AMERICA IS CONSERVATIVE

The BSA Decision - A Mormon's Perspective

2013-05-25T14:02:00.001-05:00

As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hereafter referred to as The Church or The Church of Jesus Christ), I have been watching the process the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) has been going through the past few weeks. The Church has a century-long relationship with the BSA and how they voted could affect that relationship. As a strong conservative who is actively involved in politics, I have been concerned about the pressure that has been placed on the BSA, and other organizations, to violate their religiously-protected freedoms to endorse a way of life not consistent with their beliefs.

The Boy Scouts issued the following statement:

"For 103 years, the Boy Scouts of America has been a part of the fabric of this nation, with a focus on working together to deliver the nation's foremost youth program of character development and values-based leadership training.

"Based on growing input from within the Scouting family, the BSA leadership chose to conduct an additional review of the organization's long-standing membership policy and its impact on Scouting's mission. This review created an outpouring of feedback from the Scouting family and the American public, from both those who agree with the current policy and those who support a change.

"Today, following this review, the most comprehensive listening exercise in Scouting's history the approximate 1,400 voting members of the Boy Scouts of America's National Council approved a resolution to remove the restriction denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation alone. The resolution also reinforces that Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting. A change to the current membership policy for adult leaders was not under consideration; thus, the policy for adults remains in place. The BSA thanks all the national voting members who participated in this process and vote.

"This policy change is effective Jan. 1, 2014, allowing the Boy Scouts of America the transition time needed to communicate and implement this policy to its approximately 116,000 Scouting units.

"The Boy Scouts of America will not sacrifice its mission, or the youth served by the movement, by allowing the organization to be consumed by a single, divisive, and unresolved societal issue. As the National Executive Committee just completed a lengthy review process, there are no plans for further review on this matter.

"While people have different opinions about this policy, we can all agree that kids are better off when they are in Scouting. Going forward, our Scouting family will continue to focus on reaching and serving youth in order to help them grow into good, strong citizens. America's youth need Scouting, and by focusing on the goals that unite us, we can continue to accomplish incredible things for young people and the communities we serve."

What I read as I reviewed this message was that 1) boys are better when Scouting and 2) the behavior of scouts will remain the same.

The Church of Jesus Christ released a statement regarding the changes of the BSA:

For the past 100 years, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has enjoyed a strong relationship with Boy Scouts of America, based on our mutual interest in helping boys and young men understand and live their duty to God and develop upright moral behavior. As the Church moves forward in its association with the Boy Scouts of America, Church leaders will continue to seek the most effective ways to address the diverse needs of young people in the United States and throughout the world.

The Church’s long-established policy for participation in activities is stated in the basic instructional handbook used by lay leaders of the Church: “young men … who agree to abide by Church standards” are “welcomed warmly and encouraged to participate” (Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], 8.17.3). This policy applies to Church-sponsored Scout units. Sexual orientation has not previously been—and is not now—a disqualifying factor for boys who want to join Latter-day Saint Scout troops. Willingness to abide by standards of behavior continues to be our compelling interest.

These standards are outlined in the booklet For the Strength of Youth and include abstinence from sexual relationships. We remain firmly committed to upholding these standards and to protecting and strengthening boys and young men.

The Church appreciates BSA’s reaffirmation of its commitment to “duty to God,” which includes service to others and moral behavior—central principles of our teaching to young men. As in the past, the Church will work with BSA to harmonize what Scouting has to offer with the varying needs of our young men. We trust that BSA will implement and administer the approved policy in an appropriate and effective manner.

Many have expressed concern over this decision. Others have expressed disbelief that the Church of Jesus Christ would support the BSA - saying it has lost its way or is pandering. I would argue that neither of these is the case. As a church, "'young men … who agree to abide by Church standards' are 'welcomed warmly and encouraged to participate.'" It sounds as though the Boy Scouts' policy change is actually more in line with the existing policy of the Church.

The doctrines of the Church help us to understand that we have a Heavenly Father who is concerned for the welfare of His children. He wants us all to have an opportunity to make it back to His presence. During His ministry, the Lord was clear during His time on earth in telling all to "come unto me." When I separate politics from religion, I understand this decision.

Politically, however, it makes me nervous. I know that gay rights activists are likely cheering this decision and find it as a win. I believe the BSA entered into this decision-making process from outside pressure it was receiving. While I believe each private organization has a right and obligation to set the terms of its membership, it does concern me that that this process appeared to be made under pressure. But just because a process begins under pressure does not mean the outcome is made by that same pressure. The BSA had to evaluate their value system and assess if their policies reflected that. By making the decision they did, I believe they are saying they want all young men to have an opportunity for growth is a value-rich environment. Young men (and women) make powerful decisions that will affect the rest of their lives starting at an early age. By allowing young men to participate in uplifting activities where their confidence is strengthened and positive virtues are reinforced, it increases positive decision-making down the road.

Moving forward, the Boy Scouts have a lot of decisions they will need to make as a result of this decision. This includes if they choose to make changes to the requirements and activities. They will also likely be reevaluating their decision regarding gay leadership. The GLAAD spokesman stated, "Today's vote is a significant victory for gay youth across the nation and a clear indication that the Boy Scouts' ban on gay adult leaders will also inevitably end." The Boy Scouts organization will have to evaluate that as well.

