Z Street charged in 2010 that the Obama Administration was persecuting it for its policy views. Does Israel activism “contradict the Administration’s public policies?” an IRS agent allegedly asked.

Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Douglas Shulman testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington in 2012.

Via: J. Scott Applewhite / AP

The head of a Jewish group that says it was targeted by the Internal Revenue Service over its opposition to President Obama's Israel policy said Saturday that she sees parallels between the tax agency's treatment of Tea Party groups and her own case.

The Zionist group Z Street sued the IRS in the summer of 2010, alleging that a federal agent, Diane Gentry, told the group's lawyer that the agency was "carefully scrutinizing organizations that are in any way connected with Israel."

The group alleged that the agent told them that "a special unit" was examining whether its activities — in pushing a hawkishly pro-Israel line — "contradict the Administration's public policies," referring to a provision of the tax code which can deny nonprofit status to groups that oppose "established public policy." The provision, rarely used, has been invoked to deny that status to racist groups.

The IRS admission Friday that it had created a special track for tea party groups "is the same conduct the IRS agent told us (before she realized she shouldn't) they were engaging in with respect to organizations 'connected to Israel,'" Z Street President Lori Lowenthal Marcus told BuzzFeed. "Of course, she also told us that there was a special unit in Washington, D.C. where similar files may be sent to determine if an organization's positions' differ from that of the administration's. I have no way of knowing — at this point — whether any conservative groups that were targeted with the admitted bad conduct were also sent to that 'unit' or one like it."

The IRS, whose apology was reportedly prompted by an impending critical report by its inspector general, has denied that the special tea party review was politically motivated. A spokesperson didn't respond to an inquiry about the Z Street case. In 2010, a spokesman declined to comment on a specific pending matter.

But the case is about to get an airing: Z Street has a hearing this July 2 in federal district court in Washington, DC, Marcus said.

The progressive former Congressman hit the Obama Administration for their Libyan policy and for their response to the attack.

View Video ›

Via:

Progressive former Congressman Dennis Kucinich said Sunday on Fox News that the Obama Administration's Libyan policy was to blame for the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. The former Congressman argued before leaving Congress after losing the his primary for his newly drawn Congressional district in Ohio that American intervention in Libya was a mistake.

Kucinich argued the Obama Administration initially said it was a protest because of what he called "the failure of the Benghazi policy" as well as the upcoming election last November.

"What the attack on the consulate brings up is the failure of the Benghazi policy from the beginning. That's why they had to call it a street demonstration instead of an attack. On the eve of an election that brought up a whole new narrative about foreign policy, about dealing with terrorism, and about the consequences that led to four deaths of people who served the United States."

The former Congressman also slammed the Obama Adminstration response to the attack saying he was "offended" by the response to the attack and the lack of consulate security leading up to it.

"We went into Benghazi under the assumption that somehow there was going to be a massacre in Benghazi," he said. "So we went there to protect the Libyan people. We couldn't go into Benghazi to protect our own Americans who were serving there? I'm offended by this, and there have to be real answers to the questions that are being raised."

The Newseum hard at first argued that other groups consider two slain cameramen journalists. “A dark day,” says the ADL. [Updated]

Source: newseum.org

The Newseum has become the latest Washington institution to step blithely into the heated and complex Middle East debate, and learned the same lesson that many before have: There's no easy way out.

The Newseum announced last week that it would honor two slain cameramen for Al-Aqsa Television, which is funded by the Palestinian militant group Hamas, by including them in its Journalists Memorial. The cameramen, Hussam Salama and Mahmoud al-Kumi, were killed in an Israeli air strike.

Monday — after initially defending the move — the Washington, DC institution took a step back, saying
it would "re-evaluate their inclusion as journalists on our memorial wall pending further investigation."

At first, Friday, the Newseum pointed out that it isn't alone in ruling the men "journalists," and argued that the "Committee to Protect Journalists, Reporters Without Borders and The World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers all consider these men journalists killed in the line duty."

Their critics, meanwhile, pointed out that the Department of Treasury has labeled Al-Aqsa Television itself a terror group, and that the channel's propaganda function includes advocating suicide bombings.

And two heavyweight Jewish groups joined the chorus of criticism Sunday.

The Anti-Defamation League released a statement expressing "shock and outrage at the decision by the Newseum to proceed with honoring two members of the Hamas terrorist propaganda television operation Al-Aqsa TV as part of its ongoing memorial to journalists."

"It is a dark day when members of a terrorist organization advancing their agenda through murderous violence are honored as part of a tribute to journalists killed in the line of duty," said Abe Foxman, the group's national director, in the emailed statement. "This decision flies in the face of the founding mission of Newseum to ˜educate the public about the value of a free press in a free society. Salama and Al-Kumi were terrorist operatives working for a network that routinely promotes anti-Semitism and incitement to violence. These men were working for a propaganda outlet, not a legitimate news organization."

The American Jewish Committee, another major New York-based Jewish group, also put out a statement Sunday calling the move "a shocking assault on the memory of journalists who have died in conflict situations."

"The Newseum board of directors should be ashamed of themselves for saluting two individuals who were integral to the propaganda machine of the Hamas terrorist organization," said AJC executive director David Harris. "We are astonished that the Newseum did not reconsider its stance after initial concerns were raised. What are they thinking, seeking to conflate authentic journalists and operatives for a murderous group banned by the U.S. and European Union?... If theNewseum opts to go forward with honoring Salama and al-Kumi, it will bring shame on itself for a shocking inability -- or unwillingness -- to distinguish between heroic journalists and brazen terrorists."

