"The Lid"

Alan Dershowitz Says Lois Lerner Screwed Herself

2013-05-22T22:42:00.000-04:00

It was no surprise when Lois Lerner the head of the IRS tax-exempt unit at the center of the scandal, invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during an appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. What everyone found surprising was when Chairman Issa asked if she had an opening statement she said yes:

“I have not done anything wrong,” she said. “I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations. And I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.”

During the rest of the day-long questioning many were wondering of Lerner hurt herself by making a statement.

Of course Rep Issa thought so that's why he closed the proceedings by saying he may be calling Ms Lerner back to testify --on waiver.

“When I asked her her questions from the very beginning, I did so so she could assert her rights prior to any statement,” Issa told POLITICO. “She chose not to do so — so she waived.”

Backing up Issa's belief is Alan Dershowitz the famous Harvard Law School professor.

"She's in trouble. She can be held in contempt," Dershowitz told "the Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV. Congress . . . can actually hold you in contempt and put you in the Congressional jail."

And from what people say Congressional Jail is much worse than Library Jail

Her brief statement of innocence has opened a legal Pandora's Box, according to Dershowitz.

"You can't simply make statements about a subject and then plead the Fifth in response to questions about the very same subject," the renowned Harvard Law professor said.

"Once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right . . . you've waived your self-incrimination right on that subject matter."

He said the fact that Lerner went ahead with her proclamation of could be considered malpractice on the part of her attorney — although it's possible she overruled the advice she received.

"It should never have been allowed. She should have been told by her attorney that the law is clear, that once you open up an area of inquiry for interrogation, you have to respond," he said.

"Now she may have made a political decision that it's worth it to take the risk . . . That's just not the way the law works. It may be the way politics works . . . but she can't invoke the Fifth."

"The law is as clear as could be, that once you open up an area of inquiry, you can't shut off the spigot – that's the metaphor that the Supreme Court has used."

Dershowitz may be wrong about Lerner ignoring lawyers advice, there were points during her short time in the committee she turned to her attorney for approval. She doesn't seem like the type who would go against her lawyers.

I suppose we will find out for sure real soon.

Bill Nye Is Still The Weather Idiot Guy

2013-05-22T21:36:00.002-04:00

Bill Nye is a glutton for punishment. After getting destroyed by Climate Depot's Marc Morano during a discussion about global warming on the Piers Morgan show in January he was eviscerated by Washington Post's Chief Meteorologist, Jason Samenow a month later
Nye used to (and may still have) a great kids show introducing young children to the basic concepts of science. Perhaps he should stick to the kids because this week he proved again that he is not ready to play with the adults.

Yesterday as Oklahoma City was digging their dead out of the rubble the sensitive Nye tweeted:

Oklahoma City was hit hard again. Has anyone asked Oklahoma Senator Inhofe about the three large storms in the [past] 14 years?
— Bill Nye (@TheScienceGuy) May 21, 2013

Nye openly discussed the importance of investigating climate change as the recent tornado system developed across Oklahoma. In an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan, Nye said that tornadoes were driven by heat, which increases the chances of more dangerous storms.

“You’ve got to figure that if there’s more heat driving the storm then there’s going to be more tornadoes,” Nye told Morgan.

There are only a few scientific issues with Nye's claim.

Back in October 2012 the Met office in the UK which is one of the key proponents of the Climate Change hoax said global warming stopped over 15 years ago. That is that the average temperature between 1997 and August 2012 did not rise at all (there have other reports since echoing that claim).

To put this no warming period in perspective, before 1980 temperatures were stable or even declining. Scientists were predicting another ice age. That was followed by a period of warming from 1980-1996. Now the world-wide temperatures have stabilized for as long a period as the warming which, when looked at objectively may mean the warming period was simply an aberration.

Then there is the fact that before this week-long horrible period of tornado-generating storms we had been flirting with records for the lowest number of tornadoes and tornado fatalities. Logic would dictate if warming cause the Oklahoma storms the entire season would be full of violent tornado activity.

Of course there is also what we pointed out yesterday that back in the mid 70s scientists were claiming that global cooling caused the heavy tornado activity.

So in the end Bill Nye the Weather Idiot Guy is a hypocrite just like most global warming moonbats. Every time there is a series of blizzards or an extra-cold winter they rush to remind people that there is a difference between weather and climate, but the first time there are horrible storms such as Hurricane Sandy or this week in Oklahoma City they rush to say its climate change not weather.

Nye should be rushing to raise money to help the victims of this weeks tornadoes but instead he is rushing to make a claim the storm was created by climate change which ignores science. Perhaps is Bow Tie is on a bit too tight.

NO SURPRSE BUT Iran's Presidential Election is A Sham

2013-05-22T18:44:00.000-04:00

By Barry Rubin

The names have now been announced of who will be allowed to run for president of Iran by the regime in the June 14 elections. Six of eight are supporters of the current ruling faction; the rest are two weaker candidates of the other two factions. The outgoing president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's tumultuous time in office has left many dissatisfied especially since he has mismanaged the economy and made Iran’s international situation worse by his provocative behavior.

With less than a month to go before the elections (the campaign is only three weeks long to make things harder for the opposition) it is now clear who the candidates are and all those disagreeing with the dominant faction have been vetoed by the six-member Council of Guardian. This council is controlled by the country’s real ruler, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But the complex maneuvers leading up to the election have given him a huge political headache.

The core of the problem is that there are three factions. Khamenei doesn’t want two of the factions-- the super-hardliners and the reformists—to win but only the third group, his hardliners.

The super-hardline faction’s candidate was Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, Ahmadinejad’s son-in-law and man widely seen as a puppet for him. Khamenei hates Mashaei and Mashaei was disqualified.

Also disqualified was the potential “reform” candidate, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjan. One must hesitate to call him a true reformer. Rafsanjani is an insider, indeed a former president (1989-1997), who used to be an ally of Khamenei but now is a fierce rival. Rafsanjani is pragmatic and reportedly conspicuously corrupt. He does not want to overturn the regime but change its direction, keep it more out of international trouble, and find some way to shed the sanctions imposed to stop Iran’s nuclear program. He might have tried to pull Iran back from international confrontations. The 78-year-old Rafsanjani is a dubious hero. He is not part of the reform movement yet he was the best bet they have. The Iranian ruling elite hates him, too. There are genuine differences between him and Khamenei about the country's direction.

So who does the elite fix the election for as winner? There are eight candidates left in the election:
There is former foreign minister Ali Akbar Velayati who is close to Khamenei.

Then there is Muhammad Bagher Ghalibaf the mayor of Tehran and close to Khamenei.

Of course there is Iran's nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili. He is very close to Khamenei, perhaps his favorite though he has no administrative experience. .

Or perhaps you like former speaker of parliament Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel who is close to Khamenei.

Some might prefer Asan Rowhani, former nuclear negotiator and Khamenei's man on the National Security Council.

But if you want someone else there is Gholam Ali Haddad Adel whose daughter is married to Khamenei's son.

There are two candidates not from Khamenei's faction. Muhammad Reza Aref is former vice-president and represents the reform group. Mohsen Rezaei, former commander of the Revolutionary Guard is a stand-in for the Ahmadinejad faction.

You might think that six Khamenei followers might split the hardline vote but don't worry as that will be taken care of in the ballot-counting if necessary.

Ironically, the main impact of the Iranian election may be on the West. Articles and arguments had been already appearing claiming that a post-election Iran would be more moderate and that the next Iranian president would be willing to abandon the regime's subversive foreign policy and nuclear weapons' program. Western negotiators wanted to say: Give Iran a chance. That will be much harder now.

For an explanation of the Iranian election in song, see here. I promise you won't regret it.

If you are interested in reading more about the history of U.S.-Iran relations and the Iranian revolution you're welcome to read my book Paved with Good Intentions: The American Experience and Iran online or download it for free..

We’d love to have your support and work hard to earn it. See our new feature with 13 free books at http://www.gloria-center.org. Why not make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal: click here.

By credit card: click here. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line and send to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
For tax-deductible donations in Canada and the UK, write us here.

-------------------- Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His next book, Nazis, Islamists and the Making of the Modern Middle East, written with Wolfgang G. Schwanitz, will be published by Yale University Press in January 2014. His latest book is Israel: An Introduction, also published by Yale. Thirteen of his books can be read and downloaded for free at the website of the GLORIA Center including The Arab States and the Palestine Conflict, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East and The Truth About Syria. His blog is Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

The NY Times AND Dana Milbank Back Fox News OVER Obama (Who Says God Doesn't Perform Miracles)

2013-05-22T11:59:00.004-04:00

Ladies and Gentleman, for those of you who may not believe that there is an ultimate creator of the universe today is additional proof that God does exist. Others may mark today's date and play 5-22-20-13 and play them in their states' numbers games.

What's the big miracle? The bible of progressivism, the New York Times and Dana Milbank one of this administration's biggest unfettered cheerleaders admonished the Obama Administration for its actions involving the Department of Justice's targeting of Fox News' James Rosen.

The NY Times editorial page described the DOJ action as "moving beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news."

...The Rosen case follows other signs that the administration has gone overboard in its zeal to find and muzzle insiders. The Associated Press revealed last week that the government had secretly seized two months’ worth of records for telephones used by the agency’s staff, partly to determine the source of a leak about a report involving a foiled terrorist plot in Yemen. At least two other major leak investigations are continuing. Six current and former administration officials have been indicted under the old Espionage Act for leaking classified information to the press and public. In 2010, a federal judge in Maryland sentenced a leaker to 20 months in jail while admitting that he was “in the dark as to the kind of documents” involved in the leak or what impact they had on national security.

Obama administration officials often talk about the balance between protecting secrets and protecting the constitutional rights of a free press. Accusing a reporter of being a “co-conspirator,” on top of other zealous and secretive investigations, shows a heavy tilt toward secrecy and insufficient concern about a free press.

In his Washington Post Column today Dana Milbank also described the chilling effect of the DOJ actions:

But here’s why you should care — and why this case, along with the administration’s broad snooping into Associated Press phone records, is more serious than the other supposed Obama administration scandals regarding Benghazi and the Internal Revenue Service. The Rosen affair is as flagrant an assault on civil liberties as anything done by George W. Bush’s administration, and it uses technology to silence critics in a way Richard Nixon could only have dreamed of.

