Oh This Should Be Good. Lois Lerner (I.R.S) To Plead The 5th Today

hey maybe she won’t and just bring the whole ship of rats down with her. A guy can dream can’t he? ~ Steve~

————————————————————————————————–

 

Lois Lerner

http://www.dailymail.co.uk

By DAVID MARTOSKO

PUBLISHED: 16:14 EST, 21 May 2013 | UPDATED: 04:37 EST, 22 May 2013

Top IRS official will invoke the Fifth Amendment in congressional hearing about tea party targeting program

• Lois Lerner faces House Committee on Oversight and Government Affairs
• Due to be quizzed about extra levels of scrutiny applied to conservative nonprofit organisations that applied for tax-exempt status
• But her lawyer says she will refuse to answer anything that may incriminate her

The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday afternoon that Lois Lerner, who heads up the Internal Revenue Service‘s tax-exempt division, plans to invoke the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in a hearing Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Affairs.

The Fifth Amendment provides that U.S. citizens may not be compelled to offer testimony if telling the truth would incriminate them.

Lerner’s defense lawyer, William W. Taylor III, wrote to the committee on Tuesday that his client would refuse to answer questions related to what she knew about the extra levels of scrutiny applied to conservative nonprofit organizations that applied for tax-exempt status beginning in 2010.

She also will decline to say why she didn’t disclose what she knew to Congress, according to the LA Times.

Lerner ‘has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation,’ Taylor’s letter read, ‘but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course.’

He is asking the oversight committee to excuse Lerner from testifying, claiming that calling her in a congressional hearing would ‘have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her’ since members would not expect her to answer questions.

Ahmad Ali, a committee spokesman, told MailOnline that ‘Ms. Lerner remains under subpoena from Chairman Issa to appear at tomorrow’s hearing – the Committee has a Constitutional obligation to conduct oversight.’

‘Chairman [Darrel] Issa remains hopeful that she will ultimately decide to testify tomorrow about her knowledge of outrageous IRS targeting of Americans for their political beliefs.’

The IRS applied special criteria to conservative organizations seeking tax-exempt status, putting them on a ‘Be On The Lookout’ (BOLO) list, based on the groups’ names and political philosophies.

President Barack Obama has said he was unaware of the program until May 10, when excerpts of an IRS Inspector General Report on the practice were leaked to reporters.

But Jay Carney, the president’s chief spokesman, confirmed Monday that senior White House staff, including White House Counsel Kathy Ruemmler and Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, knew about the IRS’s habits as early as April 24, and chose not to tell Obama.

The Inspector General report found that Lerner and other IRS were notified in or before June 2011 that some staff in the agency’s Cincinnati, Ohio office were using ‘tea party,’ ‘patriots’ and other key words to add applicants to the BOLO list.

Once on that list, the groups were subjected to additional auditing of their financial practices, their membership and their political activities.

Despite knowing about the program, Lerner and other senior IRS staffers withheld the information from Congress despite receiving several requests from House committees whose members heard from constituents that their tea party groups’ tax-exempt approvals were taking as long as two years to be resolved.

The House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee was among those that specifically asked the IRS whether it was inspecting tea party groups more closely than other applicants, including those on the political left.

Lerner herself launched her agency’s scandal with a planted question-and-answer exchange during a May 10 American Bar Association conference.

Asked the pre-arranged question, Lerner responded by conceding that her employees had acted inappropriately.

‘Instead of referring to the cases as advocacy cases, they actually used case names on this list,’ she told the assembled tax lawyers.

‘They used names like “tea party” or “Patriots,” and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title.That was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate — that’s not how we go about selecting cases for further review.’

She later claimed that the increase in scrutiny of tea party groups was due to an influx of new applications from right-wing organizations, following the Supreme Court’s ‘Citizens United’ ruling, which opened the floodgates to greater political participation by nonprofit advocacy groups.

The Washington Post called that claim bogus, however, with the newspaper’s fact checker awarding it a ‘four Pinocchios’ rating for dishonesty.

Lerner’s boss, acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller, was relieved of his post by Treasury Secretary Jack Lew last week, although the term of his appointment to the job was already scheduled to end in early June.

