The IRS apologizes for “inappropriately” auditing conservative groups before the 2012 election
Today the IRS apologized for “inappropriately” targeting several conservative groups prior to the 2012 election:
The Internal Revenue Service apologized Friday for what it acknowledged was “inappropriate” targeting of conservative political groups during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status.
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.
The Obama regime is falling back on the old reliable standby position of blaming Bush because at the time the agency was led by a Bush appointee but does anyone really believe these audits were not ordered by Barack Obama or somebody within his regime?
It is all very well and good that the IRS has admitted its “mistake” and has apologized for it but at this point–to quote Hillary Rodham Clinton–what difference does it make now that the election is over? They accomplished their goal so the apology is hollow at best.
How many people were intimidated to the point where they did not dare to contribute to these groups for fear of being connected to an organization being targeted by the IRS and being targeted themselves? We will never know the answer to this question but it is quite possible it was enough to win Barack Obama a second term.
Barack Obama has ruled by intimidation and fear as he moves from one “crisis” to another and this is just another example of the thuggery of the Obama regime. I am of the opinion that the IRS and Barack Obama committed political terrorism by scaring his opponents into submission. Strong words indeed but how else would you describe these actions?
Benghazi: Talking points edited by the State Department 12 times, Obama calls for secret meeting with the media
When Susan Rice was caught lying about the Benghazi terrorist attack Barack Obama came to her defense by claiming that she was simply going by the talking points provided to her by the CIA. He went on to say that he sent her out to the talk shows so instead of attacking her the detractors should go after him instead.
I think I will take him up on his offer.
Once it became clear that the CIA talking points were wrong the Obama regime–through Jay Carney–made the claim that while the Obama regime did in fact suggest changes to the talking points, they were not significant changes and in fact they only dealt with punctuation and the like.
As I wrote about here last week this is simply not true; emails show that the State Department was actively involved in softening the story so that it wouldn’t appear as if a terrorist attack had taken place during a critical time in the presidential race.
But now we are beginning to learn the full extent to which the Obama regime went in order to have the talking points changed and it has gone from simply softening the talking points to creating what amounts to an out and out lie.
ABC News (yes, ABC News) has learned through email correspondence that the talking points were changed 12 times with significant input from Hillary Clinton’s State Department:
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.
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.
When Jay Carney states that the talking points “originated” in the CIA he is technically correct, but he fails to mention the original talking points were all but erased and replaced with the White House talking points used by Susan Rice. All references to terrorism and al Qaeda, which appeared in the original CIA talking points, were eliminated and replaced with the You Tube video excuse which was never present in the original talking points. In effect the original talking points were thrown out and replaced with the narrative Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton wanted to move forward with.
It is now clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Obama regime has been engaged in a campaign of misinformation and outright deception and while the Obama regime is finally starting to feel the heat for this what was Barack Obama’s first act as they scramble to control the narrative?
He called a secret meeting with the Ministry of Propaganda, otherwise known as the mainstream media, in order to coordinate the new line of defense. We will probably never officially learn what was discussed at this meeting but if we pay attention to the new narrative which will be promoted by the mainstream media we will know exactly what he told them for they will continue to carry the water for this now disgraced president. So much for having the most open, honest, and transparent administration in American history…..
I have been waiting to see how the Democrats would exploit the Boston Marathon bombing for political purposes and now according to this article I may have found my answer.
Senator Frank Lautenberg is proposing legislation which would increase the regulations on gun powder:
An analysis of the text reveals profound changes to current law. Lautenberg’s changes in the explosives law would seriously hamper history reenactor hobbyists, black powder hunters, sportsmen, target shooters, and anyone that loads their own ammo with modern smokeless gun powder or the older style black powder.
One change would require those that want to buy and store either smokeless powder or black powder to get a new license–at a rate of $50 every three years–to allow them to do so. The bill also says that they will only be allowed to have “limited” supplies but does not seem to say what amount would exceed those limits.
