Once Again Those Wishing to Drive Religion Underground Attack

No Eden: Atheist group takes on religious-themed public garden

DES MOINES, Iowa – A park planned in Sioux City is getting national attention.

The Shepherd’s Garden, a Christian-themed park, was recently was awarded $140,000 from the state through a Vision Iowa grant. It’s meant to “assist projects that will provide recreational, cultural, entertainment and educational attractions.” The money would go towards building and planting green spaces in the park, but not for any religious symbols.

But the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation is fighting the funding, saying using public money to promote Christian ideals violates the First Amendment of the Constitution (No it doesn't. First, the Constitution was written to lay guidelines of what the Federal Government is suppose to do, the Bill of Rights was written to PROTECT the States & the PEOPLE from the Federal Government and  "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT taxing the American people for the park or giving any FEDERAL money to the Shepherd’s Garden Foundation Therefore, how can the FFRF claim that it violates U.S. Constitution. This is STATE money and though a 1947 case dealing with using STATE tax money to aid in busing I feel it hold true here, Justice Black wrote in Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township. et. Al (1947) that the expenditure of tax funds to pay for the busing of parochial school students does not violate The Establishment Clause, because it does not unduly assist any school, whether public or parochial. Neither does it violate Due Process no more then the concept of using tax funds for the payment of police and fire who are paid from tax funds to protect both public and parochial students...OM). What's more, according to the foundation, the grant would violate Iowa's own constitution, which “prohibits funding of religious spaces.”

Actually the Iowa Constitution says in Article 3 of its Bill of Rights says, "The General Assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing places of worship, or the maintenance of any minister, or ministry." The question that needs to be asked, Did the General Assembly pass any laws COMPELLING the people of Iowa to pay taxes to build this park? If not, how can it be a violation of the STATES Constitution?...OM

“The whole park’s purpose is religious which means the government can’t be supporting it at all, any part of it,” said FFRF attorney Andrew Seidel.

Seidel penned a letter to Cathy Reece, chairwoman of the Iowa Economic Development Authority, which manages Vision Iowa, calling for the funding to be rescinded.

Cathy Reece, criticizing the government entity for violating the constitutional ban on public sponsorship of religious activity:

"It is difficult to understand how this grant could have been approved. The “join us” section of the brochure — the plea for money — actually quotes the King James bible, Psalm 23 … Crosses decorate the brochure and park. This is openly about space to promote Christianity, not a public space.

Shepherd’s Garden is of course free to construct their Christian green space, but the government cannot support it. This is one of the most egregious grants for a religious purpose FFRF has encountered. Vision Iowa and the Iowa Economic Development Authority must rescind the grant to comply with the Constitution."

The Shepherd’s Garden fundraising brochure quotes Psalm 23 as a guide for the park and invites donors to “create a legacy to the ongoing role the Christian faith has had in shaping the life of this community.” (I wonder if there would be a complaint if it were for a Muslim park...OM)

The garden’s brochure goes on to say, “Shepherd’s Garden is more than a park, it has been conceived and designed to be a visible reminder that God’s presence is not confined to sacred institutions and buildings, but is very much a part of the public sphere.”

Garrett Smith, a member of the Shepherd’s Garden Foundation, said they were aware this might cause an issue when they applied for the grant.

“We were sensitive to this when we presented it to the board. We weren't trying to hide that this was spiritual and made sure that none of the state money was factored into the budget for the religious symbols,” said Smith.

The park plans to have Bible verses etched into walkway stones, Calvary Crosses in a water fountain and prayer spaces. There would also be “public green spaces,” which is what the Vision Iowa grant would go towards.

Tina Hoffman, a spokeswoman for the Iowa Economic Development Authority, said the board awarding the grant was aware the garden was meant to be a Christian space. But the board only agreed to give money to public green spaces in the park.

“We would make sure no state funds were expended on the religious elements that were part of the project,” said Hoffman.

But in a letter Seidel sent to state officials, he charged the green spaces are still part of the Christian-themed park and therefore should not be given government funds.

“The brochure makes it quite clear that this is not a park, it is a ‘Christian Park,'" reads the letter. "This is not a permanent green space, but ‘a permanent Christian green space.’

“The government can’t build a parking lot for a church anymore than it can build a green space for a church,” said Seidel. (As Justice Black asked in 1947, Does that mean public money can not be used for fire and police to protect Churches, Synagogues & even mosques? After all by using STATE tax money for these purposes is supporting & protecting religion...OM)

“The contract isn't signed, it’s not even completely drafted, no funds have been spent, nothing has been disbursed. So we’re still in the very early stages,” said Hoffman. She went on to say that if the board found they had new information they could change their decision to award the money. They’ll make that decision at their next meeting.

Smith says he hasn't read the letter from the FFRF yet and he hasn't heard anything from the Vision Iowa board indicating they wouldn't receive the grant money.

If the grant money is taken away Smith said, “It means I have a lot more work to do, I’ll just keep raising money. This park is going to happen.” Adding that although he will make sure the garden is fully funded through fundraising efforts, the loss of the grant, “would be a real blow.”

Seidel said the FFRF hasn't received an official response from chairwoman Reece and expects it to take some time before they do. He said they would choose their next steps at a later point if the board decides to award the garden with the grant.

Smith said that without the grant money, in the last year and a half they have raised about $660,000 of the estimated needed $850,000 to complete the park. Right now the garden is under construction with planting planned in the fall.

Primary Source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/25/no-eden-atheist-group-takes-on-religious-themed-public-garden/

America was Warned: White House Planning Bailout of Health Insurance Cos.

The Obama administration has quietly adjusted key provisions of its signature healthcare law to potentially make billions of additional taxpayer dollars available to the insurance industry if companies providing coverage through the Affordable Care Act lose money.

The move was buried in hundreds of pages of new regulations issued late last week. It comes as part of an intensive administration effort to hold down premium increases for next year, a top priority for the White House as the rates will be announced ahead of this fall's congressional elections.

Administration officials for months have denied charges by opponents that they plan a "bailout" for insurance companies providing coverage under the healthcare law.

