ponderingtheessence

Google News : U.S. : All

Brisbane Times
BBC News
Politico
ABC News
Washington Blade
OMFG! You'll Never Believe Who President Obama Went To Prom With...Hint: It's ...
Global Grind
OMFG! You'll Never Believe Who President Obama Went To Prom With...Hint: It's Not Michelle (PHOTOS). Posted 4 hours 57 min ago by Christina Coleman for Global Grind Staff. Advertisement. So TIME Magazine released these never-before-seen photos of ...

and more »
Vancouver Sun
CBS News
CBS News
US Stocks Shake Off Global Market Rout
Wall Street Journal
Stocks in the U.S. shook off a steep global selloff that began with a 7.3% plunge in Japan's stock market. Markets around the world were jostled Thursday by a confluence of events that interrupted a monthslong rally in risky assets. Thanks in large part to a ...

Vote on gay Scouts comes at emotional moment .

May 23rd, 2013

John Stemberger, center, leads a press conference backed by people against the proposed change in the Boy Scouts of America gay policy Wednesday, May 22, 2013, in Grapevine, Texas. Delegates to the Boys Scouts of America meeting nearby are expected to address a proposal to allow gay scouts into the organization.

By DAVID CRARY and NOMAAN MERCHANT

The Boy Scouts of America‘s national leadership will vote Thursday on whether to allow openly gay Scouts in its ranks, a critical and emotionally charged moment for one of the nation’s oldest youth organizations and its millions of members.

About 1,400 voting members of BSA’s national council are to cast ballots Thursday on a resolution to end a policy that allows youth Scouts to be excluded based only on sexual orientation. The ban on gay adult leaders would remain in place.

The vote is taking place at a resort in Grapevine, Texas, not far from BSA’s headquarters, during the national council’s three-day annual meeting. The results are expected to be announced shortly after 5 p.m. CDT Thursday.

Gay-rights supporters and opponents have waged impressive campaigns to win support for their arguments in the months leading up to the vote.

Supporters of allowing gay scouts used a political consulting firm and targeted about 120 local Scouting councils where they thought the most votes could be won. Opponents cited Texas code to obtain the names and addresses of voting members from BSA officials so they could send out mailings, and held rallies across the country last week.

Scouting was established in 1910 and claims 2.6 million youth members, in addition to thousands of leaders and volunteers. Its board of directors includes executives and community leaders, and President Barack Obama is its honorary president.

Obama urged the organization to reverse the ban before a national executive board meeting that took place in February, and two high-profile board members — the CEOs of AT&T and Ernst & Young — said they would work from within to change the policy.

The national executive board decided instead to leave the final decision to a national council vote, and the BSA launched a listening tour of surveys and focus groups. BSA President Wayne Perry called on voters to approve the resolution overturning the ban in an opinion piece for USA Today published online Wednesday.

Findings that BSA published on its website illustrate the difficult balancing act it faces.

It said a majority of “adults in the Scouting community” support the current ban, but a majority of current Boy Scouts and Venture scouts do not, according to the findings. About 48 percent of parents of current Scouts support the policy, down from 57 percent three years ago.

One estimate suggested a policy change could cause as many as 100,000 to 350,000 Scouts to leave. And it could also affect donors — just more than half of local councils reported to BSA that their donors supported the current ban.

Of the more than 100,000 Scouting units in the U.S., 70 percent are chartered by religious institutions. While these sponsors include liberal churches opposed to any ban on gays, some of the largest sponsors are relatively conservative denominations that have previously supported the broad ban — notably the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Southern Baptist churches.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced in April that it supports the new proposal. Leaders of some smaller, conservative denominations have opposed it.

“Ultimately we can’t anticipate how people will vote but we do know that the result will not match everyone’s personal preference,” said Deron Smith, BSA’s national spokesman

Posted in Boy Scouts | No Comments »

Immigration bill heads to full Senate .

May 22nd, 2013

In this May 20, 2013 file photo, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., left, confers with Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., center, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., as the Senate Judiciary Committee assembled to work on a landmark immigration bill to secure the border and offer citizenship to millions, on Capitol Hill in Washington. Leading senators working on immigration legislation reached a compromise Tuesday on the details of an expanded high-tech visa program, officials said as the Senate Judiciary Committee neared completion of its work on the measure. At the same time, several officials said the White House has made it known to Leahy that it would prefer postponing a showdown over the rights of same sex spouses until a vote in the full Senate.

ERICA WERNER

A far-reaching bill to remake the nation’s immigration system is headed to the full Senate, where tough battles are brewing on gay marriage, border security and other contentious issues, with the outcome impossible to predict.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the measure 13-5 Tuesday night, setting up an epic showdown on the Senate floor after Congress’ Memorial Day recess. The legislation is one of President Barack Obama‘s top domestic priorities — yet it also gives the Republican Party a chance to recast itself as more appealing to minorities.

Many involved still vividly recall the last time the Senate took up a major immigration bill, in 2007, beginning with high hopes only to see their efforts collapse on the Senate floor amid a public backlash and interest group defections.

Some expressed optimism for a better outcome this time around as the Judiciary Committee gave its bipartisan approval. Three Republicans — Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona, both authors of the bill, and Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah — joined the 10 committee Democrats in supporting the measure.

“We’ve demonstrated to the United States Senate we can all work together, Republicans and Democrats,” said the panel’s chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. “Now let’s go out of this room and work together with the other members of the Senate, and with the other body (the House), and more importantly work with all Americans, and all those who wish to be Americans.”

In a statement, Obama applauded the committee’s action and said the bill was “largely consistent with the principles of common-sense reform I have proposed and meets the challenge of fixing our broken immigration system.”

The legislation would create new routes for people to come legally to the U.S. to work at all skill levels, tighten border security and workplace enforcement, and offer a chance at citizenship to the 11 million people here illegally.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has said he would bring the legislation to the Senate floor early next month for a debate that some aides predicted could consume a month or more. The fate of immigration legislation in the House was even less clear, although it was due to receive a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

It was Leahy’s 11th-hour decision to hold back on an amendment to extend immigration rights to same-sex married couples that cleared the way for the bill’s approval.