Other higher-ups inside the IRS have not been publicly held accountable for the improper targeting of conservative organizations.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2328696/Lois-Lerner-Top-IRS-official-invoke-Fifth-Amendment-congressional-hearing-tea-party-targeting-program.html#ixzz2U0v3U4JW

 

 

 

 

 

Fla. Gov. Scott vetoes sheriff’s $1 million ‘snitch on your neighbor’ program

 DOESN’T this program kinda remind you of how the gestapo might have been started?

————————————————————————————–

Gov.Scott

http://www.bizpacreview.com       May 20, 2013 by Joe Saunders

Gov. Rick Scott on Monday vetoed almost $368 million in state spending before signing the budget for next year, including $1 million for a violence prevention and mental health initiative sought by the Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw.

Bradshaw’s program would have established a hotline for residents to call when they suspected an individual might be planning a violent act.

If a call were deemed cause for concern, that person might be visited by deputies trained to deal with mental health issues.

In interviews, he cited such incidents as the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut and a movie theater in Auroroa, Colo., as instances where a watchful eye and trained help might have prevented tragedy.

But the proposal drew fire from conservatives when a widespread quote from a Palm Beach Post  story fueled fears of government taking action against people because of how they think, not how they’ve acted.

“We want people to call us if the guy down the street says he hates the government, hates the mayor and he’s gonna shoot him,” Bradshaw said in the article.

“What does it hurt to have somebody knock on a door and ask, ‘Hey, is everything OK?’”

Scott also turned down a 3 percent tuition increase for state college and university students.

Rest HERE!!!!

US military gives itself authority to police America without permission

This is deeply disturbing.

About three months ago, quietly and without anyone noticing, the Obama regime’s Department of Defense (DoD) gave itself the authority to use U.S. military troops to police America without permission from the President of the United States (POTUS) or state or local government.

US Army tanks “training” in the streets of St. Louis, June 2012.

The U.S. military is prohibited from intervening in domestic affairs, a prohibition codified in two laws:

• The Insurrection Act of 1807 is the set of laws that govern the ability of POTUS to deploy troops within the United States to put down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion. The laws are chiefly contained in 10 U.S.C. § 331 – 10 U.S.C. § 335. The general aim is to limit Presidential power as much as possible, relying on state and local governments for initial response in the event of insurrection.

• The Posse Comitatus Act (PCA), a U.S. federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed after the end of Reconstruction on June 18, 1878, and updated in 1981 to refer specifically to the U.S. Armed Forces, makes unauthorized deployment of federal troops a punishable offense, thereby giving teeth to the Insurrection Act. The PCA does not apply to the U.S. Coast Guard (because the Coast Guard operates under the authority of the Dept. of Homeland Security instead of the Pentagon), nor does the PCA apply to the National Guard (because the National Guard is under state authority and can act in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state’s governor).

The only exception to the deployment of U.S. military troops within the United States is provided under Section 4 of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, which says: “and [the United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.” In other words, Article IV requires the U.S. government to protect each state from invasion and, upon the application of the state legislature (or executive, if the legislature cannot be convened), from domestic violence.

Together, these laws limit executive authority over domestic military action.

About three months ago, however, as reported by Jed Morey for the Long Island Press, the Department of Defense (DoD) unilaterally made a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” and in so doing, granted itself the authority to police America’s streets without obtaining prior presidential, state, or local consent, thereby upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.

Pursuant to those changes, the DoD issued a 42-page Department of Defense Instruction (DODI), No. 3025.21, February 27, 2013. (Click here or here for the PDF version of DODI.)

DODI no. 3025.21′s subject is “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies.” Its purpose, “In accordance with the authority in DoD Directive (DoDD) 5111.1 and Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum (References (a) and (b)), is to establish “DoD policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides procedures for DoD support to Federal, State, tribal, and local civilian law enforcement agencies, including responses to civil disturbances within the United States, including the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any territory or possession of the United States or any other political subdivision thereof in accordance with DoDD 3025.18 (Reference (c)).

The most disturbing part of the DODI no. 3025.21 begins on page 15: “Enclosure 3: Participation of DoD Personnel in Civilian Law Enforcement Activities.”