They continue to argue that most insurers shouldn't need to substantially increase premiums because safeguards in the healthcare law will protect them over the next several years.

But the change in regulations essentially provides insurers with another backup: If they keep rate increases modest over the next couple of years but lose money, the administration will tap federal funds as needed to cover shortfalls.

Although little noticed so far, the plan was already beginning to fuel a new round of attacks Tuesday from the healthcare law's critics.

"If conservatives want to stop the illegal Obamacare insurance bailout before it starts they must start planning now," wrote Conn Carroll, an editor of the right-leaning news site Townhall.com.

On Capitol Hill, Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee began circulating a memo on the issue and urging colleagues to fight what they are calling "another end-run around Congress."

Obama administration officials said the new regulations would not put taxpayers at risk. "We are confident this three-year program will not create a shortfall," Health and Human Services spokeswoman Erin Shields Britt said in a statement. "However, we want to be clear that in the highly unlikely event of a shortfall, HHS will use appropriations as available to fill it."

The stakes are high for President Obama and the healthcare law.

Although more than 8 million people signed up for health coverage under the law, exceeding expectations, insurance companies in several states have been eyeing significant rate increases for next year amid concerns that their new customers are older and sicker than anticipated.

Insurers around the country have started to file proposed 2015 premiums, just as the midterm campaigns are heating up. Obamacare, as the law is often called, remains a top campaign issue, and big premium increases in states with tightly contested races could prove politically disastrous for Democrats.

If rates go up dramatically, consumers may also turn away from insurance marketplaces in some states, leading to their collapse.

Proposed increases in a few states where insurers have already filed 2015 rates have been relatively low, with several major carriers seeking just single-digit hikes. But insurers in closely watched states, such as Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Arkansas, are still preparing their filings.

"It's absolutely paramount to keep premiums in check," said Len Nichols, a health economist at George Mason University who has advised officials working on the law.

The state-based marketplaces, which opened last year, allow consumers who do not get health coverage at work to shop among plans that meet basic standards. Sick consumers cannot be turned away, and low- and moderate-income Americans qualify for government subsidies to offset their premiums.

To stabilize this new system, the law set up a complex system of funds, including one known as the Temporary Risk Corridors Program, that collect money from insurers and transfer it from companies with healthier, less expensive consumers to those with sicker, more costly consumers.

This system was supposed to pay for itself, as does a similar one used to shift money between drug plans in the Medicare Part D program.

But insurance industry officials have grown increasingly anxious about the new system's adequacy.

Pressure is most acute on insurers in states where healthy consumers were allowed to remain in old plans that are not sold on the new online marketplaces, an option Obama offered to states amid a political firestorm over plan cancellations last year. The president had promised people would be able to stick with their plans.

The renewal temporarily solved a political problem for the White House, but created a new one. Maintaining these old plans kept many healthy consumers out of the marketplaces, making the pool of new customers less healthy and therefore potentially more expensive for insurers, according to experts.

In a series of White House meetings over the last several months, Obama and other senior administration officials have sought to persuade insurance company CEOs to nonetheless hold rates in check, arguing that the marketplaces would stabilize over time.

But with proposed 2015 rates beginning to come in, the administration acceded to industry demands for a clear guarantee that more money would be available to cover potential losses.

"In the unlikely event of a shortfall for the 2015 program year, HHS recognizes that the Affordable Care Act requires the secretary to make full payments to issuers," the regulation published Friday notes. "In that event, HHS will use other sources of funding for the risk corridor payments, subject to the availability of appropriations."

That language allows the administration to tap funds appropriated for other health programs to supplement payments to insurers, according to administration and industry officials.

Among congressional Republicans, the decision has raised concerns. "If the program costs more than it brings in, the secretary would be able to divert money intended for other programs," Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee warned.

Whether the new regulations will be sufficient to control rates remains unclear.

America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's Washington-based lobbying arm, welcomed the administration's move, saying in a statement that the regulations "provide important clarity about how these insurer-financed programs will work as health plans prepare their rates for 2015."

In a note to investors this week, J.P. Morgan also noted that the new rules "should improve stability of the exchange market."

But some insurers continue to warn of bigger increases. Larry Levitt, an insurance expert at the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation, cautioned that some consumers may still be in for sticker shock.

"Premium hikes will likely be modest in much of the country," he said. "But probably not everywhere."

Source: noam.levey@latimes.com at http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-insurance-bailout-20140521-story.html#page=1

And Socialist Take Over Keeps On Coming

"Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes"....Manifesto of the Communist Party Karl Marx, 1848

Feds’ latest land grab: Designate contested N.M. area a national monument

Bundy types of protests feared in New Mexico

(Where in the Constitution is this authorized...OM)

As dusk settles upon the city of Las Cruces, N.M. on Thursday, Oct. 25, 2007, a full moon emerges from behind the Organ Mountains. (AP Photo/Las Cruces Sun-News, Shari Vialpando)

President Obama on Wednesday will declare a national monument in southern New Mexico, delivering a win for environmentalists but angering ranchers and local law enforcement, who say the land restrictions will end up creating a safe haven for drug cartels to operate within the U.S.

Mr. Obama will declare about 500,000 acres as the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument. About half of that land is expected to be set aside as wilderness, meaning it will be closed to vehicles and construction. ("The public ownership of all gold, silver, copper, lead, iron, coal and other mines and all oil and gas wells"...Platform of the Social Democratic Party of America, 1900. Published in Appeal to Reason, #250, Sept. 15, 1900, pg 3.)

Local ranchers say it's a land grab that will interfere with their grazing rights, and border security advocates said the move will make it tougher for federal agents and local police to patrol the land, leaving a security gap that Mexican smuggling cartels will exploit.

"This is about opposing so many thousands of acres that is going to create nothing more than a pathway for criminals to get into this country to do their criminal acts," Dona Ana County Sheriff Todd Garrison told The Washington Times in a telephone interview Monday. (And more voters for the Socialist, I mean Democratic Party...OM)

The monument has been in the works for some time and has been controversial from the start.

