Thread: May 16, 2014 4:00 AM The Emerging Junta The IRS’s illegal actions — and its efforts

Will the Lois Lerner 'Whacko' Emails Trigger Probe By Special Prosecutor?
Special Prosecutor?


by Fox News Insider // Jul 31 2014 // 11:35am
As seen on Fox and Friends

Judge Andrew Napolitano brought his legal analysis to the Fox and Friends couch this morning, reacting to the newly released emails that show Lois Lerner referring to conservatives as "whackos" and "a**holes."

He explained that Lerner should have been taken off the job once her political opinions became known, especially since she was working on tax-exempt status applications from Tea Party groups.

"If a litigant came before me that I hated or couldn't stand or I had some interest in the outcome of the case, I have an affirmative obligation to get off the case. She should have been given another job. Her bosses should have known about it. A political IRS is reprehensible and tyrannical and the president did nothing about it," he said.

Could this be the development that prompts the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate Lerner? The judge answered that the only "saving grace" is that the statute of limitations is seven years, so President Obama's successor could still pursue the case.

The hosts also asked for the judge's thoughts on the House lawsuit against Obama and the possibility of impeachment, which John Boehner has said is not up for discussion right now.

Napolitano said impeaching President Obama would be "far more constitutionally appropriate" than in the case of Bill Clinton. Calling Obama the "most lawless president in modern times," the judge said even though it might not be politically popular, it is a "remedy" that should be used against Obama.

He believes the president has abandoned his oath to enforce laws, instead trying to rewrite laws due to opposition from Congress.

Much more on the "I-word" in today's column from Judge Napolitano on FoxNews.com and coming up this afternoon at 4p ET on Your World.

Earlier in the show, the judge sat down with Brian Kilmeade to analyze a federal judge's ruling that D.C.'s handgun ban is unconstitutional. The ruling was later stayed and may now go through the lengthy appeals process.

Video at link below



http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/07/31/will-lois-lerner-whacko-emails-trigger-probe-special-prosecutor

I'm Proud to be Called a Crazy A**hole Conservative by Lois Lerner

Posted 6 hours ago by Gary DeMar

We all knew Lois Lerner had something to hide. Now some of her emails confirm it. The following is from Politico:
“Ex-IRS official Lois Lerner refers to some Republicans as ‘ass-holes’ and ‘crazies’ in an exchange from 2012, according to emails released by House Republicans on Wednesday.

“‘Maybe we are through if there are that many ass-holes,’ the former head of the IRS tax-exempt division wrote in an exchange with an unnamed non-IRS official, dated Nov. 9, 2012. Later she added: ‘We don’t need to worry about alien terrorists. It’s our own crazies that will take us down.’”

I’m proud to be considered crazy by the likes of Lois Lerner and other leftists.

Once a person or movement resorts to name calling, you know the debate is over and the name callers have lost. But because they are in power, they can maintain the façade that their policies are morally right, politically true, and constitutionally sound.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Who are the real crazies?

1. Those that believe killing unborn babies is a moral and constitutional right.
2. Those who believe one man sticking his penis in the rectum of another man is rational behavior and don’t know the difference between a real asshole and a vagina.
3. Those who believe that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right based on the 14^th Amendment that was written at a time when sodomy was considered a crime.
4. Those who believe that spending our nation into debt will grow the economy.
5. Those who believe that giving amnesty to people who broke the law will somehow give them respect for the law.
6. Those who believe a 2700-page healthcare law, a law that keeps changing without the rule of law, will make healthcare better and cheaper.
7. Those who believe that giving millions of dollars in bonuses to incompetent VA employees who have not done their jobs well will fix the agency.
8. Those who believe that global warming is man-made and are afraid to debate those who have sound scientific evidence that it’s the normal cycles of nature.
9. Those who believe that it’s right to force businesses to pay for a woman’s birth control, especially abortifacients.
10. Those who want to force their employer to pay for birth control while donating $100,000 to her political campaign so she can vote for more laws to take my hard earned money from me.
11. Those who believe that Cuba has a better healthcare system than America.
12. Those who believe that changing the name of the Washington Redskins will help Native Americans in the same way that naming streets after Martin Luther King, Jr. has helped blacks.
13. Those who believe disarming lawful citizens will stop criminals from being criminals.
14. Liberals who push “climate change” nonsense as a world killer while flying around the world in private jets and living in big carbon footprint multi-million dollar homes.
15. Those who believe there is no liberal media bias when liberal politicians admit that they work with the liberal media to get favorable reporting.

