Breitbart Feed

State DOJ: Busts Reveal Unprecedented Cartel Presence in Oregon

Sat, 18 May 2013 20:28:45 GMT

Klamath Falls, Oregon—Law enforcement officials thwarted a Mexican cartel-linked narcotics operation with a number of raids in the early morning hours of May 16, 2013. Officers made at least 38 arrests, then seized approximately four pounds of methamphetamine, over fifty firearms, and an undetermined amount of cash.

In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, the Oregon Department of Justice Communications Director, Jeff Manning, confirmed these details and added that the operation involved raids of at least 23 homes and businesses. Manning said law enforcement is looking for at least ten other individuals in connection with these groups.

“We cannot comment at this time on whether or not all of those arrested were US citizens or here illegally,” said Manning. “There is a clear connection to Mexican cartels and this narcotics ring was an active dealing operation on a scale we have not seen previously in Oregon.”

“This investigation began last October,” said Manning.

The Oregonian’s Les Zaitz, who first covered the arrests, has theorized that this long-term investigation started following the discovery of two corpses buried in in Klamath County, OR. The corpses were discovered during the same month this investigation began. Oregon DOJ’s Manning said, “That reporter came up with that on his own. We did not confirm any connection.” However, Manning also said, “We do not deny any connection between the two matters."

If the Oregonian’s theory is correct, authorities are finding Mexican cartel victims buried beneath US soil, deep into the continental U.S.

Manning listed the agencies involved as: The Oregon Department of Justice, the US Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, Homeland Security, the Klamath County Sheriff's Office, the Klamath Falls Police Department, and Oregon State Police. He said he did not believe the Federal Bureau of Investigation played a role in this case.

"You can see life's hard knocks on their faces. It's really sad," Manning said regarding many of the 38 people authorities arrested.

NY Dem. Assemblyman to Resign After Sexual Harassment Allegations

Sat, 18 May 2013 20:23:43 GMT

On Saturday, Vito Lopez, a New York state lawmaker accused of repeatedly molesting his female aides and making sexual comments about a 14-year old intern, announced he will resign from office on Monday. The announcement came one day after those allegations came to light in a report.

“I hereby resign the public office of Member of Assembly from the 53rd Assembly District, Kings County, effective 9 A.M. Monday, May 20, 2013,” his letter read.

The New York Times reported that Lopez was facing expulsion if he did not resign.

Lopez, a Democrat who ran the party in Brooklyn and is in the state assembly, had previously said he would resign at the end of the legislative session in June so he could run for New York City Council in November.

The 71-year-old Democrat said he has "made no secret that I intend to run for New York City Council in November, which requires me to resign my current term."

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, told the New York Post that Lopez should "not spend another day in office" and "must be expelled."

On Friday, a report indicated Lopez had "bombarded eight female aides with orders to massage him, wear skimpy clothing and spend the night in hotels with him - but State Assembly officials let him get away with it" and did not further their investigations into claims that had been made against Lopez.

He reportedly cajoled one woman into believing he was dying and forced another female aide to "massage his hand while he was driving in Atlantic City - even though she told him she had been raped, was crying and said she felt uncomfortable."

He has also been "accused of saying he found a 14-year-old intern so 'sexy' that he wished he lived in a state where it was legal to sleep with underage girls."

Two women "secretly recorded their encounters with the Assemblyman, who faced a criminal probe into his actions." They said they "feared that their careers would be ruined by Lopez if they spoke up" because "those who gave in were handed raises and promotions, while those who resisted faced bullying."

Lopez reportedly will not face charges in Brooklyn, "though it is not known if he may face criminal investigations in other places where offenses are said to have taken place."

The two women reportedly "received a $103,000 taxpayer settlement" and are "bound by a secrecy clause."

The women--Victoria Burhans and Chloe Rivera--said that "Albany’s culture is one in which young women are often mistreated and bad behavior by powerful men is condoned and covered up... We hope that the Commission’s findings will lead to much needed reform."

Lopez denied the accusations, calling them "salacious claims" in a statement.

Noted Catholic Scholar Claims IRS Audit Triggered by Criticism of Obama

Sat, 18 May 2013 19:14:09 GMT

Anne Hendershott, an eloquent opponent of the Obama administration, states that she has reason to believe she was targeted by the IRS for an audit following publications that were critical of President Obama and Catholics who supported him.

Aleteia, a Catholic publication, reports that Hendershott, a Catholic scholar, sociology professor at Franciscan University at Steubenville, Ohio, and columnist for the Wall St. Journal, may have been harassed by the IRS for specifically opposing the policies of the Obama administration.

“I have no proof of it being a political audit,” Hendershott said. “Only the curious circumstance surrounding it. My husband and I have been married for 39 years and never have been audited before. It was odd that [the agent] only wanted to talk with me--although he said I could bring our tax accountant... All of the questions focused on who was paying me for the articles.”

Hendershott’s 2010 audit took place in the New Haven, Connecticut IRS office. She said the IRS agent was “very inquisitive” and that she had the impression “that he was looking for a reason that I was writing for money, where, you know, Catholics tend not to do that."

"He kept asking me who was paying me: ‘Who paid you to write this one?’ and ‘What did you get paid for that?’” she claimed.

A lighter moment during her conversation with the IRS agent came when he said he wanted to know about a $12,000 check she had deposited into her account.

“Actually, that was from you guys,” Hendershott told the agent. “It was a refund.”

Hendershott said she felt so intimidated by the IRS agent that she stopped writing on some topics she believed may have triggered the call from the agency in order to avoid placing her family in a difficult position.

Dianne Besunder, IRS spokeswoman for Connecticut, told Aleteia, “The IRS is prohibited by law from discussing any taxpayer or organization’s tax situation.”

Hendershott said the IRS agent “wanted to go back a couple of years [and examine] every deposit I made in our checking account.”

Though none of the specific topics of her writing came up during the audit conversation, Hendershott said she received the call from the IRS agent a couple of months after she had written about a connection between groups like Catholics United, Catholics in Alliance, the Service Employees International Union, and the community organizing group ACORN.

Hendershott said that Chris Korzen of Catholics United called in to a radio show on which she was discussing her story and “denied everything I was saying about his organization and said I was lying.” Hendershott claimed, however, that she had “all the tax records in front of me. I could cite the [IRS form for non-profit organizations] 990 that he was paid $84,900 by Catholics in Alliance, which is a Soros group.”

