Even without the news that the IRS deliberately targeted Americans based on an ideological criterion, American's freedom and control over their personal lives have been under attack for decades.

The real threat to our nation is the rise of the Bureaucratic State and the blanket of soft tyranny it casts to gently smother Americans to death. A liberal law professor John Turley warns against the "fourth branch" of government.

The rise of the fourth branch has been at the expense of Congress’s lawmaking authority. In fact, the vast majority of “laws” governing the United States are not passed by Congress but are issued as regulations, crafted largely by thousands of unnamed, unreachable bureaucrats. One study found that in 2007, Congress enacted 138 public laws, while federal agencies finalized 2,926 rules, including 61 major regulations.

This rulemaking comes with little accountability. It’s often impossible to know, absent a major scandal, whom to blame for rules that are abusive or nonsensical.  

The various Bureaucrat agencies are in many cases nameless and faceless; yet, all-powerful and far-reaching. More serious is the autonomous fashion in which these bureaucratic agencies operate. The challenge, of course, and a threat to our liberty, is the inability to control their actions or know exactly their priorities or aims.

The Bureaucratic State has grown so large over the years that the agencies that comprise it are so vast and so ingrained into government and the economy, they are shielded from mistakes and incompetence. Their efficiency and contributions are hard to measure, yet their control over our lives is all too apparent. Therefore, they are held unaccountable while holding considerable power over the lives of every American.

As the number of federal regulations increased, however, Congress decided to relieve the judiciary of most regulatory cases and create administrative courts tied to individual agencies. The result is that a citizen is 10 times more likely to be tried by an agency than by an actual court. In a given year, federal judges conduct roughly 95,000 adjudicatory proceedings, including trials, while federal agencies complete more than 939,000.

These agency proceedings are often mockeries of due process, with one-sided presumptions and procedural rules favoring the agency.

According to their nature, Bureaucracies grow. As they take on more functions the less direct involvement they have with their overall priorities. The bureaucracy will eventually become more distant from reality. Inevitably, they will develop their own aims and goals even if those aims and goals are unconstitutional and emotionally detached toward any "outsiders."

In the new regulatory age, presidents and Congress can still change the government’s priorities, but the agencies effectively run the show based on their interpretations and discretion. The rise of this fourth branch represents perhaps the single greatest change in our system of government since the founding. We cannot long protect liberty if our leaders continue to act like mere bystanders to the work of government.

Thus when a genuine scandal emerges we hear stale bureaucratic langue such as "I take full responsibility" or "this is totally unacceptable." These are used in place of resignations even though the individual who makes them believes the exact opposite. This alternative reality is precisely the kind in which bureaucracies exist. In their reality, a person or agency can be successful without ever having been efficient or productive. 

These negative effects will culminate -- to the extent in which already has occurred -- in tyranny and slow and steady decline of our nation and our freedom. 

Liberal pundits have begun pushing a seemingly small and reasonable Constitutional reform that is a Trojan horse that would undermine our Constitutional order—eliminating the Equal Franchise for each State in the Senate.

We now know that Lois Lerner, the Director of Exempt Organizations for the Internal Revenue Service - who refused to testify before a House committee by invoking the Fifth Amendment - has a paper trail that reveals her direct involvement in sending intrusive and harassing questionnaires to Tea Party groups in 2012.

As you know, we represented 27 Tea Party organizations in 17 states. Of those, 15 received their tax-exempt status after lengthy delays, 10 are still pending, and two clients withdrew their applications because of frustration with the IRS process.

Consider the timeline. We now know through her own testimony and from the Inspector General's report that Lerner was briefed about this unlawful targeting scheme in June 2011. But nine months later, beginning in March 2012, she sent cover letters to many of our clients - demanding additional information and forwarding intrusive questionnaires. In fact, in March and April of 2012, Lerner sent 15 letters to 15 different clients (including those who were approved after lengthy delays and those who are still pending).

This letter dated March 16, 2012 sent to the Ohio Liberty Council is representative of the other letters that Lerner sent to our clients. This letter, posted here, was sent on letterhead out of the IRS office in Cincinnati. The cover letter bears Lerner's signature, who runs the Exempt Organizations division out of the Washington, DC office. It includes more invasive and improper questions about membership of the group and demands information about all public events conducted or planned for the future. And it specifically requested information about the organization's website, Facebook page, and other social media outlets.

In testimony before a House committee yesterday, before invoking the Fifth Amendment, Lerner proclaimed her innocence. “I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other committee.”

After making that proclamation, she then refused to answer questions. No questions. Not one. Members of Congress and the American people want to know about her involvement and why this was permitted to continue. Now comes reports that Lerner has been placed on administrative leave and that Representative Issa plans to call her back before the House oversight committee.

Here's an important question for Lerner: Why did you send letters under your name to Tea Party organizations demanding additional intrusive information in March 2012 - nine months after you were told about this improper scheme?

The timing coincides with when the former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman appeared before Congress in March 2012 and testified that no such targeting scheme existed.

It appears Lerner did nothing to stop the abusive conduct. And our evidence suggests she was actively participating in the improper targeting in March 2012. In fact, she appears to have been quite active with her inquisition.

In addition to the letter sent to the Ohio Liberty Council, our records indicate that Lerner sent 14 other letters to 14 of our clients in the March-April 2012 timeframe. It's unclear why her name appears on letters to some organizations, and not others. But one thing is clear: this correspondence shows her direct involvement in the scheme. Further, sending a letter from the top person in the IRS Exempt Organizations division to a small Tea Party group also underscores the intimidation used in this targeting ploy.