Until Leahy began speaking on the issue to a hushed hearing room Tuesday evening, it wasn’t clear how the matter, which had hovered over the three weeks of committee sessions to review the legislation, would play out.

Leahy had been under pressure from gay groups to offer the amendment, which would allow gay married Americans to sponsor their foreign-born spouses for green cards like straight married Americans can. But Republican supporters of the bill warned that including such a measure would cost their support. As the committee neared the end of its work, officials said Leahy had been informed that both the White House and Senate Democrats hoped he would not risk the destruction of months of painstaking work by putting the issue to a vote.

“I don’t want to be the senator who asks people to choose between the love of their life and the love of their country,” Leahy said, adding that he wanted to hear from others on the committee.

In response, he heard a chorus of pleas from the bill’s supporters not to force a vote that they warned would lead to the collapse of Republican support and the bill’s demise.

“I don’t want to blow this bill apart,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the first to speak up.

“I believe in my heart of hearts that what you’re doing is the right and just thing,” said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. “But I believe this is the wrong moment, that this is the wrong bill.”

Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Al Franken, D-Minn., added their voices, and Leahy announced that, “with a heavy heart,” he would withdraw his amendment.

Gay rights groups voiced outrage, and the issue is certain to re-emerge when the full Senate debates the legislation. But it is doubtful that sponsors can command the 60 votes that will be needed to make it part of the legislation.

In the hours leading to a final vote, the panel also agreed to a last-minute compromise covering an increase in the visa program for high-tech workers, a deal that brought Hatch over to the ranks of supporters.

Under the bill, the number of highly skilled workers admitted to the country would increase greatly, but there were also protections aimed at ensuring U.S. workers get the first shot at jobs, and high-tech companies objected to some of those.

Under the deal, companies in which foreign labor accounts for at least 15 percent of the skilled workforce would be subjected to tighter conditions than businesses less dependent on H-1B visa holders, and requirements on recruiting and hiring and firing of U.S. workers would be relaxed.

In defeat, opponents said they, too, wanted to overhaul immigration law, but not the way that drafters of the legislation had done.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, recalled that he had voted to give “amnesty” to those in the country illegally in 1986, the last time Congress passed major immigration legislation. He said that bill, like the current one, promised to crack down on illegal immigration, but said it had failed to do so.

“No one disputes that this bill is legalization first, enforcement later. And that’s just unacceptable to me and to the American people,” he said.

Posted in Immigration Reform | No Comments »

2 golf bodies ban anchored putting stroke .

May 21st, 2013

Masters champion Adam Scott, above, uses the controversial anchored putting stroke.

By Doug Ferguson

Golf’s governing bodies approved a new rule Tuesday that outlaws the putting stroke used by four of the last six major champions, going against two major golf organizations that argued long putters are not hurting the game.

The Royal & Ancient Golf Club and US Golf Association said Rule 14-1b would take effect in 2016.

‘‘We recognize this has been a divisive issue, but after thorough consideration, we remain convinced that this is the right decision for golf,’’ R&A chief executive Peter Dawson said.

The new rule does not ban the long putters, only the way they commonly are used. Golfers no longer will be able to anchor the club against their bodies to create the effect of a hinge. Masters champion Adam Scott used a long putter he pressed against his chest. British Open champion Ernie Els and U.S. Open champion Webb Simpson used a belly putter, as did Keegan Bradley in the 2011 PGA Championship.

‘‘We strongly believe that this rule is for the betterment of the game,’’ USGA president Glen Nager said. ‘‘Rule 14-1b protects one of the important challenges in the game — the free swing of the entire club.’’

The announcement followed six months of contentious debate, and it might not be over.

The next step is for the PGA Tour to follow along with the new rule or decide to establish its own condition of competition that would allow players to anchor the long putters. PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem said in February that the USGA and R&A ‘‘would be making a mistake’’ to adopt the rule, though he also has stressed the importance of golf playing under one set of rules.

Some forms of anchoring have been around at least 40 years, and old photographs suggest it has been used even longer. It wasn’t until after Bradley became the first major champion to use a belly putter than the USGA and R&A said it would take a new look at the putting style.

‘‘It can never be too late to do the right thing,’’ Nager said.

Those in favor of anchored putting argued that none of the top 20 players in the PGA Tour’s most reliable putting statistic used a long putter, and if it was such an advantage, why wasn’t everyone using it?

‘‘Intentionally securing one end of the club against the body, and creating a point of physical attachment around which the club is swung, is a substantial departure from that traditional free swing,’’ Nager said. ‘‘Anchoring creates potential advantages, such as making the stroke simpler and more repeatable, restricting the movement and rotation of the hands, arms and clubface, creating a fixed pivot point, and creating extra support and stability that may diminish the effects of nerves and pressure.’’

The governing bodies announced the proposed new rule on Nov. 28, even though they had no statistical data to show an advantage. What concerned them more was a spike in usage on the PGA Tour, more junior golfers using the long putters and comments from instructors that it was a better way to putt. There was concern that the conventional putter would become obsolete over time.

The purpose of the new rule was simply to define what a putting stroke should be.

‘‘The playing rules are not based on statistical studies,’’ Nager said. ‘‘They are based on judgments that define the game and its intended challenge. One of those challenges is to control the entire club, and anchoring alters that challenge.’’

The topic was so sensitive that the USGA and R&A allowed for a 90-day comment period, an unprecedented move for the groups that set the rules of golf. The sharpest comments came from Ted Bishop, serving a two-year term as president of the PGA of America, saying his group found ‘‘no logical reason’’ for the ban.

Among those who spoke in favor of the fan were Tiger Woods, Brandt Snedeker and Steve Stricker.

‘‘I’ve always felt that in golf you should have to swing the club, control your nerves and swing all 14 clubs, not just 13,’’ Woods said on Monday.

