Conservatism and leans toward Crony Capitalism rather than little guy entrepreneurship.


Sarah Palin was run out of the Governorship of Alaska because State Dems and Crony Capitalist Republicans constantly were inventing ethics violations to the absurd to prevent Palin from performing her Executive duties as Governor. I believe it is a good guess that she saw the Alaskan subservience to Establishment Republicans would be amplified against on a national basis with the Leftist Palin-hating Mainstream Media propagandizing against her message by obfuscating the honor of her personal life.


Instead of a fractured Tea Party splitting the Tea Party with hurt feelings for not getting the personal attention a prominent Tea Partier feels she deserves, it is no reason to make unsubstantiated complaints as if it was Left Wing propaganda.


RATHER prominent Tea Party leadership needs to unite and find a candidate like Sarah Palin that has a national message of American Exceptionalism, Constitutional Patriotism and Judeo-Christian Morality and stand up against Dems and Establishment Republicans as well as against the activism of the MSM Left.


So what if such a stand is not politically correct! In today’s world who defines political correctness? It is Leftists and RINOs. It is time to change the definers of political correctness.


Today it is politically incorrect to think outside of the Two-Party to replace one of the two prominent political parties. As the Republicans replaced the Whigs in the 1850s to eventually elect Abraham Lincoln in 1860, it is time for the Tea Party Movement to coalesce and find a political name representative of Conservative Tea Partiers.


In the 1850s the Abolitionist Movement was considered a fringe grassroots movement. The Dems, MSM and Establishment Republicans consider the Tea Party to be a fringe grassroots movement that will play itself out. Establishment Republicans envision the Conservative Tea Party base will catapult the GOP back into driver’s seat of both Houses in Congress. In that envisionment Establishment Republicans intend to minimize Tea Party to stop the Leftist fringe of the Dems and bring a middle road political agenda that benefits the Center-Left socially and the Crony Capitalist corporate big business elites on the Center-Right. 


Just because Center-Left and Center-Right sounds like a moderate path it does not mean a beneficent path for American culture.


The Leftist end of the scale is godless in values and humanistic in a moral foundation for the rule of law. The far Right end of the scale exploits religion for personal ideological gain and is oppressive to be beneficent to the corporate elite; i.e. Crony Capitalism on the backs of citizens squashing the entrepreneurial spirit of the average American to carve out a self-sustaining niche in life.


The only path that will to make America good is the godly path in which a moral foundation is the platform for the rule of law in which the little guy gets a few shake in the midst of Crony Capitalist elites concerned with the profit margin for the Board of Directors or for the Shareholders.


Government by and for the people is not a top to bottom manifesto for yeomen Americans rather the people represent the rule of law that protects the rights of the unentitled (and I am not talking about government entitled but rather the wealthy entitled as the opposite of the unentitled).


Real justice for all is godly morality not some Leftist ideological definition of justice that robs the yeoman American of the entrepreneurial opportunity to self-sustaining wealth via hard work and good decision making. Leftist justice will keep yeoman Americans enslaved to a life leashed to whatever government agenda is defined as good for Americans even if it robs of Liberty, a godly life and the pursuit of happiness. I call the Leftist ‘good’ evil.


The few Sarah Palins left in America need to be rallied around and not used in political divisiveness.


Check out the rebuttal of Scottie Hughes’ open letter to Sarah Palin written by Tony Lee.


JRH 3/27/13

Please Support NCCR


Tea Party News Network Director Falsely Smears Palin


By Tony Lee

25 Mar 2013

Breitbart Big Government


In a bizarre rant–or “open letter”–at Townhall, Scottie Hughes, the news director for the Tea Party News Network, falsely accuses former Alaska Governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin of rushing out of this year’s CPAC and having a pattern of ignoring grassroots conservatives.

Palin Iowa


While Hughes’s motivation for writing such a column may only be known to her, her accusations are demonstrably false.


Doug McMarlin, who has been with Palin since 2008 and was with her at this year’s CPAC, was also perplexed by Hughes’s characterization of the event. Palin met with volunteers, supporters and CPAC leadership at this year’s event. Palin keynoted last year’s CPAC and was the conference’s last speaker, which allowed for her to mix with the audience following her speech.


This year, her slot fell on a Saturday afternoon, which meant there were scheduled speakers immediately after her remarks. It would not have been logistically possible for Palin to even greet the crowd or do talk radio hits from CPAC without causing a huge disturbance due to the crowds that would have swarmed her and disrupted the conference.


“Never underestimate the level the uninformed with a keyboard will go to make a point based on a lack of information,” McMarlin told Breitbart News. “Lamestream, mainstream, and no stream media, it’s unfortunate when those who lack facts lash out without regard. Governor Palin, as always, was with volunteers, supporters and fellow conservatives throughout her days at CPAC.”


Hughes also implied that Palin only speaks to the grassroots through the teleprompter, but this accusation again does not even pass the smell test.


Jason Recher, a Palin staffer who has been with Palin at nearly every event since 2008, told Breitbart News Palin never asks for a teleprompter. In fact, reporters have often said Palin improvises during her speeches, which forces reporters to pay attention to every word in order to quote her accurately.


“I’ve been at almost every speech she’s given since ’08 and can’t think of a time where she ever asked to use a Teleprompter,” Recher told Breitbart News. The teleprompters at CPAC were part of the stage set up used for all the speakers; it was not something Palin personally requested.


Hughes, with no evidence whatsoever, alleges Palin made a “rush to the exits” at this year’s CPAC, implying Palin did not have time for the grassroots.