The apparently unreflective decision, slow response, and scathing statements is a pretty familiar pattern to anyone who has followed Middle East politics as they play out in Washington. It's also only the beginning: The Newseum will now face pressure on any point available, including its events business, and will find it difficult to find a compromise.

Israel's American allies are particularly adept at demanding that institutions take a clear side, and it's not entirely clear that the Newseum has thought this one through.

UPDATE: This article has been updated to reflect the Newseum's decision to postpone the honor (5/13).

Some former Clinton aides and fundraisers deride Ready for Hillary as an amateurish group of posers, but the PAC is gaining steam. “What, who are these people? These people are untested.”

Via: Kevork Djansezian / Getty Images

Just five days after Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney for a second term, a group called "Ready for Hillary" made its quiet entrance on Twitter. "Ready to go! Are you?" read a first tweet, dropped into the radio silence of a barely followed feed.

Half a year later, the political action committee is FEC-registered, with a hefty social media presence, a list of 200,000 email addresses, and a handsome cadre of established Clinton supporters who have, to varying degrees, given Ready for Hillary the thumbs-up, and helped make it the predominant vessel for voters hoping, early as it may be, that the former secretary of state will run for president in 2016. Now when the PAC posts a tweet or a picture on Facebook, the responses come in the thousands.

But as more people learn the Ready for Hillary name, many of the allies and former aides in Clinton's orbit are watching the organization warily, suspicious of the PAC as it gains outsize attention in the absence of any official moves from Hillaryland.

In a wide range of interviews with onetime staffers and fundraisers, the devotion, confusion, and quasi-paranoia among Clinton's professional loyalists was on full display. Some spoke highly of Ready for Hillary's ability to harness the energy around Clinton; others derided its methods and presentation as amateur; and still more refused to express an opinion at all, asking instead what their peers had said about the group. Several declined to even speak off the record: To publicly criticize one of the biggest Clinton love-fests ever seen, said one former staffer, would be to throw cold water on every voter clicking "like" on Facebook.

"The top-tier people won't do anything until they hear it straight from Hillary or Bill or Huma," said one 2008 campaign staffer, referring to the former secretary's longtime personal aide, Huma Abedin.

But the PAC's cofounder, Adam Parkhomenko, said the group is working to build trust with the Clinton community and reach out to individuals who may not understand its mission, which Parkhomenko describes as "a grassroots campaign" focused on organization, list-building, and fundraising. He and Allida Black, a Virginia-based scholar and volunteer on the 2008 campaign, decided to start the group late last year to jump-start Clinton's political operation, still dormant after four years at the State Department.

"Part of this is building credibility. It doesn't matter if I worked for Hillary for six years," said Parkhomenko, who worked in Clinton's Senate campaign office in 2003. "A lot of it is, 'Well, is this person on board?' And, 'What does this person think of it? What does this donor think of it?'"

Parkhomenko spends all day on the phone answering questions, rallying support, allaying concerns — some conversations, he said, are 10 minutes, and some last two and a half hours.

The group has already netted several notable inner-circle allies: Longtime aides James Carville and Harold Ickes have endorsed the PAC — though neither has joined it in any formal capacity — and a number of other former staffers have signed on as volunteers, including Bill Clinton's White House political director, Craig T. Smith. The group also plans to unveil a finance committee in two weeks' time that, Parkhomenko says, will be stocked with big-name Democrats from the worlds of Clinton, Obama, and their 2008 primary opponent, John Edwards.

"The finance committee rollout will really impress people and show a coalition of Democrats who are united behind Hillary and who believe that this is the right vehicle to support and financially support her," he said.

But some in the Clinton fundraising world don't agree. One former Hillary bundler has even actively discouraged donors from contributing to the group.

"I'm not worried about the Haim Saban types," said the fundraiser. "It's the mid-level donors wasting their money that I worry about — someone who is capable of maxing out to someone like Hillary, or of raising $50,000, who sees James Carville and all these other people who are legitimizing Ready for Hillary."

In April, Carville sent an email on behalf of the PAC, calling the group's work "absolutely critical"; though in an interview on HuffPost Live two weeks later, the veteran strategist appeared more distant. "They asked me to sign something. I'm not a member of it or anything like that. But they're good guys, and I signed it," he said, adding, "I sign too many things sometimes."

The fundraiser called the group a "fringe and amateur" operation, arguing that it spends too much time on social media campaigns that run counter to the Clinton brand and are "way too public," said the source. "The whole thing is memes." (Freshly Photoshopped images — typically a picture of Clinton overlaid with a spirited caption — appear with frequency on the group's Facebook and Twitter feeds: "Simply put:" reads one, "She's my girl.")

And small features on the PAC's site, though imperceptible to grassroots supporters nationwide, have nettled some campaign veterans as insensitive, if not puzzling. Patti Solis Doyle, the former Clinton campaign manager who has borne the brunt of blame inside Hillaryland for the 2008 primary defeat, is given her own page on the site. Asked last month about Doyle page, a Ready for Hillary spokesman said they routinely highlight prominent Democrats who express their support for the PAC or Clinton.

"This isn't a criminal enterprise. But it's more like, 'What, who are these people?' These people are untested. It's not like you have a Bill Burton type," said the bundler, citing the former Obama aide who founded Priorities USA, the major Democratic PAC supporting the president's reelection. "You need a person that is genuinely close to Hillary and decides to break apart and go for this."