To treat a reporter as a criminal for doing his job — seeking out information the government doesn’t want made public — deprives Americans of the First Amendment freedom on which all other constitutional rights are based. Guns? Privacy? Due process? Equal protection? If you can’t speak out, you can’t defend those rights, either.
Beyond that, the administration’s actions shatter the president’s credibility and discourage allies who would otherwise defend the administration against bogus accusations such as those involving the Benghazi “talking points.” If the administration is spying on reporters and accusing them of criminality just for asking questions — well, who knows what else this crowd is capable of doing?

Both pieces are accurate and sadly the DOJ action is not very surprising to those who have followed the careers of President Obama and AG Holder. The surprise is that two of this administration's biggest supporters are (correctly) supporting one of their own over the President they worship.

What is truly disappointing is these same two media vehicles did not take the same responsibility to support the American people over the President they worship when the scandal did not target one of their own.

John McCain Demonstrates Why He is No Better Than Obama

2013-05-22T09:20:00.002-04:00

2008 was an incredibly difficult election for many conservatives--they knew Barack Obama's policies would be trouble for America and suspected John McCain's would be almost as bad. So believing with McCain there was at least a chance he wouldn't be the anti-business progressive Obama would be many held their noses and voted for the Republican.

Yesterday on the Senate floor, McCain proved the only difference between him and Barack Obama is the President has two daughters neither of whom go on TV just to sound stupid about politics.

Yesterday the former GOP standard-bearer John McCain showed himself to be a warrior in President Obama's war on success.

On Monday Senate investigators discovered that Apple’s been a perfectly legal mix of international tax shelters to lower its tax burden. For example, they have a holding company incorporated in Ireland that keeps its bank accounts in the U.S., Since Ireland assesses residency based on where the company’s assets are but America assesses residency based on place of incorporation, for all intents an purposes, this holding company exists nowhere for tax purposes.

According to Politico Apple saved $44 billion since 2009 from tricks like this which are all perfectly legal. The United States has one of the world's highest corporate tax rates, so there is no wonder why US based companies look for international tax shelters . But he Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation report attacked Apple most heavily.

Congressional investigators found that some of Apple’s subsidiaries had no employees and were largely run by top officials from the company’s headquarters in Cupertino, Calif. But by officially locating them in places like Ireland, Apple was able to, in effect, make them stateless — exempt from taxes, record-keeping laws and the need for the subsidiaries to even file tax returns anywhere in the world.

In other words, the Democratic Party-controlled Senate was throwing another another punch in President Obama's war on success (remember nothing that Apple did was against the law--they simply had great CPAs).

Yesterday, the Senate brought in Apple executives so they could make a public spectacle of yelling at success.

At the start of the hearings, as the Ranking Member, McCain got to say a few words, he decried what he described as Apple’s “scheme” to avoid taxes.

"U.S. corporations cannot continue to avoid paying their appropriate share in taxes," said McCain. "Our military can't afford it. Our economy cannot endure it. And the American people will not tolerate it."

Appropriate share of taxes....now where have I heard that before?

When it came time for Senator Rand Paul a member of the committee to speak he attacked the proceedings.

Tell me one of these politicians up here who doesn’t minimize their taxes,” Paul said. “Tell me a chief financial officer you would hire if he didn’t try to minimize his taxes legally. Tell me what Apple has done illegally. I’m offended by government that uses the IRS to bully the Tea Party, but I’m also offended by government that convenes a hearing to bully one of America’s greatest success stories. I’m offended by the spectacle of dragging in executives from an American company that is not doing anything illegal.”

“If anyone should be on trial here, it should be Congress,” Paul went on. “I think the committee should apologize to Apple, I think Congress should be on trial here for creating a bizarre and byzantine tax code that runs into the tens of thousands of pages and for creating a tax code that simply doesn’t compete with the rest of the world.”

Committee Chairman Levin fired back after Paul’s salvo, saying that while Apple was indeed a great global technology company, “No company should be able to determine how much they are going to pay in taxes . . . using all kinds of gimmicks to avoid paying the taxes…”

“This subcommittee is not going to apologize to Apple,” Levin said. “We did not drag them in front of this subcommittee. They have come here willingly to explain their system. We intend to hear from them as to what this system is that they use.”

Of course Levin is a progressive Democrat...that's what he is supposed to say, but Paul wasn't done, and gave the committee some more.

But John McCain had just about enough, wanting keep his progressive stripes when it was his turn to speak again he faced Levin and said the two of them had worked together for more than a quarter of a century in the Senate and that

“I know of no member of the United States Senate who ever accused you of bullying or harassing a witness . . . And frankly it’s offensive to hear you accused of that behavior which has never characterized the conduct of this committee.”

Barack Obama must have smiled at that knowing he has another ally in the war against success.

Paul is correct the real problem is our crazy voluminous tax code. Apple's first obligation is to its shareholders many of them "moms and pops" and/or pension plans for "moms and pops." If progressives such as Carl Levin or John McCain want Apple to bring its earning back into the United States simplify the tax code and lower the tax rate. This is still a free capitalist country and a corporation's gotta do what a corporation's gotta do to earn money. Much of that is producing the best products at the lowest rates, but some of that is paying out as little as possible--the fiduciary responsibilities of senior management.

This brings us back to Senator McCain. In 2008 the GOP nominated Obama-lite to be president, voters chose the "original" Obama. In 2012 the GOP nominated Mitt Romney who was a bit less Obama-lite but still closer too close to the progressive standard bearer and once again the people chose the original over the copy.

2016 is just around the corner, it is clear that the Democratic Party is not moderating, they will most probably choose another radical progressive as their nominee. If the Republican's follow suit and choose another "progressive-lite," a John McCain or Mitt Romney clone they will be dooming us to another four years of crashing down the abyss of over regulation, over taxation and success-prevention. Given the choice between a John McCain type or an "original" progressive voters will always choose the original.

Jesus vs. Mohammed-MUST Watch Steven Crowder Video

2013-05-22T07:33:00.003-04:00

Another entertaining and enlightening video from comedian Steven Crowder. He makes some valid points and makes one laugh at the same time comparing (and personally I believe Moshes and Elisha have them has them both topped).

Why Elisha? Because of Kings 2 verses 23 and 24, when Elisha teaches that you don't mess with bald guys:

And he went up from there unto Beit-El; and as he was going up along the derech, there came forth ne’arim ketannim out of the Ir, and jeered in mockery at him, and said unto him, Go on up, thou kere’ach (bald head); go on up, thou kere’ach.

And he turned around, and looked on them, and cursed them in the Shem Hashem (the Name of God). And there came forth two dubim (female bears) out of the woods, and mauled 42 yeladim of them.

Some might say Elijah's successor has an anger management problem--but not me.

How cool is that! A couple of bullies make fun of Elisha and he becomes the defender of bald guys like me.

But I digress--below is Crowder's great video.

Oh and if you are an Islamist...I didn't put this video here (it was them dammed ~~joooos~~ oh wait I am one of them dammed Jooos) well either way please don't kill me after you watch the video.

Scandalpalooza Update: Obama's Worst Day So Far?

2013-05-21T22:35:00.002-04:00

One thing becoming increasingly apparent that the revelations regarding the Obama scandals are comings at a faster pace and in some respects yesterday may have been the President's worst day since this "scandalpalooza" began. As bad as today's news was the indications are that it may get much worse.

Benghazi:

The terrorists are free because Obama insists on trying them in civilian court. According to the Associated Press, U.S. officials say they have identified five men they believe might be behind the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, last year. The officials say they have enough evidence to justify seizing them by military force as suspected terrorists _ but not enough proof to try them in a U.S. civilian court as the Obama administration prefers.

"They have let it slip by because of politics, and now we've taken all the correlation we had and dropped the ball because of risk (aversion) -- and now the security in Libya is more fragile than ever," one U.S. special operator told Fox News. The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirms that U.S. forces have tracked the alleged attackers since October but have since lost the trail of some of them, as no one up the chain of command would authorize them to capture or kill the targeted militia members

So the officials say the men remain at large while the FBI gathers more evidence. The decision not to seize the men militarily underscores the White House's aim to move away from hunting terrorists as enemy combatants and toward trying them as criminals in a civilian justice system.

The Next Whistle Blowers will be MUCH Worse. Roger Simon reported on PJM about diplomatic sources told him the next whistle blowers will tell congress that Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft. Additionally military contacts of the diplomats tell them that AFRICOM had Special Ops “assets in place that could have come to the aid of the Benghazi consulate immediately (not in six hours).”

And Commanding General Ham was ready to send them. However Ham was told by the White House not to send the aid to the trapped men, but Ham decided to disobey and did so anyway, whereupon the White House “called his deputy and had the deputy threaten to relieve Ham of his command.”

According to Simon, these whistle blowers are colleagues of his diplomatic contacts and are, currently securing legal counsel because they work in areas not fully protected by the Whistle blower law. Until they are sure they can be protected they cannot testify.

Hillary Part Two- the Hill Reports: The rising temperature of the scandal means it’s possible that Hillary could be asked to return and testify again. If she comes back, she had better be prepared, says House Oversight and Government Reform chairman Darrell Issa. “We are interviewing lots of people, most of them under oath,” Issa says, describing the “methodical” approach his committee has been using for months. “We’re going to go through . . . that so that if we bring Secretary Clinton back, we bring her back when we have a lot of questions, including who told her what, or, more importantly, who didn’t tell her something, and why” Issa says in his office in the Rayburn House Office Building.

The Scape Goat? Following the attack in Benghazi, Libya, senior State Department officials close to Hillary Clinton ordered the removal of a midlevel official who had no role in security decisions and has never been told the charges against him. He is now accusing Clinton’s team of scapegoating him for the failures that led to the death of four Americans last year. But what difference at this point does it make?

IRS:

Senate Hearing- More of the same from our friends at the IRS. But this time Orin Hatch gave Mr. Miller.

“Why did you mislead me and my colleagues, my fellow senators, and most importantly the American people by failing to tell us what you knew about the exact subject we were asking about? Why didn’t you tell us?” Hatch asked.

