WASHINGTON, DC – MAY 15: U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder takes his seat during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice May 15, 2013 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. Holder faced questions on reports of the subpoena of two months worth of Associated Press journalists’ phone records and the Internal Revenue Services’ scrutiny of conservative organization’s tax exemption requests. Credit: Getty Images

The Justice Department on Friday admitted that Attorney General Eric Holder personally signed off on the search warrant relating to Fox News reporter James Rosen’s personal emails.

That revelation has led many to speculate that Holder may have lied under oath while testifying before Congress last week. Michelle Malkin, Townhall’s Katie Pavlich and Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey have all asked that very question.

So, did Holder actually mislead Congress? Let’s examine the evidence.

During last week’s hearing, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) asked Holder about the potential to prosecute reporters under the Espionage Act of 1917.

“You’ve got a long way to go to try to prosecute the press for publication of material,” Holder answered.

He later added: “In regard to potential prosecution of the press for disclosure of material, this is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, of would think would be wise policy.”

Hot Air explains why that statement could prove troublesome for the attorney general:

As it turns out, Holder not only heard of it, he personally approved it.  The warrant in the Rosen case specified that he was considered a potential suspect in the leak of classified material, the reason that the DoJ didn’t bother to follow the existing Watergate-era statute in coordinating the records request with Fox News.  And note that Holder’s testimony in this case wasn’t produced by some sophisticated perjury trap sprung by a Republican, but as a freely-offered representation to no particular question during the question period of a Democrat.

There is no other way to view this except as a lie.  Even if Holder wasn’t under oath, that would constitute a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.  It certainly should produce at least a resignation, and almost assuredly would require the appointment of a special prosecutor, especially since the next person down in the organization, James Cole, is suspected of doing the same thing with reporters.

However, Hot Air’s Morrissey goes on to point out that there is an argument to be made that he was certainly under oath and any “no oath” courtesy was waived.

There has been some bipartisan agreement that it may be time for Holder to go. The Huffington Post called for the attorney general’s resignation with a huge splash on its front page. The headline read: “Time To Go: Holder OK’d Press Probe.”

Others have pointed out that the Justice Department may try to claim they never actually intended to prosecute Rosen so Holder never mislead Congress. However, that argument is apparently flawed as well.

“I’m sure Holder and his allies will say that they never intended to prosecute Rosen, but that’s 1) not the point and 2) even worse. If that’s their defense, they knowingly lied to the judge who would, hopefully, reject the request if they admitted it was just a fishing expedition for information,” The Right Sphere’s RB writes. “They’re stuck. Either he (by signing the request for the records) lied to the judge or Holder lied directly to Congress.”

What do you think — Did Holder mislead Congress, a federal judge or both? Or do you think he was honest in his testimony?

(Read on TheBlaze blog: Did Attorney General Eric Holder Lie Under Oath?)

–

Follow Jason Howerton on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

–

Attorney General Eric Holder personally vetted the search warrant for Fox News reporter James Rosen’s personal emails, the Justice Department confirmed Friday.

The DOJ “took great care in deciding that a search warrant was necessary in the Kim matter, vetting the decision at the highest levels of the Department, including discussions with the Attorney General,” the department said in a statement.

Read the DOJ’s full statement below:

“The Department takes seriously the First Amendment right to freedom of the press. In recognition of this, the Department took great care in deciding that a search warrant was necessary in the Kim matter, vetting the decision at the highest levels of the Department, including discussions with the Attorney General. After extensive deliberations, and after following all applicable laws, regulations and policies, the Department sought an appropriately tailored search warrant under the Privacy Protection Act. And a federal magistrate judge made an independent finding that probable cause existed to approve the search warrant.”

“Attorney General Holder understands the concerns that have been raised by the media and has initiated a reevaluation of existing Department policies and procedures. This review will include extensive engagement with representatives of the media. The Department must strike the appropriate balance between its obligation to enforce the laws preventing leaks of classified information and First Amendment rights, and, through a new media shield law and appropriate updates to the Department’s internal guidelines, we are committed to achieving that balance.”

In other words, Holder will soon be investigating himself and his department.

Additionally, documents revealing warrants and related materials for the email accounts of State Department adviser Stephen Kim and Rosen were unsealed this week after an 18-month delay. But more details are coming out regarding how and why these warrants for information were kept secret from Rosen.

Kim faces charges of leaking secret information about North Korea to Rosen, which spurred the investigation.

Rosen’s emails were seized, with a judge’s approval, as part of the prosecution of Kim. In addition to a delay unsealing the documents for warrants, there was also a delay unsealing chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Washington  Royce Lamberth’s 2010 order that the government wasn’t required to notify Rosen that his emails had been the subject of a warrant. Although that order was posted on the court’s website, it was not available on the public docket until now.

Lamberth apologized for these delays Wednesday this week saying a ”series of administrative errors by the court’s staff” caused them.

The documents reveal that two judges had said the Justice Department was required to notify Rosen of the warrants, the New Yorker reported. But U.S. Attorney Ronald C. Machen, Jr., requested in 2010 that the court exercise its power to keep sealed the warrants and related documents in this case as there “exists an extraordinary situation and compelling government interest, which justify such a sealing.”

Ronald Machen, Jr., U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, right, listens to a questions during a news conference in Washington, Tuesday, April 23, 2013. (Photo: AP/Jacquelyn Martin)

Machen also requested the court order Google not to notify Rosen of the warrant either.

Lambert overturned the two judges who declared the Rosen was to be notified of the warrants, granting Machen’s request that the documents remain sealed.

President Barack Obama said Thursday that the Justice Department will review the policy under which it obtains journalists’ records in investigations of the leak of government secrets.

Obama acknowledged he is “troubled by the possibility that leaks investigations may chill the investigative journalism” that he says holds government accountable and said he has expressed his concerns to Mr. Holder.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder testifies during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice May 15, 2013 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. Holder faced questions on reports of the subpoena of two months worth of Associated Press journalists’ phone records and the Internal Revenue Services’ scrutiny of conservative organization’s tax exemption requests. (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Holder personally approved the search warrant for Rosen’s emails as a “possible co-conspirator.”

Read more about the documents and see them in the New Yorker here.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

(H/T: Mediaite)

–

Related:

• NY Times Defends Fox News’ James Rosen
• Flashback: Want to See the Article Fox’s James Rosen Wrote That Led to DOJ Snooping?
• Roger Ailes: Obama Administration Creating ‘McCarthy Era’ ‘Climate of Press Intimidation’

Follow Liz Klimas on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

In contrast, Benjamin claims that she was actually been invited to the event.

“I had an invitation, somebody gave me an invitation who I’m not at liberty to disclose,” Benjamin told HuffPo, calling her protest “epic” when compared to her past demonstrations.  When pressed further on who may have invited her to the event, she responded: “Well, getting in that’s a state secret I’m not at liberty to divulge. But I should say that we have friends in many places that some people might not acknowledge, including within the military…”

If this is true, it explains a bit about how she was able to disrupt the president’s remarks not once, but twice before being escorted out by security.   Further, the president and the audience were oddly receptive of Benjamin’s protest.  ”The voice of that woman is worth listening to,” the president responded.  Benjamin even admits her own surprise that no one recognized her and pulled her from the event before the president took the stage.

Despite the mixed accounts and questionable security screening procedures, Medea seems confident that she’ll be able disrupt future events with the president.  ”I’ll probably get in again,” Benjamin said.  ”There’s something to white privilege and it’s important to use it in a positive way… but if we get a chance to speak directly to the president, we’ll certainly do that.”

Video after the jump.

Follow Meredith Jessup on Twitter

Follow Meredith Jessup on Facebook

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

A worker cleans the street in front of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) building on May 24, 2013 in Washington, DC. (Photo: Getty Images)

After weeks of harsh criticism over their admitted targeting of conservatives, the Internal Revenue Service is one of four government agencies purportedly forced to shut their doors today, Friday May 24. The agencies blame sequestration and “the current budget situation.”

A memo on the IRS’ website states that additional closures are planned for June 14, July 5, July 22 and Aug. 30, 2013.

“Due to the current budget situation, including the sequester, all IRS operations will be closed on those days. This means that all IRS offices, including all toll-free hotlines, the Taxpayer Advocate Service and the agency’s nearly 400 taxpayer assistance centers nationwide, will be closed on those days. IRS employees will be furloughed without pay. No tax returns will be processed and no compliance-related activities will take place,” the IRS announcement reads.  “…Taxpayers should continue to file their returns and pay any taxes due as usual.”

The Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Office of Management and Budget are also closed today, giving roughly 115,000 federal workers the day off, according to the Hill.

The Daily Caller notes: “Despite the tax agency’s claim, the IRS has not seen any actual budget cutting. The IRS budget request for 2013 came in at $12.8 billion, an increase of $944.5 million increase, or 8 percent, over its enacted 2012 budget. The service’s 2013 budget request [is] $13,358,007.”

Cynics might point out that, with most federal employees also getting Monday off for Memorial Day, the agencies have just given themselves an extra day on a long weekend.  But they say this is the way to create the smallest negative impact, since many of the groups they work with are also on vacation.

Though President Obama proposed the sequester, he has loudly warned about the impacts of the cuts, claiming they put “our entire economy at risk.”

–

Follow Erica Ritz on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

shutterstock.com

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) — Gun owners in the only state still banning concealed weapons would win that right under a plan approved by the Illinois House on Friday, but the governor and other powerful Democrats oppose the plan because it would wipe out local gun ordinances – including Chicago’s ban on assault weapons.

The proposal, which passed 85-30, was brokered by House Speaker Michael Madigan, a Chicago Democrat, as a way to abide by a federal appeals court’s ruling that ordered the state to adopt a concealed-carry law by June 9. But the plan has drawn strong opposition, with Gov. Pat Quinn calling it a “massive overreach” because of the way it would curb local firearms regulations.

Chief among those regulations is Chicago’s ban on assault-style weapons, which would be stricken from the books. That’s a deal-breaker for Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who backs tough restrictions to curb gun violence in the nation’s third largest city.

FILE – In this April 10, 2013 file photo, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. Credit: AP

“This legislation is wrong for Illinois. It was wrong yesterday in committee, it’s wrong today, and it’s wrong for the future of public safety in our state,” Quinn said in a statement after the House vote.

The legislation is being sponsored by Rep. Brandon Phelps, a southern Illinois Democrat and ardent gun-rights supporter whose more permissive plan failed by seven votes last month.

Madigan took the rare step on the floor of describing how he had worked against that Phelps plan in April – legislation which still got double the number of votes Chicago Democrats garnered on a more restrictive measure.

“Those vote counts are very telling,” Madigan said. “They tell the reason why I stand before you today, changing a position I’ve advocated for well over 20 years. But that’s what happens in a democracy, where there’s free and open debate.”

He said the state needed one uniform firearms law to reduce the potential confusion for gun owners packing weapons and traveling throughout the Prairie State. There are 220 “home rule” communities which are free from state oversight to devise local guidelines on any issue, including guns. If June 9 comes and goes without a law, each of those municipalities could write its own restrictions, he said.

“The effect of not taking any action would be to open up the possibility that there could be up to 220 different sets of rules on the question of carrying weapons, so that as people attempted to move about the state, they would contemplate the possibility that there would be a change in the rules up to 220 times,” Madigan said.

Illinois Speaker of the House Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, argues concealed carry gun legislation while on the House floor during session at the Illinois State Capitol Friday, May 24, 2013, in Springfield Ill. Credit: AP

The measure would require Illinois State Police to issue a permit to any applicant who has a Firearm Owners Identification card, completes required training, passes a background check, and pays a $150 fee. But it significantly broadens the places where guns would be prohibited, including mass-transit buses and trains, which was a demand of Chicago Democrats.

