Update on the IRS Scandal and House Oversight Committee Hearings: May 22-24

The heat is on the Obama administration now, with more juicy details that make this string of scandals better than any soap opera I can think of.  In fact, though, I think the IRS scandal, which seems to be the one over which everyone is angriest, is turning into something from Hollywood, which makes sense because most actors are die hard liberals.  Let us continue in describing in full detail the events and revelations that were uncovered today.

GOVERNMENTIS THIS THE IRS BOSS WHO OVERSAW THE TARGETING OF TEA PARTY GROUPS?

May. 22, 2013 12:04pm Madeleine Morgenstern

AP 

The contention that the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative groups was limited to several low-level workers may not be holding up.

Former IRS acting head Steven Miller testified last week that two “rogue” agents responsible have already been disciplined. But Fox Cincinnati affiliate WXIX-TV has identified six local employees that sent probing letters to Tea Party groups: Mitchel Steele, Carly Young, Joseph Herr, Stephen Seok, Liz Hofacre and a woman known only as Ms. Richards.

According to WXIX, all of those workers have separate managers, and separate territory managers above them; the only supervisor they do have in common is Cindy Thomas, the program manager of the IRS’ tax-exempt organizations determinations division.

(Source: WXIS-TV Cincinnati, Fox Affiliate)

A biography of Thomas from the Cincinnati Bar Association says she is a 35-year IRS veteran who has held the program manger title for about eight years. Thomas was listed as a presenter at a Cincinnati Bar Association program in January titled, “What Is the Best Structure for Your Nonprofit?”

Additionally, it was Thomas’ signature on an IRS letter to investigative journalism outfit ProPublica sent along with confidential, still-pending applications from conservative groups in November.

ProPublica had requested information on conservative groups who had received tax-exempt status, and with it received some still-pending ones that should have remained confidential. The IRS has said the disclosure of the confidential documents was “inadvertent and unintentional.”

Several IRS officials have been called before Congress, including Lois Learner, the director of the tax-exempt determinations office, who on Wednesday invoked her constitutional right not testify. Thomas so far has not been called.

Well, what can I say?  It truthfully does not make sense for a slew of low-level IRS employees to conspire to audit or deny tax-exempt status since they do not have the authority to do so.  Naturally, this had to come from the top.  For individuals like Steven Miller and Lois Lerner who were in positions of power, though, they were willing to go out of their way to pass the buck of responsibility down the ladder to those people.  Miller became head of the IRS on November 9, 2012, one day after President Obama was reelected, at the president's request.  There is no doubt in my mind of his guilt, or that the source of the directive to target conservative, libertarian, pro-Israeli, pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, and evangelical Christian groups was the president himself.

For Lois Lerner to waive her Fifth Amendment right against compelled testimony, she proved her guilt through silent implied admission.

***

Meanwhile, with the House Oversight Committee conducting hearings and an investigation into the IRS's violation of the conservative non-profits' constitutional rights, the federal government is STILL attempting to repressing the Tea Party.  Homeland Security agents were present at the organization's various political rallies across the nation.  The Tea Party's website describes this below:

Armed ‘Homeland’ Guards Protect IRS From Tea Party Protesters…

Agency created to protect against terror attacks now policing free speech

(Info Wars) – The DHS appears to have finally found a use for all those bullets it’s been buying. At a Tea Party protest outside an IRS building in St. Louis yesterday there were no regular police – only armed Homeland Security guards.

Video footage from the demonstration at which protesters, including Infowars.com readers, chanted “no more harassment,” shows numerous DHS Federal Protective Service vehicles along with several armed DHS guards. There is not a regular police officer in sight.

The St. Louis demonstration was just one of numerous similar protests against the IRS’s punitive targeting of conservative groups that took place across the country yesterday. Homeland Security agents also kept a watchful eye on a Tea Party rally in Florida.

The DHS was supposedly founded to protect against and respond to terrorist attacks, man-made accidents, and natural disasters. It was not created to protect the IRS from peaceful protesters, but in the decade since its inception, Big Sis has morphed into an entity that polices and monitors political free speech as one of its primary functions.

Homeland Security has routinely been caught spying on protesters from both ends of the political spectrum via its nationwide network of “threat fusion centers”.

Government documents unearthed in April revealed that the DHS, “conducts daily monitoring of peaceful, lawful protests as a matter of policy” and functions as a “secret political police force against people participating in lawful, peaceful free speech activity,” such as ‘Occupy’ demonstrations.

In 2011, the DHS asserted that it had every right to spy on peaceful protest groups and had been using Federal Protective Service (FPS) agents to do so since at least 2006.

In March, Arkansas State Fusion Center Director Richard Davis admitted that the federal agency spies on Americans deemed to be “anti-government,” noting that the DHS concentrates on, “domestic terrorism and certain groups that are anti-government. We want to kind of take a look at that and receive that information,” so-called threats which included people, “putting political stickers in public bathrooms or participating in movements against the death penalty.”

A 2012 Senate subcommittee investigation of DHS data fusion centers found that millions of dollars had been spent not on gathering important anti-terrorism information but on collating “a bunch of crap,” which was “unrelated to terrorism” and in fact targeted Americans peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights.

In its promotional material for the ‘See Something, Say Something’ snitch program, the DHS has routinely portrayed white, middle class Americans as the most likely terrorists. Mock news reports and security drills run by the DHS have also depicted gun owners and homeschoolers as violent terrorists.

It’s no surprise that the DHS is now deploying its agents to defend the IRS against the ire of the American people given that both federal agencies have gone to extreme lengths to target law-abiding, conservative, or God forbid “anti-government” Americans as domestic extremists and even terrorists.

http://www.infowars.com/armed-dhs-guards-protect-irs-from-tea-party-protesters/

***

(Above: Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV, Senate Majority Leader.  Courtesy of Wikipedia)

We know based on the following comment by Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) what the Democrats think of the Tea Party:

"When I was in school, I studied government and I learned about the anarchists.  Now, they were different than the Tea Party because they were violent.  But they were anarchists because they did not believe in government in any levels and they acknowledged it.  The Tea Party kind of hides that."  (Courtesy of Politix)

(Left: Vice President Joe Biden; Right: Rep. Mike Doyle, D-PA.  Courtesy of Wikipedia)

And a conversation between Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) and Vice President Joe Biden went like this as well about the Tea Party:

'''We have negotiated with terrorists," an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room.  "This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.'

Biden, driven by his Democratic allies' misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: "They have acted like terrorists.'" (Courtesy of Human Events)

***

(Above: Joseph Stalin, Dictator of the Soviet Union from 1924-1953.)

So, we know what the Democrats around the nation think about political opposition to their policies.  They want to be absolutists, authoritarians, or worse, totalitarians.  Former Soviet Union dictator Joseph Stalin said two very frightening comments regarding a totalitarian regime’s philosophy on governance.  (Courtesy of Buzzle):

"We don't let them have ideas.  Why would we let them have guns?" 

and:

"Ideas are more powerful than guns.  We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?" 

To put the comment made by Sen. Reid regarding the Tea Party being "anarchists" into proper historical perspective, Stalin said this about the Soviet Union's policy toward those accused of being such a thing: 

"We are not the kind of people who, when the word "anarchism" is mentioned, turn away contemptuously and say with a supercilious wave of the hand: "Why waste time on that, it's not worth talking about!" We think that such cheap "criticism" is undignified and useless.

"Nor are we the kind of people who console themselves with the thought that the Anarchists "have no masses behind them and, therefore, are not so dangerous." It is not who has a larger or smaller "mass" following today, but the essence of the doctrine that matters. If the "doctrine" of the Anarchists expresses the truth, then it goes without saying that it will certainly hew a path for itself and will rally the masses around itself. If, however, it is unsound and built up on a false foundation, it will not last long and will remain suspended in mid-air. But the unsoundness of anarchism must be proved.

"Some people believe that Marxism and anarchism are based on the same principles and that the disagreements between them concern only tactics, so that, in the opinion of these people, no distinction whatsoever can be drawn between these two trends.

"This is a great mistake.