On page 16, under Section 1b’s “Permissible Direct Assistance” is a subsection (3), which states:

When permitted under emergency authority in accordance with Reference (c), Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances because:

(a) Such activities are necessary to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order; or,

(b) When duly constituted Federal, State, or local authorities are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for Federal property or Federal governmental functions. Federal action, including the use of Federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect Federal property or functions.

Jed Morey of the Long Island Press cites Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, who calls the DODI rule, “a wanton power grab by the military,” which is “quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”

Afran points out that Section 1b(3) of the DODI not only fails to define what circumstances would be so severe that the president’s authorization is “impossible,” it also grants full presidential authority to “Federal military commanders” who have the same power to authorize military force as the president when the latter’s authorization is “impossible” — whatever that means.

As Afran puts it, “These phrases don’t have any legal meaning. It’s no different than the emergency powers clause in the Weimar constitution [of the German Reich]. It’s a grant of emergency power to the military to rule over parts of the country at their own discretion.”

Afran also expresses apprehension over the government’s authority “to engage temporarily in activities necessary to quell large-scale disturbances.” “Governments never like to give up power when they get it,” says Afran. “They still think after twelve years they can get intelligence out of people in Guantanamo. Temporary is in the eye of the beholder. That’s why in statutes we have definitions. All of these statutes have one thing in common and that is that they have no definitions. How long is temporary? There’s none here. The definitions are absurdly broad.”

Afran reminds us that, unlike the military, “the police operate under civilian control. They are used to thinking in a civilian way so the comparison that they may have some assault weapons doesn’t change this in any way. And they can be removed from power. You can’t remove the military from power.” Afran is considering amending his NDAA complaint currently in front of the court to include this regulatory change.

Jed Morey concludes: “for the first time in our history the military has granted itself authority to quell a civil disturbance. Changing this rule now requires congressional or judicial intervention. [...] As we witnessed during the Boston bombing manhunt, it’s already difficult to discern between military and police. In the future it might be impossible, because there may be no difference.”

H/t Washington’s Blog

See also:

• “US Army targets Tea Party movement as extremists in 2016 civil war scenario,” Aug. 16, 2012.
• “Armored military vehicles to patrol in Wisconsin,” Aug. 14, 2012.
• “What about those U.S. Army tanks in the streets of St. Louis?,” June 25, 2012.
• “Army tanks on streets of St. Louis,” June 24, 2012.
• “Armed U.S. troops in residential streets of Crookston, MN,” May 1, 2012.
• “U.S. Citizens Still Subject to Detention w/out Trial in Final Version of Defense Bill,” Dec. 14, 2011.

~Eowyn

Just The Facts Ma’am, Just The Facts.

Subject: Why Carry a Gun?

Why Carry a Gun? 

My old grandpa said to me ‘Son, there comes a time in every man’s life when he stops bustin’ knuckles and starts bustin’ caps, and
usually it’s when he becomes too old to take a whoopin.’

I don’t carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don’t carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry.
I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don’t carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

Police protection is an oxymoron.
Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.
Personally, I carry a gun because I’m too young to die and too old to take a whoopin’…..author unknown (but obviously brilliant)

See Update on Switzerland!!

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

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—- ————- ————-

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————–

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
——————————

You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are ‘citizens’. Without them, we are ‘subjects’.

During WW II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti gun -control message to all of your friends. 

The purpose of fighting is to win. 
There is no possible victory in defense. 
The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. 
The final weapon is the brain.
All else is supplemental. 

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! 
SWITZERLAND’S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT TO WHOM THEY ISSUE A RIFLE. 

This was brought to my attention

One other point is particularly important here. The description of gun distribution in Switzerland omits important information.

The Swiss government doesn’t hand out a gun to every household. It requires nearly every able-bodied young male adult to serve in the citizen militia, where they are issued a military rifle. The guns are supposed to be for military use only, not for personal defense.

Those men are supposed to show up for 18 weeks of training, followed by seven re-training sessions (each lasting three weeks) over the next 10 years.

If you want to keep your weapon after your years of service, it is refitted to scale back its firepower and you need to provide a reason for keeping it.

IT’S A NO BRAINER! 
DON’T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET. 

I’m a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment! 
If you are too, please forward.
    

