BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 13 - 06:47 PM

BeardedBruce just posted a whole slew of posts containing facts, that are carried on most 'news' sources.
Of course, many on here prefer a socialist type government, with a large central government and a nationalized everything....so they are not totally supportive of Bruce's bent toward national policies.
(My bitch has always been with the corruption, between bankster/corporate/government)....and you oppose that as well.
So, let me see, and you can see it for yourself...though you'd never admit it, because you've been slowly seduced with mind control propaganda...BUT You, who favor a National Socialistic Party, answer Bruce's posts, with this:

Greg F.: "You're right, Beardy, the whole world's out to get you. Probably because you're Jewish."

National Socialistic Party???

Don't you know what you've become???...while blaming OTHERS of what you are???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You got sucked in pretty slickly!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 13 - 06:24 PM

Beardedbruce, your post at 16 May 13 - 01:27 PM is a personal attack on me, which demonstrates that you did not grasp what I said.

I said, in response to GfS's claim that The Politico is Liberal, that it is run by a man who was part of the Reagan administration and patently NOT Liberal. I said nothing about the CONTENT of the article because I hadn't had a chance to read it carefully yet.

By the way, I have heard that allegation against Obama before. I heard it on NPR. And they are waiting for more facts to come in before they comment. As any good news source should.

DO learn to read! (And yes, "DO learn to read" IS intended to be an insult!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 May 13 - 06:08 PM

[The Obama] administration has encouraged the divisions and bitternesses, and made the previous inept administration look kind and law-abiding.

Do you really believe that preposterous bullshit, Beardy? Really?

That may be the most delusional statement I can recall you ever making, and believe me, it has some tough competition.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 May 13 - 03:23 PM

You're right, Beardy, the whole world's out to get you. Probably because you're Jewish.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 13 - 03:08 PM

From the OP:

"WHo, how and where should the Obama administration place its priorities to turn around the divisions and bitternesses that have poisoned our nation for the last many years, and start healing its Union, and its economy, and its repute, and its political framework. "

We have seen that this administration has encouraged the divisions and bitternesses, and made the previous inept administration look kind and law-abiding. But of course, if all the liberals just attack anyone that disagrees with them, the facts can be ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 13 - 02:59 PM

The FACT that many so-called liberals here would rather let a racist scumbag like you make personal attacks rather than discuss the feet of clay that is being exposed?


Gives me a great standard to judge Liberals by...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 May 13 - 02:49 PM

Well perhaps Beardy figures that sheer volume will overwhelm facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 13 - 02:28 PM

(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Sander Levin (D.-Mich.), the ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, has joined Rep. Dave Camp (R.-Mich.), the committee chairman, in demanding that the Internal Revenue Service answer by next Tuesday thirteen questions posed by the committee relating to IRS discrimination against conservative and pro-Israel groups and, where relevant, provide all internal agency documents and communications substantiating the answers.

The committee's bipartisan demand for documents includes all communications between the IRS and the White House about the IRS's targeting of conservative groups.

The committee also warns the IRS in the letter not to destroy, modify or remove any of the records the committee is seeking.

This document-and-information demand, sent in a letter dated Tuesday to acting IRS Commissioner Steve Miller, ups the ante from a letter that Rep. Charles Boustany (R.-La.), chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight, sent Miller last Friday demanding that the IRS provide the committee by today (May 15) not only with all internal communications using the words "tea party," "patriot" or "conservative," but also with the names and titles of all officials involved in discriminating against tea party and conservative organizations.

As of Tuesday, the IRS was not saying whether it would comply with that request from its congressional oversight committee. But, now, the agency must deal with the more comprehensive demand for documents and information communicated directly by the committee's bipartisan leadership.

Camp's and Levin's letter includes a list of detailed instructions explaining to the IRS the scrupulosity with which the committee expects the agency to respond to the document demand.

"In complying with this request, you shall produce all responsive records that are in your possession, custody or control," the committee instructed the IRS. "Records responsive to the request shall not be destroyed, modified, removed, transferred, or otherwise made inaccessible to the committee."

The most striking question that Democrat Ranking Member Levin and Republican Chairman Camp are asking the IRS goes to the issue of potential White House involvement in the scandal.

Specifically, Levin and Camp ask: "Did the IRS at any time notify the White House of the targeting of conservative or other groups? Provide all documents and communications between the IRS and the White House on this matter."

Levin and Camp sent this inquiry to the IRS a full day after President Obama publicly declared that he personally had only learned about the IRS targeting of conservative groups when he saw news reports about it at the end of last week.

"I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this," Obama said Monday at a joint press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron. "I think it was on Friday."

Levin and Camp also told the IRS that the committee wants all documents and communications relevant to the agency's reported discrimination against pro-Israel groups.

"Media reports have detailed that the IRS conducted special reviews of organizations whose missions involve Israel," Levin and Camp wrote. "Did the IRS undertake special reviews of these and other organizations whose activities contradict or are inconsistent with administration policies? If so, provide all documents relating to these practices."

Levin and Camp additionally directed a question at Acting IRS Commissioner Miller asking why he did not tell the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight about the targeting of conservatives in testimony he delivered to that subcommittee last July.

"In your testimony before the Oversight Subcommittee on July 25, 2012," Levin and Camp wrote Miller, "you were directly asked about the reports that the IRS had been targeting conservative groups, to which you responded 'I am aware that some 200 501(c )(4) applications fell into this category [the determination letter process]. We did group these organizations together to ensure consistency, to ensure quality.'

"It has come to our attention," Levin and Camp continued, "that you were briefed on this issue in May 2012. If at the time of the hearing you knew that IRS personnel had targeted groups for extra scrutiny based on their political beliefs, why didn't you share all of this information with the subcommittee at that time?"

Miller will testify in the full committee on Friday alongside Russell George, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration whose office has just completed an audit of the IRS on this issue.

Levin and Camp have instructed Miller to answer the questions in their letter and provide the documents the committee is requesting by next Tuesday, May 21.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 13 - 02:08 PM

You're fired! Right after you leave anyway...


"President Obama announced Wednesday evening that, due to the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative groups, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew had requested and accepted the resignation of the acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller.

"First, we're going to hold the responsible parties accountable," the president said.

"Today, Secretary Lew took the first step by requesting and accepting the resignation of the acting commissioner of the IRS, because given the controversy surrounding this audit, it's important to institute new leadership that can help restore confidence going forward," he added.

But according to a source close to Miller, the requested resignation is something a hollow gesture, as Miller was set to step down in June anyway.

"This whole idea that 'oh, the president is taking this big step' is a bit misleading because he was going to be stepping down as of early June anyway because his term as acting commissioner was going to be over."

