Conservative talk radio host Pete Santilli really hates former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In a recent tirade against Hils, Santilli made a number of vulgar statements, even saying that she deserves to be “shot in the vagina.”

On his May 9 show, Santilli slammed Clinton for what he sees as her involvement in the Benghazi attack, holding her personally responsible for the four Americans killed in last September’s attack.

For her “role” in the Benghazi attack, Santilli said that Clinton “needs to be tried, convicted, and shot in the vagina.”

He continued (language may disturb some readers):

“I want to shoot her right in the vagina and I don’t want her to die right away; I want her to feel the pain and I want to look her in the eyes and I want to say, on behalf of all Americans that you’ve killed, on behalf of the Navy SEALS, the families of Navy SEAL Team Six who were involved in the fake hunt down of this Obama, Obama bin Laden thing, that whole fake scenario, because these Navy SEALS know the truth, they killed them all. On behalf of all of those people, I’m supporting our troops by saying we need to try, convict, and shoot Hillary Clinton in the vagina.”

Santilli’s rant was picked up by the liberal media watchdog group Right Wing Watch, which called him ”an unhinged Internet ranter who exists somewhere to the crazier side of Alex Jones.”

Interestingly, Santilli’s website says he’s ”ready to take my show to national syndication; that is, of course, if the FCC regulated AM/FM radio stations can handle my truth & honesty.”

All things being equal, I don’t think we’re quite ready, Mr. Santilli.

You can listen to the Hillary Clinton / Pete Santilli rant below.

[Image via: CTBTO / Wikimedia Commons]

Hillary Clinton The Subject Of Vicious, Vulgar Attack From Radio Host [Listen] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Gary Pruitt, the president and CEO of The Associated Press, slammed the Department of Justice’s controversial seizure of AP journalist phone records, calling the move “unconstitutional” on Sunday.

Pruitt also said that the DOJ’s phone record seizure has already had a profound and chilling effect on news gathering, since sources have already been more reluctant to talk to the AP without guaranteed protections.

Speaking on CBS‘s “Face the Nation,” Pruitt said that the government has no right to monitor the AP‘s news gathering practices.

“And if they restrict that apparatus … the people of the United States will only know what the government wants them to know and that’s not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment,” he said.

In another interview, Pruitt said that the AP had not yet decided on its next move, but confirmed that legal action against the government is a possibility.

“It’s too early to know if we’ll take legal action but I can tell you we are positively displeased and we do feel that our constitutional rights have been violated,” he said. ”They’ve been secretive, they’ve been overbroad and abusive – so much so that taken together, they are unconstitutional because they violate our First Amendment rights.”

Republican Sen. John Cornyn, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said that while sensitive security information being leaked to the press is indeed a problem, the focus should be on the source of the leak and not on the press, who have a constitutional right to report the news.

“What confuses me is the focus on the press, who have a constitutional right here and we depend on the press to get to the bottom of so many issues that we, as individuals, cannot,” Cornyn said.

Coryn also said that the AP phone records seizure is an example of the scandal-ridden Obama administration’s intimidation of political opponents. ”It’s a culture of cover-ups and intimidation that is giving the administration so much trouble,” he opined.

Pruitt criticized the DOJ, calling the move ”sweeping and broad and beyond what they needed to do.”

He also said that he objects to the “Justice Department acting on its own being the judge, jury and executioner in secret,” and promised ”We’re not going to be intimidated by the abusive tactics of the Justice Department.”

You can read AP CEO Gary Pruitt’s email to Attorney General Eric Holder here and watch a video of his interview here. What do you think of the AP phone record seizure? Unconstitutional?

[Image via: Ioannis Ioannou / Shutterstock]

Gary Pruitt Slams DOJ’s ‘Unconstitutional’ Seizure Of AP Phone Records is a post from: The Inquisitr

Gallup plans to release a detailed analysis over how its polls during the 2012 election turned out to be so disastrously wrong.

The noted polling company ran against the pack for most of the time before the election, showing Mitt Romney in a consistent lead over Barack Obama even as others showed Obama with a small but widening lead.

Gallup’s errors weren’t just a short-term blip. The company’s daily tracking poll showed Romney with a 1- to 7-point lead down the stretch, after the GOP candidate had a strong showing in the first presidential debate.

Just 10 days before the election the Gallup’s daily tracking poll showed a 4-point lead for Romney, even though Obama would go on to win the election 51 percent to 47 percent.

Shortly after the election concluded, Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport pledged to conduct a thorough review of the polling company’s telephone survey methodology. He has pledged to make those findings public in early June.

“We take it seriously” when polls are off, Newport said. “We’ve been doing presidential polling since 1936 which is what put George Gallup on the map …The results [in 2012] certainly were not what we wanted them to be from Gallup’s perspective.”

Gallup’s errors were compounded by the rise of polling analyst Nate Silver, whose blog FiveThirtyEight aggregated polls to make more wide-ranging predictions.

Taking data from hundreds of polls, Silver used a mathematical formula to show Obama holding a small but significant lead throughout the election, even after Romney’s strong debate showing.

Newport has hinted that Gallup’s future could include polling informed by other sources, including “non-probability data, administrative data, social media data.”

“I think it is an exciting time,” Newport said. “Rather than doing things the same way in any business, it’s always exciting when technology in particular opens up all these other opportunities.”

Gallup’s analysis about its 2012 failures will be released June 4.

Gallup To Explain How It Predicted 2012 Presidential Election So Badly is a post from: The Inquisitr

Idaho businessman Frank VanderSloot claims he was targeted by federal agencies for audits after giving a huge donation to the Romney for President campaign.

VanderSloot was one of eight wealthy businessmen who were specifically identified and criticized on an Obama campaign website, which he refers to as a Nixonian enemies list. “As soon as that happened, I knew a target had been nailed on my back,” VanderSloot said.

Eight weeks later, the audits started, two by the IRS and one by the Department of Labor. A swarm of media also came after him in a big way. “Twelve days later, a man working for a political opposition-research firm called an Idaho courthouse for Mr. VanderSloot’s divorce records. In June, the IRS informed Mr. VanderSloot and his wife of an audit of two years of their taxes. In July, the Department of Labor informed him of an audit of the guest workers on his Idaho cattle ranch. In September, the IRS informed him of a second audit, of one of his businesses. Mr. VanderSloot, who had never been audited before, was subject to three in the four months after Mr. Obama teed him up for such scrutiny.”

It turned out that VanderSloot passed the audits with flying colors, and the government owes him money: “The last of these audits was only concluded in recent weeks. Not one resulted in a fine or penalty. But Mr. VanderSloot has been waiting more than 20 months for a sizable refund and estimates his legal bills are $80,000. That figure doesn’t account for what the president’s vilification has done to his business and reputation.”

VanderSloot added that he hopes it’s just a coincidence that the federal government scrutiny followed his name showing up on the campaign website: “I don’t want [America]  to become one of these third-world countries where you have to worry about your back all the time if you disagree with who’s in charge.” He also commented that he’s hopeful that the US won’t go down the path where so-called third-world tactics are used to intimidate people from supporting a political candidate of their choice.

Watch Frank VanderSloot’s recent interview on FNC embedded below.

Frank VanderSloot is the founder and chief executive officer of Melaleuca, Inc. He also founded Riverbend Ranch, a commercial cattle operation, and owns Riverbend Communications, a radio station group among other business interests.

The IRS is currently under investigation in Congress and by the FBI for unlawfully targeting Tea Party and other politically conservative groups for heavy scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt 401(c) status.

[top image credit: Jeremy]

Romney Donor: I Was Audited Three Times [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

The IRS reportedly took just a few weeks to give its okay to a charity founded by President Barack Obama’s half brother.

The news of this unusually speedy government approval comes amidst the ongoing controversy about how Tea Party and other groups found themselves in limbo for up to three years waiting for IRS approval of their tax-exempt status applications.  Investigations into the unlawful extra scrutiny to which the IRS subjected politically conservative groups are ongoing.

Approval of such nonprofit groups generally takes about six months under normal processing. The fast-track approval came through even though the foundation may have been operating illegally. “The 34 days the IRS’s Cincinnati office took to process the foundation’s application stands in contrast to the waits of several months — and sometimes longer than a year — that several conservative groups say they experienced with the same office.”

The Arlington, Va.-based Barack H. Obama Foundation was set up to improve the quality of life for poor Kenyans and was founded by Abon’go Malik Obama, the president’s half brother, in memory of their father.

The group also apparently had been operating as tax exempt and collecting tax deductible donations in that context for several years without obtaining the necessary approval from the IRS or even officially registering in Virginia. “It is illegal to operate for longer than 27 months without an IRS determination and solicit tax-deductible contributions.”

A former State Department official affiliated which the charity admitted in early May 2011 that “We haven’t been able to find someone with the expertise to [apply for tax-exempt status].” The National Legal and Policy Center filed a complaint against the foundation in May 2011 for that reason.

On May 23, 2011, the Obama Foundation evidently filed the necessary paperwork, and the IRS appears to have quickly granted the tax exemption on Jun 26, 2011. The IRS even gave the foundation a retroactive tax exemption back to April 30, 2008 which is said to be unprecedented. The approval letter was signed by Lois Lerner, the IRS official who admitted last week that the IRS subjected Tea Party groups to wrongful extra scrutiny.

According to the NLPC, “It appears that the Obama Foundation was treated quite differently from Tea Party and conservative groups seeking nonprofit status. Soliciting tax-deductible contributions before applying for tax-exempt status is against the law, and should have been an impediment, if not an outright disqualification, from being granted such status.”

Added the NLPC: “The disparity is even more striking when one considers that the Obama Foundation sought 501(c)(3) status, which allows donors to deduct contributions while many Tea Party groups sought only 501(c)(4) status, which does not allow for the same benefit.”

Are you surprised that the IRS apparently gave the Barack H. Obama Foundation expedited service while Tea Party and other tax-exempt applications languished?

[top image via Shutterstock]

IRS Approved Obama Charity In One Month is a post from: The Inquisitr

Testifying on Capitol Hill today, the Treasury Department’s Inspector General said he informed high-level Obama Treasury Department officials in early June 2012 in the middle of the presidential election campaign that he was investigating the IRS for engaging in unlawful scrutiny of Tea Party and other conservative political groups. A previous report indicated that senior IRS officials knew of this unlawful practice in 2011.

The federal watchdog released his report this week that concluded that ineffective IRS management allowed agents to use inappropriate criteria to profile conservative groups. “At the first Congressional hearing into the I.R.S. scandal, J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, told members of the House Ways and Means Committee that he informed the Treasury’s general counsel of his audit on June 4, and Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin ‘shortly thereafter.’ ”

At the same House hearing today, Acting IRS Commission Steven Miller was grilled by Members of Congress and admitted that his agency did “horrible customer service” in the way it handled applications for perhaps as many as 500 Tea Party and other groups seeking nonprofit status as so-called social welfare 501(c)(4) organizations. In less-than-forthcoming testimony, Miller nonetheless insisted that there was no partisan motivation or corruption involved in the way the applications were processed.

No liberal or left-of-center political groups were subject to any equivalent extra scrutiny, intrusive questioning, or a slow down in processing, however.

Miller resigned on Wednesday, although he claimed that he was leaving the post in June anyway.

At today’s hearing, Miller also revealed that the apology for the Tea Party targeting from IRS official Lois Lerner given at a lawyer’s conference that started the uproar last Friday was in response to a planted question. The attempt at spin control presumably was prompted by the impending release of the IG report.

Separately, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew claimed today that he learned that the IRS was under investigation by the Inspector General in March shortly after he was sworn in, but didn’t learn any of the details of the IRS misconduct until last Friday. He and the new acting Commissioner have vowed to clean up the agency.

Some observers have raised the implication of voter suppression in the IRS scandal: “In the end, the IRS managed to put its thumb on the political scale by squelching political activity on the right — some groups report curtailing get-out-the-vote efforts, spending piles of money on legal fees or disbanding altogether in the face of IRS inquisitions. And all of it happened during a close and hotly contested presidential election where such mischievousness could make a real difference.”

There are seemingly new developments by the minute in this IRS Tea Party targeting scandal. Further Congressional hearings, in which other IRS officials will called to give testimony, are scheduled in the coming days. The FBI is also conducting a criminal investigation into the IRS. Democrat Sen. Max Baucus, who recently referred to Obamacare as a “huge train wreck” said “I have a hunch that a lot more is going to come out, frankly” and “It’s broader than the current focus.”