Tim Clark and Carl Pettersson have used the long putter as long as they have been on the PGA Tour. Scott only switched to the broom-handle putter in 2011, and he began contending in majors for the first time — tied for third in 2011 Masters, runner-up at the 2012 British Open, his first major victory in the Masters last month.

‘‘It was inevitable that big tournaments would be won with this equipment because these are the best players in the world, and they practice thousands of hours,’’ Scott said after winning the Masters. ‘‘They are going to get good with whatever they are using.’’

It was Clark’s dignified speech to a players-only meeting — with USGA executive director Mike Davis in the room — that helped sway the tour’s opinion to oppose the ban.

Davis and R&A chief executive Peter Dawson said their research indicated the opposition to the new rule was mainly in America. The European Tour and other tours around the world all spoke in favor of the ban.

Players can still use the putter, but it would have to be held away from the body to allow for a free swing.

‘‘The understandable objections of these relative few cannot prevent adoption of a rule that will serve the best interests of the entire game going forward,’’ Nager said. ‘‘Indeed rather than being too late, now is actually a necessary time to act, before even larger numbers begin to anchor and before anchoring takes firm root globally.’’

Posted in Golf's governing bodies | No Comments »

Obama’s Counsel Was Told of IRS Audit Findings Weeks Ago .

May 20th, 2013

The White House’s chief lawyer was told in the middle of April that an audit of the IRS would show IRS employees inappropriately targeted conservative groups.

PETER NICHOLAS

The White House’s chief lawyer learned weeks ago that an audit of the Internal Revenue Service likely would show that agency employees inappropriately targeted conservative groups, a senior White House official said Sunday.

That disclosure has prompted a debate over whether the president should have been notified at that time.

In the week of April 22, the Office of the White House Counsel and its head, Kathryn Ruemmler, were told by Treasury Department attorneys that an inspector general’s report was nearing completion, the White House official said. In that conversation, Ms. Ruemmler learned that “a small number of line IRS employees had improperly scrutinized certain…organizations by using words like ‘tea party’ and ‘patriot,’ ” the official said.

President Barack Obama said last week he learned about the controversy at the same time as the public, on May 10, when an IRS official revealed it to a conference of lawyers. The president’s statement drew criticism, focusing attention on his management style and whether he has kept himself sufficiently informed about the agencies under his authority.

Others, including veterans of previous scandals, said the counsel—whose role is to advise the president on all legal matters concerning his job and the White House—was right to avoid telling Mr. Obama about the audit’s early findings. Doing so could have caused a new storm by creating the appearance of meddling in an independent investigation that hadn’t yet concluded, former officials said.

The White House, which declined to make Ms. Ruemmler available for comment Sunday, wouldn’t say whether she shared the information with anyone else in the senior administration staff.

The new detail doesn’t help answer some fundamental questions about the IRS scandal, including how it began and who, if anyone, in the administration was aware of the severity of the inspector general’s probe before last November’s presidential election.

Instead, it focuses attention on the White House’s handling of the matter, which has blown up into the kind of crisis that could persist.

When findings are so potentially damaging, the president should immediately be informed, said Lanny Davis, who served as a special counsel to President Bill Clinton.

White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer speaking on CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’ on Sunday.

Of the controversies dogging Mr. Obama, including the terrorist assault in Benghazi, Libya, and the Justice Department’s seizure of phone records of Associated Press journalists, the IRS case “is the most nuclear issue of all,” Mr. Davis said. It involves the “misuse of the IRS” and “anyone who knew about this a few weeks ago and didn’t tell the president shouldn’t be in the White House,” Mr. Davis said.

On the Sunday political talk shows, the White House rejected suggestions that the president should have taken action before the inspector general’s office released its report May 14, a few days after the probe’s findings were disclosed in news accounts.

Dan Pfeiffer, a White House senior adviser, said on NBC that the matter “was handled in the exact appropriate way. As I said, we do not ever do anything to give the appearance of interference in an investigation. What would be an actual scandal would be if we somehow were involved” in such interference.

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew was notified in a March 2013 meeting with the Treasury inspector general for the IRS that an audit was “forthcoming,” according to the Treasury Department. But at that meeting, the inspector general didn’t provide details of his findings, the Treasury said.

Jack Quinn, who served as White House counsel under former President Bill Clinton, said Ms. Ruemmler’s office acted correctly in not sharing the information directly with the president.

If she had instead gotten “involved and called people over to the White House for a full briefing to know all the details, you know what we’d be talking about now? We’d be talking about whether she had tried to interfere with the IG’s investigation,” Mr. Quinn said.

John Podesta, a former White House chief of staff under Mr. Clinton, said: “The worst thing is if you do anything that is perceived to be interfering with an independent investigation” especially if it isn’t fully complete. “That gets you in such trouble your head spins.”

Republicans are expected to zero in on the question of who in the Obama administration’s senior ranks knew about the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups, especially before the November election last year.

Republican lawmakers on House oversight committees are pressing the investigation, with more hearings set for this week.

“Exactly who in the administration knew what about the IRS targeting is one of the key outstanding questions,” said Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), chairman of a House oversight committee that plans to hold a hearing Wednesday on the matter, in an emailed statement.

“In waiting so long to address wrongdoing and inform the public, President Obama and his administration seem more preoccupied with having deniability than quickly addressing serious wrongdoing,” Mr. Issa added.

In his comments Sunday, Mr. Pfeiffer suggested that more personnel changes could come at the IRS, after last week’s ouster of acting commissioner Steven Miller by the president. Mr. Pfeiffer also went on the offensive, saying that White House cooperation with GOP investigators has its limits and that Mr. Obama won’t take part in “partisan fishing expeditions.”

Posted in Obama's Counsel Was Told of IRS Audit Findings Weeks Ago . | No Comments »

North Korea test-fires another short-range missile .

May 19th, 2013

North Korea fired three short-range missiles off its east coast on Saturday

Jung Ha-Won

North Korea on Sunday test-fired a short-range missile off its east coast, its fourth in two days, despite pleas from South Korea and the UN chief to halt the launches at a time of high tensions.