"This step by the White House is less about actually removing somebody than removing somebody who was about to step down anyway," the source close to Miller added."

Further, Miller is set to remain as acting IRS commissioner into next week and as far as June first, the source noted.

"[H]e is still the acting commissioner and he will be until at least next week and probably, potentially until June 1st," the source said. "So there was the suggestion that he was forced to resign immediately — that is not true."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 13 - 01:51 PM

The White House has released more than 100 pages of emails detailing discussion inside the administration over last year's attacks on a US diplomatic compound in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi.

The emails were released to the media on Wednesday as President Barack Obama finds himself under increasing pressure from the Republican opposition that his administration covered up details of the assault in which the US ambassador and three other Americans were killed.

A news report last week said memos on the incident were edited to omit a CIA warning of a threat posed by the al-Qaeda.

The emails were the basis for the "talking points" memos that the US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice used when discussing the attacks.

Al Jazeera's Patty Culhane, reporting from Washington, said that the emails seemed to show that the talking points had been adjusted to remove mentions of al-Qaeda.

"This puts tremendous pressure on the Obama administration as they said the talking points were not changed, and it is now clear they were.

"They released the emails to put the controversy behind them. Unusually there were leaks coming out of Congress saying things were in the emails that were not, making the administration look worse and so it felt it had to release them.

"The debate now is whether the adjustment of the talking points had political motivations."

Republicans felt that the Obama administration's refusal to accept that the attacks on the Libyan compound had been linked to a terrorist organisation was born out of political motives.

"Opponents are saying that they don't want to link the attack to al-Qaeda because then the president couldn't say he had kept all Americans safe," our correspondent said.

"The White House is on the defensive right now, and that is why they have taken this incredibly unusual step," our correspondent said.

In the aftermath of the attack on September 11 last year the White House blamed a spontaneous protest, relating to an internet film that was seen to be insulting to Islam, for the violence.


http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/05/2013515214358814918.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 13 - 01:43 PM

MSNBC-


Beginning in the mid-2000s, MSNBC assumed an increasingly progressive stance in its opinion programming. In October 2010, it publicly acknowledged this with a marketing campaign it called "Lean Forward".
...On 11 October 2010, MSNBC unveiled a new televised advertising campaign and slogan called "Lean Forward". "We've taken on CNN and we beat them," MSNBC President Phil Griffin told employees at a series of celebratory "town hall" meetings. "Now it's time to take on Fox." Concerning the campaign, Griffin said, "It is active, it is positive, it is about making tomorrow better than today, a discussion about politics and the actions and passions of our time."[40] The new campaign embraces the network's politically progressive identity


Of course, there are some that LIKE to only hear one side of the debate:



From: Bobert - PM
Date: 13 May 13 - 03:37 PM
......
BTW, I'd give MSNBC the highest grades for factual reporting of any news outlet...

Yeah, some of their commentators get a little carried away, Chris Mathews being the worst, but at least he is a former Congressional aide so he does understand facts from rhetoric... He's just a very rude person who in spite of knowing a lot of stuff needs a good ass whuppin' and told to not interrupt people... It's rude...

But as for facts, MSNBC seems to be the only news source where you actually get facts that hold up to scrutiny... None of the others do... Okay, some get the facts correct most of the time but refuse to ever have a liberal on their shows... ABC, NBC, CBS, C-Span??? When was the last time that Bernie Sanders appeared on any of those stations??? Like, other than the talking filibuster he did a couple years ago where these so-called liberal news outlets reported that he had done this, never... Kucinich??? Never Sherrod Brown??? Never... Never and more never...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 13 - 01:35 PM

Re Politico:

In a 2007 opinion piece, progressive watchdog group Media Matters for America accused Politico of having a "Republican tilt". In a letter to Executive Editor Jim VandeHei, Senior Political Writer Ben Smith and Chief Political Correspondent Mike Allen, Editor in Chief John F. Harris reminded his colleagues that they had left the more "traditional news organizations" where they had worked previously, starting Politico with the intent to be more transparent. To that end, he asked his colleagues for an honest assessment of the the claims set forth in the letter from Media Matters. Ben Smith answered: "Media Matters has a point: ...that Bush's public endorsement made us seem too close to the White House. That was clearly a favor from the president to us (albeit a small one), and felt to me like one of those clubby Beltway moments that make the insiders feel important and the outsiders feel (accurately) like outsiders." The other primary editors disagreed with the general accusation for a variety of reasons, and some pointed to accusations of a liberal bias from the other side of the political spectrum.[13]
In September 2008, The New York Times reported that Politico would expand its operations following the 2008 presidential election: "[A]fter Election Day, [Politico] will add reporters, editors, Web engineers and other employees; expand circulation of its newspaper edition in Washington; and print more often."[14]
A 2009 profile of the organization in Vanity Fair said Politico had an editorial staff of 75 and a total staff of 100. Its newspaper circulation is around 32,000, and as of summer 2009 its web traffic was around 6.7 million unique visitors per month. This is fewer than the 11 million it had during the high point of the campaign, but most political news outlets have lower traffic outside election years. As of July 2009, it was expected to have annual revenue of around $15 million, primarily from the printed product, enough for the publication to remain financially solvent.[5]
In October 2012, Politico hired Washington bureau chief David Chalian, previously let go from Yahoo! News for saying GOP 'Happy to have a party with black people drowning' at the 2012 RNC convention in Tampa, Florida.[15] In the last days of the United States elections, 2012, writer Donovan Slack reported that in nine of the 50 states, European electoral observer activities were blocked from polls, and that observers had to take precautions in the face of security threats.[16]

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 13 - 01:27 PM

Don,

Since MY posts are from varied sources, INCLUDING Politico,
your post
"leaps to conclusions and insults those who are not in agreement with his deluge of screeds."
is both an attack on me, and an indication that you have NO interest in facts or reasonable discussion of the meaning of those facts.



"Care to discuss any of the facts presented, or do you just want to attack the messenger, as usual?

Lots presented here NOT from Politico."

Still waiting on the discussion of the facts presented- use of the IRS to steal the election, lying to the public, covering up the truth- you know, all those things that when done by Republicans is reason for impeachment, but when done by Democrats is just politics as usual.

YOU attacked the source, without discussion of the facts presented. If you think that Politico MUST be conservative, then you agree that MSNBC is a Liberal cesspool. Or you are not willing to look at who owns it.


Calling someone "Goofy" says more about YOU than about that person, or their points.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 13 - 01:18 PM

I was responding to Goofy's claim that The Politico is Liberal.