In addition to the Chicago assault-weapons ban, it would pre-empt any city or county gun regulation, such as taxes on gun sales or requirements for reporting lost or stolen guns. Phelps and Madigan argue that it would be best to have one statewide law to reduce confusion and have future restrictions get state legislators’ approval in Springfield.

But Quinn’s office said the pre-emption would jeopardize public safety.

The legislation also is opposed by Senate President John Cullerton, a Chicago Democrat like Quinn and Madigan. The Senate’s plan would only pre-empt local laws by requiring them to adopt concealed-carry laws. Opponents of Phelps’ plan note that the only issue that the federal court addressed was conceal-and-carry, not other gun provisions.

The legislation was forced by a 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in December that decreed the state’s ban on concealed carry unconstitutional. The court gave lawmakers until June 9 to enact a law.

—

The bill is SB2193

Featured image via Shutterstock.com

Follow Jason Howerton on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

New York State Senator Patrick Gallivan (R-59th District) New York State Assemblyman Robin Schimminger (D-140th District) are sponsoring a bill that would cover bowling shoes. The bill in the assembly is co-sponsored by Assembly members Brian Kolb, Crystal Peoples-Stokes and Jane Corwin.

It would require alley owners to post signs, warning keglers not to wear bowling shoes outside, lest they become wet and increase the likelihood that a bowler could slip and fall when they come inside.

Bowling shoes, designed to slip on the lanes, can become extremely slippery when wet.

Follow Meredith Jessup on Twitter

Follow Meredith Jessup on Facebook

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

But with all of today’s questions about the Obama administration’s role in targeting conservative activist groups, Investor’s Business Daily wonders if the Gibson raid wasn’t just another example of a politically motivated attack:

Grossly underreported at the time was the fact that Gibson’s chief executive, Henry Juszkiewicz, contributed to Republican politicians. Recent donations have included $2,000 to Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and $1,500 to Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.

By contrast, Chris Martin IV, the Martin & Co. CEO, is a long-time Democratic supporter, with $35,400 in contributions to Democratic candidates and the Democratic National Committee over the past couple of election cycles.

“We feel that Gibson was inappropriately targeted,” Juszkiewicz said at the time, adding the matter “could have been addressed with a simple contact (from) a caring human being representing the government. Instead, the government used violent and hostile means.” [...]

The Gibson Guitar raid, the IRS intimidation of Tea Party groups and the fraudulently obtained warrant naming Fox News reporter James Rosen as an “aider, abettor, co-conspirator” in stealing government secrets are but a few examples of the abuse of power by the Obama administration to intimidate those on its enemies list.

Follow Meredith Jessup on Twitter

Follow Meredith Jessup on Facebook

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

Such were activities that Baltimore City Schools spent using federal stimulus and Title I funds, a federal audit discovered.

WJZ13 spoke to Baltimore City Schools CEO Andres Alonso; he downplayed the “errors.”

“Anytime there’s an audit of Title I dollars, you’re going to see errors at the school level because schools spend money for what they need, and then sometimes they worry about if it fits the parameter of the grant later,” Alonso said.

Baltimore City Schools CEO Andres Alonso (Credit: WJZ13)

“We’re talking $15 million out of $112 million, and what we see are school events to engage parents, but when the auditors came to look at it they said, ‘Wait a second. This should have been paid out of general funds, rather than Title I,” said Alonso.

The U.S. Department of Education is reviewing 2009 and 2010 expenses that showed more than $4,300 were spent on dinner cruises…

(Credit: WJZ13)

…more than $2,400 for fried chicken and biscuits at a PTA meeting to discuss the budget…

(Credit: WJZ13)

…$1,300 to attend a theater performance, and $500 on a mother/daughter makeover.

(Credit: WJZ13)

“I’m appalled this sort of stuff is going down because you can’t educate the children by taking things for your own pleasures,” said George Downs.

“I’m appalled this sort of stuff is going down,” said George Downs. (Credit: WJZ13)

“It’s mismanagement. It’s negligent,” said Pat McDonough (R) of the Maryland House of Delegates.

The victims, according to state lawmakers, are Maryland taxpayers and Baltimore City school children.

“Funding for some of Baltimore’s neediest children was simply squandered and transparency requirements were completely disregarded. This abuse of tax dollars is one example of why many Americans mistrust government,” said Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger in a statement.

“Who’s responsible? There needs to be a serious investigation,” said McDonough.

“Of course we don’t want schools to make mistakes, but I think error is a little different than the way it’s being portrayed,” said Alonso.

Here’s the full report from WJZ13:

(H/T: WJD13)

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

Yet just one week later, we now know that Holder personally signed off on the search warrant that labeling Fox News reporter James Rosen as a “co-conspirator,” resulting in the seizure of his private emails and phone records.  

(Image: Getty)

Doesn’t this imply that Holder lied under oath?

Karl Rove seems to think so, and he explained as much to Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren last night.

WATCH (via Jim Hoft):

What do you think?  Did Holder lie under oath? 

And let’s not forget where the president stands in all of this:

During a Rose Garden joint news conference with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a reporter asked Obama, “Do you still have full confidence in your attorney general?”

“I have complete confidence in Eric Holder as attorney general,” Obama said. “He’s an outstanding attorney general and he does his job with integrity. I expect he will continue to do so.”

Follow Meredith Jessup on Twitter

Follow Meredith Jessup on Facebook

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

“Deranged or alienated individuals — often U.S. citizens or legal residents — can do enormous damage. Particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad.” Obama said during the speech. “That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.”

By linking the Boston bombing, which has officially been called terrorism, with Fort Hood, Obama essentially admitted that the former is a comparable act that could (or should) be given the same designation. This is notable for a number of reasons.

President Barack Obama (Photo Credit: AP) 

For quite some time, the government has taken criticism from liberals and conservatives, alike, for officially calling the 2009 shooting (the only prime suspect is former U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan) “workplace violence” instead of terrorism. Contention over this designation continues to run rampant.

Earlier this month, ABC News reported that at least one Democrat is joining the chorus of those who are discontented with the Obama administration’s failure to use the terrorism label:

A long-serving Pennsylvania Democrat has joined Republican colleagues to ask Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to overturn the “indefensible” decision by the military to designate the Fort Hood massacre “workplace violence” rather than terrorism.

“This designation has since resulted in an embarrassing lack of care and treatment by our military for the victims and their families,” said Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Penn.), Rep. Thomas Rooney (R-Fla.) and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Virg.) in a later dated May 6 and obtained by ABC News.

In the letter, the trio of lawmakers blame “considerations of ‘political correctness’” not only for the “workplace violence” designation, but for allowing the attack to unfold in the first place.

Fattah’s entrance into the controversy comes after Republicans in Congress have generally taken the lead in pressing the White House for answers about the victims’ treatment, as chronicled in an ABC News investigation.

Watch Obama’s comments about Fort Hood, below:

Following the speech, Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) noted the importance of Obama’s words, claiming that they may help push through efforts for a reclassification of the shooting.

“When he put Ft. Hood in the same breath as Boston… he was basically making our case for us,” Rooney said in an interview with Fox News.

Follow Billy Hallowell on Twitter

Follow Billy Hallowell on Facebook

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

But some unions leaders have grown frustrated and angry about what they say are unexpected consequences of the new law – problems that they say could jeopardize the health benefits offered to millions of their members.

The issue could create a political headache next year for Democrats facing re-election if disgruntled union members believe the Obama administration and Congress aren’t working to fix the problem.

“It makes an untruth out of what the president said, that if you like your insurance, you could keep it,” said Joe Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. “That is not going to be true for millions of workers now.”

Credit: AP

The problem lies in the unique multiemployer health plans that cover unionized workers in retail, construction, transportation and other industries with seasonal or temporary employment. Known as Taft-Hartley plans, they are jointly administered by unions and smaller employers that pool resources to offer more than 20 million workers and family members continuous coverage, even during times of unemployment.

The union plans were already more costly to run than traditional single-employer health plans. The Affordable Care Act has added to that cost – for the unions’ and other plans – by requiring health plans to cover dependents up to age 26, eliminate annual or lifetime coverage limits and extend coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

“We’re concerned that employers will be increasingly tempted to drop coverage through our plans and let our members fend for themselves on the health exchanges,” said David Treanor, director of health care initiatives at the Operating Engineers union.

Workers seeking coverage in the state-based marketplaces, known as exchanges, can qualify for subsidies, determined by a sliding scale based on income. By contrast, the new law does not allow workers in the union plans to receive similar subsidies.

Bob Laszewski, a health care industry consultant, said the real fear among unions is that “a lot of these labor contracts are very expensive and now employers are going to have an alternative to very expensive labor health benefits.”

“If the workers can get benefits that are as good through Obamacare in the exchanges, then why do you need the union?” Laszewski said. “In my mind, what the unions are fearing is that workers for the first time can get very good health benefits for a subsidized cost someplace other than the employer.”

However, Laszewski said it was unlikely employers would drop the union plans immediately because they are subject to ongoing collective bargaining agreements.

In this Sept. 7, 2009, file photo President Barack Obama speaks at the AFL-CIO Labor Day picnic at Coney Island in Cincinnati. Some labor unions that initially backed Obama’s health care overhaul are now frustrated and angry about what they say are unexpected consequences of the plan that could hurt their members. Credit: AP

Labor unions have been among the president’s closest allies, spending millions of dollars to help him win re-election and help Democrats keep their majority in the Senate. The wrangling over health care comes as unions have continued to see steady declines in membership and attacks on public employee unions in state legislatures around the country. The Obama administration walks a fine line between defending the president’s signature legislative achievement and not angering a powerful constituency as it looks ahead to the 2014 elections.

Union officials have been working with the administration for more than a year to try to get a regulatory fix that would allow low-income workers in their plans to receive subsidies. But after months of negotiations, labor leaders say they have been told it won’t happen.

“It’s not favoritism. We want to be treated fairly,” said Hansen, whose union has about 800,000 of its 1.3 million members covered under Taft-Hartley policies. “We would expect more help from this administration.”

Sabrina Siddiqui, a Treasury Department spokeswoman, declined to discuss the specifics of any negotiations between the administration and union officials. But she said the law helps bring down costs and improve quality of care.

Katie Mahoney, executive director of health policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said employers were concerned about possible increases in health care costs and would do what was needed to keep their businesses running and retain worker talent. The Chamber has not taken a position on the union concerns, but Mahoney said it was highly unlikely that the administration would consider subsidies for workers in the union plans.

“They are not going to offset the expense of added mandates under the health care law, which employers and unions are going to pay for,” Mahoney said.

Unions say their health care plans in many cases offer better coverage with broader doctors’ networks and lower premiums than what would be available in the exchanges, particularly when it comes to part-time workers.

Unions backed the health care legislation because they expected it to curb inflation in health coverage, reduce the number of uninsured Americans and level the playing field for companies that were already providing quality benefits. While unions knew there were lingering issues after the law passed, they believed those could be fixed through rulemaking.

But last month, the union representing roofers issued a statement calling for “repeal or complete reform” of the health care law. Kinsey Robinson, president of the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, complained that labor’s concerns over the health care law “have not been addressed, or in some instances, totally ignored.”

Photo Credit: AP 

“In the rush to achieve its passage, many of the act’s provisions were not fully conceived, resulting in unintended consequences that are inconsistent with the promise that those who were satisfied with their employer-sponsored coverage could keep it,” Robinson said.

Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Firefighters, said unions have been forceful in seeking solutions from the Obama administration, but none have been forthcoming. While Congress could address the problem by amending the health care law, Schaitberger said Senate Democrats told union leaders earlier this month that any new legislation was highly unlikely.