[top image via Shutterstock]

Here are some  highlights (or lowlights depending upon your perspective) of today’s hearing with Acting IRS Commissioner Miller as well as a specific sequence with small-business champion Rep. Mike Kelly which uncharacteristically resulted in applause from those in the hearing room:

IRS Scandal: Obama Administration Officials Knew About Tea Party Probe Last June is a post from: The Inquisitr

A federal judge issued an injunction on Friday that blocks an Arkansas law to ban abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy. The temporary injunction was a response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The 12-week abortion ban was enacted by the state’s Republican-led Legislature. They enacted the law in March by overriding a veto from Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe, a Democrat.

US District Judge Susan Webber granted the preliminary injunction, meaning that the abortion ban, set to take effect in August, cannot be enforced while the lawsuit is pending.

The lawsuit in question was filed by the ACLU and the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of two abortion providers in Little Rock. The suit claims that the 12-week abortion ban is unconstitutional and contradicts Roe v. Wade, a landmark decision made by the Supreme Court.

Roe v. Wade legalized abortion until a fetus could survive outside the womb, generally between 22 and 24 weeks. But the Arkansas 12-week abortion ban is tied to the date when a fetal heartbeat can be detected through ultrasound. The federal judge’s preliminary injunction comes days after Arkansas attempted to have the lawsuit dismissed. Wright rejected the move to dismiss.

In her ruling from the bench, Wright stated, “The court finds that the plaintiffs have established a threat of irreparable harm to themselves and to their patients.”

The state has claimed that the ACLU and Center for Reproductive Rights don’t have the standing to challenge the ban, because it is not yet in place. However, Wright disagreed. She explained that the threat of enforcement is enough to challenge the law. In a news release on Friday, Holly Dickson, legal director of the ACLU of Arkansas, stated:

“We have asked the court to stop this dangerous law from going into effect. This law is aimed at allowing politicians to insert themselves into deeply personal and private medical care and decisions for which they should have no say.”

Arkansas’ pending 12-week abortion ban is not the most restrictive in the country. North Dakota recently banned most abortions after six weeks.

[Image via ShutterStock]

Judge Issues Injunction Against Arkansas 12-Week Abortion Ban is a post from: The Inquisitr

Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) will soon push an amendment to the upcoming farm bill that would reveal the so-called “Monsanto Protection Act.”

The act was a rider attached anonymously to a spending bill that sailed easily through Congress in March. The legislation allows Monsanto and other companies to continue selling genetically modified seeds, even if they have been blocked by a court from doing so.

The Monsanto Protection Act’s passage in Congress with no debate was frustrating to GMO opponents, especially after it was signed into law by President Barack Obama.

Merkley has promised to press for a floor vote on his repeal amendment when the farm bill’s debate begins next week. Recently, federal courts have ruled that the US Department of Agriculture failed to consider the potential harm some genetically engineered crops may have.

The court added that the department may have acted too quickly when it came to approving the GMO sales. In response, the industry fought back with the farm bill rider, which prevents the enforcement of court rulings.

The so-called Monsanto Protection Act is Section 735 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013. Within the nearly 600-page bill, Section 735 states that biotech companies who experiment with genetically engineered and genetically modified crops can continue selling them, even if legal action has been taken against them.

Before the bill was passed in March, dozens of farmers wrote the House of Representatives, saying:

“The provision would strip federal courts of the authority to halt the sale and planting of an illegal, potentially hazardous GE crop while the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) assesses these potential hazards.”

Meanwhile, Monsanto has called the act “a positive step to ensure US farmers and our food chain are shielded from supply disruptions caused by litigation over procedural issues unrelated to sound science or the safety of biotech crops.” Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) stated earlier this year that he co-authored the Monsanto Protection act, along with the biotech company.

But the act has caused widespread frustration. As a result, demonstrations against Monsanto are scheduled in 36 countries on six continents later this month.

Do you think the Monsanto Protection Act, Section 735, should be repealed?

Senator Pushes Amendment To Repeal Monsanto Protection Act is a post from: The Inquisitr

The IRS scandal is linked to the Obama campaign of the 2012 election, which illegally received the IRS tax returns of political opponents including the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, IRS scandal’s Obama connection are just now being discovered. The IRS even leaked documents on conservative groups to progressive groups. Even Obama’s cousin was targeted by the IRS for writing articles critical of President Obama, and Obama’s cousin even claims he lost his job because of it. On the other hand, President Obama’s half-brother allegedly received preferential treatment from the IRS, receiving tax exempt status retroactively within one month while Tea Party groups waited years.

So far, the document trail leads to Washington but President Obama has denied any knowledge of the IRS scandals. Even so, 55 percent of Americans says Obama is involved in the IRS scandal.

Based upon Federal law, it’s a criminal offense to misuse for political gain any information submitted by a taxpayer, an entity, or anybody who submits any information to the IRS. IRS agents are supposed to be limited in what they say, ask, or do with the information. Before Nixon and Watergate, breaking these IRS laws was only a misdemeanor. Afterwards, the laws were changed to being a criminal offense with five years of jail time.

Before the 2012 election, the Obama campaign attacked Mitt Romney with IRS documents that “came directly from the Internal Revenue Service and was provided to NOM’s political opponents, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC),” which is the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization. The document showed Romney donated $10,000 to NOM, which supports traditional marriage. The documents also listed all the other donors, including their addresses and other private information.

The HRC’s president at the time, Joe Solmonese, was serving as a Co-Chair of President Obama’s reelection campaign. Coincidentally, the IRS tax returns of NOM were allegedly leaked days after Joe Solmonese joined Obama’s campaign.

NOM president Brian Brown believes this other IRS scandal benefited President Obama politically:

“The American people are entitled to know how a confidential tax return containing private donor information filed exclusively with the Internal Revenue Service has been given to our political opponents whose leader also happens to be co-chairing President Obama’s reelection committee. It is shocking that a political ally of President Obama’s would come to possess and then publicly release a confidential tax return that came directly from the Internal Revenue Service. We demand to know who is responsible for this criminal act and what the [Obama] Administration is going to do to get to the bottom of it.”

Talking to Mike Huckabee on his radio show today, Brian Brown described how these leaked IRS tax returns were used to target NOM’s contributors. In response, NOM filed for an investigation with the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration and when that didn’t help they also applied for relevant documents to be released under the Freedom of Information Act.

Brian Brown says the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration has been stonewalling these requests. First, the IRS passed them back and forth between departments, with each department claiming the other had access to the information being requested. When the information was not released to NOM they sent a second request, which was then denied because the IRS said they’d already answered the request.

Finally, when NOM attempted to find out who was behind this part of the IRS scandal the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration responded by saying that the laws that make it illegal to misuse IRS documents for political gain also protect the criminal from being outed. According to Brian Brown, this last response by the IRS is forcing NOM to file a forthcoming lawsuit: “The IRS position most recently is the criminal who did this is a taxpayer, so his name is protected. [This is an] an orchestrated campaign to keep the identity of that person from disclosure and criminal prosecution.”

What do you think the IRS scandal being linked to the Obama campaign by NOM means?

IRS Scandal: Obama Campaign Illegally Received Tax Returns Claims NOM is a post from: The Inquisitr

President Obama’s “marine umbrella” scandal is the latest in a long line of O-boo-boos this week that have us wondering when the POTUS became such an easy target.

Just in case you missed the original story, President Obama had a U.S. Marine hold an umbrella over his head during a speech, and all absolute hell broke loose.

But here’s what’s asinine about the story: The debate is over a U.S. Marine Corps policy banning umbrella holding. Uniform regulations state that a male Marine cannot hold an umbrella while wearing his uniform.

President Obama may or may not have known this, but in the eyes of his critics, he’s a huge hypocrite/socialist/Kenyan all the same for making this Marine break regulation.

Obama’s “marine umbrella” situation was considered an oddity by others, and a Marine Corps spokesman admitted that seeing a Marine holding an umbrella is “extremely rare.”

Of course, since President Obama is the Commander in Chief, if he tells a Marine to hold an umbrella for him, we’re guessing that said Marine’s commanding officer probably lets it slide.

Still, that hasn’t silenced critics of President Obama, who is just this week dealing with a whole slew of new scandals and several old ones popping up once again in light of the new hotness.

He’s staring down an AP scandal, an IRS scandal, renewed questions about Benghazi, renewed questions about Fast and Furious (the operation, not the movie) as well as juggling a litany of other garden variety complaints on his “to-do” list (“Why are we still at war, why haven’t you closed Gitmo, why is healthcare not as awesome as you promised,” etc. etc.).

Leading the charge against Obama yet again is former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin:

Scandalous Hat TrickMr. President, when it rains it pours, but most Americans hold their own umbrellas. Today in… fb.me/zAZryzjj

— Sarah Palin (@SarahPalinUSA) May 17, 2013

What do you think of Obama’s “marine umbrella” scandal? Is it really that big of a deal, or is the POTUS just facing pressure for his other mishaps this week?

Obama’s ‘Marine Umbrella’ Scandal Earns POTUS New Round Of Criticism is a post from: The Inquisitr

The House of Representatives has voted to repeal Obamacare — for the 37th time. The repeal vote was held on Thursday afternoon and signaled a possible growing trend of the GOP to voice their opinion on the law, called the Affordable Care Act, which passed in 2010.

The House held a successful vote to repeal the healthcare act by 229-195. However, the bill has little chance of passing in the Democratic-controlled House.

Rather, the decision to hold a vote repealing Obamacare was made by Republican leaders looking to appease freshman GOP lawmakers. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), explained:

“We’ve got 70 new members who have not had the opportunity to vote on the president’s health care law. Frankly, they’ve been asking for an opportunity to vote on it, and we’re going to give it to them.”

The House debated the Obamacare repeal bill before the vote on Thursday, revisiting many of the same polemical points each side has made since the bill was first debated in 2009 and 2010.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that repealing the Affordable Care Act could cause an increase in budget deficits of $109 billion in the next ten years. Should the law be rescinded, spending would be cut by $890 billion, while revenues would be cut by $1 trillion in the next 10 years.

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI), the senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, called the vote to repeal Obamacare “a Republican obsession.” He added that it is “an embarrassing spectacle that has consumed House Republicans for more than two years, to the detriment of our economy and millions of Americans looking for work.”

House Ways and Means Committee chairman Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) countered, saying the law “puts the federal government precisely where it doesn’t belong.”

Thursday’s House vote to repeal Obamacare also sparked a Twitter feud between the two sides. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) started the hashtag #ObamaCareInThreeWords. The White House seized the opportunity to defend the healthcare reform, tweeting:

It’s. The. Law. #ObamaCareInThreeWords, twitter.com/whitehouse/sta…

— The White House (@whitehouse) May 16, 2013

Do you think the House’s bill to repeal Obamacare will work?

[Image via ShutterStock]

House Votes To Repeal ‘Obamacare,’ Again is a post from: The Inquisitr

Michele Bachmann may have crashed and burned in her bid to win the GOP nomination last year, but the Minnesota congresswoman isn’t quite ready to leave the national spotlight.

Though she is still battling allegations of election finance fraud and allegations that her campaign tried to bribe a GOP official in Iowa, Bachmann is trying to keep her status as the leader of the GOP charge against Barack Obama.

This week Michele Bachmann sponsored a bill that would repeal ObamaCare. She also provided a forum for tea party groups to air grievances against the Internal Revenue Service, which was found to have added undue scrutiny to these conservative organizations.

The scandal that erupted after the IRS allegations came to light is right in the political sweet spot for Bachmann, a tea party darling and leader of the House Tea Party Caucus.

Despite near-constant scorn from the left, Bachmann has handled the opposition deftly and been able to maintain her important part in the GOP.

“History is filled with stories of political comebacks and she will have that opportunity — and she has the capability to rehab her image and change the focus to her work instead of these other issues,” said Keith Appell, a GOP consultant. “Given how this issue of the IRS‘ persecution of the tea party is mushrooming, an opportunity is emerging for her — if she plays it right — to be relevant again. The IRS scandal will fuel tea party participation in the 2014 elections, so if she can get out from underneath these other issues she could play a significant role next year and potentially benefit from a tea party conservative victory.”

Democrats are also happy that Michele Bachmann is remaining on the national stage. Jim Manley, a Democratic strategist, said her views are “so far out of the mainstream” that it can only help Democrats by comparison.

The ongoing investigation into Bachmann’s campaign also casts a pall over a potential comeback. And in addition, congressional ethics investigators are also examining whether Michele Bachmann campaign staffers played an improper role in her 2011 book tour promoting her memoir, Core of Conviction.