I have yet to read the full text because I'm too busy right now, so I have no comment to make on the article's content at this time.

So The Bearded One ALSO, like Goofy, leaps to conclusions and insults those who are not in agreement with his deluge of screeds.

Typical! Quick draw, pull the trigger without aiming, and shoot themselves in the foot.

Don Firth

P. S. I'm really amazed at the amount of time that these anti-Obama fanatics have to search out that stuff and post it here on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 13 - 10:25 AM

Well done Bruce!
I figured out, a while back, that the 'so-called' liberals HATE news sources that even remotely report truthfully. They thrive on being lied to...then turn around and help spread the lies, and attack the messengers of truth...and even berate those who SEEK the truth. To them, the ends justifies the means, and then act shocked, and crawl back in their holes, when the truth emerges and bites them in the ass....BUT..they are not concerned that they've been wallowing in lies, and spreading them to forward stupidly wrong agendas....they just feel bad because, their 'sense of importance' has been minimized by a little verifiable truth.....and fearing that they'll be exposed, they accuse, and call names, to distract people from the subject, or even DISCUSSING the truth.
You have it all over the place in here.
I, myself, am neither on the 'right' or 'left'....but the 'left' accuses me of being on the 'right'....and the 'right' accuses me of being on the 'left', anytime I expose the TRUTH, which has very little to do with either one of them!!

Don just posted a classic example, of which if he was 1/10th as 'brainy' as he thought he was, can't see that the 'tactic' has got him nowhere, except falling all over himself.

He knocks the 'Politico', because a 'Reaganite' is the CEO, and I'm supposed to be shocked......but applauds MSNBC, owned by Jeff Immelt, who got to be 'Job Czar', and gets $500 million, taxpayer dollars from Obama to start up jobs in HIS company, IN CHINA!!!!

What a fucking hypocrite!

SRS just deletes, or was deleting posts that didn't stroke her the 'right'...or should I say, 'left' way....

Don T just nags in the silliest way....

and Bobert is just a terminal Democrat, no matter what....He'll put up with whatever crap they're dishing up for dinner...even if it isn't 'left'!

...but they'll run Sawzaw out, because he posted real stuff...it's just that the 'so-called' liberals couldn't stand hearing his posts..no matter how correct they were.

But lies, like certain other vices, just have their addictive, appeal, and if lies were dope, Don would be the biggest Northwest dealer!...but you know what they say,.."Don't get high on your own supply!"

GfS



OK, enough of this.....let's get back to some REAL news.
Thanks Bruce...your posts were informative!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 13 - 09:32 AM

IRS officials refused to grant tax exempt status two pro-life organizations because of their position on the abortion issue, according to a non-profit law firm, which said that one group was pressured not to protest a pro-choice organization that endorsed President Obama during the last election.

"In one case, the IRS withheld approval of an application for tax exempt status for Coalition for Life of Iowa. In a phone call to Coalition for Life of Iowa leaders on June 6, 2009, the IRS agent 'Ms. Richards' told the group to send a letter to the IRS with the entire board's signatures stating that, under perjury of the law, they do not picket/protest or organize groups to picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood," the Thomas More Society announced today. "Once the IRS received this letter, their application would be approved."

Planned Parenthood endorsed Obama in 2008 and 2012.

The IRS also pressured another pro-life group about its religious activities. "The IRS withheld approval of an application for charitable tax-exempt recognition of Christian Voices for Life, questioning the group's involvement with '40 Days for Life' and 'Life Chain' events," according to the law firm. "The Fort Bend County, Texas, organization was subjected to repeated and lengthy unconstitutional requests for information about the viewpoint and content of its educational communications, volunteer prayer vigils, and other protected activities."

The IRS admitted last week to that some members of the agency targeted Tea Party groups for discriminatory reviews of their applications for tax-exempt status. The Justice Department has initiated a criminal investigation into the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 13 - 09:04 AM

For those who think that GregF. comments are acceptable, here is part of the history of this lying racist scumbag"



"Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Greg F. - PM
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 02:00 PM
...
Beardie is also the guy that, in the thread about cash only for second-hand goods, wanted us to know that the sponsor of the bill was a Dumb Ni--er.

Gimmie a break."

His justification for this lie?

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Greg F. - PM
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 02:31 PM

For Max and Beardie's benefit, from the archives:

Subject: RE: BS: Louisiana Makes It Illegal To Use Cash
From: pdq - PM
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 07:37 PM

Just for the record, the idiot behind this bill is a member of the Louisiana House of Representitives.

He is Black and a Democrat."


NOTE THIS WAS NOT EVEN MY POST, and that Greg F reads "He is Black and a Democrat." as "the sponsor of the bill was a Dumb Ni--er."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 May 13 - 08:53 AM

Looks like Beardie's down again with a case of Chronic Postarrhoea. Must be his supply od paregoric ran out.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 13 - 08:26 AM

"Lois Lerner, the senior executive in charge of the IRS tax exemption department and the federal employee at the center of the exploding scandal over the IRS targeting of conservative, evangelical and pro-Israel non-profits, was given $42,531 in bonuses between 2009 and 2011.

That figure was included in data provided by the IRS in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by The Washington Examiner. Lerner is director of the IRS exempt organizations division, which processes and approves or denies applications from groups seeking tax-exempt status.

Lerner received $17,220 for 2010, $14,691 for 2011 and $10,620 for 2012, the most recent year for which the IRS said data was available.

Her annual salary in 2009 and 2010 was $172,200, and $177,000 in 2011 and 2012. With the bonuses, Lerner was paid a total of $740,931 for the four-year period.

Sign Up for the Watchdog newsletter!
Lerner admitted last week that her agency had singled out conservative groups with words like "Tea Party" and "Patriot" in their names. Being singled out reportedly delayed resolution of their application for many months for most of the groups, while applications from liberals groups were typically processed in only a month or two."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 13 - 08:20 AM

The Benghazi-related emails released by the White House late May 15 exclude the critical emails between administration officials that were sent during the crucial first two days after the deadly jihadi attack that killed four Americans last September.

The 100 pages of partially redacted emails also conclude with a dismissive message from CIA chief David Petraeus.

"Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this," Petraeus said about the heavily edited, four-sentence "talking points" that the White House used to downplay Al Qaeda's role in the Sep. 11 attack on the poorly protected diplomatic compound.





Nixon: 18 minutes missing
Obama: 48 hours missing

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 13 - 07:46 AM

The White House on Wednesday released 94 pages of emails between top administration and intelligence officials who helped shape the talking points about the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that the CIA would provide to policymakers in both the legislative and executive branches.