Conservationists and tourism businesses have been pushing for the designation, hoping it will bring more visitors.

"The Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument will help protect our way of life while allowing for responsible development and expanding opportunities for all Americans to enjoy the beauty and multi-cultural history of this unique landscape," Billy Garrett, Dona Ana County Commission chairman, said in a statement.

But land rights advocates said it is the precursor to more conflicts like the recent standoff in Nevada, where a rancher refused to comply with a court order that he stop grazing on Bureau of Land Management property, prompting the BLM to confiscate his cattle, though they were returned after a public outcry.

The BLM, which is part of the Interior Department, will administer the national monument.

The land contains five mountain ranges with fragile landscapes, prehistoric rock art and more recent historic sites such as a training area for the Apollo astronauts.

The monument would cover hundreds of thousands of acres right next to the Mexican border.

New Mexico's representatives in Congress have been divided over the monument. Rep. Stevan Pearce, a Republican, called for a 50,000-acre monument, one-tenth the size of the one Mr. Obama will designate.

But the half-million-acre proposal has the backing of the state's U.S. senators, both of them Democrats. (Hey New Mexico, isn't it time for a change or do you like having two Senators that are following the Socialist plan representing you?...OM)

"An Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument will preserve important cultural links to our past and strengthen southern New Mexico's economy by boosting tourism and recreational opportunities, like hunting, hiking, camping, and horseback riding," Sen. Martin Heinrich said in a statement.

Only Congress can declare a national park, which stops most land uses. But under the 1906 Antiquities Act the president has the power to declare national monuments, which offer heightened environmental protections.

The New Mexico monument is Mr. Obama's second designation this year. In March, he added 1,600 acres in the Point Arena-Stornetta region to the California Coastal National Monument established by President Clinton in 2000. House Republicans said the action wasn't necessary because they had passed similar legislation that was awaiting Senate action.

About half the Organ Mountains monument will be designated as wilderness, the highest level of protection, closing it to motorized vehicles and human construction.

Sheriff Garrison said that will shut down roads that his department uses to patrol the land, though he said the cartels are unlikely to stop using it just because it is declared wilderness.

"My fear is these areas will be used more than they are now because they'll have access to it that will be private and closed off to every law-abiding citizen," the sheriff said. "I believe this monument will hamper law enforcement's ability to effectively patrol the area we need to patrol."

Administration officials said the declaration will incorporate a 2006 agreement between the Interior Department and the Homeland Security Department that allows U.S. Border Patrol some access to the land.

That agreement prevents most routine patrols through wilderness, though it does allow them to continue to follow smugglers in hot pursuit.

The agreement has been controversial for both sides of the immigration debate. Environmentalists and some immigrant rights advocates argue that the Border Patrol has used the arrangement to trample pristine land. Border security advocates say agents' hands are tied when they are in pursuit of illegal immigrants and drug smugglers.

Rep. Rob Bishop, a Utah Republican who has studied the issue, argues that the environmental restrictions have indeed hurt the Border Patrol's ability to do its job.

Hours before news of the designation broke Monday, Mr. Bishop, chairman of the Natural Resources Committee's public lands subcommittee, sent a letter to Mr. Obama asking him to hold off until the border can be controlled.

"It's irresponsible to focus efforts on new land designations rather than finding solutions to existing criminal activities plaguing the border," the congressman wrote.

Mr. Bishop pointed to a case that was in the headlines last year (corrected from original...OM), in which a National Park Service employee at Chiricahua National Monument in Arizona detailed the vicious attack she suffered at the hands of an illegal immigrant. Authorities said the man smashed her head into a metal bathroom door and hit her head with a rock, striking so hard that the rock broke.

"4. The extension of Public domain to include mines, quarries, oil wells, forests and water power.

5. The scientific reforestation of timber lands, and reclamation of swamp lands. The land so reforested or reclaimed to permanently retained as a part of the public domain." ...The Socialist Party Platform, 1908

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/19/obama-designate-national-monument-new-mexico/

Another attack on the Second Amendment

Obama plan pressures financial institutions

Gun retailers say the Obama administration is trying to put them out of business with regulations and investigations that bypass Congress and choke off their lines of credit, freeze their assets and prohibit online sales. (Once again Critters sit on their @$$es as Obama rips up the Constitution...OM)

Since 2011, regulators have increased scrutiny on banks’ customers. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in 2011 urged banks to better manage the risks of their merchant customers who employ payment processors, such as PayPal, for credit card transactions. The FDIC listed gun retailers as “high risk” along with porn stores and drug paraphernalia shops.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department has launched Operation Choke Point, a credit card fraud probe focusing on banks and payment processors. The threat of enforcement has prompted some banks to cut ties with online gun retailers, even if those companies have valid licenses and good credit histories.

This administration has very clearly told the banking industry which customers they feel represent ‘reputational risk’ to do business with,” said Peter Weinstock, a lawyer at Hunton & Williams LLP. “So financial institutions are reacting to this extraordinary enforcement arsenal by being ultra-conservative in who they do business with: Any companies that engage in any margin of risk as defined by this administration are being dropped.” (I wonder if that includes businesses that serve alcohol. How about the Pot shops in CO....OM)

A Justice Department representative said the agency is conducting several investigations that aim to hold accountable banks “who are knowingly assisting fraudulent merchants who harm consumers.” (Since when does a LEGAL gun dealer harm consumers?...OM)

“We’re committed to ensuring that our efforts to combat fraud do not discourage or inhibit the lawful conduct of these honest merchants,” the Justice Department said in a May 7 blog post.

But gun retailers say their businesses are being targeted in the executive branch’s efforts:

• T.R. Liberti, owner and operator of Top Gun Firearms Training & Supply in Miami, has felt the sting firsthand. Last month, his local bank, BankUnited N.A., dumped his online business from its service.

An explanatory email from the bank said: “This letter in no way reflects any derogatory reasons for such action on your behalf. But rather one of industry. Unfortunately your company’s line of business is not commensurate with the industries we work with.”