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/16483/i...PAYepdBlXLx.99




All I know is these fools are as "stupid as is" and clearly "is as stupid does"!!!!! And oh Yea, I will wear the A-Hole badge proudly!!! And when it comes to the crazy part I will reserve that for them!!!

Trey Gowdy Eloquently Demolishes Democrat-Invited Law Prof Over IRS Scandal

Trey Gowdy grills another slimy character who doesn’t like to answer questions directly, even when they are obvious.

video at link below

Read more at http://conservativevideos.com/2014/0...C6aikR4eqMR.99

IRS head takes the Fifth, refuses to answer

They knew they were breaking the law




Who ordered it?

The e-mails have finally been released.

They knew they were breaking the law and they did it anyway.

The IRS was deliberately targeting specific groups

Interesting: They talked about taking their communications "off plan", in other words using non-trackable communications so they could continue their criminal enterprise without their activities being trackable.

The IRS crime family

Who takes the Fifth when testifying
to Congress?

Organized crimes bosses is
one group that comes to mind.

You can add IRS commissioners
to that list. The current head doesn't
want to talk about the agencies
blatantly criminal activity.

Video:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/27033.html

- Brasscheck TV

P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV with your
friends and colleagues.




Wake up America don't let this get swept under the rug and forgotten keep their feet to the fire..These officials are criminals and need to be charged with contempt and arrested.

Judicial Watch: DOJ Admits Lois Lerner’s Emails Do Exist on Gov’t Backup System


August 25, 2014 - 3:43 PM


By Curtis Kalin
Subscribe to Curtis Kalin RSS

Follow Curtis Kalin on Twitter

---

By Curtis Kalin
Subscribe to Curtis Kalin RSS

A Department of Justice attorney admitted that “lost” emails from Lois Lerner’s hard drive do exist on an emergency backup system, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said today.

Fitton made the bombshell declaration during an appearance on Fox News:

"The Department of Justice attorney told the Judicial Watch attorney on Friday that it turns out the federal government backs up all computer records in case something terrible happens in Washington and there is a catastrophe. So the government can continue operating. They say it would be too hard to go get Lois Lerner's e-mails from that back-up system.
"Everything we've been hearing about scratched hard drives, missing e-mails of Lois Lerner, other IRS officials, other officials in the Obama administration, it's all been a pack of malarkey. They could get these records but they don't want to and they haven't told anyone about it, frankly, until we were able to get it out of them on Friday. There's no such thing as Lois Lerner's missing e-mails. It's all been a big lie. They've been lying to the courts, to the American people and to Congress."

Lerner’s hard drive has been the focus of the ongoing scandal involving the improper targeting of conservative groups based on political ideology. House Republicans have subpoenaed all email correspondence between Lerner and other governmental entities, including the White House. Current IRS Commissioner John Koskinen testified before the House Government Oversight Committee in June that the emails during the key period when the targeting occurred were “lost” due to a hard drive crash in 2011.

Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for all “missing” records from the same time period at the IRS.
UPDATE: Judicial Watch has released a statement dubbing this a "jaw-dropping revelation" in the IRS scandal.

http://www.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/cu...-backup-system

IRS Destroyed Lois Lerner Blackberry After Congressional Inquiry Began, Never Searched It

Posted on August 26, 2014




Government doesn’t seem to have to obey the law.
Check it out:
According to the second round of IRS affidavits submitted to U.S. district court judge Emmett Sullivan, who is presiding over the lawsuit brought against the nation’s tax agency by watchdog group Judicial Watch, Inc., IRS technical analysts did not search Lois Lerner’s Blackberry for her allegedly “lost” e-mails — and the smartphone was destroyed after congressional investigation had begun.
Lerner’s government-issued laptop reportedly crashed in June 2011, at which time IRS analysts tried but failed to recover data, including e-mail communications, according to previous testimony. In his sworn declaration, Stephen Manning – deputy chief information officer for strategy and modernization with the IRS Information Technology business unit – reports that “there is no record of any attempt by any IRS IT employee to recover data from any Blackberry device assigned to Lois Lerner in response to the Congressional investigations or this litigation.” This despite the fact that Lerner had been in possession of a government-issued Blackberry since November 2009, according to the statement of Thomas J. Kane – deputy associate chief counsel for procedure and administration within the IRS Office of Chief Counsel – and it would likely have hosted at least some of Lerner’s electronic communications.
Moreover, IRS documents provided by Kane show that Lerner’s Blackberry “was removed or wiped clean of any sensitive or proprietary information and removed as scrap for disposal in June 2012.” By that time, a congressional investigation was well under way. In March of that year then-IRS chief Douglas Shulman was questioned by Congress about the targeting of conservative groups, and in April Republican congressman sent questions to Lerner about the targeting. Lerner responded on April 26.


Continue Reading on www.nationalreview.com ..

video at link below.



Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2014/08/...pXMpMf4X4Rj.99

IRS lawyer: Lois Lerner's Blackberry deliberately destroyed after start of congressional probe



By Doug McKelway
Published August 27, 2014FoxNews.com


Never autoplay videos

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3750492401001


Lois Lerner’s Blackberry was intentionally destroyed after Congress had begun its probe into IRS targeting of conservative groups, a senior IRS lawyer acknowledged in a sworn declaration.
Thomas Kane, Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel for the IRS, wrote in the declaration, part of a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch against the IRS, that the Blackberry was "removed or wiped clean of any sensitive or proprietary information and removed as scrap for disposal in June 2012."
That date - June 2012 - is significant because by that time, ex-IRS official Lerner had already been summoned before congressional staffers who interviewed her about reports of the IRS' targeting of conservative groups.
"We had already talked to her. Our personal staff and Oversight Committee staff had sat down with Ms. Lerner and confronted her about information we were getting from conservative groups in the state of Ohio and around the country," Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told Fox News.
"If you intentionally destroy evidence, that is a crime. If you make a statement in court saying the evidence is not available and it is, that is also a crime," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.
The IRS did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment.
News of the Blackberry's destruction followed Monday’s statement by Judicial Watch that Justice Department attorneys said in a Friday phone call the federal government backs up all computer records to ensure continuity of government in event of a catastrophe, but retrieving the Lerner emails would simply be "too onerous."
An administration official told Fox News Monday night that Judicial Watch misinterpreted the Friday phone call. "There was no new back-up system described last week to Judicial Watch," he said. "Government lawyers who spoke to Judicial Watch simply referred to the same email retention policy that Commissioner (John) Koskinen had described in his Congressional testimony."
But Cleta Mitchell, an attorney who represents other conservative groups suing the IRS, cited a whistleblower who bolsters Judicial Watch's interpretation.
"I received information from a former Department of Homeland Security official who had security clearances. He just retired in April," Mitchell said. "He contacted me and he contacted Judicial Watch and some members of Congress and said there is backup material."
The dueling versions are not likely to sit well with District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, who is presiding over Judicial Watch’s lawsuit against the IRS. "He gave the IRS not one, but two opportunities in court filings with him to tell him where they were," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. "There was no mention of this backup system to the court at that time."
According to Sidney Powell, author of "Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice," Sullivan is known to scold government lawyers who withhold evidence.
Powell said Sullivan appointed an independent counsel to investigate DOJ's prosecution of now deceased Republican Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska.Sullivan described the Stevens prosecution as "the worst case of misconduct he'd seen in 25 years."
Sullivan also said, "When government does not meet its obligations to turn over evidence, the system falters."