Carl Olson, editor of Catholic World Report, said Hendershott published several articles that may have drawn the attention of the Obama administration. Olson said that “as we learn more about how the IRS has pinpointed hundreds (nearly 500, at last count) of groups that can be generally described as ‘conservative’ in nature, [Hendershott’s] suspicions are understandable.”

“That the IRS would be used in any way for political gain, leverage, or intimidation is very disturbing, regardless of one’s political or religious convictions,” Olson added.

Report: Reid Preps Rule Change to Break Filibuster

Sat, 18 May 2013 18:49:10 GMT

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is reportedly getting ready to use the so-called "nuclear option" to change the Senate rules so that 60 votes are no longer needed to break a filibuster.

According to the Washington Post, President Barack Obama will support Reid's efforts if Republicans in the Senate continue to block upcoming nominations.

“If Senator Reid decides to do something on nominations, the president has said he’ll be there to support him,” a Democratic aide told the Post. "This would take away the right to filibuster on nominations... All executive branch and judicial nominations would be subject to majority votes. He would not do it on legislative items.”

Reid reportedly has said he could not trigger the "nuclear option" last year because "old bull" Democrats would not go along with it. If Reid goes for the nuclear option, some Democrats have reportedly expressed that it could potentially kill immigration reform.

In the past, Reid has said he was willing to "change the rules with a simple majority" and he would do that "if necessary."

VA Gov: Cuccinelli Makes Clear Case Against McAuliffe

Sat, 18 May 2013 16:53:00 GMT

On Saturday, VA Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli formally accepted the GOP nomination for Governor at the party convention in Richmond. Cuccinelli will face Democrat fundraiser Terry McAuliffe in the November election, the premier political contest of 2013. In a speech to convention delegates, Cuccinelli made it clear that voters face a clear choice in the election.

"So for Virginians who think Washington works well, they have a candidate in this race," Cuccinelli told delegates, referencing McAuliffe's insider status in Washington. "And the Virginians who don't think Washington works well, also have a candidate in this race. I have been fighting for the people of Virginia because I believe in the people of Virginia."

McAuliffe has tried to downplay his deep roots in DC and the national Democrat party, which he once led, and promoted himself as a businessman. His private sector experience, however, exists at the nexus of politics and business. Cuccinelli reminded delegates of McAuliffe's most recent venture, GreenTech Auto, which based its production out of the Commonwealth.

"When my opponent was faced with the choice of investing in Virginia, with one of the best business environments in America; or investing in Mississippi, with one of the worst business environments in America, what did he do," Cuccinelli asked delegates.

"He dropped us like a hot brick for Mississippi moola - Mississippi tax money. And now he can't keep his story straight about why he abandoned Virginia."

McAuliffe announced the formation of GreenTech, a maker of electric cars, with great fanfare soon after he lost of the Democrat nomination for Governor in 2009. Earlier this year, questions arose about the company's decision to base its manufacturing operations in Mississippi, instead of Virginia where its headquartered. Additional questions were raised about the financial health of the company. In response to these questions, the Democrat's campaign reported that McAuliffe had quietly stepped down as Chairman at the end of 2012.

Cuccinelli's speech on Saturday didn't only address McAuliffe's record of crony capitalism, but articulated a clear vision for Virginia. He called for tax and regulatory reform and greater parental control over education.

"In the months ahead," Cuccinelli said, "the people of Virginia will have a clear choice to make between two very different visions of our future, and it’s a debate that everyone should see."

Cuccinelli challenged McAuliffe to a series of debates across the Commonwealth. While the debate would be principally focused on the future of Virginia, the ideas expressed resonate across the country. The nation is at a cross-roads, with each party articulating very distinct visions of the future.

The race for Governor in Virginia will give us an early read on which way the public is moving.

Follow Mike Flynn on twitter: @Flynn1776

Obama Admin Would Rather Risk Default than Negotiate Debt Limit Deal

Sat, 18 May 2013 15:23:47 GMT

On Friday, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew told Congress that the Obama administration would rather risk default than negotiate with Republicans in Congress over raising the debt limit. He said the Treasury Department will begin taking "extraordinary" measures to avoid default until Congress votes to raise the country's debt limit.

In a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) on Friday, Lew said he wanted to "reemphasize" the Obama administration's position to pressure Congress to raise the debt limit.

"I want to reemphasize what the President has said repeatedly regarding any threats to cause default in order to extract policy concessions from the Administration: We will not negotiate over the debt limit," Lew wrote. "The creditworthiness of the United States is non-negotiable."

He added that because "Congress has not yet acted to approve normal borrowing authority after May 18, the Treasury Department will begin implementing the standard set of extraordinary measures that enable us, on a temporary basis, to protect the full faith and credit of the United States by continuing to pay the nation's S bills."

Lew also indicated in the letter that Obama would veto the debt prioritization bill the House passed last week that would allow the the "Treasury to continue borrowing money to pay the interest on the debt and Social Security obligations if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling when it hits its limit later this year."

During the 2011 budget negotiations, the Obama White House came up with the idea for sequestration, which they have since tried to politicize and blame on Republicans after the budget cuts took place in March.

Senate, House Battle Over Immigration Bills

Sat, 18 May 2013 14:56:00 GMT

It’s going to be a battle to get immigration reform passed by Congress. The Senate has crafted an 867-page bill that Senators say will most likely need 70 votes in support to put pressure on the House to accept it, while the House has written its own legislation that differs markedly and will vie for acceptance against the Senate bill. The Senate bill will be ready in June, while the House expects to be finished around the same time.

The House GOP asserts that no matter how many senators vote for the Senate bill, the House will not accept it. Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), said, “I don’t think it can pass the House. I think our bill has a better chance of passing the House than the Senate bill. We went more into detail than they did. They’ve got holes all through their bill.”

The House bill will have to travel through the Judiciary Committee, which is bitterly divided on partisan lines; hardline conservatives Iowa Rep. Steve King and Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert have publicly opposed the Senate bill but they share the committee with liberals such as New York Rep. Jerry Nadler. And Judiciary’s chairman, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), has said he prefers dealing with immigration one step at a time, instead of the Senate’s all-inclusive approach. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) agreed with Goodlatte: “I’m in favor of an incremental approach. I think you do this one step at a time. Find common ground and move onto the next issue.”

Carter noted the difficulty, stating, “Judiciary is going to be a tough row to hoe. But I think we’ll be all right. I think that a lot of the things that make it important are going to stay in place. At least I’m very hopeful.”