This revelation comes just days after the White House firmly stated that the IRS misconduct ended in May 2012. That assertion is simply wrong. White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters: “The misconduct had stopped in May of 2012.”

The fact is the abuse and harassment continued after May 2012. As we reported, we received 26 IRS questionnaires sent to 18 clients during the past year – letters demanding further intrusive and intimidating questions. In fact, the most recent letter, posted here, was dated May 6, 2013 - just four days before Lerner admitted to the targeting scheme.

We are now finalizing our lawsuit against the IRS which will be filed next week in federal court in Washington, DC. We continue to add plaintiffs to this complaint. We truly believe that suing the IRS is the only way this unlawful abuse will stop and the only way we will find out the role of Lois Lerner and others in this widening scandal.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Wednesday made it crystal clear that he is not in Washington, D.C. to play ball with politicians in either party, especially when it comes to the nation’s out of control debt. In fact, he revealed that he doesn’t trust Republicans or Democrats to do the right thing.

Cruz objects to starting House-Senate budget negations unless Democrats take a debt limit increase off the table. He reiterated his stance on Wednesday, saying he is not willing to put blind trust in his own party.

“The senior senator from Arizona (John McCain) urged this body to trust the Republicans. Let me be clear, I don’t trust the Republicans,” Cruz said on the Senate floor. “And I don’t trust the Democrats.”

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), with the support of Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) on Tuesday ripped some of his fellow Republicans for blocking the budget negotiations.

“Unfortunately,” Cruz continued, “one of the reasons we got into this mess is because a lot of Republicans were complicit in this spending spree. And that’s why so many Americans are disgusted with both sides of this house. Because we need leaders on both sides…to roll up our sleeves, to compromise, to work together and fix the problem, fix the enormous fiscal and economic problems. Stop bankrupting our country.”

“And every Republican who stands against holding the line here is really saying, let’s give the Democrats a blank check to borrow any money they want with no reforms, no leadership to fix the problem,” he added.

Recently, we publicly opposed the so-called Senate bipartisan immigration reform bill and its "statement of principles."

We believe that our immigration policy needs to be changed, and the best way to change it is to enforce the laws already in place to curb illegal immigration.

We are not alone as many leading conservatives signed a letter in opposition to the bill.

Of the signers were radio host Laura Ingraham, Fox News personality Monica Crowley, Red State’s Erick Erickson, radio host Mark Levin, Hoover Institution’s Victor Davis Hanson, and The Daily Caller’s Mickey Kaus, The reasons that brought leading conservative personalities and grassroots organizations together are as follows.

• Is bloated and unwieldy along the lines of Obamacare or Dodd-Frank;
• Cedes excessive control over immigration law to an administration that has repeatedly proven itself to be untrustworthy, even duplicitous;
• Legalizes millions of illegal immigrants before securing the borders, thus ensuring future illegal immigration;
• Rewards law breakers and punishes law enforcement, undermining the rule of law; Hurts American job-seekers, especially those with less education;
• Threatens to bankrupt our already strained entitlement system;
• Expands government by creating new bureaucracies, authorizing new spending, and calling for endless regulations;
• Contains dangerous loopholes that threaten national security;
• Is shot through with earmarks for politically connected interest groups;
• Overwhelms our immigration bureaucracy, guaranteeing widespread fraud.

The American Conservative Party is a party all conservatives can agree with. 

America prides herself on being the so-called indispensable nation. It’s in our blood to do so. Founded with just a few million souls, its ideals forged in fire, and its freedom purchased in blood; America is as close to exceptional as can be created by men.

What made us indispensable and exceptional was our absolute resolve to those ideas from which we were created. As the years passed, each generation added to our Republic and replenished its soil so that new leaders could emerge in place of past ones. That and that alone, was what made America unique: The belief in America.

It was these things through which America would be revered and envied in the rest of the world, a working model of near perfection for other nations to emulate or reject. If America should be despised by some, it would be out of jealousy and not because of injury or offense on the part of America. This was the entire concept behind the metaphor: “A shining city on a hill.”

In recent years, America has behaved in many ways and none of them should be considered exceptional. In fact, our actions abroad are quite ordinary for a super power drunk on power, led by globalists, and run aground by politicians.

It has brought us unconstitutional wars, debt, enemies, an over extended military, and thousands of war dead. And what has been our track record since we resorted to this method? Korea, Vietnam, hundreds of peace keeping missions, Iraq and Afghanistan. An argument can be made to the merit of every single example given. Admittedly, I would concede on many points. However, in the end we must ask what exactly did America accomplish in each of these?

America’s military is designed to protect its citizens from tyranny at home, and defend the nation’s freedom from usurpers abroad. Never was its role to be freedom-provider for millions around the world. Americans die for Americans, not for Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, or Koreans. Americans fight for the interest and security of America, not the interest and security of others.

If only Councilmembers Mary Cheh, Muriel Bowser and David Catania understood that the role of the State was to protect the inalienable rights of the citizenry then, the headline would be apropos. The DC City Council, especially in reviewing Bill 20-170 “Firearm Insurance Amendment Act of 2013”, identifies law abiding fire arms owners as criminals at worst and/or high risk property owners at best. More akin to the restrictive policies of Russia than the broad liberties protected in the US Constitution, the City Council's gun control pursuits put at risk the Second Amendment Rights of DC citizens. The DC City Council ideologues and their electorate crudely rely upon the best intentions of the Police State and reject placing supreme confidence in the sovereignty of men. No matter how noble the intent or perfect the outcome sought, the Progressive agenda puts the lives and liberties of Urban dwellers at greatest risk.