"We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly, we also hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies." (Courtesy of Anarchism or Socialism, 1906, which can be found on Marxist Internet Archive)

***

The Democratic party is considered to be on the same end of the political spectrum as is communism.  When I made the comment one evening on my Facebook that if Sen. Reid has the right to call members of the conservative establishment in the U.S. "anarchists" that I reserved the right to refer to liberals as "communists," I was accused by one of my longtime friends who happens to be politically-aligned with the Left of promoting a stereotype.  It is okay for the liberals to insult conservatives in every conceivable way, but not the other way around.  You see, the people and media who make up the Left are absolutists, and this is finally becoming more and more obvious to all Americans by the recent events involving the IRS and the Justice Department.  What is good for the goose should be good for the gander, but in the ideal Utopian world envisioned by the Left, there is only one way of thinking, one method of communication, one society, and one central government -- and that is for the intellectual elites, or the richly-endowed oligarchs, to rule as totalitarians and absolutists.  This is why the Obama administration is trampling upon the American people's constitutional rights.  The next article from The Blaze is from the news service's National Security Editor Buck Sexton discussing the consequences of the Obama administration's complicity or direct involvement in the three scandals plaguing it:

POLITICS

THE IRS, AP, AND BENGHAZI SCANDALS ARE JUST PART OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S WAR ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS

The once untouchable Obama administration is in trouble. Despite their best efforts, the President’s phalanx of propagandists cannot make the recent AP, IRS, and Benghazi revelations disappear. Partisans who pretend this is much ado about nothing discredit themselves for even the most vaguely impartial observer, and a media desperate for credibility has taken to asking real questions of President Obama.

Obama and his closest aides have been exposed. Not just as a cabal of lying, preening, and corrupt politicos, but an administration so wedded to authoritarian progressive doctrine they will hammer at the load-bearing walls of liberty in pursuit of their statist agenda.

Sexton is correct on every single count.  The Obama administration has attacked nearly everyone of the  amendments guaranteeing the American people their civil liberties within the Bill of Rights.  Sadly, though, the majority of Americans do not care about this, or else we, as a nation, would not continue electing Democrats into the White House or Congress.  As I said in a previous blog, my family is afraid that by my endeavoring in maintaining a conservative-libertarian blog whose main purpose is to act as an army of one to defeat the Left's influences on society and government will cause me to be persecuted by the Obama administration, or, as my father would say, "Don't say I didn't warn you when a couple of black vans pull up in the driveway and take you away." I have always believe that to change the world, one has to have great courage.

(President Barack Obama smiles during prayer at the Morehouse College Sunday, May 19, 2013, in Atlanta. AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

This is because the Obama administration’s vision of America is inherently in conflict with the Bill of Rights. Recent scandals are merely the latest skirmish in this ongoing battle.

This makes perfect sense when you put it in context. Authoritarian statists despise the Bill of Rights because of the plainness of its language and the clarity of its intent; it’s meant to protect us from them. And when government transgresses the protection the Amendments afford U.S. citizens, it is obvious that our freedoms are in jeopardy.

Which brings us to why the IRS targeting, AP investigation, and Benghazi debacle are, while disgraceful, largely unsurprising. The Bill of Rights stands in the way of just what the Obama administration means by fundamentally transforming America. They want a more collective, centrally planned America. To achieve that, they must disassemble the Bill of Rights, piece by piece, through legislation, executive fiat, and demagoguery.

Even a cursory review of Obama administration positions shows a constant, unnerving tension with core Constitutional protections. Here’s a breakdown showing how the Obama administration has twisted, ignored, or attacked the Bill of Rights.

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

It is necessary to show the entire 1^st Amendment here because it has been so diligently savaged by the Obama administration. From top to bottom, clause-to-clause, the legal bedrock of our spiritual and intellectual freedom has suffered sustained assaults under the Obama regime.

In President Obama’s America, free exercise of religion is fine, so long as everyone accepts they can be coerced to both pass out contraceptives, and pay for the same. His disdain for people of faith—those who “cling to guns or religion”—is a well-established fact.

But Obama’s attacks on freedom of speech and the press have reached new heights. The AP phone records seizures proves that Obama and his team only like leaks that benefit them. Step out of line, and they will crush you, using the full weight of federal law enforcement to do it. Just ask those who wanted to speak out—and still do—on Benghazi.

Much has been made of the “chilling effect” on speech that the AP phone seizures will have, and that the IRS targeting did have, on free speech. Indeed, that was the point, and it is one that will not be forgotten anytime soon. Those who wish to challenge the administration or expose its misdeeds have been put on notice.

2nd Amendment–  “…The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

There are few things that agitate the authoritarian mindset quite as much as an armed citizenry. The right to bear arms not only allows them to defend their homes and families, it would make them quite unruly should the ruling elites attempt to establish tyranny.

The Obama administration has waged an all-out, scorched earth campaign against the 2^nd Amendment.  Progressive-statist hatred for an armed population burns so hot, they pushed this beyond their own political benefit and lost embarrassingly on their first try to pass national gun control. But make no mistake, they will try again. 

4^th Amendment–  “No Person shall be held to answer for a capital… unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury… nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”

(For our purposes, dealt with simultaneously alongside)

6^th Amendment–  “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.”

The NDAA, and President Obama’s drones anywhere, anytime policy, seem to make a mockery of both the 4^th and the 6^th.  Attorney General Holder’s parsing of “due process” and “judicial process” with regard to the targeted killing of Americans more or less summarizes their view, not just of these two Amendments, but our system of law in general. It’s great when it suits them, and irrelevant when it doesn’t.

        8^th Amendment– … Nor Excessive fines imposed…

Perhaps someone should send around a copy of number 8 to the Environmental Protection Agency, the Obamacare enforcers, and every other federal agency that has the power of financial life and death over individuals and businesses. Leave your engine idling too long, and you get yourself thousands of dollars in fines. If your property is declared a wetland, you don’t really own it anymore. The stupidity of unaccountable bureaucrats knows no bounds. Neither does their lack of empathy.

10^th Amendment–The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

While under more subtle assault than the others, the 10^th Amendment received a bailout from the Supreme Court in the ObamaCare decision. In a smack down of federal overreach, the majority decided that funding for Medicaid under the ACA could not constitute, to borrow from Don Corleone, an offer the states couldn’t refuse.

That was just one of many examples of the Obama administration’s disdain for the separation of powers, and more specifically, the sovereignty of individual states within the Union.

–

There is no question now that President Obama, his senior-most advisors, and his left-wing base share an ideology that is inimical to individualism, liberty, and limited government. The Bill of Rights, as written by the Founders, stands athwart that agenda, which is why the Obama administration seeks to render it obsolete.

What remains to be determined is whether the American people, presented with irrefutable evidence of an authoritarian trajectory, will take to the bully pulpit and the polling booth to retrieve our liberties before it is too late.

*** 

(Left: John Basil Barnhill; Right: Henry M. Tichenor.)

In a 1914 book titled Barnhill-Tichenor Debatye on Socialism, John Basil Barnhill said one of the most famous lines in political history in reference to the relationship of a nation's people to their government:

"Where the people fear the government you have tyranny.  Where the government fears the people you have liberty."

To me, it is obvious the liberals in America fear the conservative establishment, else three of our elected officials would not have gone on record as having said what they did. 

***

GOVERNMENT

AWKWARD: FORMER IRS HEAD SAYS HE ‘REALLY CAN’T RECITE THE CONSTITUTION’ WHEN PRESSED BY GOP REP.

 May. 22, 2013 3:16pm Jonathon M. Seidl

 

 Republican Kerry Bentivolio speaks at his election night party in Novi, Mich., Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2012. Credit: AP

Things got awkward during the House Oversight Committee’s second IRS hearing on Wednesday when Rep. Kerry Bentivolio (R-MI), while seemingly making a larger point, couldn’t get former IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman to acknowledge certain amendments to the Constitution.

After confirming that the IRS requires ethics training, Bentivolio was trying to figure out if the IRS required training on the Constitution. He may have got his answer despite Shulman’s response saying he couldn’t give one.

“Did you study the Constitution?” Bentivolio asked.

“I went to law school,” Shulman responded.