Some of the differences between the Democrats and the GOP are these:

The Democrats want language used by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO; The GOP favors business interests;
The Senate bill gives undocumented immigrants 13-years for a path to citizenship and an even faster path for DREAM Act-eligible immigrants. The House wants a 15-year path instead, and immigrants would have to admit they had come here illegally and remain on probation.
The House wants the legalization process shut down if E-Verify is not in place five years after the bill is implemented.

King has threatened to shut down the bill if amnesty is accepted. He said:

If there’s anything that looks like amnesty that’s brought before this Congress it would be exactly the wedge that splits the Republican Party in this House. There are a whole lot of conservatives that haven’t spoken out. They’re increasing in their intensity in this thing. I can just feel it.

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) was polite but resolute in his defense of the House bill:

I think this is a very important first step — the fact that you have folks from the ideological opposites agreeing on what is a very complicated, complex piece of legislation. But I’m not blinded to the fact that that’s just a first step. It is a very, very difficult process. It’s going to be a lengthy process. I have been exceeding deferential to my Senate colleagues because I think they deserve a lot of credit. But there’s no doubt that a House bill will have to be a lot different than the Senate bill.

He was echoed by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee dealing with immigration issues, who said of the Senate bill, “We appreciate that opening bid … but we’re going to let the House work its will and produce our own legislation.”

Over Two-Thirds Back Investigations Into Benghazi, IRS

Sat, 18 May 2013 14:06:00 GMT

The President of the United States might not believe there is any "there" there regarding his administration's now-admitted mishandling of the September 11 terror attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, but a new Gallup poll seems to indicate the America people aren't quite as sure. A full 52% "strongly agree" that Benghazi is a "serious issue that needs to be investigated," while 17% "agree." That's a total of 69%.

Because the mainstream media has conspired (it must be noted that there are a number of notable individual exceptions) with the White House over the last eight months to downplay Libya, you might think that particular scandal would generate less interest than the IRS scandal -- which the media have taken much more seriously. Surprisingly, though, the numbers aren't all that different. When asked the same question about the IRS, 56% "strongly agree" and 18% "agree;" for a total of 74% -- which is only 5 points higher than Libya.

The numbers for Libya create a real dilemma for the White House and its lapdog media. The no there "there" Narrative they have spent eight months manufacturing obviously isn't working. Moreover, the motive behind this Narrative is a sinister one: nether Obama nor his media want the truth to get out, and both know that the more the people learn about the administration's handling of Libya, the worse it will be for the administration.

For instance, with the release of the 94 emails earlier this week, we now know for a fact that the White House repeatedly lied with their claim that the administration played no role in shaping the CIA talking points. The media, though, refuse to hold the White House accountable for that lie and prefer to pretend the emails actually do back the administration's claim.

The main reason the media have smothered the damning revelations found in the emails, though, is to protect Hillary Clinton. It was the State Department that demanded what amounted to almost a total rewrite of the completed talking points, and won them. But the media see Hillary as the best chance they have for keeping the White House out of Republican hands in 2016, and so they are circling the wagons for her, just like they have Obama for the last five years.

Plus, even though the media isn’t demanding more, we still don’t have all the information regarding the shaping of the talking points. These information gaps are critical, and to say we should take the White House's word for anything at this point is a joke.

The media are also ignoring and smothering the effort to find out who gave the order to "stand down" when it came to sending help to Americans under attack that night. And when it comes to finding out what exactly the President was doing during those horrific hours the attack took place, the media is laughably uncurious.

To protect the White House from having to reveal the truth, the President and his media have developed a strategy that smears as partisan witch-hunters anyone searching for the truth. This includes and any Republican in Congress pushing for investigations and, naturally, Fox News.

But from the looks of this poll, the witch-hunters have the will of the people on their side-- a whopping 69% of them. That's a huge number, but if you think about, not really a surprising one. When Americans die, decent people believe everything should be fully investigated and made public.

The American people are, by and large, decent.

This White House and its media, however, are not.

Hopefully this poll will only further embolden the GOP and Fox News and the exceptions in the media to continue to do the decent thing: Find and tell the complete truth about what led to the deaths of an ambassador and three other Americans.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC

Boy Scouts Vote To Allow 'Open and Avowed' Gay Scouts

Sat, 18 May 2013 12:46:00 GMT

Delegates from the National Council of the Boy Scouts of America will gather next week in Grapevine, Texas to vote on whether they will change their membership policy that has been against “open and avowed” homosexuality regarding youth members of the Boy Scouts.

Breitbart News reported in April that, with years of severe pressure from some legislators, Boy Scout officials would consider ending their ban on openly gay scouts, while they continue their long-standing policy on banning openly gay adult leaders.

Will the Boy Scouts of America admit openly gay boys to its membership? Cathy Ruse, a senior fellow for Legal Studies at the Family Research Council says, “Don’t count on it.”

In an article at Real Clear Religion, Ruse observes that, on Wednesday, the National Catholic Committee on Scouting (NCCS) released a statement about the anticipated vote that outlines important guidelines for Catholic delegates.

The first principle, Ruse notes, is that those inclined toward homosexuality must be treated with dignity and respect, based on the fundamental belief of the Church that every person is made in the image and likeness of God.

In addition, the NCCS statement asserts the Church’s teaching that homosexual acts are objectively and intrinsically disordered, and contrary to natural law. Consequently, homosexuality cannot be approved under any circumstances.

The NCCS statement affirms that “the Church reserves the right to seek to place those who live by its teachings in leadership positions that serve our youth, as well as the right to continue to call our young people to live by the teachings of our faith and by moral truth which can be known by all.”

Ruse asks, “Why speak of ‘leadership positions’ when the resolution addresses only youth membership?”

The reason is that the Boy Scouts often allow youth members to apply for leadership positions with significant authority over younger members in the troop. A change in the youth policy would allow open homosexuality on the part of older teens who enter leadership positions.

In addition, as Ruse observes, if the delegates approve a change in youth policy, the practical and legal outcome will be a change in policy for adult leaders as well.

What will happen to a gay Eagle Scout the moment he turns 18, and he suddenly becomes banned? Under the new policy, some action against the scout will be required, but few, if any, troop leaders would want to enforce the rule. Ruse asserts that “a de facto change in the rule for adults will occur almost immediately.”

Ruse goes on to say that the new policy would also forfeit the legal victory the Boy Scouts won at the Supreme Court over a decade ago. In America v. Dale, the Scouts were sued for unlawful discrimination because of its membership policy, but the High Court ruled that the policy is constitutional under the First Amendment’s protection of the rights to free speech and association.