Michele Bachmann Looks To Make Political Comeback, Repeal ObamaCare is a post from: The Inquisitr

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled that President Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board are unconstitutional which therefore tosses out any decisions those Board appointees made.

The Philadelphia-based court is the second judicial body to so rule. In January, the D.C. Circuit reached the same general conclusion, i.e. that presidential recess appointments — i.e., those officials who have not received an up-or-down vote in the US Senate — are only valid under the Constitution if they are made when the Senate goes out of operation at the end of the session rather than during frequent breaks it takes throughout the legislative session.

Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution provides that “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”

All the legal wrangling revolves around a technical interpretation of “Recess of the Senate.”

In this case, a New Jersey nursing home involved in a labor dispute with a group of nurses challenged an adverse ruling from the union-friendly Labor Board on the grounds that there was no legally required quorum. Three members rendered the disputed decision, all of whom were recess appointees, including Craig Becker, who now works for the AFL-CIO. Recess appointees have not gone through the Senate confirmation process. “The facility, New Vista, contended that the board’s decision was invalid because it did not have enough members active when the decision was issued because the naming of Becker to the board was not a valid recess appointment.” At least three members of the five-member board must participate in a decision for it to be legally binding.

In a 157-page decision that cited legislative history, the Federalist Papers, and the Constitution itself, the appellate court in a 2-1 opinion determined that Becker’s appointment was illegal and therefore the underlying New Vista decision was null and void because the agency lacked a minimum three-member quorum. The court ruled that recess appointment clause in the Constitution refers only to so-called intersession breaks, i.e., those breaks between sessions, rather than pro forma sessions or other temporary adjournments of Senate business during the legislative session. The court added that its decision preserves the checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches by limiting the president’s unilateral appointment authority.

This latest ruling, along with the prior D.C. Circuit opinion, throws hundreds of decisions made by Obama recess appointees into potential legal limbo. It also suggests that the Obama recess appointment of the high-profile Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director — and any regulations that he may have issued — may also be unconstitutional. The D.C. Circuit ruling is on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, however.

The rulling could pull the plug on all of Pres Obama’s recess appointments incl Richard Cordray as Dir, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

— Mark Knoller (@markknoller) May 16, 2013

Earlier this month, the D.C. Circuit threw out an NLRB rule that would have required private sector employers to post a sign notifying workers of their rights to join a union on free speech grounds.

Second Appeals Court Rules Obama Recess Appointments Unconstitutional is a post from: The Inquisitr

Obama is worth a lot less these days then when he just started his presidency.

Financial documents released this week show that President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama have seen their net worth slashed roughly in half since 2010. Last year the couple had assets of between $1.8 million and $6.8 million, down from their range of $1.8 million to $12 million in 2010.

While it’s impossible to determine from the ranges if the Obamas actually saw their net worth drop, or by how much, the numbers seem to show that even the leader of the free world isn’t safe from a nationwide financial collapse.

The largest asset for the couple were Treasury notes worth $1 million to $5 million, and they also had a checking account with JPMorgan Chase worth between $250,001 and $500,000.

Obama also made between $250,000 and $2.1 million in royalties from his three books: Dreams From My Father,  The Audacity of Hope, and a children’s book, Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters.

By comparison, Vice President Joe Biden and his wife Jill have fewer assets. The couple reported holding assets worth between $120,000 and $550,000, contained mostly in investment accounts and life insurance policies.

The federal financial disclosure on the Obama family’s worth, contained in an eight-page report, was signed by Obama on Tuesday and released by the White House on Wednesday. It comes out as Obama is under pressure politically for his administration’s response to September’s terrorist attack on a diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.

Obama has also been slammed after it was disclosed the Internal Revenue Service targeted Tea Party groups, though it is unclear what role, if any, the White House played.

Though Obama saw his net worth drop, he also was careful to stash away some money for the future. The President and First Lady put aside between $200,000 and $400,000 in a tax-advantaged 529 college savings plan for daughters Malia and Sasha.

Obama Sees Net Worth Drop Dramatically In Past Three Years is a post from: The Inquisitr

Have you ever wondered what the President dreams about? Well, Barack Obama dreams of “going Bulworth.”

According to a piece in the New York Times, the President frequently talks about Warren Beatty’s 1998 black comedy Bulworth. The movie features senator Jay. Billington Bulworth who decides to put politics aside in order to speak his mind.

The NY Times writes: “In private, he has talked longingly of “going Bulworth,” a reference to a little-remembered 1998 Warren Beatty movie about a senator who risked it all to say what he really thought. While Mr. Beatty’s character had neither the power nor the platform of a president, the metaphor highlights Mr. Obama’s desire to be liberated from what he sees as the hindrances on him.”

President Obama may dream of going Bulworth but David Axelrod doesn’t believe that the President will go that far. Axelrod said that many presidents have probably fantasized about ditching the politics but said that Obama will attempt to stay practical.

Axelrod said: “Probably every president says that from time to time … It’s probably cathartic just to say it. But the reality is that while you want to be truthful, you want to be straightforward, you also want to be practical about whatever you’re saying.”

President Obama will never go Bulworth but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a desire for an honest politician. There have been several movies made about politicians who discard the rhetoric in order to speak their minds and comedians like Stephen Colbert have even toyed with the idea of running for office.

Mother Jones notes that Sean Penn urged the President to go Bulworth back in 2011.

Penn said: “I would love to see Barack Obama be Bulworth.”

Obama Wants To Go ‘Bulworth’ During Second Term is a post from: The Inquisitr

The acting IRS commissioner is out of a job.

Minutes ago, President Obama announced that Steven Miller has resigned as boss of the Internal Revenue Service given the cloud over the agency from the Tea Party targeting scandal.

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew asked for Miller’s resignation which sounds like he was fired. Miller was “acting” in that he had not been confirmed by the US Senate.

Apparently Miller, a career IRS employee, had tried to pin the blame for the entire politically driven practice on two so-called rogue agents in the IRS Cincinnati office but that seemingly didn’t fly given the scope of the scandal and the misconduct involved. Miller reportedly was aware of the heavy scrutiny and application slow-down for Tea Party and other politically conservative groups in May 2012 but didn’t fully come clean with Congress: “On July 25, 2012, Miller testified before a House Ways and Means Oversight subcommittee, but he did not mention the agency’s heightened scrutiny for the applications of conservative groups. After learning of the controversial IRS practice, he also wrote at least two letters to Congress explaining the process for reviewing tax-exempt status applications; in neither of those letters did he mention the targeting.” Miller had taken over for Douglas Shulman, a Bush appointee who left office in November.

Last Friday, the IRS admitted is was subjecting Tea Party and other groups to heavy and unconstitutional scrutiny — including intrusive demands for information — when they applied for tax-exempt status as so-called social welfare organizations.  Some of these groups have been waiting up to three years for IRS approval. The IRS did not flag left-of-center groups who applied for the same 501(c)(4) non-profit status, however.

In announcing Miller’s resignation, the president said “I’ll do everything I can to make sure something like this never happens again  by holding the responsible parties accountable. By putting in place new checks and safeguards. And going forward, by making sure that the law is applied as it should be in a fair and impartial way.”

The IRS is also set to gain access to massive amounts of personal health information under Obamacare.

In a just-released report, the Treasury Department’s Inspector General maintained that ineffective IRS management allowed agents to use inappropriate criteria to screen conservative groups.

In an email to IRS staff, Miller wrote that “it is with regret that I will be departing from the IRS as my acting assignment ends in early June. This has been an incredibly difficult time for the IRS given the events of the past few days, and there is a strong and immediate need to restore public trust in the nation’s tax agency.”

The IRS is now being investigated by the FBI and Congressional committees.

[Top image via Andrew F. Kazmierski / Shutterstock.com]

IRS Commissioner Resigns Amidst Targeting Scandal is a post from: The Inquisitr

Barack Obama’s second cousin Dr. Milton Wolf claims the IRS mysteriously held up his tax refund and the White House might have even tried to get him fired from his newspaper job.

Wolf, a Kansas City radiologist, is an outspoken foe of Obamacare and a columnist for the Washington Times.

The IRS has admitted improperly targeting Tea Party and other right-of-center groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status which has exploded into a huge scandal over the agency’s seemingly politicized practices. Other taxpayers and taxpayer groups are now coming forward now with horror stories about apparent IRS mistreatment that appears to be ideologically driven.

Dr. Wolf described his hassle with the federal bureaucracy for PJMedia: “They called my editor and feigned concern that the Washington Times was taking advantage of me… by publishing my op-eds critical of Barack Obama. Around the same time the IRS put a hold on our tax refund that required an arbitrator and several months to resolve. We finally received our refund (and interest) but never an explanation. The local IRS office and the arbitrator seemed genuinely confused by the ordeal using terms like ‘very strange’ and ‘unusual’ but never could explain why it happened. One wonders.”

Added Wolf: “I wondered at the time if the White House could possibly be behind it but I just couldn’t make that leap … But what before seemed implausible today seems possible.”

In his latest column about Obamacare, a.k.a. the Affordable Care Act, Wolf wrote this about the law’s affordability or lack thereof: “Obamacare unleashes the worst approach to those in need. It artificially hikes health care costs beyond their means and then provides welfare to families — even those earning up to $94,000 a year — that still won’t cover the new, higher rates. That’s a double disaster, since taxpayers who now have to pay for their own higher premiums also must cover the welfare, not only for the needy, but even for their affluent neighbors. This is a train with too many cabooses and not enough engines, which will come crashing down the hill. For far less, we could, for example, simply give cash to needy families so they can purchase their own market-based insurance.”

Coincidence? The same year the #IRS held up my tax refund for months w/o ever saying why, the WH urged the @washtimes to drop me. #tcot

— Milton Wolf (@miltonwolfmd) May 14, 2013

Another solution to #IRS enemies list scandal: Flat tax without any loopholes. #tcot #tlot #p2 #gop

— Milton Wolf (@miltonwolfmd) May 15, 2013

Given the ongoing IRS scandal, do you think that Dr. Milton Wolf has any basis for his concerns?

Added: President Obama makes statement on IRS scandal including that the IRS commissioner has resigned:

Obama Cousin: IRS Messed With Me Too is a post from: The Inquisitr

The IRS scandal involves President Obama according to 55 percent of Americans in a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, the IRS scandal could impeach Obama if the FBI probe of the IRS turns up any evidence linking President Obama to the instances of the IRS harassing conservative groups for political reasons.

Based upon a poll released today, 57 percent of Americans believe the offenders behind the IRS harassment scandal should be jailed or fired. 29 percent recommend only a reprimand, even though the violations are a federal crime, and seven percent believe no action should be taken at all. Those people tend to be Democrats.

An amazing 55 percent “think it is at least somewhat likely that President Obama or his top aides were aware that Tea Party and other conservative groups were targeted by the IRS.” On top of that, 36 percent believe it is Very Likely President Obama or his top White House aides knew of the IRS harassment. Only 16 percent of Americans believe the IRS harassment of conservatives is a coincidence. Interestingly enough, it is said that “[m]ainstream voters are nearly three times as likely as those in the Political Class to think the IRS investigations were politically motivated.”

86 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of independent voters think the IRS harassment of conservatives was politically motivated. Democrats tend to disagree.

Because of the IRS harassment scandal, the Internal Revenue Service’s popularity dropped from a 42 percent favorable opinion down to 30 percent.

Do you think the IRS harassment scandal involves President Obama?

IRS Scandal Involves Obama Says 55 Percent Of Americans is a post from: The Inquisitr

As a FBI probe into the IRS begins, the White House is being alleged to be involved in the IRS scandal.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, the IRS apologized for targeting the Tea Party, but the Federal government knew about the indiscretion since 2011. Conservatives groups rejected the IRS apology and demanded the IRS FBI investigation now being launched.

Now Christian conservatives like Billy Graham are claiming IRS harassment along with other Christian ministries audited by the IRS. A Catholic professor claims IRS harassment after speaking out against Obama. It also came out that Jewish groups were targeted by IRS, with one group alleging they were investigated to make sure their organization’s activities did not “contradict the [Obama] Administration’s public policies.” Of course, even three Democrat-leaning groups received IRS inquiries.

