Second federal judge tells IRS to explain lost Lerner emails

A second federal judge has now ordered the IRS to explain under oath how the agency lost emails from former division director Lois Lerner, the woman at the heart of the Tea Party targeting scandal. 
U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton told Obama administration lawyers on Friday he wants to see an affidavit explaining what happened with Lerner's hard drive. The IRS claims her computer suffered a crash in 2011 that wiped her email records at the time clean. 
But at a hearing examining a lawsuit against the IRS by conservative group True the Vote, Walton said he wants to know what happened to Lerner's hard drive, which allegedly was recycled. He asked for an affidavit from those involved in handling the crashed drive. 
Among other things, he said he wanted to know the serial number, if any, assigned to the hard drive and if that number is known, "why the computer hard drive cannot be identified and preserved."
The order is another boost for those questioning the agency's claims that many Lerner emails from that time period are not recoverable. 
A day earlier, in a separate case brought by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan gave the tax agency 30 days to file a declaration by an "appropriate official" to address the computer issues involving Lerner. 
In that case, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton alleged there "has been a cover-up that has been going on." 
After the True the Vote hearing, group counsel Cleta Mitchell accused the IRS of playing a "shell game," by arguing that the plaintiffs could not prove any emails were lost. 
True the Vote brought its case to court after facing multiple inquiries and extra scrutiny from the IRS, the FBI and other federal agencies. 
True the Vote is now seeking a motion to speed up discovery and "preserve and prevent further destruction" of IRS emails and missing documents. 
The group also wants a forensic expert to investigate how the emails were lost and examine whether the data is recoverable. 
"The fact that the IRS is statutorily required to preserve these records yet nevertheless publicly claimed that they have been 'lost' appears to evidence bad faith," Mitchell wrote in a letter last month to the tax-collecting agency. 
Lerner, who has since retired, headed the IRS unit that reviews applications for tax-exempt status, at the time when the agency was accused of subjecting conservative groups to additional scrutiny. 
Meanwhile, Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman took things a step further on Friday, filing a resolution directing the House sergeant-at-arms to arrest Lerner on charges of contempt of Congress.

Clinton critic's book bumps Hillary memoir from top of bestseller list

Ouch. 
Hillary Clinton's memoir, which the former secretary of State has promoted relentlessly on a rocky book tour, just got bumped from the top of the bestseller list -- by a lurid account written by one of her most outspoken critics. 
According to the latest rankings in The New York Times bestseller list, Edward Klein's "Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas" has catapulted to the top of the charts, nudging his subject's memoir down to the second slot. 
"Blood Feud," as the title suggests, is a journey of sensational anecdotes about tensions between Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the current occupants of the White House. The 300-page book is replete with ugly name-calling (Michelle Obama, according to the book, refers to Hillary Clinton as "Hildebeest," while Clinton supposedly calls President Obama a "joke") and gossipy anecdotes befitting Bravo television. 
But while the contents have been called into question by Clinton allies and others, Klein has defended his reporting -- and the book sales suggest that, at the least, "Blood Feud" is a page-turner. 
By contrast, Clinton's memoir "Hard Choices" has been criticized as dry and not incredibly revealing. (The Economist, for instance described it as a "stodgy memoir" meant for surrogates.) 
"Hard Choices" still leads the list of Hardcover Nonfiction, but trails when print and e-books are combined. 
And on Amazon.com, Klein's book has shot up to #13 overall, while Clinton's has fallen out of the top 100. 
In another curious detail in the book wars, conservative commentator and neurosurgeon Ben Carson's book has crept into the Times' Top 10 list. According to The Daily Caller, the book's overall sales are also approaching Clinton's. 
Nielsen Bookscan figures reportedly show Carson has sold 162,000 books, while Clinton has sold 177,000.