However, a bifurcated, “incoherent new ‘speech,’” Ruse says, will leave no legal basis for the courts to uphold the prohibitory portion of the policy.

Ruse states that, in a recent survey conducted by Boy Scout officials, 72 percent of the chartering organizations oppose a change to the policy. That percentage, she concludes, corresponds almost exactly with that of chartering organizations that are faith-based, many of which are Catholic parishes.

A Special Counsel No-Brainer

Sat, 18 May 2013 11:00:00 GMT

An independent investigation by a special counsel is tailor made for the Internal Revenue Service targeting scandal. In instances like this, national leaders like the President and Attorney General of the United States must transcend politics and make restoring trust in government the paramount issue.

In a case this inflammatory--the politicization of the IRS--people serving at the pleasure of the President at the Department of Justice cannot be trusted to conduct an independent investigation because there is an inherent conflict of interest. How can you ask someone to fairly investigate their boss or others who work for their boss? The answer is: you can’t.

At a press conference on Thursday, President Obama drove home the point about why we need a special counsel in this case. A reporter asked Mr. Obama if this case warranted a special counsel and the president answered that it did not. According to The Washington Post:

President Obama said Thursday that he does not believe a special counsel needs to be appointed to investigate the Internal Revenue Service’s practice of targeting conservative groups, saying congressional hearings and a federal criminal investigation should be enough to determine what happened.

There is the problem for all to see: the decision to appoint a special counsel is not President Obama’s to make. That decision lies with the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder. By answering this question the way he did, the President publicly relayed to the Attorney General--his subordinate--that he does not want a special counsel appointed. The president effectively poisoned the well on national television.

The reason why congressional hearings and an Eric Holder-run criminal investigation won’t suffice is because they are both inadequate and biased. Congress can’t indict, try, and convict; all they can do is hold hearings and report facts. Meanwhile Mr. Holder was appointed by President Obama; he can’t realistically conduct an independent and thorough investigation about a subject that could be so damaging to his boss.

This case has politics, fear, and abuse of power all over it. It appears to have started after my group Citizens United won a U.S. Supreme Court in 2010.

After the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision reasserted robust First Amendment rights that enabled Americans to more freely participate in our political process, President Obama and Democrats in Congress immediately attacked the decision out of the fear it would adversely affect them politically. From President Obama and then-Speaker Pelosi on down, all on the left proceeded with a scorched earth campaign to discredit and overturn Citizens United through demagoguery and falsehoods.

It showcased how far the party of Jefferson and Madison had fallen--actively criticizing a court decision that was backed up by our First Amendment right to free speech. It was also around this time that IRS personnel appear to have begun their abusive practice of unfairly scrutinizing conservative groups applying for non-profit status.

The American people should not stand for a politicized investigation into the politicization of the IRS. It will take the will of the people to force Obama and Holder to do what’s right. The person appointed to be special counsel should have a reputation for impartiality with impeccable credentials for following the facts, wherever they may lead without concern for politics. Only this type of investigation will restore trust with the American people.

This decision--whichever way it goes--will be remembered by historians as a pivotal moment during the Obama Administration.

IRS Sued for Allegedly Seizing Medical Records of 60 Million Americans

Fri, 17 May 2013 23:07:00 GMT

An unnamed California healthcare provider is suing the embattled Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and 15 agents for allegedly seizing 60,000,000 medical records belonging to “more than 10,000,000 Americans, including at least 1,000,000 Californians.”

The complaint, posted by National Review, states that IRS agents’ search warrant for financial information did “not authorize any seizure of any healthcare or medical record of any persons, least of all third parties completely unrelated to the matter.”

The medical records reportedly included sensitive private information about individuals’ gynecological counseling, sexual and drug treatment, and psychological services received.

Courthouse News Service, which first reported on the story, says Robert E. Barnes of Malibu is representing parties in the class action lawsuit.

Treasury Sec: I Knew About IRS Scandal Last Week--And Also Last Fall

Fri, 17 May 2013 22:29:00 GMT

In an interview with Bloomberg TV, former Obama chief of staff-turned-Treasury Secretary Jack Lew offered two conflicting yet carefully worded answers as to when he first learned that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had targeted Tea Party and conservative groups: he learned last week--and possibly before the 2012 election.

Bloomberg's Al Hunt asked Lew, whose Treasury Department oversees the IRS: “When were you first notified that IRS agents were targeting conservative groups like the Tea Party?”

Instead of answering Hunt’s question directly, however, Lew instead chose to answer when he first learned about the IG report, a tactic President Barack Obama also used earlier this week during a press conference.

“I learned the substance of this report last Friday when it became a matter of public knowledge,” Lew claimed. “Before that, in mid-March [2013], I had had a conversation, just a getting-to-know-you conversation, with the inspector general right after I started, and he went through a number of items that were matters they were working on. And the topic of a project on the 501(c)3 issue was one of the things he briefed me was ongoing.”

Hunt then asked whether former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Lew’s deputy, Neal Wolin, or the general counsel knew about the IRS’s political profiling of conservative groups.

“I think that there was-the heads-up that I got was something that was a matter of public knowledge,” said Lew. “It was posted on the IG's website in the fall of 2012. I believe that other is typically the practice that an inspector general notify the agencies when matters are opened. I was not aware of any details.”

It is possible that "fall of 2012" could refer to a period of time before the election. Regardless, Lew would have discovered the investigation in his capacity as President Obama's chief of staff, meaning that it is possible the president knew of the investigation in 2012 as well.

This is not the first time Lew has provided confusing or less-than-candid answers. During Lew’s confirmation, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) blasted Lew for misleading Congress:

Jack Lew must never be Treasury Secretary. He made a series of false representations to Congress and to the American people in a deliberate effort to deceive. The man charged with safeguarding the Treasury of the United States cannot be someone who has so thoroughly ruined his own credibility. We must have a person who, when speaking of America’s financial condition, will be totally candid.

Congressional hearings on the widening IRS scandal resume Monday.

Congressman to Miller: 'You Would Have Been Fired on the Spot' in Private Sector

Fri, 17 May 2013 22:03:52 GMT

On Friday, Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY) told outgoing acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller that his testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee had been "offensive" and expressed outrage that nothing bad will happen to Miller because of what he deemed the "IRS Targeting-Gate" scandal.

"I'll give this whole situation a name: It's the IRS Targeting-Gate," he said. "We are going to get to the bottom of it."