Follow Billy Hallowell on Twitter

Follow Billy Hallowell on Facebook

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland listens to US Secretary of State John Kerry and Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida speak to the press prior to a meeting at the State Department in Washington on February 22, 2013. Credit: AFP/Getty Images

President Barack Obama has nominated Victoria Nuland, a State Department official who played a key role in editing the administration’s Benghazi talking points, to be then next assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, the White House announced in a press release on Thursday.

It is was later discovered that the talking points used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice when she appeared on several Sunday shows days after the deadly Benghazi attack were loaded with faulty information.

Emails show that Nuland expressed “serious concerns” about an early draft of the talking points and passed along the State Department’s request to scrub references to al-Qaeda and the CIA’s warnings about the threat of such groups to U.S. diplomats in Libya from the document.

Nuland, “a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career Minister,” has served as the State Department spokesperson since 2011.

Obama’s former traveling press secretary Jen Psaki has replaced Nuland as the top State Department spokesperson. She conducted her first on-camera press briefing last week, Politico reports.

Follow Jason Howerton on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

Nicolas Maduro, Hugo Chavez’s handpicked successor. (Getty Images)

The people of Venezuela are grappling with a nationwide shortage of toilet paper, an all too common occurrence in socialist states.

But rather than revisit the country’s approach to economics and price controls, President Nicolas Maduro said this week that shortages in luxury items are the result of a shadowy conspiracy concocted by his wealthy and conservative opponents.

“President Nicolas Maduro, who won a narrow majority in April’s presidential elections, maintains that the country’s periodic shortages of basic goods are the result of a conspiracy by the opposition and rich sectors of society,” the BBC reports.

“Mr Maduro has vowed to uphold the legacy of his late predecessor, Hugo Chavez, whose ‘21st-Century socialism’ involved sweeping nationalisation and extensive social programmes,” the report continues.

Of course, many analysts believe that the Venezuelan government’s overbearing controls are to blame for the shortages, not some shadowy right-wing conspiracy.

“Price controls, for example, act as a disincentive to local producers, forcing them to cut output,” said Consensus Economics, a survey organization.

“The resulting scarcity forces up inflation, defeating the entire purpose of price controls in the first place,” the group adds.

But don’t worry: Venezuela’s National Assembly has a plan that they say will address the shortages.

The Assembly has “backed plans to import 39 million rolls of toilet paper, in an effort to relieve a chronic shortage,” BBC reports. “Lawmakers voted to approve a $79m credit for the country’s ministry of commerce, which will also be used to buy toothpaste and soap.”

“The oil-rich nation relies on imports, but currency controls have restricted its ability to pay for foreign goods,” the report adds.

Of all the countries in Latin America, Venezuela has the highest inflation rate (currently about 25 percent). Meanwhile, the country’s currency (the bolivar) has devalued precipitously over the past couple of years, falling by as much as 32 percent in February:

This five-year chart shows the VEF-USD exchange rate. The line dropping means that the Venezuelan currency has become weaker against the U.S. dollar (remember, it’s bolivar to dollar). (Bloomberg)

But it’s probably the work of the wealthy.

–

Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter

Featured image Reuters.

Follow Becket Adams on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

“Food stamps are only 1 of 80 means-tested public assistance programs,” the senator’s office explained.

“If all spending on federal welfare and public add was converted into cash one could send a check for $60,000 to each household living beneath the poverty line.”

And the Alabama senator, a long-time proponent of fiscal restraint, is not happy with the data.

“No longer can we measure compassion by how much money we spend on poverty but how many people we help to rise out of poverty,” the senator said.

“That is why compassion requires us to reform a broken welfare state that is fostering dependency, hurting families and communities, and failing in the most important goal of helping people achieve self-sufficiency,” he added. “Welfare spending has increased thirty percent in the last four years, but poverty has gone up, not down.”

The senator continued:

The best example of our broken welfare state may be the food stamp program: food stamp spending has increased every single year since 2000, even when the economy is improving. 1 in 6 Americans are now on food stamps and the USDA has an aggressive campaign to enroll millions more—whether they need the benefit or not.

We must return to the moral principles of the 1996 reform and the idea that, over time, welfare damages not only the Treasury but the recipient. Normal support structures like family, church and community are replaced by federal bureaucracy.

President Obama recently said that ‘every dollar we budget, every decision we make has to be an expression of who we wish to be as a nation, our values.’ It is through that prism that we should address the need to reform our welfare programs, ensure resources are targeted to those in genuine need, and help more people transition from dependence to independence.

–

Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter

Featured image screen grab.

Follow Becket Adams on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks at the National Defense University May 23, 2013 in Washington, DC. (Photo: Getty Images)

On his Thursday night television program, Glenn Beck took a different approach to the scandals currently facing the Obama administration: let’s take our leaders at their word.

Few on the right believe the administration’s ever-changing stories regarding Benghazi, the IRS targeting conservatives, and the DOJ seizing the phone records of reporters. The struggle has been to elicit more information to fill in the gaps, or determine who was lying and when.

But Beck said that tonight, for the sake of covering all the bases, we should analyze the ramifications of if the president and his top officials are actually telling the truth.

Would it make you feel more, or less safe?

“The mantra of this administration in the face of the scandals has been the same: We don’t know, we just don’t know,” Beck said, playing a montage of the president, Attorney General Eric Holder, and others.

The only possible explanation if they are telling the truth, Beck said, is that President Obama is “completely disengaged and out of the loop.”

“That would mean he is not in charge of what is happening in the agencies that answer to him.  If that is true, are you comfortable with it?” he asked.  “Why is he so uninformed and out of touch?  How could he possibly effectively govern if he is that far removed? …If he is not the one being informed and updated and steering the ship, who is?  Is there anyone?”

Beck proceeded to analyze Benghazi, the DOJ seizing the records of reporters, and Operation Fast and Furious.

“…And the president of the United States had no clue?” Beck said.  “None? …If the president is not informed on national security threats like this, what else is he not being informed on?  How can he give a speech [on counter-terrorism] like he did today?  By his own admission, he’s not being brought into the loop.”

After covering all the scandals in more detail, Beck summarized: “This is the scenario the administration wants you to believe, it’s just been condensed.  It’s a scenario where, through their incompetence and indifference, Americans suffer and then when they find out about it, they vow to get to the bottom of it.  But have they gotten to the bottom of any of these yet?”

“If this is the story they want you to believe, it is so bad it begs one more question,” Beck concluded. “How bad is the truth?”

Follow Erica Ritz on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

WASHINGTON, DC – MAY 15: U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder testifies during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice May 15, 2013 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. Holder faced questions on reports of the subpoena of two months worth of Associated Press journalists’ phone records and the Internal Revenue Services’ scrutiny of conservative organization’s tax exemption requests. Credit: Getty Images

Attorney General Eric Holder personally signed off on the search warrant that labeled Fox News reporter James Rosen a “possible co-conspirator” and resulted in the seizure of his private emails, according to an NBC News law enforcement source.

Holder’s role in the Fox News spying case had not been previously known.

More from NBC News’ Michael Isikoff:

Rosen, who has not been charged in the case, was nonetheless the target of a search warrant that enabled Justice Department investigators to secretly seized his private emails after an FBI agent said he had “asked, solicited and encouraged … (a source) to disclose sensitive United States internal documents and intelligence information.”

Holder previously said he recused himself from the AP subpoena because he had been questioned as a witness in the underlying investigation into a leak about a foiled bomb plot in Yemen. His role in personally approving the Rosen search warrant had not been previously reported.

A Justice Department spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The law enforcement official said Holder’s approval of the Rosen search, in the spring of 2010, came after senior Justice officials concluded there was “probable cause” that Rosen’s communications with his source, identified as intelligence analyst Stephen Kim, met the legal burden for such searches. “It was approved at the highest levels– and I mean the highest,” said the law enforcement official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. He said that explicitly included Holder.

Kim has since been charged with leaking classified information to Rosen on North Korea’s nuclear program and how the country would respond to a United Nations resolution condemning its nuclear program.

President Barack Obama on Thursday gave a speech on his counterterrorism policy and said he was “troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable.”

“Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs,” he added.

Featured/carousel image via Getty

–

Follow Jason Howerton on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks at the National Defense University May 23, 2013 in Washington, DC. (Photo: Getty Images)

President Barack Obama gave a speech on counter-terrorism at National Defense University on Thursday, where he addressed the current policies and practices of the United States, and how he hopes to develop them.

The speech was wide-ranging, hitting on everything from drones to the Department of Justice spying on reporters (and even included a tense exchange with a protester).

“Our nation is still threatened by terrorists,” but the threat has “shifted and evolved” from what we faced on 9/11, Obama said.

He continued: “We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us, mindful of James Madison’s warning that ‘No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.’”

So here’s what you need to know…

Identifying the Enemy: Al-Qaeda Affiliates and Homegrown Extremists

President Obama said during his speech that “the core of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on a path to defeat,” and what we are facing now is more “diffuse” al-Qaeda affiliates “from Yemen to Iraq, from Somalia to North Africa.”

Unrest in the Middle East (he didn’t mention the ‘Arab Spring’ by name) has allowed extremists and state-sponsored networks like Hezbollah to gain territory in places like Syria and Libya.  But according to the president, they are primarily “focused on operating in the countries and regions where they are based.”  The government remains on the alert in case they attempt any transnational attacks.

But we also need to be aware of the “real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States,” Obama concluded.  The president referenced “a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, a plane flying into a building in Texas,” and “the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City,” incorporating a case of terrorism not inspired by radical Islam.

“Deranged or alienated individuals – often U.S. citizens or legal residents – can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad,” he said.  “That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.”

“So that’s the current threat,” he concluded.  “Lethal yet less capable al-Qaeda affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism.”

In Defense of Drones (and a response to Rand Paul)

President Obama spent a significant part of speech defending the use of drones by the U.S. government.

“Despite our strong preference for the detention and prosecution of terrorists, sometimes this approach is foreclosed,” he said.  “Al Qaeda and its affiliates try to gain a foothold in some of the most distant and unforgiving places on Earth…”

The use of drones is “effective,” he said, and reduces the risk for our own troops and for civilians located nearby.

Moreover, he added, the use of drones is authorized and legal against an enemy that “would right now kill as many Americans as they could if we did not stop them first.”

Still, there will be new guidelines in place as the war enters a new phase.

“Over the last four years, my administration has worked vigorously to establish a framework that governs our use of force against terrorists – insisting upon clear guidelines, oversight and accountability that is now codified in Presidential Policy Guidance that I signed yesterday,” he said.  The appropriate committees of Congress have been briefed on every strike, he added, continuing to say that “beyond the Afghan theater, we only target al-Qaeda and its associated forces.”

Perhaps in response to the buzz created by the filibuster begun by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) after he received a letter from the Department of Justice that didn’t rule out the possibility of domestic drone strikes, the president said: “For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen – with a drone, or a shotgun – without due process. Nor should any President deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.”

Outreach and Foreign Aid

“For all the focus on the use of force, force alone cannot make us safe,” the president continued, saying the “next element of our strategy involves addressing the underlying grievances and conflict that feed extremism, from North Africa to South Asia.

He said we must “patiently” support the transition to democracy in post-Arab Spring countries, support the rebels in Syria while isolating the extremists, and work towards peace between Israelis and Palestinians.  But we must also help “modernize economies, upgrade education, and encourage entrepreneurship.”

“Success on these fronts requires sustained engagement, but it will also require resources,” he warned.  “I know that foreign aid is one of the least popular expenditures – even though it amounts to less than one percent of the federal budget. But foreign assistance cannot be viewed as charity. It is fundamental to our national security, and any sensible long-term strategy to battle extremism. Moreover, foreign assistance is a tiny fraction of what we spend fighting wars that our assistance might ultimately prevent.”