Cleta Mitchell, who represents six Tea Party groups, including the King Street Patriots and True the Vote, claims the IRS harassment may have come from the White House:

“I’ve thought for some time that this is politically motivated and that’s the reason it was happening. And, as I said, I’ve been doing this for more than 20 years and I’ve never seen anything like this until 2009, 2010. And the only thing that changed was we had a different administration. We know the White House used the Department of Health and Human Services to try to silence critics about Obamacare. So if we know they used HHS, why wouldn’t they also use the IRS or other federal agencies to try to silence political critics?”

The IRS harassment allegedly included audit-like demands, surprise visits from multiple agencies including the FBI, and “voluminous requests for information” among other forms of harassment:

“There were nearly 100 groups across the country that got the very egregious set of letters from the IRS that were almost identical and they came from offices all over the country so I know of at least 85 to 90, maybe more, organizations. If they had the name ‘tea party’ or they had the word ‘patriots’ or if their mission was smaller government or study the Constitution, believe it or not, that would cause the IRS to say, ‘Oh, we better investigate these groups.’”

The Washington Post is reporting IRS Washington headquarters documents that show “Internal Revenue Service officials in Washington and at least two other offices were involved with investigating conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, making clear that the effort reached well beyond the branch in Cincinnati that was initially blamed.”

What do you think about the IRS harassment scandal being linked to the White House?

IRS Harassment Scandal Probed By FBI, White House Alleged To Be Involved is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Rev. Billy Graham was audited by the IRS shortly after his ministry expressed public support for North Carolina’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage according to Franklin Graham, the highly respected evangelist’s son.

The constitutional ban on gay marriage in North Carolina passed with 60 percent of the vote.

In connection with this audit, Franklin Graham alluded to religious profiling and suggested that it was similar to the kind of political targeting that Tea Party and other right-of-center groups received from the federal government’s tax collecting agency.

Both the Billy Graham Envangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse (an international humanitarian organization) were audited in October 2012. In a letter to President Obama, Franklin Graham declared that the audits were neither a coincidence nor justifiable and was an attempt to intimidate the Graham ministry.

The ministry also ran adds encouraging citizens to vote for candidates who follow biblical principles and support the state of Israel.

Billy Graham at 94 remains one of the most recognized religious figures in the world and has helped a number of presidents and political leaders as a spiritual adviser, including Barack Obama in 2011. Rev. Graham supported Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election.

According to the Gallup Poll, Rev. Graham is one of the most admired men in the world and has been on the top 10 Most Admired list 56 times since 1955, more than any other man.

Both Graham organizations ultimately got a clean bill of health from the IRS but it came at a price, according to Franklin Graham, who serves as president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. “After the election, we did receive official notice that our organizations continue to qualify for the exemption from Federal Income Tax, and that our returns were accepted as filed. Unfortunately, while these audits not only wasted taxpayer money, they wasted money contributed by donors for ministry purposes, as we had to spend precious resources serving the IRS agents in our office.”

Graham added that the IRS practice was “morally wrong and unethical.”

Attorney General Eric Holder has ordered an FBI criminal investigation into the practice of IRS agents subjecting Tea Party and other groups to heavy and unconstitutional scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status as so-called social welfare organizations.  Some of these groups have been waiting up to three years for IRS approval. Some lawmakers now contend that as many as 500 groups were singled out and peppered with intrusive, burdensome questions by the tax collecting agency.

The IRS did not flag left-of-center groups who applied for the same 501(c)(4) non-profit status, however. “As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with obviously liberal names were approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like ‘Progress’ or ‘Progressive,’ these groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.”

According to a May 14 report from the Treasury Department’s Inspector General, ineffective IRS management allowed agents to used inappropriate criteria to screen conservative groups. The Inspector General’s report made nine recommendations to enable the IRS to root out this practice, seven of which have thus far been generally accepted by the agency.

Congress is also investigating the IRS in connection with this developing scandal.

Billy Graham Targeted By The IRS, Franklin Graham Says is a post from: The Inquisitr

Internet television streaming service Aereo has received an unlikely ally in US Senator John McCain.

McCain last week introduced a bill that would stop television distributors from bundling unpopular channels with high demand channels. Because of parts of the bill, it has been dubbed the “Aereo provision.”

If you are unfamiliar with the platform, Aereo provides subscribers online access to live broadcast television. The company picked up over-the-air signals by using thousands of tiny antennae. The company then transmits those signals to an online DVR service that is available in large metropolitan areas.

The company was recently sued because it doesn’t pay a licensing fee to Fox, CBS, ABC, NBC, and other over-the-air broadcasters. Aereo has so far won two federal court battles in New York.

Following several court decisions, News Corp. President and COO Chase Carey threatened to make Fox TV a subscription-only service.

Responding to Fox’s threats to pull its over-the-air broadcasting, John McCain jumped in to note that Fox is only allowed to operate based on a government license. In exchange for its license, Fox must provide local news, weather, and emergency alerts to customers.

John McCain’s bill essentially says that, if Fox stops broadcasting for free, it will lose its license to air content on broadcast airwaves.

Should Fox decide to push out non-subscribers, it would leave more than 50 million people without service.

While over-the-air broadcasters continue to call the Aereo service a system of piracy, the truth is Aereo takes already free to watch signals and sends them to users over a new signal. The company charges to store a users shows on DVR, but it does not charge a per channel rate. Essentially, Aereo is like buying a DVR for your TV and then recording channels you get for free. It is that train of thought that has lobbied the court system around Aereo and against major over-the-air broadcast channels.

Do you think John McCain is right in supporting Aereo and its efforts to bring over-the-air broadcasts to a viewers computer screens?

John McCain Becomes Aereo’s Big Supporter is a post from: The Inquisitr

A new development in the IRS targeting story: St. Louis KMOV reporter Larry Conners claims he was “hammered” and “pressured” by the IRS after he asked President Obama some difficult questions in an April 2012 interview.

Conners is bringing this alleged IRS harassment to the forefront now that the agency has admitted to and apologized for targeting Tea Party and other politically conservative groups for special scrutiny when these groups applied for non-profit, tax-exempt status.

The Tea Party scrutiny admission from the IRS has set off a firestorm of controversy and calls for a wide-ranging federal investigation from both sides of the political aisle.

During the interview last April which created some buzz on the internet, Conners asked the president if he was out of touch with the average American struggling to make ends meet given his five-star vacations taken at least partially on the taxpayer’s dime. See embed below. Obama appeared to bristle at the question.

Larry Conners maintains that the president became angry and afterward Conner got the cold shoulder from the White House staff. At the time this interview was conducted, it was unusual for the news media to pose pointed questions to President Obama in stark contrast to the treatment his predecessor received from the press. One journalist even admitted that reporters “swoon” in Obama’s presence.

On his Facebook page today, Conner wrote the following about the aftermath of the presidential interview: “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 … after revelations about the IRS targeting various groups and their members …”

Added Conners about possibly being targeted by the IRS: “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. But it is a fact that since that April 2012 interview … the IRS has been pressuring me.”

The veteran reporter has yet to explain what he means by hammering or pressure, but presumably this might relate to a detailed and unusually intrusive IRS audit of his tax return.

Conners further explained on Facebook that “My job is to ask the hard questions, because I believe viewers have a right to be well-informed. I cannot and will not promote anyone’s agenda — political or otherwise — at the expense of the reporting the truth.”

Watch a clip from Larry Conners’ interview with President Obama:

Reporter Alleges IRS Harassment After Asking Obama Tough Questions is a post from: The Inquisitr

United States lawmakers have been to figure out a way to reduce gun violence in the country for several months. Some believe that more laws are needed to prevent people from owning guns. Others believe that less laws are needed so that everyone has access to a gun. According to Vice President Joe Biden, what the world really needs is chocolate bullets.

A 7-year-old recently wrote Biden a letter with an idea to prevent gun violence. Myles, a second-grad student at Downtown Montessori Academy in Wisconsin, believes that the gun violence problem could be solved if we had chocolate bullets.

Biden responded to the letter saying that she had a great idea.

Biden wrote: “I am sorry it took me so very long to respond to our letter. I really like your idea. If we had guns that shot chocolate, not only would our county be safer, it would be happier. People love chocolate.”

Virginia Flynn, the head of the school, said that the students were thrilled to receive a hand-written letter from the president. Flynn said that she expected a form letter from the White House and was very surprised when the hand-written note arrived in the mail.

Flynn said: “Everybody was impressed. You should have seen everybody. Their faces were just wide-eyed … The fact that it was handwritten made it really special.”

Do you think Biden is on the right path with the chocolate bullet idea? Would the world be a better place if we could shoot each other with dessert bullets?

Joe Biden: Chocolate Bullets Would Make World A Happier Place is a post from: The Inquisitr

Could Jon Stewart be permanently disillusioned with the Obama administration?

According to Stewart, the IRS Tea Party targeting and Associated Press phone records scandals have validated what opponents of Big Government have been claiming all along.

The Daily Show host and ardent Obama supporter declared last night that the IRS scandal has now “in one seismic moment shifted the burden of proof from the tin foil-behatted to the government.”

Of course you don’t have to be wearing a tin foil hat or be a conspiracy theorist to be concerned or  alarmed when the federal government engages in apparent widespread violations of the Bill of Rights. Lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle have blasted the recently revealed IRS practice of subjecting Tea Party groups for heavy scrutiny in their tax-exempt-status applications. For example, Rep. Michael Capuano (D – Mass.) said, “There’s no way in the world, I’m going to defend that. Hell, I spent my youth vilifying the Nixon administration for doing the same thing.”

Added Jon Stewart: “Well, congratulations, President Barack Obama, conspiracy theorists who generally can survive in anaerobic environments have just had an algae bloom dropped on their f*****g heads, thus removing the last arrow in your pro-governance quiver: skepticism about your opponents.”

The Comedy Central anchor also assailed the managerial skills of the federal government officials involved. ” … your managerial competence falls somewhere between David Brent and a cat chasing a laser pointer.” The hapless David Brent was portrayed by Ricky Gervais on the UK version of The Office.

Noting the apology that the IRS made on Friday in advance of an Inspector General’s report on this apparently illegal practice, Stewart quipped that unlike the IRS, taxpayers can’t merely get away with saying “I’m sorry” for mistakes on their tax returns.

The Stewart presentation even alluded to the disputed premise that despite government denials, backgrounds checks could indeed lead to a national gun registry as gun rights advocates have insisted.

Stewart made a good point that granting non-profit status to so-called social welfare groups who engage in political activity may be BS, but that IRS approval should be granted equally.

The IRS did not target any similar groups on the left of the political spectrum for special scrutiny, which included intrusive questions about internal operations and donors.

In other developments in this ongoing scandal, the ProPublica news organization has revealed that the IRS leaked nine confidential Tea Party applications to ProPublica last year. It also appears that IRS officials in Washington and possibly two other offices, rather than just the Cincinnati field office, were involved in inappropriately singling out Tea Party and other politically conservative groups for review.

The IRS is set to gain access to personal medical records in the implementation of Obamacare.

Watch Jon Stewart weigh in on the Internal Revenue Service Tea Party scandal:

Jon Stewart Rips Obama Administration Over IRS Tea Party Targeting, Associated Press Phone Records Seizure [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Minnesota’s state Senate passed a bill on Monday to allow same sex couples to get married. The bill, which passed 37-30 in the House, is expected by be signed by the governor.

The bill would make Minnesota the 12th US state to allow gay marriage and just the second in the Midwest. The bill was passed by the Democratic-controlled Senate, putting Minnesota on the verge of becoming the third state to approve same-sex marriage in May.

The Minnesota House approved the bill last week and Democratic Governor Mark Dayton has already pledged to sign it. Once that happens, the law is expected to take effect on August 1.

Once the bill is signed, Minnesota will join Iowa as the only Midwestern states to permit gay marriage. It will be the first to do so through legislation. Iowa has allowed same-sex nuptials since a state Supreme Court order in 2009.

Of the two legislative bodies, the Minnesota House was expected to be the biggest hurdle to passing the bill. However, representatives carried out a 75-59 vote on Thursday, including some support from Republicans.

Thursday’s vote was a drastic change from two years ago, when Republicans controlled both legislative bodies. They bypassed the governor and put forward a ballot measure that would have banned gay marriage in the state’s constitution.

But Minnesota voters rejected the measure in November, while voting in Democratic majorities to both the House and the Senate. The change helped the legislature on the path to Monday’s historic vote.

Minnesota’s vote to approve gay marriage on Monday was the latest in a series of victories for gay marriage proponents, which started in November when Maine, Maryland, and Washington state approved same-sex marriage. The three states were the first to do so at the ballot box. Same-sex marriage is also legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and most recently in Rhode Island and Delaware. The District of Columbia also legalized gay marriage.

