Tag: Only

Leftist Fraud Update: Turns Out #BlackLivesMatter Organizer Only Pretended To Be Biracial… Is Entirely White

Did Black Lives Matter Organizer Shaun King Mislead Oprah Winfrey By Pretending To Be Biracial? – Big Government

.

.
An investigative blogger has accused Shaun King, a key figure in the Black Lives Matter movement, of misleading media icon Oprah Winfrey by pretending to be biracial in order to qualify for an “Oprah scholarship” to historically black Morehouse College. The blogger says King is white and has been lying about his ethnicity for years.

King is a high-profile campaigner against “police brutality” and “justice correspondent” for the liberal Daily Kos website who told Rebel magazine in 2012 that he was biracial, with the magazine reporting that he is the “son of a Caucasian mother and an African-American father.” He has also described himself as “mixed with a black family” on Twitter.

King has been lionised by the press, praised as hero of civil rights and social activism. He has written extensively about a childhood in which he was terrorised by “decades old racial tensions.” He claims to have been “the focus of constant abuse of the resident rednecks of my school.”

Yet, in recent weeks, rumours have been circulating about his ethnicity. A 1995 police incident report lists Shaun King’s ethnicity as white. And blogger Vicki Pate, who has been assembling forensic accounts of Shaun King’s background and family tree on her blog, “Re-NewsIt!,” has published her findings.

.

.
She claims that King is entirely white and says a birth certificate, which Breitbart has since independently acquired from the Kentucky Office of Vital Statistics, names a white man as his father.

King’s case echoes that of Rachel Dolezal, a civil rights activist from Washington who claimed to be biracial while in fact being of caucasian origin. Dolezal continues to insist she “identifies as black,” despite her parents revealing that she is entirely white.

.

.
If Pate is right, Shaun King, who often uses black and white photographs of himself online rather than colour images, may have misled African-American hero Winfrey by applying for and accepting an Oprah Scholarship to the historically black Morehouse College. Oprah Scholarships are given exclusively to black men.

In his Daily Kos diary, King refers to himself as a “brother,” writing: “Oprah Winfrey paid my way through Morehouse. The leadership scholarship that I received from her is why I have a college degree today. Five hundred other brothers have the exact same story.”

Shaun King’s biography has attracted the attention of bloggers and journalists thanks to several bizarre inconsistencies in his public claims. He often struggles when asked to recall basic facts about his own life. For instance, in August 2014, King wrote on Twitter that he was father to three “black girls,” while, six months earlier, he claimed to be father to four.

It is of course possible that a family tragedy is responsible for the inconsistency, but the unexplained change in biographical details is not a one-off. In October 2009, King claimed to have endured four spinal surgeries. By February 2010, the number of surgeries had shrunk to three. There is also some confusion about when an alleged car crash may or may not have happened.

.

.
As it turns out, these explosive new racial allegations are just the latest in a string of controversies surrounding Shaun King: on July 21, a conservative blog reported that his account of a “brutal, racially-motivated beating” in 1995, which at least two reports have described as “Kentucky’s first hate crime,” did not match up with a police report from the case.

“King, 35, has related the story of the hate crime on his blogs and in his recent self-help book, seemingly to bolster his credibility as an activist and as a self-help guru,” wrote the Daily Caller‘s Chuck Ross. “While King has said that he was attacked by up to a dozen ‘racist’ and ‘redneck’ students, official records show that the altercation involved only one other student.”

“And while King has claimed that he suffered a ‘brutal’ beating that left him clinging to life, the police report characterized King’s injuries as ‘minor,’” Ross reported.

.

.
This month, more details have emerged from King’s account that do not match up with the police report or eyewitness accounts from journalists who noticed that King’s public claims did not square with reality.

Remarkably, King’s own publication the Daily Kos, at which he is listed as a staff writer, ran a provocatively titled blog post in July of this year: “Is there something fishy about Shaun King?” The post alleged that people had been asking questions about King for some time and linked to the earlier Daily Caller report.

“While I know that it’s in a right-wing publication, there was something that prevented me from instantly dismissing the article… I’ve seen a number of people on Daily Kos complain that Shaun plays fast and loose with the truth,” wrote contributor Burt Miles. “So I started to do some digging on the Internet and found a lot of information which, if true, makes me very concerned about Shaun, his motives, and how his actions could reflect badly on this site and be used to smear the Black Lives Matter movement.”

Miles continued: “Is there anything to all this, or is it some kind of organized smear campaign? And, if it is a smear campaign, how does it involve so many different sites, publications and individuals?”

.

.
It was around the same time that Breitbart contacted Vicki Pate, who has been investigating King’s claims for several years. Pate provided key documents that appear to show that King has two white parents and that he has been lying to the public about his race.

One of them is his birth certificate, listing his parents as Naomi Kay Fleming and Jeffery Wayne King and a birth date of September 17, 1979 in Versailles, Kentucky. King had already told journalists his mother was white. So all that remained for Pate to determine was whether his father was white too.

King has always claimed that his father is black. But King’s father, Jeffery, is white, says Pate. She points to a man born 11 November 1955 in Campbell, Kentucky who has been the subject of multiple arrests, including for motoring and drug offences. That birth date would make him 23 at the time of Shaun King’s birth, the same age given on Shaun’s birth certificate.

The Jeffery Wayne King whose name and date of birth concord with Shaun King’s birth certificate is pictured below, in a 2007 police mug shot. Various documents give his name as “Jeffery” and “Jeffrey” Wayne King, names which are common variants of one another, but King Snr’s date of birth and place of residence is the same in all records.