Sometimes, political decisions have an all-or-nothing flavor to them. You don't want to give an inch lest the other side take a mile or seven. In this case, a private organization has made a decision to redefine its membership. While there was political pressure to do so, this decision was made by the BSA. This process is challenging the beliefs of many strong, valiant Christians who are striving to make decisions, personally and politically, that uphold their value system. Each individual will need to evaluate if their personal value system, not just political beliefs, allow them to continue in their membership or affiliation with the Boy Scouts.

**Please note, the views expressed in this article belong to this author alone and may not necessarily reflect those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I do not speak for the Church. Click here for more information on the Church's stance.**

LDS Church Responds to Boy Scout Vote

2013-05-24T08:56:00.002-05:00

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has responded to the Boy Scout vote on children who identify as homosexual:

For the past 100 years, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has enjoyed a strong relationship with Boy Scouts of America, based on our mutual interest in helping boys and young men understand and live their duty to God and develop upright moral behavior. As the Church moves forward in its association with the Boy Scouts of America, Church leaders will continue to seek the most effective ways to address the diverse needs of young people in the United States and throughout the world.

The Church’s long-established policy for participation in activities is stated in the basic instructional handbook used by lay leaders of the Church: “young men … who agree to abide by Church standards” are “welcomed warmly and encouraged to participate” (Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], 8.17.3). This policy applies to Church-sponsored Scout units. Sexual orientation has not previously been—and is not now—a disqualifying factor for boys who want to join Latter-day Saint Scout troops. Willingness to abide by standards of behavior continues to be our compelling interest.

These standards are outlined in the booklet For the Strength of Youth and include abstinence from sexual relationships. We remain firmly committed to upholding these standards and to protecting and strengthening boys and young men.

The Church appreciates BSA’s reaffirmation of its commitment to “duty to God,” which includes service to others and moral behavior—central principles of our teaching to young men. As in the past, the Church will work with BSA to harmonize what Scouting has to offer with the varying needs of our young men. We trust that BSA will implement and administer the approved policy in an appropriate and effective manner.

As stated earlier on this site, I think this is the right decision for the reasons stated in the statement by the church.

The Connection Between Drug Use and Criminal Behavior: There Are No Victimless Crimes

2013-05-24T07:57:00.001-05:00

There is no such thing as a victim-less crime. Let me say this again - there is no such thing as a victim-less crime and that includes drug use. The U.S. government released data stating that 80% of those arrested for crimes tested positive for an illegal substance, most commonly marijuana. Up to 68% of those in prison are dependent on drugs, according to a 2002 study. Up to 60% of those that committed crimes were under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the offense.

The recent study released the following statistics:
- 80% of those arrested tested positive for an illegal substance
- Marijuana most common drug offenders tested positive for
- "Chicago also had the highest overall positive test results, with 86 percent of the men found to have at least one drug in their bloodstreams."

Alcohol, especially used by those under the age of 21, leads to violent crime as well:

Each year, more than 600,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 are assaulted by another student who has been drinking.

95% of all violent crime on college campuses involves the use of alcohol by the assailant, victim or both.

90% of acquaintance rape and sexual assault on college campuses involves the use of alcohol by the assailant, victim or both.

Every day, 36 people die, and approximately 700 are injured, in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. Drinking and drugged driving is the number one cause of death, injury and disability of young people under the age of 21. (Statistics on Alcohol use and crime.)

The connection between drug use and criminal behavior is clear. And this does not even bring into play the role of gangs and drug cartels and violence on the other side of the border.

During his last presidential campaign, Libertarian Ron Paul was known to discuss drug use as a victim-less crime. Those who know someone who is dealing with drug addiction know this is not the case. Besides the personal path of destruction that drug use leads to, other criminal involvement is an imminent part of drug use. Theft, fraud, assault, and robbery are typical other crimes associated with drug possession.

Part 1 of this problem is recognizing that drug use is a problem and leads to other criminal behaviors. Part 2 is what to do about it.

Obama's "Leadership"

2013-05-24T01:06:00.000-05:00

(SOURCE)

Tornado Rips Through Oklahoma

2013-05-20T23:18:00.000-05:00

What heartbreaking loss occurred in Oklahoma today. Tornadoes have devastated Moore, Oklahoma. Over 50 people have died - 24 of which are children. Many are unaccounted for. The recovery efforts will continue through the night. Click here to find out how to support the ongoing efforts. Here for information on shelters and missing persons. Here for a reminder of hope.

Oklahoma Tornados

2013-05-20T20:24:00.002-05:00

Our hearts and prayers go to the victims of the devastating tornados in Oklahoma.

Supreme Court To Hear Case On Prayer At Council Meetings

2013-05-20T19:34:00.002-05:00

From ReligiousClause.blogspot.com:

The U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to weigh in on the extensively litigated issue of opening city council meetings with prayer. It granted certiorari in Town of Greece, NY v. Galloway, (Docket No. 12-696, cert. granted 5/20/2013). (Order List). In the case, the 2nd Circuit created an extremely fact-dependent test for determining the constitutionality of opening meetings of legislative bodies (here the town board) with prayer. It concluded that in this case, "an objective, reasonable person would believe that the town’s prayer practice had the effect of affiliating the town with Christianity." (See prior posting.) Scotus Blog's case page has links to all the certiorari stage briefs. The town's petition for certiorari framed the question presented as: "Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a legislative prayer practice violates the Establishment Clause notwithstanding the absence of discrimination in the selection of prayer-givers or forbidden exploitation of the prayer opportunity."