The Firearm Insurance Amendment Act of 2013 requires “that individuals secure liability insurance before obtaining a license to own a firearm”. Yeah, its like when you purchase a home. You have to have the hazard insurance before you go to settlement. You would actually have to produce proof of insurance before you obtain your license or weapon. Good luck with that! There currently is no such insurance available anywhere! The great thing about radical progressives is that they CAN make it up as they go along. Sure, Mr. Gun Owner snickering right now thinks that he is in the clear. WRONG! The Firearms Act amends the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 to “include reference to the insurance-liability requirement.” Yep, that's right! Although it does not exist, you should have had it when you bought your gun and successfully licensed your weapons against the barriers erected by the DC City Politburo. There is no grandfathering on this piece of Utopic legislation.

So what happens when a gun-owner calls his local Property and Casualty Insurer? Besides the ear splitting laughter heard on the other side, the said gun owner comes to the realization that he is now the owner of an illegal firearm in the District. Sounds like you will be visiting the local Metropolitan Police Department--or Soviet Firearms Confiscation Unit, whatever more fitting—to turn your illegal weapon into the “gubment”!

For those that have yet to figure out this Wheel of Misfortune Puzzle, DC Democrats do not like the Supreme Court and worst yet, believe that the Constitution only applies to them taking your liberties and not obliging them. The ten letter phrase you were looking for is MARTIAL LAW. Every citizen, not criminal, would lose their Second Amendment Right and become subject to the POLICE STATE. Even better, the proposed law states that you will be presumed the owner of the weapon “if the weapon is lost or stolen until the loss or theft is reported to the Metropolitan Police Department”. Meaning if the weapon is lifted from your home--”unawares”--then, you are responsible for whatever happens—injuries, deaths, emotional damages, etc. Amazing how this standard was not applied to the Obama Administration for FAST and FURIOUS! The Utopic challenge by the DC City Politburo is not meant to ensure the Constitutional Right of the Citizen but to aggressively endorse President Barack Hussein Obama's Gun Control pursuits.

March On Washington For Gun Control Recognition Resolution Of 2013:

Name	Yea	Nay	Not Voting	Absent
Cnc. Anita Bonds
Cnc. David Catania
Cnc. David Grosso
Cnc. Jack Evans
Cnc. Jim Graham
Cnc. Kenyon McDuffie
Cnc. Marion Barry
Cnc. Mary M. Cheh
Cnc. Muriel Bowser
Cnc. Phil Mendelson
Cnc. Tommy Wells
Cnc. Vincent Orange
Cnc. Yvette Alexander

The DC City Council members' disdain for the Second Amendment is illustrated by their unanimous support for the “March on Washington for Gun Control Recognition Resolution of 2013.” A crime is defined as “an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law.” A crime is often described as “heinous, disgraceful, foolish and reprehensible.” For the Radical Left, those that are found to be legal owners or committed to legally owning a weapon are criminals dastardly planning the most heinous act—abiding by the U.S. Constitution. Each of the Councilmembers agree that the best way to wield control is to eliminate the liberty of gun ownership.

While this bill will certainly outlaw gun ownership, it does nothing to focus on the true combatants of the Rule of Law: individuals that illegally possess unlicensed weapons. For some reason, I just do not imagine--unless I take Exit 1-Believe off the Utopia turnpike—that pimps. pushers and hustlers will be shopping for the best liability rates at State Farm, GEICO and Nationwide. Don't let that stop the “I Believe I Can Fly” train from passing by this intersection of reasoning and ideology. Even if the true criminals chose to obey the law, they could not. Such insurance does not exist.

So why would this piece of legislation be the “pursuit of happiness” for the City Council? What best weapon could the Progressives use to confiscate your personal property. By passing this unconstitutional proposal, the DC Politburo will have accomplished what President Obama failed through a United Nation's Small Arms Treaty and a bi-partisan gun control measure in the US Senate—gun confiscation. Joel Pollack of Breitbart's Big Government writes:

“His opponents, the president insisted, refused to make it more difficult for "dangerous criminals" to buy weapons--ignoring one of the core arguments of the other side, namely that dangerous criminals frequently ignore the law to obtain weapons, while law-abiding citizens bear the burden of new rules and restrictions. He reduced his opponents' motives to pure politics, accusing them of being afraid of being punished by an organized, determined minority.”

The facts are plain. The gun control measures of the President and those presented by Councilmembers Cheh, et al, are not to improve security for the sovereign individual or mitigate public safety concerns. They are to rob citizens of their rights and to marshal public opinion around the salacious myths of Home Rule style Martial Law.

DC residents are lulled into thinking that gun control reduces crime and that we can count on an aggressive police force to use their omniscient, omnipotent powers to protect and serve. In The Exceptional Conservative Show's “God, Guns and the Constitution”, we have presented rebuttal that gun control does not reduce crime as much as enforcement of the Second Amendment does. In fact, there are two things that have contributed to the reduction in violent crimes and homicides in the District: (1) enforcement of current law and (2) gentrification.