“You went to law school. Did you study the Constitution?”

“I believe I took Constitutional law, but I’m not prepared to take an exam at this time,” Shulman said with a chuckle. “Meaning I’ll answer any of your question but I can’t promise that I’m an expert.”

“Well, you know the First, Second Amendment and one of my favorites, the 19th, right? You know those?” Bentivolio asked.

“Excuse me,” a seemingly confused Shulman responded.

“You know those amendments. The Constitutional amendments,” Bentivolio said matter of factly. “You know the First, you know the Second, and you know the 19th.”

“I don’t necessarily have the Constitution memorized, sir.”

“Okay, well, they’re pretty general in what each one is. Like the First Amendment is the freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. First Amendment, right?”

“I really can’t recite the Constitution, sir,” Shulman concluded.

To be fair, there are likely many who couldn’t recite every amendment on command.

But Bentivolio seemed to be trying to show that the Constitution should be held in just as high as regard as ethics. (Courtesy of The Blaze)

–

While I will readily admit that I do not have every single on of the constitutional amendments memorized, I am pretty knowledgeable of the Bill of Rights.  I have always been under the impression that employees of federal government agencies should know these legal statutes like the backs of their hands.  If we are supposed to trust the workers at the IRS with our hard-earned money paid to them in taxes, they should know the Constitution, as well as other laws, besides just the tax code.

***

REPORTER WHO ALLEGED POSSIBLE IRS TARGETING AFTER TOUGH OBAMA INTERVIEW HAS BEEN FIRED

 May. 22, 2013 6:00pm Jason Howerton

 

Larry Conners, the St. Louis reporter who alleged the IRS may have unfairly targeted him after his tough interview with President Barack Obama, has been fired, KMOV-TV announced Wednesday.

“We regret to announce that Larry Conners is no longer a KMOV news reporter. Larry was a valued member of KMOV for a long time, and we will miss him,” the news station’s President Mark Pimentel wrote.

He went on:

“For KMOV, there is no higher cause than unbiased, objective news reporting. It is what our viewers expect and it is what we work very hard to deliver. We can accept no less. Larry is certainly entitled to his opinion, but taking a personal political position on one of the Station’s Facebook pages creates an appearance of bias that is inconsistent with important journalistic standards. Larry’s departure has nothing to do with the particular position he took, but it does have to do with our belief that his actions made it impossible for him to report for KMOV on certain political matters going forward without at least an appearance of bias. Bringing you accurate and unbiased reporting is the reason we exist.”

Conners recently claimed that the IRS started “hammering” him shortly after his tough interview with Obama.

Here are some excerpts of the Facebook message he posted earlier this month:

I don’t accept “conspiracy theories”, but I do know that almost immediately after the interview, the IRS started hammering me.

At the time, I dismissed the “co-incidence”, but now, I have concerns …

[...]

In that April 2012 interview, I questioned President Obama on several topics: the Buffet Rule, his public remarks about the Supreme Court before the ruling on the Affordable Care Act….The Obama interview caught fire and got wide-spread attention because I questioned his spending.

I said some viewers expressed concern, saying they think he’s “out of touch” because of his personal and family trips in the midst of our economic crisis.

The President’s face clearly showed his anger [during the interview]; afterwards, his staff which had been so polite … suddenly went cold.

[...]

What I don’t like to even consider … is that because of the Obama interview … the IRS put a target on me.

Can I prove it? At this time, no.

Watch Conner’s interview with Obama below:

 Do you think he deserved to be fired for his personal remarks on the IRS? (Courtesy of The Blaze)

– 

First of all, would KMOV-TV have said anything if Conners had bowed down and kissed the president's feet?  The rule of thumb is that the mass media is leftist in nature.  To be fair and unbiased according to the media is to present the news from one perspective, and that is from the Left's point-of-view.  Conners did not do that, and because the Left does not value the First Amendment rights to the freedoms of the press and speech, he lost his job.

According to The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Conners is filing a lawsuit against his former employer:

Larry Conners' lawyer prepares for lawsuit

8 hours ago  •  By Joe Holleman jholleman@post-dispatch.com 314-340-8254

Less than 24 hours after KMOV fired Larry Conners, attorneys for the 66-year-old former anchorman are getting their ducks lined up for a lawsuit.

In a letter released to the media at 4 p.m., Conners' attorney, Merle Silverstein, asked station officials to "carefully preserve and not destroy any and all papers, records and documents relating to Mr. Conners' employment and termination ..."

The letter, addressed to KMOV president and general manager Mark Pimentel, then lists all of the records and emails that could relate to the firing.

Silverstein was unavailable for further comment.

Pimentel said he has not yet read the letter and declined to comment.

The letter also asks for all communications on the KMOV Facebook site — including the pages assigned to anchors Sharon Reed, Steve Savard, Jasmine Huda, Claire Kellett, Andre Hepkins, Robin Smith and Vickie Newton — from 2002 until the present.

KMOV fired Conners on Wednesday after a social-media controversy caused by Conners' claim that IRS "pressure" followed his 2012 interview of President Barack Obama.

Conners has said his statements on Facebook were simply questions about the possibility of an Internal Revenue Service vendetta in the wake of national stories about the agency.

Conners spent 37 years in St. Louis television — the last 27 as an anchor at KMOV — and won numerous local Emmy Awards.

His firing comes after a series of events that began when Conners implied in the May 13 Facebook post that he may have been targeted by the IRS after interviewing Obama in 2012. In that interview, Conners questioned Obama's travel expenditures.

The IRS claims Conners and his wife, Janet L. Conners, owe more than $85,000 from 2008, 2009 and 2010. Larry Conners said he has had a tax accountant prepare his statements for years and that he and his wife had paid taxes for 2008-2010, but the IRS disagreed with the Conners over some deductions.

Conners said he was on a payment plan with the IRS, but after the Obama interview, the IRS canceled the plan. In September a lien was placed on their Clayton home. The IRS declined to comment.

Good for Mr. Conners.  He should stand up against government corruption and political profligacy.

***

As I mentioned earlier, IRS Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment right yesterday as the House Oversight Committee hearing began.  However, what followed was sheer and utter confusion, and apparently, chaos.  (Courtesy of The Blaze):

POLITICS

CONFUSION ERUPTS IN IRS HEARING AFTER LOIS LERNER TRIES TO PLEAD THE 5TH — WATCH IT ALL UNFOLD

 

(Above: Internal Revenue Service Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner leaves a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee after refusing to testify on May 22, 2013 in Washington, D.C. The committee is investigating allegations that the IRS targeted conservative nonprofit organizations with “Tea Party,” “patriot” and other words in their names for additional scrutiny. Lerner, who headed the division that oversees exempt organizations, exercised her constitutional right not to answer questions. Getty Images)

The Internal Revenue Service official at the center of the political targeting scandal invoked her constitutional right not to answer lawmakers’ questions on Wednesday, but defiantly asserted that she has done nothing wrong — prompting confusion about how exactly she was using her right not to incriminate herself.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) told Politico that Lois Lerner, who leads the IRS office that determines which organizations receive tax-exempt status, will be brought before his panel again.

Lerner was the first to publicly disclose earlier this month that the IRS gave extra scrutiny to conservative groups.

“I have not done anything wrong, I have not broken any laws, I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee,” Lerner told House Oversight and Government Reform Committee members. “While I would very much like to answer the committee’s questions today, I have been advised by my counsel to assert my constitutional right not to testify or answer questions related to the subject manner of this hearing.”

Lerner added that by asserting her right not to testify, “I know that some people will assume I have done something wrong. I have not. One of the basic functions of the Fifth Amendment is to protect innocent individuals, and that is the protection I am invoking today.”

Issa noted during the hearing that because Lerner had asserted her innocence in her opening statement, “I believe you have not asserted your rights but have effectively waived your rights” and took her refusal to answer as a refusal to testify.

An incensed Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) spoke up that Lerner should testify, agreeing that she already waived her constitutional privilege.

“You don’t get to tell your side of the story and not be subjected to cross-examination. That’s not the way it works. She waived her right to Fifth Amendment privilege by issuing an opening statement, she ought to stand here and answer our questions,” Gowdy said, earning applause from the audience.