Governor Dayton is expected to sign Minnesota’s gay marriage bill on Tuesday.

[Image via ShutterStock]

Minnesota Senate Passes Gay Marriage Bill, Governor Will Sign Tuesday is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Obama Justice Department secretly accessed two months of telephone records of Associated Press reporters and editors according to AP lawyers.

The news-gathering organization calls this a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into its operations which has yet to be explained by the administration. Although the clandestine government activity dates back to 2012, AP only learned about it on Friday upon receipt of a letter from the Justice Department notifying the company of the secret phone records seizure.

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder AP CEO Gary Pruitt maintained that “There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters.” Pruitt is demanding a return of the phone records that the federal government obtained and that any copies made by the government must be shredded.

AP apparently believes that the government snooping came as a result investigation into “how the AP found out about an al-Qaida bomb plot in Yemen.”

The Justice Department reportedly compiled phone records from the work and personal numbers of reporters as well as calls made to and from AP offices in New York, Washington, Hartford, Conn., and on the AP line in the House of Representatives press gallery. “In all, the government seized those records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and other matters,” AP clams.

This development that implicates potential First Amendment freedom of speech/freedom of the press violations is also interesting in that AP, as well as most of the mainstream media, is generally very supportive of the Obama administration.

This is the the latest scandal to emerge in Washington. The Obama administration already stands accused of improprieties in Benghazi, Libya, as well as in relation to how the IRS handled applications from Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status. As with those controversies, more revelations regarding the AP phone records will probably be emerging in the hours and days ahead.

[Image via Shutterstock]

Government Spied On Associated Press Phone Records [Report] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Sarah Palin hold a narrow lead in a hypothetical GOP primary for US Senate from Alaska.

The former Alaska governor and 2008 vice presidential candidate garners 32 percent of the vote. Lt. Gov. Meed Treadwell has 30 percent and 2010 Senate nominee Joe Miller lags with 14 percent in a new poll commissioned by the Tea Party Leadership Fund.

The poll results suggest that Palin has a 62 percent favorability rating with GOP voters in her state and also is seen as the candidate among the three who would be the strongest person to take on liberal Democrats in Washington.

After winning the primary, Miller  — who was endorsed by Palin — lost to fellow Republican Lisa Murkowski  in the 2010 general election after Murkowski, the incumbent, mounted a successful and unprecedented write-in campaign.

The Tea Party is touting the outspoken Palin to run for the seat in 2014 currently held by Democrat Mark Begich, but she is thus far non-committal and may instead perhaps prefer to continue “going rogue” rather than holding a formal political office.

A Palin spokesman said that the former governor was grateful and honored for the Tea Party support but that “the draft Sarah Palin for Senate fundraising campaign initiated by the Tea Party Leadership Fund is not authorized, endorsed or supported by Governor Palin or SarahPAC.”

The fact that the Senate seat is currently held by a Democrat is an anomaly as Alaska is traditionally a solid GOP state.  Republican Sen. Ted Stevens was very narrowly defeated for re-election in 2008 by Begich but only after Stevens was found guilty in a federal corruption trial shortly before the voting. Steven had declined to step aside and let another Republican run in his place. It subsequently turned out that the charges against Stevens were wholly trumped up, and his conviction was later vacated on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct. Stevens, the longest serving Republican senator in history and a decorated WW II pilot, later tragically died in a private plane crash in Alaska.

Polls are often all over the map, but that being said, do you think that Sarah Palin will or should run for Senate?

[Image credit: Therealbs2002]

Sarah Palin For Senate Leads Opinion Poll in Alaska is a post from: The Inquisitr

The apology issued to the Tea Party by the IRS is not sincere, Rep. Darrell Issa says.

Issa (R – Calif.) chairs the powerful House Oversight Committee, which is also investigating the Benghazi cover-up.

On Friday, an IRS official admitted that the agency singled out Tea Party and other similar groups for heavy scrutiny in their applications for tax-exempt status.  IRS official Lois Lerner said that the practice of subjecting conservative groups to additional examination “was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That’s not how we go about selecting cases for further review. The IRS would like to apologize for that.” The IRS also issued a statement to the effect that “mistakes were made.”

No equivalent groups on the political left were put under the IRS microscope.

Lerner added that this unconstitutional practice practice was initiated by so-called low level IRS agents at the Cincinnati field office, but it turns out that IRS bosses apparently knew what was going on as early as 2011, according to a soon-to-be-released report from the Department of the Treasury’s Inspector General.

According to the latest information, the extra scrutiny of Tea Party and other right-of-center groups may have started as far back as March 2010.

Other keywords flagged by IRS agents in applications for tax-exempt status reportedly included “government debt” and “taxes.”

Rep. Issa was hardly impressed with IRS apology, particularly the timing of it: “They targeted conservatives for tax exempt status, but the bottom line is they used keywords to go after conservatives. This is something where you have to institute changes to make sure it doesn’t happen again. There has to be accountability for the people who did it. And quite frankly, up until a few days ago, there’s got to be accountability for people who were telling lies about it being done.

Added Issa on Meet the Press: “And lastly, to be honest, one of the most offensive parts is, my committee … instigated this investigation, got the [Inspector General] to do the investigation, before the IG’s report comes to the public or to Congress as required by law, it’s leaked by the IRS to try to spin the output. This mea culpa is not an honest one.”

In a press conference today, President Obama commented on this burgeoning scandal:  “If in fact IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that’s outrageous and there’s no place for it … If you’ve got the IRS operating in anything less than a neutral and non-partisan way then that is outrageous … People have to be held accountable and it’s got to be fixed.”

Sen. Joe Manchin (D – WVa.) has joined those on Capitol Hill calling for a full-blown investigation of the IRS misconduct in relation to the Tea Party: “The actions of the IRS are unacceptable and un-American. Government agencies using their bureaucratic muscle to target Americans for their political beliefs cannot be tolerated … While we await answers from the Inspector General, there must be a congressional investigation to determine how this happened and to prevent this from ever happening again.”

The IRS will also play a major role in the implementation of Obamacare.

[Top image via Andrew F. Kazmierski / Shutterstock.com]

IRS Tea Party Apology Is Dishonest, Key Lawmaker Says is a post from: The Inquisitr

The portrait of the United States painted in the news media is one of two Americas, but in actuality, most Americans agree on major issues — including God, birth control, and minimum wage.

It may come as a surprise that 90 percent of Americans agree on major issues such as the ones cited above, given the frequent news laments of “culture wars” and even discussion of secession after the previous election. (As suspected, the rumbles following Barack Obama’s second win most notably from Texas amounted to little once the furor died down.)

Recent polling on what Americans agree on across varying political stripes seems to directly contradict the idea we live in a country and a house divided, and ABC explains of political agreement among citizens vs. the narrative of a deep dissonance:

“Instead, drama and conflict are what feed this country’s party-driven politics, the news media, the bloggers and tweeters, even the pollsters who measure opinion. The 24-hour, left vs. right cacophony coming out of Washington tends to drown out any notes of national harmony.”

Even on the contentious issue of guns, drilling down on political specifics compared with a broader ideas about “freedoms” and “gun control” reveals that on the actual measures, most Americans agree on what is reasonable.

Four out of five support extending federal background checks to all gun buyers.

What about abortion? Polling indicates most Americans agree even on this hot-button issue, believing that by and large, abortion should be legal under some circumstances — suggesting political compromise is possible.

And birth control? Again, most Americans agree that it is “morally acceptable,” seemingly staunching the debate over the “religious freedom” to deny it to others.

The areas of general political agreement in U.S. citizens discovered by polling reveal Americans:

–believe in God.

–are very patriotic.

–consider preventing terrorism a very important foreign policy goal.

–admire those who get rich by working hard.

–think society should ensure everyone has equal opportunity to succeed.

–think it’s important to get more than a high school education.

–favor teaching sex education in public schools.

–find birth control morally acceptable.

–believe cloning humans would be morally wrong.

–believe it’s wrong for married people to have affairs.

–are interested in keeping up with national affairs.

–believe it’s their duty to always vote.

Do you agree with your fellow Americans on the issues above?

90 Percent Of Americans Agree On Birth Control, Minimum Wage, Other Major Issues is a post from: The Inquisitr

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) won’t back President Obama’s impeachment if it ever comes to a vote. Despite calling the Benghazi attack aftermath a cover up, McCain cautioned he wasn’t willing to go so far as to oust the president.

The news comes as Republicans are increasingly likening the Obama administration’s response to the September 11, 2012 US Consulate attack to a cover-up worse than Watergate.

Talking on ABC’s This Week, John McCain stated:

“With all due respect, I think this is a serious issue. I will even give the president the benefit of the doubt on some of these things. We need a select committee.”

The news that McCain won’t back Obama’s impeachment comes just days after former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (R) stated on his radio show:

“I believe that before it’s all over, this president will not fill out his full term. As bad as Watergate was because it broke the trust between the president and the people, no one died. This is more serious because for Americans did in fact die.”

Along with Huckabee, Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK), accused Obama of overseeing “the most egregious cover-up in American history.” Inhofe also alluded to possibly impeaching the president.

While he won’t support impeaching Obama, Senator McCain renewed his call for a select committee. He also suggested that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should be brought back for another hearing. He also suggested that we are still uncovering new details of the attack in Benghazi nine months after it happened.

Along with McCain, Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) was reluctant to back talk of President Obama’s impeachment during an interview Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union. Collins stated when asked about whether the president should be impeached, “I don’t at this point, I will say. But that doesn’t mean that these allegations aren’t serious.”

Talk about the Benghazi attacks came back in full force when House Republicans held a hearing on the attacks last week. ABC News also published a story showing the numerous revisions the talking points the administration gave out underwent before they were published.

Do you think President Obama should be impeached for the administration’s actions following the September 11 attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi?

[Image via Evan Meyer / Shutterstock.com]

John McCain Won’t Back Obama Impeachment is a post from: The Inquisitr

Chicago, IL — US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg, a strong supporter of a woman’s right to choose, is nonetheless not a big fan of  the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion from coast to coast.

Ginsburg declared last night at the University of Chicago that the decision was an overreach by the High Court and politicized the controversial issue to the point of making it a relentless target for opponents. She also seemed to suggest that the decision had the unintended consequence of giving momentum to the pro-life movement which to some degree is playing out at the state level now.

Instead, the court should have issued a much narrower ruling that focused only on weighing the merits or demerits of the law in the state where the abortion rights lawsuit got its start, according to Ginsburg. “In Roe v. Wade, the court should have steered away from a sweeping legalization of abortion, Ginsburg argued. Instead, a ruling should have taken the narrower approach of deeming unconstitutional the Texas law that spawned the case, which only allowed abortions deemed life saving for a woman, she said. Doing so, Ginsburg said, would have spurred a gradual, state-by-state loosening of abortion restrictions and contributed to the democratic process.”

A limited ruling along these lines would have been consistent with the principle of judicial restraint which is generally advocated by conservatives rather than liberals like Justice Ginsburg.

The justice also criticized the 14th Amendment privacy-based Roe decision for being too doctor-centered rather than woman’s rights-centered.

Last year, Ginsburg made a similar observation about the landmark abortion case. “It’s not that the judgment was wrong, but it moved too far, too fast.”

Laws vary from state to state under the concept of federalism, and Ginsburg seems to be suggesting that the abortion restrictions or lack thereof should also have been handled the same way.

Over the years, in the national debate about abortion the media and politicians have tried to push everyone into either the pro-choice or pro-life camp. In the real world, however, the average person is probably conflicted over the whole highly sensitive issue. Moreover, you can simultaneously be both pro-choice and feel Roe. v. Wade was wrongly decided, along the lines of what Justice Ginsburg has outlined.

Another aspect that is often left out of the media narrative is that if Roe v. Wade was ever overturned, however unlikely, the issue would go back to the states, and each state could decide for itself what choice-related measures it would adopt.

Justice Ginsburg, 80, a Clinton appointee, joined the court in 1993.

Does it surprise you that one of the most liberal justices apparently has some common ground with the pro-life movement? Do you think that this approach could be a precursor of how the Supreme Court might rule on same-sex marriage (i.e., let the states work it out for themselves) rather than issue a one-size-fits-all decision?

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Criticizes Roe V. Wade Abortion Decision is a post from: The Inquisitr

As the IRS apologizes for targeting conservatives groups such as the Tea Party, and also Jewish groups, during the 2012 elections, the Obama administration is already blaming former President Bush.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, we may be seeing the IRS apologize for targeting the Tea Party now, but the Federal government knew about the indiscretion since 2011. Conservatives groups are already rejecting the IRS apology and are demanding an investigation.