“Mr. Hatch, I did not lie,” Miller responded. “I did not lie, sir.”

“You lied by omission. You knew what was going on,” Hatch said. “You should have told us.”

“I answered the questions. I answered them truthfully. Did I know about the list? Yes. Not on the first letter, by the way, because the timing I wouldn’t have known for that. On the second letter, we answered those questions, sir,” Miller said.

I'm NOT Sorry We Targeted Conservatives: Senator Cornyn grilled former IRS Director Schulman and asked if he like Steven Miller did would begin by apologizing for the IRS’ systemic targeting of conservative groups.

“I’m deeply, deeply saddened by this whole set of events,” Shulman replied. “I’ve read the IG’s report and I very much regret that it happened and that it happened on my watch.”“Is that an apology?” Cornyn asked the Senator?

Which eventually led to the former director saying “I certainly am not personally responsible for creating a list that had inappropriate criteria on it,” Shulman replied. “What I know, with the full facts that are out is – from the Inspector General’s report – which doesn’t say that I’m responsible for that.”

But No One Told The President? During the White House press briefing on Tuesday, Press Secretary Jay Carney informed the media that there were discussions between White House officials and the Internal Revenue Service regarding how they would present the news that conservative groups were targeted with excessive scrutiny. Carney confirmed that Deputy White House Chief of Staff Mark Childress interacted with officials in the Treasury Department and discussed the IRS scandal.

I'd Take a Fifth Also: If I was under the same pressure as Lois Lerner, I would take a fifth of single malt. But Lerner, was the IRS official who announced the scandal and followed up with a disastrous presser. Lerner was called to testify at the House Oversight Committee.

“The committee has been contacted by Ms. Lerner’s lawyer who stated that his client intended to invoke her Fifth Amendment right and refuse to answer questions,” said oversight spokesman Ali Ahmad.

The Administration is Lying? MSNBC (yes that MSNBC) is reporting that Bonnie Esrig, a 38-year IRS veteran, worked as an area manager in the Determinations Unit of the IRS’ Exempt Organizations department in 2011 and 2012.

“The idea of two rogue employees,” Esrig said, “is inconsistent with the kinds of checks and balances that are inherent in the way the organization is set up.”

Nor does she believe the IRS assertion in its response to the Inspector General’s audit that the use of such inappropriate selection criteria were “mistakes” and that “front-line career employees … made the decisions.”

“Front-line employees (at the Cincinnati office) do not make key decisions about policy and how work is processed,” Esrig told us. “Work is reviewed by the managers. The employees don't operate autonomously where there is no review. The managers review.

“I think that even if an employee were to veer off in a separate direction briefly, I would be very surprised if anyone could sustain that before management became involved.”

Your Tax Dollars at work: Entrusted with a government credit card, an Internal Revenue Service worker allegedly used the plastic for a years-long Amazon.com shopping spree that netted her hundreds of items, including a chocolate fondue fountain; Bollywood movies; Pampers; Harlequin romance novels; Omaha Steaks; Apple Bottoms skinny jeans; mango body wash; and a Ginsu knife set.

Yetunde Oseni, 37, was named this month in a U.S. District Court felony complaint charging her with embezzling government funds. Oseni has worked since 2000 as a secretary in an IRS office in Lanham, Maryland. According to a court filing, Oseni was given a Citibank MasterCard for the “purchase of office supplies for her business unit.”

As the Story Changes- Jay Carny came up with another timeline for the IRS Scandal. Obama's hired spinner Carney said WH Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler was informed by the Treasury Department’s General Counsel’s office April 24 that the Inspector General for Tax Administration was completing a report that found that IRS employees improperly scrutinized political organizations seeking tax exempt status by searching their applications for words including “Tea Party” and “patriot.”

The previous week, on April 16, Ruemmler had learned more generally that there were a number of Inspector General reports being finalized and an IRS investigation was among those investigations, Carney said.

Carney’s comments today are at odds with what he told reporters last week, when he said the White House counsel “only found out about the review being conducted and coming to conclusion by the inspector general.”

The War on The Media:

And Sharyl Attkisson Too? Sharyl Attkisson, the Emmy-award winning CBS News investigative reporter, says that her personal and work computers have been compromised and are under investigation.

"I can confirm that an intrusion of my computers has been under some investigation on my end for some months but I'm not prepared to make an allegation against a specific entity today as I've been patient and methodical about this matter," Attkisson told POLITICO on Tuesday. "I need to check with my attorney and CBS to get their recommendations on info we make public."

Carney the Laughing Stock: The White House Press Corps/Jay Carney daily briefing has become nothing but contentious. At one point today, Carney took tough questions on a series of issues that could damage the White House politically, the press secretary aligned himself with White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, who over the weekend accused Republicans of engaging in “partisan fishing expeditions “You know, we could go down the list of questions — we could say, what about the president's birth certificate?" Carney responded. “Was that legitimate?”

Carney Gets Slammed-Witness this conversation between Jay Carney and Hans Nichols of Bloomberg News:

JAY CARNEY: What is it that you're trying [to do]?
HANS NICHOLS: I'm trying to figure out how people in this building knew what they knew and when they knew it. And we seem --
CARNEY: Let's step back.
NICHOLS: You just dinged us for not asking precise questions. Here I am asking precise questions and you’re acting like I’m petulant.
CARNEY: Well, I'm just trying to figure out what it is that we provided you. I can't believe anybody would call you petulant. But we provided you --
NICHOLS: Or you forthcoming.

That's just what happened during the past 24 hours. Scandal upon scandal it seems as if things are building....it also seems that the administration is cracking at the seams. All of the above, on top of Fast and Furious, Obamacare falling apart and of course that doesn't even include the rumor from Drudge that there is a fourth scandal, the one the Administration fears most of all--just waiting to burst out.

Today may very well have been Obama's worst day so far in this Scandalpalooza, but based on the past 24 hours...it may get much, much worse.

Gov. Cuomo Threatens To FIRE Sheriffs Who Complain About NY Gun Law

2013-05-21T13:13:00.001-04:00

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is getting the hang of his new job. He has been picking up tips from fellow progressives Barack Obama and Mommy Bloomberg, the most important tip of all is if somebody criticizes your decisions, don't listen just make sure they shut the hell up!

With his new SAFE Act (A.K.A. oppressive gun control law) this governor has been able to kill two birds with one stone, not only attacking the Second Amendment of the Constitution, but also the First.

Opposition to the SAFE act has been growing in the state ever since it was rushed through the legislature early this year. And many Sheriffs have spoken out against the law.

In January, the New York State Sheriffs' Association wrote Cuomo with an analysis of the new law, and suggested tweaks. So the leadership of the Association were invited to Albany to (they thought) discuss their suggestions. The group included Sheriffs' Association Executive Director Peter Kehoe and Chemung County Sheriff Christopher Moss.

"We didn't get a response (to the analysis) from him, but we could tell after the budget was passed that none of those recommendations were taken into consideration," Moss said. "When we got there, we never got to the contents of the letter."

Instead, Cuomo pushed the sheriffs to stop publicly speaking out against the act, Moss said.

"The governor was of the opinion that the sheriffs around the state should not be interjecting their personal opinions in reference to the law," Moss said, adding that Cuomo said sheriffs can't do that and enforce the law.

One person briefed on the meeting said Cuomo threatened to remove sheriffs from office, a little-used power afforded the state's chief executive under the state constitution. Moss would not confirm this. He did say the meeting was heated at times, but overall he described it as "cordial."

Kehoe did not return calls, and Cuomo spokesman Rich Azzopardi declined to comment. An administration official, speaking anonymously because he was not authorized to discuss a private meeting, "strongly" denied Cuomo had threatened to remove any sheriff.

Of course Azzopardi isn't going to say "Yeah my progressive boss strong-armed the Sheriffs to shut up or he would make them swim with the fishes."

Perhaps in response, the Sheriffs' Association as well as several elected sheriffs filed an amicus curiae brief last week supporting a federal challenge to the SAFE Act.

"We're not really protesting the law; we're protesting the methodology in which the law was forced upon the people without input of the people," said Livingston County Sheriff John York, a Republican who chairs the group's executive committee.

Erie County Sheriff Tim Howard has said he "won't enforce" the act.

The bill was unveiled on Jan. 14 and passed through a "message of necessity" that waived a three-day waiting period. In other words neither the legislators nor the Governor wanted any input from law enforcement or the people.

In the amicus brief, the sheriffs wrote: "Law enforcement's work is made more difficult attempting to enforce unclear laws that harm, rather than promote, public safety. The laws appear willfully blind to legitimate safety interests, and instead are tailored to impact, and negatively impact, law-abiding firearm owners."

The SAFE Act is named after Cuomo's vision for the NY lifestyle of the future (Silly Anti-Freedom Environment) and is additional proof that this leader doesn't care what the voters think...he knows better than any of us.

Newsbusted: Pets To Be Taxed Under Obamacare

2013-05-21T09:09:00.002-04:00

Well, Nancy Pelosi DID say we needed to pass Obamacare to see what's in it, but who would even suspect this? According to a new scientific study reports that owning a pet may cut the risk of heart disease. In a new exclusive report by Newsbusted anchor Jodie Miller (see video below) we learn that upon reading the report, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has declared pets a health aid and will tax their ownership to help close the Obamacare budget gap.

Other news items covered in the latest installment of Newsbusted the weekly faux news feature from Newsbusters.org (embedded below) include; Nancy Pelosi on the bail out of Obamacare; will NYC allow non-citizens to vote?; the return of the Twinkie; and much, much, more.

Please make sure you watch the video below because something bad always happens to the people who don't. Last week interim IRS Director Miller forgot to press play and we all know how bad things turned out for him. So if you don't want to have a crappy week at work, you BETTER press play.

Oh and if you cannot see the video player below please click here

In the 1970s Newsweek AND Time Magazines Blamed Tornadoes On Global COOLING

2013-05-21T08:43:00.001-04:00

Last night Senator Sheldon Whitehouse blamed the horrible Oklahoma tornadoes on Global Warming and chastise the GOP for not believing in the global warming hoax.