The reason Democrats didn't have droves of super PACs last year, said a former senior official in the Obama administration, is because of a "clear signal" to members of the party that Priorities would be the dominant group. "If Hillary Clinton wants to have a super PAC, people will know that Hillary Clinton wants to have a super PAC," the former official said. "One of her people will be installed, and it will be obvious to the entire world that this is now the go-to. Once the heavy hitters weigh in, led by a Hillaryland person, it will be crystal clear."

"There's an intellectual tension between those who want there to be an effort they can get behind, and then the practical matter that she'll actually have a group supported by high-level donors," the official added. "The heavyweights will pretty quickly eclipse whatever they've done."

But Shelly Porgess, who worked under Clinton at the State Department and is now a volunteer for the PAC, said that there is room enough for as many groups as want to support her candidacy. Porgess cited the EMILY's List campaign to elect a woman to the White House, Madame President, which launched just last week.

"Every core Hillary person is about 2016. But different people will choose to pursue that path in a different way," said Porgess, who also fundraised for Clinton's 2008 campaign. "The more, the merrier. This will be a very big tent, and it doesn't just have to come from this PAC.

A former Clinton staffer who supports the PAC also argued that, even if top-level aides aren't at the helm of the group, donors' money won't be wasted.

"It's not like Phil Singer and Howard Wolfson. It's kind of like the B-players," said the operative. "The people who started it are definitely people entrenched in Hillary world. They're not the inner circle — they're one or two out from the inner circle."

Unlike Parkhomenko, Black was never on the Clinton payroll. Instead, she was what you could call a hyperactive volunteer during the 2008 campaign, hosting 500 house parties and traveling to 14 states, where she knocked on 5,000 doors and raised $15,000. She also founded a PAC called "WomenCount" and kept pushing for Clinton to become the Democratic nominee right up to the convention in Denver. (She and Parkhomenko have also hired three full-time staffers: Seth Bringman, a former communications director for the Ohio Democratic Party; Nickie Titus, who was director of digital media on Sen. Tim Kaine's campaign last year; and Matt Felan, Clinton's deputy national finance director in 2008.)

Inner circle or not, Parkhomenko says he and Black want the PAC to "absolutely" be the prominent pro-Clinton outside group in 2016, should she decide to run. "I think what we're building will be an unparalleled organization," he said.

The group hasn't yet asked its supporters for money, but has already received 2,500 contributions through its website, Parkhomenko said. At the end of June, Ready for Hillary will file campaign disclosure data with the FEC, giving the Clinton world a first glimpse at the organization's finances.

To bolster the PAC's fundraising effort, Felan has been courting fundraisers who have worked for Clinton with an offer of part-time contract work, at a rate of $5,000 per month for meeting a particular goal, according to two people with knowledge of the proposition. So far, Ben Pollara, a Miami-based strategist who served as Clinton's Florida finance director, is the only person under contract with the group as a fundraiser.

But the organization argues that what will make it last, and ultimately more salient with members of Hillaryland, is that it's a group focused more on grassroots support and infrastructure than with raking in cash. When Clinton left Washington's Foggy Bottom with a 69% approval rating, and amidst a din of speculation about her next political move, the PAC served as an outlet for supporters already clamoring for 2016. Parkhomenko calls it a first for the tradition of political action committees; and Porgess, too, says the PAC "represents the best of American democracy" and "is all about Americans taking it into their own hands."

Not the way you'd typically describe the type of outside group more often associated with million-dollar ad buys and political heavyweights.

"You can start a super PAC if the money is there, but we're doing something different," Parkhomenko said. "People will say what they want to say, but as this continues to move forward, a lot of people that have something negative to say will see after our first file, and they'll start to come around and realize we are serious about this."

Newt Gingrich doesn’t know what a smartphone is and he made a video to talk about it. Below is an moment by moment breakdown.

Source: youtube.com

The setting: 1994 in 2013 High Definition.

0:01 - 0:03 - “We’re really puzzled.”

0:04 - “Here at Gingrich Productions...”

WAT?

Tell me more about Gingrich Productions:

"Gingrich Productions is a multimedia production company based in Washington, DC, featuring the work of Newt and Callista Gingrich. Together, Newt and Callista host and produce historical and public policy documentaries, write books and newsletters, give speeches, record audio books, produce photographic essays, and make television and radio appearances."

Jay and Bey better watch out.

Okay... back to the matter at hand.

View Entire List ›

On Monday, a frustrated Obama weighs in on IRS and Benghazi.

Via: Charles Dharapak, File / AP

WASHINGTON — Angry Obama was back at the mics Monday.

Just weeks after a frustrated President Obama stepped to a lectern and insisted he still has "the juice" to get legislation through Congress, a forceful President Obama met the press to try to shut down two stories that threaten to derail his second-term agenda.

Obama is known for not showing a lot of emotion publicly, but lately he's been much more expressive as he tries to corral a polarized Congress into acting the way he wants. On Monday, he was forceful in his condemnation of reported IRS targeting of conservative groups with extra scrutiny and angry over Republican attacks on his administration's handling of Benghazi.

Congress is currently obsessed with both stories, and political operatives are already lining up to talk about how they'll influence the 2014 midterm election and Obama's political power.