This is going to be very interesting and will set a profound precedent. Too bad we have to wait until next year.

Obama's Whereabouts During Benghazi - "Irrelevant"

2013-05-19T12:28:00.001-05:00

From my article on DaTechGuy: "In reading the transcript from Chris Wallace’s interview with Obama aide Dan Pfeiffer, it becomes evident that the White House doesn’t understand one basic concept – they report to American citizens. They are accountable to us. Unfortunately for all individuals, Obama was hired by the American people and as such, it is not outlandish for him to be accountable for his whereabouts on the night of 9/11/12 during the Benghazi attacks. This interview reminds me of the shiftiness during the Monica Lewinsky scandal." (LINK)

Isn't that enraging? So the aid doesn't know where Obama was or is hiding where Obama was. Either way, he couldn't answer the question and blamed Republicans. Part of being in office is being accountable to the public. It's built into your job. Where is the transparency promised?

Transcript below:
WALLACE: let's turn to benghazi. he had a meeting with panetta in the afternoon, heard about this on an unrelated subject, wanted them to deploy forces as soon as possible. the next time he shows up, hillary clinton says she spoke to him at around 10:00 that night after the attack at the consulate, not the annex, but the attack at the consulate had ended. question, what did the president do the rest of that night to pursue benghazi?

PFEIFFER: the president was kept up to do throughout the entire night, from the moment it started till the end. this is a horrible tragedy, people that he sent abroad whose lives are in risk, people who work for him. i recognize that there's a series of conspiracy theories the republicans are spinning about this since the night it happened, but there's been an independent review of this, congress has held hearings, we provided 250,000 pages of -- 250,000 pages of documents up there. there's been 11 hearings, 20 staff briefings. everyone has found the same thing. this is a tragedy. the question is not what happened that night. the question is what are we going to do to move forward and ensure it doesn't happen again? congress should act on what the president called for earlier this week, to pass legislation to actually allow us to implement the recommendations of the accountability review board. when we send diplomats off into far-flung places, there's inherent risk. we need to mitigate that risk.

WALLACE: with all due respect, you didn't answer my question. what did the president do that night?

PFEIFFER: kept up to date with the events as they were happening.

WALLACE: he didn't talk to the secretary of state except for the one time when the first attack was over. he didn't talk to the secretary of defense, he didn't talk to chiefs. the chairman of the joint who was he talking to?

PFEIFFER: his national security staff, his national security council.

WALLACE: was he in the situation room?

PFEIFFER: he was kept up to date throughout the day.

WALLACE: do you know know whether he was in the situation room?

PFEIFFER: i don't know what room he was in that night. that's a largely irrelevant fact.

WALLACE: well --

PFEIFFER: the premise of your question, somehow there was something that could have been done differently, okay, that would have changed the outcome here. the accountability roof board has looked at this, people have looked at this. it's a horrible tragedy, and we have to make sure it doesn't happen again.

WALLCE: here's the point, though, the ambassador goes missing, the first ambassador in more than 30 years is killed. four americans, including the ambassador, are killed. dozens of americans are in jeopardy. the president at 4:00 in the afternoon says to the chairman of the joint chiefs to deploy forces. no forces are deployed. where is he while all this is going on?

PFEIFFER: this has been tested to by --

WALLACE: well, no. no one knows where he is, who was involved, the --

PFEIFFER: the suggestion of your question that somehow the president --

WALLACE: i just want to know the answer.

PFEIFFER: the assertions from republicans that the president didn't take action is offensive. there's no evidence to support it.

WALLACE: i'm simply asking a question. where was he? what did he do? how did he respond in who told him you can't deploy forces and what was his president?

PFEIFFER: the president was in the white house that day, kept up to date by his national security team, spoke to the joint chiefs of staff earlier, secretary of state, and as events unfolded he was kept up to date.

IRS Probed Pro-Life Group About Prayers??

2013-05-18T01:17:00.000-05:00

Directly taken from Washingtonexaminer.com:

During a House Ways and Means Committee hearing today, Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., grilled outgoing IRS commissioner Steven Miller about the IRS targeting a pro-life group in Iowa.

“Their question, specifically asked from the IRS to the Coalition for Life of Iowa: ‘Please detail the content of the members of your organization’s prayers,’" Schock declared.

“Would that be an inappropriate question to a 501 c3 applicant?” asked Schock. “The content of one’s prayers?”

“It pains me to say I can’t speak to that one either,” Miller replied.

After Schock pressed him further, Miller explained that although he couldn't comment on the specific case, it would "surprise him" if that question was asked.

The report comes from the Thomas More Society, a national public interest law firm for religious liberty.

From their report:

Coalition for Life of Iowa found itself in the IRS’s crosshairs when the group applied for tax exempt status in October 2008. Nearly ten months of interrogation about the group’s opposition to Planned Parenthood included a demand by a Ms. Richards from the IRS’ Cincinnati office unlawfully insisted that all board members sign a sworn declaration promising not to picket/protest Planned Parenthood. Further questioning by the IRS requested detailed information about the content of the group’s prayer meetings, educational seminars, and signs their members hold outside Planned Parenthood.

