May 23rd, 2013
2 days ago

Dick Morris: Using IRS Against Your Enemies an ‘Impeachable Offense’

Tuesday, 14 May 2013 07:09 PM
By Jim Meyers and John Bachman
 . 

Veteran political analyst and best-selling author Dick Morris tells Newsmax that President Barack Obama “sure knew” about the IRS’ policy of targeting conservative groups for scrutiny.

He also asserts that the IRS went so far as to audit Mitt Romney’s donors during the presidential campaign.


And he says the Obama administration’s snooping on Associated Press reporters is “very dangerous,” and points to Obama’s “Nixonian motivation.”

Morris, a former top consultant to President Bill Clinton, now has a weekday talk show from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. online at DickMorris.com and on Talk Radio 1210 WPHT Philadelphia.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV on Tuesday, Morris says “there’s no doubt in my mind” that someone in the administration knew the IRS was targeting tea party and other conservative groups “because I knew about it. Everybody who is in politics who worked on at least the Republican side knew that the tea party groups were being audited. I gave speeches about it.

“Now I didn’t know there was a memo from the top in the IRS saying audit these guys, but I knew they were being singled out for special attention. Everybody knew that. There’s a front page story in the New York Times that said Romney donors were being audited.

“This stuff was no secret and the president is parsing words when he says he didn’t know. What he’s saying, maybe he didn’t know about that specific memo from that specific person with that particular language, but he sure knew that there was a widespread policy of auditing Republican and conservative groups.”

Asked what is more appalling, denials by Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller or the targeted scrutiny itself, Morris responds: “Always in Washington scandals you have the action and then you have the cover-up, and he’s just about to start getting in trouble with the cover-up.

“But the policy of auditing people, the IRS using it as a weapon, goes back to Nixon and we already know that’s grounds for impeachment. So when he says he didn’t know about it, his entire fate is now hanging on the strength of an email that somebody may or may not have sent.”

Morris adds that the IRS scandal could actually lead to Obama’s impeachment because “using the IRS as a tool to get your enemies is an impeachable offense.

“What’s going to happen is you’re going to get a congressional hearing. They’re going to call some of these people under oath. They’ll call Miller for example, the head of the IRS, they’ll call [Douglas] Shulman, the former head of the IRS, and they’ll ask did you know about this?

“Then the obvious question is who else knew? Who did you tell? I doubt that there’s a lot of people who are willing to commit perjury to save the president, and undoubtedly what they’ll say is, well, I told such and such in the White House. Then they’ll get this person under oath and you just go step by step up the food chain.

“At the end of it, it’s an impeachable offense, which is the key thing.”

It’s now been disclosed that the Justice Department snooped on Associated Press reporters’ phone calls with administration officials and seized private phone records in connection with a probe into an unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

Could the scandal could lead to Attorney General Eric Holder’s ouster?

“I don’t know about that one way or the other because it depends on what Obama’s tolerance is and also what [Holder] knows that he could spill and hurt Obama with,” Morris says.

“Apparently they were trying to find out who leaked information about al-Qaida’s involvement in Yemen.

“This investigation of leakers, which predominated during the Nixon era, becomes endless. It just goes on and on and it can lead to more and more seizures and intrusion with the free press and it’s a very dangerous, slippery slope.

“The government’s burden is to prove it had no other way of investigating this and I don’t think they can meet that burden. This is going to be another big deal.”

Asked if Obama is the most Nixonian president since Nixon himself, Morris tells Newsmax: “He certainly is acting that way.

“The common denominator here is the sense of an enemy, the sense of us against them. In Nixon’s case, with the silent majority against the hippies; in this case, it’s the 99 percent against the one percent.

“All’s fair in class war, and that spawned a recklessness that got out of control. And Obama’s management style, which is sort of laid back and non-interventionist, probably fed that. You have a unique combination here. You have Nixonian motivation and passion and Reaganesque attention to detail.”

Turning to the probe of the Benghazi attacks on American diplomatic personnel, Morris notes that polls show the American people are not terribly interested in the issue.