There is an old saying: "You can't have you cake and eat it too."  I am of the mind that Lerner either is so ignorant of the laws that she unwittingly forfeited her Fifth Amendment right to avoid incriminating testimony, or is so arrogant that she thinks that just because she is a higher-up in one of the most powerful government agencies that she can get away with anything.  Kudos to both Reps. Darrell Issa and Trey Gowdy for calling B.S. when it was presented before them.

***

Normally, birds of a feather flock together, except for the Republicans, of course.  I am referring to the Democrats, whose strength lies in their cohesiveness as a party whereas the GOP is divided into various factions, thus weakening it.  Now, however, the congressional Democrats are beginning to realize the severity of the IRS situation and how it might very well point to the very top of the Obama administration in terms of guilt.  The Blaze addresses the most important points from the May 22 hearings:

BUSINESS

HERE ARE THE 7 MOST EXPLOSIVE & INFORMATIVE MOMENTS FROM TODAY’S IRS HEARING

 May. 22, 2013 7:00pm Becket Adams

The U.S. House of Representatives, for the second time since the Internal Revenue Service scandal first broke, held a hearing on the agency’s targeting of conservative groups.

But unlike yesterday’s Senate hearing on the same topic, Wednesday’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing was packed with explosive and enlightening exchanges between U.S. lawmakers and the government officials directly involved in the IRS scandal.

So without any further introduction, here are the seven most riveting moments from Wednesday’s hearing on the IRS scandal [in no particular order]:

7. I DID NOTHING WRONG

Lois Lerner. (AP)

Lois Lerner, the IRS official who first acknowledged the scandal two weeks ago while responding to a planted question from Washington-based tax lawyer, announced this week that she would invoke her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

She appeared before the House committee on Wednesday determined to defend herself while refusing to answer questions.

“I have done nothing wrong,” she said in her opening statement. “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 committee.”

Lerner then repeated that she would invoke her right to avoid incriminating herself.

“One of the basic functions of the Fifth Amendment is to protect innocent individuals, and that is the protection I am invoking today,” she said.

However, her opening statement, coupled with her refusal to talk, did not go over so well with certain members of the committee.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) demanded that Lerner testify, adding that she waived her constitutional privilege by delivering her defensive opening statement.

“You don’t get to tell your side of the story and not be subjected to cross-examination. That’s not the way it works. She waived her right to Fifth Amendment privilege by issuing an opening statement, she ought to stand here and answer our questions,” Gowdy said, earning applause from the audience.

Despite Rep. Gowdy’s objections, Lerner refused to answer questions from committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and was eventually excused from the hearing.

As of this writing, there is still some discussion about whether the IRS official waived her rights by delivering an opening statement and whether Rep. Issa can make her talk.

It’s unclear whether that argument will stick. 

6. BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT: THIS SCANDAL STINKS

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) (AP)

Though he generally disagrees with his Republican colleagues, Rep. Elijah Cummings joined with his GOP counterparts on Wednesday in reprimanding former IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman for his dereliction of duty.

And he pulled no punches:

5. THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) (AP)

Speaking of criticism from the left, here’s Democrat Congressman Stephen Lynch promising Doug Shulman that “there will be hell to pay” if IRS officials can’t truthfully answer questions regarding the agency’s targeting of conservative groups:

(Due to technical difficulties, I cannot provide the YouTube video of his harangue to Shulman.)

4. THE IRS HELD MAY 2012 INTERNAL PROBE FROM U.S LAWMAKERS

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) (AP)

The IRS performed an internal investigation of its targeting practices one year before the Treasury Department Inspector General report was completed, according to Rep. Darrell Issa.

The agency hid its findings from Congress.

“Just yesterday the committee interviewed Holly Paz, the director of exempt organizations, rulings and agreements, division of the IRS,” Congressman Issa said.

“While a tremendous amount of attention is centered about the Inspector General’s report, or investigation, the committee has learned from Ms. Paz that she in fact participated in an IRS internal investigation that concluded in May of 2012 – May 3 of 2012 – and found essentially the same thing that Mr. George found more than a year later,” he added.

So, yes, the IRS knew of the political targeting in May – but agency official apparently didn’t think it was worth mentioning to Congress.

“Think about it,’ he added. “For more than a year, the IRS knew that it had inappropriately targeted groups of Americans based on their political beliefs, and without mentioning it, and in fact without honestly answering questions that were the result of this internal investigation.”

3. TREY GOWDY GOES SCORCHED EARTH

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) (AP)

South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy wasn’t interested in listening to a former IRS official mince his words — so he went right for the throat.

“Why was the culture such under your watch that an employee felt comfortable targeting conservative groups?” Gowdy asked. “Did you investigate that?”

“From my reading of the report, um, I can’t tell if it was political motivation or if it was tone-deaf, somebody trying to expedite a way –” Shulman started.

“You still don’t know that this was political?”

“Excuse me?”

“You still don’t know that this was political?”

“I defer to the inspector general.”

“Well, I’ll tell you this, Mister Shulman, your predecessor said that he wasn’t sure if it was partisan and that requires the listener to be as stupid as the speaker.”

2. OH, REALLY? YOU DON’T ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY?

Former IRS Chief Dough Shulman. (AP)

Shulman said Tuesday that he is not responsible for the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups.

“I certainly am not personally responsible for creating a list that had inappropriate criteria on it,” Shulman told Texas Senator John Cornyn. “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.”

Shulman on Wednesday repeated the claim, arguing that he shouldn’t have to bear the burden of responsibility even if he was IRS chief at the time of the targeting.

Illinois Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth, a U.S. Army veteran who lost both her legs in Iraq, was not impressed with Shulman’s dodging and decided to give it to him with both barrels:

1. EASTER EGG ROLL?

Courtesy @JohnEkdahl

Between 2010 and 2011 (i.e. during the height of the IRS’ political targeting), Shulman visited the White House 118 times.

And when he was asked why he visited the White House 118 times, the former IRS chief paused for a moment and responded by citing the annual Easter Egg Roll:

(Yet another technical difficult.  So sorry!)

Unsurprisingly, Shulman couldn’t say whether he discussed the IRS’ targeting of conservatives or the implementation of Obamacare during those 100+ visits.

But he does remember the Easter Egg Roll.

All-in-all, the Democrats on the committee have realized that their very political lives are on the line, and now they are engaging in bipartisanship to take on the crooks at the IRS.  Let it be clear, however, that they are not doing this because they feel like they are doing the right and just thing by protecting the American people's constitutional rights.  As a result, the IRS, which is an agency championed historically by the Democrats as the ultimate example of big government, has lost all credibility. It already has with the Republicans, and now it is with the Democrats.  They always like to be the party who champions collectives of minorities.  While they despise Republicans, it is as I said earlier in this article: the Democrats are fighting for their political lives for the 2014 midterm congressional and the 2016 presidential elections.  While the CNN Poll might have shown that President Obama's approval rating increased from 51% to 53% over the past two weeks, that is sure to start falling when more information is brought forth in the testimonies given to the House Oversight Committee.  This obviously does not look good for the Democrats, and when one considers that Sen. Reid, Biden, and Rep. Doyle called the Tea Party such names as "anarchists" and "terrorists," it leaves little doubt that they do have motive.  They also have a dubious record of institutionally persecuting political groups who they find to be a threat to their power.

***

This is the article from Inspector General J. Russell George (who "dated " Michelle Obama) delaying providing  the members of the House Oversight Committee's audit of the IRS back in 2012. (Courtesy of The Blaze):

 BUSINESS

EMAILS RELEASED: CONGRESS WAS ASKING FOR UPDATES ON IG’S IRS AUDIT BEFORE 2012 ELECTION

 May. 23, 2013 9:22am Becket Adams

Members of the House Oversight committee were promised in 2012 that they’d be provided with updates on the inspector general’s audit of the Internal Revenue Service, a promise that was apparently broken.

The following letter — which came out this weekend — shows that J. Russell George, the inspector general who uncovered the scandal, most definitely agreed to provide committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Cali.) with details of the IRS audit:

Obviously, this didn’t happen. Congress only became aware of the details of the the IG’s report after the presidential election.