Will Romney run? The 2016 rumor that won’t go away

Think Mitt Romney won't run again in 2016? 
For those dismissing the possibility of the two-time presidential candidate launching another bid -- and they may be wise to do so -- a recent poll at least shows the former GOP nominee still has a loyal following in parts of the country. 
First, the reality check. Romney, after two tiring presidential campaigns, consistently has said he is not running. 
But the University of New Hampshire/WMUR-TV poll in the first-in-the-nation primary state of New Hampshire recently showed Romney with 30 percent support -- blowing away a crowded field of potential 2016 Republican candidates who fail to even crack double digits. 
Despite the seemingly long odds of a Romney entry into this field, the buzz has been percolating for a long time, and has grown unchallenged by anyone in Romney's inner circle. 
If there is such thing as a Romney revival, it would have begun last August when the Republican National Committee held its summer meeting in Boston at the very same Westin Hotel and Convention Center where Romney watched his candidacy wither on Election Day 2012. At the meeting, several Romney insiders began to light-heartedly ruminate about the plausibility of a third Romney run with delegates, guests and even a few political reporters. 
Eleven months later, Utah Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Romney friend and supporter, is publicly making pro-Romney mischief, arguing that the rest of the potential GOP field in 2016 doesn't cut it. 
"I don't see an emerging front-runner right now and to have somebody who's able to raise a billion dollars and convince the public, the majority of the public, that he's the right person for the job. If there is a void, I think Mitt Romney jumps into that or gets recruited to jump into that," Chaffetz said. 
After her husband's 2008 loss, Romney's wife Ann emphatically said: "never again." Romney, of course, did run in 2012 -- and on the night of that loss, before even leaving that hotel in Boston, he was the one saying no more. 
Now with the leadoff 2016 caucuses and primaries less than a year-and-a-half away, Romney's name keeps coming up despite the existence of a crowded GOP field of potential candidates already jockeying for position. 
Throughout the 2012 GOP primary campaign, Romney struggled to excite and unite conservatives. It was common to hear voters leaving his campaign rallies say it's not too late for somebody else to get in the race. 
Consultants, political operatives and supporters backing Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan and others tried mightily to get them to run, and it made Romney look like a weak front-runner. Now Romney is the object of some wishfully thinking Republicans, and the shoe is on the other foot. 
Comments from Republicans like Chaffetz, and polls like the one in New Hampshire, make Romney look longed-for and the current field somehow inadequate. 
Indeed, the UNH poll suggests the Granite State's notoriously engaged and demanding GOP primary voters are not that thrilled with the field and are looking for alternatives. 
When the UNH poll took Romney out of the equation and asked voters their primary preferences, "No potential Republican candidate has been able to separate from the tightly bunched field," according to UNH pollster Andy Smith. 
If the election were held today, 19 percent of likely Republican primary voters in the state say they would vote for Christie, 14 percent would vote for Paul, and 11 percent would vote for ex-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. 
They are followed by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and a few others. 15 percent said they are undecided.   

Tear Down This Wall (cartoon)

The Great Unknown: ObamaCare cost unclear amid changes to the law

President Obama’s health care law has been delayed and changed so many times that the official budget scorekeepers can no longer keep track of what the law costs.
The changes, and the overall uncertainty regarding the price tag, are raising concerns about whether the law even has enough revenue coming in to pay for the program.
“Right now the savings that was projected to pay for all this spending is not being collected as originally projected," said Charles Blahous, of the Mercatus Center. He estimated the law will eventually cost $200 billion a year by 2020.
The unilateral changes to the law – and specifically delays of the requirement that certain employers provide health coverage to workers – are the subject of a recently announced lawsuit by House Speaker John Boehner.
But apart from that, the changes have caused problems for the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which typically keeps track of what laws cost. Joe Antos, of the American Enterprise Institute, noted the office has said they won’t do “new estimates” of the law anymore.
"Their ability to say this was a benefit to the federal budget is going to become more and more dubious as the years pass,” said Jim Capretta, of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
In the case of the employer mandate, the provision was delayed from 2014 until 2016 for employers with fewer than 100 workers. For larger companies, it was delayed by one year, and they were allowed to only have to cover 70 percent of their workers.
Further, individuals were given until April 15 to enroll in a health plan through the ObamaCare exchanges, and many will likely be able to skirt the law’s prescribed fine for going three months without insurance. 
Antos said he thinks it would be "politically impossible for the IRS to come after those same people -- millions of people -- and say you owe us money because you didn't sign up in time to have insurance.”
The cost of just those two changes will likely cut into revenue.
"There was about $100 billion that was supposed to come in over the next 10 years from penalties on individuals, if they did not carry health insurance, penalties on employers, if they do not offer health insurance, and to date, those penalties have not been enforced,” Blahous said.
The law also counted on more than $700 billion in cuts to Medicare, including up to $150 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage, but the president set those aside at the behest of Senate Democrats who feared angering seniors in an election year.
Capretta said it is "very dubious that some of these Medicare cuts can be sustained over a long period of time."
He also noted that even more Medicare cuts are planned but wonders if the impact will cause some of them to be pulled back as well.
"In fact, the actuaries who look at the numbers for the Medicare program have said that this cut is so deep that about 15 percent of the hospitals will drop out of the Medicare program by the end of the decade," he said.
With 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day for the next 20 years or so, that might be politically impossible to sustain.
And a 40 percent tax on expensive health plans, like those unions enjoy, is set to take effect in 2018, and would raise another $80 billion or so -- if it survives. It is vehemently opposed by unions, and employers are steadily adjusting their health plans to avoid the tax, suggesting the $80 billion may never materialize.
Bob Rusbuldt, president of the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America, said, "No company is going to pay a 40 percent excise tax on that excess premium. They are just not going to do it."
So the question becomes, what happens when projected cuts to pay for the law don’t materialize?
"If one tax is eliminated … what takes its place?” Rusbuldt asked. “You either have to reduce benefits and services and administrative costs, or you have to put in a different tax."