• Black Rifle Armory in Henderson, Nevada, had its bank accounts frozen this month as the bank tried to determine whether any of Black Rifle’s online transactions were suspicious.

• In 2012, Bank of America suddenly dropped the 12-year account of McMillan Group International, a gun manufacturer in Phoenix, even though the company had a good credit history, the owner said. Gun parts maker American Spirit Arms in Scottsdale, Arizona, received similar treatment by Bank of America, the country’s largest banking institution.

“This seems to be happening with greater frequency and to many more dealers,” said Joe Sirochman, owner of American Spirit Arms. “At first, it was the bigger guys — gun parts manufacturers or high-profile retailers. Now the smaller mom-and-pop shops are being choked out, and they need their cash to buy inventory. Freezing their assets will put them out of business.”

Choking off access to banks

After McMillan Group owner Kelly McMillan publicized Bank of America’s action on his Facebook account, he found that thousands of small gun-shop owners across the country were in the same situation. Banks were either dropping them, freezing their accounts or refusing to process their online sales, so he opened a credit card processing company for the gun industry called McMillan Merchant Solutions.

“Four generations of my family have been in this industry. This is my way to give back,” said Mr. McMillan, adding that many of his customers were denied banking access because of the nature of their business. “This is an attempt by the federal government to keep people from buying guns and a way for them to combat the Second Amendment rights we have. It’s a covert way for them to control our right to manufacture guns and individuals to buy guns.”

BankUnited N.A., which dropped Top Gun Firearms Training & Supply in Miami from its customer list, declined to comment.

In a statement to The Washington Times, Bank of America said: "We would not deny banking services to an organization solely on the basis of its industry."

The banking giant blamed a misunderstanding with the Arizona gun manufacturers McMillan Group International and American Spirit Arms.

However, the American Banking Association, the industry's advocacy group in Washington, said businesses deemed "risky" will be frozen out of the financial system if the Justice Department continues Operation Choke Point because the regulatory burden and risk of investigation will be too great for less-specialized banks to bear.

"We're being threatened with a regulatory regime that attempts to foist on us the obligation to monitor all types of transactions," Richard Riese, a senior vice president at the American Bankers Association, said in the April 28 issue of American Banker. "All of this is predicated on a notion that the banks are a choke point for all businesses."

In an interview with The Times, Mr. Riese said the cost of doing business with gun retailers outweighs the benefits for some banks, given that regulators deem the industry as "risky," state laws vary on the sale of guns and ammunition, and the Justice Department's enforcement.

The Independent Community Bankers of America, an association for small banks, said enforcement actions from the Justice Department are too broad and overly aggressive.

"While preventing fraud is a top concern for community banks, it needs to be balanced with ensuring that businesses and consumers that operate in accordance with applicable laws can still access payment systems," bankers association President Camden Fine told the Justice Department in an April 7 letter. "ICBA requests that the DOJ suspend Operation Choke Point immediately and focus its resources directly on businesses that may be violating the law, rather than targeting banks providing payment services."

Justice's operation threatens to "close access to the financial system to law-abiding businesses, because the mere prospect of an enforcement action is sufficient to cause financial institutions to restrict access to their payment systems to only established companies that present low risks," the organization said.

'No statutory authority'

Regulations on the financial industry have increased over the past few years, said Thomas P. Vartanian, chairman of Dechert LLP, a global law firm specializing in regulatory and financial matters.

He noted the chilling effect of overregulation by the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, an interagency behemoth that includes the departments of Commerce, Justice, Labor, Education, Homeland Security and Justice along with the Internal Revenue Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Secret Service, the FBI, the Social Security Administration and the Federal Trade Commission.

"The key to effective regulation is the balancing between too little and too much regulation," Mr. Vartanian said. "The problem here is that there are now so many regulators, including the Department of Justice, with their fingers on the scales on that balancing act."

Congressional Republicans say the Obama administration is using its regulatory powers to shutter industries it doesn't like. Last year, 31 Republicans accused the Justice Department and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. of intimidating banks and payment processors to "terminate business relationships with lawful lenders."

In a March hearing before the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs subcommittee on consumer protection, Sen. David Vitter, Louisiana Republican, complained that several payday lenders — another industry labeled "risky" by the administration — were being dropped by their banks in his home state.

"There is a determined effort from [the Justice Department] to the regulators to cut off credit and use other tactics to force [payday lenders] out of business," Mr. Vitter said. "I find that deeply troubling because it has no statutory basis, no statutory authority."

In a House hearing in April, FDIC acting General Counsel Richard Osterman defended his agency's definition of what constitutes a "risky" business — subject to money laundering or other criminal behavior — but made it clear that no bank is outright prohibited from serving any such companies.

"We have actually put out a policy statement on this issue to make it very clear from the very top that as long as financial institutions are properly managing their relationships and the risks, they're neither prohibited nor discouraged from providing these services," Mr. Osterman said.

"Basically, what we're saying is, these types of programs can be, can involve high-risk activities that could create litigation risk and reputation risk for financial institutions," he said. "So, they need to do due diligence to ensure that the folks who they're banking are acting in a safe and sound manner."

But the cost of that due diligence, coupled with the threat of a lawsuit for doing business with a customer in an industry the government has defined as risky, is having a chilling effect on legitimate companies such as gun dealers, said Mr. Weinstock, the Hunton & Williams lawyer.

"We are one of the most heavily regulated industries in America," said Mr. Sirochman of American Spirit Arms. "We have to ship our guns to another federal licensed dealers for pickup. The people that are picking up the rifles have to go through a background check to make sure they don't have any felonies. You can't own a gun or pass the background check if you do.

"All this is, is an assault on our Second Amendment rights." (And an assault on our God Given Rights...OM)


Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/18/targeted-gun-sellers-say-high-risk-label-from-feds/#ixzz32CPEYWyw

Judicial Watch: New Documents Show IRS HQ Control of Tea Party Targeting

Documents also Reveal Unusual Pressure from Key Democrat Senator to Target Conservatives

Judicial Watch today released a new batch of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) documents revealing that its handling of Tea Party applications was directed out of the agency’s headquarters in Washington, DC.  The documents also show extensive pressure on the IRS by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) to shut down conservative-leaning tax-exempt organizations. The IRS’ emails by Lois Lerner detail her misleading explanations to investigators about the targeting of Tea Party organizations.