And it’s not as if the Oversight committee didn’t try to learn more about the IG audit.

The following emails — released late Wednesday — show that the Oversight committee in 2012 repeatedly asked for updates on the audit, but didn’t receive them:

(You can see these documents here.)

Rep. Issa on Wednesday brought up these emails and questioned George about why he didn’t keep Congress informed of the audit’s findings. The IG excused his keeping Congress in the dark, but he did not dispute the congressman’s timeline:

(For the other video of Rep. Issa, you can view it here.)  

Was the report withheld because it wasn’t ready? Was it withheld so that it wouldn’t sway the presidential election?

We can speculate all day long as to why the IG didn’t release the audit on schedule. But what is beyond speculation, according to committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), is that the IG shouldhave kept Oversight members updated about the report’s findings. From POLITICO:

Issa is referring to part of the Inspector General Act that requires watchdogs to report serious problems to Congress through the head of an agency within seven days. It’s known as the “seven-day rule” — but it’s often used sparingly.

The Oversight Committee asked the inspector general about conservative group targeting a number of times, and Issa read some of the emails in the hearing Wednesday.

George also raised concerns that incremental information provided to lawmakers would ultimately leak to the public.

“That is not fair to the people we are investigating,” George said.

Issa responded that the White House is the source of plenty of leaks as well.

True, Rep. Issa said last year that he knew the basics of the report. But as Hot Air notes, “it’s one thing to think you know based on a leak and another for the IG to confirm it with an update.”

Furthermore, it’s important to note that the IG kept details of its delayed report a secret even after the IRS had conducted its own internal investigation and found that its targeting of conservative groups was “inappropriate” (that report was also hidden from Congress).

“Just yesterday the committee interviewed Holly Paz, the director of exempt organizations, rulings and agreements, division of the IRS,” Congressman Issa said Wednesday.

“While a tremendous amount of attention is centered about the Inspector General’s report, or investigation, the committee has learned from Ms. Paz that she in fact participated in an IRS internal investigation that concluded in May of 2012 – May 3 of 2012 – and found essentially the same thing that Mr. George found more than a year later,” he added:

(For the other video of Rep. Issa, you can view it here.) 

“Think about it,” the congressman continued. “For more than a year, the IRS knew that it had inappropriately targeted groups of Americans based on their political beliefs, and without mentioning it, and in fact without honestly answering questions that were the result of this internal investigation.”

So why didn’t the IG keep Congress informed? As of this writing, it’s not entirely clear. Here, this excerpt from Hot Air sums up where things stand right now:

The media starts picking up reports of tea-party complaints in February 2012, and soon thereafter the director of the exempt organizations puts a halt to IRS demands for more intrusive info from conservative groups. Three months later, in May, they hold a “workshop” providing guidance on tax-exempt groups to its analysts and approv more neutral criteria for scrutinizing applications.

That’s probably why Issa’s committee had an inkling at the time — because the IRS itself already knew it had done wrong and was moving to undo it to some extent. And yet no one, including the IG, felt moved to confirm for the committee until this month that yes, “mistakes were made” and it was now safe to tell the public that.

–

Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter

Featured image courtesy AFP.

Thus, we have ourselves proof of a cover-up at the IRS.  Through the documents that I provided courtesy of The Blaze, that has been proven with little to no doubt.  Also, it is clear that the Obama administration knew what was going on based on previous articles and news stories that have been presented on this blog.  We know Doug Shulman visited the White House 118 times between 2010 and 2011, yet he could not provide any information about what the visits pertained to other than he was there once during an “Easter Roll” event.  What is he hiding?  Furthermore, from where did the directives to target conservatives, Libertarians, and religious groups for audits and denials of tax-exemptions originate?  The answer, as has been provided over the past two or three cited articles dating back to the last blog entry, originated with the Obama administration, perhaps even the president himself.

***

Another example of a liberal media mouthpiece who normally is one of the president’s biggest supporters and is now criticizing his leadership is none other than Chris Matthews of MSNBC.  (Courtesy of The Blaze):

MEDIA

WARNING: YOU WILL PROBABLY AGREE WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS ON THIS ISSUE

May. 22, 2013 11:17pm Jason Howerton

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews has been one of the biggest supporters of President Barack Obama in the mainstream media. However, he is quickly becoming one of the harshest liberal critics of the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups.

During his show on Wednesday, Matthews compared the IRS targeting Tea Party groups to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) singling out “everybody that looks Arab” at airports.

The MSNBC host described the IRS’ actions as “profiling” and grilled his guest on why the agency thought it was OK to specifically target groups with the phrases “patriot” or “tea party” in their name.

“Is this like, I go to the airport and I’m running TSA, instead of deciding based upon people’s movements around the world that might be suspicious, going to countries that have caused us trouble. I just look for everybody that looks Arab. And I put them in one line,” Matthews said. “The American people would say that’s outrageous.”

Watch the clip via MSNBC/Mediaite:

The Democrats always like to be the party who champions collectives of minorities.  While they despise and fear Republicans, it is as I said in the first of this two part series of articles: the Democrats are fighting for their political lives for the 2014 midterm and 2016 presidential elections.  While the CNN Poll might have shown Obama’s approval rating increasing from 51% to 53% over the past two weeks, that is sure to start falling when more information is brought fortyh in the testimonies to follow before the House Oversight Committee.  This obviously does not look good for the Democrats, and when one considers that Sen. Reid, Biden, and Rep. Doyle accused the Tea Party of being “anarchists” and “terrorists,” it leaves little doubt that they do have a motive.  They also have a dubious record of institutionally persecuting political groups who they find to be a threat to their power.

***

Then there is this article about Lois Lerner and her continued acts of defiance toward Congress and her superiors. (Courtesy of The Blaze):

GOVERNMENT

REPORT: TOP IRS OFFICIAL WHO PLEADED THE FIFTH PLACED ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE — WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

 May. 23, 2013 5:12pm Jason Howerton

UPDATE: Lerner was reportedly asked to resign by Danny Werfel, the newly installed acting IRS commissioner, but refused. From Politico:

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a senior member of the tax writing Finance Committee, said in a statement Thursday that Lerner was placed on administrative leave after she refused a request from Danny Werfel, the newly installed acting IRS commissioner, to resign.

“My understanding is the new acting IRS commissioner asked for Ms. Lerner’s resignation, and she refused to resign,” Grassley said. “She was then put on administrative leave instead. From all accounts so far, the IRS acting commissioner was on solid ground to ask for her resignation.” 

(Above: Internal Revenue Service Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner. Credit: AFP/Getty Images)

Lois Lerner, a top IRS official at the center of the agency’s targeting scandal, has been placed on administrative leave, a source in the IRS’ Cincinnati official told National Review.

Lerner, director of exempt organizations at the IRS, reportedly sent an email to employees on Thursday announcing that she would be on administrative leave.

“Due to the events of recent days, I am on administrative leave starting today,” Lerner reportedly wrote.

“An announcement will be made shortly informing you who will be acting while I am on administrative leave. I know all of you will continue to support EO’s mission during these difficult times,” she continued. “I thank you for all your hard work and dedication…The work you do is important.”

During Wednesday’s House Oversight Committee hearing, Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and did not answer any questions from lawmakers. However, she did deliver an opening statements, saying “I did nothing wrong.”

“She has been at the center of the scandal roiling the IRS and the Obama administration since she clumsily planted the question that allowed her to reveal — and apologize for — the agency’s improper targeting of tea party and other conservative groups,” NRO reports.

Featured image via AFP/Getty

–

Leave it to a liberal guilty of co-conspiring to infringe upon the First Amendment rights of several groups of people in opposition to the Obama administration to not take responsibility for her actions.  This was also the case with Doug Shulman, who even went so far as to verbalize this to the committee.  It is a strong, yet dangerous characteristic of the Left to promote social irresponsibility among the American people, and it is clear that when it comes to their careers as bureaucrats, they are just as irresponsible for the crimes and acts of treachery they commit as the people in the general population they subsidize in order to get elected.