Obama Tries To Rewrite History On Libya - Earns 4 Pinnochios

2013-05-17T08:00:00.000-05:00

The Office Finale Tonight!

2013-05-16T13:00:00.000-05:00

I know this has absolutely nothing to do with the important events of our day but I can't wait for The Office finale tonight!! This last season has rehooked me into the Pam/Jim story line ..it's been great. I have had a crush on John Krasinski for almost a decade. The Office said goodbye to Steve Carell, one of the main characters, last season. This season, we say goodbye to all of The Office cast. The festivities start tonight at 7pm CST with a look back on the series and the finale is at 8 pm CST. Tune it to NBC! Also, in a funny turn of events, Quill, a shoot off of Staples, is going to begin selling Dunder Mifflin paper.

White House Misled Americans On Benghazi?

2013-05-16T10:30:00.000-05:00

Take directly from The Weekly Standard:

Benghazi Emails Directly Contradict White House Claims

Stephen F. Hayes

May 16, 2013 12:09 AM

The White House on Wednesday released 94 pages of emails between top administration and intelligence officials who helped shape the talking points about the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that the CIA would provide to policymakers in both the legislative and executive branches.
The documents, first reported by THE WEEKLY STANDARD in articles here and here, directly contradict claims by White House press secretary Jay Carney and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the revisions of those talking points were driven by the intelligence community and show heavy input from top Obama administration officials, particularly those at the State Department.
The emails provide further detail about the rewriting of the talking points during a 24-hour period from midday September 14 to midday September 15. As THE WEEKLY STANDARD previously reported, a briefing from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence shows that the big changes came in three waves – internally at the CIA, after email feedback from top administration officials, and during or after a meeting of high-ranking intelligence and national security officials the following morning.
The initial CIA changes softened some of the language about the participants in the Benghazi assault – from “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda” to “Islamic extremists.” But CIA officials also added bullet points about the possible participation of Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked jihadist group, and previous warnings about the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi. Those additions came out after the talking points were sent to “the interagency,” where the CIA’s final draft was further stripped down to little more than boilerplate. The half dozen references to terrorists – both in Benghazi and more generally – all but disappeared. Gone were references to al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, etc. The only remaining mention was a note that “extremists” had participated in the attack.
As striking as what appears in the email traffic is what does not. There is no mention of the YouTube video that would become a central part of the administration’s explanation of the attacks to the American people until a brief mention in the subject line of emails coming out of an important meeting where further revisions were made.
Carney, in particular, is likely to face tough questioning about the contents of the emails because he made claims to reporters that were untrue. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two – of these two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility,’ because the word ‘consulate’ was inaccurate,” he told reporters on November 28, 2012.
That’s not true. An email sent at 9:15 PM on September 14, from an official in the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs to others at the agency, described the process this way. “The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document. We revised the document with their concerns in mind.”
That directly contradicts what Carney said. It’s also difficult to reconcile with claims made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during testimony she gave January 23 on Capitol Hill.
“It was an intelligence product,” she said, adding later that the “intelligence community was the principal decider about what went into talking points.” (See here for the original version of the talking points and the final one.)
Carney and other top Obama administration officials have long maintained that CIA officials revised the talking points with minimal input from Obama administration officials. The claim made little sense when they made it – why would CIA officials revise on their own a set of talking points they’d already finalized? The emails demonstrate clearly that it isn’t true.
Another CIA email, this one a draft of a message for CIA director David Petraeus, noted that the talking points process had “run into major problems,” in part because of the “major concerns” raised by the State Department. That same email reported that the issues would be revisited at the Deputies Committee meeting on Saturday morning.
Elsewhere, CIA officials seemed to understand that the document had been stripped of most of its content. An email from an official with the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis, the office that drafted the original version of the talking points, signed off on the final version but seemed to understand that the new version wouldn’t please those who had requested it. “They are fine with me,” this CIA official wrote. “But, pretty sure HPSCI [the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence] won’t like them. :-)”
When Petraeus received the rewritten talking points, he objected. “Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this,” he wrote to a legislative affairs staffer. But he declined to put up a fight.
The documents answer some questions and raise many others. Did Hillary Clinton have any role in the efforts of State Department staffers to push for the many substantive revisions to the talking points? Clinton, who testified that she was a hands-on part of the State Department’s response to the attacks, has claimed she had nothing to do with the talking points.
And what about the administration’s claims that State and White House officials weren’t involved with substantive edits? In one email, Jake Sullivan, deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton, reports to State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland that he’s spoken with Obama’s top spokesman at the National Security Council, Tommy Vietor. “I spoke with Tommy. We’ll work through this in the morning and get comments back.”
In a separate email, he writes: “Talked to Tommy. We can make edits.”