The case for Obama’s impeachment: The Constitution’s remedy for a lawless, imperial president

( Bailey) Do you believe that if he was a republican president he would have been impeached a long time ago. But my question is how do you go about impeaching a King?

The next time you hear politicians denounce Barack Obama as a lawless, imperial president with a scandal-riddled administration, ask them what they’re going to do about it. Their gnashing of teeth over Obama’s self-granted omnipotence is repetitive.
Let’s agree with our ninth president, William Henry Harrison, who said there is nothing more corrupting, nothing more destructive than the exercise of unlimited power. We understand the problem. The only way for politicians to fix it is with a little less talk and a lot more action.
The Constitution provides the remedy for a president who commits “high crimes and misdemeanors.” It’s impeachment.

The only thing necessary to transform America into something unrecognizable is for good men to do nothing!

To be clear, “high crimes and misdemeanors” are not necessarily ordinary criminal offenses. Our Framers used the term to signify a dereliction of duty, and the first duty of the president is to enforce our laws and preserve, protect, and defend our Constitution.
Alexander Hamilton described impeachable offenses as those “which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” He explained that they are “political” offenses “as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”
No serious person who is paying attention can deny that Obama and his administration have abused and violated the public trust and disregarded the Constitution. Let me count the ways.
Without notifying Congress as required by law, he set free terrorist prisoners at a time of war when they can return to the battlefield to kill our troops.
In violation of our Constitution, he regularly ignores court orders, changes laws by executive fiat, and refuses to enforce laws he doesn’t like, including our immigration laws.
When Congress declined to pass amnesty for illegal immigrants’ offspring, he unilaterally enacted his own version of it, which created the current crisis on our border as illegal youth pour into our country to receive what he illegally promised them.
He committed fraud on the American people when he promised that if we liked our health care plan we could keep it.
He got us into a war in Libya without Congressional approval. When our ambassador begged for security at the consulate in Benghazi, he was ignored and then murdered when the consulate was attacked as predicted. Americans were left behind to die, as the president did nothing to rescue our people there. Afterwards, he helped spread the lie that a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video was to blame for this highly organized, premeditated terrorist attack.
Obama’s IRS targeted his political opponents for harassment. Then the agency lied to and stonewalled Congress and likely destroyed subpoenaed evidence, while Obama falsely declared there’s no corruption there, not even a smidgen.
From the VA scandal to his unconstitutional recess appointments, to his DOJ wiretapping reporters and giving guns to Mexican drug cartels, to violating religious freedom exercised by businesses and ignoring in-house illegal fundraising, the list of abuse goes on and on.
Barack Obama’s administration is proving itself a festering boil of scandal. The Constitution is rock solid in holding the president responsible for the executive branch. He can’t just vote “present” while shrugging and feigning ignorance about all these abuses of the public trust, any more than a mob boss can claim innocence because he didn’t personally do the hit. The buck stops with the guy at the top.
Impeachment is the ultimate check on an out-of-control executive branch. It is serious, not to be used for petty partisan purposes; and it is imperative that it becomes a matter of legitimate discussion before the American people lose all trust in our federal government.
Impeachment requires moral courage to advance what is right, and it requires political will. A complacent or disheartened electorate may silently endure these abuses from the administration, the permanent political class is only too happy to maintain the status quo, and the mainstream media is not a fair watchdog. So, the nation’s last line of defense is for We the People to rise up and say, “enough is enough.”
Obama’s lawless encouragement of illegal immigration should be the tipping point for that political will because it impacts all Americans – native-born and legal immigrants of all backgrounds who followed the rules and now watch rewards go to rule breakers while they’re forced to compete for limited jobs and resources. It’s the tipping point because the forgotten working class is hurt most by this lawlessness; and these good Americans deserve the strongest, most effective tool to defend the livelihoods they’ve so honorably built!
Some are arguing for cautious inaction and dismiss even a discussion of impeachment. With Obama’s poll numbers in the tank and his liberal policies exposed as failures, why rock the boat? But that argument misses the point.
The president is radically changing the way the executive branch does business. He is setting a dangerous precedent that will fundamentally change us. With his “pen and phone,” he’s abrogating Congressional authority in violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers. He’s making himself a ruler, not a president. We had a revolution back in 1776 because we don’t like kings.
Some argue we should wait for midterm elections and hope a big victory by Republicans in both Houses of Congress will rein in Obama.
Been there, done that in 2010. If Congress refuses to use the power the Constitution gives it, Barack Obama will continue to rule however he wants.
Some argue that at best the House might vote for articles of impeachment, but the Senate is unlikely to convict. But that is no argument against holding a president accountable and sending the people’s message to all successors.
Obama can keep laughing and say, “so sue me” to the House’s tepid lawsuit threat. Let’s hear him laugh off impeachment. At the very least, despite his mocking the Constitution, this Constitutional process will put him on notice.
The only thing necessary to transform America into something unrecognizable is for good men to do nothing! If not these violations and the president’s promise to continue to “go it alone” in ignoring the separation of powers and rule of law, what will it take for you to take a stand? How bad does it have to get?
We live in an America where the NSA spies on our communications, the IRS targets us because of our political beliefs, the border is overrun by foreign nationals, terrorist leaders are released to the battlefield, our health care is taken from us and we’re forced to buy a plan we don’t want and can’t afford, Catholic nuns are targeted by the government simply because they adhere to their Catholic faith, the Justice Department arms Mexican drug lords, and the president keeps a “kill list” of people he’s authorized to be executed on sight.
If you’re comfortable with all that, then by all means sit back and hope for the best. Those concerned about America want change. That comes with healing the injuries done to society by an unchecked president; that starts with impeachment.  
Sarah Palin first made history on December 4, 2006, when she was sworn in as the first female and youngest governor of Alaska. In August 2008, Senator John McCain tapped Palin to serve as his vice-presidential running mate in his presidential campaign, making her the first woman to run on the Republican Party's presidential ticket. She is a contributor for Fox News where she offers her political commentary and analysis across all Fox News platforms.