A day later, attorney Edward Woodson wrote an editorial discussing whether Lerner relinquished her right to plead the Fifth Amendment:

Lois Lerner, the Director of the Internal Revenue Service’s Exempt Organizations office, gave a lengthy opening statement defending her innocence, infuriating law makers and prompting some to suggest she had waived her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

In her opening statement, Lerner told members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, “I have not done anything wrong.  I have not broken any laws, I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations and I have not provided false information on this or any other congressional committee.”  She then tried to invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.  Immediately, a furious Rep. Trey Goudy, (R – S.C.), a former federal prosecutor said, “She just testified. She just waived her Fifth Amendment right to privilege, you don’t get to tell your side of the story and not be subjected to cross-examination.  That’s not the way it works.”

Rep. Daryl Issa (R- Calif.) responded by saying “at this point, I believe you have not asserted your rights, but effectively waived your rights.”  But did she?   “Ms. Lerner may have waived her Fifth Amendment rights by addressing core issues in her opening statement and the authentication afterwards”, Issa, said as he brought the hearing to a close. “Although I excused Ms. Lerner subject to recall I am looking into the possibility of recalling her and insisting she answer questions in light of a waiver.”

In certain circumstances, Lerner’s opening statement could be interpreted as a “subject matter waiver,” meaning she had made factual statements about the case that then opened the door for the committee to ask her for further details. In order to compel Lerner to testify, Congress would have to hold her in contempt.

The assertion of the Fifth Amendment is a constitutional question.  Courts have interpreted that the Fifth must be asserted in the absolute, not partially.

Brown v. US:

• http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=356&invol=148

• Justice Frankfurter writes in the majority opinion, “As I construe the holding in Arndstein v. McCarthy, it is based on the simple ground that once a witness has incriminated himself subsequent inquiries concerning the same offense cannot harm him any further and the reason for the privilege disappears.” But cf. Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367 .

• http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/356/148/case.html

Rogers v. US:

• http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=340&invol=367

• http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/340/367/

• Chief Justice Vinson writes in the majority opinion, “Having freely answered self-incriminating questions relating to her connection with the Communist Party, petitioner could not refuse to answer further questions which would not subject her to a real danger of further incrimination.” Pp. 340 U. S. 372-375.

Most circuits have held giving testimony in an earlier trial or before a grand jury usually will not be found to constitute a waiver of the Fifth Amendment privilege in subsequent proceedings.

A waiver of the Fifth Amendment privilege is limited to the same proceeding in which the witness testifies. (United States v. Gary, 74 F.3d 304, 312 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Cain, 544 F.2d 1113, 1117 (1st Cir. 1976); United States v. Licavoli, 604 F.2d 613,623 (9th Cir. 1979).

HOWEVER, the D.C. Circuit and the Eighth Circuit reflect the minority view. Ellis v. United States, 416 F.2d 791, 801 (D.C. Cir. 1969) holds that witness’s testimony before grand jury waived his right to assert privilege at the subsequent trial.  Walker v. Lockhart, 763 F.2d 942, 951-52 (8^th Cir. 1985) holds that the defendant waived the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during the habeas corpus hearing).

It appears that the general rule in most circuits is that waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination is that the waiver is limited to that particular proceeding. So a defendant who testifies at a civil proceeding has not waived his privilege to refuse to testify in the subsequent criminal proceeding. However, and this is very important, if a defendant waives his privilege against self-incrimination with regard to a civil proceeding, you can use the Rules of Evidence to get it in under a party admission.  Therefore, if Lois Lerner is prosecuted criminally, she may not then assert her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

It appears as if Lerner screwed herself over in her act of arrogant defiance.

***

Todd Cerfaratti, Freedom Organizer of TheTeaParty.org, wrote an op-ed titled "A Time for Unity for the Right and Left: The IRS Scandal and the Danger of Political Oppression" today:  

Nobody can rightfully say that the Tea Party Movement hasn’t paid their dues. From our inception, we have endured the gauntlet of leftist media outlets who denounced our importance; we have survived the vicious attacks from the left who cling to mudslinging tactics and call our conservative movement “racist.” We have been called ineffective while simultaneously serving as the boogeymen behind every policy in Washington the left finds abhorrent.

And though we in the movement have known it for quite some time, many have been shocked to find that we have persisted even when we have been routinely harassed by a thuggish bureaucracy that has used the IRS as an instrument to try and quash or otherwise surveil dissenters.

There are few things as egregious in my mind as a government that feels justified in deterring political dissent by imposing hellish regulation and endless bureaucratic hoops through which one must jump to earn the right to speak out politically. The IRS scandal is truly a betrayal of the American people by the government that is supposed to serve us.

The danger of the IRS scandal is not merely that the IRS imposed additional scrutiny on conservative organizations; the problem is that the IRS selected who would be targeted for government-approved harassment based on the political stance the organizations took. The problem is that the IRS imposed truly invasive questions as to the political activities of citizens within the organizations. The problem is that if justice is not done and this kind of behavior is even tacitly allowed, it sets a dangerous precedent that tyranny is okay as long as the right people get oppressed.

It is this dangerous precedent that ought to unite the left and right. The kind of targeting perpetrated by the IRS is not okay when it happens to the Tea Party, it’s not okay if it happens to the ACLU and it’s not okay if it happens to Organizing for America; although, I think it’s safe to say that we would never see that happen.

While this could be a uniting experience for the right and left who both have a vested interest assembling freely, the former president of the NAACP, Julian Bond, has defended the targeting of the Tea Party. Apparently, Mr. Bond is okay with political oppression so long as it’s the right being bullied.

Bond recently sat down with MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts to discuss the IRS’ actions. In 2004, the NAACP was investigated by the IRS and Bond asserted that an investigation into the NAACP was wrong, but that a systematic targeting of conservative groups as a whole was okay.

“I think it’s entirely legitimate to look into the Tea Party. I mean, here are a group of people who are admittedly racist, who are overtly political, who have tried as best they can to harm President Obama in every way they can.”

Bond then lashed out and claimed that the TeaParty is, “the Taliban wing of American politics and we all ought to be a little worried about them.”

 

(Julian Bond, at the 99th NAACP Convention being held in Cincinnati, Sunday, July 13 ,2008. AP Photo/ Tony Tribble)

“Admittedly racist”? The Tea Party Movement advocates Constitutionally-limited government and fiscal accountability. I still eagerly await the day that a liberal can explain to me how that is racist.

The IRS is within their rights to vet an organization. If there are inconsistencies in the IRS filings of a Tea Party organization or the NAACP, a review is justified. What is an outrageous abuse of power, however, is a blanket policy that calls for years-long intrusion and harassment based purely on political motivations. It is simply outrageous that a man who has represented millions of people and has fought for individual rights.

Bond missed a wonderful opportunity to illustrate his commitment to civil rights and the notion that government has no right to target groups to deter political dissent. He does not have to believe in Tea Party principles to admit that thug tactics by the government are not acceptable. Because of his hatred for the Tea Party, he admitted that he was a partisan first and an advocate of freedom second.

There is a famous warning offered by Martin Niemöller, a Lutheran pastor who was imprisoned in Dachau Concentration Camp. To paraphrase, he warned that first the Nazis came for the Communists, and he did not speak out because he was not a communist. His and his fellow countrymen’s apathy allowed group after group to become victims of the Third Reich and because he was not directly targeted, he allowed the violation of human rights to continue. Ultimately, his warning against apathy towards tyranny when not directly affected ended with, “Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Niemöller’s cautionary tale is a sobering one that illustrates the danger of apathy. It is a naïve, short-sided fool who believes that a government that feels at ease violating the rights of one group, if left undeterred, will never violate everyone’s rights.

Tyranny does not begin and take hold overnight. Nobody in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or Communist Cuba went to sleep a free man and awoke under the yoke of oppression. It is the silence of otherwise-principled people that fuels tyranny.

We, as a country, regardless of political affiliations, must feel outraged by the government’s actions and stand together in unwavering condemnation.