Lack of Leadership Catching Up With Obama

2013-05-16T07:00:00.000-05:00

My article on Datechguyblog.com:

What a week this has been in the MSM! Between Benghazi hearings, the enormous Department of Justice power grab, and the IRS targeting conservative groups, one thing has become clearly apparent: Obama is not a leader. The government is falling apart under his command. While many may argue this could be a good thing, I think what we are seeing is a lack of accountability and multiple ethical violations piling up. One after another, we are obtaining evidence that when Obama said transparency, he really meant cloaked scandal. When he talked of helping the American public, he was speaking of his donors. And when we were promised that Obamacare was the answer, it gives us a pretty good idea of what the question was (hint: what's the next poorly run federal governmental entity?)

As many of you, I was heartbroken when Mitt Romney lost his bid for presidency. What a different world this would be! One of the statements my father made was that Obama would have to live with the consequences of his poor leadership. He has blamed Bush for 5 years. At some point, that song and dance has an end. Now, the scandals are piling up. With the recent AP debacle, hopefully, even the media can be mad enough to get on board and report what is happening in the White House instead of burying stories.

What's unfortunate, is that in all the scandal, real lives have been impacted. Real lives in Benghazi. Real people targeted and impacted by the IRS. Real sources compromised. Lives are affected by each of Obama's blunders.

Real Men Don't Support Redistribution of Wealth

2013-05-15T17:15:00.002-05:00

From the DailyCaller.com:

Men’s brawn may be an indicator of their attitudes on economic redistribution, a new study finds.
Research published Wednesday in Psychological Science finds that men with strong upper-bodies tend to be more opposed to economic redistribution than their weak armed counter parts.

A possible explanation is that before the formalized government and legal system, disputes were solved through fighting and strength — causing the researchers to wonder if strength could be a proxy for political attitudes.

“While many think of politics as a modern phenomenon, it has — in a sense — always been with our species,” said Michael Bang Petersen of Aarhus University, one of the primary researchers.

To determine the relationship between men’s strength and political persuasion, the researchers measured bicep sizes, and compared it to socioeconomic status and support for redistribution, collecting information from hundreds of people in the U.S., as well as Argentina and Denmark.

“Despite the fact that the United States, Denmark and Argentina have very different welfare systems, we still see that — at the psychological level — individuals reason about welfare redistribution in the same way,” Petersen said.

Orrin Hatch Claims IRS "Misled" Him

2013-05-15T15:00:00.000-05:00

Update on the IRS scandal that alleges IRS targeted conservative groups (taken directly from Politico):

Orrin Hatch: IRS ‘purposefully misled me’ By: Lauren French May 13, 2013 11:23 PM EDT
Republicans are training their attacks on acting IRS Commissioner Steve Miller amid new revelations that he and the agency’s former top official knew employees were targeting conservative groups but failed to notify Congress despite repeated requests. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, the top Republican on the Finance Committee, and 10 other GOP lawmakers wrote to then-IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman on June 18, 2012, demanding answers on why the agency requested donor information from groups seeking nonprofit status. By the time this letter was sent, Shulman and Miller, who was the deputy IRS commissioner at the time, had been aware of the extent of the targeting program for about a month. (Also on POLITICO: 5 key players in IRS mess) Still, in a Sept. 11, 2012, response to the letter, Miller offered a broad interpretation of the law allowing the request for donor information and said nothing about the targeting practice. “They purposefully misled me,” Hatch told reporters on Tuesday. “I am very upset about it. This should have never happened.” Lois Lerner, the head of the IRS division the oversees tax-exempt groups, acknowledged that groups seeking nonprofit status were flagged for additional review if their applications included phrases like “tea party” or “patriot.” She told reporters that requesting donor information isn’t standard practice at the IRS. (Also on POLITICO: Acting IRS chief knew of targeting in 2012) Shulman may have been running the IRS at the time, but Miller’s role is taking center stage now. His responses to the GOP letter — and others like it — along with his new job as the acting IRS commissioner put him squarely in the cross hairs of Republican lawmakers. The letters between Hatch and Miller are written in dry tax-speak but are shaping up as central to GOP claims that Miller hid what he knew about the targeting, even as Hatch and others asked the IRS directly — and pointedly — about whether it was going on. “What is the specific statutory authority giving the IRS authority to request actual donor names during reviews of applications for recognition of exemption under Section 501(c)(4)?” Hatch and the other GOP lawmakers asked on June 18, 2012. “Is it customary for IRS agents to request donor and contributor identifying information during review of applications for tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(4)? Please provide the number of requests by the IRS for such information for each year from 2002 to 2011.” (WATCH: McConnell on IRS scandal: Can't count on Obama to be transparent) But Miller’s reply gave no hint that he did, in fact, have knowledge about what Hatch was seeking. “The applicable regulations are authorized by Section 7805 of the Internal Revenue Code, which provides general authority to prescribe all needed regulations for the enforcement of tax rules,” he wrote. Some lawmakers, including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) called for him to step down on Monday. “It is almost inconceivable to imagine that top officials at the IRS knew conservative groups were being targeted but chose to willfully mislead the committee’s investigation into this practice,” House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp said Monday. “This revelation goes against the very principles of free speech and liberty upon which this country was founded, and the blatant disregard for which the agency has treated Congress and the American taxpayer raises serious concerns about leadership at the IRS.” Miller is scheduled to testify before Camp’s panel on Friday. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus is taking a cautious approach and wouldn’t say whether he felt lawmakers were misled. “That’s a question we gotta pursue,” the Montana Democrat said on Tuesday. “On the surface, it’s an outrage and just totally wrong. It’s stunning, frankly.” Miller broke his silence on the agency’s activities in an op-ed published in USA Today on Tuesday. “Mistakes were made, but they were in no way due to any political or partisan motivation,” he wrote. “We are — and will continue to be — dedicated to reviewing all applications for tax-exempt status in an impartial manner.” Meanwhile, the agency’s initial defense that only low-level employees in Cincinnati were involved with the probing of conservative groups is also beginning to crumble. Documents shared with POLITICO show that a conservative group focused on voter outreach was continually pressed for additional information by employees in Washington. Lerner told reporters on Friday that the “inappropriate” actions of flagging and reviewing groups were undertaken by “front-line people” in Ohio. But a letter sent by Cleta Mitchell, a partner in the law firm Foley & Lardner LLP, to Ron Bell, a Washington-based IRS employee, shows that additional IRS offices were aware of the information-collecting activities. Employees in California were also involved in the review of applicants for tax-exempt status, according to the letters. “This delay is more than unusually long,” Mitchell wrote to the IRS in June 2011. “I am beginning to believe that the reason for the delay is politically motivated because my client has actively opposed the Obamacare legislation. True to Vote is permitted under the regulations of the IRS to engage in unlimited legislative activities and lobbying, so it is puzzling as to why its grass-roots lobbying and legislative activities would be of any interest or concern to the IRS.” Mitchell sent the letter on behalf of her client, True to Vote, which is still waiting for IRS approval three years after applying for tax-exempt status. Kelsey Snell and Manu Raju contributed to this report.
© 2013 POLITICO LLC