The Metropolitan Police Department's crack down on gang violence, focus on intra-governmental approaches to reducing gun and drug trafficking and seizure of illegal weapons has assisted in lowering the homicide rates. However, it does not fully explain why there is such a high level of gun violence in a gun free state. Further investigation reveals that the “underground, free market system” works in supplying the demand for personal protection. Illegal weapons can be purchased from our neighbors from the North (Maryland) and South (Virginia) or from other second-hand market sources according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

Then, there is gentrification. Politicians find favor amongst voters in pledging ther allegiance to “the least, the last and the lost”. It shows advocates and citizens that you care and that you understand the “eternal struggle”. However, I believe that the Bible gives greater insight on allegiances and the hearts of men. In Luke 12:34, it is written, “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. ” Economic development has been the treasure of Progressives in DC for three decades. Progressives have used taxpayer funds to stimulate development and growth in West Washington and the Central City. The ideologues do understand math when it comes to maintaining their Utopia. They can not build on the backs of the poor and win the hearts and minds of the electorate. So they must promise that their economic development visions will insulate the impoverished from the natural selection of an increasingly discriminating economy. Poor people play lotteries, they do not pay the tax revenue necessary to sustain the Utopia. Only the financially secure and well connected can thrive and generate essential tax revenue to pay back excessive debt. The ideologues must build for the cultural elites while pushing the poor further from the city. As the impoverished leave, often East to Prince George's County, Maryland where housing costs are lower, violent crime becomes more geographically fixed. Hence, gentrification, financially supported by the Mayor and Councilmembers to show their governing effectiveness and placate voters, is the weapon most used to eliminate the greatest threat to their Gun Control Utopia: their primary voters.

The Progressive agenda puts the lives and liberties of Urban dwellers at greatest risk. I know you must be thinking that “Adam Kokesh” is the greatest risk to the peace and prosperity of the Nation's Capitol. Personally, I wish the District had been as adamant in enforcing gun law violations by NBC News Correspondent David Gregory. During an airing of “Meet the Press”, Gregory presented, on camera, a 30 round magazine and a 10 round magazine clip. According to District law:

"No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term 'large capacity ammunition feeding device' means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term 'large capacity ammunition feeding device' shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition."

Gregory must be doing some serious prison time because I know Brothers standing on 4^th and Atlantic Street SE would receive the maximum penalty of law thanks to the courageous law enforcement of the Metropolitan DC Police and prosecution by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. Certainly, Councilmembers Marion Barry and Yvette Alexander, representatives in the most impoverished and most imprisoned areas of the city, would surely show no favoritism in applying gun law justice. The Washington Times' Emily Miller writes:

Officials in Washington are using dirty tactics to hide the investigation and decision not to prosecute David Gregory of NBC News for illegally possessing a “high-capacity” magazine in the District of Columbia.

Forgive me, I thought that leaders of the “Chocolate City” would surely enforce and prosecute the laws justly for the “least, last and the lost” brother in Southeast DC as the wealthy, egalitarian of Northwest DC. Could gun control really be a racial thing after all? Why, yes it appears! There are just some Jim Crow-isms that will not be allowed to perish with time. The right of a man to protect himself against enemy foreign and domestic, against tyrannical governance and to possess property are afforded only the elite in the Utopia created by the Democrats under Home Rule.

There is no place under the imaginative policies of this Council for a man to fully embrace his inalienable right to protect himself. The DC City Council ideologues and their electorate have a crude reliance on the Police State and a limited faith in the sovereignty of men. The Nation's federal city has hope. Maybe DC citizens and residents will arise to demand their freedoms and liberties before the Council passes an imaginary law that says you never had them in the first place.

One of the things that the pundits have been tangentially mentioning regarding the IRS affair is the impact of culture on behaviors within the organization. It is very true that people in an organization, particularly a mature organization that has many people, have their behaviors shaped by the organization culture. If they go against the grain, unless they are exceptional, they will find another place where it is more comfortable to work.

In the Internal Revenue Service, the culture did indeed impact the behaviors of those within the organization. Certainly, those "low-level employees" made the decision to attack tea parties and other right-wing groups. They felt it was okay to do this, while not making similar requirements on other "political" organizations. The key is, they did this for almost 3 years and no one thought to change their behavior. Either their superiors were totally inept or they were totally biased. I don't think that they could be that inept.

It's entirely possible that these people were not told directly to attack the right-wing organizations. However, their superiors probably encouraged this behavior through promotions, bonuses, and other rewards. they didn't have to give orders, or right directives. All they had to do was give a wink and a nod, and the obnoxious behavior continued.

I have been involved in leadership development and leadership training for 20 years. I have a Master's Degree in leadership and significant practical experience on a global basis. I can say with certainty that the behavior of the leader dictates the culture of the organization and the behaviors of the workers therein. In the case of the IRS, you have to look to the top. People see what their leaders say and do, and they do the same thing. When they see Barack Obama dissing tea parties, they think it is there right to do the same thing. When they see only rewards, not punishment, for this behavior, they continue it on an ever stronger basis.

The famous case of Beckett and Henry II is a great example. Henry wanted to reduce the power of the clergy in Great Britain through having the bishops sign the "Constitution of Clarendon". Beckett refused. The fight went on for a while until Henry finally convinced the Pope to excommunicate Beckett. He then said in passing to several of his nights "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest". This was interpreted as a real command and the four nights proceeded to assassinate Beckett, contrary to the Kings real wishes. This is the power of leadership and a strong culture and any leader worth his salt must be aware of how this can happen. If Obama did not actually give the order, his pronouncements and actions were certainly the equivalent of "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?".

