Conservative Refocus

Barry Secrest

Finally!

A Liberal Media Star who actually has the intellectual honesty to point out how absurd and completely wrong this Saul Alinsky-style  Conservative-Christian targeting is, rather than trying to defend it like many Leftists.

This is the difference between a true Liberal and mindless, Left-Wing, apparatchiks.

You may not agree with him,  on most political points, but at least you can respect him as one who stands on principle.

And Stewart runs a comedy show, for heaven's sake, albeit one highly successful....just sayin'

WND

By Bob Unruh

The Internal Revenue Service already has confessed to targeting and trying to injure tea party, Constitution and patriot organizations, by demanding answers to arbitrary questions and delaying their applications for a tax status so they could operate.

Now WND has learned that the IRS also put an organization in its bull’s-eye that wanted to do nothing more than share its pro-life message with churches.

Cherish Life Ministries was created to be a non-profit under the IRS 501(c)3 provision so that churches would feel comfortable working together.

Peter Shinn founded the group, because he already was working with ProlifeUnity.com, but as it did not carry the same tax code designation as a religious institution, some churches were reluctant to hear the message from its education materials.

And even more reluctant to participate, Shinn told WND.

The mission of the ProlifeUnity group is to “save the unborn and defend the defenseless, no exceptions, no compromise.”

It organizes pickets, works through email campaigns and takes “direct action” on the dispute.

So Shinn launched Cherish Life Ministries, a separate organization, to offer help to a coalition of churches that supports mothers struggling with unexpected pregnancies, promotes abstinence and advocates for an end to abortion in the community, state and nation.

“Our goal is to assist churches, organize and support a life ministry in defense of life and help function as an outreach to people struggling with unwanted pregnancies in the local community,” the site states.

Education materials are offered.

But Shinn said the IRS contacted him regarding his application for nonprofit status, and was told he didn’t qualify.

“The representative was telling me I had to provide information on all aspects of abortion, I couldn’t just educate the church from the pro-life perspective,” he said. “Every time I pressed her on this issue and asked her to clarify her position, she would state that it wasn’t what she was saying, and then, she would repeat it almost the same way.”

The IRS agent did not respond to a WND request for comment on the ministry’s position.

But Shinn said he was accused of setting up a political organization.

“I asked her why she said we were political organization and she said it was because we had said in our application that we did less than 5 percent political activity. I explained to her that this was what was stated in the application and all we were doing was acknowledging that we were doing less than 5 percent political activity,” he said.

He said the woman then accused him of having links to political activity on his website, even though he said he did not.

“She told me … they were going to deny my application,” he told WND. “She did get nervous though in the end when I pressed her that I wanted specific information about why I had to educate from a pro-abortion perspective not just pro-life. I explained to her that the Pro-Life Action League even has pro-life in their title and they certainly don’t teach pro-abortion topics and they are still 501(c)(3). I also told her that Planned Parenthood does not teach about pro-life issues yet they are also still a 501(c)(3).”

He also told WND that the IRS had rewritten his proposed bylaws “to paint our organization as a political organization. I couldn’t believe they took it upon themselves to do that,” he told WND.

The result is that the IRS gave him 90 days “to prove that we are not involved in political issues at all.”

WND reported when the IRS story broke last week that Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., believes the IRS “confession” was made because Barack Obama wants to distract attention from the scandal of his administration’s behavior when Islamists attacked and killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya.

Bachmann, a former tax attorney and a leader of the congressional tea party caucus, told WND, “There’s no doubt this was not a coincidence that they dumped this story today, a Friday dump day This is when they put their negative stories out.”

But she said the looming storm cloud called Benghazi is the “soft underbelly” of the Obama administration and likely will keep Hillary Clinton from fulfilling her dream of occupying the Oval Office.

That would make it logical to release an IRS story that, while embarrassing, also could be cubbyholed as another “conservative” dispute with the White House.

She was referring to the ongoing hearings on the administration’s handling of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack by al-Qaida-linked terrorists on a U.S. foreign service post in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the ambassador.

House Republicans allege the U.S. government knew of a terrorist threat but ignored it. After the attack, critics charge, the administration blamed the deaths on reaction to an obscure anti-Muslim video, despite evidence from the beginning that it was a premeditated terrorist attack.

Locked in a tight presidential race, a deliberate assault on American assets and the murder of Americans by al-Qaida on a date as significant as 9/11 would have damaged Obama’s campaign claim that his administration had al-Qaida under control.

Bachmann said the IRS announcement of misbehavior was intended to provoke conservatives and draw their anger and attention.

“I was in that Benghazi hearing,” she told WND. “I think the Obama administration is desperate to spin Benghazi, and they can’t. I think they saved this story up for a day like today so that conservatives would focus on this admission.”

It won’t work, she insisted.

“Conservatives can handle two shocking stories at the same time,” she said. “Both are equally unconstitutional and call into question the very president.”

The IRS confirmed on Friday that it had been targeting groups with “patriot,” “Constitution” or “tea party” in their names for punishment through additional questioning and delays.

The American Center for Law and Justice under Jay Sekulow’s leadership already had been fighting the battle.

“We knew from the very start that this intimidation tactic was coordinated and focused directly on specific organizations,” said Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ.

With the IRS admitting it gave extra scrutiny to conservative political organizations, Graham says he now believes that the review was part of an Obama administration effort of “targeting and attempting to intimidate us.”