Media's Letter To Eric Holder On DOJ Power Grab

2013-05-15T11:00:00.000-05:00

Media coalition letter to Attorney General Eric Holder by The Washington Post

(See more on this story HERE.)

DOJ Scandal Rocks The AP

2013-05-15T08:30:00.000-05:00

"There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters," AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt stated in a letter of protest to Attorney General Eric Holder after it was revealed that the Department of Justice participated in a "massive and unprecedented intrusion." (link)

The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news.
The records obtained by the Justice Department listed outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, for general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and for the main number for the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. It was not clear if the records also included incoming calls or the duration of the calls.
In all, the government seized the records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown, but more than a hundred journalists work in the offices where phone records were targeted, on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.
In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.
"There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know," Pruitt said.
The government would not say why it sought the records.

So the government has not disclosed the reason behind the powergrab and reporters are ticked.

“People are ticked,” said another. “Everyone supports the reporters involved.”
The behind-the-scenes anger — and heads-down determination of the AP staff members to keep doing their jobs amid the extraordinary public flap — comes as top executives from the wire service have mounted an aggressive public pushback against DOJ, calling its snooping a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” in a letter fired off to Attorney General Eric Holder. And yet something of a bunkerlike atmosphere has taken hold at the AP in Washington with no bureau-wide meetings or announcements about the DOJ’s action, AP sources told POLITICO.
The AP employees interviewed by POLITICO did not want to be identified because, according to several sources, at least some journalists have been asked not to speak to the news media. (link)

One wonders if this will be enough to cause the media to start reporting on the White House. Up to this point, even with all the scandals, the White House and Obama have been treated with kid gloves. Let's see if this changes. It is also interesting as the American public has been concerned about such intrusion. Does this help the media better understand the citizens' concerns?

Obama Continues To Disappoint - Dems Waking Up

2013-05-15T00:31:00.000-05:00

From Politico:

The town is turning on President Obama – and this is very bad news for this White House.Republicans have waited five years for the moment to put the screws to Obama – and they have one-third of all congressional committees on the case now. Establishment Democrats, never big fans of this president to begin with, are starting to speak out. And reporters are tripping over themselves to condemn lies, bullying and shadiness in the Obama administration.Continue ReadinBuy-in from all three D.C. stakeholders is an essential ingredient for a good old fashioned Washington pile-on — so get ready for bad stories and public scolding to pile-up.Buy-in from all three D.C. stakeholders is an essential ingredient for a good old fashioned Washington pile-on — so get ready for bad stories and public scolding to pile-up.Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/dc-turns-on-obama-91386.html#ixzz2TKtV2G4E

What's interesting about this report is that it starts with "Republicans have waited five years for the moment to put the screws to Obama." I think a more appropriate line would be "Republican have been waiting for Obama to lead the country and live up to the expectations and trust placed in him. They have also looked for the media to report on what the White House is engaged in but up to this point, have been disappointed."