~ Steve ~                   H/T  FOTM’s OWN  Ken L.

Obama Aide: ‘Irrelevant Fact’ Where President Was During Benghazi Attacks

Warning!! Duct Tape Area!

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com

9:48 AM, MAY 19, 2013 • BY DANIEL HALPER

Obama aide Dan Pfeiffer said it’s an “irrelevant fact” where the president physically was during the Benghazi terror attack on September 11, 2012:

Please Pay attention at 1:13 mark

“every hearing has found it’s been a tragedy”

Oh Really now!

Host Chris Wallace reminds Pfeiffer that Obama didn’t really talk with Secretary Clinton, Secretary Panetta, or Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that night. “He was talking to his national security staff,” Pfeiffer insists.

Asked about whether the president entered the Situation Room, Pfeiffer says, “I don’t remember what room the president was in on that night, and that’s a largely irrelevant fact.”

Pfeiffer then argues that Wallace’s questions about the president’s handling of the Benghazi terror attack are “offensive.”

And now a word from our resident lunatic. “offensive…Offensive” No you little twit, this is offensive.

look at it..look at it you perverted PIECE of excrement. while your boss was getting his nails done and god knows what else at the down low club. this man and 3 others died. that is offensive to me and about 80% of the nation. More important. it’s OFFENSIVE to god.

 

Let’s See who Else The I.R.S. Picked On.

let’s just pile on shall we.  :D    ~Steve~

—————————————————————————-

From the http://washingtonexaminer.com

May 15, 2013 | 2:40 pm | Modified: May 16, 2013 at 9:35 am

Report: IRS denied tax-exempt status to pro-lifers on behalf of Planned Parenthood

IRS officials refused to grant tax exempt status to two pro-life organizations because of their position on the abortion issue, according to a non-profit law firm, which said that one group was pressured not to protest a pro-choice organization that endorsed President Obama during the last election.

“In one case, the IRS withheld approval of an application for tax exempt status for Coalition for Life of Iowa. In a phone call to Coalition for Life of Iowa leaders on June 6, 2009, the IRS agent ‘Ms. Richards’ told the group to send a letter to the IRS with the entire board’s signatures stating that, under perjury of the law, they do not picket/protest or organize groups to picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood,” the Thomas More Society announced today. “Once the IRS received this letter, their application would be approved.”

Planned Parenthood endorsed Obama in 2008 and 2012.

The IRS also pressured another pro-life group about its religious activities. “The IRS withheld approval of an application for charitable tax-exempt recognition of Christian Voices for Life, questioning the group’s involvement with ’40 Days for Life’ and ‘Life Chain’ events,” according to the law firm. “The Fort Bend County, Texas, organization was subjected to repeated and lengthy unconstitutional requests for information about the viewpoint and content of its educational communications, volunteer prayer vigils, and other protected activities.”

The IRS admitted last week to that some members of the agency targeted Tea Party groups for discriminatory reviews of their applications for tax-exempt status. The Justice Department has initiated a criminal investigation into the matter.

just thinking out loud, but that DOESN’T seem fair.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/report-irs-denied-tax-exempt-status-to-pro-lifers-on-behalf-of-planned-parenthood/article/2529750

Liberal Jon Stewart goes postal on Obama

I can’t do better than FOTM’s WildBillAlaska, who alerted us to this video:

When the sycophant late night comedians go this far, the steaming POS is in trouble. Oh Joy!!

H/t The Daily Sheeple

On a more serious note, see “Groups & individuals targeted by Obama’s IRS witchhunt.”

~Eowyn

Benghazi, I.R.S. And Now For Your Viewing Pleasure, Scandal # 3: The A.P.

well it seems our justice dept. run by none other THAN that rock star eric holder had decided to hijack about 20 phone lines belonging to ap. in April and may of 2012.      kind of funny now that ap has been the target the media is up in arms. For years while justice and the admin have abused the american public it seemed they could care less, Well anyway if this is what it takes to shine the light on the vermin so be it. Benghazi, i.r.s., a.p.               seems like 3 strikes YOU’RE out in the ole ball game.