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...ssional-probe/

Judicial Watch Unearths Jaw-dropping IRS Scandal Bombshell!

How's this for a jaw-dropping revelation? One week ago today, Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys for the IRS finally admitted in a phone conversation to Judicial Watch that Lois Lerner's emails weren't "missing" after all! No, they were backed up alright. But the government is now saying it's just too much trouble to go looking for them.

The Obama administration attorneys said that this back-up system would be too onerous to search. The DOJ attorneys also acknowledged that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) is investigating this back-up system.

We obviously disagree that disclosing the emails as required would be onerous, and plan to raise this new development with Judge Sullivan. As columnist George Will commented on Fox News (the only network covering this major story):

I can just hardly wait until the IRS lawyers go into that courtroom and tell the judge that it would be too onerous to stop obstructing justice in this case. That's a really interesting defense. You know, Lily Tomlin, the comedian, used to have a character, the Bag Lady, who said, "no matter how cynical you get you, just can't keep up." And that's the way it was with the IRS. Remember this thing began in deceit with Lois Lerner planting a question to reveal this getting ahead of the Inspector General of the IRS report. Then there were a few rogue agents in Cincinnati.

The IRS is the most intrusive and potentially punitive institution of the federal government and it is a law enforcement institution and it is off the rails and it is now thoroughly corrupted. People are saying, "well, the Justice Department can take care of this." There is a reason why Jack Kennedy had his brother [as] Attorney General. There is a reason why Richard Nixon had his campaign manager John Mitchell [as] Attorney General. It is an inherently political office and it can't be trusted in cases like this. This is a jaw-dropping revelation. So there you have it. The Obama administration has been lying to the American people about Lois Lerner's missing emails! There are no "missing" Lois Lerner emails - nor missing emails of any of the other top IRS or other government officials whose emails seem to be disappearing at increasingly alarming rate. All the focus on missing hard drives has been a diversion. The Obama administration has known all along where the email records could be - but dishonestly withheld this information. You can bet we are going to ask the court for immediate assistance in cutting through this massive obstruction of justice. We are going to raise this new development with Judge Sullivan, who is increasingly losing patience with the Obama administration's gamesmanship. In fact, this latest discovery was precipitated by Judge Sullivan's independent inquiry into the administration's bogus claims that the data was unrecoverable. The Justice Department is putting out anonymous statements saying we "misheard" what its lawyers said and that this is not new information about a back-up system. We didn't mishear anything and we have no doubt that the back-up system as described exists. But the existence of any back-up system was withheld from the court despite two orders (order 1, order 2) demanding specifically sworn declarations about where Lerner's emails may be residing and effort to obtain them. We asked if the IRS and DOJ would amend the sworn declarations and finally inform Judge Sullivan directly about this back up system. The answer, repeatedly, has been "no." Talk about stonewalling! Now, as you might imagine, our discovery has ignited a media firestorm. Last night I appeared on the Fox News Channel's Kelly File program to discuss the controversy. Forbes, Fox News, and The Washington Examiner were among the news outlets to jump on the story. Our stunning discovery has also prompted Congress to take aggressive action, reports Breitbart News: Monday on Fox News Channel's "On the Record With Greta Van Susteren," Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) discussed today's news reports that embattled IRS official Lois Lerner's emails about targeting Tea Party groups do in fact exist, despite IRS Commissioner John Koskinen testifying they had been destroyed. Issa said there is a "cover-up, delay, denial, even now there appears to be a false statement from the new IRS commissioner in which he said he moved heaven and Earth to get Lois Lerner's logs and e-mails." "We're going to call him back," Issa said. "This time I intend to call him back for a deposition behind closed doors, where we can ask him extensively what he knew and when he knew it. We can go through day by day, how much time he spent getting briefed for his hearings because he either lied under oath, or he chose not to know a critical fact. When he said heaven and earth was moved, and in fact somebody, many somebody knew that Lois Lerner's emails apparently do exist, and they simply haven't bothered to go get them from what they're calling