“So, you may have a question for me,” Whitehouse said. “Why do you care? Why do you, Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, care if we Republicans run off the climate cliff like a bunch of proverbial lemmings and disgrace ourselves? I’ll tell you why. We’re stuck in this together. We are stuck in this together. When cyclones tear up Oklahoma and hurricanes swamp Alabama and wildfires scorch Texas, you come to us, the rest of the country, for billions of dollars to recover. And the damage that your polluters and deniers are doing doesn’t just hit Oklahoma and Alabama and Texas. It hits Rhode Island with floods and storms. It hits Oregon with acidified seas, it hits Montana with dying forests. So, like it or not, we’re in this together.”

You gotta love these progressives they change their claims more often than I change my underwear as long as it brings about global redistribution of income. Back in 1975 “the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded”, killed “more than 300 people”, this according to Newsweek was among “the ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically”.

But that article was published on April 28, 1975, when Newsweek listed the US tornado disaster of 1974 as one of the harbingers of disastrous global cooling, heralding the approach of a new ice age.

its getting cold by Jeffrey Dunetz

On the other side of NY City and a year earlier the dean of newsweeklies, Time Magazine wrote about the coming ice age on June 24, 1974 the magazine reported:

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds — the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.

Today a day after the horrible storm and with more storms predicted for this afternoon, more people like Senator Whitehouse will crawl out from under a rock to announce it's all due to global warming. On the bright side I suppose its better than blaming George Bush. However the truth is Ice Age or Heat Wave, tornadoes or not it is sadly just a part of natures ebbs and flows. The earth is more crowded than ever before- as a horrible side effect there are more people in the way of these natural events. By blaming these tornadoes on supposed global warming, these proponents of the man-made heatwave theory are no different than the ancient Mesopotamians who saw lighting come from the sky and attributed it to the stone idol in their living rooms.

BBC: Global Warming Stopped 15 Years Ago (But It's Gonna Start Again---They Pinky Swear!)

2013-05-21T07:56:00.000-04:00

The good news is the earth hasn't gotten warmer for 15 years. The bad news is (according to the climate change hoaxers) It's going to start getting warmer again, one day --they promise-- cross their hearts hope to die stick a needle in their eye, this time they really mean it!

Writing in Nature Geoscience, researchers say the 15-year hiatus will reduce predicted warming in the coming decades. But (even though they can't explain why it stopped "getting warm") long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly.

The most extreme projections are looking less likely than before” according Dr Alexander Otto University of Oxford. Which means those of us who live in New York and expect it to be under water can put away the scuba gear.

According to these researchers:

The slowdown in the expected rate of global warming has been studied for several years now. Earlier this year, the UK Met Office lowered their five-year temperature forecast.

But this new paper gives the clearest picture yet of how any slowdown is likely to affect temperatures in both the short-term and long-term.

An international team of researchers looked at how the last decade would impact long-term, equilibrium climate sensitivity and the shorter term climate response.Transient nature

Climate sensitivity looks to see what would happen if we doubled concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and let the Earth's oceans and ice sheets respond to it over several thousand years.

Transient climate response is much shorter term calculation again based on a doubling of CO2.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2007 that the short-term temperature rise would most likely be 1-3C (1.8-5.4F).

But in this new analysis, by only including the temperatures from the last decade, the projected range would be 0.9-2.0C.

The report suggests that warming in the near term will be less than forecast

"The hottest of the models in the medium-term, they are actually looking less likely or inconsistent with the data from the last decade alone," said Dr Alexander Otto from the University of Oxford.

"The most extreme projections are looking less likely than before."

The authors calculate that over the coming decades global average temperatures will warm about 20% more slowly than expected.

This is my favorite part:

"We would expect a single decade to jump around a bit but the overall trend is independent of it, and people should be exactly as concerned as before about what climate change is doing," said Dr Otto.

Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?

"None. No comfort whatsoever," he said.

This folks is what happens when you create computer models to prove what you want them to prove. The Global Warming Hoaxers finally looked out the window and realize that it hasn't gotten warmer since Monica Lewinsky was ruining a good Cuban cigar. They have no real idea why it stopped, but they promise it will start again soon! They Swear! No Really, they mean it!

The problem is they are they are using man-made models and "man" even scientists do not know everything about the way this world works.

In 1975, when I took Earth Science as a freshman in college we learned that the earth was long overdue for another ice age. It took 20 years for me to realize they weren't talking about the series of animated children's movies.

These same global warming scientists cannot explain why it was warmer in the medieval period, centuries before the industrial revolution, than it is today.

The answer is easy, Earth has natural cycles of warmth and cold. Some scientists even believe that when the cycles become short and we fluctuate between short periods warm and cold it means that an ice age is approaching.

According to data from Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations there is regular pattern of Ice Ages which last about 100,000 years, separated by a 12,000 year interglacial period.

Right Now we are nearing the end of the Interglacial Period meaning that if you don't have a good winter coat may be time to buy one. But even more important is that the Hoaxers may have it backwards because some scientists believe the CO2 isn't causing the warming instead the natural cyclic increase in global temperature is causing global CO2 to rise.

The only thing we can prove today is that temperatures are NOT going up--the climate change theorists don't know why but are sure it is going to begin getting hotter again soon. They can't explain why it stops but they know the computer programs they created indicate that the stop is temporary (because they say it's so). Something is wrong with warming models that predict warming in a cooling world.
Allow me to suggest that these scientists put away the computers and look at their windows, because there is nothing to indicate the warming trend will re-start, or that it won't start getting cold real fast. After all despite their screams The Arctic Ice Cap has been GROWING.

There is an old proverb my Mother of blessed memory, used to say "Man plans and God laughs." Such is with these global warming hoaxers, they create brilliant computer models but they don't have all the data to make them accurate, so they make them say what they want them to say.

Somewhere up there, the creator of this world may be having a good chuckle.

DISGUSTING! 24 Moore Oklahoma Children Dead But Dem Senator Whitehouse Uses Tragedy To Bash GOP

2013-05-20T20:53:00.001-04:00

What a disgusting individual. There is no other way for it to describe him. As I watch the unimaginable devastation in Moore Oklahoma, where 51 people have been reported dead so far, where 24 young children drowned in the basement of an elementary school-- one disgusting individual Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse is using the tragedy in an attempt to score political points.

Whitehouse blamed the tornadoes on Global Warming and on the GOP for not believing in the global warming hoax.

“So, you may have a question for me,” Whitehouse said. “Why do you care? Why do you, Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, care if we Republicans run off the climate cliff like a bunch of proverbial lemmings and disgrace ourselves? I’ll tell you why. We’re stuck in this together. We are stuck in this together. When cyclones tear up Oklahoma and hurricanes swamp Alabama and wildfires scorch Texas, you come to us, the rest of the country, for billions of dollars to recover. And the damage that your polluters and deniers are doing doesn’t just hit Oklahoma and Alabama and Texas. It hits Rhode Island with floods and storms. It hits Oregon with acidified seas, it hits Montana with dying forests. So, like it or not, we’re in this together.”

Whitehouse went on to condemn the current Republican position on global warming, citing economic, environmental and diplomatic damages.

“You drag America with you to your fate,” he continued. “So, I want this future: I want a Republican Party that has returned to its senses and is strong and a worthy adversary in a strong America that has done right by its people and the world. That’s what I want. I don’t want this future. I don’t want a Republican Party disgraced, that let its extremists run off the cliff, and an America suffering from grave economic and environmental and diplomatic damage because we failed, because we didn’t wake up and do our duty to our people, and because we didn’t lead the world. I do not want that future. But that’s where we’re headed. So I will keep reaching out and calling out, ever hopeful that you will wake up before it is too late.”

This is not the time for snarky comments about the global warming hoax or about the Democratic party. I do have some serious questions for Senator Whitehouse:

"Do you have a heart...a soul?" Most human beings are watching the incredible horror of Moore Oklahoma and at best are holding back the tears, but you dive into a political rant. Couldn't you at least have waited till the recovered all of the bodies of the children who died in the basement of the school pictured above? How about waiting till the dead were buried? Why did you need to make it a political issue while the bodies were still warm? Before all the dead were counted? Senator Whitehouse I cannot comprehend how a disgusting individual like you can sleep at night.

Obama's DOJ Tries to Shut Up Fox News By Threatening Reporter James Rosen With Criminal Action

2013-05-20T15:27:00.000-04:00

If you think the Department of Justice/AP investigation was "chilling." This latest case against Fox New's James Rosen is and ice age. It is very obvious the Obama White House is trying to silence the only news outlet with a consistent record of reporting the truth (both good and bad) about this administration.

Earlier today the Wash. Post reported that the Department Of Justice received a warrant to seize the phone records of Fox News' Rosen as part of a leak investigation.

The case of Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, the government adviser, and James Rosen, the chief Washington correspondent for Fox News, bears striking similarities to a sweeping leaks investigation disclosed last week in which federal investigators obtained records over two months of more than 20 telephone lines assigned to the Associated Press.

At a time when President Obama’s administration is under renewed scrutiny for an unprecedented number of leak investigations, the Kim case provides a rare glimpse into the inner workings of one such probe.

Court documents in the Kim case reveal how deeply investigators explored the private communications of a working journalist — and raise the question of how often journalists have been investigated as closely as Rosen was in 2010. The case also raises new concerns among critics of government secrecy about the possible stifling effect of these investigations on a critical element of press freedom: the exchange of information between reporters and their sources.

“Search warrants like these have a severe chilling effect on the free flow of important information to the public,” said First Amendment lawyer Charles Tobin, who has represented the Associated Press, but not in the current case. “That’s a very dangerous road to go down.”

This DOJ action goes a much farther than the Associated Press action. An FBI agent involved reportedly claimed there's evidence the journalist in question -- Fox News' James Rosen -- broke the law "at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator."

This particular part of the investigation is incredibly frightening. No reporter has ever been prosecuted for seeking information. Such cases often target the suspected leaker, but not the journalist who published sensitive or classified information. I suspect this action has more to do with who James Rosen works for than what James Rosen may have done.

Michael Clemente, Fox News' executive vice president of news, defended Rosen in a statement issued Monday afternoon.