The guided missile was fired into the East Sea (Sea of Japan) on Sunday afternoon, a defence ministry spokesman told AFP without elaborating.

On Saturday the North fired three short-range missiles off its east coast, apparently as part of a military drill.

The North’s short-range missile launches are not unusual but come at a time of heightened alert on the peninsula, following Pyongyang’s February nuclear test which sparked tougher UN sanctions.

Angered by the sanctions and by a joint US-South Korean military exercise, the North for weeks threatened nuclear or conventional attacks on Seoul and Washington.

The South and its US ally had earlier been on heightened alert for any test of medium-range Musudan missiles by the North. But a US defence official said early in May the two mid-range missiles had been moved from their launch site.

South Korea’s unification ministry, which handles cross-border relations, said the launches pose threats to the region and should be stopped immediately.

“We find it deplorable that the North does not stop provocative actions such as the launch of guided missiles yesterday,” said unification ministry spokesman Kim Hyung-Seok, speaking before the latest exercise.

“We call on the North to take responsible actions for our sake and for the sake of the international community.”

UN chief Ban Ki-moon, speaking in Moscow, also called for Pyongyang to “refrain from” further missile tests. He said it was time for it to resume talks with the international community and reduce tensions.

The US state department urged Pyongyang to exercise restraint, without specifically commenting on the launches.

It was unclear what type of missiles were fired on Saturday and Sunday.

Seoul military officials quoted by Yonhap news agency said they may be KN-02 surface-to-surface missiles with a range of up to 160 kilometres (99 miles), or rockets of at least 300mm in calibre fired from a multiple launcher.

Cross-border relations have also been soured by the suspension of operations at a jointly-run industrial complex.

Kaesong Industrial Complex, established just north of the border in 2004 as a rare symbol of inter-Korean cooperation, fell victim to the two months of elevated military tensions.

The North barred South Korean access to the zone and pulled out its own 53,000 workers early last month. Seoul withdrew the last of its nationals early this month.

When the South Koreans left, they loaded up cars with bundles of products, but were still forced to leave much stock behind.

The North last week rejected the South’s call for talks on removing goods from the complex, calling it “a crafty ploy” to deflect blame for the suspension of operations.

“It is very regrettable that the North denigrates our offer for talks… and shifts blame for the suspension of the Kaesong complex to us,” unification ministry spokesman Kim said on Sunday, urging Pyongyang to come forward for talks as soon as possible.

Posted in North Korea's | No Comments »

Congress Grills IRS Commissioner .

May 18th, 2013

Ousted IRS Chief Steve Miller, right, and J. Russell George, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, testify on Capitol Hill, in Washington, May 17, 2013.

By CHRIS GOOD JOHN PARKINSON

Irate lawmakers today accused the acting IRS commissioner of misleading them about the agency’s selective scrutiny of tea party-affiliated groups, demanding to know who was responsible and why no one told Congress about it.

“Why did you mislead Congress and the American people on this?” Louisiana GOP Rep. Charles Boustany, who chairs the Ways and Means panel’s Oversight Subcommittee, asked Steven Miller.

“I did not mislead Congress or the American people,” Miller replied.

Miller apologized but maintained that politics did not motivate the perceived targeting.

“First and foremost, as acting commissioner I want to apologize on behalf of the IRS for the mistakes that we made and the poor service that [we] provided,” Miller told the House Ways and Means Committee in his opening statement. “Partisanship or even the perception of partisanship has no place at the IRS.”

Miller has effectively been fired by the Obama administration. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew requested his resignation, but Miller remains acting commissioner until his appointment expires June 8.

“I think that what happened here is that foolish mistakes were made by people who were trying to be more efficient in their workload selection,” Miller told the committee.

Asked by Georgia GOP Rep. Tom Price whether he thinks the IRS’s actions were “illegal,” the outgoing commissioner said it is not.

“It is absolutely not illegal,” Miller told Price.

Miller asked Price to clarify his question, which Price did: “Do you believe it is illegal for employees of the IRS to create lists to target individual groups and citizens in this country,” the conservative congressman asked Miller.

“I don’t believe it is. I don’t believe it should happen,” Miller said, after indicating that the legality of the IRS’ practices is for others to decide.

Committee members grilled Miller on who at the IRS knew what, and when. Miller said that after initially becoming aware of problems last year with conservative groups’ 501(c)4 applications, he asked an IRS official “to lead a team and take a look and see what was going on in terms of cases that had gotten those letters.”

One employee was reassigned, and managers were instructed that the targeting should not continue, Miller said.

Miller said he became aware of the activity in May 2012.

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., asked Miller why he failed to mention it in July 2012, when he appeared before a subcommittee hearing and was asked about conservative groups’ difficulties with the IRS.

“How can we not conclude that you misled this committee?” Ryan asked. “You knew of our concern of this targeting … You knew that, but you didn’t mention this to the committee. Do you not think that that’s a very incomplete answer?”

Miller said he didn’t mention the actions because the question had implied political motivation, which he did not believe existed. Miller said he was only asked about letters from conservative groups.

“I did not mislead the committee. I stand by my answer then, and I stand by my answer now,” Miller said. “Harassment that was part of that question implies political motivation.”

At a July 25, 2012 subcommittee hearing on tax-exempt organizations, Texas GOP Rep. Kenny Marchant asked Miller about conservative groups that had complained of IRS scrutiny.

“I have been contacted by several of the groups in my district. And they feel like they are being harassed. I don’t have any evidence that that is the case.

“But they feel like they have been harassed and feel like the IRS is threatening them with some kind of action or audit. What kind of a letter or action is taking place at this time that you are aware of?” Marchant asked Miller at that hearing, after Miller had been briefed on the scrutiny of tea party groups.

Miller responded, at the time, without mentioning the actions of which he now says he was aware.