disaster recovery documents." Here's another revelation from the documents that Rep. Issa is going to want to investigate - Lois Lerner's destroyed Blackberry. The news of the Blackberry destruction was only disclosed because Judge Sullivan, dissatisfied with prior IRS testimony, demanded more information from the IRS about other computer devices, such as Blackberrys or IPads. As first reported by Sidney Powell, a former DOJ attorney, wring for the New York Observer: The IRS filing in federal Judge Emmet Sullivan's court reveals shocking new information. The IRS destroyed Lerner's Blackberry AFTER it knew her computer had crashed and after a Congressional inquiry was well underway. As an IRS official declared under the penalty of perjury, the destroyed Blackberry would have contained the same emails (both sent and received) as Lois Lerner's hard drive. We all know by now that Lois Lerner's hard drive crashed in June 2011 and was destroyed by IRS. The emails of up to twenty other related IRS officials were missing in remarkably similar "crashes," leading many to speculate that Lois Lerner's Blackberry perhaps held the key. Now, the Observer can confirm that a year after the infamous hard drive crash, the IRS destroyed Ms. Lerner's Blackberry-and without making any effort to retain the emails from it. Judicial Watch attorney Ramona Cotca attended a court-ordered "meet and confer" related to the formerly "missing," and now too-tough-to-find emails this past Monday, August 25, in the chambers of Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola, who was appointed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to manage and assist in discussions between Judicial Watch and the IRS about how to obtain any missing records we're seeking through our FOIA lawsuit. Ramona tells me that the IRS sent five lawyers to this meeting. As for the results, we'll be seeking relief from Judge Sullivan as soon as we can. Judge Sullivan encouraged Judicial Watch to submit a request for limited discovery into the missing IRS records if we were dissatisfied with the IRS's answers. You can bet that limited discovery is certainly one of several options we will be presenting the court. Again, if you'd like to read the latest Blackberry declarations for yourself, click here to access the second set of sworn declarations by IRS officials in response to Judge Sullivan's investigation into the missing emails of Lois Lerner and other IRS officials. The declarations were provided after close of business on Friday, August 22 in an effort to blunt news coverage (about the mysterious Blackberry). That plan certainly failed. Stay tuned. This JW investigation is as hot as it gets. News in this story is breaking almost daily, so be sure to visit our web site (www.judicialwatch.org) often for any breaking news. And thank you to everyone who supports our work. Thanks to you, Americans now have the best chance for the truth and accountability for the massive IRS scandal. Judicial Watch is happy to do the work of the Department of Justice, the media, and Congress. But we couldn't do it without your help. So to reaffirm your support or join our cause, please click here. Judicial Watch Sues University of California to End In-State Tuition, Grants for Illegal Aliens The connection between the chaotic flood of illegal aliens coming across the border and illegal alien sanctuary policies is clear. Providing perks and benefits for illegal aliens is equivalent to extending an open invitation to the world to come across the border and violate our laws. And the more illegal aliens who take us up on this offer, the more expensive it becomes. And more chaotic. And more dangerous. The only want to stem the flow of illegals is to remove these unlawful incentives put into place by the radical Left to undermine the law. And that's why we took aggressive court action in California this week to try to put an end to illegal alien tuition benefits at one of California's largest institutions of higher education. On August 26, 2014, we filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court for the State of California, Los Angeles County, seeking an end to an estimated annual $19.6 million in non-resident tuition waivers currently being given to illegal alien students by the University of California (UC) Regents. The suit also seeks an end to approximately $4 million annually being awarded to illegal aliens in taxpayer-funded grants and scholarships. We filed this lawsuit on behalf of California resident Earl De Vries. Under California law, taxpayers have the right to sue government officials to prevent unlawful expenditures of taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources. Here's our argument in a nutshell as expressed in our lawsuit: "Under federal law, unlawfully present aliens generally are ineligible for State or local public benefit." While federal law allows certain exemptions, according to U.S. Code, it does so "only through the enactment of a State law ... which affirmatively provides for such eligibility." [8 U.S.C. § 1621(d)]. While the State of California passed