"We are outraged to learn today that James Rosen was named a criminal co-conspirator for simply doing his job as a reporter," Clemente said. "In fact, it is downright chilling. We will unequivocally defend his right to operate as a member of what up until now has always been a free press."

The case has also caught the attention of Congress. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said in a statement Monday he was "very concerned" about the reports of "possible criminal prosecution for doing what appears to be normal news-gathering protected by the First Amendment."

He added: "The sort of reporting by James Rosen detailed in the report is the same sort of reporting that helped Mr. Rosen aggressively pursue questions about the Administration's handling of Benghazi. National security leaks are criminal and put American lives on the line, and federal prosecutors should, of course, vigorously investigate. But we expect that they do so within the bounds of the law, and that the investigations focus on the leakers within the government -- not on media organizations that have First Amendment protections and serve vital function in our democracy."

It will be interesting to see if Eric Holder recused himself from this action. As you may remember, the AG was a guest on NPR last week and was asked if he signed off on any subpoenas such as the AP one, his answer was that he couldn't remember but had turned down some like subpoenas and forced a few others to limit the scope of others. Which is an indication that he may very well have been involved in this Fox action.

The probable reason for identifying Rosen as a "co-conspirator" is so the DOJ could avoid its own rules and regulations for getting records from reporters. By identifying him in a possible criminal action the Obama administration gets to treat Rosen like a suspect (not as a reporter).

In a way Rosen is a lucky man. If the Associated Press action wasn't revealed first the media wouldn't have given a damn about the DOJ going after James Rosen but now thankfully the mainstream media is joining in on the Fox broadcaster's defense.

Lets face it--this Administration has been whining about Fox News since before Obama was first elected in 2008. This Department of Justice subpoena and threat of criminal action is the most frightening assault on the freedom of the press in my lifetime.

Wash.Post Brands IRS's Lois Lerner a LIAR Says Scandal HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CITIZENS UNITED

2013-05-20T12:43:00.001-04:00

WOW. If this keeps up the Washington post may seem like a non biased newspaper. Last week we reported the Post's fact checker Glenn Kessler gave the President four Pinocchio on his contention that Benghazi was called a terror attack on September 12th, and today he went after the IRS' Lois Lerner with both guns blazing.

The clumsy way the IRS disclosed the issue, as well as Lerner’s press briefing by phone, were seen at the time as a public relations disaster. But even so, it is worth reviewing three key statements made by Lerner and comparing them to the facts that have since emerged.

“But between 2010 and 2012, we started seeing a very big uptick in the numb er of 501(c)(4) applications we were receiving, and many of these organizations applying more than doubled, about 1500 in 2010 and over 3400 in 2012.”

Lerner made this comment while issuing a seemingly impromptu apology at an American Bar Association panel. (It was later learned that this was a planted question — more on that below.) In her telling, the tax-exempt branch was simply overwhelmed by applications, and so unfortunate shortcuts were taken.

But this claim of “more than doubled” appears to be a red herring. The targeting of groups began in early 2010, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC was announced on Jan. 21. The ruling paved the way for political groups to apply under a tax-exempt status known as 501(c)(4). Most charities apply under 501(c)(3), but under 501(c)(4), nonprofit groups that engage in “social welfare” can also perform a limited amount of election activity.

... while there was an increase in 2010, it was relatively small. The real jump did not come until 2011, long after the targeting of conservative groups had been implemented. Also, it appears Lerner significantly understated the number of applications in 2010 (“1500”) in order to make her claim of “more than doubled.”

Kessler also raises the issue that Lerner may have committed perjury. One of the answers outgoing IRS head Steven Miller actually did give was that he met with Lerner and arraigned that they would "plant a question" in her ABA talk so so she could mention the upcoming scandal.

So Lerner was dissembling when she suggested that a simple well-aimed question prompted the disclosure.

In fact, just two days before the ABA conference, Lerner appeared before Congress and was asked by Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) about the status of investigations into 501(c)(4) groups. She provided a bland answer about a questionnaire on the IRS Web site, failing to take the opportunity to disclose the results of the probe. (The clip is embedded below, with the question coming at 5:09.) Small wonder that Crowley is now calling for her to resign, saying that Lerner lied to him.

While Kessler gave Lerner his lowest rating (four Pinocchios) based he does title the piece, A bushel of Pinocchios for IRS’s Lois Lerner implying that he wishes he could give them more.

Having covered this President since before he was a candidate seven years ago, there is no surprise that lies are coming from his administration. The surprise come from the fact that the mainstream media is beginning to cover those lies.

Sorry GOP--But Impeachment is NOT an Option

2013-05-20T08:48:00.000-04:00

America is getting frustrated with this administration's fight to keep the truth behind the three scandals under wraps. As frustrated as the public may getting, congress, who is in charge of finding out the truth is even more frustrated. Yesterday's performance by White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer, who appeared on all five Sunday News programs was at best ridiculous, it seemed as if he answered each and every question with "that's irrelevant." His answers were certainly better than Barack Obama and Eric Holder's standard answer which is "I don't (or didn't) know about that. Its hard to believe that if he wasn't flipping around the channels looking for reruns of NCIS last Friday Obama would have never heard about the IRS scandal.

As the Congress and (in some cases) the mainstream media do their job and investigate these scandals there are soft rumblings of the "I" word coming from the right wing blogisphere and from Republicans in Congress (Note: The "I" word is not the new politically correct way to say Islamist terrorists--It means impeachment). Allow me to suggest that what we know so far does not even approach "I" word levels, and even if they do Impeachment would be a horrible option for the Country and for the Party.

The last two President's who approached impeachment level were Nixon and Clinton, both of whom went way over the line to break the law. Clinton committed perjury, something to which he eventually admitted after DNA testing. Nixon may have survived Watergate if there wasn't an audio record of his crimes (the tapes). This is an administration that is careful to protect its senior leaders by putting very little in writing. Heck the Attorney General didn't even put it writing that he recused himself from the IRS case even though he is required to by law.

But let us say that eventually it proven the scandals were directly ordered by the President (a long shot but suppose). On Benghazi it can be proven the president lied for political purposes (he would not be the first) but the only one really culpable would be Hillary Clinton who lied to Congress which (whether she was under oath or not), is a crime. The AP scandal may prove to be immoral, but doesn't seem like a crime because the DOJ got a court order. The IRS scandal probably has the biggest chance of toppling an administration, the real question is even if it is proven to be directed by Obama, is impeachment the best option?

Not necessarily for a host of reasons. The first would be these three horrible words, "President Joe Biden." Imagine the SCHMOTUS, this gaffe-meister making foreign policy decisions/statements-- there would have been no surge in Afghanistan, we would be living with a nuclear Iran, and Bin Laden would still be alive. Although it might be funny if he had a summit with North Korean Leader Kim Jong Il and said, "Come on Kim, stand up and take a bow--What am I saying, you are standing!"

A Joe Biden led domestic policy would be just as bad, perhaps the government would even waste money on pamphlets teaching women to protect themselves by emptying their shot guns through closed doors.

Don't worry America, this will never happen. Let's take this scenario a bit further. Say Obama is implicated directly in the IRS scandal and there is a smoking gun. Let's say he is impeached by the House and there is a trial in the Senate, there is no way a Senate which when you include the one socialist/independent has 56 votes on the President's side is going to come up with the 67 votes to toss him out of office and give the reins to Biden.

However, if the house would move in that direction, Barack Obama ceases to be a scandal-ridden President and becomes a martyr to Republican obstructionism. The GOP will become the racist party that threw out the first African-American president. Any voters on the fence would go Democrat just based on that meme.

On the other side, if Obama is proven to be behind the IRS and other scandals a weakened Obama is still much better than a Biden. It is also better than the charges of obstructionism and racism that would be sure to come with any House action.

Thinking longer term if Obama is implicated in these scandals and stays in office he would be too weakened to push through his radical freedom stealing agenda during the remaining 921 days of his administration. Additionally it will make ripe campaign fodder for the senate and house campaigns in 2014 and the Presidential campaign of 2016.

Any talk of Obama impeachment is way premature, but even if Obama is directly tied to these scandals impeachment would be bad for the United States and bad for the GOP.

Israel "Catches Up," Declares Muhammad al Dura Shooting A Fraud

2013-05-19T21:11:00.002-04:00

Thirteen years ago when France 2 and Charles Enderlin sent around the world their fake story about Muhammad al Dura, the video of the staged death of a little boy became the rallying cry of Islamist terrorists all around the world. Instead of investigating the story, the Mainstream media became the biggest supporters of the hoax, and became accomplices this deadly fraud.

But for those who looked at the video with an open mind there were plenty of questions about the video. Why is there no footage of the boy after he was shot? Why does he appear to move in his father's lap, and to clasp a hand over his eyes after he is supposedly dead? Why is one Palestinian policeman wearing a Secret Service-style earpiece in one ear? Why is another Palestinian man shown waving his arms and yelling at others, as if 'directing' a dramatic scene? Why does the funeral appear — based on the length of shadows — to have occurred before the apparent time of the shooting? Why is there no blood on the father's shirt just after they are shot? Why did a voice that seems to be that of the France 2 cameraman yell, in Arabic, 'The boy is dead' before he had been hit? Why do ambulances appear instantly for seemingly everyone else and not for al-Dura?"
Nevertheless Muhammad al Dura became a poster child for Islamist terror. Osama bin Laden referred to al-Dura in a post-9/11 video; the killers of Wall St. Journal reporter Daniel Pearl placed a picture of him in their beheading video; streets, squares and academies have been named after al-Dura.

Philippe Karsenty a French Jewish activist Identified the al Dura video as a hoax and was sued by the TV Station and reporter. In May 2008 a French Court of Appeals found in favor of Jewish activist Philippe Karsenty, overturning a lower court decision that he had libeled France 2 and its Jerusalem correspondent Charles Enderlin when he accused them of knowingly misleading the world about the death of the Palestinian child Mohammed al-Dura in the Gaza Strip in 2000.

He became a poster child for the Intifada. Osama bin Laden referred to al-Dura in a post-9/11 video; the killers of Wall St. Journal reporter Daniel Pearl placed a picture of him in their beheading video; streets, squares and academies have been named after al-Dura. He became a poster child for the Intifada."