Politicians versus press: Attorney General Eric Holder held a press conference on Tuesday to address the story that the Justice Department secretly obtained two months worth of journalists phone records

—————————————————————————————————-

Eric Holder points finger at his DEPUTY who secretly obtained journalist’s phone records as Obama is forced to say he has ‘confidence’ in the Attorney General

• Justice Department obtained records listing incoming and outgoing calls and duration of calls for more than 20 telephone lines used by journalists
• Lines included the main number used by reporters in the House of Reps press gallery and general AP numbers in Washington and New York
• Stems from AP article talking reporting a thwarted terror attack
• Attorney General Eric Holder said he had recused himself from the investigation into the leak to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest
• Said that his deputy made the decision to obtain the records

By ASSOCIATED PRESS and DAILY MAIL REPORTER

PUBLISHED: 13:40 EST, 14 May 2013 | UPDATED: 17:55 EST, 14 May 2013

Attorney General Eric Holder went on the defensive on Tuesday explaining why the Justice Department secretly obtained two months worth of reporters’ telephone records in an ‘unprecedented’ search for a confidential source.

‘This was a very serious leak and a very, very serious leak,’ Holder said at a press conference explaining the department’s actions which have been criticized for going against the constitutional right to a free press.

Holder said that he recused himself from the making the controversial decision to subpoena the phone records of Associated Press journalists, saying that it was made by Deputy Attorney General James Cole.

He said that he was ‘confident that the people involved in this … followed all applicable Department of Justice regulations’ even though he claimed not to actually know the details of the decision-making process as a result of his recusal.

President Obama was forced to follow Holder’s press conference with the release of a statement saying that the incident does not shake his faith in his close friend and the country’s top legal adviser.    (Whoopsie)

‘The president has confidence in the attorney general,’ press secretary Jay Carney said.

The controversy came when the Associated Press reported that two months worth of reporters’ telephone records without their knowledge, obtaining a wide breadth of records that had nothing to do with the leak of information that they were concerned about. 

The Justice Department has spoken in the past about how they were upset over the leak of information about a foiled al Qaeda plot where the terrorist group planned to detonate a bomb on a plane bound for the United States.

‘I’ve been a prosecutor since 1976 and I have to say that this is among, if not the most serious, it is within the top two or three most serious leaks I’ve ever seen,’ Holder said.

It put the American people at risk. That’s not hyperbole. It put the American people at risk.’

That isn’t enough to satisfy critics, as top Republicans are already calling for Holder’s resignation over the incident.

‘Because Attorney General Holder has so egregiously violated the public trust, the president should ask for his immediate resignation,’ Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus said. 

‘If President Obama does not, the message will be unmistakable: The President of the United States believes his administration is above the Constitution and does not respect the role of a free press.’

The records listed journalists’ incoming and outgoing calls, as well as the duration of each call, for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Connecticut, and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP.

In all, the government seized records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012.

News of the probe into one of the largest news organizations in the world immediately sparked outrage among Republicans on Capitol Hill.

‘The First Amendment is first for a reason,’ Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, told MailOnline. 

‘If the Obama Administration is going after reporters’ phone records, they better have a damned good explanation.’

A spokesman for Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said the move is representative of a broader ‘pattern of intimidation.’

‘Whether it is secretly targeting patriotic Americans participating in the electoral progress or reporters exercising their First Amendment rights, these new revelations suggest a pattern of intimidation by the Obama Administration,’ Doug Heye said.

The American Civil Liberties Union was equally critical. 

( You Know you screwed up if even the ACLU is on your butt.)

‘Obtaining a broad range of telephone records in order to ferret out a government leaker is an unacceptable abuse of power,’ said Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. ‘Freedom of the press is a pillar of our democracy, and that freedom often depends on confidential communications between reporters and their sources.’

AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation.

He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.

‘There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters,’ Pruitt wrote in a letter of protest to  Holder. 

‘These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s news gathering operations, and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know.’

The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.

U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have leaked information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot.

The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al Qaeda plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.

In testimony in February, CIA Director John Brennan noted that the FBI had questioned him about whether he was AP’s source, which he denied. 

He called the release of the information to the media about the terror plot an ‘unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information.’

Prosecutors have sought phone records from reporters before, but the seizure of records from such a wide array of AP offices, including general AP switchboards numbers and an office-wide shared fax line, is unusual and largely unprecedented.