At a joint press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron where he took only two questions, Obama tried to shut the door on both the IRS and Benghazi stories with passionate answers. The Benghazi accusations offend him deeply, Obama said — and the IRS allegations make him sick.

Obama said he first learned of the IRS story Friday in news reports, the way the rest of the country learned of it. After both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill demanded a full accounting of the IRS' actions, Obama said he too was deeply concerned.

"I'm not going to comment on [the IRS inspector general's] findings prematurely, but I can tell you that if you've got the IRS operating in anything less than a neutral and non-partisan way, then that is outrageous. It is contrary to our traditions, and people have to be held accountable, and it's got to be fixed," he said. "So we'll wait and see what exactly all the details and the facts are. But I've got no patience with it, I will not tolerate it, and we will make sure we find out exactly what happened with this."

Obama's IRS answer probably won't satisfy Republicans demanding a public apology from the president and insisting the story indicates Obama's White House is run like Nixon's. But the president put himself on the same page with elected officials of all political stripes Monday who demanded to know more about what happened at the IRS and the firing of those responsible for any malfeasance.

On Benghazi, the president was much more partisan, condemning Republicans for, he said, trying to score political points off the deaths of U.S. diplomats at the American compound in the Libyan city last year.

"The whole issue of talking points, frankly, has been a sideshow. Immediately after this event happened, we were clear who exactly carried it out, how it had occurred, what the motivations were ... nobody understood exactly what was taking place during the course of those first few days," Obama said.

"There's no there there," Obama added, speaking of the talking points.

Clearly frustrated by the ongoing Benghazi push in Congress, Obama said Republicans are trying to damage him rather than investigate the deaths of American diplomatic workers.

"The whole thing defies logic, and the fact that this keeps on getting churned out frankly has a lot to do with political motivations," he said. He referred to Republican attacks on Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice as well as other members of the president's national security team. Republicans have "used it for fundraising and, frankly, if anybody out there wants to actually focus on how we make sure something like this doesn't happen again, I am happy to get their advice."

"We dishonor [diplomats willing to serve in dangerous roles] when we turn things like this into a political circus," Obama added.

Obama's Benghazi answers aren't likely to calm Republican nerves, either, but the president hopes that by showing a little emotion he can quiet down some of the noise on Benghazi and the IRS threatening to drown out the rest of his agenda.

A lame joke about cricket is met with a lame joke about baseball. The proverbial tumbleweed bounces through a joint press conference with Obama and Cameron.

View Video ›

WASHINGTON — Isn't pointing out the complicated rules of Britain's and America's respective bat-and-ball sports hilarious?

No — not really.

Both President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron drew silence from a room full of journalists Monday when they tried to joke their way through the opening of a joint press conference. It was an awkward moment from two men who have proven adept at making jokes from the lectern in the past.

Obama mocked cricket as being difficult to comprehend. Cameron mocked baseball for the same reason.

Twitter was not impressed.

"Crickets for that cricket joke," wrote the Huffington Post's Jon Ward.

There was some substance at the press conference, even though each man took only one question. But there were not a lot of laughs.

Reuters thinks so, and says in its caption that this wire photo shows a “tear.”

Via: JIM BOURG / Reuters

The Photo Description

Via: JIM BOURG / Reuters

View Entire List ›

“We’re being told one thing when another thing is actually happening.”

View Video ›

The Blaze's Glenn Beck told his radio listeners on Monday morning that the recent revelations about IRS targeting conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, the events surrounding the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, the April 15th terrorist bombings in Boston, and a Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the government share a common thread of lies and cover-ups:

I want you to know, the IRS story, the Benghazi story, and the Boston bombings—and more importantly the Muslim cover up, the Muslim Brotherhood cover up— they're all connected. They're all connected because they all have the same thing; we're being told one thing when another thing is actually happening.

Former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman claimed the IRS was not targeting the tea party for extra scrutiny in March 2012.

View Video ›

Via:

In March 2012, then-Commissioner of the IRS Douglas Shulman told members of Congress that the agency was not targeting tea party groups for heightened scrutiny. Shulman was responding to questions raised by lawmakers who said they had received complaints from constituents involved in tea party organizations who were upset with their treatment.

"Yes, I can give you assurances — as you know, we pride ourselves on being a nonpolitical, nonpartisan organization," Shulman said. "Me and our chief counsel are the only presidential appointees, and I have a five-year term that runs through presidential elections just so we will have none of that kind of political intervention into things that we do."

Shulman, who was appointed to a five-year term by President Bush, left the IRS in November 2012.

The federal government, working for you! And your one breast implant.

You could own an entire federal building in Montana.

Via: gsaauctions.gov

You can pass your own regulations in this old hearing room!

Via: gsaauctions.gov

You can admire the government commissioned artwork in the lobby.

Via: gsaauctions.gov

View Entire List ›

The seizure is believed to be part of a leaks investigation related to a May 2012 Associated Press story about a foiled terror plot.

Eric Holder

Via: Win McNamee / Getty Images

From the report:

The government would not say why it sought the records. U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have leaked information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot.

That May 2012 story attributed the thwarted plan in Yemen to CIA intervention, thereby revealing that the CIA had knowledge of the al-Qaeda affiliate's activities. CIA Director John Brennan later called the leak an "unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information."

AP CEO Gary Pruitt's scathing letter of protest to Attorney General Eric Holder is below:

View Entire List ›

The vote was 37-30. Gov. Mark Dayton will sign the bill, which will go into effect Aug. 1, making Minnesota the 12th state, plus DC, with marriage equality.