Targeting Journalists

President Obama also touched on the Department of Justice’s secret seizure of the phone records of Associated Press and Fox News reporters.

He once again insisted he had no part in or prior knowledge of the matter, but said “the Justice Department’s investigation of national security leaks offers a recent example of the challenges involved in striking the right balance between our security and our open society.”

He continued:

“As Commander-in Chief, I believe we must keep information secret that protects our operations and our people in the field. To do so, we must enforce consequences for those who break the law and breach their commitment to protect classified information. But a free press is also essential for our democracy.  I am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable.  Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs.

Our focus must be on those who break the law. That is why I have called on Congress to pass a media shield law to guard against government over-reach. I have raised these issues with the Attorney General, who shares my concern. So he has agreed to review existing Department of Justice guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters, and will convene a group of media organizations to hear their concerns as part of that review. And I have directed the Attorney General to report back to me by July 12th.”

Guantanamo Bay:

President Obama reiterated his call to close Guantanamo Bay during his speech on Thursday, noting that the cost per prisoner is nearly $1 million per year, in an era of budget cuts.  He said we could successfully transfer detainees to other countries or hold them in the United States in prisons where no one has ever escaped from.

“And given my Administration’s relentless pursuit of al-Qaeda’s leadership, there is no justification beyond politics for Congress to prevent us from closing a facility that should never have been opened,” he said.

It was during the Guantanamo portion of his speech that the president was confronted by a vociferous protester who shouted relentlessly about the death of 16-year-old Anwar al-Awlaki’s son, Guantanamo Bay, and more.

Here’s video of the tense exchange (the woman has since been identified as Code Pink founder Medea Benjamin):

[Click here to read TheBlaze's entire post on the interruption]

President Obama received applause when he reacted by saying he would have to go “off script, as you might expect” after the speech.

However, within a few sentences he was right back on, according to the pre-prepared text of the president’s remarks distributed by the White House.

After renewing his call to Congress to close Guantanamo, the president announced he was lifting the moratorium on detainee transfers to Yemen, a notorious training ground for terrorists.  According to the Associated Press, of the 166 detainees currently at Guantanamo, about 90 are from Yemen.

Conclusion

President Obama concluded his speech on a positive note, describing how success will be measured.

“The quiet determination; that strength of character and bond of fellowship; that refutation of fear – that is both our sword and our shield. And long after the current messengers of hate have faded from the world’s memory, alongside the brutal despots, deranged madmen, and ruthless demagogues who litter history – the flag of the United States will still wave from small-town cemeteries, to national monuments, to distant outposts abroad,” he said.  “And that flag will still stand for freedom.”

“Thank you. God Bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.”

Follow Erica Ritz on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

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

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

–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured image via AFP/Getty

–

Follow Jason Howerton on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

Yesterday’s appalling attack on a London street in the middle of the day, which left a British solider dead, was a barbaric act of terrorism perpetrated by Islamist fundamentalists. British Prime Minister David Cameron acknowledged the motivations behind yesterday’s cowardly act by saying:

This country will be absolutely resolute in its stand against violent extremism and terror. We will never give in to terror—or terrorism—in any of its forms. Second, this view is shared by every community in our country. This was not just an attack on Britain—and on our British way of life. It was also a betrayal of Islam—and of the Muslim communities who give so much to our country. There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act. We will defeat violent extremism by standing together.

In stark contrast, the Obama Administration’s response has been to avoid calling the attack terrorism, let alone terrorism motivated by a radical Islamic ideology. Instead the Administration, via the State Department, said it stood with the U.K. in the face of “such senseless violence.”

The Heritage Foundation also points out that this isn’t the first time the Obama administration has used “senseless violence” as a catchall phrase to avoid the “terror” label:

Particularly troubling is that “senseless violence” is the same terminology the Administration used when describing the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed the American Ambassador and three other U.S. citizens.

The Obama administration has taken the War on Terror to a whole new level.  To update the rhetoric of former President Bush, If you’re not with us then you’re just senseless.  

Follow Meredith Jessup on Twitter

Follow Meredith Jessup on Facebook

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

Photo courtesy TIME.

“Barry spent his days at the Punahou School in Hawaii studying, shooting hoops and goofing off with his friends,” TIME notes. “On prom night … Obama and his date Megan Hughes, a student at the Hawaii School for Girls at La Pietra, … sipped champagne before going to the dance and then an after-party.”

(You can click here to see more photos of President Obama’s senior prom.)

After looking through the president’s prom photos, we got to thinking: why not dig up old middle and high school photos of past presidents?

So we did. Enjoy:

George W. Bush:

Here’s George W. Bush as a senior at Phillips Academy in Andover, Mass., in 1963-64. (Phillips Academy Yearbook)

President George W. Bush was a Cheerleader at Phillips Academy. (classmates.com)

Bill Clinton:

Bill Clinton spent his high school years at Hot Springs High School in Arkansas. (asylum.com)

George H. W. Bush:

George H. W. Bush played baseball at Phillips Academy, Andover, Mass. Photo circa 1942. (George Bush Presidential Library and Museum)

George H. W. Bush at Phillips Academy (1937). (George Bush Presidential Library and Museum)

Ronald Reagan:

Ronald Reagan (front row, fourth from left) and his brother Neil Reagan (front row, third from right) on their Dixon high school football team in Dixon, Illinois. 1925. (reagan.utexas.edu)

Ronald Reagan worked as a lifeguard in Lowell Park, Illinois. Photo circa 1927 (reagan.utexas.edu)

Jimmy Carter:

Jimmy Carter played on the Plains High School basketball team. Carter is in the back row, second from left. (Courtesy Jimmy Carter Library)

Gerald Ford:

Gerald Ford in High School, 1931. (Ford Library Museum)

Gerald Ford, right, captain of the 1930 South High School football team, is shown with coach Cliff Gidding. (Grand Rapids Press File Photo)

Richard Nixon:

Richard Nixon in high school. (Wikimedia Commons)

Lyndon B. Johnson:

Coach Lyndon Johnson with his Sam Houston High School debate team in Houston. Left to right: Luther E. Jones, Margaret Epley, LBJ, Evelyn Lee, and Gene Latimer. Photo circa 1931. (lbjlibrary.tumblr.com)

JFK:

John F. Kennedy attended Choate, a boarding school in Wallingford, Connecticut. Photo circa 1934. (worldhistoryproject.org)

JFK graduates with the class of 1935. He was voted “most likely to succeed” by his classmates. Except his peers didn’t really elect him. He rigged the vote. (worldhistoryproject.org)

Dwight Eisenhower:

Eisenhower graduated from West Point in 1915. In 1916, he married Mamie Doud. (Photo Credit: Dwight D. Eisenhower Library)

BONUS: Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney at Cranbrook School in Michigan. Photo circa 1963. (s3-ec.buzzfed.com)

–

Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter

Featured image TIME.

Follow Becket Adams on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

In the mainstream media, though, there seems to have been a wall erected between the president, and the acts of his administration.

But on Thursday morning’s episode of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” former Associated Press Washington Bureau Chief and current National Journal editor Ron Fournier went so far as to say President Obama has “raised a jihad against the press,” making it much more difficult to gather information from well-placed sources.

The result, Fournier argued, could be more “dumb wars” (for those who don’t recall, Newsbusters’ Noel Sheppard reminds that President Obama referred to the war in Iraq as a “dumb war” in October of 2002).

Here is the full context of Fournier’s remarks:

You can’t make journalism a conspiracy.  That is — it is chilling and it’s already having…an effect on our ability to be able to report on national security issues. It was already tough enough, and the press, as you know John, has gotten a lot of criticism for laying down on Iraq, for not exposing earlier the lies and the deceptions on Iraq. That wasn’t because the press corps is conservative. Actually, as you know, generally the opposite is true.

It’s not that the press corps is for war. The problem there was it’s awfully hard to do this kind of reporting. It’s a tight-knit community. The irony here is that President Obama, by raising a jihad against the press, has now made it more likely that we’re going to have what he called ‘dumb wars.’ It’s going to be harder for us to ferret out dumb wars because of this.

(H/T: Mediaite)

Follow Erica Ritz on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

Jack Bauer from the hit Fox show “24.” (Source: whatculture.com)

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) became a viral sensation on Wednesday with his tough questioning of former IRS head Doug Shulman during a House hearing on the IRS targeting of conservatives.

And if you liked him then, you may love him today after he delivered an interview where he was able to sneak in a Jack Bauer reference.

Lois Lerner, the IRS official at the center of the increasingly serious IRS scandal, caused a stir on Wednesday after she declared her innocence before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and then invoked her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

She steadily refused to answer the committee’s questions and was later excused from the hearing by Congressman Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

However, Lerner’s decision to claim innocence in her opening remarks has raised some people questioning whether she accidentally waived her Fifth Amendment right.

“You don’t get to say, ‘I didn’t rob the bank but I’m not going to answer the prosecutor’s questions,’” Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, explained in an interview Thursday morning. “That would never happen.”

Rep. Gowdy continued, explaining Rep. Issa’s options.

“Let’s play this out. Let’s assume he brings her back. I promise she’s not going to make the same mistake today that she made yesterday,” he said. “She’s going to invoke — you can’t make someone talk unless you’re name is Jack Bauer.”

“You can’t force some to talk,” Gowdy continued. “You can’t make people talk unless you’re will to do what Jack Bauer does.”

Jack Bauer is the main character in the hit Fox TV series “24,” an action-drama about counterterrorism in the US. Played by Kiefer Sutherland, Bauer is an agent with the fictional Counter Terrorist Unit who “plays by his own rules,” “is a one-man wrecking crew,” etc.

“So are we going to hold her in contempt? Are we going to put her in jail? Are we going to offer her immunity, which I would not be a fan of, or are we going to try to build a case without using her testimony?” the congressman asked.

Gowdy continued, adding that these questions will be reviewed and answered at the chairman speaker level:

The South Carolina congressman isn’t alone in thinking Lerner may have accidentally waived her Fifth Amendment right. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said Wednesday that she could be held in contempt of court and jailed for refusing to testify before Congress.

“She’s in trouble. She can be held in contempt,” Dershowitz told the “Steve Malzberg Show.” “Congress . . . can actually hold you in contempt and put you in the Congressional jail.”

“You can’t simply make statements about a subject and then plead the Fifth in response to questions about the very same subject,” he added. “Once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right . . . you’ve waived your self-incrimination right on that subject matter.”

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

However, a few pundits think there may be a problem with this argument.

“While you may not selectively invoke the 5th in a criminal trial, you probably can at a Congressional hearing, so she won’t be held in contempt,” the Ace of Spades HQ blog notes.

“She will, however, be made to look awful, which sounds about right,” it adds.

Then there’s this from New York magazine:

First, unlike in a trial, where she could choose to take the stand or not, Lerner had no choice but to appear before the committee. Second, in a trial there would be a justifiable concern about compromising a judge or jury by providing them with “selective, partial presentation of the facts.” But Congress is merely pursuing information as part of an investigation, not making a definitive ruling on Lerner’s guilt or innocence.

“When somebody is in this situation,” says Duane, a Harvard Law graduate whose 2008 lecture on invoking the Fifth Amendment with police has been viewed on YouTube nearly 2.5 million times, “when they are involuntarily summoned before grand jury or before legislative body, it is well settled that they have a right to make a ‘selective invocation,’ as it’s called, with respect to questions that they think might raise a meaningful risk of incriminating themselves.”