The real targets of this legislation are the reloaders, not the reenactors or the others mentioned above, and in addition to limiting how much gunpowder a person can purchase the legislation also redefines what a “manufacturer” is:
The bill also redefines what “manufacturer” of explosives means. The original laws defines “manufacturer” as someone who is making explosives (cartridges, etc.) for sale. That commercial aspect of the law is struck out in the new bill. If Lautenberg’s anti-explosives bill passes, anyone that hand loads cartridges for their own use or anyone that uses black powder firearms for hunting, sporting, or hobby use will now be classified as “manufacturers.”
No longer will you have to sell a product to be a manufacturer, if you reload for your own personal use you will be classified as a “manufacturer” and for all intents and purposes you will be registered with the federal government.
The DHS and other government agencies have been purchasing billions of rounds of ammunition and I believe this is being done to dry up the ammunition supply and drive up the cost of ammunition, but there was one hole in this plan–the reloaders–and this is an attempt to close that loophole.
After Cap and Trade failed to pass Barack Obama famously quipped that there was more than one way to skin a cat and I think this shows us that after his gun control legislation failed to pass the Democrats are moving forward with Plan B.
I had to work today so I didn’t see the Benghazi hearing but I have been perusing the internet reading about what went on today. For the most part is seems as if what we already knew about the attack was confirmed by people on the ground during the attack and most of the new information had leaked out over the last week and I have already written about it so I won’t delve into it again.
However there are a couple of issues I will address in tonight’s post.
It is interesting to note that the Democrats are not denying the American people were misled by the Obama regime anymore, because they cannot, but rather they are simply now accusing the Republicans of playing politics with the issue. I find that to be an interesting position to take after we saw the way Barack Obama and the Democrats used the Sandy Hook families to push the gun control legislation which ultimately failed.
The Democrats are also still trying to blame budget cuts for the lack of security in Benghazi although in the first hearing on this issue a State Department official, Charlene Lamb, admitted it was not a factor. She has since resigned. (Or was forced to resign.)
We also know that Greg Hicks was ordered by the State Department to not speak to congressional investigators about the attack and since the attack this man with 22 years in the service of his country has been demoted from the number two position in Libya to a desk job where he remains today, while a fourth whistleblower was unable to testify today because the Obama regime has not granted his attorney the proper security clearance to hear the testimony. Once can only wonder what this man knows that Barack Obama does not want revealed to the American people.
In my opinion no questions were really answered today and in fact we now may have more unanswered questions than we did before the hearing. I would expect more hearings in the future complete with high level military figures because we need to know who ordered the stand down order and who ordered the talking points to be changed.
If anyone was playing politics with this issue it was Barack Obama and the Democrats before the 2012 election as they purposely lied about the reason behind the attack in order minimize the damage before the election.
The cover up continues…..
As I wrote about here yesterday there was a special ops unit in Tripoli on the night of the terrorist attack in Benghazi which was preparing to mobilize in order to assist the brave heroes who died that night trying to save Chris Stevens. If this team had made it to the scene it is very possible that Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods would be alive today, but that team never made it to Benghazi because it was ordered to stand down.
Barack Obama has claimed all along that when he heard the news about the attack he authorized the use of all available resources to be used to assist in bringing the attack to an end. So, if Barack Obama did indeed authorize all available resources to the scene who ordered the stand down? Either Barack Obama made no such proclamation or somebody high up ignored his order.
Yesterday I wrote that I found it hard to believe anyone would ignore a direct order from the commander-in-chief during an attack which amounted to an act of war against the United States and today it is being reported that only the president–or someone acting on his behalf–could order the special ops to stand down.
If this it true it means either Barack Obama is lying and he didn’t authorize all available resources to be used to thwart the attack, he himself ordered the stand down, or he told someone else (Hillary Clinton?) to order the stand down while he went to bed in order to rest before his major fundraiser in Nevada on September 12th.
Now that we know this order came down from someone very high up in the Obama regime–acting on the behest of the president–the only question remaining is why was the stand down order issued?
Barack Obama told the American people that before he went to sleep on the night of the Benghazi terrorist attack (while the attack was still ongoing) he authorized the use of all available resources to help get the situation under control.
This was in direct conflict with Leon Panetta’s testimony: He claimed that after a pre-scheduled 5:00 meeting with the president that Barack Obama was not heard from again that evening.