In the letter notifying the AP received Friday, the Justice Department offered no explanation for the seizure, according to Pruitt’s letter and attorneys for the AP.

The records were presumably obtained from phone companies earlier this year although the government letter did not explain that. None of the information provided by the government to the AP suggested the actual phone conversations were monitored.

~Steve~

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324501/Attorney-General-Eric-Holder-defends-deputys-decision-secretly-obtain-journalists-phone-records-saying-searching-leak.html#ixzz2TMlgvGVJ

Groups & individuals targeted by Obama’s IRS witchhunt

The mission of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is to collect taxes from individuals and groups, but to do so fairly by applying the the tax law with integrity and without prejudice. According to IRS Policy Statement 1-1, IRS employees accomplish this mission by being impartial and handling tax matters in a manner that will promote public confidence.

It is not the mission of the IRS to use political criteria to target certain individuals and groups for special scrutiny or audit.

On May 10, 2013, Americans learned that, instead of being apolitical, the Obama regime’s IRS had singled out for special scrutiny the tax documents of some 75 groups who, for the lack of a better term, are not fans of President Lucifer.

That day, the IRS issued an apology to conservative political groups — groups with names that had words like “tea party” and “patriot” — for having been subjected to extra scrutiny. But the IRS insisted that “Mistakes were made initially, but they were in no way due to any political or partisan rationale.”

Since last Friday, each new day brings more information of the IRS’s misdeeds. They include the following:

• The IRS witch hunt began in April 2010, with the formation of a team of specialists within the IRS called the Determination Unit. (Source: ZeroHedge)

• High-level Obama regime officials were involved. (Source: ZeroHedge)

• By June 2011, the IRS expanded its criteria for extra scrutiny beyond “Tea Party,” “patriot,” and “9/12 Project” (referring to a group started by Glenn Beck) groups to include also organizations critical of government spending, government debt, taxes, and “how the country is run,” as well as groups seeking to “make America a better place to live” and to educate Americans about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. (Source: FoxNews)

• The IRS also targeted a pro-life group, Cherish Life Ministries, that provides help to a coalition of churches that supports mothers struggling with unexpected pregnancies, promotes abstinence and advocates for an end to abortion. (Source: WND) H/t FOTM’s joworth

• The IRS was targeting the Jews, too! An IRS agent told the pro-Israel Jewish organization Z Street that the applications of Israel-related organizations were assigned to “a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization’s activities contradict the Obama’s Administration’s public policies.” (Source: Atlas Shrugs)

• Former Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld reveals in his new book, Rumsfeld’s Rules, Leadership lessons in Business, Politics, War and Life, that outspoken businesses critical of the federal government are also singled out by the IRS and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). (Source: The Examiner)

• Even worse, the IRS went beyond using political criteria to single out certain groups for extra scrutiny. The IRS violated confidentiality by giving the confidential applications for tax-exempt status of nine conservative groups to a George Soros-funded journalism group, ProPublica. (Source: Breitbart)

• The IRS also leaked the 2008 confidential financial documents of the National Organization for Marriage, a pro-traditional marriage organization, to the leftwing Human Rights Campaign (HRC). Those documents were published on the Huffington Post on March 30, 2012. Joe Solmonese, HRC’s president and a co-chairman of Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign, then used the leaked document to attack GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. (Source: Breitbart) H/t FOTM reader Kathleen Myers.

Joe Solmonese with Pres. Lucifer

• Wayne Allyn Root — the Libertarian Party’s 2008 VP candidate who attended Columbia University in the same years as Pres. Lucifer but has publicly stated he’d never met his supposed fellow-student nor does he know any Columbia alumnus who had — was also a target of the IRS’s unusual audits, beginning in January 2011, despite a “spotless” 30-year tax record. Root believes the order to audit him came from Obama himself: “I believe this is not rogue agents, who would be risking their pension and careers.” (Source: WND)

• Televangelist Billy Graham endorsed Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election. Now his son, Franklin Graham, has come forth with the revelation that in the midst of the heated presidential campaign in September 2012, the IRS notified the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and the family’s international humanitarian organization Samaritan’s Purse, that it was conducting a “review” of their activities for tax year 2010. (Source: Politico)