In fact, Duane says, “even if Ms. Lerner had given answers to a few questions — five, ten, twenty questions — before she decided, ‘That’s where I draw the line, I’m not answering any more questions,’ she would be able to do that as well.” Such uses of selective invocation “happen all the time.”

And this excerpt from Hot Air is worth considering:

What happens when Issa brings her back and the questions begin? Could be that she’ll cave and start answering, but I assume her lawyer will tell her to take the Fifth again, in which case it’s Issa’s move. He could try to hold her in contempt, which would probably ignite a court battle and would certainly ignite lots of media concern-trolling about the GOP crushing Lerner’s rights as a way to change the subject from the underlying scandal. The court battle would slow down the investigation and might spark a bit of public sympathy for Lerner and the IRS…

Politically, it might even be worth losing the court battle: Litigation will only call more attention to the fact that Lerner doesn’t want to talk for mysterious reasons, which makes the IRS’s actions look that much shadier.

… why not bring her back and make her sit through an hour or so of serially re-asserting her privilege to dozens of questions? Worst-case scenario, the dodginess of the spectacle puts even more pressure on the IRS. Best-case scenario, she’ll decide to answer questions selectively, which will add a bit more information to what the committee knows.

–

Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter

Featured image IGN and AP photos.

Follow Becket Adams on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

(Photo: Shutterstock/Angel Simon)

Yesterday, TheBlaze reported on one of the more bizarre regulations to come out of the European Union (EU) to date (and that’s saying something).

Going a step further than even New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the EU recently decided to ban little bowls and refillable bottles of olive oil at restaurant tables. Beginning on January 1, only tamper safe, non-refillable bottles were to be allowed, and they had to be disposed of after every use.

But facing merciless criticism from international press outlets and even world leaders, the EU issued an important announcement about its recent proposal on Thursday: Uh, never mind.

The EU originally said the ruling would improve hygiene and prevent restaurants from serving low quality oil. But EU critics exploded at how out of touch authorities are with the real world, concerning themselves with olive oil (to the detriment of both the vendors and consumers), when unemployment and debt rates are skyrocketing.

“Suddenly, E.U. ministers have decided to wage a war on bad hygiene and sound traditions when many Europeans can’t afford a bar of decent soap,” Robert Bridge wrote in Russia Today.

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said the proposal was “too bizarre for words and incomprehensible…at a time like this,” and U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron said “this is exactly the sort of thing that Europe shouldn’t even be discussing.”

In a speech before the European Parliament earlier this week, U.K. MEP Nigel Farage gave a scathing speech on the hypocrisy of European leaders, who he says vilify the rich while fattening their own pockets with incomparable salaries and benefits.

“[But] I’m sure the citizens of Europe will all clap and cheer loudly that the grave, mortal danger of olive oil in dipping bowls has been removed by the officials,” he added with inimitable scorn.  “Well done, everybody.”

Watch Farage’s complete speech, below:

The European Commission, executive branch of the EU, announced on Thursday that it was withdrawing the proposal because not enough member nations had supported it.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

–

Related:

• ‘Gone Mad’?: EU Announces Ban of Olive Oil Bowls & Refillable Jars in Restaurants
• U.K. Lawmaker Fined Roughly $4,000 for Saying EU Chief Has ‘Charisma of a Damp Rag’
• ‘Total and Utter Failure’: Watch This British Politician Mercilessly Berate EU Leaders

Follow Erica Ritz on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

Bloomberg reports that the perfect storm of scandals has created a “honeymoon period” for pending immigration legislation.

As Glenn likes to say, watch the other hand…

The congressional probes into various government agencies diverted attention at a critical time, allowing the Senate Judiciary Committee a respite from the spotlight as it reached critical compromises on the measure and approved it on a bipartisan 13-5 vote on May 21. The bill would allow the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the U.S. without authorization a chance at citizenship.

“It’s like magic — you distract the audience while the real trick is being done — and I think right now, while Americans focus on President Obama’s unending difficulties, it’s good news for the Gang of Eight working on immigration,” said Republican strategist Alex Castellanos, referring to the four Republicans and four Democrats who crafted the bill.

The proposed legislation is under the radar now, but that will change when it comes up for a high-profile vote in the Senate next month.

Nevertheless, the lack of attention focused on the Judiciary Committee’s markup may still have significant consequences:

Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, a member of the group of eight that wrote the compromise bill as well as the Judiciary Committee that signed off on it, said the scandal fever that has broken out in Washington has “been good” for the legislation, lowering the emotional temperature that has surrounded past failed efforts to make immigration changes.

“To be able to go through this markup where nobody can claim that we’ve short-circuited the process — it’s been an open process, we’ve adopted some substantive amendments — to be able to do that without people calling press conferences outside and without groups calling members, it’s been a good process,” Flake said in an interview, referring to the Judiciary panel’s actions. “I’d have to say it probably helped.”

The final day of Judiciary’s markup of the bill was a case in point. While former IRS officials testified before the Senate Finance Committee, the panel convened in the building next door for its fifth day of deliberations. Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, quietly reached agreement with Democrats on changes to a high-skilled visa program, clearing an impediment to his party’s support for the bill.

Follow Meredith Jessup on Twitter

Follow Meredith Jessup on Facebook

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

Follow Jonathon M. Seidl on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

I’m sure this had nothing to do with the timing of last year’s election…

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa on Wednesday displayed a string of emails showing his failed efforts to get an update from the Treasury Department inspector general’s office about its investigation into the IRS practice of targeting conservative groups who sought tax-exempt status.

Emails seeking the information date back to September 2012, six weeks before the November election.

At that point, the U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration had promised an update.

Based on other evidence provided to the committee, the inspector general was aware of the IRS practice of targeting conservative groups with names that included “Tea Party” and “Patriot” and “9/12.”

Inspector General J. Russell George told Issa’s panel he withheld the information because he feared lawmakers would leak it to the public.

“When information is conveyed to the Hill, it is not aways retained by the Hill,” George testified Wednesday.

Uh, isn’t that the point?

Follow Meredith Jessup on Twitter

Follow Meredith Jessup on Facebook

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

A perfect example of this is today’s “Gang of 8″ senators working to fix our nation’s broken immigration system — but first, they have to work on fixing the last big law they passed: Obamacare.

Unbeknownst to many, the Obamacare law includes an unintended advantage for newly legalized immigrants. In short, the law incentivizes employers to hire immigrants over U.S. citizens as newly legalized citizens are ineligible for Obamacare subsidies. Employers who are required to pay a $3,000 fine for every full-time worker who subscribes to Obamacare’s new insurance exchange subsidies now have a clear incentive to hire the immigrant.

Investor’s Business Daily also points out that because immigrants granted provisional legal status under the Gang of 8 bill would be excluded from Obamacare subsidies for at least a decade, “the potential cost savings to an employer from hiring a legalized immigrant could continue for years.”

“I think that is an issue, and I think that it needs to be addressed,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., recently told Roll Call. According to McCain, the issue is likely to be fixed with a strategic amendment or two. “We are having lots of conversations,” he added. “I think it is something we can work out.”

Follow Meredith Jessup on Twitter

Follow Meredith Jessup on Facebook

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–

Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter

Featured image courtesy AFP.

Follow Becket Adams on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

• Lois Lerner, the embattled director of Exempt Organizations at the IRS, served as head of the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) enforcement division from 1986 until 2001.
• While there, the FEC sued the Christian Coalition for allegedly conspiring with political candidates.
• During the case, representatives for the FEC asked intrusive questions on religion of several people involved, including Lt. Col. Oliver North.
• At one point, a representative demanded to know details regarding Pat Roberstson praying for North after reading a letter from North to Robertson indicating as much.
• The group’s attorney also noted that during the investigation third parties were required to comply with “burdensome FEC document requests,” reminiscent of the IRS/Tea Party requests.
• The Christian Coalition’s attorneys adamantly objected, and the group eventually rebuffed the charges.

–

Internal Revenue Service Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner listens during testimony to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee May 22, 2013 in Washington, DC. Credit: AFP/Getty Images

New questions are being raised today about Lois Lerner and the attitude she’s taken in the past regarding conservative and Christian groups. The Weekly Standard is pointing to the questioning of people related to the Christian Coalition in the 1990s when Lerner was the head of the Enforcement Office at the Federal Election Commission (FEC). In short: the FEC was investigating if the Christian Coalition was “coordinating issue advocacy expenditures with a number of candidates for office,” the Weekly Standard explains, and the questions they were asking became ridiculously intrusive — especially about faith and prayer.

The Christian Coalition successfully fought off the allegations, but not before investigators took nearly 100 depositions.

“We felt we were being singled out, because when you handle a case with 81 depositions you have a pretty good argument you’re getting special treatment,” the Christian Coalition’s attorney at the time, James Bopp, Jr., told the Weekly Standard. “Eighty-one depositions! Eighty-one! From Ralph Reed’s former part-time secretary to George H.W. Bush. It was mind blowing.”

And “mind blowing” may be the only way to describe what he detailed in a 2003 testimony before the United States Committee on House Administration [emphasis added]:

FEC attorneys continued their intrusion into religious activities by prying into what occurs at Coalition staff prayer meetings, and even who attends the prayer meetings held at the Coalition. This line of questioning was pursued several times. Deponents were also asked to explain what the positions of “intercessory prayer” and “prayer warrior” entailed, what churches specific people belonged, and the church and its location at which a deponent met Dr. Reed.

One of the most shocking and startling examples of this irrelevant and intrusive questioning by FEC attorneys into private political associations of citizens occurred during the administrative depositions of three pastors from South Carolina. Each pastor, only one of whom had only the slightest connection with the Coalition, was asked not only about their federal, state and local political activities, including party affiliations, but about political activities that, as one FEC attorney described as “personal,” and outside of the jurisdiction of the FECA [Federal Election Campaign Act]. They were also continually asked about the associations and activities of the members of their congregations, and even other pastors.

But it doesn’t end there. Bopp’s testimony includes a transcript of questioning between the FEC and Lt. Col. Oliver North to illustrate Bopp’s point. In that transcript, the FEC representative started prying into why the Lt. Col. thanked Pat Robertson for prayers in a letter. See it below (Q stands for the FEC rep, A denotes North’s response, and O is the objection raised by Christian Coalition attorneys), and note the questioner’s befuddlement at the objections raised to the line of questioning [emphasis added]:

But Bopp told the Weekly Standard it was even worse than the transcript shows — because he had raised more objections. Additionally, Bopp pointed out in his 2003 testimony that third parties also faced “burdensome” and “irrelevant” document requests — an eerie similarity to the targeting undertaken by the IRS against conservative groups:

(Source: Testimony document)

So when Lerner was promoted to her IRS position, he grew concerned.

“She was in effect being promoted for what she had done at the Federal Election Commission and now was going to be expected … to replicate that at the IRS and now we know that’s exactly what happened,” he said.

And considering the events that transpired in recent years at the IRS, that concern doesn’t seem unfounded.

This story has been updated.

–

Follow Jonathon M. Seidl on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

Applications for jobless benefits fell by 23,000 for the week ending May 18, bringing the total to 340,000, down from last week’s revised figure of 363,000, the Labor Department announced on Thursday.

The four-week moving average, a “less volatile” figure, fell by 500, bringing the total to 339,500, down from the previous average of 340,000.

“The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.3 percent for the week ending May 11, unchanged from the prior week’s revised rate,” the report reads.

“The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending May 11 was 2,912,000, a decrease of 112,000 from the preceding week’s revised level of 3,024,000. The 4-week moving average was 2,995,250, a decrease of 23,750 from the preceding week’s revised average of 3,019,000,” the report adds.

The states with the largest increases in initial claims for the week ending May 11 were California (+15,060), North Carolina (+1,826), Mississippi (+1,341), Florida (+1,329), and Georgia (+1,118).