So, much like Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) attending and being guilty by association with Louis Farrakhan over his anti-Semitic remarks, we see here a case where a liberal political interest group leader uses the typical tool of the Left, the double standard, in asserting that people in opposition to his beliefs should be persecuted by the federal government.

***

We are learning more and more everyday the investigation is being conducted.  More light is being shed on the secretive world of the IRS, how they are one of arguably the three most corrupt organizations or departments within the federal government along with the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security.  The Tea Party cannot even hold a demonstration outside office buildings of the IRS in various cities around the nation without armed agents from Homeland Security being present.  The government is clearly out to oppress and suppress the conservative establishment at all phases, whether it be targeting the Tea Party, pro-Israel, pro-life, or evangelical Christian groups who oppose the Democrats and, more notably, the Obama administration.  The president has, according to one article I have cited, violated at least eight of the first ten amendments located in the Bill of Rights.  The only time members of his administration will support the Constitution is when it benefits them, such as the case with Lois Lerner.  The Democratic party, as I have said in the majority of my articles so far, is the single greatest party of politicians in U.S. history -- and they are not statesmen, but indeed, they are politicians.  As a result, it would not surprise me in the least to see the president come out of these scandals smelling like a rose just as Bill Clinton did with the Monica Lewinsky scandal some 14 years ago.  That is how smooth of operators the Democrats are, and the American people as a whole do not seem to care one iota how politically and morally profligate they truly are.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): My Colleagues Just Voted to Arm the Allies of Al-Qaeda

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."

- Douglas Adams, British comic and author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1952-2001)

(Above: Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY, arguing against the passing of a bill arming the Syrian opposition during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting on Tuesday, May 21, 2013.  Courtesy of Foreign Policy.)

Oh the irony of repeating mistakes of the past. The word "irony" is truly significant to that statement because it was the term Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) used to describe the foolish decision by his colleagues, Republican and Democrat alike, in passing a bill that would arm the Syrian opposition al-Nasra Front that has been aligned with al-Qaeda. The article discussing this is in Foreign Policy from May 21, 2013, as reported on by John Hudson:

"Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) blasted members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tuesday, which voted overwhelmingly to arm elements of the Syrian opposition in a bill co-sponsored by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN). 'This is an important moment,' Paul said, addressing his Senate colleagues. 'You will be funding, today, the allies of al Qaeda. It's an irony you cannot overcome.'

The legislation, which would authorize the shipment of arms and military training to rebels 'that have gone through a thorough vetting process,' passed in a bipartisan 15-3 vote. Paul offered an amendment that would strike the bill's weapons provision, but it was rejected along with another Paul amendment ruling out the authorization of the use of military force in Syria. (Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy was the only senator to join Paul in support of the weapons amendment.)

Paul's two amendments constituted his first legislative act to soften the Menendez-Corker bill, which earned the support of powerful lawmakers from Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) to Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to Marco Rubio (R-FL) -- all of whom rejected Paul's allegations. "I don't think any member of this committee would vote for anything we thought was going to arm al Qaeda," said Rubio. 'Al Qaeda, unfortunately, is well-armed,' added Menendez. 'That is the present reality in Syria.' 

The dispute centers on the issue of whether the United States could properly vet Syrian rebels so that weapons and body armor would not fall into the hands of extremist groups, such as the al Qaeda-aligned al-Nusra Front. The Pentagon's top brass has vacillated about whether it's logistically possible to keep track of weapons as they enter a conflict involving a complex mix of opposition groups, as the new bill would require.

Corker added that not arming rebel groups such as the more moderate Free Syrian Army would ensure the dominance of the better-equipped al-Nusra Front. Paul responded, saying, 'It's impossible to know who our friends are ... I know everyone here wants to do the right thing, but I think it's a rush to war.'

To get a sense of how adamant the committee is to authorize more aggressive intervention in Syria, an amendment offered by Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) to limit the types of weapons delivered to rebels was forcefully rejected as well. 'The senator from New Mexico wants to use shotguns against SCUD missiles,' McCain said dismissively.

The bill now includes an amendment by Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), that would 'require the administration to impose sanctions on entities that provide surface-to-surface or surface-to-air missiles, like the SA20s or S300s, to the Assad regime,' according to a press release -- a clear reference to Russia, which has vowed in recent weeks to proceed with sales of advanced missiles that would extend the range and sophistication of the Syrian regime's anti-aircraft systems.

The Menendez-Corker bill next moves to the Senate floor, but an aide to Menendez said it was uncertain when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, whose office did not respond to a request for comment, will take up the legislation.

Observers say the bill's chances of passing in its current form are slim, but it does increase the pressure on the administration to intervene more aggressively. As Andrew Tabler, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy noted earlier this month, 'If you want to pressure the president into acting, it's a pretty good bill ...The last time the Hill moved on Syria was sanctions on Syrian oil in the summer of 2011. That pressured the president to move, and this could too.'"

I do believe a more appropriate quote comes from the great former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill:

"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Take for instance the U.S. providing ammunition and munition to the mujahideen in the Afghan-Soviet War that was led by Osama bin Laden, who would become al Qaeda's leader and plan the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. George Washington University built a website dedicated to providing inquiring minds information about the Afghan-Soviet War and the involvement of the Carter, Reagan, and Bush administrations in funding the mujahideen during the conflict.  The website is part of a collection of data titled "The National Security Archive," and it lists declassified information from the CIA on what transpired between the United States and the mujahideen:

"The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have led to major decisions by the Bush administration to conduct operations against terrorists wherever they may reside.  Osama bin Laden, the apparent mastermind behind the September 11th incidents, is based in Afghanistan where U.S. military strikes are now underway.  In the recent past, during the 1980s, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) played a significant role in inserting U.S. influence in Afghanistan by funding military operations designed to frustrate the Soviet invasion of that country. 

CIA covert action worked through Pakistani intelligence services to reach Afghani rebel groups.  That operation began after December 1979, when Russian forces mounted a surprise intervention in Afghanistan.  Fighting between CIA-funded Afghans and the Russians with their Khalq allies continued through 1988.  At that time Moscow, having suffered substantial losses and incurred excessive costs in the country, decided to withdraw.  The last Soviet forces left Afghanistan in early 1989, but warfare continued as the rebel forces contested with the Khalq regime for control of Kabul.

The CIA ended its aid in 1992, the Russians sometime later, and the pro-Russian government in Kabul fell.  In the final stages of that struggle the Taliban began to emerge as a major force in Afghan politics and it subsequently drove the Northern Alliance from Kabul, confining the remnants of the original rebel alliance to a small enclave in the north-eastern part of the country. The fundamentalist leader Osama bin Laden, though getting his start in the CIA-funded war of the 1970s and 80s, did not become a prominent fugitive in Afghanistan until he returned to the country as the Taliban's guest in 1996.

Records on the Afghan war furnish many insights applicable to the new war against terrorism, in which Afghanistan has become the first major battlefield.  On the U.S. side the primary sources for the material are the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and the United States Army.  The source documents were produced by those agencies between 1979 and 1989, primarily to track events in the war for decisionmakers of the Carter, Reagan, and Bush administrations."