So, with the IRS, as with the Associated Press scandal and Benghazi, the path leads right to Obama, regardless of what he says today. His behavior over the last five years has shaped the culture of the federal government and his people acted according to their interpretations of what he would want to do in their situation. He set up no controls to make sure that the Beckett effect did not happen. In fact, as we have seen with the IRS, those who should be directly blamed for the scandal had been rewarded through promotion. The people in the IRS see this and they are not likely to change until they see that there is a real desire to change their culture.

A word about culture change. This is extremely difficult to do, unless the leader puts into place people who are willing to make sure that the change happens from top to bottom within their organizations. This is what Obama did when he got elected in 2008. A cosmetic change, such as happened in the IRS, will do nothing but encourage the bad behavior. Obama, himself, has to change and he has to make wholesale change at all levels of government. Otherwise, the cultural momentum will continue until someone does it for him. (One mistake many presidents have made is that they leave the mid-level bureaucrats in place and don't really do anything to change the culture to accept the intent of the leader. Momentum continues and bad things happen)..

As a community organizer, Obama knew the power of corporate culture and cultural momentum and he knew how to shape it. He know what he was talking about when he said that we would have "fundamental transformation of America".  What we now see in the federal government is no accident and it is not the result of incompetence.

This is why the Chinese proverb says that the fish rots from the head. Our fish is rotten and it will take a lot to separate the good meat from the bad. We have gotten exactly what the American public voted for, and now we are stuck with it.

Heaven help us.

I was talking to a friend today (a black conservative in New Jersey) who reminded me that the current scandals don't really register with many people in the United States. This is particularly true here in the Northeast. It got me to wondering why and what it means to this president.

First, Benghazi. Benghazi was and is a travesty. We didn't protect our consulate, we told our defenders to stand down during the attack, and we refused to admit that the attack was done by Islamic extremists. (By the way, I refuse to call this a terrorist attack since the only people who might've been terrorized for the people who were actually in the consulate. It was an act of war, but the people in Washington refused to admit that). Why don't people in the United States care?

First, they have not been told about the incident by those to whom they listen. It's not only the mainstream media, is also the local media, there churches, pastors, and other trusted people. They just don't care. It's something happens overseas, happens all of time, and it has "virtually no impact on our life in the United States". Why bother, why care? The Republicans can complain about all they want but nobody will really listen.

I do believe that we should continue to investigate and do whatever is necessary but don't expect it to resonate overtly with the American public. It may help to create a feeling of insecurity, but that's about it.

Second, the IRS. Everybody knows (except for the great masses of uninformed) that it was wrong to target conservative groups. However, everybody "knows" that it is okay to target conservative groups. The president, his acolytes, the news media, churches, and trusted leaders have all said that tea party organizations are racist bigots who should be suppressed. Now it comes out that they are being suppressed so who cares? They are getting what they deserve.

In addition, many of the great uninformed, don't worry about the IRS. The IRS is one of the most feared organizations in the government, but the impact on those who don't pay any taxes is minimal. So why should they worry? Without somebody helping to analyze what it means to the great uninformed, who will not worry about tyranny until it happens to them, they will remain ignorant. We have to rely on the news media and their surrogates to accurately interpret what this IRS mess means to them.

Thirdly, the AP scandal. We know that the government has now spied on many reporters from the Associated Press. The president says that it is because of a national security investigation, but he knows nothing else. No one really cares, since they are either in bed with the national security people, or they don't see how it impacts them. The true impact is that it discourages the press from reporting stuff that goes against the government narrative. Thus, they don't and won't help the public understand what the meaning of Benghazi really is. Also, they don't and won't help the public understand the meaning of the IRS scandal. Without the involvement of the press, the great uninformed will not become informed and these scandals will remain non-scandals.

This is why the Associated Press scandal is so important. We can only hope that the remaining reporters, and even the AP reporters, have the guts to tell the truth, regardless of who it hurts. I'm waiting, but so far haven't seen anything to build my hope, except for (sometimes) Fox News and Glenn Beck.

So, will the current scandals hurt the president and the Democrats for the future election? Other than creating a condition of general malaise, I don't think that there will be a substantial impact. The president will have an opportunity to consolidate his power and continue to press for a tyranny. It might be a last time we have an elected president in the traditional sense of the word.

So what do we do? One is to press the great uninformed on issues that are important to them, but are underreported. Illegal immigration is certainly one of these. Jobs is another. The terrible state of our urban areas, controlled by the Democrats for 30 years or more, is a third. The unfairness of the criminal justice system is another.  We can discuss the current scandals with those who are aware, but in most cases they will either be unconvinced or part of problem. We should do this but we also need to get to the "masses" who don't understand and don't care. 

We can't rely on the press.  We must get into the churches, the civic associations, the schools, and the street corners.  We must talk to people face to face and let them spread the word.  We can't rely solely on TV because people don't watch.  The right radio stations, if we can find them, will be a good choice (but be prepared for severe pushback and retribution).

As conservatives, this is what our mission must be. We must do it before it's too late.

Now the IRS has come forward and admitted harassing tea party and patriot groups as far back as 2011. However, they claim that it was done by low level workers and was not directed or inspired by the Obama administration. 

Obama reinforced this in his press conference today.  We already know that it is based on lies.  Remember that Nixon faced impeachment over this.

Let's be clear on this. There are two political appointees in the IRS, one of whom is the director. All the other workers in the IRS are supposed to be career civil servants, oblivious to politics. Obviously, something went wrong. Either the career civil servants were in fact political operatives or they were directed to harass conservative groups by the Obama administration. Either is unacceptable and neither was admitted to in the so-called apology.