IRS Scandal Continues

2013-05-14T23:27:00.001-05:00

IRS targeting conservatives...here's the story from Breitbart.com:

The progressive-leaning investigative journalism group ProPublica says the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) office that targeted and harassed conservative tax-exempt groups during the 2012 election cycle gave the progressive group nine confidential applications of conservative groups whose tax-exempt status was pending.
The commendable admission lends further evidence to the lengths the IRS went during an election cycle to silence tea party and limited government voices.
ProPublica says the documents the IRS gave them were “not supposed to be made public”:
The same IRS office that deliberately targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status in the run-up to the 2012 election released nine pending confidential applications of conservative groups to ProPublica late last year... In response to a request for the applications for 67 different nonprofits last November, the Cincinnati office of the IRS sent ProPublica applications or documentation for 31 groups. Nine of those applications had not yet been approved—meaning they were not supposed to be made public. (We made six of those public, after redacting their financial information, deeming that they were newsworthy.)
The group says that "no unapproved applications from liberal groups were sent to ProPublica.”
According to Media Research Center Vice President for Business and Culture Dan Gainor, ProPublica’s financial backers include top progressive donors:
ProPublica, which recently won its second Pulitzer Prize, initially was given millions of dollars from the Sandler Foundation to “strengthen the progressive infrastructure”–“progressive” being the code word for very liberal. In 2010, it also received a two-year contribution of $125,000 each year from the Open Society Foundations. In case you wonder where that money comes from, the OSF website is www.soros.org. It is a network of more than 30 international foundations, mostly funded by Soros, who has contributed more than $8 billion to those efforts.
On Friday, the House Ways and Means Committee is scheduled to hold a formal hearing on the IRS conservative targeting scandal. IRS Commissioner Steve Miller and Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George are slated to testify.

The White House, however, has a different story. Ben Shapiro reports:

In a wild press conference today, White House press secretary Jay Carney blithely informed reporters that just because the IRS had admitted to giving extra scrutiny to conservative non-profit applicants doesn’t mean something negative had occurred. President Obama has already said that it would be “outrageous” if reports about IRS profiling were true.
An AP reporter asked, “The president did use the word 'if these activities had taken place,' but there has been an acknowledgement on the part of the IRS leadership that these things did indeed occur. I wondered why the president used that phrasing in claiming that it was outrageous?"
Carney’s response: “Those from the IRS that have spoken about this obviously have much greater insight into what took place than we do. We have not seen the report. We have not independently collected information about what transpired. We need the independent inspector general's report to be released before we can make judgments. One person's view of what actions were taken or what that individual did is not enough for us to say something concretely happened that was inappropriate.”
In other words, the IRS’s apology may have been wrongheaded. Carney is apparently unaware of the first rule of holes: stop digging.

Gosnell Convicted!

2013-05-13T19:56:00.002-05:00

From lifesitenews.com:

PHILADELPHIA, May 13, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Philadelphia jury has found late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell guilty of murdering three of four babies in his capital murder trial.

He is also guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the 2009 abortion death of Karnamaya Mongar, a 41-year-old legal immigrant who died when his untrained staff administered an overdose of sedatives.
The jury found Gosnell guilty of murdering Babies A, C, and D. Gosnell quipped Baby A, who was photographed by one of his employees, Andrienne Moton, was big enough to "walk me to the bus stop."

Jurors found Gosnell had committed first-degree murder when he allowed the babies to be born alive, then “snipped” their spinal cords with scissors -- a practice his employees said they saw him perform "hundreds" of times.

The verdict, which was announced this afternoon in the courtroom of Judge Jeffrey Minehart, means Gosnell will face the death penalty at sentencing.

The "not guilty" count related to Baby E, who uttered a noise before being killed. Jurors could not determine conclusively that such a sound represented a sign of life.

"Even if not on every count, I am thrilled today by the guilty verdict in the Gosnell murder trial," said Bryan Kemper of Stand True Ministries. "I have waited many years for justice to be served on behalf of babies being killed by abortionists."

Jurors convicted Gosnell of one count of infanticide and two counts of conspiracy in the murders of the babies, which defense attorney Jack McMahon sometimes called "infants," as well. They also convicted Gosnell of breaking Pennsylvania law by aborting babies past the state's limit of 24-weeks' gestation.

Happy Mother's Day

2013-05-12T22:08:00.001-05:00

To all the mothers in the world, and those who provide mothering roles, Happy Mother's Day! What an amazing role you play. We are grateful for you!

Limited Doctor Selection and Medicaid

2013-05-10T15:22:00.000-05:00

With Obamacare going forward, we're seeing more and more doctors quit the game altogether. My son's pediatrician told me at his last visit that seeing people with government health care (aka Medicaid) actually costs him money, and other visits barely are enough to keep the practice open. We are seeing stories like this more and more frequently as doctors decide it is not worth the costs to stay open. And it is not just happening in rural areas.... my pediatrician is located in the hub of two large cities, is well connected with a major hospital in the area and has one other doctor in his practice.

This article caught my eye as the crisis in healthcare continues. GOP leaders are refusing to appoint members to the Independent Payment Advisory Board, and to them I say Thank Goodness! Here is a copy of their letter to the President:

Dear Mr. President,

We write to respond to your March 29, 2013 letter requesting that we submit the names of individuals to serve on the Individual Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which was created in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148). Because the law will give IPAB’s 15 unelected, unaccountable individuals the ability to deny seniors access to innovative care, we respectfully decline to recommend appointments.

As you know, we opposed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act because we knew it would increase health costs, impose costly burdens on job creators, and raid Medicare to pay for a massive new entitlement. In order to allow supporters to claim that the law’s Medicare cuts would be realized in the future, it tasked IPAB with reducing payments to providers or eliminating payments for certain treatments and procedures altogether. These reduced payments will force providers to stop seeing Medicare patients, the same way an increased number of doctors have stopped taking Medicaid patients. This will lead to access problems, waiting lists and denied care for seniors.