In addition to the Tea Party inquisition, we may see the IRS apologizing to Jewish groups soon enough. The Jewish Press says the “passionately pro-Israel organization Z STREET filed a lawsuit against the IRS, claiming it had been told by an IRS agent that because the organization was ‘connected to Israel,’ its application for tax-exempt status would receive additional scrutiny. … In addition, the IRS agent told a Z STREET representative that the applications of some of those Israel-related organizations have been assigned to ‘a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization’s activities contradict the [Obama] Administration’s public policies.’ ”

A federal watchdog’s upcoming report says senior Internal Revenue Service officials knew agents were targeting tea party groups in 2011. The 2012 election saw a spike in political groups seeking tax exempt status, but only conservative groups were given problems. But despite these IRS actions being undertaken by “low level” IRS agents, Obama is blaming Bush and his choice of IRS leadership through Jay Carney:

“Two things need to be noted; which is the IRS is an independent enforcement agency. Which I believe, as I understand it contains only two political appointees within it. The individual who was running the IRS at the time was actually an appointee from the previous administration.”

As the IRS apologizes, Senator Orrin Hatch thinks this is not enough:

“When we start letting the IRS impose its will on people and doing it in a partisan, biased way, then we’re exposing our country to some real problems. I suspect there are some whistleblowers ready to come out and expose this and that’s why (the IRS) came out and apologized … . Whoever did this ought to be exposed.”

Do you think the IRS apology is enough? Who do you think is responsible for causing the IRS actions?

IRS Apologizes To Tea Party, But Jews Also Targeted While Obama Blames Bush is a post from: The Inquisitr

Benghazi could possibly lead to an Obama impeachment, according to one US Senator.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R – Okla.) mentioned the “I word” in a radio interview discussion of the alleged Benghazi cover-up.

On September 11, 2012, four Americans were killed at the US embassy compound in Benghazi — Ambassador Christopher Stevens, embassy official Sean Smith, and security officers Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods (both former Navy SEALS) — when the Obama administration allegedly failed to send reinforcements and rescue teams despite pleas for help. Three State Department Benghazi whistleblowers testified on Capitol Hill this past Wednesday about what they knew about what happened to the four Americans who died in the terrorist attack, testimony that conflicted with the administration’s rendition.

The investigation by the House Oversight Committee is ongoing.

The role of Hillary Clinton, the former Secretary of State, in this matter is also coming under further scrutiny.

In a radio interview with Rusty Humphries a day later, Sen. Inhofe said “People may be starting to use the I-word before too long.” The senator then confirmed he was referring to the impeachment of the president, the man ultimately responsible for the response or non-response to the embassy attack in Libya.

Added Inhofe, who serves on the Armed Services Committee: “Of all the great cover-ups in history — the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate, all the rest of them — this … is going to go down as most egregious cover-up in American history.”

Inhofe acknowledged, however, that impeachment would be a non-starter in the Senate as long as the chamber is controlled by Democrats, even if articles of impeachment were voted through in the House.

Yesterday, emails were leaked to the press that apparently showed that the so-called talking points about Benghzi were revised 12 times beyond the version written by the CIA. The emails show the White House coordinating with the State Department, the CIA, the FBI, and other agencies to obtain the final version of the talking points on Benghazi, which were then turned over to UN Ambassador Susan Rice, who used them in television appearances in the days after the attack. In particular, the Benghazi emails show that the State Department wanted to remove all references to al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia — the Libyan militant group suspected of carrying out the deadly attack.

The White House has continued to downplay its involvement in the talking points edits.

With the presidential election looming, you’ll recall that the Obama administration blamed the attack on the embassy compound on a spontaneous demonstration against a YouTube video.

Even an MSNBC panelists roundtable recently concluded that all this looks bad for the White House. One panelist, Daily Beast columnist Michael Tomasky,  admitted that “it becomes a potentially impeachment issue as long as the Republicans are in control of the House.” A BBC editor said on television on Friday after the e-mails came out that he believes that “heads will roll” over the Benghazi cover-up and that “Hillary Clinton will have to eventually confront the allegations that her department deliberately altered talking points and advanced a false narrative to explain the Benghazi attack.”

For what it’s worth, Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has predicted that the president will be forced out of office, Watergate-style, as a result of Benghazi.

Do you believe that impeachment proceedings will ever be invoked over the Benghazi cover-up? Was Jim Inhofe speaking in hyperbolic terms or is there something to this?

Benghazi Obama Impeachment Possibility Raised By Senator is a post from: The Inquisitr

New information has emerged about the IRS Tea Party targeting practice.

Higher-ups in the IRS knew  that Tea Party and politically conservative groups were being targeted by agency staff  as early as 2011, according to a leaked report from the US Department of the Treasury.

This information, if valid, runs directly contrary to the IRS claim that only “low level” agents were subjecting Tea Party applications for tax-exempt status to special scrutiny, including intrusive questions about their operations and membership.

A soon-to-be-released Inspector General report will reportedly declare that this apparently unconstitutional practice was known to top agency bosses in 2011. “A federal watchdog’s upcoming report says senior Internal Revenue Service officials knew agents were targeting tea party groups in 2011.The disclosure contradicts public statements by former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, who repeatedly assured Congress that conservative groups were not targeted … That report says the head of the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups learned that groups were being targeted in June 2011.

This revelation will only increase the pressure for a Congressional investigation, if not the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS in terms of any freedom of speech violations or other wrongdoing that may have occurred.

Yesterday, Lois Lerner, the IRS official who oversees the handling of applications for tax-exempt status, admitted that so-called low level workers at a Cincinnati IRS field office on their own flagged any organization that contained “tea party” or “patriot” in their paperwork. At least 75 applications were affected in this way, perhaps more.

Lerner — who also told reporters yesterday that she wasn’t good in math — made the following mea culpa about targeting right-of-center groups at an American Bar Association tax conference:  “That was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That’s not how we go about selecting cases for further review. The IRS would like to apologize for that.”

In the run-up to the 2012 presidential election, there was a spike in the number of groups seeking 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status from across the political spectrum, but apparently only conservative groups were singled out. Various Tea Party groups eventually obtained the charitable designation, but a number of them had to hire legal counsel to overcome IRS roadblocks. Other applications are still pending.

Do you think the timing of Lerner’s admission had anything to do with the fact that the Inspector General’s report was evidently nearing its release date?

[Image via Andrew F. Kazmierski / Shutterstock.com]

Feds Aware Of IRS Tea Party Targeting In 2011 [Report] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Jason Richwine, a Heritage Foundation researcher, has decided to resign his position with the conservative think tank over a 2009 dissertation which alleged that Hispanics do not have “IQ parity with whites.”

Controversy hit Heritage this week when Richwine’s dissertation was released online. In it, he seemed to make an argument that Hispanics have lower IQ’s than white people, and that Hispanic immigrants to the United States will have “low-IQ children and grandchildren.”

Richwine’s Harvard University dissertation was written before his employment at Heritage. In it, he wrote that “low-IQ” Hispanic immigrants would cause “a lack of socioeconomic assimilation among low-IQ immigrant groups, more underclass behavior, less social trust, and an increase in the proportion of unskilled workers in the American labor market.”

The silver bullet in the dissertation seemed to be this:

“No one knows whether Hispanics will ever reach IQ parity with whites, but the prediction that new Hispanic immigrants will have low-IQ children and grandchildren is difficult to argue against.”

Naturally, the dissertation caused quite a bit of controversy this week, causing Richwine to resign from the foundation.

“Jason Richwine let us know he’s decided to resign from his position,” Heritage said in a statement. “He’s no longer employed by Heritage.”

However, Jon Wiener of The Nation theorizes that Richwine was actually fired after his dissertation went public. The dissertation was uncovered by Dylan Matthews of The Washington Post, but the real question in Wiener’s mind is how Richwine was granted a PhD from Harvard for it in the first place.

Dissertations must be approved by a review board of three. Of the three, two were conservative-to-moderate immigration and economics academics who expressed doubt and concern over the paper’s conclusions. The third was Christopher Jencks, a well-known leftist academic. He would not comment on his approval of Richwine’s dissertation.

Do you think Jason Richwine quit the Heritage Foundation over his dissertation flap, or was he fired?

[Image via: lenetstan, Shutterstock]

Heritage Foundation Scholar Resigns Over Hispanic Low-IQ Dissertation is a post from: The Inquisitr

Rand Paul got the political gossip mill churning recently with blistering comments on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the developing Benghazi story. Doesn’t seem all that out of the ordinary, except that his comments were delivered in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, which is where many presidential campaigns get their unofficial start.

Speaking at the Iowa GOP’s annual Lincoln Dinner this week, Paul was skeptical of the state department’s official response in the early days after the Benghazi embassy attack, as well as their apparent neglect in providing requested security for the consulate.

“First question to Hillary Clinton: Where in the hell were the Marines?” Paul asked.

“It was inexcusable, it was a dereliction of duty, and it should preclude her from holding higher office,” he added to applause.

Hillary Clinton is thought to be the front Democratic runner for a 2016 presidential bid (though Joe Biden has also expressed interest), and the GOP has been “auditioning” potential candidates, all in the hopes of bagging their first presidential election since 2004.

On the Republican side, names like Marco Rubio and Chris Christie have been bandied about, but neither have confirmed interest in running for the 2016 election. Rand Paul, a junior Kentucky Senator, seems to have unofficially thrown his hat in the ring with his Lincoln Dinner speech.

Paul also talked a bit about immigration reform, one of the most pressing issues in American politics today. He noted that he does support immigration reform, though legislation must not neglect border security.

“I’m also with Sen. Grassley and Congressman King on the fact that I think we were hoodwinked in 1968,” he said. “We were promised security, and it never came.”

1968 was the last year Congress passed meaningful immigration reform. Paul also noted that it is important to reach out to minorities, something the GOP has been struggling with.

“We’re an increasingly diverse nation, and I think we do need to reach out to other people that aren’t like us, don’t look like us, don’t wear the same clothes, that aren’t exactly who we are,” he said. “We’re going to have to do something.”

Do you think that Rand Paul could stand a chance against Hillary Clinton in 2016?

[Image via: Gage Skidmore, Wikimedia Commons]

Rand Paul Blames Hillary Clinton For Benghazi: Is He Prepping For 2016? is a post from: The Inquisitr

A series of emails related to the Benghazi attacks on September 11, 2012 were turned over to Congress on Friday. A long-simmering dispute over the White House’s account has turned again into an all-out war between the Obama administration and those who claim the administration covered up what really happened.

The emails show the White House coordinating with the State Department, the CIA, the FBI, and other agencies to obtain the final version of the talking points on Benghazi, which were then turned over to UN Ambassador Susan Rice, who used them in television appearances in the days after the attack.

In particular, the Benghazi emails show that the State Department wanted to remove all references to al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia — the Libyan militant group suspected of carrying out the deadly attack, which killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

The department also asked to remove warnings about other potential terrorist threats from the talking points, which were drafted initially by the CIA.

The Benghazi talking points, which went through at least 12 versions before being given to Ambassador Rice, also showed how the State Department expressed concern that the CIA-drafted version could be used by some in Congress to criticize the preparedness of the Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. A US intelligence official familiar with how the talking points were drafted stated:

“The changes don’t reflect a turf battle. They were attempts to find the appropriate level of detail for unclassified, preliminary talking points that could be used by members of Congress to address a fluid situation.”

Along with Ansa al-Sharia and al Qaeda, the fact that unknown gunmen carried out at least five attacks around Benghazi against “foreign interests” in the days before the attack on the US Consulate.

Understandably, the Benghazi emails first disclosed in a report by House Republicans last month, then detailed on Friday by ABC News, left the White House in a difficult situation.

[Image via Pete Souza]

Benghazi Emails Disclosed, Show Flurry Of Talking Points Changes is a post from: The Inquisitr

Pennsylvania’s Kutztown University has lifted its ban on guns.

The state-run university has made the controversial decision to reverse its campus policy in order to allow students with permits to carry concealed guns in open areas.

Per Kutztown University’s policy, any employee or student with said legal permit and “compelling” personal safety reasons can request authorization from campus security. The requests will be handled on a case-by-case basis. All weapons will still be banned from academic buildings, student residence halls, dining facilities and sporting events.