It took the Israeli government seven years to deny responsibility for the death of al Dura, and thirteen years to declare it a hoax--they were late on both counts.

Today the Israeli government finally released a report telling the world something already known--the Mohammed al-Dura story was a Hoax.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received today the report of the Government Review Committee on "The France 2 Al-Durrah Report, its Consequences and Implications." The report was presented by the Minister of International Affairs, Strategy and Intelligence Yuval Steinitz, in the presence of Director General of the Ministry of International Affairs and Strategy, Yossi Kuperwasser.

Prime Minister Netanyahu directed then Minister of Strategic Affairs Yaalon to set up the governmental review committee in September 2012. The purpose of the committee was to examine the Al-Durrah affair in light of the continued damage it has caused to Israel, and to formulate the Government of Israel's position with regards to it.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: "It is important to focus on this incident – which has slandered Israel's reputation. This is a manifestation of the ongoing, mendacious campaign to delegitimize Israel. There is only one way to counter lies, and that is through the truth. Only the truth can prevail over lies."

Minister of International Affairs, Strategy and Intelligence Yuval Steinitz: " The Al-Durrah affair is a modern-day blood libel against the State of Israel, alongside other blood libels like the claims of an alleged massacre in Jenin. The France 2 report was utterly baseless."

Following an extensive review of materials related to the affair, the committee determines that:

The France 2 report's central claims and accusations had no basis in the material which the station had in its possession at the time of the report:

Contrary to the report's claim that the boy is killed, the committee's review of the raw footage showed that in the final scenes, which were not broadcast by France 2, the boy is seen to be alive.
The review revealed that there is no evidence that Jamal or the boy were wounded in the manner claimed in the report, and that the footage does not depict Jamal as having been badly injured. In contrast, there are numerous indications that the two were not struck by bullets at all.
The review showed that it is highly-doubtful that bullet holes in the vicinity of the two could have had their source in fire from the Israeli position, as implied in the France 2 report.

If you look at the pictures above you will see that there is no blood on the wall on the bottom picture, If the boy and/or the dad had been shot there would be blood.

The report was edited and narrated in such a way as to create the misleading impression that it substantiated the claims made therein.

Over time numerous additional inconsistencies and contradictions have come to light, and question marks have been raised regarding nearly every aspect of the report.

The report relied entirely on the station's local stringer, without additional evidence for his claims, and this despite the fact that there were numerous other media crews on the scene. The stringer's various claims regarding the affair in the years since the incident have been characterized by repeated contradictions and falsehoods.

The Al-Durrah affair demonstrates the need for media outlets to implement the highest professional and ethical standards when covering asymmetric conflicts. There is a particular need for international media outlets to critically evaluate information provided by local stringers, especially in arenas in which repeated attempts to stage or fabricate media items have been documented.

The al-Dura hoax has long-since been outed. But there is one question that remains to be answered, WHY? Not necessarily why the hoax was started. Hell we all know that, Palestinian cameraman and a French reporter who wasn't on the scene gets the feed an can't wait to broadcast another "horror perpetuated by those horrible Jews." That happens every day.

The real why is, "why did they hold on to the lie for so many years, why do they still hold on the lie?" The have seen the full tape, they probably saw it years ago, why does/did Enderlin and France2 hold on to the lie that has caused the death of so many? I think to say that there was Antisemitism involved is too easy--but I can't think of another reason.

Cincinnati IRS Worker Tells Wash. Post-----Our Orders Came from Above

2013-05-19T19:48:00.000-04:00

Was it a few rogue employees or is it just another excuse from out Blame-Guy-In-Chief? That's what the Obama administration is saying about the IRS scandal which targeted conservative and religious organizations. At least that's what they are telling us between contending they know nothing or that everything is irrelevant.

According to the people in the Cincinnati office of the Internal Revenue Service, any targeting of Conservatives was a result of of orders from "above."

“We’re not political,’’ said one determinations staffer in khakis as he left work late Tuesday afternoon. “We people on the local level are doing what we are supposed to do. . . . That’s why there are so many people here who are flustered. Everything comes from the top. We don’t have any authority to make those decisions without someone signing off on them. There has to be a directive.”

The staff member, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of losing his job, said that the determinations unit is competent and without bias, that it grouped together conservative applications “for consistency’s sake” — so one application did not sail through while a similar one was held up in review. This consistency is paramount in the review of all applications, according to Ronald Ran, an estate-tax lawyer who worked for 37 years in the IRS’s Cincinnati office.

“You’re not going to have a bunch of flaming liberals in the exempt-organizations department looking for conservative applications,” he said.

So what do you have on this fourth floor in Cincinnati?

An open, L-shaped layout of small, plain cubicles. (Office norms discourage the decoration of cubicle walls.)

“In movies where they put an IRS agent in a private office, and they’ve got all this stuff — I’m like, ‘In whose dream?’ ”

It's ridiculous to believe that career bureaucrats, who's advancement is based on following procedures, would go rogue and target specific groups without direction from top IRS management. The fact that it was all done during the President's reelection campaign makes it difficult to accept that there was not a high up in the administration or in the Presidents campaign giving the orders to the IRS. Hopefully the congressional investigation will dig up the truth.

THIS COMING TUESDAY-MAY 21st PROTESTS AT IRS OFFICES ACROSS COUNTRY: Help Protect Yourself From IRS Intimidation

2013-05-19T19:12:00.000-04:00

IRS Protests

On behalf of Tea Party, Patriot groups, 9/12, liberty activists, and the American people, we are calling for anyone and everyone to protest the IRS’ complete abuse of power on Tuesday, May 21, 2013 at noon local time.

CLICK TO FIND A LOCATION NEAR YOU

DOWNLOAD YOUR IRS PROTEST TOOLKIT:
1: Talking points
2: Sample letter to the editor
3: Sample letter to Senator
4: Sample Tweets
5: An infographic showing the IRS scandal timeline
6: A sample press release
7: Sample sign messages for protest
8: Sample blog post

IRS Protests

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is out of control and we need to stand up and let them know that we will not take their intimidation tactics!

More Information at Tea Party Patriots

Which Islamists Are More Dangerous Sunni or Shia?

2013-05-19T14:04:00.001-04:00

By Barry Rubin

There is a passionate, but somewhat academic debate, over the following issue: Which is the greater threat, the Sunni Muslim Islamists (Egypt, Tunisia, Gaza Strip, and perhaps soon to be Syria) or the Shia Muslim Islamists (Iran, Lebanon, at the moment still Syria)?

I would say the answer would be the Iran-led Shia bloc. But two reservations: the margin isn’t that big and it also depends on the specific place and situation.

To begin with, Iran is still the greatest strategic threat in the region. It is moving as fast as it can toward nuclear weapons and it is still the main sponsor of terrorism. At the moment, it is still, too, the most likely state that would initiate an anti-Western war, though that possibility is smaller than often believed. It has lots of money.

What has gone largely unnoticed is that it is almost the middle of 2013 and the Obama Administration has barely begun negotiations with Iran that will probably drag on without success for a year or more. In addition, after Iran’s June elections, which will presumably pick a radical who is less obviously extremist than current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the U.S. government and mass media will probably proclaim a new era of Iranian moderation.

Iran is also the main backer of Islamist revolution in Bahrain (where it has failed); Lebanon (where its Hizballah clients are the strongest force); and Syria (where its regime ally is in serious trouble).

One final point is that Tehran is having some success in drawing the Iraqi (Shia) government into its orbit. Baghdad is certainly cooperating with Iran on defending the Syrian regime, though one should not exaggerate how much Iraq is in Iran’s pocket. At any rate, nobody would want the Iraqi regime to be overthrown by the al-Qaida terrorist opposition.

So a strong case can be made that Iran is the greatest threat in the region.

On the other hand, however, a Great Wall of Sunnism has been built to prevent the extension of Iranian influence except for Lebanon. The Sunni bloc contains few Shia Muslims. The Muslim Brotherhood, the even more radical Salafists, and other Sunni Muslims (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates, for example) have said that the Shias are a worse threat than Israel.

Perhaps the fear of Iran provides some common cause with the West. But this is also a scary proposition since the Obama Administration’s promotion of Sunni Islamism (Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, and even Turkey) could use this point as an excuse. Perhaps America could be said to be building a united front against Iran but at what price? Turning over much of the Arab world to repressive, anti-American, and antisemitic Sunni Islamism as Christians flee?

There is also another weakness of Sunni Islamism, however, that also makes it seem relatively less threatening. In contrast to Iran, the Sunni Islamists do not have a wealthy patron comparable to Iran. They can depend on money from Qatar and to some extent from Libya but they have fewer resources. Sometimes the Saudis will help Sunni Islamists but only if they tone down their warlike and anti-Western actions. There is no big banker for Sunni Islamist destabilization of the Middle East.

Equally, they do not have a reliable source of arms, in contrast to the Shia who have Iran and also at times Russia. True, in Syria the Sunni rebels have U.S. backing to get weaponry and arms from Libya and elsewhere paid for by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Yet Syria is an exceptional case. The Saudis are not going to finance the Muslim Brotherhood and its ambitions. Bahrain has declared Shia Hizballah to be a terrorist group even while the European Union refuses to do so.
So arguably one could say that the Shia Islamists and Iran are a bigger danger. But a second danger is a U.S. or Western policy to promote Sunni Islamism as a way to counter the Shia, a strategy that has intensified regional dangers and the suffering of Arab peoples. Then, too, there’s the fact that al-Qaida is a Sunni Islamist organization, and the al-Qaida forces are getting stronger in Syria.

One would have to be very foolish to want to see Sunni Islamism make further gains, to overthrow the monarchies in Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, or Bahrain, as well as the Algerian regime. One would also have to be foolish--but here the Obama Administration is so--to want to see Muslim Brotherhood regimes succeed in Egypt, Tunisia, the Gaza Strip, and Syria.

What we are seeing, however, is that Islamism is becoming entangled at present with the power it has gained, especially in Egypt. The country is innately in economic difficulties and these are being intensified by Muslim Brotherhood misrule. Rather than raise their countries to the peak of military-economic efficiency, the Islamist regimes are wrecking them.