Via: @jhiscock

Minnesota will become the 12th state in the country, plus DC, to allow same-sex couples to marry, following a 37-30 vote of the state's Senate on Monday.

Gov. Mark Dayton is expected to sign the bill at 5 p.m. Central Time Tuesday. The bill, passed by the House last week, will take effect Aug. 1 — the same day Rhode Island's marriage equality law takes effect.

The state's sole out gay senator, Sen. Scott Dibble, spoke in support of the bill he had backed.

Of the legislature's prior decision to push forward the vote on a constitutional amendment banning gay couples from marriage, "I felt excluded," he says of that decision. He added, though, "In an odd way, I'm kind of grateful, because we had an amazing conversations, Minnesotans," that he said led to Monday's vote for marriage equality.

"Today, we have the power, the awesome, humbling power, to make dreams come true, he said. "We will be removing barriers to the full joy life has to offer." Of himself and his husband, Richard, whom he married in California in 2008, he says, "I've met the person I can't live without."

Referencing past leaders on the issue, including the late out gay Sen. Allan Spear, Dibble said, "We have an awesome responsibility, and it's humbling to be in this chamber right now."

The lead Republican supporter of the bill, Sen. Branden Petersen, spoke during the closing arguments about his reasons for working with Dibble on the bill.

"I stand here, quite honestly, more uncertain of my future in this place than I ever have, but when I walk out of this chamber today … I will be on the side of liberty," Petersen said.

In supporting the bill, Deputy Majority Leader Jeff Hayden discussed his thoughts that marriage equality, though contentious Monday, would not long be an issue. When the legislature returns next year, he said, "We'll find something else to disagree about, but this won't be one of them."

Noting that he, who is black, has a wife who is white, Hayden invoked Loving v. Virginia and the memory of the Lovings, whose marriage led to the Supreme Court case that struck down laws against interracial marriage as unconstitutional.

Likewise with Sen. Patricia Torres Ray, DFL, who spoke about why she as a Catholic immigrant "stands in strong support of this bill." Noting that she had lesbian neighbors who had a child about the same time that she did, and that they raised their children together, she said they asked whether she would support marriage equality and that she said she would.

"I hope I get invited to their wedding now. I hope we vote green," Torres Ray said.

Cutting forward to Monday's vote on marriage equality for same-sex couples, Hayden concluded, "Think deeply about your commitment to your family, and please, please vote yes. It will be OK."

There was an extended debate over expanding the religious exemption provision passed by the House, which failed 26-41. The amendment was brought by Sen. Paul Gazelka.

In opposing the bill, Sen. Mary Kiffmeyer said that people who voted no on the Minnesota marriage amendment last fall were "lied to" because they were told nothing would change if they voted no on the proposed amendment.

Sen. Dan Hall, later speaking against the bill, expressed his fears about the legislation, saying, "Next, I believe we will be forced to believe what we don't."

Providing some of the most heated rhetoric of the debate, Hall said, "People say, 'Don't you want to be on the right side of history?' The truth is I'm more concerned about being on the right side of eternity."

"It will hurt businesses and confuse children … more than any issue since the Civil War. We must not pass this bill," Hall said.

Judiciary Committee Chair Ron Latz confronted the opposition directly, saying, "God made gays. And god made gays capable of loving other people of the same gender. Who are we to quibble with god's intentions?"

"We are here, members, ultimately to lead," he said. "Do not vote out of fear. ... Vote out of your own personal strength ... for the well being of the people around us and of society."

Final Senate Vote For The Marriage Equality Bill:

Minnesota's Sole Out Gay Senator, Sen. Scott Dibble, Speaking For The Bill:

View Entire List ›

“The First Amendment is first for a reason. If the Obama Administration is going after reporters’ phone records, they better have a damned good explanation,” Boehner spokesman says.

Via: Alex Wong / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Democrats and Republicans alike Monday criticized the Obama administration's unprecedented decision to collect Associated Press phone records in an effort to identify a leak, accusing the administration of engaging in a pattern of intimidation.

The AP late Monday afternoon reported that the Department of Justice had collected phone records for numerous reporters in Washington, New York and other areas — including phones in the United States Capitol and their personal phones.

The story drew a quick and angry response from Capitol Hill. In a statement, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa slammed the administration.

"This is obviously disturbing. Coming within a week of revelations that the White House lied to the American people about the Benghazi attacks and the IRS targeted conservative Americans for their political beliefs, Americans should take notice that top Obama Administration officials increasingly see themselves as above the law and emboldened by the belief that they don't have to answer to anyone. I will work with my fellow House Chairmen on an appropriate response to Obama Administration officials," Issa said.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy was more tempered, but said he finds the allegations troubling.

"The burden is always on the government when they go after private information – especially information regarding the press or its confidential sources. I want to know more about this case, but on the face of it, I am concerned that the government may not have met that burden. I am very troubled by these allegations and want to hear the Government's explanation," Leahy said.

Ranking Member Chuck Grassley, also was careful in criticism. "The department's regulations state that prosecutors should obtain the Attorney General's personal sign off when a free press is at stake, so the Obama administration needs to be transparent with its rationale for such a sweeping intrusion and detail whether the process outlined in regulation and the U.S. Attorney's manual were followed and justified for national security," Grassley said Monday evening.