But he observes: “These scandals take a long time to metastasize and they take a long time to seep through into public opinion. It will not happen quickly and it will happen toward the end of the process, not toward the beginning.

“Then there’s another factor that we all have to consider, which is that you have in this country now 40 percent of the American people who will never think ill of Obama and never say that they have a bad opinion of him, not because of Obama but because of themselves.

“They look in the mirror, they’re black, Latino, single mothers, gay, students, and they say therefore I have to be for Obama or at least against the Republicans because they are against me.

“This sort of identity politics is stopping Obama from getting a high unfavorable [rating] and will continue to stop it until the Republican Party comes to its senses and starts reaching out to these groups and starts acting less exclusionary.”

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/irs-impeachable-offense-enemies/2013/05/14/id/504513?s=al&promo_code=137F4-1#ixzz2TN3mfROP
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Conservative Musings

May 11th, 2013
14 days ago

CNN should be on their knees thanking God every day that former ABC White House Correspondent Jake Tapper joined their network earlier this year. More than most news anchors today, Tapper reflects an “old school”-style journalism, where reporters report the facts without proselytizing or trying to pass off political rhetoric as “news.”

CNNs Jake Tapper talks about agnostic journalism

Speaking with Mediaite, Tapper acknowledges that he has earned the trust of conservatives and liberals by striving to remain as “agnostic as possible, politically”:

“I really try to find things that are new, interesting and under-covered – underreported,” Tapper said. “I think drones, Benghazi are legitimate stories. I think asking questions about reading Tsarnaev his rights and mirandizing him are legitimate questions to ask. I think coverage of [KermitGosnell in Philadelphia is legitimate and interesting.”

“It’s gratifying to be praised by people on the right and the left in this media environment, but the truth of the matter is that even if they were criticizing me, I’d be doing the same show,” Tapper asserted.

“That’s just, before I became a journalist, the kind of news consumer I was. So, that’s the kind of anchor and reporter I am as well,” he related. “I don’t understand people who only want to hear one point of view in their journalism. It doesn’t make sense to me. I know there are people like that, I hear from them on Twitter, but I don’t know why people wouldn’t want to have their assumptions challenged.”

Follow Meredith Jessup on Twitter

Follow Meredith Jessup on Facebook

Read more stories from TheBlaze

Top GOP Senator Says Obama Could Be Impeached Over ‘Most Egregious Cover-Up in American History’

Did an Imam Really Use Arabic Prayer to Covertly Damn Fallen Seal Team 6 Members to Hell During Their Funeral?

SHOCK: IRS Admits to Targeting Conservative Groups During 2012 Election, Apologizes

‘Just Get Up and Teach Them Instead of Handing Them a Frickin’ Packet, Yo’: Student’s Rant to Teacher Goes Viral

Blaze Poll: Who Is the Most Trustworthy Person In America?

TheBlaze.com – Blog

May 10th, 2013
15 days ago

FacebookGoogle+RedditTwitterPinterestTumblrEmailShare

Ever since Barack Obama emerged as a candidate for the Democratic Party, Conservatives have always suspected that the man placed politics over American interests.  The Conservative documentary 2016: Obama’s America, emerged as a sleeper hit and postulated that Obama’s upbringing at made him an “Internationalist” who would seek to break the bonds of America’s old (Western) allies and re-make the world into a newer, post Colonial society.

It was this picture that first made me wonder:

image

Then, when candidate Obama was asked why he didn’t wear an American flag lapel pin (he wears one now) he said:

“The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin,” Obama said. “Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security.”

Then we heard Obama talking about Americans “clinging to guns and religion” and his wife saying how this was the first time she felt proud to be an American.

There was something foreign about Barack Obama – and it wasn’t his name it was his attitude about America.

And so, under these clouds of suspicion, Benghazi happened and, on the anniversary of September 11th, we were told by our Government – led by Barack Obama – that a You Tube video and a spontaneous protest was responsible for the destruction of an American diplomatic mission in Libya and the murder of 4 Americans including the first sitting ambassador to die in the line of duty since the 1970s.

No person in their right mind believed a You Tube video was to blame.  But the Obama administration stuck to their guns and the Liberal media ignored Benghazi – except to paint Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney as playing politics on the graves of Americans.