Now we have learned from whistle-blower Gregg Hicks that a special operations force in Tripoli were preparing to fly into Benghazi but were ordered to stand down:
Hicks also reported that SOCAFRICA commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were prepared to board a C130 from Tripoli before the attack on the Benghazi annex. Gibson received a call saying “you can’t go now, you don’t have the authority to go now.’ And so they missed the flight … They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it.”
If this special ops unit was allowed to proceed it is likely that Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods would be alive today so the question is; did Barack Obama actually order all available resources to be used to stop the attack or was his order disobeyed? Personally, I find it hard to believe anyone disobeyed a direct order from the commander-in-chief, if they had they would have been held accountable because it would have given Barack Obama the “out” he so desperately needs at this point. I don’t think the order was ever given.
Here is the open thread for Sunday, May 5th; please feel free to post links to interesting articles and to discuss whatever issues arise during the course of the day. Nothing is off-topic here.
You can follow America’s Watchtower on Twitter and Facebook by clicking on the links to the right, or you can sign up to receive email updates.
If you are tired of politics as usual and wish you had another choice perhaps it is time for you to check out the New Federalist Party. The New Federalist Party is gaining new followers every day and we are beginning to reach quite a few people but this is politics so you know what we really need. Sadly, nothing can be done in politics without money and the New Federalist Party is now seeking donations so that we can register with the FEC, if you can spare anything it would be greatly appreciated.
For the musical selection this week I have gone back to my favorite band once again. This time Muse is performing the Star Spangled Banner live from Boston, followed by Panic Station. Enjoy:
Ever since three unnamed whistle blowers came forward and started talking about the terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11th of last year which left Chis Stevens, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Tyrone Woods dead the left has been trying to discredit them by calling them nameless, anonymous people who without proper identification have been throwing out what should be considered baseless claims which cannot be substantiated, but that changed today when we learned the identity of these men.
Appearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will be three career State Department officials: Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks; Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for Operations in the agency’s Counterterrorism Bureau; and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was the regional security officer in Libya, the top security officer in the country in the months leading up to the attacks.
It turns out that all three of these men are top level State Department employees with vast knowledge of what happened that fateful day and they will be testifying on Wednesday. It certainly seems as if their credentials are in order.
Benghazi: The changing talking points
This story will not be news to anyone who has been closely following the Benghazi scandal but the original talking points after the attack were changed to downplay al Qaeda’s role in the attack and focus the issue around a youtube video that nobody had seen.
Here is some of what I wrote last November about the talking points:
While testifying under oath last week David Petraeus stated that he knew the attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi was a terrorist attack almost immediately. He also stated that the original talking points memo the CIA drew up about the attack contained references to the attack being related to al Qaeda but that someone edited the memo prior to the White House sending out Susan Rice to advance the cover up.
We are now being told the reason for the change is because the al Qaeda connection was still ”tenuous” five days later even though David Petraeus, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton knew the truth almost immediately. We know the real reason why the terrorist link was omitted so shortly before the election, and it had nothing to do with the link being tenuous, but now that we know who edited the memo it is time to move on to the more important questions surrounding the terrorist attack in Benghazi because the cover up–while bad enough–isn’t the most important question here.
The The Weekly Standard has acquired the timeline–including email correspondence–of the changing timeline: Read more…
Barack Obama was in Mexico today and he claimed that most of the guns that are used in crimes in Mexico come from the United States. My first thought when I heard that statement, which can be heard here, is where have I heard this before because it sounds very familiar. It did not take me long to remember: The year was 2009 and it was Hillary Clinton who stated that America’s “insatiable demand for illegal drugs” and our “inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border” was partially responsible for the gun violence in Mexico.
She claimed that 90% of the weapons recovered at the scenes of violent crimes in America could be traced back to American gun dealers. It did not take long for that number to be proven to be a lie, so the Obama regime began implementing a program to prove the lie. That program was known as Fast and Furious. The United States government forced gun dealers at the border to sell weapons to known Mexican drug lords in the hope that the weapons would be recovered at violent crime scenes.
That plan went awry when, in addition to the hundreds of murdered Mexicans, Brian Terry and Jamie Zapata were murdered with weapons the Obama regime sold to Mexican criminals.
America's Watchtower 