The files will be posted right here.  They will be in PDF format, so you will need to make sure you have Adobe Acrobat Reader on your computer in order to view them.:

• Document 1: Central Intelligence Agency, National Foreign Assessment Center, "Afghanistan: Ethnic Diversity and Dissidence," 1 March 1980 (CIA Declassification Release)
• Document 2: Central Intelligence Agency, Directorate of Intelligence, Office of Political Analysis, "The Soviets and the Tribes of Southwest Asia," 23 September 1980 (CIA Declassification Release)
• Document 3: Defense Intelligence Agency, Directorate for Research, "The Economic Impact of Soviet Involvement in Afghanistan," May 1983 (DIA Declassification Release)
• Document 4: Defense Intelligence Agency, Directorate for Research, "The Economic Impact of Soviet Involvement in Afghanistan," May 1983 (DIA Declassification Release)
• Document 5: Central Intelligence Agency, Directorate of Intelligence, "The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan: Five Years After," May 1985 (CIA Declassification Release)
• Document 6: Defense Intelligence Agency, "Iranian Support to the Afghan Resistance," excerpt from unidentified study, n.d.
• Document 7: Defense Intelligence Agency, "Iranian Support to the Afghan Resistance," 11 July 1985
• Document 8: Central Intelligence Agency, Directorate of Intelligence, "The Costs of Soviet Involvement in Afghanistan," February 1987 (CIA Declassification Release)
• Document 9: Central Intelligence Agency, Special National Intelligence Estimate 11/37/88, "USSR: Withdrawal from Afghanistan," March 1988, Key Judgments only (originally published in CIA, At Cold War's End: U.S. Intelligence on the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, 1989-1991, Benjamin B. Fischer, ed. [Washington, D.C: Central Intelligence Agency, 1999])
• Document 10: Defense Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Appraisal, "Afghanistan: Soviet Withdrawal Scenario," 9 May 1988 (DIA Declassification Release)
• Document 11: U.S. Army, "Lessons from the War in Aghanistan," May 1989 (Army Department Declassification Release)
• Document 12: Central Intelligence Agency, Special National Intelligence Estimate 37-89, "Afghanistan: The War in Perspective," November 1989, Key Judgments only (originally published in CIA, At Cold War's End: U.S. Intelligence on the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, 1989-1991, Benjamin B. Fischer, ed. [Washington, D.C: Central Intelligence Agency, 1999])

While the Left has gone out of its way in successfully smearing President Ronald Reagan's name in the act of funding the mujahideen, let it be known that while the Reagan administration was the most aggressive of the three administrations in raising funds, weapons, ammunition, and various other types of munitions for the organization, the initiative was originally undertaken by the Carter administration in 1979 upon the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. According to Conservapedia, this is indeed what transpired:

"In July, 1979, before the Soviet invasion, President Jimmy Carter for the first time authorized the CIA to start assisting the mujahideen rebels with money and non-military supplies sent via Pakistan. As soon as the Soviets invaded in December, 1979, Carter, disgusted at the collapse of détente and alarmed at the rapid Soviet gains, terminated progress on arms limitations, slapped a grain embargo on Russia, withdrew from the 1980 Moscow Olympics, and (with near-unanimous support in Congress) sent the CIA in to arm, train and finance the mujahideen rebels. The US had strong support from Britain, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, all of whom feared the Soviet invasion was the first step in a grand move south toward the oil-rich Persian Gulf. Carter enlarged his position into the 'Carter Doctrine,' by which the US announced its intention to defend the Gulf. Historians now believe that analysis was faulty and that the Soviets were not planning a grand move, but were concerned with loss of prestige and the possibility of a hostile Muslim regime that might destabilize its largely Muslim southern republics. The boycott of the Olympics humiliated the Soviets, who had hoped the games would validate their claim to moral equality in the world of nations; instead they were pariahs again....

...The CIA effort code-named "Operation Cyclone" began with funding of $25 million in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987, including matching funds from Saudi Arabia. Anti-Soviet mujahideen received American aid through Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence Agency, which cooperated with the CIA. About 90,000 men were in the rebel units; about 20,000 were active at any one time, compared with 100,000 Soviet and 40,000 regime soldiers. Meanwhile millions of civilians fled to neighboring countries, especially Pakistan and Iran, where a worldwide relief effort fed them....

...Taking office in early 1981, President Ronald Reagan began a rollback strategy of supporting insurgencies in Nicaragua, Cambodia, Angola, and, above all, in Afghanistan. The goal, especially after 1984, was to bleed Moscow white--to create a Vietnam for them which would suck their military dry. "We control Kabul and the provincial centers, but on occupied territory we cannot establish authority," the Defense Minister explained to the Politburo in 1986. "We have lost the battle for the Afghan people." Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in 1985 and immediately realized the severe drain caused by trying to hold his empire together, especially as the U.S. was escalating military spending, threatening to build Star Wars, and the Soviet economy was faltering badly as revenues plunged from oil exports. It took him several years to get enough Politburo support, all the time the poor performance and prolonged presence of the Soviet military in Afghanistan created domestic financial and political problems. In 1986 he replaced Karmal with Mohammad Najibullah (1947-96) the head of the dreaded secret police (KHAD) and leader of the Parcham faction. Finally in 1988 to save the heart of the Communist system in Russia he admitted defeat and cut his losses in Afghanistan....

...The last Soviet troops left in February 1989, but Soviet military aid continued until the fall of Communism in the Soviet Union in 1991. The Najibullah regime lasted another three years, until a military offensive by the mujahideen captured Kabul with little fighting in April 1992. In the end, Afghanistan contributed significantly, perhaps decisively, to the collective loss of confidence that brought the Soviet Union to self-destruction. The lost war discredited the Soviet army, which had been the single most important institution holding the union together, eroded the legitimacy of the Soviet system in the eyes of non-Russian nationalities, and accelerated glasnost (English translation: "openness").

Critics of U.S. foreign policy consider Operation Cyclone to be substantially responsible for setting in motion the events that led to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 commonly known as the term blowback.  However, scholars such as Jason Burke, Steve Coll, Peter Bergen, Christopher Andrew, and Vasily Mitrokhin have argued that Osama bin Laden was 'outside of CIA eyesight'the and that there is 'no support' in any 'reliable source' for 'the claim that the CIA funded bin Laden or any of the other Arab volunteers who came to support the mujahideen.'

After 1989 the United States provided relief and economic aid aid but stayed neutral in the ongoing tribal conflicts. After 1990 a new organization arose, the Taliban, a militantly anti-modern group that was strongly opposed to the mujahideen, and both anti-American and anti-Soviet. Primarily a youth group, the Taliban never received any aide from the US.The Taliban militia took control of the Kabul in 1996, and installed a very harsh Islamist regime. Later it invited in Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda group, which established its base in Afghanistan." 

While Conservapedia indicates that there is no proof that the CIA provided funding and supplies for the bin Laden-led mujahideen during the Afghan-Soviet War, we should be quick to note that there are lessons to be found in all of this, for the factions it did assist eventually turned into the ruling Taliban in 1996. Even though the George Washington University-supported website containing declassified National Security files from the war in its opening essay that was not included within the files I presented on here did not indicate that the Reagan administration directly funded bin Laden, this is, indeed, a case where hindsight is 20/20 and our leaders in Washington need to be more cognizant of the people our government is funding and with whom they are aligned or are allies, plus learn from the mistakes of the past.  I tend to favor the foreign policy initiatives Sen. Paul and his father, the former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), assumed by extricating ourselves out of the Middle East political upheaval that will never cease but will instead continue to proliferate. There is absolutely nothing our government has managed to accomplish over the past 65 years since the modern state of Israel was founded by the United Nations.  While the U.S. allies itself closely with the Israeli government due to religious ties, we have been the focus of various terrorist attacks on U.S. soil as well as on military and U.S. Consulate installations since the 1993 bombing at the World Trade Center.  Thus, I postulate that the only solution for maintain a state of peace and harmony in America is by dissolving the bonds it has with the Middle East and adopting a platform of isolation with regards to that region of the world.  This will ultimately require the federal government to open up the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge to drilling and proceeding with plans to utilize the Keystone XL Pipeline to transport tar sands oil from Canada and the northern U.S. down to the Gulf Coast of Texas, thus forcing the Democrats' hands.  It will save American civilian lives in the long run and have the added benefit of creating thousands upon thousands of jobs.

Of course, the Democrats do not care about the growth of wealth for every level of income domestically.  They would rather the poor be poorer so long as they were able to decrease the gaps between the wealthiest and poorest Americans.  Their economic policy is one predicated on low job growth in the private and a maximum increase in government infrastructure jobs whereby the American people are forced to depend on the federal government more and more because it controls every aspect  of one's life.  Couple that with the fact the Democrats expend approximately 99.9% of their energy on domestic policy rather than spending time on foreign policy and national defense, and the American people have the recipe for a political train wreck every time the nation decides to vote en masse to elect Democratic congressional and senatorial candidates into Washington.  As I have said before time-after-time, they are willing to take care of we, the people, but it will cost you more in income taxes, not to mention the great possibility of being required to relinquish some of your rights in order for them to make their programs work.  That is the Democrats' modus operandi, and what a series of policies!