State lawyers warned public institutions that all-out weapons bans would not be legally defensible.

“While I am cognizant of the concerns associated with this change, as a state institution we must follow the advice of legal counsel and do what is necessary to comply with the Second Amendment,” Kutztown President F. Javier Cevallos wrote students in an email. “I can assure you that we have done everything to implement the strongest policy possible, while staying in compliance with constitutional rights.”

Though groups opposed to more lenient gun laws have not yet made formal statements on Kutztown University’s decision to allow students to carry guns in a limited capacity on campus, John Haller, the director of a student concealed carry advocacy group, told Fox News that the policy was a positive step toward greater freedom for gun owners.

“It’s a positive movement,” Haller said. “Properly trained and licensed Pennsylvanians should be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights on a college campus the same way they would elsewhere.”

He continued, arguing that students who have the freedom to carry concealed weapons don’t represent a risk, but a possible deterrent to violence on campus.

“Criminal activity can happen anywhere and I think you saw that very clearly with the Boston bombings,” Haller said. “Of course, universities want to create a dynamic academic environment where people can exchange ideas safely, but the carrying of firearms by properly trained and licensed people is not incompatible with that, quite frankly. We should be allowing college students the ability to defend themselves.”

What do you think of Pennsylvania’s Kutztown University’s decision to allow students to carry concealed firearms?

[Image via: Joshua Minso, Shutterstock]

Pennsylvanian University Lifts Gun Ban is a post from: The Inquisitr

Conservative groups rejected the IRS’ apology for singling them out and unjustifiably scrutinizing their tax-exempt status during the 2012 election cycle. The apology spurred calls for an investigation and seemed to validate conservatives’ fears of politically motivated regulation.

House Republican leaders have vowed to investigate the incident. Lois Lerner, the director of the IRS unit that oversees tax-exempt organizations, revealed on Friday that some organizations were given additional scrutiny if their tax-exempt applications included words like “Tea Party” or “patriot.”

An Associated Press report explained that the practice began by “low-level” employees of the branch in Cincinnati. Lerner called a press conference about the situation on Friday, saying the actions of these employees were “absolutely inappropriate.” He added, “They didn’t do it because of any political bias.”

Rather, Lerner explained that it was a very poorly thought-out organizational “shortcut.” He further explained:

“It was an error in judgement and it wasn’t appropriate but that’s what they did … We’ve now corrected these issues, and we don’t expect that any of these will be repeated going forward.”

But the apology didn’t appease conservative groups the IRS targeted. Representative Dave Camp, the Republican chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees the IRS, announced that he will hold a hearing on the situation. He added, “The IRS absolutely must be non-partisan in its enforcement of our tax laws.”

Senator Carl Levin, a Democrat, agreed. Levin chairs the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. He stated that his panel has been looking into the Internal Revenue Service’s “failure” to enforce a law requiring tax-exempt 501(c)(4) groups to be engaged exclusively in social welfare activities and not partisan politics.

Levin added that the latest development “raises a second issue: whether the IRS, to the extent it has enforced its rules, has been impartial in doing so. Both issues require investigation.” IRS civil servants routinely review tax-exempt applications for groups ranging from charities to labor unions.

None of the conservative groups subjected to additional IRS scrutiny were rejected yet for tax-exempt status. Because of this, a legal damages claim against the IRS is unlikely.

[Image via ShutterStock]

Conservative Groups Reject IRS Apology, Look For Investigation is a post from: The Inquisitr

An IRS official today formally apologized for singling out Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny and added that it won’t happen again.

Lois Lerner, the Internal Revenue Service official who oversees the handling of applications for tax-exempt status, admitted that so-called low level workers on their own flagged any organization that contained “tea party” or “patriot” in their paperwork. At least 75 applications were affected in this way, perhaps more.

Lerner made this admission today at an American Bar Association conference: “That was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That’s not how we go about selecting cases for further review. The IRS would like to apologize for that.”

She also noted that IRS workers inappropriately asked for donor lists from these right-of-center groups. Lerner denied these practices — which were initiated by IRS staffers in the Cincinnati office  where the agency centralized the review of groups seeking 501(c)(4) tax exempt status — were motivate by political bias.

In a statement the IRS similarly admitted that “mistakes were made initially, but they were in no way due to any political or partisan rationale.”

Overall about 300 applications were flagged for review.

Many of the Tea Party groups apparently eventually received their tax-exempt status or are on their way to securing same.

Tax-exempt groups, regardless of where they fit on the ideological spectrum, can engage in political activities to some degree. “Some groups classified as tax-exempt charities are allowed to carry out political activities as long as it’s not their primary focus, though the law is a bit murky on what constitutes too much pure election activity.”

GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on down are calling for an investigation into what what happened. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R – Utah), who serves on the Senate Finance Committee, referred to the scrutiny as “Nixonian” and said that “We need to have ironclad guarantees from the IRS that it will adopt significant protocols to ensure this kind of harassment of groups that have a constitutional right to express their own views never happens again.”

The American Center for Law and Justice represented many of these groups when they ran into IRS roadblocks. The ACLJ claims that the IRS made “intrusive demands” for information from Tea Party affiliates and/or the groups waited nearly two years in some instances for the IRS to respond to their applications for tax-exempt status. “Once we informed the IRS of our representation of these groups, within days of our taking action we began to receive a high level of cooperation from the agency with regard to these organizations’ files.”

Jenny Beth Martin, a Tea Party leader, was not thrilled with the IRS apology and echoed calls for an investigation. “This deliberate targeting and harassment of tea party groups reaches a new low in illegal government activity and overreach.”

On the other side of the aisle from the Tea Party, an ACLU official nevertheless noted that “Even the appearance of playing partisan politics with the tax code is about as constitutionally troubling as it gets.”

The IRS wouldn’t comment about the possibility of disciplinary action for the workers involved.

During a conference call today, “A skeptical press corps peppered Lerner with questions, many of which she and her staff were unable or unwilling to answer.” On the call, Lerner also conceded that “I’m not good at math,” an admission that exploded on Twitter.

This actually just happened: IRS administrator says: “I’m not good at math.”

— Byron Tau (@ByronTau) May 10, 2013

Do you accept the IRS premise that no political motivation was involved in the extra review of Tea Party tax-exempt applications?

[Image via Andrew F. Kazmierski / Shutterstock.com]

IRS Apologizes For Targeting Tea Party Groups is a post from: The Inquisitr

Malcolm X’s grandson, 28-year-old Malcolm Shabazz, was killed Thursday in what was at first described as a violent Tijuana, Mexico robbery. However, as details slowly emerge, it turns out that Shabazz was likely beaten to death in the botched mugging in Mexico City.

Activist Juan Ruiz told Talking Points Memo that he’d spoken with another victim who was with Shabazz during the attack: “He was murdered. He was in Mexico City and I believe they attempted to rob him and he didn’t allow it, so they beat him to death and he died on his way to the hospital.”

Ruiz also said that Shabazz had traveled to Mexico to meet with a Mexican human rights activist, Miguel Suarez, who had been deported from the United States a month ago.

The Inquisitr’s Jennifer Deutschmann reported earlier on the initial reports of his death, including Twitter and Facebook announcements by family friend Terrie M. Williams.

At that time, it was unclear just what had happened — and where. However, there are now multiple reports placing Shabazz in Mexico City instead of the border town of Tijuana.

Malcolm Shabazz first came to public awareness as a troubled 12-year-old, when he set fire to his grandmother Betty Shabazz’s apartment. She died a month later. He was also arrested as an adult on robbery and vandalism charges.

Despite his struggles, as Malcolm X’s grandson, Shabazz experienced a political awakening and was working in human rights activism at the time of his death.

Al-Hajj Talib Abdur-Rashid, a spiritual advisor to the Shabazz family, confirmed the news to NBC, noting that details are still vague: “They’re like any family would be under the circumstances. They’re in shock. They’re grieving.”

NBC added that Friday is Mother’s Day in Mexico. With many offices closed for celebrations, they were having trouble reaching authorities who could answer the public’s questions about the tragic slaying of Malcolm X’s grandson.

[Mexico City police station photo by Augusto664 via Wikimedia Commons]

Malcolm X Grandson Malcolm Shabazz Slain In Mexico City Mugging Leaving Questions Behind is a post from: The Inquisitr

Representative Paul Ryan took a shot at Progressivism, a political ideology largely embraced by Liberal Democrats, during a speech at the conservative American Enterprise Institute on Wednesday.

According to a transcript, Ryan weighed Progressivism as “well-intentioned,” but ultimately “arrogant and condescending.”

“Instead of helping people make their own decisions, it makes those decisions for them. It makes Washington the center of power and politicians the center of attention.”

Despite these words, Ryan conceded that the Progressive vision “proved compelling.”

“The Left keeps winning elections,” he continued. “Why? Well, you can see the appeal. In uncertain times, people look for security. Progressives seem to have an answer … the progressive state offers a sense of security. But it’s a false sense of security because government can’t keep all its promises.”

Paul Ryan is the chairman of the House Budget Committee, and despite the 2012 election loss (during which he ran alongside Mitt Romney), Ryan is still one of the GOP’s top spokespeople on fiscal matters.

In March, the House passed the latest incarnation of the Ryan budget, which intended to balance the federal budget in under a decade by slashing spending. Though the academic support for Ryan’s fiscal projections has been questioned by other scholars, Ryan still heavily supports fiscal austerity measures.

He said Wednesday that “we have to stop spending money we don’t have.”

Ryan talked about conservative principles, but charged the Republican Party with repairing its strained relationship with minority voters.

He said that the GOP “must go” into “our inner cities, our barrios and our poor rural communities” in order to “demonstrate our full vision of freedom and community.”

“This vision is our response to progressivism,” he said.

What do you think? Is Progressivism an “arrogant and condescending” political perspective? What do you think of Paul Ryan’s vision for the GOP?

Paul Ryan Calls Progressivism ‘Arrogant And Condescending’ is a post from: The Inquisitr

Some think that the Benghazi conspiracy/cover-up/scandal/whatever-it-is doesn’t get as much press as you’d think a terrorist attack on an American embassy would, but why? According to Rush Limbaugh, because there’s “no sex” in it.

All of the right ingredients are there in the Benghazi story: American martyrs, a reasonably clear enemy, political intrigue, and a bunch of unanswered questions. Whatever the so-called “truth” in the story really is, there are definitely enough pieces not there in the narrative to give it a second look, even if doing so allows you to arrive to a reasonable conclusion as it stands.

But still, some folks really think we ought to care more about this than we do. That is to say, we shouldn’t care more than we already do, but the media should care more than they already do. If we want to get really reductive, the left-leaning media should care more about it that it does.

So why doesn’t it? Right-leaning media might say that their opponents on the left are trying to shield Hillary Clinton from any backlash so she can run an un-tarnished presidential campaign in 2016 (Hils is pretty popular). Others think the “cover-up” is a media “apology tour” for President Obama whose policies have been pretty polarizing.

For controversial radio host Rush Limbaugh, the explanation is simpler than all of that. The media won’t touch Benghazi because it’s just not a very sexy story.

“You know the thing about Benghazi?” Limbaugh bloviated. “There’s no sex in it.”

He illustrated his point by comparing the story to the recent media focus on the Jodi Arias trial and the Amanda Knox case.

“We had sex with Jodi Arias. We had sex with the Castro brothers in Cleveland. We had sex with Amanda Knox. There’s no sex in Benghazi. No wonder it’s not interesting to people.”

Are you following the Benghazi story? Do you agree with Rush Limbaugh that it’s not interesting due to a lack of sex? Listen below, via Mediaite:

Rush Limbaugh: There’s ‘No Sex’ In Benghazi Story [Listen] is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Benghazi hearings revealed that the militia known as the 17th Martyrs Brigade hired by the State Department helped the al Qaeda terrorists.

Greg Hicks, who was the department’s second-ranking diplomat in Libya at the time of the attack, says the militia members stationed inside the US compound by the State Department were “complicit” in the attacks that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans:

“Certainly, elements of that militia were complicit in the attacks. The attackers had to make a long approach march through multiple checkpoints that were manned by February 17 militia.”

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, internal security at Benghazi was reduced from 34 people to just three. Instead, groups known to be tied to al Qaeda terrorists were hired to guard Benghazi. The February 17 Martyrs Brigade “was the unit that the Libyan government had initially designated for VIP protection” and four members of the militia lived inside the State Department’s Benghazi compound, outnumbering US security forces.