The documents came in response to an October 2013 Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the agency refused to respond to four FOIA requests dating back to May 2013 (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:13-cv-01559)).

One key email string from July 2012 confirms that IRS Tea Party scrutiny was directed from Washington, DC. On July 6, 2010, Holly Paz (the former Director of the IRS Rulings and Agreements Division and current Manager of Exempt Organizations Guidance) asks IRS lawyer Steven Grodnitzky “to let Cindy and Sharon know how we have been handling Tea Party applications in the last few months.”  Cindy Thomas is the former director of the IRS Exempt Organizations office in Cincinnati and Sharon Camarillo was a Senior Manager in their Los Angeles office. Grodnitzky, a top lawyer in the Exempt Organization Technical unit (EOT) in Washington, DC, responds:

EOT is working the Tea party applications in coordination with Cincy. We are developing a few applications here in DC and providing copies of our development letters with the agent to use as examples in the development of their cases. Chip Hull [another lawyer in IRS headquarters] is working these cases in EOT and working with the agent in Cincy, so any communication should include him as well. Because the Tea party applications are the subject of an SCR [Sensitive Case Report], we cannot resolve any of the cases without coordinating with Rob.

The reference to Rob is believed to be Rob Choi, then-Director of Rulings and Agreements in IRS’s Washington, DC, headquarters.

Another email string from February – March 2010 includes a message from a California EO Determinations manager discussing a Tea Party application “currently being held in the Screening group.” The manager urges, “Please let ‘Washington’ know about this potentially embarrassing political case involving a ‘Tea Party’ organization. Recent media attention to this type of organization indicates to me that this is a ‘high profile’ case.”  A co-worker responds: “I think sending it up here [DC] is a good idea given the potential for media interest.”  As with Ben Rhodes’ Benghazi-related talking points email, Judicial Watch obtained a more complete version of this IRS email chain than was provided to a congressional committee.

The Judicial Watch documents also contain email correspondence to internal IRS investigators from Lerner, dated April 2, 2013, that tries to explain the “Be on the Lookout” (BOLO) criteria used to select organizations for screening and scrutiny:

Because the BOLO only contained a brief reference to “Organizations involved with the Tea Party movement applying for exemption under 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4)” in June 2011, the EO Determinations manager asked the manager of the screening group, John Shafer [IRS Cincinnati field office manager], what criteria were being used to label cases as “tea party ” cases. (“Do the applications specify/state ‘ tea party’? If not, how do we know applicant is involved with the tea party movement?”) The screening group manager asked his employees how they were applying the BOLO’s short –hand reference to “tea party.” His employees responded that they were including organizations meeting any of the following criteria as falling within the BOLO’s reference to “tea party” organizations: “1. ‘Tea Party’, ‘Patriots’ or ’9/12 Project’ is referenced in the case file. 2. Issues include government spending, government debt and taxes. 3. Educate the public through advocacy/legislative activities to make America a better place to live. 4. Statements in the case file that are critical of the how the country is being run. . . “

So, we believe we have provided information that shows that no one in EO “developed” the criteria. Rather, staff used their own interpretations of the brief reference to “organizations involved with the Tea Party movement,” which was what was on the BOLO list.

Lerner omits that her office was “developing” the applications for all Tea Party groups.

The IRS documents also include a presentation entitled “Heightened Awareness Issues” with a red and orange “Alert” symbol identifying the “emerging issues” that trigger scrutiny for organizations seeking tax-exempt status. Page six of the presentation focuses on the Tea Party organizations due, in part, to the fact that these groups had become a “Relevant Subject in Today’s Media.”

A series of letters between Senator Levin (D-MI), chairman of the Subcommittee on Investigations, and top IRS officials throughout 2012 discuss how to target conservative groups the senator claimed were “engaged in political activities.” In response to a Levin March 30 letter citing the “urgency of the issue,” then-Deputy Commissioner Steven Miller assured the senator that IRS regulations were flexible enough to allow IRS agents to “prepare individualized questions and requests” for select 501(c)(4) organizations.

The newly released IRS documents contain several letters and emails revealing an intense effort by Levin and IRS officials to determine what, if any, existing IRS policies could be used to revoke the nonprofit exemptions of active conservative groups and deny exemptions to new applicants. In a July 30, 2012, letter, Levin singles out 12 groups he wants investigated for “political activity.” Of the groups – which include the Club for Growth, Americans for Tax Reform, the 60 Plus Association, and the Susan B. Anthony List – only one, Priorities USA, is notably left-leaning.

As the 2012 presidential election drew nearer, Levin sent a series of letters to the IRS intensifying his campaign against predominantly conservative nonprofit groups:

• September 27, 2012: Levin asks for copies of the answers to IRS exemption application question 15 – a question about planned political expenditures – from four specific groups: Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, Priorities USA, Americans for Prosperity, and Patriot Majority USA.

• October 17, 2012: Miller informs Levin, “As discussed in our previous responses dated June 4, 2012, and August 24, 2012, the IRS cannot legally disclose whether the organizations on your list have applied for tax exemptions unless and until such application is approved.” Miller, however, then informs Levin that Americans for Prosperity and Patriot Majority have been approved, but the IRS has no records for Crossroads and Priorities USA.

• October 23, 2012: Levin writes to again express his dissatisfaction with the IRS handling of “social welfare” (501(c)(4) organizations insisting that IRS guidance “misinterprets the law” by allowing any political activity. He again demands an answer as to whether the four organizations he listed in his previous letter were primarily engaged in the promotion of social welfare.  He also seeks copies of tax exempt revocation letters sent due to c4 political activities, as well as statistics on how many c4s have been notified that they may be in violation due to political activities.