Meanwhile, New Mexico (-754), Oregon (-751), New Jersey (-747), Kentucky (-683), and Tennessee (-488) posted the biggest decreases in initial claims.

Markets don’t look like they poised for great things this morning:

–

Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter

Featured image AP photos.

Follow Becket Adams on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

And despite the Pentagon’s request for $450 million to maintain and upgrade Gitmo, as TheBlaze reported earlier today.

In this pool photo, reviewed by the U.S. military, and shot through glass, a guard watches over Guantanamo detainees inside the exercise yard at Camp 5 detention facility at Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, Cuba, May 31, 2009. (Credit: AFP/Getty Images)

Obama reportedly plans to end restrictions on sending detainees to Yemen in the coming weeks, according to the Journal, citing unidentified U.S. officials. (A White House official would not confirm the lifting of the Yemen restrictions while Pentagon press secretary George Little said in a statement Wednesday that his office is “not commenting on press reports of transfers associated with Guantanamo.”)

A hooded demonstrator is seen at a protest calling for the closure of the Guntanamo Bay detention facility infront of the White House on May 18, 2013 in Washington, D.C. (Credit: AFP/Getty Images)

More from The Hill:

In a speech at National Defense University on Thursday, Obama will lay out his case for closing Guantanamo, which he has said is no longer necessary and hurts U.S. interests abroad.

Obama will also touch on the legal justification for using drones to target terrorists in his speech. Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress Wednesday that the U.S. has killed four Americans in drone attacks in the first public admission by the Obama administration.

The president signed an executive order in his first term to close Guantánamo, but he generated little momentum to do so amid congressional opposition.

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

Weld County, Colo., Sheriff John Cooke, left, with El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa, center right, and other sheriffs standing behind him, speaks during a news conference at which he announced that 54 Colorado sheriffs are filing a federal civil lawsuit against two gun control bills passed by the Colorado Legislature, in Denver, Friday, May 17 2013. (Photo: AP)

In the wake of the tragedy in Aurora, Colorado passed some of the strictest gun control measures in the country.

But in recent months, an overwhelming 55 of the state’s 62 county sheriffs have joined a lawsuit aiming to block the measures.

“These bills do absolutely nothing to make Colorado a safer place to live, to work, to play or to raise a family,” Weld County Sheriff John Cooke explained at a recent press conference. “Instead these misguided, unconstitutional bills will have the opposite effect because they greatly restrict the right of decent, law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, their families and their homes.”

Sheriff Terry Maketa of El Paso County is one of the opposing sheriffs, and he explained on TheBlaze TV Wednesday how the public was “duped” into supporting overly vague legislation banning high-capacity magazines and requiring background checks.

Maketa says they believe the laws are unenforceable, but also violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

After explaining the tactics used to pass the bills that essentially “eliminated all public input,” Maketa reiterated that it’s clearly an “overreaching step” for politicians to claim law enforcement supports stricter gun control.

When asked by Pat Gray whether he and other sheriffs are “getting flak” for standing against the stricter measures, Maketa replied that it’s the “exact opposite.”

“I would say the communications I’ve received are 99% in favor,” he added.

“I think Colorado is the epicenter of this battle, and 55 Colorado sheriffs have drawn a line in the sand and said ‘We’re not going to tolerate it,’ he concluded.  “[The laws] are unenforceable…and we certainly are not going to compromise citizens’ rights [to claim] that we are.”

Watch Maketa’s entire interview on TheBlaze TV, below:

–

Related:

• Hunters Strike Back, Begin Boycotting Colorado Over New Gun Laws
• Colorado Sheriff Says Dems Are Using Salary Threats to Pressure Sheriffs to Support Gun Control Bills
• Have Conservatives Lost Colorado for Good, and Will America Follow?

Follow Erica Ritz on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

Getty Images.

The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday voted 241-175 to approve a bill that would bypass the president and speed the approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to Texas.

Democrats criticized the legislation as a blatant attempt to allow a foreign company to avoid environmental review. Republicans said the measure was needed to ensure that the long-delayed pipeline, first proposed in 2008, is built.

“This is the most studied pipeline in the history of mankind,” said Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., the bill’s sponsor.

“When is enough enough?” added Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif. “Five years? Six years? Ten years?”

But Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., called the bill a “reckless attempt to avoid environmental review.” The bill would deem the project approved without a presidential permit, as required under current law, and with no further environmental review. The legislation also would limit legal challenges to the project.

The White House says President Barack Obama opposes the bill because it would “circumvent longstanding and proven processes” by removing the requirement for a presidential permit.

The $7 billion pipeline, proposed by Calgary-based TransCanada, would carry oil extracted from tar sands in western Canada to refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast. The 1,700-mile pipeline would travel though Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma on its way to refineries in Houston and Port Arthur, Texas.

Supporters say the pipeline would create thousands of jobs, help lower fuel prices, and bolster North American energy resources.

Opponents call the project a “carbon bomb” that would carry “dirty oil” that could trigger global warming. They also worry about a spill. Converting tar sands into oil can uses as much as 15 percent more energy than conventional oil production.

Obama has twice thwarted the pipeline project amid concerns about a proposed route through environmentally sensitive land in Nebraska. The bill approved by the House would apply to an 875-mile portion of the pipeline from Canada to Nebraska.

The State Department, which has completed more than 15,000 pages of environmental review on the proposed pipeline over the years, said in a draft report this spring that the project was unlikely to cause significant environmental impact to most resources along the planned route. The report also said other options to move the oil from Canada to Gulf Coast refineries, such as trucks or rail cars, would be far worse for climate change.

The State Department expects to issue a final report this summer. The department has authority over the pipeline because it crosses a U.S. border.

This latest attempt to speed the pipeline marks at least the fourth time the House has tried to do so.

Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., defended the House actions, even though the Keystone bill is unlikely to be taken up by the Democratic-controlled Senate.

“There may be a few of my colleagues who are tired of Keystone bills, but the American people are also tired – tired of $3.70 a gallon gasoline, tired of unemployment above 7 percent, and tired of four years of delays that continue to block this critical jobs and energy project,” Upton said.

Here’s a complete breakdown of the vote (Rep. Justin Amash voted “present”?):

We reached out to Rep. Amash’s office for comment on his vote.

“He supports the construction of the pipeline but he opposes singling out a particular company or individual in a bill,” a spokesman told TheBlaze in a statement.

–

Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Follow Becket Adams on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

(Photo: Shutterstock/Angel Simon)

The European Union (EU) recently announced that beginning on January 1 of 2014, eateries will be banned from serving olive oil in dipping bowls or even having re-usable bottles of the delectable good at the table.

From that point on, olive oil can only be served in “pre-sealed, non-refillable bottles that must be disposed of when empty,” Reuters reports.

According to the European Commission, the executive branch of the EU, the much-criticized move is intended to improve hygiene and make sure the olive oil has not been diluted.

“We are just making clear that when you want to have olive oil of a certain quality in a restaurant, you get exactly the one you are paying for,” European Commission spokesman Oliver Bailly said in Brussels.

Apparently 15 out of 27 EU member governments supported the measure, including a few of the countries most associated with olive oil — Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal.  Ostensibly, the move will also help struggling olive oil producers in the economically beleaguered countries.  But some say it will put smaller producers — those who put their product in a large jar and can’t afford tamper-safe bottles for every portion — out of business.

Enzo Sica, who owns an Italian restaurant in Brussels, told Reuters: “They say they’re thinking about consumers, but this will increase costs for us and our customers as well. In this time of crisis, surely they should be worrying about other things rather than stupid stuff like this.”

EU Olive Oil Ban Internationally Ridiculed

The EU’s decision to focus on olive oil during a time of record debt and unemployment is drawing merciless criticism by the press and lawmakers alike.

“Suddenly, E.U. ministers have decided to wage a war on bad hygiene and sound traditions when many Europeans can’t afford a bar of decent soap,” Robert Bridge wrote in Russia Today.

The New York Times said Euroskeptics are seizing upon the ban “as proof of mindless interference by a faceless bureaucracy,” while the blog at the U.K. Guardian asked whether the EU has “gone mad,” adding: “As pointless – no – moronic laws go, it’s a doozie, showing absolutely no understanding or consideration for how restaurants and consumers operate.”

U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron said “this is exactly the sort of thing that Europe shouldn’t even be discussing,” while Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said it is “too bizarre for words and incomprehensible to come with this sort of proposal at a time like this,” according to the U.K. Daily Telegraph.

In a scathing speech in front of the European Parliament, U.K. MEP Nigel Farage tackled the issue after blasting the hypocrisy of government leaders fattening their own pockets while targeting the rich as an “enemy.”

“I’m sure the citizens of Europe will all clap and cheer loudly that the grave, mortal danger of olive oil in dipping bowls has been removed by the officials,” he said with inimitable scorn.  “Well done, everybody.”

Watch Farage’s complete speech (which includes a few pointed words about global warming, as well), below:

–

Related:

• U.K. Lawmaker Fined Roughly $4,000 for Saying EU Chief Has ‘Charisma of a Damp Rag’
• ‘Total and Utter Failure’: Watch This British Politician Mercilessly Berate EU Leaders
• Mitch McConnell’s Office Sends Out Photo of New ‘Obamacare’ Regulations Printed and Stacked How High?

Follow Erica Ritz on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

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

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

7. I Did Nothing Wrong

Lois Lerner. (AP)

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

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

“I have done nothing wrong,” she said in her opening statement. “I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations and I have not provided false information to this or any other committee.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s unclear whether that argument will stick.

6. Bipartisan Agreement: This Scandal Stinks

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

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

And he pulled no punches:

5. There Will be Hell to Pay

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

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

And here’s a clip of Rep. Lynch raking Shulman over the coals for saying in 2012 that there was “absolutely no” targeting of conservative groups by the IRS:

Ouch.

4. The IRS Held May 2012 Internal Probe from U.S Lawmakers

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

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

The agency hid its findings from Congress.

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

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

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

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

3. Trey Gowdy Goes Scorched Earth

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

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

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

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

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

“Excuse me?”

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

“I defer to the inspector general.”

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

2. Oh, Really? You Don’t Accept Responsibility?

Former IRS Chief Dough Shulman. (AP)

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

“I certainly am not personally responsible for creating a list that had inappropriate criteria on it,” Shulman told Texas Senator John Cornyn. “What I know, with the full facts that are out is – from the Inspector General’s report – which doesn’t say that I’m responsible for that.”

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

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

1. Easter Egg Roll?

Courtesy @JohnEkdahl

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

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

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

But he does remember the Easter Egg Roll.

–

Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter

Featured image Getty Images.

Follow Becket Adams on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

Attorney General Eric Holder (Credit: AP)

Attorney General Eric Holder admitted in a letter to Congressional leaders on Wednesday that the United States had killed four Americans in drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan, the New York Times reports. President Barack Obama is set to give a major speech on national security on Thursday.

In the letter, obtained by the Times, Holder revealed that the administration had intentionally killed radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki with a drone strike in September 2011 in Yemen. While the U.S. has been largely suspected of responsibility in the assassination, the administration has never admitted it until now.

“The letter also said that the United States had killed three other Americans: Samir Khan, who was killed in the same strike; Mr. Awlaki’s son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was also killed in Yemen; and Jude Mohammed, who was killed in a strike in Pakistan,” the New York Times reports.

“These individuals were not specifically targeted by the United States,” Holder wrote.