The documents, first reported by THE WEEKLY STANDARD in articles here and here, directly contradict claims by White House press secretary Jay Carney and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the revisions of those talking points were driven by the intelligence community and show heavy input from top Obama administration officials, particularly those at the State Department.

The emails provide further detail about the rewriting of the talking points during a 24-hour period from midday September 14 to midday September 15. As THE WEEKLY STANDARD previously reported, a briefing from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence shows that the big changes came in three waves – internally at the CIA, after email feedback from top administration officials, and during or after a meeting of high-ranking intelligence and national security officials the following morning.

The initial CIA changes softened some of the language about the participants in the Benghazi assault – from "Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda" to "Islamic extremists." But CIA officials also added bullet points about the possible participation of Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked jihadist group, and previous warnings about the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi. Those additions came out after the talking points were sent to "the interagency," where the CIA's final draft was further stripped down to little more than boilerplate. The half dozen references to terrorists – both in Benghazi and more generally – all but disappeared. Gone were references to al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, etc. The only remaining mention was a note that "extremists" had participated in the attack.

As striking as what appears in the email traffic is what does not. There is no mention of the YouTube video that would become a central part of the administration's explanation of the attacks to the American people until a brief mention in the subject line of emails coming out of an important meeting where further revisions were made.

Carney, in particular, is likely to face tough questioning about the contents of the emails because he made claims to reporters that were untrue. "The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two – of these two institutions were changing the word 'consulate' to 'diplomatic facility,' because the word 'consulate' was inaccurate," he told reporters on November 28, 2012.

That's not true. An email sent at 9:15 PM on September 14, from an official in the CIA's Office of Public Affairs to others at the agency, described the process this way. "The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document. We revised the document with their concerns in mind."

That directly contradicts what Carney said. It's also difficult to reconcile with claims made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during testimony she gave January 23 on Capitol Hill.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 13 - 07:42 AM

Don,

Care to discuss any of the facts presented, or do you just want to attack the messenger, as usual?

Lots presented here NOT from Politico.

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Then CIA-Director David Petraeus objected to the final talking points that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice used five days after the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, because he wanted to see more detail publicly released, including a warning issued from the CIA about plans for a break-in at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, a newly released email shows.

Under pressure in the investigation that continues eight months after the attacks, the White House on Wednesday released 99 pages of emails and a single page of hand-written notes made by Petraeus' deputy, Mike Morell, after a meeting at the White House the day before Rice's appearance. On that page, Morell scratched out from the CIA's early drafts of talking points mentions of al-Qaida, the experience of fighters in Libya, Islamic extremists and a warning to the Cairo embassy on the eve of the attacks of calls for a demonstration and break-in by jihadists.

"No mention of the cable to Cairo, either?" Petraeus wrote after receiving Morell's edited version, developed after an intense back-and-forth among Obama administration officials. "Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this, then."

A senior U.S. intelligence official told reporters Wednesday that Morell made the changes to the talking points because of his own concerns that they could prejudge an FBI investigation into who was responsible for the Sept. 11, 2012, attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

The official said Morell also didn't think it was fair to disclose the CIA's advance warning without giving the State Department a chance to explain how it responded. The official spoke on a condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the emails on the record. Petraeus declined to be interviewed.

Critics have highlighted an email by then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland that expressed concern that any mention of prior warnings or the involvement of al-Qaida would give congressional Republicans ammunition to attack the administration in the weeks before the presidential election. Fighting terror was one of President Barack Obama's re-election strong points.

That email was among those released by the White House, sent by Nuland on Sept. 14 at 7:39 p.m. to officials in the White House, State Department and CIA. "I have serious concerns about all the parts highlighted below, and arming members of Congress to start making assertions to the media that we ourselves are not making because we don't want to prejudice the investigation," she wrote.

The emails were shared with Congress earlier this year as a condition for allowing the nomination of John Brennan for CIA director to move forward. The general counsel for the national intelligence director's office briefed members and staff from the Senate Intelligence Committee and leadership on the emails on Feb. 15 at a session in which staff could take notes. A similar briefing took place March 19 for the House Intelligence Committee and leadership staff.

An interim report last month from the Republicans on five House committees criticized the Obama administration and mentioned the emails, but the issue exploded last Friday when new details emerged. Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee read some of the emails aloud last Wednesday at a hearing with State Department officials. The next day, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, called on the White House to release the emails.

A Boehner spokesman said Wednesday the emails released by the White House only confirm the interim report. "They contradict statements made by the White House that it and the State Department only changed one word in the talking points," Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said in a statement. "The seemingly political nature of the State Department's concerns raises questions about the motivations behind these changes and who at the State Department was seeking them."

Congressional officials selectively shared parts of the emails, and new revelations emerged Friday that showed State Department and other administration officials pressing for references to terror groups and prior warnings be deleted, expressing concerns about the political implications.

The White House released the full set of emails sent to Congress under the pressure in hopes of putting an end to the controversy that has dogged the administration for months. The White House says congressional Republicans have misrepresented some of them.

The emails released by the White House were partially blacked out, including to remove names of senders and recipients who are career employees at the CIA and elsewhere. The names were replaced with references to the office where they worked.

The talking points were used by Rice in her appearance on five news shows on Sunday, Sept. 16, and also sent to Congress. An official with the CIA's office of congressional affairs whose name was blacked out sent the final version to Petraeus on Saturday, Sept. 15, at 12:51 p.m.

"As mentioned last night, State had voiced strong concerns with the original text due to the criminal investigation," the official wrote. Petraeus responded at 2:27 saying he'd prefer not to even use them in that form.

But he said the decision was up to the White House's national security staff. "NSS's call, to be sure; however, this is certainly not what Vice Chairman (Dutch) Ruppersberger was hoping to get for unclas use. Regardless, thanks for the great work.""

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 13 - 02:14 AM

A longtime Reaganite is the president and CEO of The Politico.

Frederick J. Ryan, Jr. worked in multiple positions in the Reagan White House, and was continuously promoted until he rose to the level of Assistant to the President. And his close connection to the Reagan family and the Reagan presidency continues through today.

Currently, one of the biggest fans of The Politico is George W. Bush.

These are easily verifiable FACTS.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 13 - 01:43 AM

Just after my last post, I got this, from 'The Politico', a very 'liberal', (therefore 'left' I suppose, 'news' source)......



[http://www.politico.com/]

D.C. turns on Obama
By: Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei
May 14, 2013 09:10 PM EDT

The town is turning on President Obama — and this is very bad news for this White House.

Republicans have waited five years for the moment to put the screws to Obama — and they have one-third of all congressional committees on the case now. Establishment Democrats, never big fans of this president to begin with, are starting to speak out. And reporters are tripping over themselves to condemn lies, bullying and shadiness in the Obama administration.