House Speaker John Boehner's spokesman Michael Steel denounced the move. "The First Amendment is first for a reason. If the Obama Administration is going after reporters' phone records, they better have a damned good explanation," Steel said.

Likewise, Douglas Heye, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, was equally critical. "Whether it is secretly targeting patriotic Americans participating in the electoral progress or reporters exercising their First Amendment rights, these new revelations suggest a pattern of intimidation by the Obama Administration," Heye said.

Attorney General Eric Holder has had at best a difficult relationship with Congress, and has been the subject of contempt proceedings in the House. Monday's revelations are almost certain to reignite demands for Holder to step down.

The Department of Justice sought to defend itself in a statement from the U.S. Attorney's office, saying, "We take seriously our obligations to follow all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations. Those regulations require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain information through alternative means before even considering a subpoena for the phone records of a member of the media."

"Because we value the freedom of the press, we are always careful and deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the public interest in the free flow of information and the public interest in the fair and effective administration of our criminal laws," the statement added.

[UPDATE: This article has been updated to include further response from other members of Congress. 5/13/13.]

So, about those AP phone records…

At the 2013 White House Correspondents Association Dinner

"And we also saw journalists at their best — especially those who took the time to wade upstream through the torrent of digital rumors to chase down leads and verify facts and painstakingly put the pieces together to inform, and to educate, and to tell stories that demanded to be told.

If anyone wonders, for example, whether newspapers are a thing of the past, all you needed to do was to pick up or log on to papers like the Boston Globe. (Applause.) When their communities and the wider world needed them most, they were there making sense of events that might at first blush seem beyond our comprehension. And that’s what great journalism is, and that’s what great journalists do. And that’s why, for example, Pete Williams’ new nickname around the NBC newsroom is '"Big Papi.'"

Via: Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

His Statement On "World Press Freedom Day in 2012"

"On this World Press Freedom Day, the United States honors the role of a free press in creating sustainable democracies and prosperous societies. We pay special tribute to those journalists who have sacrificed their lives, freedom or personal well-being in pursuit of truth and justice.

Over sixty years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed the right of every person “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers,” that right remains in peril in far too many countries.

While this year has seen some positive developments, like the release of journalists along with hundreds of other political prisoners in Burma, arbitrary arrests and detentions of journalists continue across the globe. As we condemn recent detentions of journalists like Mazen Darwish, a leading proponent of free speech in Syria, and call for their immediate release, we must not forget others like blogger Dieu Cay, whose 2008 arrest coincided with a mass crackdown on citizen journalism in Vietnam, or journalist Dawit Isaak who has been held incommunicado by the Eritrean government for over a decade without formal charge or trial.

Threats and harassment, like that endured by Ecuadorian journalist Cesar Ricaurte and exiled Belarusian democratic activist Natalya Radzina, and indirect censorship, including through restrictions on freedom of movement like those imposed on Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez, continue to have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and the press. We call on all governments to protect the ability of journalists, bloggers, and dissidents to write and speak freely without retribution and to stop the use of travel bans and other indirect forms of censorship to suppress the exercise of these universal rights.

In some cases, it is not just governments threatening the freedom of the press. It is also criminal gangs, terrorists, or political factions. No matter the cause, when journalists are intimidated, attacked, imprisoned, or disappeared, individuals begin to self-censor, fear replaces truth, and all of our societies suffer. A culture of impunity for such actions must not be allowed to persist in any country.

This year, across the Middle East, North Africa and beyond, the world witnessed not only these perils, but also the promise that a free press holds for fostering innovative, successful, and stable democracies. On this World Press Freedom Day, we call upon all governments to seize that promise by recognizing the vital role of a free press and taking the necessary steps to create societies in which independent journalists can operate freely and without fear."

Via: Alex Wong / Getty Images

At the 2012 White House Correspondents Association Dinner

Tonight, we remember journalists such as Anthony Shadid and Marie Colvin who made the ultimate sacrifice as they sought to shine a light on some of the most important stories of our time. So whether you are a blogger or a broadcaster, whether you take on powerful interests here at home or put yourself in harm’s way overseas, I have the greatest respect and admiration for what you do. I know sometimes you like to give me a hard time — and I certainly like to return the favor but I never forget that our country depends on you. You help protect our freedom, our democracy, and our way of life.

Via: J. Scott Applewhite / AP

At the 2011 White House Correspondents Association Dinner

"You know, in the last months, we've seen journalists threatened, arrested, beaten, attacked, and in some cases even killed simply for doing their best to bring us the story, to give people a voice, and to hold leaders accountable. And through it all, we've seen daring men and women risk their lives for the simple idea that no one should be silenced, and everyone deserves to know the truth.

That's what you do. At your best that's what journalism is. That's the principle that you uphold. It is always important, but it's especially important in times of challenge, like the moment that America and the world is facing now.

So I thank you for your service and the contributions that you make. And I want to close by recognizing not only your service, but also to remember those that have been lost as a consequence of the extraordinary reporting that they've done over recent weeks. They help, too, to defend our freedoms and allow democracy to flourish."

Via: Jason Reed / Reuters

View Entire List ›

A new critique emerges. Fear of a narrow new government power at a scary moment.

Less than four months into President Barack Obama's second term, the hazy perception of a government reaching further and further into individuals' lives in an era of broad new technological surveillance and power has turned into what may be the defining critique of his Administration.