Reed said it was not honorable that Miller is acting like he honorably fell on his sword when he was slated to leave the agency next month.

"You were not fired," he said. "In my private experience, you would have been fired on the spot."

Reed told Miller that "nothing bad is going to happen to you" financially because Miller is going to get his full benefits.

"That's the level of accountability in Washington, D.C. today," Reed said, noting that Miller is still the acting IRS Commissioner and was still being paid by the taxpayers to testify on Friday before the House Ways and Means Committee.

Congress Pounds IRS on Whether Multiple Agencies Involved in IRS Scandal

Fri, 17 May 2013 21:43:37 GMT

Within days of Breitbart News revealing the intrusive actions of multiple federal agencies towards Catherine Engelbrecht and her True the Vote organization, the House Ways and Means Committee pounded the IRS with questions about other agencies’ possible involvement in harassing True the Vote as a result of their application for tax-exempt status.

Congressman Kevin Brady (R-TX) cited the details of True the Vote and King Street Patriots founder Catherine Engelbrecht's experiences as reported by Breitbart News in his questioning of outgoing IRS Commissioner Steven Miller.

The agencies implicated in scrutinizing Engelbrecht’s organization include: two Department of Justice (DOJ) offices; the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF); the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); and the Texas Commission on Environment Quality (TCEQ). The IRS was implicated further in that Engelbrecht’s personal finances were audited in addition to IRS audits of her small family business.

IRS Scandal Warrants Independent Special Counsel

Fri, 17 May 2013 21:40:00 GMT

When you get right down to it, the political targeting and stalling of tax-exempt applications by the IRS was an effort to defund the Tea Party. Rick Santelli, one of the Tea Party founders and my CNBC colleague, was the first to make this point. I’ve taken it a step further: The IRS was taking the Tea Party out of play for the 2012 election, as it looked to avoid a repeat of 2010 and another Tea Party landslide.

There are a lot of numbers out there. Some say Tea Party applications for tax-exempt status averaged 27 months for approval, while applications from liberal groups averaged nine. In one extreme case, according to the Washington Post, the IRS granted the Barack H. Obama Foundation tax-exempt status in a speedy one-month timeframe. Yet some conservative groups waited up to three years, and some still haven’t received approval.

But there can be only one reason for the stalled-out approval process for conservative groups. The IRS was trying to put them out of business. Thus far, there’s not one wit of contradictory evidence.

Think of this: If the IRS wasn’t politically targeting conservative groups, why did its leading spokespeople lie? This was not even cognitive dissonance. It was outright lying before Congress. Lois Lerner, a key player in the IRS’s tax-exempt division, is being accused by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee of no fewer than four lies. The inspector general’s report shows that she knew about the targeting problem in June 2011, but wouldn’t admit to it in correspondence with Congress over the next two years.

Then there’s former IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman, a Bush appointee. He apparently knew about the targeting in May 2012, but told Congress in August 2012 that he didn’t.

Or there’s former IRS acting director Steve Miller, who was just pushed out. He also knew about the targeting in May 2012, but later refused to admit it to Congress during testimony.

In fact, the whole bloody agency may have known about it on August 4, 2011. According to the Treasury Department IG report, various IRS big wigs met that day to talk about the conservative-targeting problem. That meeting may have included the IRS’s chief counsel; while the IG report says he was at the meeting, the IRS has denied that he was. But if one of his minions was at the meeting, the chief counsel would have known about the problem.

And it turns out the Treasury’s inspector general, J. Russell George, told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 that he was auditing the IRS’s political-organization screening. That means White House appointees in the Treasury, including deputy secretary Neal Wolin, were aware of the IRS scandal before the presidential election. According to the New York Times, IG George “did not tell the officials of his conclusions that the targeting had been improper.”

No one knows the exact facts, which presumably will come out in the hearings. But this is important stuff. It isconspiracy stuff. Criminal stuff.

We already know that IRS employees gave heavily to Obama in 2008 and 2012, and very little to candidates McCain and Romney. But who was the quarterback in all this? Who was managing the targeting operation in the bowels of the IRS?

It could have been Sarah Hall Ingram. She served as commissioner of the IRS’s tax-exempt division between 2009 and 2012. And she got a $100,000 bonus for her efforts. And now -- incredibly -- she’s running the IRS’s Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) office, leaving her successor Joseph Grant to take the fall. But he just turned tail and resigned.

And now get this: President Obama has named OMB controller Daniel Werfel acting director of the IRS. And he’s only going to serve between May 22 and the end of the fiscal year, which is September 30. Are you kidding?

In four months, we’re to believe Mr. Werfel is going to piece together the lies, finger the quarterback, and replace everybody who was involved, not just in the now-infamous Cincinnati office, but in offices in Washington, D.C., two towns in California, and even Austin, Texas. (That’s the latest count.) And this guy Werfel is also supposed to manage the agency which is adding Obamacare to its income-tax-collection responsibilities. In four months.

Nuts.

An independent special counsel with subpoena power is the only possible solution. This counsel must find out exactly what happened and who was involved, and then come up with a fix so it never happens again. Of course, Obama charged Treasury secretary Jack Lew with straightening this out. But Lew’s an Obama political operative.

By the way, a special counsel will have to do a special investigation, since we’re already learning the inspector-general investigation was a very superficial operation. And an independent special counsel can investigate any possible White House connections with senior Treasury officials, connections that could lead to the Oval Office.

We may hate the IRS because of its taxing power. We may hate it more because of its new Obamacare power. But it is a massively important government agency. And now we know that it is fraught with corruption and a liberal-left political agenda.

Only an independent special counsel could possibly straighten this mess out.

Applications for Tax-Exempt Status Were Down When IRS Began Targeting Tea Party

Fri, 17 May 2013 21:26:00 GMT

In House testimony Friday, former Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller explained that the IRS mistakes in handling applications for non-profit status from tea party groups were due, in large part, to a flood of applications following the Citizens United decision. Miller said the targeting was a botched attempt to centralize the process to account for the increased workload. There were fewer applications in 2010, when the IRS began targeting conservative groups, than the year before, however.

In 2009, before IRS began targeting tea party organizations, 1,751 groups applied for 501 (c)4 status. That number dropped in 2010 to 1,735. In fact, applications were down across all areas in the Tax Exempt division's jurisdiction. So, they had more staff available for processing. While the number of applications did increase in 2011 and 2012, there was no increase in applications when the IRS began isolating tea party groups.