“I am aware that there is an uptick of organizations that came into us for exemption,” Miller said in July 2012. “So it was the determination letter process, not the examination process. I am aware that some 200 501(c)4 applications fell into this category. We did group those organizations together to ensure consistency, to ensure quality. We continue to work those cases.”

Ohio Republican Rep. Pat Tiberi pressed Miller on why he appointed Sarah Hall Ingram, who led the division in charge of tax-exempt organizations, to run the IRS’s Affordable Care Act Office.

“Because she’s a superb civil servant, sir,” Miller explained, noting that he did not think Ingram was involved in the scrutiny of tea party groups.

In the course of asking extra questions of tea party groups, IRS officials requested lists of their donors. Miller told the committee today that he believes the agency destroyed those lists.

Miller also defended former commissioner Douglas Shulman’s testimony in March 2012 that “there’s absolutely no targeting,” explaining that at that time, he and Shulman were aware of problems with conservative groups’ processing, but not that keywords and groups’ policy missions were being used to single them out.

“It was incorrect, but whether it was untruthful or not — look, when you talk about targeting … it’s a pejorative term,” Miller said. “What happened here is that someone saw tea party cases come through, they were acknowledging that they were going to be engaged in politics. This is the time frame in 2010 when Citizens United was happening … people in Cincinnati decided, ‘Let’s centralize these cases.’”

Miller took issue with the term “targeting” multiple times.

“Again, I’m going to take exception to the term ‘targeting,’” Miller said when Texas GOP Rep. Kevin Brady asked him, directly, who was responsible.

Miller said he prefers the term “listing” and that he didn’t have any names of IRS employees to supply.

Both Republican and Democratic members voiced frustration with the activities, by any name, that Miller and others failed to mention to Congress before now.

“We are all outraged,” New York Democratic Rep. Joe Crowley said.

Posted in IRS Commissioner | No Comments »

House committee to grill ousted IRS chief .

May 17th, 2013

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., chairwoman of the Tea Party Caucus, listens at left as while Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., speaks during a news conference with Tea Party leaders about the IRS targeting Tea Party groups, Thursday, May 16, 2013, on Capitol Hill in Washington.

ALAN FRAM and STEPHEN OHLEMACHER

The Internal Revenue Service has refused to provide documents over the past two years to a congressional panel exploring whether the agency gave tougher scrutiny to tea party and other conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, a leading Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee said Friday.

Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., R-La., spoke minutes before the committee was holding Congress’ first hearing on the IRS’s targeting of conservatives.

“We’ve asked for documents for two years now, and all we’ve gotten is stonewalling from the IRS,” Boustany, who heads the Ways and Means oversight subcommittee, said on C-SPAN television.

“We need specific information about who made these decisions, why were these decisions made, why wasn’t there proper oversight, what was the chain of command and who knew what,” Boustany said, previewing questions lawmakers planned to pursue.

With the scandal joining a parade of political troubles buffeting President Barack Obama, the committee planned to question the agency’s ousted chief, Steven Miller, on Friday.

Miller, acting director until he resigned Wednesday, seems sure to get a hostile reception. Members of both parties have spent the past week bitterly chastising the agency for abandoning its charge of making nonpolitical decisions about which groups should qualify for tax-exempt status, which makes it easier for them to collect contributions from donors.

Lawmakers have said that even though they asked the IRS repeatedly about complaints from conservative groups that their applications were being treated unfairly, the agency , including Miller , never told them the groups were being targeted. They said this continued even after May 2012, when the agency says Miller was briefed on the practice. Miller was previously a deputy commissioner whose portfolio included the unit that made decisions about tax-exempt status.

Also to testify Friday was J. Russell George, the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration.

A report George issued this week concluded that the IRS office in Cincinnati, which screened applications for the tax exemptions, improperly singled out tea party and other conservative groups for tougher treatment. The report says the practice began in March 2010 and lasted more than 18 months.

Republicans have spent the past few days trying to link the IRS’ improper scrutiny of conservatives to Obama. The president has said he didn’t know about the targeting until last Friday, when Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups, acknowledged at a legal conference that conservative groups had been singled out. She said it was wrong and apologized.

“I promise you this, that the minute I found out about it, then my main focus was making sure that we get the thing fixed,” Obama said Thursday.

Even so, less than four months into his second term, the president has been on the defensive for the IRS controversy, along with questions about last September’s attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, and the government’s seizure of The Associated Press’ telephone records as part of a leaks investigation.

In one of the latest GOP attacks, Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, wrote Obama on Thursday asking whether the White House or Treasury Department pressured the IRS on the treatment of conservative groups. In the letter, Portman accused the administration of “policies that threaten to chill disfavored political speech.”

The inspector general’s report said all IRS officials questioned said their actions “were not influenced by any individual or organization outside the IRS.”

The report blamed “ineffective management” for letting IRS officials craft “inappropriate criteria” to review applications from tea party and other conservative groups, based on their names or political views. It found that the IRS took no action on many of the conservative groups’ applications for tax-exempt status for long periods of time, hindering their fundraising for the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Many of the groups were applying for tax-exempt status as social welfare organizations, which are allowed to participate in campaign activity if that is not their primary activity. The IRS judges whether that imprecise standard is met.

Friday’s hearing was just the start of Congress’ probe of the IRS’ actions, with the Senate Finance and House Oversight committees planning hearings next week.

In addition, Attorney General Eric Holder has said the FBI was investigating whether the IRS may have violated applicants’ civil rights.

Obama has rejected the idea of naming a special prosecutor to investigate the episode, saying Thursday that the probes by Congress and the Justice Department would get to the bottom of who was responsible.

Obama has named Daniel Werfel, a top White House budget officer, to replace Miller.

Also Thursday, Joseph Grant, one of Miller’s top deputies, announced plans to retire June 3, according to an internal IRS memo. Grant is commissioner of the agency’s tax exempt and government entities division, which includes the agents that targeted tea party groups for additional scrutiny.

Grant joined the IRS in 2005 and took over as acting commissioner of the tax exempt and government entities division in December 2010. He was just named the permanent commissioner May 8.