But Conservatives didn’t give up and now we’ve learned that the so-called Benghazi “talking points” were revised a dozen times with each version becoming less and less truthful and more and more political:

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

The White House had said previously – last year – that there were no such revisions.

Then we learned today that the IRS specifically targeted tax exempt groups that had words like “tea party” in it.  “Tea Party” is, of course, associated with Conservative groups:

IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their exemption applications, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups. In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said.

When confronted by this information, White House Jay Carney said the person running the IRS at the time was appointed by the Bush administration!

Back in 2009, President Obama joked about using the IRS to audit people.

So, with hindsight being 20/20, were Conservatives’ suspicions justified?

 

 

FacebookGoogle+RedditTwitterPinterestTumblrEmailShare


Capitol Commentary’s Daily News

May 8th, 2013
17 days ago

Moment of Truth for Benghazigate?

Frank Gaffney, Jr. – CenterForSecurityPolicy.org,  May 8th, 2013

The dam seems to be breaking on the nearly eight-months-long cover-up concerning the deadly jihadist attack on Americans and their facilities in Benghazi, Libya.
Here are some the reasons to believe the moment of truth – or, more accurately, the moment for truth – is finally arriving: The House Government Oversight Committee is scheduled to hold a potentially explosive hearing on Wednesday. The Weekly Standard has obtained an official timeline showing White House and State Department skullduggery with respect to the administration’s very first briefing to Congress that suggests a deliberate effort to mislead the public and their elected representatives.
In addition, there are now indications that – despite reported intimidation by the Obama administration – long-silenced witnesses are determined to reveal what they know. And, at the instigation of Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) and with encouragement from over 700 Special Operations veterans and family members of those lost in Benghazi, some 135 legislators in the House of Representatives and three U.S. Senators are calling for a special investigatory committee. (To join the appeal for such a select committee with full subpoena powers, visit www.EndtheCoverup.com.)
To be sure, Team Obama seems as determined as ever to defy efforts to ferret out the truth about Benghazi. In this they have been aided by the failure of Congress to date to mount a single, concerted investigation of what led up to, happened during and took place after the attack.
Instead, no fewer than five different committees in the House alone have conducted hearings into one aspect or another of the scandal. Their lackluster performance over the past seven months is in evidence in a “progress report” jointly issued two weeks ago by their chairmen. It principally shows that a host of questions remain unanswered. All other things being equal, chances are they will continue to be.
It is time to consolidate and redouble the investigation. Rep. Wolf proposes in House Resolution 36 to do so by forming a new, temporary committee whose members would include the chairmen and ranking members of the five oversight committees so as to ensure their expertise is brought to bear and their jurisdictions respected.
These are among the most pregnant questions such a select committee needs to address without further delay:
• Where was the President and what was he doing? We know that President Obama was apprised in person of the attack on the State Department’s so-called “special mission facility” in Benghazi at its outset by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey. Evidently, he did not order a rescue operation on that occasion, or thereafter. In fact, Messrs. Panetta and Dempsey testified that they had no further contact with the Commander-in-Chief after their meeting. As a practical matter, since only he can order the U.S. military to engage in cross-border operations, none was mounted – either to aid those in the compound or the near-by CIA “annex” that came under attack some seven hours after the former was sacked, resulting in the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and one other diplomat. We need to know why not, and what the President was doing instead of his first responsibility: protecting Americans.
• Where was the then-Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and why did she fail to intervene on behalf of her subordinates in harm’s way? Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey also testified that they had no contact with Mrs. Clinton throughout that long and fateful night after the initial briefing to the President. The Joint Chiefs Chairman expressed incredulity that she was unaware of the perilous security situation in which her folks had been placed – for reasons that are still not clear – on a day al Qaeda has made particularly perilous for all Americans and in a place Amb. Stevens and his staff had repeatedly warned was extremely dangerous. In short, when Hillary’s “3 o’clock” call came in, where was she and why did she fail to answer it? She may continue to insist “What difference does it really make now?” But the difference the truth makes now is that it bears directly on her judgment, character and performance in high office. Americans are entitled to the truth on all those scores before they are asked to elect her as our next Commander-in-Chief.
• Will Americans in harm’s way be treated with similar indifference in the future? The 700 Special Operators noted in their letter to Members of Congress that no man left behind is a principle held dear by our military men and women. Throughout their careers, these warriors and their comrades trained and prepared for, and often executed, rescue missions and they are determined to find out why none was undertaken this time. They are right to insist that those in uniform around the world and State Department personnel need to know whether we will be abandoned in the future by our government in the event we are taken hostage or otherwise imperiled? If so, it will be open season on every one of us.
Many other questions occur, and they will doubtless be addressed if and when the House leadership decides to adopt an institutional approach with a chance of overcoming executive branch defiance and perfidy. The fact that the moment for truth has been delayed this long is a scandal in its own right. It must not be deferred further.
- – -
Author, Frank Gaffney, Jr. – Frank Gaffney is the Founder and President of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. Under Mr. Gaffney’s leadership, the Center has been nationally and internationally recognized as a resource for timely, informed and penetrating analyses of foreign and defense policy matters. Mr. Gaffney formerly acted as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy during the Reagan Administration, following four years of service as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy. Previously, he was a professional staff member on the Senate Armed Services Committee under the chairmanship of the late Senator John Tower, and a national security legislative aide to the late Senator Henry M. Jackson.