At the Benghazi hearings, Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX) asked, “I’m stunned that the State Department was relying on a militia with extremist ties to protect American diplomats. That doesn’t make any sense. How does that happen?”

“You mean like in Afghanistan where Afghanis that are working with our military that are embedded and turn on them and shoot them?” Nordstrom responded. “Or Yemen, where our embassy was attacked in 2008 by attackers wearing police uniforms? Or in Saudi Arabia, in Jedda, we had an attack in 2004? The Saudi National Guard that was protecting our facility reportedly ran from the scene, and then it took 90 minutes before we could get help.”

The al Qaeda ties to the Benghazi militia were known before the attacks ever took place:

“Absolutely,” said Nordstrom. “Yeah, we had that discussion on a number of occasions, the last of which was when there was a Facebook posting of a threat that named Ambassador Stevens and Senator McCain, who was coming out for the elections that was in the July time frame. I had met with some of my agents and then also with some Annex personnel. We discussed that.”

The February 17 Martyrs Brigade abruptly ended this contract right before the attack, with the excuse being they were not being paid enough:

“[O]n September 8, 2012, just days before Ambassador Stevens arrived in Benghazi, the February 17 Martyrs Brigade told State Department officials that the group would no longer support U.S. movements in the city, including the Ambassador’s visit.”

During the attack, special forces were denied a Benghazi rescue mission twice even though the flight time was less than an hour. The militia had also stopped guarding any vehicle movements, making any potential rescue even more difficult.

What do you think about the State Department hiring a militia tied to al Qaeda to guard Benghazi?

Benghazi Militia Hired By State Department Helped Al Qaeda Terrorists is a post from: The Inquisitr

Republican senators boycotted the vote of President Barack Obama’s EPA nominee, Gina McCarthy, saying they were unsatisfied by the answers she gave them on several topics.

The dispute from Republicans over the latest nomination to Obama’s cabinet stems from more than 1,000 written questions Republican senators asked McCarthy after her confirmation hearing.

Democrats say the GOP set a new record for the number of questions asked of a nominee. An administration official added that McCarthy answered every question.

But Republicans decided to boycott the Senate Environmental Committee meeting on Thursday. The move was just the latest in a series by Republicans that have made it difficult for the Democratic president to fill in his second-term Cabinet.

Senator David Vitter (R-LA), the top Republican on the Environmental Committee, explained to reporters that the Republicans’ boycott of McCarthy’s vote was not because of her qualifications. Rather, it came after her refusal to answer questions about transparency within the Environmental Protection Agency.

All eight Republicans of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee boycotted Thursday’s scheduled vote. Democrats appeared apologetic about the situation, with committee chairwoman Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), saying at the start of the hearing:

“I’ve been informed just a few minutes ago that the Republicans are boycotting this markup for…perhaps the most qualified nominee to ever head the Environmental Protection Agency. I am rather stunned that this has happened, frankly, because I have never seen a nominee in my life answer more questions than Gina McCarthy has done.”

Republicans boycotting the vote of McCarthy’s confirmation on Thursday left the situation in limbo. In order to advance to a full Senate vote, the EPA chief nominee must first be confirmed through the committee. The White House responded to the Republicans’ boycott with outrage. White House spokesman Jay Carney stated, “There has been a historic level of obstructionism from the Senate on this nominee and others.”

It is no clear when the committee will reschedule the vote to confirm McCarthy. She is expected to pass, as Democrats hold a majority of the panel. However, if (or when) McCarthy’s nomination does pass through committee, she will likely face similar boycotts from Republicans in the Senate, including Roy Blunt (R-MO), who stated he will put a hold on McCarthy in the full Senate.

[Image via United States Government]

Republicans Boycott Vote Of Obama’s EPA Nominee is a post from: The Inquisitr

John Boehner is demanding Obama should release the Benghazi emails from the State Department.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, the Benghazi emails detail how the talking points were altered by the State Department after the CIA submitted its initial draft.

Not all of the Benghazi emails were released, so John Boehner is calling on Obama:

“The State Department would not allow our committees to keep copies of this email when it was reviewed. I would call on the president to order the State Department to release this email so the American people can see it.”

The Benghazi emails were not supposed to be revealed due to a deal made in Congress in order to pass the confirmation of John Brennan. These emails detail some of the names of those wanting to rewrite the Benghazi talking points and the reasons why.

The White House claims it only made “stylistic” changes at a closed door White House meeting the morning after the Benghazi attack. The talking points originally included detailed information about the terrorist attack, including links to al Qaeda, but the final version stripped out those references and blamed Benghazi on “violent demonstrations” that never occurred. The story about the YouTube video by Nakoula Basseley was apparently added later by someone in the White House.

John Boehner says some congressmen were able to review the Benghazi emails while being watched, but were not allowed to keep any copies. Boehner is alleging that Obama is hiding the truth about Benghazi:

“Last November, the President said he was ‘happy to cooperate in any way Congress wants. This is his chance. The truth shouldn’t be hidden from the American people behind a White House firewall,” Boehner continued. “Four Americans lost their lives in this terrorist attack. Congress will continue to investigate this issue, using all of the resources at our disposal.”

What do you think the Benghazi emails will reveal?

Benghazi Emails Demanded By John Boehner From Obama is a post from: The Inquisitr

Considering the Benghazi hearings are making it abundantly clear the YouTube video guy Nakoula Basseley Nakoula had nothing to do with the Benghazi terrorist attacks, some people might be wondering whatever did happen to the guy.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, the Benghazi report accuses the White House and senior State Department officials of altering “accurate talking points drafted by the intelligence community in order to protect the State Department.” One of the major changes was to blame the YouTube video Innocence of Muslims created by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula for instigating the Benghazi terrorist attack by al Qaeda.

Following the Benghazi attack, it became quickly obvious that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula’s days were numbered. The White House blamed the YouTube video, angering Muslims who had otherwise never heard of Innocence of Muslims. The White House ran public service announcements in Pakistan featuring President Barack Obama saying the United States had nothing to do with the YouTube video. Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Charles Woods, the father of a Navy SEAL killed in Benghazi,  that “[w]e will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.” Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was arrested the day after President Obama’s re-election.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was sentenced to a year in jail for four violations, including lying to his probation officer about his role in making the YouTube video the Obama administration wanted to blame for Benghazi. Nakoula was under federal probation after a 2010 conviction on bank and credit card fraud and admits to violating his probation. Politico points out how unusual this should lead to jail time, never mind having his records sealed:

“A violation of probation, though, usually produces a court summons and doesn’t typically lead to more jail time unless it involves an offense that would be worth prosecuting in its own right under federal standards. Not for Nakoula. … Nakoula Basseley Nakoula’s underlying offense wasn’t an underlying offense. He exercised his First Amendment rights.”

During the Benghazi hearings, Gregory Hicks, who was the number two American in Benghazi, testified that Ambassador Stevens made no mention of a demonstration at the mission in Benghazi, only an attack. Hicks claims “[t]he YouTube video was a non-event in Libya,” despite the Obama Administration’s attempts to pin the violence in Libya to protests over a trailer for the anti-Muslim film.

What do you think about Nakoula Basseley Nakoula now that we know the YouTube video had nothing to do with Benghazi?

There is a guy still sitting in jail because Obama and Hillary blamed a YouTube video. His record was conveniently sealed. #Benghazi

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 9, 2013

Benghazi: YouTube Guy Nakoula Basseley Nakoula Obama’s Patsy? is a post from: The Inquisitr

Marco Rubio says President Obama and the State Department should be held accountable for Benghazi.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, some say the Benghazi hearings could impeach Obama although Marco Rubio is not going that far.

The three witnesses in the Benghazi hearings claim the consulate’s security budgets were cut through “normalizing.” Multiple requests for maintaining internal security levels were denied despite the Red Cross and the British being attacked. In the end, the State Department never responded to the Tripoli embassy’s request for continued security resources. Internal security was thus reduced from 34 people to just three. Instead, groups tied to al Qaeda terrorists were hired to guard Benghazi and these groups abruptly ended this contract right before the attack. During the attack, special forces were denied a Benghazi rescue mission twice even though the flight time was less than an hour.

As for after the attack, the Benghazi report details how the White House and senior State Department officials of altered “accurate talking points drafted by the intelligence community in order to protect the State Department.”

After the Benghazi hearings Marco Rubio wants Obama and the State Department held accountable:

“Instead of ensuring that these terrible events are not repeated, the White House and its allies seem more interested in accusing those seeking answers of playing politics than getting to the bottom of what happened that night.

“Perhaps most concerning is the fact that no one has yet been held accountable. How is it that the United States of America, with our global reach and capabilities, has been unable to identify, apprehend or kill those responsible for the deaths of these four Americans?

“It is the White House, not the Congress, that is playing politics with this issue, perhaps out of concern that answering these questions will raise uncomfortable truths about this administration’s policies.”

Do you agree with Marco Rubio that President Obama and State Department should be held accountable for Benghazi?

The #Obama administration and the State Department should be held accountable for tragedy in #Benghazim.usatoday.com/article/news/2…

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) May 9, 2013

Marco Rubio: Obama And State Department Should Be Held Accountable For Benghazi is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Texas cheerleaders God ruling on their Christian banners has the judge saying it’s okay for a publicly funded school to endorse a religion at least when it comes to high school football.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, a temporary Texas cheerleaders God ruling back in October of 2012 granted an injunction to the Kountze High School texas cheerleaders, acknowledging that banning them from writing Bible verses on banners not supplied by the school is a violation of their free speech rights.

In the area of Kountze its a tradition for these Texas cheerleaders to write Bible verses and religious messages – such as, “If God is with us, who can be against us?” – on large sheets of paper. The Texas cheerleaders proudly put them on display during home games for the high school’s football team.

Liberty Institute General Counsel Jeff Mateer said the Texas cheerleaders God ruling “ is a victory for students across the country. The message that this decision sends is it is impermissible for the government to ban the private speech of students.”

Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, had originally complained the Texas cheerleader’s Christian banners  were a violation of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution’s First Amendment, which states that the government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” After the Texas cheerleaders God ruling was announced, Gaylor was outraged:

“The cheerleaders represent the school. When they misuse their public podium to tell a captive audience that some of you have the right religion and the rest of you need to convert, that is not only bad law, that’s bad manners. We are hoping that students, parents, and faculty members will come forward when this practice continues and we will be able to sue in federal court where this case really belongs.”

State District Judge Steven Thomas wrote in his final Texas cheerleaders God ruling that the Christian banners ”have not created, and will not create, an establishment of religion in the Kountze community.”

What do you think of the Texas cheerleaders God ruling which allows public school football teams to endorse religion?

Texas Cheerleaders God Ruling Okays Public Schools Endorsing Religion is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Minnesota House passed a gay marriage bill on Thursday by a vote of 75-59. The vote was seen as a critical step for the bill, which could position the state as the 12th in the country to allow gay marriage — and the first in the Midwest.

The bill would allow same-sex weddings starting August 1 and is a huge shift for Minnesota, where voters turned back an effort to ban the marriages in the Minnesota Constitution just six months ago.

Now that the House has passed the bill, it is slated to go before the Senate on Monday, where it is expected to pass. Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton has already pledged to sign the bill into law.

Eleven other states in the Union already allow gay marriage. Rhode Island and Delaware are included, as they approved laws in the past week. But Minnesota would be the first Midwest state to pass the measure out of the Legislature. Iowa allows gay marriage because of a 2009 court ruling.

But other than Iowa, most other states around Minnesota have constitutional bans against same-sex marriage, meaning the change will likely take a longer time to spread from the coasts to the nation’s heartland. The push for gay marriage in Minnesota stemmed from a vote in November that successfully defeated a campaign to ban the practice in the constitution.

The same election that defeated the ban also placed Democrats in foll control of Minnesota’s government for the first time in over 20 years. The scenario was perfect for gay marriage supporters to pursue legislation. The same-sex marriage bill already cleared committees in both chambers in March.

The gay marriage bill’s passage came after debate in the House on Thursday afternoon. Supporters and opponents gathered outside the chamber to express their ideas on the bill. Opponents argued that the gay marriage bill would alter the centuries-old conception of marriage, leaving those people opposed for religious reasons branded as bigots.

Supporters, like the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Karen Clark, explained, “ … Same-sex couples should be treated fairly under the law, including the freedom to marry the person we love.” Clark is openly gay.

Are you surprised to see the Minnesota House pass a gay marriage bill?

[Image via ShutterStock]

Minnesota House Passes Gay Marriage Bill is a post from: The Inquisitr