In perhaps the most revealing letter from the IRS to Levin, Miller on June 4, 2012, takes 16 pages to explain to the senator what IRS regulations and policies may and may not be used to evaluate political groups and assures him that the agency has considerable leeway in picking and choosing which groups would be subject to additional scrutiny:

There is no standard questionnaire used to obtain information about political activities. Although there is a template development letter that describes the general information on the case development process, the letter does not specify the information to be requested from any particular organization … Consequently, revenue agents prepare individualized questions and requests for documents relevant to the application. . .

A May 14, 2013, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report revealed that the IRS had singled out groups with conservative-sounding terms such as “patriot” and “Tea Party” in their titles when applying for tax-exempt status. The TIGTA probe determined that “Early in Calendar Year 2010, the IRS began using inappropriate criteria to identify organizations applying for tax-exempt status (e.g., lists of past and future donors).”  The illegal IRS reviews continued for more than 18 months and “delayed processing of targeted groups applications” preparing for the 2012 presidential election.

“These new documents show that officials in the IRS headquarters were responsible for the illegal delays of Tea Party applications,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “It is disturbing to see Lois Lerner mislead the IRS’ internal investigators about her office’s Tea Party targeting.  These documents also confirm the unprecedented pressure from congressional Democrats to go after President Obama’s political opponents.  The IRS scandal has now ensnared Congress.”

In mid-April, Judicial Watch released a batch of IRS documents (produced earlier in this litigation) revealing that Lerner had communicated with the Department of Justice about whether it was possible to criminally prosecute certain tax-exempt entities.

Source: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-documents-show-irs-hq-control-tea-party-targeting/

If Not the A.G. of U.S., Then Who? If Not Now, When?

Eric Holder: No Plans at DOJ to Investigate Secret Waiting Lists and Veteran Deaths at VA Hospitals

Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that the Department of Justice doesn't have any plans to investigate allegations that veterans placed on secret waiting lists at VA hospitals died while waiting for care.

"Well, obviously these reports if they're true are unacceptable (You think?...OM), and the allegations are being taken very seriously by the administration (Really? Then why aren't you prepared to investigate. I bet if they were of color, you would be all over...OM). But I don't have any announcements at this time with regard to anything that the Justice Department is doing," Holder told reporters at a press conference.

"This is something on our radar screen at this point, but there is an investigation being done by the [VA] inspector general, and we'll see what happens as a result of that inquiry and other information that comes to light in some form or fashion," Holder added.

According to CNN, at least 40 veterans died while waiting for treatment at one VA hospital in Phoenix. Members of Congress have said in recent weeks that the inspector general investigation is inadequate and have called on the DOJ to launch its own investigation. (As usual thing the DOJ refuses anything the Critters request, maybe that's why Holder is in contempt of Congress...OM)

"Because these cases involve individuals working in their capacity as federal employees (So they are above the law...OM), and these incidents have occurred at federal facilities throughout the nation (Isn't it the FBI's job to investigate possible crimes on FEDERAL property?...OM), I urge you to work with the state Attorneys General in Arizona and across the country to investigate these preventable deaths thoroughly, determine appropriate criminal charges, and prosecute the offenders accordingly," Rep. Tom Rooney, a Republican of Florida, wrote in a letter to Holder on May 1.

Holder's announcement that the DOJ doesn't currently have any plans to investigate the VA hospital scandal was made Tuesday afternoon at a press conference held to announce that the DOJ was filing a lawsuit against lenders under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, which caps interest rates on student loans at 6 percent for members of the military.

"We are here to announce a landmark step forward in our effort to achieve justice for victims of improper lending practices--and to protect the men and women of America's armed services from anyone who would take advantage of those who wear the uniform," Holder said. (But its okay for Veterans to DIE waiting for medical treatment...OM)

Source: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/eric-holder-no-plans-doj-investigate-secret-waiting-lists-and-veteran-deaths-va-hospitals_792719.html 

Just Because the SCOTUS Declares Something to be 'Constitutional' Does Not Make It So*

In “The War No One Saw Coming- The Plan”, I introduced people to Antonio Gramsci and his theory of Cultural Hegemony and how according to him, the culture (traditions) of a society are determined by the “ruling” Bourgeois (the “one percent”) and if the Proletarians (the “ninety-nine percent”) can infiltrate and change those tradition, thus changing the culture, it will be bring down a capitalist society.

 In “The War Nobody Saw Coming- The First Attacks” I attempted to showed that the opening salvos of the “culture” wars were two cases that were argued before the Supreme Court (SCOTUS). The first, Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township (1947), could be considered a victory for the American way of life. However, we all know that one victory does not win a war and unfortunately a year later (1948), McCollum v. Board of Education, the SCOTUS handed the enemies of the American traditions and religion a victory by expanding the “...Constitution beyond its letter and spirit through judicial legislation...”[1]

In both of these opening skirmishes in the war of Religion and which in turn would lead to a full assault on the war on Christmas and now traditional marriage. The SCOTUS and lower courts have basically held that the word “liberty” (“The power of doing that which is permitted by the law”) in the 14^th amendment, written for the STATES, was/is the same as the word “freedom” (The power to live as one wishes) written in the 1^st amendment for the NATIONAL government.

In making this interpretation SCOTUS basically ignored two cardinal rules: (1) that plain language must be followed, without addition or subtraction; and (2) that it must be kept in mind the evil which the writing was being made to cure.[2]

To begin with, the 14^th makes absolutely NO MENTION of the freedom. Therefore, those guaranteed rights laid out in the 1^st amendment should not have been be drawn into or be construed as part of the 14^th by expanding the meaning of the word liberty.

Second, when the 14^th was written the authors were dealing only with the citizenship of newly freed slaves and the protection of their liberty and their prospective rights. Once again, freedom of religion, speech and Press were far from their thoughts.[3]. This amendment not only made them a citizen of the United States but also made them a citizen of the State of their residence. It also struck the word "white" from the constitutions of northern States which had limited citizenship to white males, thus in both the North and South the Negro gained all the rights of citizenship [4].