The unfortunate result is that decisions which impact America’s seniors will be made in the absence of the democratic process, without the system of checks and balances that would normally apply to important matters of public policy. Yet your recent budget called for expanding IPAB by tasking it with making even larger cuts to Medicare than those called for in the health law, even though the trustees of the Medicare program have told us that IPAB’s provider cuts would be “difficult to achieve in practice,” because of the denied care that seniors would experience.

We believe Congress should repeal IPAB, just as we believe we ought to repeal the entire health care law. In its place, we should work in a bipartisan manner to develop the long-term structural changes that are needed to strengthen and protect Medicare for today’s seniors, their children, and their grandchildren. We hope establishing this board never becomes a reality, which is why full repeal of the Affordable Care Act remains our goal.

Sincerely,

John Boehner Mitch McConnell
Speaker of the House of Representatives Senate Republican Leader

Hillary Clinton Under Microscope For Benghazi

2013-05-08T22:52:00.001-05:00

Hillary Clinton came under fire today as Congressional hearings were underway regarding the Benghazi attacks.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who will oversee Wednesday's hearing, told CBS News on Monday that the administration's ever-evolving statements were likely perpetrated by political concerns, three weeks out of a major election. Or, he suggested, "it could be a general want to believe that we're closer to an end of the war on terror than right in the middle of it."
Issa said he expects this week to find someone from Clinton's circle - if not the former secretary of state herself - at the heart of covering tracks after any missteps by the administration. Clinton testified on Benghazi in January before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where she took responsibility but conceded there was no "clear picture" of what happened Sept. 11 as the situation unraveled.
"If Hillary Clinton is not responsible for the before, during and after mistakes... it's somebody close," Issa said. "There certainly are plenty of people close to the former secretary who knew, and apparently were part of the problem."
Those close to Clinton who may have engaged in "deliberately, premeditated lying to the American people," Issa said, could include Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy or Beth Jones, acting assistant secretary for near eastern affairs at the State Department. Hicks said one day after Rice's media blitz, he called Jones to inquire about the source for the ambassador's statements; the tone of her answer - "I don't know," he continued - indicated that "I perhaps asked a question that I should not have asked." (SOURCE)

Clinton appeared defensive when questioned in January:

And even before that, Johnson had reminded citizens at least twice of what Clinton told him about the attack during a Senate committee hearing in January 2013.
"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans," Clinton said. "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?" (SOURCE)

Obama's Apology Tour Continues - Says America To Blame For Mexican Violence

2013-05-05T00:42:00.000-05:00

Obama went to Mexico this week and apologized for American's having the right to bear arms. Okay, so those weren't his exact words, but they aren't that far away from the truth.

“Most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States.” He mentioned that the Constitution protects the right to bear arms (he didn’t say “keep arms”), then continued that, “I will continue to do everything in my power to pass common-sense reforms that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people. That can save lives here in Mexico and back home in the United States."

Interestingly, he left of the little ATF infraction from last year. He forgot to mention that the majority of crimes committed with a gun are not by gun owners. But we cannot be surprised at Obama's lack of knowledge or devotion to the American people. He has a history of apologizing to other countries on behalf of Americans.

Rick Perry represented what many of us believe:

“The idea that a United States president would go to Mexico and make that statement is incredulous. His goal — well before he became president of the United States — was to try to disarm the American public. He just disregards the Constitution.”

He went on to say, “Nothing could be a greater tragedy for America than to disarm the pubic. If mothers want peace of mind. If mothers want their children to be safe. An armed, knowledgeable general populace is the way for that to occur.”

American's have a constitutional right to bear arms.

James Madison stated, "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ― unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist)

“The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”
― Thomas Jefferson

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
― Thomas Jefferson, Complete Jefferson

“Disarm the people- that is the best and most effective
way to enslave them.”
― James Madison

Free Condoms For Your 12-Year-Old!

2013-05-04T21:30:00.004-05:00

Seriously? Is this where we are? From Breitbart.com:

Middle-school California kids, now you can be as sexually profligate as you want to be--and your parents don’t even have to know about it! The California Condom Access Project, run by the California Health Council, which is making condoms available for kids as young as 12 in an online, taxpayer-funded condom delivery service, has expanded their service to include San Diego and Fresno counties.

But it gets better if you keep secrets from your parents. If you visit this website, as many as 10 free condoms can be delivered in confidential packaging, along with lubricant and educational materials. And in California, teens don’t need parental consent to buy contraceptives.

Among 15-19 year-olds, San Diego County ranks second in chlamydia cases in California, and ranks sixth in gonorrhea cases. The state is rampant with STDs; syphilis cases zoomed 18% from 2010 to 2011, Chlamydia rose 5% and gonorrhea rose 1.5%.

The news of the expanded program follows Tuesday’s announcement by the FDA of their approval of sale of the morning-after pill to girls as young as 15.

Amy Moy, vice president of public affairs of the California Family Health Council said, "It's really important that we all share with youth in our lives that abstinence is the most effective way to avoid sexually transmitted infection and unintended pregnancy. But we know that teens are engaging in sexual activity, and we just want to help them be as safe as possible and not keep our heads in the sand and pretend there isn't a problem."