Again, not true.


As the photos below indicate, Palin spent time after the speech meeting with volunteers.


In addition, Rebecca Mansour, a Palin staffer, told Breitbart News that Palin had to catch a flight immediately after her speech. “She is a very busy working mom with many family and work obligations, including raising a son with Down syndrome who has scheduled therapies,” Mansour said.


Finally, in what may be her most misguided and out-of-touch statement that reveals her ignorance, Hughes refers to Palin’s “pattern of this behavior.”


What “pattern” is Hughes referencing?


The hours that Palin spent with nearly everyone who wanted to speak to her after she keynoted CPAC in 2012, as can be seen in C-SPAN’s coverage of the event?


The hours Palin spent in the lobby at CPAC in 2012 talking to bloggers and attendees, including Townhall’s own Katie Pavlich? Hughes penned her column at Townhall, so it is worth noting that Palin spoke to that outlet at CPAC in 2012.


Is Hughes referencing the time Palin spent with those who came to Iowa–in inclement weather–to listen to Palin denounce crony capitalism and the permanent political class in 2011? At the end of C-SPAN’s coverage of the event, it is clear Palin is energized by grassroots conservatives, and they love her because she genuinely is one of them.


Was Hughes referring to Palin visiting grassroots Tea Partiers at the Machine Shed restaurant in Iowa in 2011, comfortably mingling with nearly everyone in attendance?


Was she referencing Palin’s appearance at the Iowa State Fair in 2011, where she talked to nearly every Iowan who approached her for nearly six hours? Where she won the respect of liberals and even mainstream media reporters who did not think highly of her for genuinely liking “common” people most politicians do not feel comfortable around?


If Hughes is really a part of the grassroots and not a part of an astroturf movement, she could have gone to any of these events–like thousands of grassroots Tea Partiers–and spoken to Palin. Instead, she sounds like mainstream media members who lash out at Palin solely because Palin does not speak to them whenever they wish.


At these events, mainstream media reporters and liberals who did not even like Palin conceded how gracious and how accessible she is and how she thrives around the normal people Hughes purportedly claims to represent. Having written about Palin for nearly four years and having spoken to people who have been at nearly every event Palin has attended during this period, I have consistently heard people comment about how accessible–and down to earth–Palin is after all of her speeches and events, which is especially noteworthy given Palin’s white-hot star power.


It is unclear if Hughes wants Palin to spend time with her or her organization, but grassroots Tea Partiers who truly care more about fighting for the country instead of using the Tea Party to advance whatever agenda suits their interests never ask Palin for anything except to hold politicians and the permanent political class on the left and right to account, which Palin has relentlessly done.


And while Hughes implies Palin does not pay attention to new media, it is worth noting that after Palin turned down Fox News’ offer to renew her contract earlier this year, the first interview Palin gave was to Breitbart News–a new media outlet.


While Hughes, to date, has not seemed like someone who would proverbially come to Washington claiming to change it and instead see the D.C. cesspool as a jacuzzi, her column reads like it was written by someone desperate to become a part of the permanent political class. Her comments are cribbed from remarks the elite Washington, D.C. Republicans and liberals she purportedly is against so often make to denigrate Palin because they, in their minds, think Palin somehow spurned them. They criticize Palin to get pageviews and ratings and to make a name for themselves so they can try to get 1/1000 of her star power and influence.


They desperately crave to get 1/1000 of the bookings Palin most often has to turn down on a daily basis.


They wish their children could have the opportunities to influence pop culture–and would take that chance and go toward the glistening Hollywood spotlight faster than a moth to a flame–all the while acting as if they despise the Hollywood elite while secretly craving their affirmation and wanting all of the glitz and glamour associated with them.


They want to use the Tea Party movement to become stars or cash out instead of fighting to elect candidates like Ted Cruz to the Senate. At CPAC, Cruz said he would not be in the Senate without Palin. Nobody mentioned Hughes, and she most likely will not have politicians knocking on her door to ask for her endorsement.


Hughes needs to be careful, for more columns like this will make people think Hughes may be projecting or falsely seeing in Palin what she may see in herself. Columns that smear a politician like Palin who has held both parties to account in the true spirit of the Tea Party movement will begin to “worry” conservatives and Tea Partiers. They may begin to wonder what Hughes’s intentions are for being in the Tea Party movement and whether Scottie Hughes puts herself before her country and the principles for which she purportedly fights. 


All photos below, from CPAC 2013, courtesy of Shealah Craighead/SarahPAC

Gov. Palin with CPAC attendees and volunteers:

Palin with CPAC attendees and volunteers


Gov. Palin with college Republicans:

 After delivering remarks Former Alaska Governor Sarah poses for a photo during the 40th annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Md., on Saturday, March 16, 2013.  Photo by Shealah Craighead/SarahPAC


Gov. Palin greeting CPAC attendees and volunteers:

Palin greeting CPAC 2013 attendees and volunteers


Gov. Palin with Whitney Pitcher, Illinois Organize4Palin Coordinator, and Stacy Drake, editor-in-chief of Conservatives4Palin:

Palin-Whitney Pitcher-Stacy Drake CPAC 2013


Todd and Gov. Palin with Michelle McCormick, a volunteer and coordinator with Organize4Palin:

 Todd and Sarah Palin - Michelle McCormick CPAC 2013



Rally Around the Sarah Palins of America

John R. Houk

© March 27, 2013


Tea Party News Network Director Falsely Smears Palin


Copyright © 2013 Breitbart