The First Amendment on Religion

Let's remember EXACTLY why the Bill of Rights was purposed by looking at the Preamble of the resolutions that were sent to the states, “The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the Time of their Adopting the Constitution, expressed a Desire, in Order to prevent Misconstruction or Abuse of its Powers, that further declaratory and restrictive Clauses should be added (emphasis added...OM): And as exceeding the Ground of public Confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent Ends of its Institution.”

"Congress shall make no Law respecting the Establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free Exercise thereof;..." This is one phase that EVERYONE should read very carefully for it contradicts the phase that is commonly accepted, “...no law respecting an Establishment of Religion..” and the key word in the original wording, “the”, which is a more declaratory and restrictive word than “an” as commonly read in the reprinting of the Bill of Rights today.

The 1^st amendment says that CONGRESS, therefore the Federal Government, shall make NO laws that will establish a national religion (church) nor could it levy taxes for said established church or religion. It safeguarded the STATES and the PEOPLE from the Federal government denying or interfering with the freedoms of Religion, speech and Press. 

Since the Bill of Rights was written and passed by the STATES to guarantee their rights as INDIVIDUAL states, why should SCOTUS take authority to use the 1^st Amendment of the STATES' Bill of Rights against them?

The Fourteenth Amendment on Religion

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This amendment set aside the idea that a citizen of a state was not in contact with the national government under the theory of States rights because it was supposed that he owed his allegiance to the state and the state dealt with the Nation.

The first SCOTUS case didn't deal with the newly freed slaves, but from rival businesses where the challenge was that the 14^th supplanted former State citizenship which would mean that the National Government was to be the source of all the rights which belong to the citizens of all free governments by virtue of their manhood, and for the protection (not creation) of which all just governments are formed. The Supreme Court rejected (1873) this contention and said that the Amendment did not disclose "any purpose to destroy the main features of the general system." It held that the command that "no State shall . . . abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" and does not prevent a State from abridging privileges of State citizenship as distinguished from privileges of National citizenship. This momentous decision preserved State citizenship and State rights.

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;...” The SCOTUS held that this meant, just as the language says, “the privileges and immunities of National citizenship and not to include those belonging to the citizen of the State. It is a prohibition, not respecting action by an individual or by a group of individuals, but only action by the legislative, the executive, or the judicial department of a State government.” Basically, fundamental state rights which are protected by the Bill of Rights is to prevent the Federal Government from “invading” a state.

Basically, this amendment prevented the NATIONAL (FEDERAL) government from entering a STATE except to enforce a right of NATIONAL citizenship.

 “...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;” This is an oft cited statement in the SCOTUS and other courts in the war of religion.

Just as the 5^th amendment in the Bill of Rights was written as a guard against a tyrannical Federal Government. The 14^th was written to guard against a tyrannical STATE and the writers copied the language from the 5^th and as previously stated, “that plain language must be followed, without addition or subtraction”, so if the language is borrowed, it must mean exactly the same thing. Therefore, IF the “liberty” in the 5^th did not mean the same as “freedom” of the 1^st , then how could (can) the courts embrace the idea that “liberty” as written in the 5^th and was borrowed and inserted in the 14^th be the same as “freedom” written in the 1^st ? Therefore, “liberty” in this amendment safeguards a person from unjust or unlawful imprisonment by the STATE, just as the 5^th amendment curtails the FEDERAL government.

As the SCOTUS said in 1908, due process of law means "no change in ancient procedure can be made which disregards those fundamental principles... which... protect the citizen in his private right and guard him against the arbitrary action of the government." 

Again, this amendment prevents the FEDERAL government from entering a STATE in order to protect, “life, liberty, or property” UNLESS the STATE denies its due process in protection of rights springing from NATIONAL (not State) citizenship.

 “...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution states, "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." In other words, a citizen of one State doing business in another State cannot be denied the privileges and immunities of the citizens of that State.

This clause in 14^th was designed to prevent a State from discriminating between its own citizens and those of another state. As with the writing/ratification of this amendment, it was written primarily for the liberated slaves (although not mentioned specifically in this Amendment) and the language was without limitation, extending to "any person". Unfortunately this has been applied in upwards of a thousands cases in State and National courts to every perceived form of inequality alleged to arise out of the laws of States.

For example when Congress passed a law that fixed a punishment for three or more persons conspiring to deprive another of the equal protection of the laws was held invalid by the Supreme Court (1883) because the 14^th is a limitation upon the State and not upon persons. The word "persons" also includes a resident alien or a corporation. (Thus according to this case much to the left's dismay, CORPORATIONS are PERSONS, therefore a Corporation is a person = people...OM)

The language and design of this clause was "to prevent any person or class of persons from being singled out as a special subject for discriminating and hostile legislation." It also means that the FEDERAL government cannot enter a STATE to secure “the equal protection of the laws” of that STATE unless the laws being enforced are to deny the rights of NATIONAL (not State) citizenship.

 As shown there is nothing in the language of the 14^th Amendment written in 1866 that gives any indication or intention of the authors to rewrite or change the meaning of the 1^st amendment written in 1789 to read, "Congress shall make no law [nor shall any State] respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.". Therefore, NOTHING in the 14^th that should make the word “liberty” written after Emancipation to mean “free” exercise of religion, or the “freedom of speech, or of the Press,” dealt with by the writers of the 1^st amendment seventy-seven years earlier.

Where in the Constitution do the courts have the authority to blend the 14^th Amendment into the 1^st Amendment? If there is be a mingling of the two amendments, shouldn't it be done by the people exerting sovereign power as the constitution makers and not by the assertions of SCOTUS or the authority of Congress? Why is it that in all the years of litigation and arguments concerning this mingling no one has dared to propose to the States an amendment for their ratification which would emasculate them as has been done by decisions handed down by the SCOTUS?

Why does it seem that there no constitutional concern to the STATES and the people that the SCOTUS, as well as the lower courts, have been very busy over the years, causing great confusion when it comes to our Fundamental Law, the Constitution? Or have the STATES become slaves to the NATIONAL government?