President Obama, elected with the new technology of microtargeting, is now in danger of a new perception: That he's the president of microtargeted drone warfare and government surveillance. This is a different critique from the loud and ultimately unpersuasive one Republicans have long made, that initiatives like a health care overhaul, tax increases, and background checks for gun buyers represent a broad, unprecedented, and out-of-control new assertion of power by the American government. The power Obama is now under fire for asserting isn't broad: It is narrow, even personal. Specific groups and individual reporters were targeted by extremely powerful government agencies. Two specific American citizens were personally targeted in Yemen.

Elements of this approach, Obama's friends and foes agree, come from the top. Obama is personally obsessed with leaks, to the extent that his second chief of staff, Bill Daley, took as one of his central mandates a major and ill-fated plumbing expedition. Attorney General Eric Holder, who pressed the leak policy, is a trusted Obama insider.

Today, the day the president denounced the Internal Revenue Service's "outrageous" focus on Tea Party groups, the Associated Press revealed a Justice Department operation targeting its reporters' telephone records. These are not identical: The White House is referring questions about the AP phone records to the Justice Department. It remains unclear who knew about the IRS actions.

But the AP records case, in particular, was the American government's low-tech answer to an increasingly eyebrow-raising series of hacks and leaks that have been central to recent years' of news: Wikileaks, overseas leaks, phone hacking in the UK, and Bloomberg spying on its customers. And it was the government version of the new political technologies that have alternately inspired and unsettled members of both parties, big data approaches that replace the old tactic of broadly targeting vast groups toward the new one of approaching voters one at a time based on sophisticate technical analyses and predictions of their political views and plans.

The Justice Department's subpoena of phone records in a leak case probably shouldn't be a surprise: This Administration has been remarkably, unusually aggressive in targeting leaks — a policy that has surprised and pleased some critics, while alienating traditional alles. But, paired with questions about the IRS and a broader edginess over pervasive surveillance, it's a sleeper issue that seems poised to break outside its small circle of reporters and advocates.

This reaction, and this new fear, is in no small part the Administration's fault. Obama has always sought to control elements of politics that couldn't be controlled, and has an obvious affection for the surgical strike. But it also taps perfectly into the fears of the moment, in which futuristic visions of surveillance, hacking, impersonation, and drone war have become everyday powers of corporations, civilians, and the government.

President Obama is not without a political defense: His Republican predecessor, in a very different climate, authorized a massive warrantless wiretapping program, and battled his own Attorney General to force it through. But if the old Republican Party has little credibility on the questions of civil liberties and individual autonomy, a new one — which joined, at first hesitantly, in Senator Rand Paul's filibuster on drone policy, is perfectly positioned to makes its new challenge to the White House and the president.

In wake of IRS targeting of conservative activists, “I don’t think Republicans have any fresh incentive to revisit” campaign finance reform, a Senate Democratic leadership aide acknowledged.

NEW YORK, NY - FEBRUARY 04: U.S. Sen.

Via: Spencer Platt / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The widening scandal surrounding the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative groups during the 2012 election is not only threatening to derail Obama's short-term agenda, but it could also take a key fundraising tool off the table for Democrats in the 2014 race: campaign finance reform.

Democrats in the Senate had planned on once again pushing for a new round of stricter campaign finance reporting reforms, ostensibly aimed at limiting the impacts of SuperPacs on campaigns.

If the prospects of passage in the Senate were dim, now Democrats say it's all but certain legislation won't pass.

"I don't think Republicans have any fresh incentive to revisit this," a Senate Democratic leadership aide acknowledged.

And that could be bad news for Democrats, who have used reform as an effective tool for revving up their base and, perhaps ironically, raising money.

In many ways, campaign finance reform is the "judicial activism" of the left: an issue that rarely sees any actual movement in Congress or the executive branch but which is a standard part of Democratic stump speeches and fundraising pitches.

Denunciations of the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, which unleashed Super PACS like Crossroads GPS onto the political scene, are common in Democratic rhetoric. But the ruling has had it's upside for Democrats: in addition to creating primary problems for Senate Republicans, it's created a convenient "evil corporate interest" straw man for the party to attack.

And those arguments are popular not only with the party's base but also with donors.

Officially, Democrats insist the scandal, in which IRS workers specifically targeted groups with "Tea Party" and "Patriot" in their names for extensive review, should give reform efforts a shot in the arm.

"There needs to be more clarity in the law regarding the activities of tax exempt organizations along with greater disclosure and transparency. We must overturn Citizens United, which has exacerbated the challenges posed by some of these so-called 'social welfare' organizations," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement Monday.

"And we must take appropriate action, without any delay or hesitation, to ensure that the IRS remains an impartial agency for America's taxpayers and our nation's families and businesses," she added.

But privately, Democrats acknowledged it will ultimately hurt their ability to move any sort of legislation.

In fact, the scandal has scuttled a long planned hearing into the activities of so-called 501(c)4 organizations like Crossroads.

"We had tentatively planned a hearing on that issue for June. After Friday's announcement that the IRS, to the extent it has been enforcing the law, may have done so in ways that singled out some groups for special scrutiny, we have determined that the subcommittee should investigate that additional issue as well," Sens. Carl Levin and John McCain, the chair and ranking member of a key Senate subcommittee, announced Monday.

"As a result, we have decided to delay our hearing in order to examine this issue carefully. We will continue to work on a bipartisan basis to ensure the integrity of our political process and of enforcement efforts," the two lawmakers explained.