Obama Cartoon

Texas Gov. Perry: Illegal immigrant surge a 'humanitarian crisis' Obama can stop

Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Wednesday on “Hannity” that President Obama needs to act now to stop the surge in illegal immigrants flooding across his state’s border, calling it “a humanitarian crisis that he has the ability to stop.”
The Republican governor spoke out after meeting with Obama in Texas Wednesday afternoon. Both sides called the meeting “constructive” and said they agreed philosophically. However, Perry said he is concerned that Obama did not indicate he will take the immediate action he requested: to use his power as commander-in-chief to send the National Guard to secure the border.
“You know, I was like, Mr. President, you can deal with this. You can unilaterally direct the Department of Defense to put those troops on the border…” he said, later adding, “The president needs to understand that the single most important thing that he can do is put the National Guard on the border to coordinate with local law enforcement, with state law enforcement, with the border patrol…”
Obama said Wednesday that he is open to the National Guard suggestion, but that he believed it would only be a temporary fix. 
Perry also criticized the fact that Obama is not visiting the border on his trip to Texas so he can witness the crisis first-hand. Obama said in a press conference Wednesday that doing so would be engaging in political “theater” and not productive.
“I said Mr. President, I really want you to come and see this,” Perry said. “I said this is important for you to absorb as a father, but more importantly as the president of the United States to see the humanitarian crisis.”
Perry said Obama’s refusal to do so is no different than the criticism President George W. Bush received when he chose to fly over New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina instead of visiting the city on the ground. He said Obama sending Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson is not enough.
"I'm pretty sure that if George Bush had said 'well I sent my FEMA director multiple times' he still would have been criticized greatly," Perry said. "Because you need to go. That's what governors do, that's what presidents do. When there are natural disasters, when there are crises like these, a president needs to be there to show the American people number one that he understands."
In the press conference, Obama called on Congress to approve the more than $3 billion in emergency funds he requested to help with the crisis, but Perry claimed less than $100 million of those funds would be going toward border security.
“It’s the same president that said Al-Qaeda’s on the run and I don’t know whether he’s inept, or there’s something else going on, as I’ve said before,” he said. “But the fact is, the border is not secure.”
Perry said that if the National Guard was made available to help secure the border, it would send a powerful message to Central America.
“That’s the most humane thing we can do,” he said.