Buy-in from all three D.C. stakeholders is an essential ingredient for a good old-fashioned Washington pile-on — so get ready for bad stories and public scolding to pile up.

Vernon Jordan, a close adviser to President Bill Clinton through his darkest days, told us: "It's never all right if you're the president. There is no smooth sailing. So now he has the turbulence, and this is the ultimate test of his leadership." Jordan says Obama needs to do something dramatic on the IRS, and quick: "He needs to fire somebody. He needs action, not conversation."

Obama's aloof mien and holier-than-thou rhetoric have left him with little reservoir of good will, even among Democrats. And the press, after years of being accused of being soft on Obama while being berated by West Wing aides on matters big and small, now has every incentive to be as ruthless as can be.

This White House's instinctive petulance, arrogance and defensiveness have all worked to isolate Obama at a time when he most needs a support system. "It feel like they don't know what they're here to do," a former senior Obama administration official said. "When there's no narrative, stuff like this consumes you."

Republican outrage is predictable, maybe even manageable. Democratic outrage is not.

The dam of solid Democratic solidarity has collapsed, starting with New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd's weekend scolding of the White House over Benghazi, then gushing with the news the Justice Department had sucked up an absurdly broad swath of Associated Press phone records.

Democrats are privately befuddled by the White House's flat-footed handling of this P.R. and legal mess, blaming a combination of bad timing, hubris and communications ineptitude. The most charitable defense offered up on background is that Obama staffers are scandal virgins, unaccustomed to dealing with a rabid press.

Chris Lehane, who spent so much time managing scandals in the 1990s that it inspired him to write a textbook on the subject, is among the contingent of Clinton-era scandal hands that thinks the Obama team has botched its second-term image. "One cannot get caught up with chasing news cycles in a crisis, as that is a prescription for putting out inaccurate information that does not withstand scrutiny or the test of time," said Lehane, whose book is titled "Masters of Disaster."

One Democrat who likes Obama and has been around town for many years said elected officials in his own party are no different than Republicans: They think the president is distant and unapproachable.

"He has never taken the Democratic chairs up to Camp David to have a drink or to have a discussion," the longtime Washingtonian said. "You gotta stroke people and talk to them. It's like courting: You have to send flowers and candy and have surprises. It's a constant process. Now they're saying, 'He never talked to me in the good times.'"

This makes it easier for Democrats like House Oversight and Government Reform Committee member Elijah Cummings to pop off, as he did on CNN on Tuesday, calling the IRS scandal "one of the most alarming things" he's ever seen. Ouch.

None of this is going away. Top Republicans tell us the Benghazi investigations will last at least months, and probably until the midterms of 2014 and beyond. Same for the IRS scandal — and new scrutiny of how the Obama White House clamps down on its critics. Republicans are also working up plans to use the backdrop of government incompetence and over-reach to try to further undermine implementation of the new health care law.

This is a dangerous — albeit familiar — place for a second-term president. Once the dogs are released, they bark, they bite and it takes a very long time to calm them down. Bill Clinton got hit early and often, and George W. Bush never really recovered from it.

No doubt, the hysteria cools. But, once you hit this point, it takes time, often lots of it.

The long-term danger is that the political system and the public start to view the president, his motives and ideas through a more skeptical lens. The short-term danger is the press races for new details, new scandals, new expressions of indignity with each passing day. Read Tuesday morning editorial pages of every paper for a taste of things to come. Or watch a rerun of Tuesday's "Morning Joe," in which reporters made it sound like Obama is a latter-day Richard Nixon.

""And it goes beyond even the story," National Journal's Ron Fournier, who covered the Clinton and Bush scandals and was once the AP Washington bureau chief, said on the show. "One common thing with Benghazi and the IRS scandal, is we're being misled every day. We were lied to on Benghazi, on the talking points behind Benghazi, for months. We were lied to by the IRS for months and now they're sending a clear message to our sources:

'Don't embarrass the administration or we're coming after you.'"


..................................

And to BOBERT,....this should be a quote of interest to you, from the article....(as if you haven't heard it from your FRIEND, before...

"One Democrat who likes Obama and has been around town for many years said elected officials in his own party are no different than Republicans..."

Sound familiar?????????????????????

No go listen to Don....He'll spin you to stupidity!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 13 - 01:20 AM

....and all this time, some of you actually thought Barrack was a 'liberal'!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 May 13 - 07:32 PM

Greg F.: "Hey, remember to thank Bush, Cheney & Co. for the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. [sic] Act."

As I've posted numerous times before in here, Joe Biden was the author of the 'Patriot Act' back in the mid nineties!!!!!

So get off it.
It's NOT one 'party' or the other!!!

GfS

P.S. AG Holder just testified, about the IRS scandal, and said that the IG report, made a conclusion about who ordered this...and just got caught perjuring himself....flat out.
...OK, gotta go back and watch this circus...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 13 - 03:42 PM

"Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Wednesday that the Bush administration once considered issuing the type of subpoena that the Justice Department issued against the Associated Press, but ultimately opted against it.
"There was at least one occasion in which we were engaged in a very serious leak investigation and we had to make some very difficult choices about whether or not to move forward, going after the reporters in order to try to figure out where the source of the leak is," he said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe. "And sometimes, the department finds itself in a situation where they have exhausted all means and they have to make a very hard determination as to whether or not they want to subpoena the reporter, if they want to subpoena the reporter's notes. So yes, I've had that situation. In the instance that I have in mind, we ultimately decided not to move forward."

While other administrations have subpoenaed reporters' phone records in the past, the Associated Press subpoena has caused widespread outrage because of its breadth. The subpoena, issued as part of an investigation into who leaked information about a successful CIA operation in Yemen, covered three AP offices and phones used by more than 100 reporters.
Gonzales also said he believes it would be OK if the Justice Department had informed the White House before issuing the subpoena, provided the White House wasn't given the opportunity to interfere with the investigation. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has said President Barack Obama and other officials didn't know about the subpoena before it was issued.
"It would surprise me that the White House would not have received some type of heads-up," Gonzales said. "'Hey, we're about to do this, there's going to be some type of negative reaction.'"
Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday he had recused himself from the case because the FBI had interviewed him as part of their investigation. Justice Department guidelines say the Attorney General needs to sign off any subpoena of news media records, and the subpoena can only come after all other options are exhausted.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/alberto-gonzales-subpoena-leak-91405.html#ixzz2TOMxuL7r

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 13 - 03:32 PM

"With Washington gripped by a trio of exploding scandals this week – from Benghazi to government spying on news outlets to thug tactics by the Internal Revenue Service – Senate Democrats seem to be hoping that if they just yell loud enough then voters will overlook a key role they played in at least one of them.