Still, the aide argued that Democrats could turn lemons into lemonade. "There is no standard for judging when a nonprofit … oversteps its bounds. That's one thing that could be proposed as a reform," the aide explained.

Indeed, Sen. Charles Schumer, argued in a statement that new guidelines need to be established to avoid future problems.

"If the IRS showed political bias in scrutinizing these nonprofit groups, heads should roll at the agency. Congress should fully investigate this potential abuse of power and specific reforms must be adopted to prevent this from ever happening again. As we proposed last year, the IRS must adopt neutral, objective criteria for reviewing applications from groups seeking tax-exempt status and make them clear to the public and to groups that apply," Schumer sdaid.

"As long as the IRS guidelines remain murky, the risk remains that the agency will enforce the law arbitrarily or, worse, based on political motives. And that is unacceptable," he added.

News that the DOJ secretly obtained AP phone records has left coming around to the idea of a scandal-filled second term. “Ugh,” says one activist.

Via: Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Revelations that the Department of Justice secretly obtained the phone records of Associated Press reporters has progressives — who have been pushing hard against outrage over Benghazi and IRS scrutiny of conservative groups — finally using the "s" word: scandal.

When one progressive activist heard the news Monday, he just shook his head and said, "Ugh."

"People looking for an Obama scandal, this one spying on the AP is the first legit one," tweeted Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas. He expanded on the point in an email to BuzzFeed.

"Spying on the media is always a scandal, no matter who is in the White House," he said. "Beyond that, I'll wait to see how the investigations play out, and how the administration responds."

Activists reached by BuzzFeed in the hours after the DOJ story broke had similar reactions, though they kept their opinions anonymous. The consensus: The White House has some explaining to do.

Progressives have been critical of the White House throughout President Obama's term in office, publicly taking on the administration over the environment and budget issues. But for the most part, the left stands with the president against Republican assault.

That may change as the phone record story unfolds. The administration shouldn't expect the left's support just because Republicans jump on the story, the activists said.

"To the extent that progressives unite around a foundational principle, it's that government should be a source for justice and equality," a former leader at an influential progressive group said. "Interfering with the Fourth Estate is a big no-no for progressives, and there will be many willing to put aside their partisan fealty in favor of a principled argument for principled government."

As Republicans point to Benghazi, the IRS scrutiny story, and now the phone record seizure as mounting evidence that the Obama administration is a scandal-prone mess, some on the left are starting to see a White House, in the words of one activist, "out of control" in the second term.

"It's the drip-drop, drip-drop over the last few days," the activist said. "What's hard about it is, all of these stories cling to this same thing. That's the problem here: We know Benghazi is a false controversy, and the IRS is the result of some folks at a lower-level making some wrong choices, but at the end of the day all three of these together paint the picture of an executive branch that needs to be dialed back."

The swirling stories are an example of Republicans in Congress failing to do their job as checks on the White House, the activist said.

"What we see at the end of the day is a failure of those who do have the chance to [dial it back] to actually focus on the things that matter," he said.

“It’s appalling, it’s the most disgusting use of authority we’ve seen in a while,” said Rep. Trey Radel.

Congressman Trey Radel

Via: radel.house.gov

Rep. Trey Radel was stunned to hear that the Department of Justice had seized two months of phone records from reporters and editors at the Associated Press. But he wasn't just thinking like a Congressman; Radel had a long career as a journalist, working first as a television reporter and then buying and selling a small newspaper in Florida.

"As a journalist there's only one thing you need to earn and keep as a network or as an individual journalist and that's trust. It's what keeps people coming back to you, it keeps people talking to you and that's the key component that separates the solid journalists that are able to do their job and everyone else," Radel told BuzzFeed in an interview. "This compromises that trust between a journalist and anyone from a whistleblower to an off the record source."

"It's appalling, it's the most disgusting use of authority we've seen in a while," Radel said. "For me, it's just scary."

Radel, a freshman Republican from Florida, argued the AP phone records scandal is only the latest in a series of events demonstrating a pattern of abuse of government authority and resources by the Obama administration for political gain.

Pointing to revelations that the IRS had targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny and allegations that the State Department sought to cover up terrorist involvement in an attack in Libya, Radel argued the administration has "developed a culture of protecting this administration politically at any and all cost."

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, who once worked as an editorial writer for the Orange County Register and served as a speechwriter and special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, said he "wasn't surprised" by the actions of the DOJ but it could have lingering consequences.

"The journalists are the first ones who get stung whenever there is an abuse of power. If the DOJ is violating the confidentiality of journalists, which hurts them from doing their job, than there are problems for the rest of us because they've neutered their accountability," Rohrabacher said.

“We are not involved in decisions made in connection with criminal investigations,” Carney said.

Via: Win McNamee / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The White House is trying to put some distance between the president and the latest story to rock Washington: revelations that the Department of Justicesecretly obtained phone records from Associated Press reporters.

Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said in a statement Monday evening that the phone records story was purely a DOJ affair. White House officials didn't even know about it until they read press accounts Monday afternoon, Carney said.

"Other than press reports, we have no knowledge of any attempt by the Justice Department to seek phone records of the AP. We are not involved in decisions made in connection with criminal investigations, as those matters are handled independently by the Justice Department," Carney said in a statement given to the press pool traveling along with President Obama on fundraising trips to New York Monday. "Any questions about an ongoing criminal investigation should be directed to the Department of Justice."