But there are some very significant wild cards in the deck:

--If Sunni Islamist regimes in Egypt and Syria face significant problems with instability and economics, they might adopt the time-honored, traditional tactic of Arab dictatorships by stirring up foreign quarrels and promoting anti-Americanism. This could unleash future Arab-Israeli wars.

--Sunni Islamist regimes in Egypt, the Gaza Strip, and probably Syria would give extremely radical Salafist forces a free hand in attacking Christians, moderates, women’s rights, foreign embassies, and possibly Israel. Human rights in these countries—if anybody in the West cares about that—are going to suffer severe hits.

--Hamas will probably attack Israel in future, perhaps with at least some Egyptian backing though the Egyptian regime is now trying to restrain Hamas in order to consolidate rule at home and get Western money.

--Al-Qaida is gaining strength in Syria and for the first time its possible takeover cannot be ruled out, at least in alliance with other Salafist groups.

--The stronger the Sunni Islamists the more uncooperative the Palestinian Authority (PA) will be with attempts at a “peace process.” It is possible that the PA would face a considerable challenge from Hamas on the West Bank while forces within Fatah, the PA’s ruling party, might form alliances with Hamas. Israel should be able to keep the PA in power—a situation wrought with irony—but its stability could crumble.

In short, while one can make the case for Shia Islamism being the more dangerous—at least as long as Iran might get nuclear weapons—one must very carefully examine the implications of that judgment in every specific case. Promoting Sunni Islam is no panacea but rather substitutes longer-term for shorter-term threats.

We’d love to have your support and work hard to earn it. See our new feature with 13 free books at http://www.gloria-center.org. Why not make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal: click here.

By credit card: click here. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line and send to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
For tax-deductible donations in Canada and the UK, write us here.

-------------------- Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His next book, Nazis, Islamists and the Making of the Modern Middle East, written with Wolfgang G. Schwanitz, will be published by Yale University Press in January 2014. His latest book is Israel: An Introduction, also published by Yale. Thirteen of his books can be read and downloaded for free at the website of the GLORIA Center including The Arab States and the Palestine Conflict, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East and The Truth About Syria. His blog is Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

New Poll: Gosnell Trial Shifted Public Opinion Toward Pro-Life

2013-05-17T21:07:00.002-04:00

The good news is that those who saw media reports of the Gosnell trial lean more pro-life than before, the bad news is that thanks to media bias not many people saw a media report.

According to an Investors Business Daily/TIPP poll only 24% of total adults saw news coverage of the trial of Kermit Gosnell but 42% of those who saw news stories regarding the trial of the Abortionist say they now lean more toward pro-life views than pro-choice views.

"The media's downplaying of this story was clearly reflected in the poll results," according to Raghavan Mayur, president of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, which conducted the survey.

Those who did see or read media reports of the trial were far likelier to be affected in the pro-life direction. Only 14% said that because of the trial, they now lean more toward pro-choice views.

Those whose view was not changed one way or the other by the Gosnell trial totaled a sizable 41% — almost as many as those affected in the pro-life direction.

Interestingly the poll showed very little difference between Men (43%) and Women (40%) shifting toward pro life.

A majority of those with some college — 57% — lean more toward pro-life because of the trial, while 33% of those holding a degree swerved in that direction.

Perhaps some of the future investigations will will receive more coverage, for example Houston abortionist Douglas Karpen

Houston doctor Douglas Karpen is accused by four former employees of delivering live fetuses during third-trimester abortions and killing them by either snipping their spinal cord, stabbing a surgical instrument into their heads or 'twisting their heads off their necks with his own bare hands'.

Other times the fetus was so big he would have to pull it out of the womb in pieces, Karpen's ex-assistant, Deborah Edge, said in an Operation Rescue video, which has prompted a criminal investigation into the doctor.

'Sometimes he couldn't get the fetus out... he would yank pieces – piece by piece – when they were oversize,' Edge explained.

Karpen and others like him are being investigated. Sadly there are many more Like Karpen and Gosnell to help sway public opinion.

Ways and Means IRS Hearing: Miller Tap-Dances Around Truth - IG Says More Scandal Reports Coming

2013-05-17T13:08:00.000-04:00

Both Democrats and Republicans showed frustration in their questioning during today's House Ways and Means Committee hearings. Acting commissioner Miller (who is still employed by the IRS)tapped danced around the scandal, while Inspector General Russell George furnished all he could about the report.

The first real surprise was when Russel George indicated there were similar investigations being made so there may be much more coming.

The most fun surprise was the revelation that last week's question to Lois Lerner which made the scandal public was staged.

Rep Nunes “Was her question to Ms. Lerner about targeting certain groups planned in advance?”

Miller replied, “I believe we talked about that, yes.”

As for the "real" investigation-- Miller kept claiming there was no Politics involved in the targeting of conservative groups:

"I think that what happened here was that foolish mistakes were made by people who were trying to be more efficient in their workload selection," Miller said, calling the practices described in the inspector general's report as "intolerable" and a "mistake," but "not an act of partisanship."

He apologized for what he later called "horrible customer service," but he also stubbornly rejected any accusation that it amounted to politicizing the work of the IRS.

Miller objected to the term "targeted", he said the phase targeting conservatives was pejorative--Congressmen of both parties objected. They asked how could there not be targeting when it was only conservative groups who were abused.

“When you talk about targeting, it’s a pejorative term,” Miller said. “There was a lot of discussion within the system about these” [new 501c4 organizations].

Miller said former IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman's testimony failing to disclose the activity when asked specific question by the same committee --was "incorrect," but not misleading. HUH?

Miller also claimed -- over and over -- that he was being honest with Congress during a hearing last year--with those claims he was walking on a very fine line:

"You did not share the information you knew," Rep. Reichert charged.

"I answered all questions truthfully," Miller replied.

This claim was met with deep skepticism Friday. Miller acknowledged he learned of the practice during a May 3, 2012, briefing. Yet when he was asked about it at a July 25 hearing that year, he said only that some applications fell into a particular category -- and that those organizations were grouped for "consistency" and "quality."

When he was asked if his answer was incomplete--Miller would only say his answers were "Truthful."

Miller claimed he did not know who was responsible for the targeting of conservative groups by IRS agents.

“Who is responsible for targeting the conservative organizations?” Rep Brady Asked pressing for names. “I don’t have names for you?, Mr. Brady,”Miller said.

Sounds like he could take over Eric Holder's Job, as Holder also knows nothing.

”I don’t have that name, sir,” he told GOP congressman Dave Reichert in today’s House Ways and Means Committee hearing on the scandal, which came to light last Friday.
Reichert persisted, “Did you ask anybody?”
“Yes,” Miller responded — he asked the senior technical adviser, Nancy Marks.
“And what did Nancy tell you, who’s responsible?” Reichert asked.
“That I don’t remember, to be honest with you,” Miller said.

Not remembering is just as believable as his claim that there was no political reason for the targeting.

Who knew when? George said he alerted Miller’s predecessor, Shulman, in May 2012. He alerted the Treasury counsel on June 4, 2012, and subsequently told Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin. The IG told new Treasury Secretary Jack Lew after his appointment that he was working on investigating the claims.

Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., was the star of the show as he described the ways its agents are capable of ruining lives.

"You can put anybody out of business that you want. ... When the IRS comes in there, you're not allowed to be shoddy," he said, suggesting the agency's leadership was being held to a different standard now that it is coming under scrutiny.

"This is absolutely an overreach, and this is an outrage for all Americans," he said.

When he finished, the committee room erupted in cheers and applause that lasted several seconds.

It was pointed out that IG George's document was not an investigation it was an audit. Mr George was asked if he is conducting a full investigation. George answered that he couldn't answer that question--a clear indication that there is much more to come...so buy that BIG Bag of popcorn (but don't record it on your 1040 as a deduction).

Plenty of questions remain unanswered about why IRS agents in Cincinnati started using search terms like “tea party” and “patriots” to filter groups applying for tax-exempt status, under who's direction was it started, what the top IRS management did when they found out about it and why the Cincinnati office resumed similar searches months after officials in Washington told them not to. Some of those questions might come out next week when Rep. Issa's House Oversight panel takes its turn with a different set of witnesses.

Obama Caught Abusing Power: Non-Recess, "Recess" NLRB Appointments Struck Down Again

2013-05-17T06:52:00.000-04:00

Every since the President decided to make recess appointments when the Senate was still in session his actions have been challenged in federal court. Back in January a federal appeals court ruled this the "recess appointments" President Obama made to the National Labor Relations Board were an abuse of power, that he acted when the Senate was not actually in a recess and and the board has not had quorum to operate and yesterday a second federal court, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Obama appointments to the NLRB were invalid.

The January ruling covered appointments of of Richard Griffin (2012-present) and Sharon Block (2012-present), yesterday's ruling invalidated the earlier appointment of Craig Becker who served from 2010-2012.

Yesterday's ruling by the Philadelphia District court agreed with the one made by the DC District court back in January, saying that recess appointments could only be made between congressional sessions, not when congress is on a break/holiday.

Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation, issued the following statement in light of the court's decision:

"Today, another federal appeals court has invalidated one of President Barack Obama's so-called 'recess appointments' to the National Labor Relations Board. As National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have argued in several courts, the Obama 'recess appointments' have clearly violated the U.S. Constitution.

"As a result, the Board has lacked a quorum since at least August 2011, and under a U.S. Supreme Court precedent established in New Process Steel, L. P. v. NLRB (2010), the Board's biased and decidedly pro-Big Labor rulings since then are therefore invalidated. Over 1,500 NLRB decisions may be invalid as a result. This underscores the constitutional chaos this President has created by gaming the system for union bosses.

"Today's decision is a victory for independent-minded workers who have received unjust treatment at the hands of the pro-forced unionism NLRB over the last few years."

The January ruling said recess appointments made by all recent presidents have been unconstitutional. arguing that the president's recess appointment powers don't apply to "intrasession" appointments (such as when they close for a holiday) only after Congress has adjourned a session permanently, which usually means only at the end of a year.

If President's have been making these unconstitutional appointments for decades why is the court first ruling against them now? The honest truth is no one had ever asked (challenged them) before.