Concluded in "Just Because the SCOTUS Declares Something to be 'Constitutional' Does Not Make It So* - Part 2"

* Senator Rand Paul, Kentucky

[1] Norton, Thomas James, Undermining the Constitution - A History of Lawless Government, Devin-Adair Co., New York, New York, 1951. (Thomas James Norton was a member of the Bars of the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals for the 7th, 8th, and 9th Circuits, and the Supreme Courts of Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.)
[2] Ibid Page 208
[3] Ibid Page 208
[4] Norton, Thomas James, The Constitution of the United States of America, Its Sources and Its Applications. The World Publishing Co., New York, New York. (1940)

Just Because the SCOTUS Declares Something to be 'Constitutional' Does Not Make It So* - Part 2

 In “Just Because the SCOTUS Declares Something to be'Constitutional' Does Not Make It So”, I discussed the meaning and the origins of the 1^st Amendment and the 14^th Amendment and explored how the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), as well as lower courts, have “folded, blended and mingled” the Bill of Rights with the 14^th Amendment by simply interfering that “free (freedom)” of the 1^st Amendment is the same as “liberty” in the 14^th Amendment.

I also demonstrated that if the writers of Bill of Rights, written to safeguard the STATES and the PEOPLE from a tyrannical NATIONAL government, had intended for “free (freedom)” in the 1^st amendment to mean the same as “liberty” as written in the 5^th amendment, would they have not said (wrote), “...nor be deprived of life, freedom, or property, without due process of law...” instead of the ratified amendment, “...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...”? If one accepts that the writers of the 1^st and the 5^th meant two different ideas, then the writers of the 14^th amendment, written to safeguard the PEOPLE (particularly the newly freed slaves) from a tyrannical STATE government, and quoted the 5^th, “...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property...” would have also said, “freedom” instead of “liberty”? Accepting these premises, let's look back at the opening shots of the war on religion and traditions that has lead to the destruction of American values.

McCollum v. Board of Education, a second look

The parents of various religious denominations asked and made arranged with the board of education in Illinois, that their children receive religious instruction for half an hour once or twice a week. This instruction was to be out of class, from unpaid special instructors utilizing classrooms, McCollum, an Atheist, objected and after failing at the state level, was joined by the ACLU, and made its way to the SCOTUS.

Now, a question that should be asked concerning this case is, “Did CONGRESS pass any law concerning the use of these classrooms for religious instruction?” NO, but it was assumed without any proof and has unfortunately become the practice the SCOTUS for many years as it decides to blend the 14^th amendment, written for the STATES, with the 1^st amendment and its companion articles of the Bill of Rights, written for the NATION only.

IF for a moment, we accept the assumption of the Court that the 1^st amendment had been brought down against Illinois, then the question needs to be asked, “Did Illinois pass any 'law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of...'”? NO and the Supreme Court of Illinois ruled that no constitutional question existed under the 1^st Amendment of the Constitution.

After hearing the case, Justice Black writing for the majority on the use of the classrooms said, "This is beyond all question a utilization of the tax-established and tax-supported public school system to aid religious groups to spread their faiths. It falls squarely under the ban of the First Amendment (made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth) as we interpreted it in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1."

In the Everson case, Justice Black writing for the majority said, “No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they adopt to teach or practice religion.”

What Should the SCOTUS Should Have Said

After taking jurisdiction of the Everson case, when it actually had no real authority to do so, the SCOTUS should have said that Congress gets no authority from the Constitution to spend any tax money in the States for any school purposes (subject for another time...OM). Since the schools are within the inherent police jurisdiction (Power of a government to exercise reasonable control over people and property within its jurisdiction in the interest of general security, health, safety, morals, and welfare.) of the States and those schoolsare entitled to support by the STATE, whether they are public, private, or religious, providing the State Constitution does not prohibit it.

Now, since the 14^th Amendment was written for the STATES and makes no mention of the “freedom of religion” then the 1^st Amendment, written for the NATION, should not have been applicable to Illinois.

Even IF the 1^st Amendment was applicable, Illinois DID NOT levy any taxes for religious purposes, therefore, there was “no law respecting the establishment of religion...”. Using school rooms for other purposes other then education should not be any more objectionable then using those classrooms for the meeting of say a chess club, science club, debate club or any other local organization. Has America fallen so far that the people of a community can not decide on how they can use their OWN buildings for whatever reason they desire?

This would change in 1965 when Congress passed and Lyndon Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). By so doing, the Federal government now had complete control of the public school system and the states, like crack addicts, became dependent on Federal government funds and in many cases redirected funds that should go for schools to other purposes OR they built “luxury” schools.

This Federal control has now allowed that every time a religious symbol is displayed on public, STATE or Local government property, those who are following Antonio Gramsci's plan of changing the traditions/culture of a capitalist society into a socialist society come out from under their rocks, out of their basements and begin the lawsuits.

Unfortunately, as these lawsuits begin the LOCAL governments bow down and like cowards retreating from a battlefield find the easy way out.

Confusion and Mystification Reigns

The SCOTUS has and still confuses and “mystifies” the subject by its used of inaccurate language and improperly applying constitutional authority where none really exists and unfortunately once a decision is handed down, it is assumed by just about everyone that it is Constitutional when in reality should be reminded what Justice Joseph P. Bradley (1870-1892) wrote in an opinion (100 U.S. 339), “We may mystify anything. But if we take a plain view of the words of the Constitution, and give to them a fair and obvious interpretation, we cannot fail in most cases in coming to a clear understanding of its meaning. We shall not have far to seek. We shall find it on the surface, and not in the profound depths of speculation."

As Senator Rand Paul said, “Just because the Supreme Court says its constitutional does not make it so.”

Editor's Note:
The main sources used for this series were: Norton, Thomas James, Undermining the Constitution - A History of Lawless Government, Devin-Adair Co., New York, New York, 1951.
Norton, Thomas James, The Constitution of the United States of America, Its Sources and Its Applications. The World Publishing Co., New York, New York, 1940.