(PHOTOS: 10 slams on the IRS)

The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association urging of voters to back “candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel” during last year’s presidential race was the reason why IRS agents visited the North Carolina offices of both Graham groups, the letter accuses.

“While these audits not only wasted taxpayer money, they wasted money contributed by donors for ministry purposes as we had to spend precious resources servicing the IRS agents in our offices,” Graham wrote in the letter, which was shared with POLITICO. “I believe that someone in the administration was targeting and attempting to intimidate us. This is morally wrong and unethical – indeed some would call it ‘un-American.”

Graham said that “in light” of the IRS admission that it targeted tea party groups for added scrutiny, “I do not believe that the IRS audit of our two organizations last year is a coincidence – or justifiable.”

(Also on POLITICO: IRS head: 'Mistakes were made')

Graham was not available to comment Tuesday because he was traveling, a spokesman said. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. An IRS spokesman said that he had not seen the letter and could not comment.

The Graham organizations kept their federal income tax exemptions after the audit — but were not told they’d be able to until after the November election, he wrote.

Graham, who last week attended a White House meeting for religious leaders to discuss gun control, said the IRS story threatens to engulf all manner of non-profit organizations.

“Mr. President, the IRS has already publicly acknowledged it operated in a less than neutral and non-partisan way,” Graham wrote. “We also now know that the target of their improper actions was much wider than political or Tea Party organizations. Will you take some immediate action to reassure Americans we are not in a new chapter of American history – repressive government rule?”

(Also on POLITICO: Tea party groups threaten to sue IRS)

The IRS review, which Graham wrote involved an IRS agent visiting the two agencies last October, followed the Billy Graham ministry publishing newspaper ads in North Carolina backing a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The amendment passed in May.

More from REID J. EPSTEIN at the Politico

Holder in the spotlight

White House stuck on IRS response

Benghazi: 5 things we learned

Glenn Beck

As the Benghazi lies keep unfolding, Glenn felt it important to highlight the most important and revealing falsehoods that have been fed to the American people so far. Sadly there were so many to choose from he could only narrow it down to 20.

Here are the top 20 Benghazi lies…

#1. “Our current best assessment based on the information we have at present is that in fact what this began as was a spontaneous, not a premeditated, response to what had transpired in Cairo.” — Susan Rice

The testimony now proves that the administration knew in advance.

#2. “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.” — President Obama

#3. “But the entire reason that this has become the, you know, political topic it is is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.” — Stephanie Cutter (Obama’s campaign spokesperson)

#4. “That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video, sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.” — President Obama

Important because the President’s defense has been ‘we corrected it’ and called Benghazi an act of terror two days later. This was after that.

#5. “I know there are some who ask, why don’t we just ban such a video.  The answer is enshrined in our laws.  Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.” — President Obama

So it’s still the “video” and claiming people are calling for speech to be limited.

#6. “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior along with the protest that took place at our embassy in Cairo yesterday as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” — Hillary Clinton

…how many times did they try to go down this road?

#7. “We can all condemn this reprehensible video.” — Victoria Nuland

That’s 3 members of the State Department…1 political operative…and the President.

#8. “Find the video that has been so offensive to Muslims to be disgusting and reprehensible.” — Jay Carney

Seriously?

#9. “To address the video circulating on the Internet that has led to these protests.” — Hillary Clinton

Wow.

#10. “Was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video.” — Susan Rice

Well, if nothing else, she is persistent.

#11. “And it is in response, not to United States policy, not to obviously the administration, not to the American people.  It is in response to a video.” -
Jay Carney

…sigh.

#12. “Now we do not yet have indication that it was preplanned or premeditated.” – Jay Carney

Really? Because we actually know that you had information that the attack was premeditated days before the attack took place. One of the people in Benghazi called the State Department with concerns warning of the attack.

Oops.

#13. Reporter: “And CBS has learned that the U.S. mission in Libya reportedly ‑‑ repeatedly asked for better security before last month’s attack on the American consulate in Benghazi.  A State Department officer says there were 13 confirmed security threats in the six months before the attack.  Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed three weeks ago.”

“Well, we weren’t told they wanted more security and we did not know they wanted more security again.” — Joe Biden

That’s cute, Joe.

#14. “The White House and State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two ‑‑ of these two institutions were changing the word consulate to diplomatic facility because consulate was inaccurate.” — Jay Carney

…odds Jay Carney has this job a year from now?

#15. “And make no mistake:  We will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.” — President Obama

Well…the video guy is in prison — no terrorists from this attack yet though.

#16. “You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who is extremely offensive video directed at Mohammed and Islam.  We had nothing to do with the video.” — President Obama

The video? Again? Come on guys…

#17. “It’s not a matter of blaming, that’s just the facts.  Sometimes intelligence has to catch up with the reality on the ground.  This was one of those cases.” — David Axelrod

Doesn’t the intelligence normally come from information on the ground? Throwing the CIA under the bus is never the smart choice, David.

#18. “First I pretty the faux outrage from the RNC and the Republican Party.” — Stephanie Cutter

Somehow this is one of the masterminds behind Obama’s re-election.

#19. “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they would go kill some Americans?” — Hillary Clinton

Something tells us it’s starting to make a difference to Hillary (and her 2016 presidential hopes).

#20. “Let’s be clear: These protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region.” – Jay Carney

Seriously, what do we think — a week? a month? How much longer does Carney have as Press Secretary?

So what’s the truth? Glenn gives a full rundown of where we stand and what we know about the Benghazi attacks HERE.