They quickly sensed the political toxicity associated with Friday's admission by the IRS that they selectively targeted conservative organizations for special government scrutiny, and so Democrats didn't waste any time springing into action. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana, for example, vowed congressional hearings and called the IRS actions "an outrageous abuse of power and a breach of the public's trust."

He was joined by a chorus of other Democrats including Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire who called it "completely unacceptable," Kay Hagan of North Carolina who called it "disturbing and troubling," and Mark Pryor of Arkansas who tweeted that he's "working to get to bottom of this so we can fire those responsible & ensure this never happens again."

Fortunately, voters won't need to look very far.The willful ignorance and revisionist history demonstrated by Senate Democrats on this issue has been breathtaking, even by Washington standards.


Over the last three years, Democratic senators repeatedly and publicly pressured the IRS to engage in the very activities that they are only now condemning today. At the same time, Republicans repeatedly and publicly warned against this abuse of government power and pointed to a series of red flags that strongly suggested conservative political organizations were being targeted by the IRS. Those warnings were deliberately ignored by the Obama administration and Democratic leaders in Congress.

As the New York Times reported back in 2010 :

With growing scrutiny of the role of tax-exempt groups in political campaigns, Congressional Republicans are pushing back against Democrats by warning about the possible misuse of the Internal Revenue Service to audit conservative groups….And the Republicans are also upset about an I.R.S. review requested by Senator Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who leads the Finance Committee, into the political activities of tax-exempt groups. Such a review threatens to "chill the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights," wrote two Republican senators, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Jon Kyl of Arizona, in a letter sent to the I.R.S. on Wednesday. ... Democrats dismissed the Republicans' complaints as groundless.

You read that correctly.

The same Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee who this week is calling for hearings into IRS activities, specifically called on the IRS to engage in that very conduct back in 2010. And he wasn't the only one. Just last year, a group of seven Senate Democrats sent another letter to the IRS urging them to similarly investigate these outside political organizations.

As the New York Times also reported just one week before they sent this letter:

The Internal Revenue Service is caught in an election-year struggle between Democratic lawmakers pressing for a crackdown on nonprofit political groups and conservative organizations accusing the tax agency of conducting a politically charged witch hunt.

Voters in New Hampshire may be interested to learn that Jeanne Shaheen was among the signatories of that letter urging action by the IRS.

So lost amid the hubbub surrounding the news that the IRS engaged in McCarthyite tactics to target specific political groups, and their subsequent apology for those tactics, has been the fact that the lobbying campaign from Senate Democrats actually worked.

From Max Baucus to Chuck Schumer to Jeanne Shaheen, key Senate Democrats publicly pressured the IRS to target groups that held differing political views and who, in their view, had the temerity to engage in the political process. The IRS listened to them and acted. And other Democrat senators like Kay Hagan and Mark Pryor said and did nothing about it.

Perhaps their strategy of distraction may work in the short-term with a Washington press corps pulled in a multitude of different directions, but Senate Democrats have a serious political problem that will haunt them as they head into an already-difficult election cycle. When these Senate Finance Committee hearings come to pass it would be a remarkable act of bravery and candor for one of these IRS bureaucrats to appropriately ask Max Baucus and others why they're not sitting at the witness tables next to them, instead of continuing in their charade of faux outrage.

Because Senate Democrats today have just as much explaining to do as the IRS."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 13 - 03:25 PM

Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that he believes President Barack Obama owes the American public explanations for both the seizure of Associated Press phone records by the Department of Justice and the IRS targeting of conservative groups.
"I don't think anyone truly believes that the president has given us a sufficient answer for America, much less the press," Rangel said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "I think this is just the beginning and the whole idea of comparing this with Nixon, I really think is just, it doesn't make much sense. But the president has to come forward and share why he did not alert the press they were going to do this. He has to tell the Americans, including me: What was this national security question? You just can't raise the flag and expect to salute it every time without any reason and the same thing applies to the IRS."
Continue Reading
Text Size
-+reset
McConnell on IRS: Doubts Obama transparency

Latest on POLITICO
Dem 2016 poll: Clinton still on top
Hill's 'Brewers Caucus' on tap
Furloughs to shut down IRS for a day
GOP calls for Obama help in probe
GOP smells blood
Wicker: 'Cold water' hits tax reform
(PHOTOS: 10 slams on the IRS)
The White House has said Obama wasn't involved in either the IRS decision to target conservative groups — a position backed up by an inspector general report released Tuesday — or in the DOJ's decision to broadly subpoena phone records for 20 Associated Press phone lines in three cities.
Rangel is a member of the House Ways And Means Committee, which will hold a hearing on why the IRS gave tougher scrutiny to conservative groups' non-profits applications on Friday morning.
"In Watergate, Senator Baker said it all, everybody uses this: 'What did he know and when did he know it?'" Rangel said. "I am confident that the President is angry as hell about this, as he should be. The IRS is no place for partisanship, Democrat or Republican."
(Also on POLITICO: TOP 5 Obama scandal responses)
But Rangel, a staunch Obama ally, said the press should give Obama time to sort out what happened.
"We have to give him an opportunity to root out any wrongdoing, whether it's just negligence or criminal," Rangel said. "But, for right now, to say that the president should be doubted? No. He has to come forward and give more of an answer than he has done.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/charlie-rangel-irs-associated-press-comments-91398.html#ixzz2TOIxZB6w

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 13 - 03:23 PM

"Remember what we were told when this explosive story first broke less than a week ago? The IRS official in charge of tax exemptions for organizations said the improper methods employed within her division were executed by "low level workers" in Cincinnati who weren't motivated by "political bias," and impacted roughly 75 organizations? Wrong, wrong and wrong:

"Low Level" - Officials within the highest echelons of the agency were aware of the inappropriate targeting, including the last two commissioners -- at least one of whom appears to have misled Congress on this very question. Now Politico reports that Lerner herself sent at least one of the probing letters to an Ohio-based conservative group.

The director of the Internal Revenue Service division under fire for singling out conservative groups sent a 2012 letter under her name to one such group, POLITICO has learned. The March 2012 letter was sent to the Ohio-based American Patriots Against Government Excess (American PAGE) under the name of Lois Lerner, the director of the Exempt Organizations Division...at the time of the letter, the group was in the midst of the application process for tax-exempt nonprofit status — a process that would stretch for nearly three years and involve queries for detailed information on its social media activity, its organizational set-up, bylaws, membership and interactions with political officials. The letter threatened to close American PAGE's case file unless additional information was received within 60 days.