When asked whether Grant was pressured to leave, IRS spokeswoman Michelle Eldridge said Grant had more than 31 years of federal service and it was his personal decision to leave.

Before he joined the IRS, Grant was a top official at the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Grant’s predecessor at the IRS was Sarah Hall Ingram, who is now director of the agency’s Affordable Care Act Office. Ingram was in charge of the tax exempt division when IRS agents first started targeting conservative groups.

The IRS said Ingram was assigned to help the agency implement the health care law in December 2010, about six months before the Treasury inspector general’s report said her subordinate, the director of exempt organizations, learned about the targeting.

Posted in 000 hurt as 10-ton meteor screams across Russian sky ., House committee to grill ousted IRS chief . | No Comments »

Pressure on Benghazi, IRS, leaks investigation pose big hurdles for Obama’s second-term hopes .

May 16th, 2013

Reporters raise their hands as White House press secretary Jay Carney takes questions during his daily news briefing at the White House in Washington, Tuesday, May, 14, 2013. Carney touched on various topics including the Justice Department’s secretly obtaining two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press and IRS.

By Charles Babington And Julie Pace

President Barack Obama seemed to lose control of his second-term agenda even before he was sworn in, when a school massacre led him to lift gun control to the fore. Now, as he tries to pivot from a stinging defeat on that issue and push forward on others, the president finds himself rocked by multiple controversies that are demoralizing his Democratic allies, emboldening his political foes and posing huge distractions for all.

It is unclear how long he will be dogged by inquiries into last year’s deadly attack in Libya, the U.S. tax agency targeting of tea conservative party groups and now the seizure of Associated Press phone records in a leak investigation. But if nothing else, these episodes give new confidence and swagger to opposition Republicans who were discouraged by Obama’s re-election last November and their inability to block tax hikes as part of a Jan. 1 financial crisis deal.

Taken together, these matters will make it harder for the administration to focus on its priorities — racking up a few more accomplishments before next year’s national elections.

“It’s a torrential downpour, and it’s happening at the worst possible time, because the window is closing” on opportunities to accomplish things before the 2014 campaigns, said Matt Bennett, who worked in the Clinton White House. From here on, he said, “it’s going to be very, very difficult.”

So far, there’s no evidence that Obama knew about — let alone was involved in — the government actions in question. But a president usually is held accountable for his administration’s actions, and Republicans now have material to fuel accusations and congressional hearings that they hope will embarrass him, erode his credibility and bolster their argument that his government is overreaching. Even some of his Democratic allies are publicly expressing dismay at the AP phone records seizure.

Obama advisers on Tuesday cast the trio of controversies as matters that flare up in an institution as complex as the U.S. government, and they questioned the impact of them. The one exception, advisers said, was the brewing scandal at the Internal Revenue Service, the federal tax collection agency, which they see as the issue most likely to strike a chord with Americans.

The IRS has apologized for what it calls “inappropriate” targeting of conservative political groups, including tea party affiliates, that were seeking tax-exempt status in recent years. A Treasury Department inspector general’s report released Tuesday concluded that ineffective management led to the targeting, and Attorney General Eric Holder said he had ordered a Justice Department investigation.

But Holder distanced himself from the decision to subpoena the AP records, saying he had had no part in it, stepping aside because he had been interviewed in a government investigation into who provided information for a news story that disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen.

The press case sparked bipartisan outcry, with several Republican and Democratic officials questioning Holder’s department’s actions in the matter. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said the attorney general should resign over the issue, adding: “Freedom of the press is an essential right in a free society.”

Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both Democrats, called on the Justice Department to explain the records seizure. And Rep. Steny Hoyer, the House’s second-ranking Democratic leader, said, “This is activity that should not have happened and must be checked from happening again.”

As the press and tax issues boiled over Tuesday, many conservative activists stayed focused on the attack last September in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Republicans have spent the past eight months accusing the Obama administration of ignoring security needs before the attack, and of revising subsequent “talking points” to play down the role of Islamic terrorists in the assault, which occurred at the height of Obama’s re-election campaign.

Hillary Rodham Clinton — the secretary of state at the time, and a possible presidential candidate in 2016 — is the target of many Republican accusations.

Despite the noisy controversies, White House advisers tamped down suggestions that Obama would make any sudden moves, such as firing top officials or shaking up his team. In a Tuesday night statement on the inspector general’s IRS report, Obama said he expected those responsible to be held “accountable” though he did not specify what that should entail.

On all three matters, the White House Tuesday steered blame to other administration agencies. The disputed Benghazi talking points, advisers said, were chiefly the CIA’s work. In discussing the tax controversy, the White House has emphasized the agency’s independent status. And Obama’s spokesman has deflected all questions about AP phone records to the Justice Department, saying that the president and his aides didn’t know about the case until they read press reports Monday.

Asked why Obama could not simply ask the attorney general about the Justice Department subpoenas, Jay Carney, the spokesman, said, “A great deal prevents the president from doing that. It would be wholly inappropriate for the president to involve himself in a criminal investigation that … involves leaks of information from the administration.”

White House officials said Obama plans to press his second-term agenda as planned, but the contentious issues are complicating that effort. Amid new revelations about Benghazi and the tax agency, Obama’s attempts last Friday to highlight the implementation of key components of the health care law — his first term’s signature accomplishment — were largely ignored.

Republican consultant John Feehery says the tax agency and Benghazi controversies undercut the president’s argument for increasing the government’s role in health care and almost everything else. They undermine the notion, he said, “that government is trustworthy and can fix problems.”

However, the biggest item now before Congress — whether to rewrite the nation’s immigration laws and provide a pathway to citizenship for millions of people here illegally — may be barely touched by the hubbub. Many Republican leaders say the party must embrace immigration revisions to improve the party’s weak standing with Hispanic voters, a fast-growing constituency that went overwhelmingly for Obama in the election. Denying Obama a victory on immigration, they say, could do even more damage to Republicans.