such a law granting exemptions to California State University schools and California Community Colleges, it did not do so in the case of the University of California, making tuition waivers and grants awarded by the UC Board of Regents unlawful. Under the California Constitution, the UC Board of Regents is "entirely independent" of the state legislature in policy matters, so there is no lawful way for the California legislature to allow or require the University of California to provide the public benefits for illegal aliens. And so, under the federal law, the UC Board of Regents is prohibited from providing any in-state tuition and public benefits for illegal aliens. As I say, these policies are not only nonsensical and a violation of the law, they also require California taxpayers to cover a very expensive bill. Our lawsuit alleges these that these illicit public benefits for illegal aliens cost California taxpayers almost $25 million annually. Here's how these numbers break down: The UC Office of the President estimates that, as of November 2013, 900 students enrolled at UC schools were unlawfully present aliens, approximately 95 percent of whom were undergraduates. Assuming that all of these students qualified for a tuition exemption, the value of this benefit would be approximately $19.6 million (900 students x 95% x $22,878 per student = $19,560,690). UC has estimated that some 800 undergraduates will qualify for taxpayer-funded Cal Grants worth about $7 million and that approximately 300 of these undergraduates are unlawfully present aliens. UC also has estimated that some 440 unlawfully present aliens exempted from paying nonresident supplemental tuition at UC schools will qualify for approximately $4.3 million in UC grants and scholarships. Our taxpayer lawsuit seeks a judgment declaring the expenditures unlawful and an injunction, "permanently prohibiting Defendant from expending or causing the expenditure of taxpayer funds or taxpayer-financed resources" for either tuition waivers or financial aid benefits to illegal aliens. Unless the courts enforce the law, "The Board of Regents ... will continue to expend substantial taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources exempting unlawfully present aliens from paying nonresident supplemental tuition at UC schools and allowing unlawfully present aliens attending UC schools to apply for and participate in state-administered financial aid programs." Taxpaying California citizens deserve to have their hard-earned money spent lawfully. What the state is doing is not only illegal, it's unfair to taxpayers. Our client Earl De Vries, like all taxpayers in California, has a right to expect that the University of California will follow the law and cease using tax dollars to provide illicit subsidies for illegal aliens. Public officials on the UC Board of Regents need to put immigration politics aside and obey both federal law and the California Constitution. Judicial Watch, Allied Educational Foundation Challenge Race-Based University Admissions Policies at the University of Texas While liberals continue to stoke the flames of discord in Ferguson, Missouri over the shooting death of a young black man, JW is mounting a court challenge against another of the Left's racially-divisive policies - race based preferences in college admissions. On August 5, 2014, we joined with the Allied Educational Foundation (AEF) to file an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in support of Abigail Noel Fisher's appeal for an en banc hearing to review the court's July 15 ruling in favor of the University of Texas' (UT) race-based admission policy. By way of background, Fisher was denied admission to UT in 2008. She filed suit, alleging that the university had discriminated against her and co-plaintiff Rachel Multer Michalewicz because of their race. In January 2011, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled in favor of UT, prompting Fisher to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a significant victory for Ms. Fisher, on June 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Circuit had failed to apply "strict scrutiny" to the university's race-based admissions policy, remanding the case to the Circuit Court. But on July 15, 2014, the Circuit Court again ruled in favor of UT indicating that the race-based government policy might survive court review under this "strict scrutiny" standard if the policy serves a "compelling government interest." Judicial Watch filed an amicus brief in support of Fisher in advance of the Supreme Court victory. The Fifth Circuit has not followed the Supreme Court's instruction. In our amicus brief supporting Fisher's petition for an en banc hearing, Judicial Watch and AEF contend that the UT admission policy violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the Fifth Circuit Court decision is allowed to stand, the Judicial Watch/AEF brief argues, it could "prolong the misconception that a person's 'race' is useful distinction for judging who a person is and what they are entitled to." Arguing that the UT admissions