Something else that was not admitted was whether the IRS has rescinded the requirements they made on these applications for nonprofit status. My guess is that if the tea parties chose not to include the information, they would continue to be harassed by the IRS. I would like to know from New Jersey tea party activists, whether the IRS has said, "so sorry, you don't need to include this information".

The Obama administration has a clear history of throwing low-level operatives under the bus for political decisions that have been made in the White House. Benghazi is one example. And this is another. Fast and furious as a third. The red line is another example. They never take any responsibility for what happens. They always blame middle-management, lower management, or George W. Bush. So far, we have let them get away with it. And this has got to stop. Perhaps Daryl Issa and the other congressional investigators will finally get around to showing that Obama is a failed president.

In the meantime, the conservative organizations around the country must continue to press the media and Congress to focus on these truly egregious actions. They have taken Nixon to another level. It's about time what happened to Nixon also happens to Obama.

At least Nixon had some foreign policy successes. He ended the war in Vietnam, he opened the door to China, he continued to help fight the Soviet Union and the Cold War, and other things. All Obama has to show for his foreign policy is the killing of Osama bin Laden. All Hillary has to show for America's foreign policy is Benghazi. Is this what is right for America? It's about time we started to take more direct action. We are doomed if we don't control Congress in 2014.

It is about time we took back America!

When I attended the US Army's infantry school at Fort Benning (long ago but still embedded in my memory). I learned on the first day that their motto was "follow me". Every day I knew that if I led troops into battle that my military superiors and my organization would have my back. I knew, that every effort would be made to rescue me in a precarious situation or, at a minimum, a bring my body home. We left no man behind. The entire chain of command knew this and said this.

There are a lot of things wrong with the military back in the Vietnam days but this is not one of them. It has remained the mantra to this day. We saw in Vietnam, we saw in Lebanon, we saw it in Bosnia, and we have seen it in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do not follow this principle was to not have honor. A person who violated this was rightfully shunned.

We have now undergone a fundamental transformation of America. Obama has chosen to dishonor America, dishonor the military, and dishonor himself. We do not have the backs of our military and intelligence operatives. Rather, we stabbed them in the back.

This blog post appearing in Blackfive says it better than I could have. I echo his remarks. It is about time that the military, both active and retired, spoke out. This about time that the American public became proud, not ashamed, of our country. It is about time that our adversaries respected us.

George

The following comes from Blackfive....

Today's Democrat Party views the United States military as nothing more than a political tool to further their agenda. And after Benghazi we see that our troops and intelligence operators are expendable if Democrats think sacrificing them is in their best political interests.

But don't take it from me; just look at what they do.

Instead of preserving the world's most effective combat force, the Democrat Party views the U.S. military as a massive source of funding (defense budget cuts), an opportunity to shore up political support through social engineering (allowing openly gay service members), and a means to further their liberal internationalist agenda (so-called “Responsibility to Protect” operations like Libya). They know that the military community tends to vote strongly Republican, which partly explains their open contempt of the men and women that serve in the Armed Forces – whether falsely labeling them cold-blooded murderers (Rep. John Murtha), comparing them to Nazis, KGB, and the Khmer Rouge (Sen. Dick Durbin), joking about their intelligence (Sec. John Kerry)... the examples of the Democrat Party's distaste for the military could easily fill an entire article.

But throughout American history, our troops knew at least if they were wounded, in danger of being overrun, or even killed, our military will do everything in its power to get rescue or recover you. No one gets left behind. At least that's how it used to be.

That is, until Benghazi, which has become one of the most dishonorable events in American history. When our consulate was attacked and overran, President Obama left Americans to die. Any rescue attempt was cut off – not by our enemies, but by the Obama administration.

Even worse than the tragic and preventable deaths of four Americans, Washington's reaction over the last eight months shows the utter disregard the Democrat Party and media have for not only the fallen, but for all of our troops and operators.

I am not saying that each and every Democrat politician wanted those men to die. But can you name any Democrat politician that has said we need to get to the bottom of Benghazi? Has any Democrat even so much as distanced themselves from their party's callous disregard for the fallen? Washington can say they support the troops all day, it's time they show us how they support our troops.

Since day one, the Democrat Party – primarily the Obama administration – and their media allies have sought to make the story go away. Since that didn't work, they have resorted to distracting the American people and redirecting the focus by claiming Republicans are only making this an issue for political gain. Just imagine if your son or daughter was kill.

via BLACKFIVE: Expendable.

The recent admission by the IRS, in which it admitted to deliberately targeting Tea Party groups and other conservative "patriot"organizations during the presidential election, should concern every citizen.

When a government and its various (unconstitutional) agencies begin to target private citizens for political differences, the very nature of our republic is challenged. This is thuggish politics, third world, banana republic behavior that has no part in America. 

However, it exists right here in the good old US of A, and these ideological hounds have no qualms about using the full resources of the US federal government to unfairly target those they happen to disagree with. This is the advantage the government has over society; the power elected leaders have over their constituents -- the very people who elected these leaders and sent them to Washington -- and this marks the difference between the way average Americans behave and hyper-partisan, so-called "civil servants" and "elected representatives" behave. 

Government has morphed, grown into a rebellious servant. It has turned to something to be feared and loathed. 

Americans have to realize and wakeup to the fact that our problems will not be solved in Washington. Indeed, there can be found the source of all our problems.