FILE – This Oct. 2008 file photo shows Imam Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike. A public backlash is starting to grow in Yemen over civilians killed by American drones as the U.S. dramatically steps up its strikes against al-Qaida s branch here the past year. Relatives of those killed say the missile blasts hitting their towns only turn Yemenis against the U.S. campaign to crush militants. The drone strikes have taken out high-level targets in Yemen such as American-born cleric al-Awlaki, believed to have been a powerful tool for al-Qaida s recruiting in the West. Most, however, appear to target midlevel operatives. Credit: AP

There had reportedly been rumors about Mohammed’s death in local North Carolina newspapers, however, his death had not been confirmed by the United States until Wednesday.

While three Americans were accidentally killed with drones, Holder maintained that al-Awlaki was targeted not for his radical message, but for direct actions in planning attacks.

“Moreover, information that remains classified to protect sensitive sources and methods evidences Awlaki’s involvement in the planning of numerous other plots against U.S. and Western interests and makes clear he was continuing to plot attacks when he was killed,” Holder wrote, adding that the decision to target Anwar al-Awlaki “was lawful, it was considered, and it was just.”

“Mr. Obama announced the death of Mr. Awlaki on Sept. 30, 2011, and credited United States intelligence agencies, but he did not explicitly acknowledge that Mr. Awlaki had been killed by an American strike,” the Times report concludes.

Featured image via Getty

Follow Jason Howerton on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

But let’s step back for a moment and explain what this means. For an analysis of this milestone, we turn to Zero Hedge.

The bulk of Fed reserves (i.e. cash) have been “parked not with US banks, but with foreign banks with US-based operations,” the Hedge reports.

But how is this possible? How have foreign banks in the U.S. bulked up their cash reserves?

The Fed has been “providing a constant cash injection to foreign banks courtesy of the rate on overnight reserves which is the amount Fed pays to banks that hold reserves with it,” the report notes.

In short, foreign banks operating in the U.S. have been collecting interest.

In fact, the Fed’s policies “have led to foreign banks operating in the US holding an all time high amount of reserves, surpassing $1 trillion for the first time, or $1,033 billion to be precise,” the report adds.

So what does this mean?

It means that “the only recipient of ongoing Fed money printing are not US banks, but foreign banks operating in the US,” Zero Hedge notes.

And to help visualize what this means, here’s a chart illustrating cash held by U.S. and foreign banks along with the amount of total reserves created by the Fed since the beginning of the 2008 financial meltdown:

Courtesy ZH.

“And just to prove that ALL the unsterilized cash from both QE2 and QEternity has essentially gone to support offshore banks, here is the conclusive chart showing the change in Fed reserves and cash held by foreign banks:

Courtesy ZH.

And here’s a chart that shows the difference between cash in U.S. banks versus cash in foreign banks operating in the U.S.

Courtesy ZH.

“At $1.03 trillion in foreign cash, the Fed’s policies have once again led to more cash being held by foreign banks than all cash held by domestic banks,” Zero Hedge notes.

–

Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter

Follow Becket Adams on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

Gee, what could go wrong?

“This is an important moment,” Paul announced. “You will be funding, today, the allies of al Qaeda. It’s an irony you cannot overcome.”

FP has more:

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

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

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

Follow Meredith Jessup on Twitter

Follow Meredith Jessup on Facebook

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

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

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

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

“Did you study the Constitution?” Bentivolio asked.

“I went to law school,” Shulman responded.

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

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

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

“Excuse me,” a seemingly confused Shulman responded.

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

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

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

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

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

But Bentivolio seemed to be trying to show that the Constitution should be held in just as high as regard as ethics.

–

Follow Jonathon M. Seidl on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

U.S. President Barack Obama visits visits the Center for Urban Families on May 17, 2013 in Baltimore, Maryland. (Photo: Getty Images)

The Obama administration has been under heavy scrutiny in recent weeks over a number of troubling scandals.  The controversies surrounding Benghazi, the IRS targeting conservatives, and the U.S. Department of Justice spying on and secretly seizing the phone records of AP and Fox News reporters (that we know of so far) have all drawn concentrated attention by Congress, the American people, and the press.

Perhaps because the issue hits closest to home, though, many in the press seem most concerned about the actions of the DOJ.

On Tuesday, both the New York Times editorial board and Dana Milbank at the Washington Post penned scathing opinion pieces about the Obama administration limiting press freedom, while highlighting the ramifications.

The New York Times editorial board wrote:

With the decision to label a Fox News television reporter [James Rosen] a possible “co-conspirator” in a criminal investigation of a news leak, the Obama administration has moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news.

The Washington Post article was much more scathing:

To treat a reporter as a criminal for doing his job — seeking out information the government doesn’t want made public — deprives Americans of the First Amendment freedom on which all other constitutional rights are based. Guns? Privacy? Due process? Equal protection? If you can’t speak out, you can’t defend those rights, either.

Beyond that, the administration’s actions shatter the president’s credibility and discourage allies who would otherwise defend the administration against bogus accusations such as those involving the Benghazi “talking points.” If the administration is spying on reporters and accusing them of criminality just for asking questions — well, who knows what else this crowd is capable of doing?

[...]

If Obama really is “a fierce defender of the First Amendment,” as his spokesman would have it, he will move quickly to fix this. Otherwise, Obama is establishing an ominous precedent for future leaders whose fondness for the First Amendment may not be so fierce.  [Emphasis added]

Milbank also notes that President Obama’s administration has prosecuted more people accused of leaking information than all previous administrations combined.

But The Hill’s Jeff Bachman takes it all a step further, adding that there is a monstrous double standard regarding leaking information to the press:

The New York Times and The Washington Post are propagating a false narrative, one that depicts Obama as some sort of crusader hell bent on plugging all leaks. The reality is the Obama administration has either authorized or acquiesced to the leak of information that is deemed politically beneficial, while relentlessly investigating and prosecuting those who reveal information that reflects poorly on his administration and the U.S. government.

[...]

The Obama administration has sent a clear message. Government officials and journalists who wish to work together to create news stories through the leak of classified information that portray the president and his administration in a positive light should have no fear. And to the journalists and whistle-blowers thinking about publishing that other kind of classified information, be prepared to have your emails read, your phones tapped without your knowledge and your life and career turned upside down.  [Emphasis added]

Related:

• Beck Ties Together Benghazi, IRS, & AP Scandals: ‘Fundamental Transformation’
• Wait, Did the Inspector General Who Audited the IRS ‘Date’ Michelle Obama?
• Vote: How will Obama’s scandals impact the GOP?

Follow Erica Ritz on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

Rep. Gowdy explained why he thinks Lois Lerner should be called back to testify after botching her 5th Amendment plea. And he delivered that explanation in a viral way, too. See it here.

–

South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy showed up to Wednesday’s House hearing on the Internal Revue Service scandal in a fighting mood (as noted here on TheBlaze) and he only became more fired up as the day wore on.

“If there’s inappropriate conduct being done on your watch in the IRS,” Rep. Gowdy said, “then that inappropriate conduct can last as long as the inspector general’s investigation lasts.”

The congressman’s remarks were in response to former IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman saying he didn’t stop the agency’s political targeting of conservative groups because the IG was looking into it.

“Is that what you’re telling me?” Gowdy continued. “You’re not going to step in and stop it? If there’s someone wielding a knife in the parking lot, are you going to call the inspector general? Are you going to wait until his or her investigation is over until stop it?”

There was a long pause after that question.

“Did you do anything to verify that the practice — as insidious as it was — was stopped?” the South Carolina congressman persisted, a response to Shulman saying that when he found out about the targeting he also was under the understanding that it had stopped.

“Um, the inspector general was going to be looking into it and that’s — ” Shulman started to say.

“Is it that you can’t say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or you’re just choosing not to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’? Can you answer the question: Did you do anything personally to make sure that this insidious, discriminatory practice was stopped? Yes or no?”

Things continued to become heated between the two, Shulman hedging his responses and Gowdy demanding answers:

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

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

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

“Excuse me?”

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

“I defer to the inspector general.”

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

–

Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter

Featured image Associated Press. This post has been updated.

Follow Becket Adams on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

Left to right: Lois Lerner, the director of the exempt organizations unit at the Internal Revenue Service, and ex-IRS chiefs Steven Miller and Douglas Shulman. (Getty Images)

Despite the Obama administration’s repeated promises to get to the bottom of the Internal Revenue Service’s political targeting scandal, nothing has been done.

And it looks like nothing can be done for quite some time.

Although IRS officials have known about the targeting of conservative groups since at least 2011, not a single employee has been reprimanded. In fact, according to a spokesperson for the National Treasury Employees Union, the union for IRS employees hasn’t even been contacted to deal with certain personnel.

“Why weren’t more people fired?” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) asked Tuesday during a hearing on the scandal.

Indeed, if employees engaged in behavior that even President Obama has characterized as “outrageous,” then why hasn’t anything been done?

POLITICO explains: “Most employees involved in the targeting program are covered by protections for federal workers that could drag out the termination process.”

In fact, according to the same report, the process for firing someone like Lois Lerner, the top IRS official who first acknowledged the agency’s inappropriate targeting of conservative groups two weeks ago, is an arduous, bureaucratic nightmare.

Here’s how the Washington-based news agency explains the process:

The incoming acting IRS Commissioner, Daniel Werfel, could try to clean house — but he’d have to be prepared for a lengthy appeals process.

Under federal rules, a fired government worker has the right to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board. He or she can challenge the decision, argue that their actions don’t meet the threshold for termination and ask to be reinstated — especially if there was no warning of trouble in past performance reviews.

The board is set up so fired employees appealing their termination get two chances to prove they should stay. Their first stop is at the merit board’s regional level, which — for the Cincinnati-based IRS employees in question — would be in Chicago.

The initial appeals take an average of 93 days to process, said William Spencer, a spokesman for the board.

If the regional board rules against the IRS employees, they could appeal to the national Washington, D.C.-based board, which takes on average another 245 days.

The IRS employees wouldn’t collect a paycheck during the appeals process. They would get back pay only if they are ultimately reinstated.

Of course, you could always go the Raymond Maxwell route and force employees to take “administrative leave.”

“But IRS workers could always fight back if they’ve had positive performance reviews until now — and the board has been known to mitigate penalties if an employee is a first-time rule violator,” POLITICO notes.

“Making this case about conduct does make it easier, however, to skip one part of the disciplinary rules for federal workers.”

Federal rules are written in such a way that if a public employee is terrible at his job, he is given a chance to improve before being fired.

However, if it’s a “conduct case” (like the IRS scandal), the agency is not required to inform the employee that he needs to “improve.” And here’s something else to consider: an IRS commission can let go of any employee — without appeal — if said employee commits any of the “10 deadly sins” explained in the agency’s 1998 overhaul law.

“The ‘sins’ include falsifying information or destroying documents to cover up mistakes, violating a taxpayer’s constitutional rights, abusing privacy clauses to conceal information from a congressional inquiry and threatening to audit taxpayers for personal gain or benefit,” the report notes.

J. Russell George, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, at Tuesday’s hearing said IRS employees could be let go under these circumstances.

However, he added, it depends on whether it can be proven that they knowingly committed the “sins.”

And if none of the above options work, you can always hope bad employees resign.

“Outgoing acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller, for example, could have hung on if he’d really wanted to,” POLITICO notes. “Just because he was filling in for a politically appointed position doesn’t mean he can be fired by the president like political appointees typically can.”

But pressure and public outcry put Miller in a position where it became obvious that he couldn’t stay on as department interim chief. The same type of pressure could be applied to Lerner.

Click here to read the full report.

On TheBlog: Vote: How will Obama scandals impact the GOP?

———-

Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter

Featured image Getty Images.

Follow Becket Adams on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

On Morning Joe Wednesday, NPR’s Cokie Roberts slammed the president for waging an “attack on the American press,” including the curious case of DOJ snooping on FNC’s James Rosen and the administration’s unprecedented prosecution of government employees.