policy violates the Supreme Court's "strict scrutiny" standard, Judicial Watch and AEF contend, "Because race is, in essence, a social construct, it, [the UT race-based admissions policy] is inherently ambiguous. This ambiguity is compounded by the ambiguity of allowing applicants to self-select their race in order to gain a 'plus' factor towards admission." Here are the key arguments from our brief, which you can read in full here: • Students must self-identify their race, but it remains unclear what makes one applicant a "Hispanic or Latino," an "American Indian or Alaska Native," an "Asian," "Black or African American," a "Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander," or simply "White." UT does not specify whether an applicant must be a "full-blooded" member of his or her self-identified race or ethnic group, or whether 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, or 1/32 is sufficient to be granted or denied the "plus" factor. • Also undefined by UT's policy is whether the terms "Hispanic" and "Latino" refer to persons of full or partial Spanish ancestry only, or also to persons of other European ancestry such as the Germans and Italians and persons of Jewish background who immigrated to predominantly Spanish speaking countries in Central and South America and the Caribbean before immigrating to the United States. It also is unclear whether Question 7's reference to South America "or other Spanish culture or origin" includes Portuguese-speaking Brazil. • With respect to the "American Indian or Alaska Native" racial category, the Native Americans Rights Fund acknowledges that '[t]here exists no universally accepted rule for establishing a person's identity as an Indian. UT's policy is completely silent as to who is entitled to a 'plus factor for being an 'American Indian or Alaska Native.' • UT makes no effort whatsoever to define the term 'Asian,' which just as commonly refers to the four billion human beings who inhabit the largest and most populous continent on Earth as it does to a single "race" of people ... It is unclear whether UT's use of the term includes applicants who are or whose ancestors were of full or partial Near or Middle Eastern origin, including persons of full or partial Arab, Armenian, Azerbaijani, Georgian, Kurdish, Persian, or Turkish descent, or whether such applicants are to be considered 'White.' • UT makes no effort to define what it means by its use of the term 'Black or African American' in its admissions policy... If two applicants are of both European and African ancestry, but one applicant self-identifies as 'Black' and the other applicant self-identifies as both 'Black' and 'White,' do both applicants receive the same 'plus' factor? Can you see how arbitrary the process of awarding race-based preferences can be? How on earth anyone can think race-based preferences are fair or lawful is beyond me. Race-based preferences in admissions are at odds with the Constitution, subject to abuse, and promote crackpot racial theories that have no basis in science. By repeatedly refusing to uphold the basic right to equal protection under the law, the Fifth Circuit Court is attempting to turn pseudo-science into settled law, despite the Supreme Court's ruling to the contrary. The University of Texas should focus on educating its students rather than running a divisive and unlawful racial spoils program. Clearly radical liberals are not concerned at all about racial harmony, or justice, or reason. As we've seen from the insane opposition to basic election integrity laws, the DOJ's refusal to apply civil rights laws in a race-neutral manner, and the histrionic reactions by racial opportunists in Ferguson, MO, division suits the Left (and the Obama administration) just fine. (Judicial Watch's partner in the amicus filing, the Allied Educational Foundation, is a charitable and educational foundation dedicated to improving the quality of life through education. You can find out more about them here.) Panel event: 'Holding President Obama Accountable to the Rule of Law' In closing, I just want to plug a key upcoming Judicial Watch panel discussion entitled, "Holding the Obama Administration Accountable to the Rule of Law." I'll be moderating a dynamic discussion that will include House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National Review Institute and author of Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama's Impeachment. Our panel will discuss various approaches, including a planned lawsuit by the House of Representatives, to challenge President Obama's series of unilateral "executive actions" that critics contend violate federal law, fail to enforce federal law and exceed his constitutionally-enumerated powers. Yes, there's lots to discuss. Details are below. I certainly hope you can join us (and I will try to remember to remind you again next week)! We will be streaming the event live here. Date: Tuesday, September 9 Time: 2-3:00 pm ET Location: Judicial Watch Main Conference Room Suite 800 425 Third Street SW Washington, DC 20024 Until next week... Tom Fitton President