Posted in Barack Hussein Obama | 1 Comment »

Arias back in court as jury ponders death option .

May 15th, 2013

In this May 8, 2013 file photo, Jodi Arias reacts at Maricopa County Superior Court in Phoenix after she was found of guilty of first-degree murder in the gruesome killing of her one-time boyfriend, Travis Alexander, in their suburban Phoenix home. Arias returns to an Arizona courtroom Wednesday, May 15, 2013 for the “aggravation” phase of her trial, during which jurors will determine whether the death penalty should be an option for sentencing her.

By BRIAN SKOLOFF

Jodi Arias returns to court Wednesday so jurors can consider whether the death penalty should be an option for sentencing the former waitress after convicting her last week of murdering her former boyfriend.

Arias, 32, spent the weekend on suicide watch before being transferred back to an all-female jail where she will remain until sentencing.

Minutes after her first-degree murder conviction, Arias granted an interview to Fox affiliate KSAZ, only adding to the circus-like environment surrounding the trial that has become a cable TV sensation with its graphic tales of sex, lies and violence.

“Longevity runs in my family, and I don’t want to spend the rest of my natural life in one place,” a tearful Arias said. “I believe death is the ultimate freedom, and I’d rather have my freedom as soon as I can get it.”

Despite the comment that she would rather die than be in prison for life, she cannot choose the death penalty. It is up to the jury to recommend a sentence.

During the so-called aggravation phase of the trial that starts Wednesday, prosecutor Juan Martinez must convince the panel that the murder was committed in an especially cruel, heinous and depraved manner. This phase will be a mini-trial of sorts, as both sides call witnesses to present testimony to jurors — the defense in an effort to spare Arias’ life, the prosecution to at least have a shot at a death sentence.

Martinez will likely call the county medical examiner who performed the autopsy to explain to jurors how Travis Alexander did not die calmly and fought for his life as evidenced by the numerous defensive wounds on his hands and feet. The lead detective on the case also will likely testify about the crime scene in an effort to show jurors just how much blood was spread around Alexander’s bathroom and bedroom as he struggled to fend off the attack.

If jurors find Arias’ crime deserves consideration of the death penalty, the trial will move into yet another — and final — phase. Prosecutors will call witnesses, including members of Alexander’s family, aimed at convincing the panel she should face the ultimate punishment. Arias’ attorneys will also call witnesses, likely members of her family, in an attempt to gain sympathy from jurors so they give her life in prison.

If the panel finds no aggravating factors exist, jurors will be dismissed and the judge will determine whether Arias should spend the rest of her life in prison or be sentenced to 25 years with the possibility of release.

“I think this jury is going to listen to everything, but they’re going to come back very quickly and find that indeed the state has shown beyond a reasonable doubt the crime was committed in an especially cruel, heinous and depraved manner,” Phoenix criminal defense lawyer Julio Laboy said. “This was a cruel death and one in which he (Alexander) knew he was dying.”

Arias acknowledged killing Alexander on June 4, 2008, at his suburban Phoenix home. She initially denied any involvement then later blamed masked intruders. Two years after her arrest, she said it was self-defense when the victim attacked her after a day of sex.

She stabbed and slashed Alexander nearly 30 times, shot him in the forehead and slit his throat from ear to ear, leaving the motivational speaker and businessman nearly decapitated before she dragged his mutilated body into his shower where friends found him about five days later.

Prosecutors said Arias planned the killing in a jealous rage, as Alexander wanted to end their affair and planned to take a trip to Mexico with another woman.

Testimony began in early January. The jury reached its verdict last Wednesday after about 15 hours of deliberations over four days. All 12 jurors, eight men and four women, unanimously agreed the killing was premeditated.

“This case is not over. There’s a lot left and without question, victory still awaits the defense if they can save her life and keep her off death row,” Laboy said. “It was such a difficult set of facts and circumstances for her defense to overcome, from her multiple lies to the crime scene to the physical evidence. … If despite all of those things, they can save her life, they’ve still won.”

Jurors in Arias case weigh death penalty .

Jodi Arias looks at the family of Travis Alexander as the jury arrives Wednesday during the sentencing phase of her trial at Maricopa County Superior Court in Phoenix. If the jury finds aggravating factors in her crime, Arias could be sentenced to death. Jodi Arias was convicted of first-degree murder in the stabbing and shooting death of Travis Alexander, 30, in his suburban Phoenix home in June 2008

BRIAN SKOLOFF

Prosecutors on Wednesday tried to convince jurors that Jodi Arias should be eligible for the death penalty, saying Travis Alexander suffered tremendous pain as he fought for his life while Arias stabbed and slashed him nearly 30 times.

The trial resumed with a new phase to decide whether Arias should be eligible for the death penalty.

After about two hours of arguments and testimony, the same jurors who convicted Arias a week ago began deliberations to decide whether Alexander died an especially cruel, depraved and heinous death. If they agree that standard has been met, the penalty portion of the trial will begin to decide whether the 32-year-old Arias should get a life sentence or death.

Alexander’s family sobbed in the front row as prosecutor Juan Martinez took the jury through the killing one more time. He described how blood gushed from Alexander’s chest, hands and throat as he stood at the sink in his master bathroom and looked into the mirror with Arias behind him.

“The last thing he saw before he lapsed into unconsciousness … was that blade coming to his throat,” Martinez said. “And the last thing he felt before he left this earth was pain.”

The “aggravation phase” of the trial played out in quick fashion, with only one prosecution witness and none for the defense. The most dramatic moments occurred when Martinez displayed photos of the bloody crime scene for the jury and paused in silence for two minutes to describe how long he said it took for Alexander to die at Arias’ hands on June 4, 2008.

Arias, wearing a silky, cream-colored blouse, appeared to fight back tears most of the morning. She spent the weekend on suicide watch before being transferred back to an all-female jail where she will remain until sentencing.

“She made sure she killed him by stabbing him over and over and over again,” Martinez said.