These burdensome requests were apparently designed to bury the victimized groups in paperwork. Carol reported last night that some 58 percent of these applicants were asked for unnecessary information and data, according to the Inspector General's review. Some inquiries asked for screenshots of organizations' Facebook posts and even lists of what books (!) its members were reading.   

"No Political Bias" - This claim was laughable on its face from the start, in light of the agency's surreal criteria for added scrutiny and the "red flag" words and phrases that triggered investigations. Now add to the mix this scoop from USA Today:

In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked. That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months. In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows. As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with liberal-sounding names had their applications approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," the liberal groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.


Lerner also reportedly fast-tracked an approval for a foundation operated by President Obama's half brother, taking the extraordinary step of granting it retroactive tax-free status.

"Seventy-five organizations effected" - That number almost immediately swelled to 300. Now it's closer to 500:

The IRS targeting of conservative groups is far broader than first reported, with nearly 500 organizations singled out for additional scrutiny, according to two lawmakers briefed by the agency. IRS officials claimed on Friday that roughly 300 groups received additional scrutiny. Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Tuesday that the number has actually risen to 471. Further, they said it is "unclear" whether Tea Party and other conservative groups are being targeted to this day."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 13 - 12:44 PM

"The same Internal Revenue Service office that singled out Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny also challenged Israel-related organizations, at least one of which filed suit over the agency's handling of its application for tax-exempt status.
The trouble for the Israel-focused groups seems to have had different origins than that experienced by conservative groups, but at times the effort seems to have been equally ham-handed.
A leader of one of the organizations involved, Lori Lowenthal Marcus of Z Street, said Monday that she was convinced the added attention her group got was no accident.
"I can't believe it was just about Z Street, because it's a tiny organization," Lowenthal Marcus said of the group, which has been critical of President Barack Obama for being too cozy with left-leaning Jewish groups like J Street and with pro-Palestinian entities.
(Also on POLITICO: 5 key players in IRS mess)
Z Street filed a lawsuit against the IRS in 2010 alleging that one of its attorneys were told its application for tax exemption was delayed and sent to a "special unit…to determine whether the organization's activities contradict the Administration's public policies."
The suit was filed in federal court in Pennsylvania and later transferred to DC. A judge in Washington has set a hearing on the case for July 2.
Z Street had applied for the 501 (c) (3) status applied to most charities, allowing for tax deductible donations.
Most of the tea party groups known to have come under scrutiny applied for 501 (c) (4) status, which allows advocacy groups to avoid federal taxes on their operations but doesn't render donations to the groups tax deductible.

Both kinds of applications are processed in the same Cincinnati office.

Legal filings show that the problems for Z Street — and apparently for other Israel-related groups — stemmed from an obscure unit in the Cincinnati IRS office: the "Touch and Go Group." One of the so-called TAG Group's duties was to weed out applications that might be coming from organizations which might be used to fund terrorism.
In response to Z Street's lawsuit, an IRS manager acknowledged that applications mentioning Israel were getting special attention.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/israel-related-groups-also-pointed-to-irs-scrutiny-91298.html#ixzz2TNeBECrq

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 13 - 12:35 PM

WASHINGTON -- In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked.

That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months.

In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.

As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with liberal-sounding names had their applications approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," the liberal groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups. They included:

• Bus for Progress, a New Jersey non-profit that uses a red, white and blue bus to "drive the progressive change." According to its website, its mission includes "support (for) progressive politicians with the courage to serve the people's interests and make tough choices." It got an IRS approval as a social welfare group in April 2011.

• Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment says it fights against corporate welfare and for increasing the minimum wage. "It would be fair to say we're on the progressive end of the spectrum," said executive director Jeff Ordower. He said the group got tax-exempt status in September 2011 in just nine months after "a pretty simple, straightforward process."

• Progress Florida, granted tax-exempt status in January 2011, is lobbying the Florida Legislature to expand Medicaid under a provision of the Affordable Care Act, one of President Obama's signature accomplishments. The group did not return phone calls. "We're busy fighting to build a more progressive Florida and cannot take your call right now," the group's voice mail said.

Like the Tea Party groups, the liberal groups sought recognition as social welfare groups under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, based on activities like "citizen participation" or "voter education and registration."

In a conference call with reporters last week, the IRS official responsible for granting tax-exempt status said that it was a mistake to subject Tea Party groups to additional scrutiny based solely on the organization's name. But she said ideology played no part in the process.

"The selection of these cases where they used the names was not a partisan selection," said Lois Lerner, director of exempt organizations. She said progressive groups were also selected for greater scrutiny based on their names, but did not provide details. "I don't have them off the top of my head," she said.

The IRS did not respond to follow-up questions Tuesday.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 May 13 - 12:34 PM

Hey, remember to thank Bush, Cheney & Co. for the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. [sic] Act.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 13 - 12:32 PM

"Lois Lerner, the senior IRS official at the center of the decision to target tea party groups for burdensome tax scrutiny, signed paperwork granting tax-exempt status to the Barack H. Obama Foundation, a shady charity headed by the president's half-brother that operated illegally for years.

According to the organization's filings, Lerner approved the foundation's tax status within a month of filing, an unprecedented timeline that stands in stark contrast to conservative organizations that have been waiting for more than three years, in some cases, for approval.

Lerner also appears to have broken with the norms of tax-exemption approval by granting retroactive tax-exempt status to Malik Obama's organization.

The National Legal and Policy Center filed an official complaint with the IRS in May 2011 asking why the foundation was being allowed to solicit tax-deductible contributions when it had not even applied for an IRS determination. In a New York Post article dated May 8, 2011, an officer of the foundation admitted, "We haven't been able to find someone with the expertise" to apply for tax-exempt status.

Nevertheless, a month later, the Barack H. Obama Foundation had flown through the grueling application process. Lerner granted the organization a 501(c) determination and even gave it a retroactive tax exemption dating back to December 2008.

The group's available paperwork suggests an extremely hurried application and approval process. For example, the group's 990 filings for 2008 and 2009 were submitted to the IRS on May 30, 2011, and its 2010 filing was submitted on May 23, 2011.

Lerner signed the group's approval [pdf] on June 26, 2011.

It is illegal to operate for longer than 27 months without an IRS determination and solicit tax-deductible contributions.

The ostensibly Arlington, Va.-based charity was not even registered in Virginia despite the foundation's website including a donation button that claimed tax-exempt status.