Moreover, the IRS reportedly abandoned the targeting in early 2012. It presumably had little trouble handling the increased number of applicants in advance of the 2012 election.

For whatever reason the IRS chose to target tea party organizations for special scrutiny, it wasn't due to a flood of new applications.

Follow Mike Flynn on twitter: @Flynn1776

Outgoing IRS Commissioner Claims Targeting 'Absolutely Not Illegal'

Fri, 17 May 2013 21:13:21 GMT

Outgoing IRS Commissioner Steven Miller, who was ostensibly fired by Barack Obama after the IRS scandal came to light, claimed during a House Ways and Means Committee hearing that the actions of the IRS in targeting conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status was "absolutely not illegal."

When questioned by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), Miller tried to avoid the question until Price forced him to give a direct answer to the legality of the IRS's actions:

STEVEN MILLER, IRS COMMISSIONER: I think, are you talking about the letters?

REP. PRICE: Saying that there is a parallel here in the expansive nature of what the IRS has done, would you care to recharacterize the unnecessary word? Is it illegal what they have done?

MILLER: It is absolutely not illegal.

PRICE: It's not illegal what the IRS has done?

MILLER: Let me understand the question. What is your statement as to what is illegal?

PRICE: Do you believe it is illegal for employees of the IRS to create lists to target individual groups and citizens in this country?

MILLER: I think the Treasury inspector general indicated that it might not be, but others will be able to tell that.

PRICE: What do you believe?

MILLER: I don't believe it is.

Miller offered an apology for the IRS's actions at the beginning of his testimony but suggested that incompetence, not partisanship, was the cause of the targeting: "I do not believe that partisanship motivated the people that engaged in the practices described in the inspector general’s report. Foolish mistakes were made by people who were trying to be more efficient in their work..."

"Generally, we provided horrible customer service here. I will admit that, we did. Horrible customer service," Miller admitted. "Whether it is politically motivated or not is a very different question."

Chicago Teachers Union Graces Cover of Socialism 2013 Conference Program

Fri, 17 May 2013 20:30:00 GMT

The Socialism 2013 Conference agenda is out! And look who made the cover of the program. Not Che, not Mao, not Lenin, Stalin or Marx. The Chicago Teachers Union!

Since the early days of the Occupy movement in October 2011, the ties between the radical institutional left and the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) were becoming very clear. EAG News documented the relationship between the CTU and radical anarchist organizer Lisa Fithian, who trained the teachers in “non-violent direct action,” and more specifically, how to stage and coordinate their arrests with the Chicago Police Department.

In 2012, the CTU began to set the stage for the now infamous Chicago Teachers Strike, by conducting several massive protest actions, shutting down Chicago’s Loop on several occasions, under the leadership of their President Karen Lewis and Vice President Jesse Sharkey. I captured Sharkey on film, leading the teachers in actions that directly emulated those of the Occupy Movement.

For days in the fall of 2012, during the strike, the educators of Chicago’s youth marched side by side with revolutionary Marxist organizations, Black Bloc anarchists, and open communist organizations. One thing missing through it all, however, was any coverage of these facts in the Chicago media.

In fact, after I informed NBC Chicago’s Charlie Wojciechowski during another CTU protest action, that CTU Vice President Jesse Sharkey participated in the Midwest Marxism Conference at Northwestern University, and asked him if he address the question, “why?” to Mr. Sharkey, Wojciechowski told me, “Breitbart was full of sh*t,” and refused. The conference was loaded with Chicago teachers, and break out sessions featured discussions on the successful collaboration between the CTU and ISO in coordinating the CTU Strike.

A few weeks later, another NBC “reporter,” Christian Farr, behaved in similar fashion, when I asked him why he would not cover International Socialist Organization members and organizers right in front of him, playing an organizational role for the CTU demonstration. Farr snapped at me, “No! I’m not going to cover that! That’s a judgement.” Farr claimed to be “objective” and rejected any reason to cover the facts regarding the involvement of the ISO in the protest, and accused me of being opinionated for stating the fact that there were indeed open socialists running the protest.

Recently, Lisa Fithian was back on the scene, working with the teachers again, coordinating more fake arrests between the CTU and the Chicago Police.

The Chicago Teachers Union presence on the cover the Socialism 2013 program does not mean all Chicago teachers are socialists, and it would be next to impossible to figure how many actually are. However, this, yet again, highlights the close relationship between the CTU and the ISO that is very real.

Moreover, this presents an alarming lack of respect by the Chicago media, who fail to inform Chicago taxpayers--and more importantly, parents--whose children are placed in the daily care of the CTU's rank and file that willfully follow these radical organizations.

Rahm Shifting City Workers to Obamacare, Gets Pushback

Fri, 17 May 2013 20:26:00 GMT

Chicago- Mayor Rahm Emanuel has announced he will begin cutting healthcare benefits to retired city workers over the next three years, displacing the cost burden from the city budget onto federal taxpayers.

The Chicago Tribune reports:

Still getting health insurance: Police officers and firefighters who retired between the ages of 55 and 64 and are not yet eligible for Medicare but whose coverage is guaranteed under union contracts, as well as workers who retired before August 1989 and are protected by a legal settlement.

Those not exempt from the phaseout will be receiving a letter from the mayor next week that will inform of them of the coming changes--not limited to changes in premiums, deductibles and benefits. (But “you can keep your current coverage,” remember?)

Once the city health benefits are completely phased out, retirees will then be forced to pay for their own health insurance premiums or "opt in" to Obamacare (Affordable Healthcare Act).

Funny, however, in the city that eats, sleeps and breathes its support for President Obama and his takeover of their healthcare, Rahm is curiously getting pushback to the cuts in city provided coverage.

The Tribune also reports:

Henry Bayer, executive director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31, said the uncertainties of the Affordable Care Act and the state insurance exchanges they would create make the city's plan hard to assess.

"This uncertainty will cause anxiety and fear for tens of thousands of seniors who gave their working lives to public service--men and women whose retirement savings are already under attack in the name of 'pension reform.'" Bayer said. "Our union will be working to get answers to our many questions, to ensure the City Council closely oversees the administration's proposals, and to protect access to affordable health care for city retirees now and in the future."

Chicago is expecting an increase in healthcare enrollment of 47,000, currently at 37,000 retirees over the next 10 years, at a cost burden of $541 million.

Follow @RebelPundit on Twitter.