Email reveals Lois Lerner ignored political expenditures by unions



By Connor D. Wolf
Published September 02, 2014

Former U.S. Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Douglas Shulman (L-R), IRS Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner and U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin take their seats to testify before a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on targeting of political groups seeking tax-exempt status from by the IRS, on Capitol Hill in Washington, May 22, 2013. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS BUSINESS) - RTXZWRA

The official at the center of the Internal Revenue Service tea party scandal once dismissed complaints that labor unions were not reporting millions of dollars in political activities on their tax forms, according to an email obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.
In 2007, Lerner responded directly to a complaint that some major labor unions reported completely different amounts of political expenditures when filing with the IRS and the Department of Labor.

At the time of the email, Lerner was the Director of Exempt Organizations at the IRS.

Lerner wrote, “We looked at the information you provided regarding organizations that report substantial amounts of political activity and lobbying expenditures on the DOL Form LM-2, but report little to no political expenditures on the Form 990 filed with the IRS.”

“We believe this difference in reporting does not necessarily indicate that the organization has incorrectly reported to either the DOL or the IRS,” Lerner concluded.

Don Todd, the deputy assistant secretary of the Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) at the time the email was sent, confirmed seeing Lerner’s email and remembering similar complaints at the time. OLMS oversees labor union financial disclosures within the Department of Labor.
“The laws never been enforced,” Todd told TheDCNF. “The IRS was telling us it would cost more to enforce the law then they would collect.”
In 2006, the year leading up to Lerner’s email, the national headquarters for the AFL-CIO reported no direct or indirect political expenditures with the IRS on their 990 form, leaving the line 81a blank. That same year, the AFL-CIO reported $29,585,661 in political activities with the Department of Labor.

Also in 2006 the Teamsters Union reported no political expenditures with the IRS while at the same time reporting $7,081,965 with the Labor Department.

Again in 2006, Unite-Here reported no political activity with the IRS and $1,451,002 with the Labor Department.
In 2005, the National Education Association also reported no political expenditures with the IRS while at the same time reporting $24,985,250 with the Labor Department.

Labor union political spending overwhelmingly benefits Democrats. Todd told TheDNCF Lerner may have been playing favorites. Lerner has been accused of singling out tea party groups applying for tax-exempt status.

Lerner acknowledged in the 2007 email, “The definition of political campaign activity required to be reported on Form LM2 coincides with the definition of political campaign activity expenditures required to be reported on Form 990.”

But she did offer some possible reasons for the discrepancies. “The Form LM-2 does not separate this reporting from the reporting of lobbying expenditures,” she wrote. “Furthermore, even if section 501(c)(5) labor organizations were required to report their lobbying expenditures, the amount required to be reported on Form LM-2 includes activity, such as attempting to influence regulations, that is not required to be reported as lobbying, as the IRS limitations apply to legislative lobbying.”

Lerner conceded, “Having said that, we did see some instances that raised concerns and we referred that information to our Dallas office to determine whether examination is warranted.” It does not appear any further investigation was conducted.

The Bush administration mandated more detailed disclosure requirements for labor unions, but they were relaxed by the Obama administration’s Labor Department.

An IRS spokesman told TheDCNF the agency had no “immediate comment” on the matter.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...res-by-unions/