We have nothing in common with our supposed leaders. Our communities have nothing in common with Washington. The sooner we realize that, the better. 

While it's easy to get caught up in keeping score, we must not forget that Americans died while carrying out official duties for the US. They served their government and were deployed by the President of the United States. Unfortunately, it looks like these Americans were also betrayed by their government and president at a time when their very lives depended on their support.

The truly revolting part about Benghazi, aside from the tragedy of dead Americans, is that we still do not know the official story on what happened that night at our American consulate. It became evident during the election and since afterwards, the media had no interest in finding out what happened. Equally evident is the fact that the Obama administration has remained tight lipped and when they do choose to speak, they purposely mislead the public.

Benghazi represents a monumental failure to our political system. It is unfathomable in today's age of media and technology that a president and his administration have for so long gone unchallenged and held unaccountable.

Have the people been so far removed from their government that they cannot even hold their elected leaders accountable?

Fortunately, there are brave Americans who know the real story and are finally speaking out on what has heretofore been kept hidden. Let's pray their story gets out without hindrance or threats from the same government they swore to protect.

Pundits and political operatives love to pose the question, “what voting bloc has the power?” or “which voting bloc can decide an election?” Talking about these things is what they get paid to do. I’ll discuss it here with you for free.

So what is the answer to these questions? “Conservatives” is the answer. It is a no-brainer. Study after study, poll after poll; inform us conservatives are the most publically and politically active, most giving with their time and money, and hold a higher civic IQ when compared to other ideological groups. Forget the women vote, religious vote, Hispanic vote, people who are left handed and have green eyes vote. None of them can compete with the conservative bloc, which is the largest majority in America.

So why aren’t we sweeping conservatives into office year after year, presidential election after presidential election? Politics is the answer. Too many times conservatives are forced to settle. Too many times they are left with heartburn over broken promises after supporting an impostor.

Admittedly, it would be untrue for me to say there aren’t good, conservative Republicans holding office. The fact is there are many who serve diligently, and they have our profound thanks and support. However, they are powerless against parliamentarian tactics, and establishment rule and cronyism. Conservatives have learned to accept this.

What is true for me to say, without hesitation, is that every Republican claims to be conservative during campaign season. When they reveal their true colors, it's conservatives that suffer and the conservative movement loses support. Meanwhile, Republicans are voted into office instead of conservatives.

The result has become that more and more conservatives stay home on Election Day and refuse to support a losing proposition. That is what makes an Obama presidency possible or a six-term US Senator like John McCain feasible. Just enough conservatives hang in to keep the Republicans competitive, not knowing they could change the course of our country if they would act in unison.

When conservatives realize that, without their support, the Republican Party would vanish overnight, and only then will America have a legitimate “conservative movement.” Unfortunately, too many conservatives believe that, without the Republican Party, they are left without a voice, so they compromise. Why put one’s self in such a dilemma and partake in such a soul-wrenching affair just to say later that the "lesser of the two evils is better than the alternative." 

Why not pick up and move camp under a single, solitary conservative party? A party which sole existence rests on conservative principles.

The American Conservative Party offers something different. The party represents organized conservatism for conservatives. Any alternative out there represents uncertainty, failure, and disrespect to anyone who is a conservative.

Conservatives, it is time you take your destiny into your own hands. Our country depends on it.

Hat tip to The Hot Gates 480BC:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/01/jay-carneys-response-when-asked-benghazi-whistleblowers-those-attacks-were-a-long-time-ago/

That’s in the past.

This is what the White House, through the medium of its * Goebbels-esque Liar-in-Chief of a Press Secretary Jay Carney, wants us to think about an event that happened less than eight months ago. In his words:

” ‘Let’s be clear,” Carney said in response to a question from Ed Henry. “Benghazi happened a long time ago. We are unaware of any agency blocking an employee who would like to appear before Congress to provide information related to Benghazi.’ ”

By saying that the White House is unaware of any “blocking” of people from providing information to Congress about the lack of response to the pleas for help from the besieged, Carney must be trying to avoid admitting that individuals, not agencies, do the thug work. The State Department is obviously not going to go on record as making threats; that is the job of selected members who have been assigned the task. By using the specific word blocking, Carney must mean that no one has been physically restrained from driving or walking to the earlier hearings, the press, or any Congressman’s office. To him, threatening them with the losses of their jobs or promotions or possible prosecution for divulging information that has conveniently been classified Secret would not count as “blocking”.

To paraphrase what regular guys in New York City would say in answer to Carney’s assertion, “I got news for you Jay, everything that has ever happened in the history of the world is in the past. If it wasn’t then it didn’t happen yet.”

I guess that we are supposed to apply a Monty Python and the Holy Grail line of thinking to Benghazi – “Well then, I suppose it was a long time ago. Let’s forget about the whole thing – it was silly after all”.

Unless period specified by a Statute of Limitations for a particular crime has passed, then I believe that dismissing an event as having occurred “a long time ago” (Which also factually false as the attack was less than two-thirds of a year ago) does not get one off the hook. As an aside, I once had an officer who was assigned to my section try the ‘That’s in the past” defense when he was being counselled for a years-long pattern for abuse of sick time (He has been bounced from supervisor to supervisor over a period of time and I saw that his performance failures had not been addressed. My answer was that, if his attendance issues were not in the past, then I would not be counseling him about it because it would not have occurred.

The bulk of our media will do all in their power to ignore the picture that is

via The Hot Gates 480BC: Jay Carney – Benghazi Was “a long time ago”.