Liberty University Goes After Obamacare in Federal Appeals Court

Fri, 17 May 2013 20:23:00 GMT

Liberty University--America’s largest Christian university--had its day in court yesterday against Obamacare before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It is the most comprehensive legal challenge currently in the federal courts against President Obama’s signature law.

Mat Staver--who is also dean of Liberty University School of Law--argued the appeal before a three-judge panel in Richmond, VA as chairman of Liberty Counsel, the Christian law firm representing the university. The case is Liberty University v. Lew (formerly Liberty University v. Geithner).

Staver’s lawsuit is the most wide-ranging of all the Obamacare challenges currently in the courts. Liberty University is challenging (1) the employer mandate (applying to every employer with 50+ employees), (2) the HHS Mandate on abortion and birth-control for religious employers, (3) the abortion mandate for individuals, and (4) arguing the entire law should be struck down under the Origination Clause of the Constitution.

That fourth item is an issue because Obamacare’s centerpiece individual mandate escaped being struck down as unconstitutional only by the Supreme Court holding the mandate is a tax in NFIB v. Sebelius (which we have extensively criticized), yet the Constitution requires all laws creating taxes to originate in the House of Representatives. When the Senate proposed the bill that became the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare), it made the entire 2,700-page legislation a single amendment to a House bill that was then pending in the Senate, H.R. 3590. The question before the Fourth Circuit will be whether merely having an “H.R.”--for “House Resolution"--at the top of the bill is enough for the Origination Clause, or instead if the Constitution requires that the House--instead of the Senate--be the chamber of Congress that inserts such major tax provisions into legislation.

Says Staver, “While Liberty Counsel joins others in challenging the HHS abortifacient mandate, we also challenge the entirety of the employer mandate for all employers--secular and religious.”

The employer mandate is almost as vast and expansive of a claim of federal power as the infamous individual mandate, which was the heart of the Supreme Court’s 2012 NFIB case. As Staver explains:

“If Liberty University does not provide insurance coverage, it will be fined $2,000 per employee, per year, resulting in millions of dollars of penalties. Even if Liberty provides insurance but refuses to provide any portion of the preventive coverage mandate (including abortion-inducing drugs and IUDs), it will still be penalized $2,000 per year for every one of its ‘full time equivalent’ employees.”

Regarding the HHS Mandate (arising from the preventive coverage mandate in Obamacare referenced above), Staver adds Liberty University could be on the hook for, “...up to $15,000 per employee, per day. The fines could reach tens of millions of dollars. Obamacare coerces the largest Christian university in the world to violate its religious convictions under penalty of enormous fines.”

A decision is expected later this year.

Breitbart News legal columnist Ken Klukowski is on faculty at Liberty University School of Law and filed an amicus brief in this Obamacare challenge.

Ryan: Miller Failed to Disclose IRS Was Targeting Conservative Groups

Fri, 17 May 2013 20:21:00 GMT

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) blistered outgoing acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller on Friday at a House Ways Means Committee hearing and said it was difficult to conclude that he did not mislead the Committee last year about how the IRS had been targeting Tea Party and conservative groups.

Miller was reportedly told in May of 2012 that the IRS was targeting conservative and Tea Party groups, but failed to disclose that in testimony before the House Ways and Means oversight subcommittee on July 25, 2012, even though he was asked about it.

"How can we not conclude that you misled this committee?" Ryan asked, after recounting some of Miller's answers last year.

Ryan reminded Miller that he was asked, then added, "What kind of letter or action is being taken place at this time that you are aware of?"

Miller, in explaining why he omitted any references to the IRS's targeting of conservative and Tea Party groups last year, said he was not referring to the "treatment of the cases" and was instead discussing "the letters" conservative groups that had been targeted received when he was answering questions last year. He said he had been hearing that "people are complaining about letters."

"My response was to that," Miller said. "We dealt with them. We gave [groups that complained] more time..." .

Ryan was not buying Miller's answers.

"You knew of our concern of this targeting," Ryan said. "You knew of the allegations that had been reported to this Committee. We brought you here to talk about it ... You had received a briefing that this targeting had been taking place. But you did not divulge that to this Committee."

Ryan reminded Miller he did not mention there was "targeting based on ideology" and did not reveal the targeting was "based on buzzwords like Tea Party or Patriots" during last year's testimony.

"You knew that but you didn't mention this to this Committee," Ryan said. "Do you not think that that's a very incomplete answer?"

Miller insisted that he had answered the question "truthfully."

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama announced that Treasury Secretary Jack Lew had asked for and accepted Miller's resignation after an Inspector General's audit revealed the IRS's targeting of conservative groups was "inappropriate."

Miller had already intended to leave his post next month.

Obama to Host Another Concert While Scandals Rage

Fri, 17 May 2013 20:18:00 GMT

Fiddling while the organization around him is burning from the scandals surrounding Benghazi, the IRS, and AP, Barack Obama is hosting another concert in his “In Performance at the White House” series. On May 22, Obama and his wife will honor singer-songwriter Carole King in the East Room of the White house, who will be given the 2013 Library of Congress Gershwin Prize for Popular Song.

The prize has been given to musical luminaries Stevie Wonder, Paul McCartney, and Burt Bacharach and Hal David in the past; King will be the first woman honored. Other musical stars will perform in addition to King, including Billy Joel, James Taylor, Gloria Estefan, Jesse McCartney, Emeli Sandé, and Trisha Yearwood.

In 2002, King joined Democrat representatives from California who had dinner with Fidel Castro in Havana defying the Bush Administration’s insistence that Cuba-U.S. relations would not warm until Cuba embraced democracy and human rights. The dinner lasted from 9 p.m. Sunday until about 4:30 a.m. Monday. King warmed Castro’s heart by singing “You’ve Got A Friend” to him; later, she added a new song she had written, "Love Makes the World."

King blathered, "My songs were a message I wanted to bring here. I came here to learn because my life, my work, is all about communication. We should be setting an example of good will."

IRS Asked Pro-Life Group to Explain 'Prayer Meetings'

Fri, 17 May 2013 20:15:00 GMT

The inappropriate questions from the Obama IRS to conservative non-profits began earlier than previously reported, according to Iowa-based pro-life group Coalition for Life of Iowa. On June 22, 2009, the IRS sent a letter to the group requesting examples of how the group prayed at meetings. “Please explain how all of your activities, including the prayer meetings held outside of Planned Parenthood, are considered educational as defined under 501(c)(3),” the letter says. “Organizations exempt under 501(c)(3) may present opinions with scientific or medical facts. Please explain in detail the activities at these prayer meetings. Also, please provide the percentage of time your organization spends on prayer groups as compared with the other activities of the organization.”