The defense didn’t have much of a case given how many times Alexander was stabbed, the defensive wounds on his hands, the length of the attack, and the sheer amount of blood found at the scene. Defense lawyers said Alexander would have had so much adrenaline rushing through his body that he might not have felt much pain.

The only witness was the medical examiner who performed the autopsy and explained to jurors how Alexander did not die calmly and fought for his life as evidenced by the numerous defensive wounds on his body.

Minutes after her first-degree murder conviction last Wednesday, Arias granted an interview to Fox affiliate KSAZ, only adding to the circus-like environment surrounding the trial that has become a cable TV sensation with its graphic tales of sex, lies and violence.

However, Arias cannot choose the death penalty. It’s up to the jury to recommend a sentence.

If jurors find Arias’ crime deserves consideration of the death penalty, the trial will move into the final phase. Prosecutors will call witnesses, including members of Alexander’s family, aimed at convincing the panel she should face the ultimate punishment. Arias’ attorneys will also call witnesses, likely members of her family, in an attempt to gain sympathy from jurors so they give her life in prison.

Arias acknowledged killing Alexander at his suburban Phoenix home. She initially denied any involvement then later blamed masked intruders. Two years after her arrest, she said it was self-defense when the victim attacked her after a day of sex.

Prosecutors said Arias planned the killing in a jealous rage, as Alexander wanted to end their affair and planned to take a trip to Mexico with another woman.

Testimony in her trial began in early January. The jury reached its verdict after about 15 hours of deliberations over four days. All 12 jurors, eight men and four women, unanimously agreed the killing was premeditated.

Jodi Arias trial: Jurors decide Arias is eligible for the death penalty .

Arias returned to an Arizona courtroom Wednesday for the ‘aggravation’ phase of her trial, during which jurors determined that the death penalty should be an option for sentencing her.

Jodi Arias reacts at Maricopa County Superior Court in Phoenix after she was found of guilty of first-degree murder in the gruesome killing of her one-time boyfriend, Travis Alexander, in their suburban Phoenix home.

Jurors in Jodi Arias‘ trial on Wednesday found the former waitress should be eligible for the death penalty after they convicted her last week of murdering her one-time boyfriend.

The decision came after a day of testimony in the “aggravation” phase of the trial, during which prosecutor Juan Martinez hoped to prove the June 2008 killing was committed in an especially cruel and heinous manner….

Posted in Jodi Arias | No Comments »

Angelina Jolie Had a Preventative Double Mastectomy .

May 14th, 2013

In a New York Times article, Angelina Jolie revealed she underwent a double mastectomy in February and completed treatment on Apr. 27.

By Justin Ravitz

Angelina Jolie is taking no chances. The actress, director and mother of six, 37, underwent a preventative double mastectomy in February 2013, she reveals in a frank, moving essay in the Tuesday, May 14 edition of the New York Times. Recalling the 2007 cancer death of mother Marcheline Bertrand at age 56 — whom her younger children never got to meet — Jolie shares that she carries a “fault” breast cancer gene, BRCA1. “My doctors estimated that I had an 87 percent risk of breast cancer and a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer, although the risk is different in the case of each woman.”

“Once I knew that this was my reality,” the Maleficent star writes, “I decided to be proactive and to minimize the risk as much I could. I made a decision to have a preventive double mastectomy.” Late last month, Jolie completed three months of procedures.

“During that time I have been able to keep this private and to carry on with my work,” explains the Oscar winner. “But I am writing about it now because I hope that other women can benefit from my experience.”

The UNHCR special envoy then details the long process: A “nipple delay” procedure on Feb. 2, and major surgery, in which breast tissue is removed, two weeks later. “You wake up with drain tubes and expanders in your breasts,” the star says. “It does feel like a scene out of a science-fiction film.”

Nine weeks later, Jolie underwent breast reconstruction surgery with the use of implants.

“There have been many advances in this procedure in the last few years, and the results can be beautiful,” she assures her readers. Noting that she’s “happy” with her decision, Jolie notes that her chances of developing breast cancer have decreased from 87 percent to 5 percent.

“I can tell my children that they don’t need to fear they will lose me to breast cancer,” she says. “It is reassuring that they see nothing that makes them uncomfortable. They can see my small scars and that’s it. Everything else is just Mommy, the same as she always was.”

The worldwide sex symbol adds that she does “not feel any less of a woman” and that the decision makes her feel “empowered . . I made a strong choice that in no way diminishes my femininity.”

Jolie went through the process at the Pink Lotus Breast Center in Beverly Hills — with fiancé Brad Pitt at her side. “I am fortunate to have a partner, Brad Pitt, who is so loving and supportive,” she writes.

“Brad was [there] for every minute of the surgeries,” Jolie recalls of the actor, 49. “We managed to find moments to laugh together. We knew this was the right thing to do for our family and that it would bring us closer. And it has.”

“I choose not to keep my story private because there are many women who do not know that they might be living under the shadow of cancer,” Jolie says of her decision to share her struggle. (The BRCA1 and BRCA1 tests cost over $3,000 in the United Staes, making detection a financial burden for many women. “It has got to be a priority to ensure that more women can access gene testing and lifesaving preventative treatment,” she points out.)

“Life comes with many challenges,” she concludes. “The ones that should not scare us are the ones we can take on and take control of.”

Posted in Angelina Jolie Had a Preventative Double Mastectomy . | No Comments »

Google News : U.S. : All

Vote on gay Scouts comes at emotional moment .

Immigration bill heads to full Senate .

2 golf bodies ban anchored putting stroke .

Obama’s Counsel Was Told of IRS Audit Findings Weeks Ago .

North Korea test-fires another short-range missile .

Congress Grills IRS Commissioner .

House committee to grill ousted IRS chief .

Pressure on Benghazi, IRS, leaks investigation pose big hurdles for Obama’s second-term hopes .

Arias back in court as jury ponders death option .

Angelina Jolie Had a Preventative Double Mastectomy .

Login

Pages

Archives

Categories

Blogroll

Meta