• In 2010, the IRS targeted for auditing Dr. Anne Hendershott, a devout Catholic professor and author whose writings are critical of Obama and Soros-funded “liberal” Catholic groups. The IRS demanded to know who was paying her and “what their politics were.” Although Hendershott and her husband (who brings in the vast majority of the family’s income) file joint tax returns, only she was audited. The audit was so emotionally and financially expensive that she was frightened into silence. (Source: The Blaze)

• Dr. James Dobson says his Christian FamilyTalk group was also targeted. The IRS threatened the group’s non-profit status because it didn’t represent “all views.” (Source: WND)

• The Catholic League was notified, just weeks after Obama was elected president in 2008, by the IRS that it was under investigation for violating the IRS Code on political activities as it relates to 501(c)(3) organizations. It was the George Soros-funded leftwing United that contacted the IRS to launch its investigation of the Catholic League. (Source: America Conservative 2 Conservative)

• A 180-year-old Baptist newspaper, The Biblical Recorder, was targeted by the IRS for extra scrutiny. In summer 2012, the paper gained national attention after it published an interview with Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy who said he supports traditional family values. The paper also published ads from the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association — which also was targeted by the IRS. (Source: Fox News)

~Eowyn

55 Questions IRS Asked of Tea Party Groups. It’s A Doozie.

all I have to say is “duct Tape” Lots and lots of duct tape. You can borrow some of mine.     ~Steve~

3 layers should do it.

Oh, one more thing. i really love to watch skippy sweat.

From the http://www.dailymail.co.uk

By DAVID MARTOSKO IN WASHINGTON

PUBLISHED: 16:18 EST, 13 May 2013 | UPDATED: 16:20 EST, 13 May 2013

The Internal Revenue Service wrote to the Richmond Tea Party last year demanding to know the names of all its financial donors and volunteers, as part of a 55-question inquisition into its application for tax-exempt status, MailOnline has learned.

The agency wanted to know ‘the names of the donors, contributors, and grantors’ for every year ‘from inception to the present.’

It also demanded ‘the amounts of each of the donations, contributions, and grants and the dates you received them.’

‘How did you use these donations, contributions, and grants?’ the IRS asked. ‘Provide the details.’

And in addition to the names of board members, officers and employees, the nation’s taxing authorities insisted on knowing the names of everyone who helped the Richmond Tea Party without compensation.

‘Please identify your volunteers,’ the January 9, 2012 letter from the IRS read.

The agency also required the Virginia conservative group to provide copies of sections of its website that only its members can access.

The IRS came under fire on Friday when its Office of Inspector General released a draft of an investigative timeline showing that the agency had played political favorites with nonprofit groups seeking tax-exempt status.

In 2010, according to that investigation, the Cincinnati-based IRS office responsible for vetting tax-exempt applications began targeting groups with ‘Tea Party or similar’ words in their names – including words like ‘patriots’ and ’9/12′ – for tighter scrutiny.

The Richmond Tea Party received this demand along with dozens of others from the IRS, asking for a list of its donors and the amounts they had contributed. The group refused, citing their donors’ right to privacy

The IRS ultimately identified approximately 300 such organizations, many of which were independently organized in 2009 and 2010 under the larger ‘tea party’ banner. Those groups had a decisive impact in the 2010 midterm congressional elections, and became a thorn in the side of the Democratic party, costing it race after race, especially in the House of Representatives, which shifted to Republican control.

In the nearly three years since the IRS began looking more closely at conservative nonprofit groups than others, 125 of the 300 target organizations have been approved for tax-exempt status. Another 25 withdrew their applications. The remainder are still waiting.

The Office of Inspector General’s timeline shows that in Washington, senior officials with the IRS were made aware of the practice by at least August 4, 2011. On that date, the chief counsel of the IRS met with the agency’s Rulings and Agreements unit ‘so that everyone would have the latest information on the issue.’

But during a press gaggle about Air Force One on Monday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney insisted the White House was unaware of the investigation or its political implications until last month.

The Rest Of The Story Here..       

Below is Link to list  . Sorry as it gets all jumbled when I try and paste it in. Trust me it’s a good read, providing you have your head protection on.

Link To LIST!!