The group responded by informing the IRS that such questions were “unnecessary and in violation of constitutional principles.”

Acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller said that he could not say that such questions were inappropriate. “It pains me to say I can’t speak to that one either,” said Miller.

Nothing bars 501(c)(3) educational groups from involvement with religion.

Flashback: IRS Official Stressed 'Tax Law Must Be Applied Consistently'

Fri, 17 May 2013 20:14:27 GMT

In 2009, Sarah Hull Ingram, the attorney who served as IRS commissioner of the office responsible for determining tax-exempt status when the unit targeted conservative groups, said that a step her division was taking in the direction of “good governance” was emphasizing “the importance of transparency and accountability in maintaining the public’s confidence in the integrity of individual organizations and of the tax-exempt sector as a whole.”

Ingram, who is now the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office, gave her address as part of a continuing education forum at Georgetown Law, her alma mater, on the subject of non-profit governance. Ingram and her office will have a large role in the enforcement of ObamaCare.

In praising the “tax-exempt sector,” Ingram said:

I think we all – and by “all” I mean not only those of us in this room but the public at large – appreciate the special contribution the tax-exempt sector makes to the country... Those who aid the poor and the distressed, those who educate, who perform scientific research, who enliven our arts and our cultural life, who cure the sick, who provide religious leadership in our churches, synagogues and mosques – all are serving others. And all are an essential part of our national fabric and collectively reflect our diverse and creative nation... Accordingly, we want to help you where we can, and often that means not standing in your way.

Ingram then went on to provide her view of “good governance,” using as a guide the notion that “…a tax-exempt charity should... provide some meaningful and measurable benefit or service to the public.”

Ingram identified several “key organizational and operating principles” of “good governance,” among them the notion that the organization should have principles that “are supported by policies and practices that... protect against conflicts of interest…”

“Transparency is another key principle," Ingram explained. "I believe that board decisions should be reflected in minutes, that records supporting decisions should be retained for reasonable periods, that whistleblowers should be protected…”

Regarding her anticipated work leading the IRS Tax Exempt division, Ingram asserted:

Let me be clear--we will be gathering objective data, not subjective views. And we will do this over time. As we collect enough information to be interesting, we will share it with the community, and everyone can have a go at it.

Ingram quoted from a speech made by the Commissioner of the Australian Tax Office on the issue of tax compliance by Australian businesses:

"A core feature of [Australia’s] Annual Compliance Agreements is an emphasis on strong corporate governance. The [Australian Tax Office] firmly believes that the level of corporate governance has a direct bearing on whether a company has a high, medium or low risk profile."

Exactly. Whether you are a commercial business, a federal agency, or a tax-exempt organization, it just makes sense. And just as there are public conversations about governance elsewhere, we need to continue to discuss what good governance looks like in the tax-exempt sector as well.

Ingram went on to say that “the IRS has a clear, unambiguous role to play in governance... The federal tax law must be applied consistently across the country, and we will use both our education and outreach programs and a meaningful enforcement presence to accomplish this.”

Ingram said that her views were informed by former IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman.

“He is, as many of you know, a strong believer in the efficacy of sunlight," she said. "He believes that it can help cure weak institutions and protect healthy ones. He believes that transparency, accountability, and disclosure are virtues in the tax-exempt area, and I agree.”

In March of 2012, Shulman asserted that there was “absolutely no targeting” by the IRS of tax-exempt conservative organizations while testifying before the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight.

According to the Wall Street Journal, an investigation revealed that a high-ranking IRS official knew as early as mid-2011 that conservative groups were being inappropriately targeted, a year before Shulman stated that his division was not targeting these groups.

Every Member Of Koch / Buzzfeed Immigration Panel Favors Amnesty

Fri, 17 May 2013 20:06:00 GMT

After Breitbart News reported on the lack of intellectual diversity in a panel discussion sponsored by the Charles Koch Institute and left-leaning BuzzFeed that pitted five pro-amnesty panelists against the Heritage Foundation, Heritage dropped out of the event entirely and was replaced by iconoclast Daily Caller columnist Mickey Kaus.

Although Kaus is opposed to the Gang of Eight bill being pushed through Congress, that creating a new balance for the panel: now all six panelists accepted the premise of a "path to citizenship."

During the discussion, Kaus made it clear that although he does not like or trust the legislation, he is ultimately in favor of amnesty, saying:

The common ground here is that the 11 million--we're not going to deport them, I think they're a good force in American society--I think at some point, I want amnesty, I want them to be legalized, I want them to have full citizenship.

Kaus's position is the same as it was when he ran for the California Senate a few years ago. The problem isn't Kaus's position; it's the that forum that claimed to have a "diversity of opinion" ultimately had no such thing.

While supporting the broad idea that illegal immigrants should be given a path to citizenship, Kaus also provided scathing arguments against the comprehensive immigration reform bill, however. He referred to the bill as "phoniness piled on top of phoniness" and correctly point out that many conservatives worry that there is nothing in the bill to keep another large round of immigrants from coming later.

Kaus also pointing out the rift between the GOP establishment and the base.

The Republican elites are terrified of the Republican voters, otherwise they wouldn't have crafted a bill that was entirely crafted to deceive Republican voters into thinking it's enforcement bill when really it's not.

The BuzzFeed/Koch panel highlights the real lack of diversity in what should be a national dialogue on a crucial issue. Anyone following the immigration debate should be concerned that the public is even seeing the full range of proposals out there but instead are being spoon fed a select few options, all of which seem to take granting citizenship for granted.

There are, of course, any number of alternatives to the Gang of Eight's bill that grants a path to citizenship for those that are currently illegal immigrants. However, none of those alternatives were represented by Panelists in the BuzzFeed discussion.

For example, one possibility is to grant guest worker status without providing a path to citizenship. This option would provide many of the benefits of that proponents of amnesty say they want--such as enhanced options for both employers and safeguards for employees--without providing any of the downsides such as access to government services.

While a "guest worker with no path to citizenship" option would meet the needs of many of the conservative or Libertarian advocates of immigration reform, the proposal would not provide what Democrat advocates want; millions of new Democrat voters.

This is one danger of limited government advocates forming a coalition with the institutional left forces that he been pushing comprehensive immigration reform for years; they're working with people who have a clear political agenda that goes beyond merely helping immigrants.

Photo source: Buzzfeed/YouTube