Meanwhile, host Joe Scarborough argued that the situation would be somehow different if the administration were snooping on MSNBC, but spying on “the opposition” (Fox News) is bad news for the Obama White House. (?)

“This reporter is being prosecuted for what?” Roberts retorted, referring to Rosen. ”He’s basically being prosecuted, if he is prosecuted, for doing his job.”

WATCH:

As I noted yesterday, the Obama Justice Department relied on the 1917 Espionage Act to target Rosen, declaring him a “co-conspirator” in the leak of classified intel.  In contrast, you’ll recall the left’s outrage over the mere suggestion that the very same law be applied to Julian Assange, who has previously posted hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. documents on the Wikileaks site.

Public figures on the left, including filmmakers Michael Moore and Oliver Stone, hailed Assange as a First Amendment hero and patriot.  But the Obama Justice Department (under the leadership of Eric Holder) insisted it would do everything in its power to prosecute such action:

On Monday, Attorney General Eric Holder said the Justice Department had “an active, ongoing criminal investigation with regard to this matter” and insisted the administration’s promises of action were “not saber rattling.”

“To the extent that we can find anybody who was involved in the breaking of American law and who has put at risk the assets and the people that I have described, they will be held responsible. They will be held accountable,” Holder said, declining to identify any targets of the investigation.

Assange remains free and now that same Justice Department insists that it’s necessary to track Rosen as a co-conspirator to espionage?

Follow Meredith Jessup on Twitter

Follow Meredith Jessup on Facebook

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

AP

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

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

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

Image source: WXIX-TV

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

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

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

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

———–

On TheBlog: Vote: How will Obama scandals impact the GOP?

Follow Madeleine Morgenstern on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

In this photo reviewed by the U.S. Department of Defense, towers overlooking a U.S. detention facility are silhouetted against a morning sunrise at Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, Cuba, Thursday, Oct. 18, 2012. (Photo: AP)

WASHINGTON (TheBlaze/AP) — The Pentagon is asking Congress for more than $450 million to maintain and upgrade the Guantanamo Bay prison that President Barack Obama says he wants to close.

New details on the administration’s budget request emerged on Tuesday and underscored the contradiction of one branch of the government claiming it wants to close the facility, while another calculates the financial requirements to keep the installation operating.

The budget request for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 calls for $79 million for detention operations, the same as the current year, and $20.5 million for the office of military commissions, an increase over the current amount of $12.6 million. The request also includes $40 million for a fiber optic cable and $99 million for operation and maintenance.

The Pentagon also wants $200 million for military construction to upgrade temporary facilities. That work could take eight to 10 years as the military has to transport workers to the island, rely on limited housing and fly in building material.

The facility at the U.S. naval base in Cuba currently holds 166 prisoners, and hunger strikes by 100 of them over their indefinite detention and reported prison conditions have prompted Obama to renew his effort to close Guantanamo. The president is expected to discuss the future of the facility in a speech on counterterrorism on Thursday.

This image reviewed by the US military shows the solitary recreation room in Cell Block C in the ‘Camp Five’ detention facility of the Joint Detention Group at the US Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, January 19, 2012. (Photo: AFP/Getty Images)

“Guantanamo is not necessary to keep America safe,” the president said at a White House news conference last month. “It is expensive. It is inefficient. It hurts us in terms of our international standing. It lessens cooperation with our allies on counterterrorism efforts. It is a recruitment tool for extremists. It needs to be closed.”

Obama claimed on the campaign trail in 2008 that he would close the prison within his first year on office, signing an executive order for its closure during his first week. But both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have blocked his efforts to transfer terror suspects to the United States.

The law that Congress passed and Obama signed in March to keep the government running includes a longstanding provision that prohibits any money for the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States or its territories. It also bars spending to overhaul any U.S. facility in the U.S. to house detainees.

That makes it essentially illegal for the government to transfer the men it wants to continue holding, including five who were charged before a military tribunal with orchestrating the Sept. 11 attacks.

Lawmakers have cited statistics on terror suspects striking again and argued that Obama has failed to produce a viable alternative to Guantanamo.

People dress in orange jumpsuits and black hoods as activists demand the closing of the US military’s detention facility in Guantanamo during a protest, part of the Nationwide for Guantanamo Day of Action, April 11, 2013 in New York’s Times Square. (Photo: AFP/Getty Images)

Some members of Congress counter that U.S. maximum security prisons currently hold convicted terrorists and can handle such suspects. Among those in U.S. prisons is Zacarias Moussaoui, who helped plann the Sept. 11 attacks.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., said he favors closing Guantanamo for several reasons, including the expense. Money in a time of deficits could be a factor for other lawmakers, including fiscal conservatives in Congress.

Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, sent a letter to Obama on Tuesday offering his help to get the facility closed.

Until then, Smith wrote, “it will continue to symbolize an unjust attempt to avoid the rule of law and to undermine the United States’ moral standing in defending its values and protecting human rights.”

–

Related:

• NY Times Publishes First Person Acct. of Gitmo Prisoner: ‘I Would Not Wish This Cruel Punishment Upon Anyone’
• Chaos at Gitmo: Guards Use ‘Less-Than-Lethal’ Rounds to Quell Hunger Strike Violence
• Pentagon: Officials ‘Don’t Know’ if Bulgaria Bomber Was Once at Gitmo

Follow Erica Ritz on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

Associated Press.

J. Russell George, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, is known today as the man who helped unearth the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative groups.

But to one Virginia congressman, George is also notable for having once “dated” First Lady Michelle Obama.

No, really.

“[G]eorge has operated in these halls of power his entire career. He worked for Dole, and then in President George H.W. Bush’s White House,” writes Shane Goldmacher for National Journal.

“In between, he attended Harvard Law School, graduating in 1988 alongside a young Michelle Obama (then Michelle Robinson),” he adds.

Goldmacher continues:

They weren’t in the same section – the academic groupings that Harvard uses to divide its students – but as two young black law students, George said they traveled in some of the same social circles, including the Black Law Students Association (BLSA).

“I think he actually dated Michelle at one point,” said former Rep. Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican, who worked with George when he was staff director for a House oversight subcommittee in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

“That is overstating it,” said George. But they did socialize in group settings. “Michelle was a lovely person and down to earth,” he said. “…The BLSA went out for pizza we would go out together.”

He paused, for a beat. “Don’t get me in trouble,” George added.

Of course, this whole thing is a matter of perspective and it all depends on how you define “dating.” Even George says the claim in an overstatement.

Still, if George and the First Lady actually “went out” as the IG claims they did, and if he means “go out together” in the sense you and I usually think of, what a strange, little world we live in.

Click here to read the full National Journal report.

–

RELATED:

• Confusion Erupts in IRS Hearing After Lois Lerner Tries to Plead the 5th — Watch It All Unfold
• Ex-Cincinnati IRS Manager: This Was Not the Work of ‘Low-Level’ Employees
• Coulter and Hannity Decry ‘Disturbing’ Obama Admin Scandals: ‘You Can’t Do This to Any American’

Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter

Featured image photofunny.net

Follow Becket Adams on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

The Boston Globe reports that the Obamas are planning a Martha’s Vineyard summer vacation, including an “extended” stay for first lady Michelle Obama:

There’s been no official word from the White House, but we’re hearing the Obamas have their eyes on a house in Farm Neck on Martha’s Vineyard. During three previous visits, POTUS and FLOTUS and their daughters Malia and Sasha stayed at Blue Heron Farm in Chilmark. But British architect Norman Foster has since bought the place for $21.9 million. Farm Neck is secluded and, most importantly for the president, has a nice golf club. We’re told first lady Michelle Obama and the children may be on the island for an extended period, with the president joining them on occasional weekends and for two weeks at the end of August.

The Obama clan avoided their annual trek to Martha’s Vineyard last year in the midst of the 2012 presidential campaign.

h/t WHD

Follow Meredith Jessup on Twitter

Follow Meredith Jessup on Facebook

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

“I have not done anything wrong,” Lerner said in her opening statement. “I have not broken any laws, I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee. And while I would very much like to answer the committee’s questions today, I have been advised by my counsel not to.”

Blogger Dave Burge weighs in today with some dry humor:

When it comes to the Constitution, she’s a slow Lerner.

— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) May 22, 2013

Follow Meredith Jessup on Twitter

Follow Meredith Jessup on Facebook

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

(Image: AP)

The glorification of government-run nationalized health care was a bit baffling for for many, especially those such as myself who have first-hand experience with their health care system.

I could write about my tale of woe, but NRO’s Kathryn Jean Lopez points out a much more disturbing account of the National Health System from a concerned mother with a disabled daughter.  As columnist Ian Birrell writes, “all too many people with disabilities end up being killed by the health service – the very institution supposedly dedicated to saving their lives.”

Via The Guardian:

The latest case is distressing and disturbing: Tina Papalabropoulos, a young woman scarcely older than my own child dying after a series of blunders by two NHS organisations – a hospital and out-of-hours GP service – in Essex. Quite rightly, her mother, Christine, is angry. “When your child becomes ill and you need professional help from doctors, you and your child are looked at and you can see their mind working, ‘Is there any point in trying to save this child’s life?’ You can see that they think, ‘This child has an existence and not a life’,” she said.

The loss of this young life was a needless tragedy. But it is far from an isolated one. Each week 24 disabled people are killed by such prejudiced presumptions; indeed, there was a case at my local hospital recently. These shocking figures are based on a government-commissioned inquiryinto one region of the country, which found people with disabilities 37% more likely to be killed by incompetence or inadequate care – and their lives end on average 16 years earlier than they should. The more serious the disabilities, the higher the risk.

Remember how “crazy” Sarah Palin was for suggesting such “death panel” decisions would be handed down with more government involvement in health care?  Yeah…

Follow Meredith Jessup on Twitter

Follow Meredith Jessup on Facebook

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’

The 38-year IRS veteran said she was shocked when she saw headlines blaming the scandal on “rogue” employees. She added that she was equally surprised when she saw headlines tying the scandal to the Obama White House.

“Those were things that were not consistent with my knowledge of the way the organization works,” she said:

She said she does not believe a few employees in the Cincinnati office are responsible for the targeting of nearly 500 conservative groups. You may recall that when this scandal started to unfold, a congressional source told CNN “two rogue” employees were to blame for the targeting.

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

She added that, contrary to what the IRS told the inspector general, these were not “mistakes” made by “front-line career employees.”

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

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

However, she was careful to add that she believes the IRS official(s) who orchestrated the targeting did so for “efficiency” purposes and “not out of any political or partisan viewpoint.”

“I don’t believe that it was in any way political,” she said, adding that in al her years with the department, she never saw partisan behavior.

Ousted IRS interim chief Steven Miller claimed last week that IRS employees looked for terms such as “tea party” and “patriot” because it was more “efficient.” Esrig said this is entirely plausible.

“I absolutely believe that cases could be grouped for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with partisan concerns,” she said. “I don’t think that there is anything political about the grouping of cases.”

She also stated that she doesn’t believe the department was acting on outside orders.

“The way the IRS operates,” Esrig said, “over my years of experience in various roles, including working in Washington, D.C, I have never seen anything come down where the administration was directing the IRS to handle something in one way versus another way.”

Esrig “worked as an area manager in the Determinations Unit of the IRS’ Exempt Organizations department in 2011 and 2012,” NBC reports.

“Esrig worked on tax-exemption status issues in the IRS office, but for other types of organizations, such as charter schools – not on the political advocacy groups cases at the center of the controversy. She retired from the IRS in January,” the report adds.

–

Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter

Featured image screen grab.

Follow Becket Adams on Twitter

Read more stories from TheBlaze

John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’

Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members

Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep?

Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’