(Also posted on LoudounLiberty)

It takes a village…right?

That’s what we’ve heard, anyway. That’s the mantra of many who feel that schools and “communities” should help parents make better decisions about what their children watch, read, eat, etc. They feel that parents – families – are inadequate, and even harmful, if not buttressed by the undying and committed support of the collective “village.” There was a recent hullabaloo about Melissa Harris Perry talking about how “children belonged to the community” which got her a lot of attention, and she is still quite adamant about.

OK, then what about the victims of Dr. Gosnell, the Pennsylvania abortion doctor (who had some of his charges thrown out yesterday by the judge, but still faces first-degree murder charges) who allegedly committed blatant infanticide in his clinic by simply snipping the backs of the neck of infants who managed to be born alive? Where was the “village” then?

Seriously…either life begins at birth or not. If THAT’S the line, then that’s the line. It should be a “takes-a-villager’s” dream. Here is a parent who has made the ultimate decision of not wanting to be responsible for their child. Where is the team of villagers with “We Love Hillary” badges swooping in and protecting innocent child victims? Where is the outcry of community responsibility and collective love?

No where…silent. Or in some cases outright defiance (not in relation to Gosnell, but infanticide in general) in the case of Florida Planned Parenthood.

One can’t help but believe this is more than simply intellectual inconsistency, but a moral hypocrisy when kids born…alive…with explicitly no one willing to take care of them, are allowed to be simply slaughtered.  This is not a legal line that is complicated to thread.  The far left is either serious (in the case of infanticide REALLY serious) about  a woman’s “right to choose” how (and of course, when) they want to raise their families; or they’re in unabashed support of children “belonging to the community.”

It’s fair to ask: are parents ultimately responsible for the life, growth, education of children?  If they can simply toss the life away by having their doctor snip the back of their neck, then they can certainly choose how they are educated…right? Alternatively: if children, basically from birth, “belong to the community” then it stands to reason that there should be a team of “villagers” standing in front of any abortion clinic offering them their home…right?

Which is it?

When it comes to the proposed immigration reform [read Amnesty by another name] out of Washington, the "Gang of Eight" senators' plan will put Americans on the hook for trillions of dollars.

After the Presidential Election, when the rooms cleared, the confetti bagged and trashed, and the high-dollar Republicans consultants deposited their last check, conservatives were left asking just what in the world happened. How could a country embrace the same man who authored Obamacare, created historical debt, resided over an anemic economy for four years, and did nothing to fix the nation's unemployment while in office?

Good political sense suggested that President Obama was headed toward sure defeat. After all, he was facing a man who was just as intelligent, politically vigorous, and held a successful resume of accomplishments shared by few others. Still Mitt Romney lost -- rejected in key states such as Florida, Ohio, and Virginia.

The immediate reaction was that demographics had changed the political landscape. A terrible circumstance for conservatives if it were true. It's not true, however.

Following our recent election, I was quite discouraged—by the inadequacies of both mainstream candidates, the level of rancor in the public discourse on the election, the capture of American politics by so many single-issue activists, and by the results…

Only after a search that included the Libertarian Party and the Constitutional Party did I come across the American Conservative Party website; I promptly joined, since I share all of the core values described on the site (and since I found the two larger parties not acceptable for various reasons). I also agree with the approach the ACP is taking in its early stages, specifically the focus on starting locally rather than putting all the effort into a forlorn third party national candidacy. Maybe later, but we're not ready yet.

I decided to call my blog "The American Exceptionalist" because I deeply believe that the United States is still a unique kind of country, and still represents something of the aspirations that motivated the Framers of the Constitution. I believe our country can and should remain great, and I believe we can strengthen our position as an example to the world. We can do this not by being policeman to the world, but by avoiding the radical experiments and defeatism that are so common these days.

But I also like the contrarian double entendre of the term "exceptionalist". Because someone who takes exception to commonly held myths (usually understood by those holding them as truths), particularly when they don't hold up as "real" truths, is in effect a contrarian. And sometimes, these myths are held as much by conservatives as by anyone else (since conservatives have no particular skill in avoiding human nature). But even better, these days the notion of embracing American exceptionalism as a good thing seems to be a contrarian view, and one which I believe needs to be kept alive.

For example, the idea behind the Defense of Marriage Act seems at least plausibly acceptable to one with conservative social views, but unfortunately the act was driven by strong religious views that trumped our Constitutional order. The Federal government should have essentially NOTHING to do with marriage at all. Nor should the Federal government have a Department of Education, or one of Energy, or… The Framers explicitly intended issues not specifically granted to Congress to be handled by states or by individuals, as appropriate. When one bends the Constitutional order to get what one wants, even if it is a good conservative outcome, it is no better than a liberal judicial activist's legislating from the bench.

We can't have it both ways. If we want the separation of powers to be strong, and the Constitutional order to be reinforced, we shouldn't subvert it when it's convenient. And it is hypocrisy to do so and then to denounce attempts by others to do the same thing (but with goals of which we disapprove).

Social issues like marriage, abortion, pornography, etc., should be dealt with at the state level according to the police power. As an exceptional nation, we win when this occurs, because then we have 50 republics to examine when we consider policy, and because we can choose to move among the states if we like. This is a core strength of the exceptional American constitutional experiment, and as conservatives we should reinforce this whenever we can.

And we should fight the social issues locally…

WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE FREE MAN?

From The Desk of The Exceptional Conservative

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!!" - Samuel Adams