Its president and founder, Abon'go "Roy' Malik Obama, is Barack Obama's half-brother and was the best man at his wedding, but he has a checkered past. In addition to running his charity, Malik Obama ran unsuccessfully to be the governor of Siaya County in Kenya. He was accused of being a wife beater and seducing the newest of his twelve wives while she was a 17-year-old school girl.

Sensing something wrong when he and a group of Missouri State students visited Kenya in 2009, Ken Rutherford, winner of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on banning landmines, determined that Malik Obama was an "operator" and elected to give a donation of 400 pounds of medical supplies to a local clinic instead.

"We didn't know what he was going to do with them," Rutherford told the New York Post in 2011.

It is also not clear what the Barack H. Obama Foundation actually does. Its website claims the organization has built a madrassa and was building a imam's house but there is no other evidence that the nonprofit was actually helping poor Kenyan children.

"The Obama Foundation raised money on its web page by falsely claiming to be a tax deductible. This bogus charity run by Malik had not even applied and yet subsequently got retroactive tax-deductible status," Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, told The Daily Caller. Boehm described Malik Obama's attempt to raise money as constituting "common law fraud and potentially even federal mail fraud."

Boehm doubted that the charity is doing what it says it's doing and wondered why the charity was given tax-exempt status so quickly after the evidence of wrongdoing came to light.

Ads by Google

"How do you get retroactive tax-exempt status when you haven't even applied to get it in the first place?" Boehm said.

Lerner continues to draw fire for her handling of the IRS targeting of conservative and citizen groups, but her colleagues have started to defend her, alleging that she behaves "apolitically."

Larry Noble, who served as general counsel at the FEC from 1987 to 2000, hired and promoted Lerner. "I worked with Lois for a number of years and she is really one of the more apolitical people I've met," Noble told The Daily Beast. "That doesn't mean she doesn't have political views, but she really focuses on the job and what the rules are. She doesn't have an agenda."

Lerner could not be reached for comment. Calls to the Barack H. Obama Foundation went directly to the organization's voicemail and were not returned.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 May 13 - 12:08 PM

Since when should the fox guard the hen-house?
Since when have recent administrations given a rat's ass about our rights??..First amendment..second...fourth sixth...nope...this is another charade.
Did real good with 'Fast and Furious', didn't he?
Actually, this smacks of some sort of bullshit....the AP would GLADLY have handed over anything the administration would have asked for...jeez, they're been covering his ass for a long time already...something else is going on here..we're only getting the 'cover story'!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 13 - 09:33 AM

"The nation's news media were stunned to learn yesterday of the Departmentof Justice's broad subpoena of telephone records belonging to The Associated Press. In the thirty years since the Department issued guidelines governingits subpoena practice as it relates to phone records from journalists, none of us can remember an instance where such an overreaching dragnet for newsgathering materials was deployed by the Department, particularlywithout notice to the affected reporters or an opportunity to seek judicialreview. The scope of this action calls into question the very integrity of Department of Justice policies toward the press and its ability to balance, onits own, its police powers against the First Amendment rights of the newsmedia and the public's interest in reporting on all manner of governmentconduct, including matters touching on national security which lie at the heartof this case."



http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/media-coalition-letter-of-protest-to-attorney-general-eric-holder/148/

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 May 13 - 09:30 AM

Sorry, Beardie. False analogy. Not even close. And if you don't actually know that & are just stirring the shit, you're even more deluded than we thought - asuming that's possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 13 - 09:08 AM

So THAT is the reason Democrats went after Nixon! He ended there nice little war in SE Asia, so they had to get rid of him.



If Obama was a Constitutional scholar as claimed when he ran, he would have been MORE AWARE than Nixon that he was responsible for the actions of his administration. YET YOU GIVE HIM A PASS in the cases where you jumped on Bush.


You and GregF deserve each other. Just don't let him call you "Black, and a Democrat"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 15 May 13 - 08:52 AM

Two wars of choice costing thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of permanently disabled and $Ts in treasury...

I guess those were the good old days, bb???

Uh huh...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 13 - 08:36 AM

"He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to . . . cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner."


























— Article II, Section 1, Articles of Impeachment against Richard M. Nixon, adopted by the House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Oct 12 - 02:36 PM

Time for a commercial break!

Sanity is the primary product of the small town of Sane, Alberta, not too far west of the communities of Sufferable and Continent. Sane is a lovely place.

People in Sane are proud of their town...so much so that many will boast of having lived in Sane all their lives. As the recent mayoral candidate, Abner "Ab" Normle stated during his campaign: "My opponent has only been in Sane for 5 years! I have been in Sane ever since the day I was born, and I intend to remain in Sane! I married in Sane, I raised my kids in Sane, and one day I will die in Sane!"

He was elected by a landslide.

You know when you're nearing the town by the signs on the Trans-Canada. They proudly say, "In 5 minutes you'll be in Sane".

The town council of Sane, Alberta thanks you for listening to this brief commercial message. You may now return to fighting about Barack Obama...or whatever else will do. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Oct 12 - 11:20 AM

""Besides, you don't have to talk to me.""

Mostly I don't talk to you, but rather about the ridiculous rubbish which, to your apparently atrophied cognitive apparatus is "from Sanity".

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Oct 12 - 10:17 AM

ANd you will come back, if you are lucky, as a one-eyed crow.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Oct 12 - 12:34 AM

Yeah!
Besides, you don't have to talk to me..it's just you have an uncontrollable urge to spout twisted nonsense and think it's 'liberal'..when in fact, you are so close minded that in your next lifetime you may come back as a chastity belt!...if you're lucky!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 11:55 PM

I am not "backing these loonies", Don-W-t. My last remarks to Henry were simply a bit of humour in regards to the membername he has chosen. It derives from a scene in a famous movie, and I was making a joke based on that scene.

The fact that I am willing to talk in a friendly fashion to people like Henry Krinkle and GfS (and DougR when he still bothered to come here) is based simply on this: they are fellow human beings. I agree with some things they say about politics, I disagree with other things they say about politics, but I do not view their every appearance as an excuse to personally insult and attack them, regardless of what they say. That's what several of my fellow liberals here do all the time...and I think that's your mistake in conduct, not mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 10:22 PM

Well(I watched it)..like I've said before, right on here, matter of fact, "Whoever lies the best gets elected!"
Either way we're screwed...the money issue is bigger than the office. I posted a rather precise post, with link on that before. At least with Romulan, we get someone who has experience in liquidating. obama just makes sure there is less to liquidate!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,999
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 07:23 PM

Maybe so, but you didn't watch the video.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 06:55 PM

Who cares? They work for the same outfit!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,999
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 06:52 PM

Neat 7 minute video: Still think Romney's the one?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 04:46 PM

He's still a bullshitter!

GfS