Obama's "recess" appointments had created a NLRB that was very biased toward labor. However based on the two court decisions many of those unfair pro-labor decisions are invalid(see below).

Open publication - Free publishing

The DOJ/Associated Press Investigation Was Political Retribution

2013-05-16T19:53:00.002-04:00

In response to a question about the Department of Justice/Associated Press "scandal" today the President said “Leaks related to national security can put people at risk,” the president noted. “They can put some of our intelligence officers, who are in various dangerous situations that are easily compromised, at risk.”

But there was no one at risk! As the Associated Press reported on Tuesday,

We held that story until the government assured us that the national security concerns had passed. Indeed, the White House was preparing to publicly announce that the bomb plot had been foiled.

The White House had said there was no credible threat to the American people in May of 2012. The AP story suggested otherwise, and we felt that was important information and the public deserved to know it.

The fact is the Associated Press sat on the story for five days. Then, according to the Washington Post report, during a Monday morning meeting, the journalists were asked by agency officials to hold off on publishing the story for just one more day so the Administration could announcement.

The AP held the story for national security but published it when the only reason to hold it was for the Administration to get some glory.

The Associated Press published the story on Monday, and Tuesday John Brennan, now the CIA director appeared on Good Morning America the following day to . He said that because of the work of U.S. intelligence, the plot did not pose an active threat to the American public.

So if the plot no longer posed a threat, and the only reason the AP was asked to delay was so the administration could make the announcement first, why did the DOJ subpena the Associated Press records. There is only one logical answer, political retribution---the Obama administration was punishing the Associated Press for its blowing the big announcement.

As Benghazi Scandal Builds, Libya Falls Apart

2013-05-16T16:36:00.002-04:00

By Barry Rubin

A forgotten element in the Benghazi scandal is this one: If Obama had said it was a terrorist attack back in September 2012 he would have to have done something about it.

Now, not just on that one day of September 11, 2012 but for seven months thereafter (!) the U.S. government has done zero about the murder of four American officials.

Consider the Benghazi scandal from the standpoint of Benghazi--where the militia that murdered the Americans is one of the most powerful forces in the city--and Libya itself. Suppose that from the beginning on September 11, 2012, the U.S. government announced that the U.S. facility was under attack by a militia group linked to al-Qaida. It would have had to explain why it had hired members of that militia group to guard the facility, a scandal in itself. We know 100 percent that this is true but it hasn't become an issue.

Next, there might have been a rescue attempt and a fire fight between American forces and that militia group in which casualties would have occurred on both sides. Note that as far as we know the militia took no killed or wounded, meaning that in its own eyes it achieved a total victory at no cost. At any rate, the United States would then have been in a military conflict with that militia. It would have to demand that the Libyan government take action and cooperate with U.S. efforts to punish it. On one hand, that would have been a headache for the Libyan government; on the other hand, it might have brought welcome aid to suppress a troublesome militia and help in getting control of the anarchy in the country (see below).

Congress would have given full bipartisan support to punishing those found responsible--by a quick and conclusive FBI investigation, including putting forces on the ground in Benghazi.

In practice, U.S. policy is still acting as if it believed the attack was due to a video and not a terrorist attack!

Note--and this is very important--that the scandal is not restricted to what happened on September 11, 2012, and the Washington cover-up that followed.

As a result of the cover-up there has been no effort made to punish those who we know now to have murdered four Americans.

Think of that point. You cannot punish the terrorists if you haven't officially deemed them responsible for the attack, when an Egyptian-American provocateur, who is supposedly the real guilty party, is in prison already.

Meanwhile, Libya is suffering serious problems that are undoing whatever good the Obama Administration's intervention to overthrow the old regime achieved.

As a result, the terrorists who murdered four Americans are going free; the group that carried out the attack is still enjoying popularity and even playing a role in running Benghazi. Libya itself was the biggest donor to the Muslim Brotherhood-led, U.S. handpicked Syrian opposition and a source of a massive outflow of arms to terrorists.

In other words, as a result of the policy failure and cover-up, Libya faces a much greater threat of a revolutionary Islamist takeover, anarchy, and even becoming an al-Qaida base. (Imagine, for comparison, the situation if the U.S. government had denied al-Qaida involvement in earlier terrorist attacks.)

Meanwhile, Libya is suffering serious problems that are undoing whatever good the Obama Administration's intervention to overthrow the old regime achieved. Even as the Benghazi scandal is growing in the United States, the situation in Libya is deteriorating further.

Ignoring the actual threat of revolutionary Islamist militias—and attributing problems to a video last September plus the botching of the investigation of the attack due to the cover-up also led to mishandling post-attack U.S. Libya policy.

Here are some of the current developments in Libya where, a recent article in the Egyptian newspaper, al-Ahram, explains, “militias at the command of various ideological camps and rival interest groups” increasingly dominate the country’s politics.attack, when an Egyptian-American provocateur, who is supposedly the real guilty party, is in prison already.

In other words, as a result of the policy failure and cover-up, Libya faces a much greater threat of a revolutionary Islamist takeover, anarchy, and even becoming an al-Qaida base. (Imagine, for comparison, the situation if the U.S. government had denied al-Qaida involvement in earlier terrorist attacks.)

Here are some of the current developments in Libya where, a recent article in the Egyptian newspaper, al-Ahram, explains, “militias at the command of various ideological camps and rival interest groups” increasingly dominate the country’s politics.

--“Since last week, the ministries of foreign affairs, justice and the interior in Libya have been under siege by armed militias demanding [passage of a] law that would ban all associates of the former regime from positions in government….”

--There was a recent terrorist attack on the French embassy in Tripoli.

--“As though the situation were not fraught enough, more than 100 policemen stormed the Ministry of Interior headquarters…where they began an open-ended sit-in to press previously voiced demands for adequate protection for the police in the course of the performance of their duties, health insurance, better job and pay conditions, and the restoration of the prestige and full rights of policemen.”

--“The following day…other militia bands stormed the Ministry of Finance located in downtown Tripoli and began to assault the guards. These quickly withdrew in order to avoid a confrontation with their attackers.”

--A band of armed men attacked a Ministry of Justice police vehicle that was transporting prisoners and three escort vehicles.” One prisoner was killed and several others were severely injured during the attack.

--On May 13 a car bomb exploded near Benghazi's main hospital killing at least 13 people.

--Prime Minister Ali Zeidan warned that “if the violence and security breakdown continue, the international community may be compelled to intervene.”

--Despite Zeidan’s threats the militias are not scared.

--The Birka Police Station in downtown Benghazi was struck by a massive explosion that destroyed the building.

--In southern Libya, Chadian forces advanced 100 kilometers into Libyan territory without even encountering the Libyan armed forces. As al-Ahram remarks:

“The incursion further throws into relief Libya’s weak security at a time when neither the army nor the militias are capable of controlling the country’s far-flung borders….

“Yet, it appears that the militias nevertheless have the upper hand. They are better armed than the government forces and they are also said to possess sophisticated eavesdropping equipment which they use to spy on government officials.”

--As a result of the violence the German embassy has suspended operations. British Petroleum has evacuated non-essential personnel.

What does this mean that NATO will return to shore up the regime it put into power? The UN resolution permitting intervention in Libya is still operative. But one additional element of the Benghazi cover-up is that it allowed the U.S. government to ignore the serious state of Libyan security. Remember that the Libyan operation was another of President Obama’s supposed successes that must be made to seem triumphant during the 2012 election.

We’d love to have your support and work hard to earn it. See our new feature with 13 free books at http://www.gloria-center.org. Why not make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal: click here

By credit card: click here. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line and send to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
For tax-deductible donations in Canada and the UK, write us here.
-------------------- Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His next book, Nazis, Islamists and the Making of the Modern Middle East, written with Wolfgang G. Schwanitz, will be published by Yale University Press in January 2014. His latest book is Israel: An Introduction, also published by Yale. Thirteen of his books can be read and downloaded for free at the website of the GLORIA Center including The Arab States and the Palestine Conflict, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East and The Truth About Syria. His blog is Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

Nancy Pelosi Over the Edge? Says, "GOP Attacks Obama Because He is Such A Great President

2013-05-16T15:45:00.001-04:00

Nancy Pelosi has said some very outrageous things in her time such as we need to pass Obamacare so people will find out what's in it, or that she objected to waterboarding but didn't complain becauseit was not her place to complain because she was no longer the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee. Today's quote is up there with the former speaker's most outrageous.

Pelosi said today that Republicans are using scandals coming out of the White House to undermine President Barack Obama out of "fear," because he is “such a great president.”

No really-- that's what she said:

“They make so much of these issues, because this president is such a great president,” Pelosi said during a press conference on Capitol Hill, ending a week filled with new revelations about scandals involving the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) targeting conservative groups, and the Justice Department seizing phone records of reporters at the Associated Press.

“He’s a visionary—you’ve heard me say this so many times,” Pelosi said of Obama. “This is a great president. He’s a visionary. He has a knowledge of our country, concerns of the American people that give him judgment as to what plan we should have to go forward to strengthen the middle class.

“And he has an eloquence to convey that message,” she said. “They fear that, and so any issue that comes up, they will try to exploit.”

“And some of them are legitimate issues, but they should not dominate everything,” she said. “And so what I think is that they have used talking points on Benghazi. They will use the IRS. They will use the AP. They will use these as, again, subterfuges, evasions of what the American people want us to do here.”

“They want us to create jobs,” she said. “Now if you’re a party in Congress, and you have no intention of creating jobs, you want to change the subject.

“So I think this is as much about enforcing their anti-government ideology, of not a public role in the creation of jobs, as well as undermining the president of the United States,” Pelosi said.

Holy Cow! I didn't think anyone could be THAT partisan! Four people died in Benghazi and the American People were lied to, The IRS went after people based on their political affiliations, and the Department of Justice broke its own rules to get the telephone records of AP reporters...but the ONLY reason the GOP is investigating these "scandal" is to get back at a GREAT President? And yes that description of Obama is as crazy as Pelosi's conspiracy theory about the GOP.

She can't be that partisan, she can't really believe that nonsense. If she does the woman truly needs mental help!