Conservative Musings

May 5th, 2013
20 days ago

The National Journal’s Nancy Clark notes that despite a slight dip in the nation’s unemployment rate in April, the plight of millions of workers who have dropped out of the labor force altogether is being ignored:

The federal government’s latest snapshot of the unemployment rate offered few bright spots Friday. The economy added 165,000 jobs in April—slightly better than March’s revised number of 138,000 jobs. Unemployment went down one-tenth of a percentage point to 7.5 percent; and health care, retail trade, and the food-services industry added positions.

The glaring caveat to this jobs report is the huge number of Americans who remain out of the workforce. Called the “labor force participation rate” in wonkspeak, that number held steady in April at 63.3 percent—the lowest level since 1979.

The economic blogosphere erupted this week with a debate over why that number has been so low and why so many people have dropped out since the start of the Great Recession. Was the decrease a symptom of the weak job market, or just a sign of baby boomers starting to retire en masse?

Demographics and retirements certainly played some role, though economists cannot agree on the extent. About 6.7 million people have stopped looking for work since late 2007, says Heidi Shierholz, an economist with the left-leaning think tank Economic Policy Institute. Roughly 3 million to 5 million of them left because they could not find jobs, economists estimate.

Mind you, these are not people who collect unemployment insurance and send out resumes in search of their next gig. These are people who—at least, temporarily—have exited the workforce. In March, the jobs report showed that 496,000 had dropped out.

Continue reading…

——————-
Related: Becket Adams breaks down Aril’s unemployment numbers

Follow Meredith Jessup on Twitter

Follow Meredith Jessup on Facebook

Read more stories from TheBlaze

AK-47-Wielding Gunman Fires 37 Times at Shocked Cops During Routine Traffic Stop

Bill Maher: It’s ‘Ridiculous,’ ‘Quaint’ & ‘Nonsensical’ to Think 2nd Amendment Can Prevent Tyranny

Dem Rep. Admits to TheBlaze She Wants National Gun Registry: ‘It Helps Us Find Them For You’

Allen West Teaches Obama What Courage Is (It’s Not Announcing You’re Gay)

Glenn Beck Teaches Part of America’s History Like Never Before Using Guns in NRA Keynote Speech: ‘It Is the Man, Not the Gun’

TheBlaze.com – Blog

May 1st, 2013
24 days ago

Singer Beyoncé released “Bow Down” back in mid-March to some controversy, mostly from critics accusing the song’s lyrics of being the opposite of empowering to women (a misunderstanding on Rush Limbaugh‘s behalf). Also because the chorus is a repeat of the phrase “bow down, bitches.”

Allison Samuels, a writer at The Daily Beast, thinks it’s a song that reflects poorly on Michelle Obama, a friend of Beyonce’s. Continue reading »