What’s more, Pate says she has definitively linked the man pictured in these mugshots to Shaun King via Shaun’s brother, Kentucky Air Guard Russ King, who is also clearly caucasian. Finally, public records show only one J Wayne King in the state.

.
…………
…………………………….Jeffery Wayne King in 2007

.
By 2015, Shaun King had finessed his account of growing up black and suffering discrimination. “I was raised in rural Kentucky,” he told the blog Generation Progress. “It was actually pretty rough. African Americans faced a lot of racism and discrimination growing up. I never really experienced overt racism myself until high school,” he claimed.

“I was put into a weird position when a huge group of students (who called themselves “rednecks”) hated me for no reason.”

————————————————————————————————————————–
…………

Jim Treacher
@jtLOL

We all know that people are the same wherever you go…

6:06 PM – 17 Aug 2015
————————————————————————————————————————–

King must have known while giving interviews as late as 2015 that Vicki Pate was tracking down his family history. But he continued to deliver craftily-worded answers to interview questions that gave the impression he was a person of color and that he had been the victim of hate crimes.

Neither is true, says Pate. She told Breitbart last night that King has never denied her accusations. “Shaun King has not denied the story to me, or anyone else, as far as I know,” she said. “Whenever it is mentioned on Twitter he simply blocks whoever is asking and reports them for ‘harassment.’ He did reply to one person but only to say, ‘Haters gonna hate.’ I myself have been suspended from Twitter just for posing the question.”

King did not return multiple requests for comment via email and social media. He has since blocked us, too.

.

.

House And Senate Claimed Only 45 Employees Each, Then Signed Up 12,359 On Obamacare ‘Small Business’ Exchange

U.S. House And Senate Each Said They Had Only 45 Employees, Then Signed Up 12,359 For Insurance On Obamacare ‘Small-Business’ Exchange – CNS

.

.
Both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives certified that they had only 45 employees each in order to sign up for the District of Columbia’s Small Business Exchange. But 12,359 – or 86 percent of the exchange’s enrollees – are members of Congress, congressional staff members, and their spouses and dependents, according to an appeal filed with the D.C. Court of Appeals by Judicial Watch.

The public interest law firm announced Monday that it is appealing the February dismissal of its lawsuit challenging congressional participation in the Obamacare exchange even though the D.C. Exchange Act limits enrollment to small companies with 50 or fewer employees.

“Congress obviously has far more than 50 employees,” Judicial Watch attorney Michael Bekesha pointed out in his opening brief. “It has thousands of employees.”

Congress enrolled in the small business exchange when its previous coverage under the Federal Employee Health Benefits plan was terminated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and congressional employees stood to lose thousands of dollars in “employer contributions” if they enrolled in the District’s individual exchange.

According to documents obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives both certified that they “employ 50 or fewer full time equivalent employees.”

In October 2013, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a final rule that provides an “employer contribution” covering about three-quarters of the premiums of congressional employees enrolled in the small business exchange starting Jan. 1, 2014.

The OPM rule “allowed at least 12,359 congressional employees and their spouses and dependents to obtain health insurance through the Small Business Exchange… These 12,359 participants represent an astonishing 86% of the Small Business Exchange’s total enrollment,” the appeal states.

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit last October on behalf of Kirby Vining, a D.C. resident since 1986, who objected to the expenditure of municipal funds to insure congressional employees in an exchange that was established specifically for small employers in the District.

“Congress authored the law [ACA], and is going to rather questionable lengths to avoid compliance with the law it drafted,” Vining said.

Although the D.C. Health Benefit Exchange Authority conceded that D.C. law limits participation in the exchange to small employers, it argued in court that “the local statute must yield to the extent the federal statute or regulation applies.”

In its motion to dismiss the case, the authority also stated that the exchange “has been funded exclusively by federal grants awarded to the District to establish its Exchange, and more recently, an assessment imposed on health carriers doing business in the District.”

In dismissing the lawsuit, D.C. Superior Court Judge Herbert Dixon ruled that Vining had no standing to challenge the OPM rule because he “has not demonstrated a reasonable inference that municipal taxpayer funds have been appropriated to defendant exchange authority to establish a cognizable injury to maintain standing to bring his underlying complaint.”

However, in a budget report submitted to Congress, the Exchange Authority’s actual budget for Fiscal Year 2013 ($10.9 million) and FY 2014 ($66.1 million) was identified as ” ‘municipal monies’ as originating from the District’s General Fund. No monies are identified as Federal Funds, Private Revenue, or Intra-District Funds,” according to the appeal.

“In Fiscal Year 2015, the Exchange Authority’s budget was reclassified from the General Fund to a newly created fund, separate and distinct from ‘Federal Funds’,” it continued.

Dixon also ruled that the OPM rule preempts the D.C. Exchange Act, noting that “allowing members of Congress and their staff to participate in the District’s small business health options program is authorized by federal regulations.”

But Judicial Watch argues in its appeal that the D.C. law cannot be preempted because it is “completely consistent and entirely compatible” with the federal law and in fact its “sole purpose is to implement various provisions of ACA.”

“In reality, the court ruled that a determination by a federal bureaucrat – in this instance, the director of OPM – trumps the 50-employee limit of the Exchange Act, at least with respect to Congress,” the group’s appeal brief stated. “No lawful regulation – much less a regulation that purports to delegate such authority to an agency head – can do that, and the Court cites no legal authority whatsoever for their astonishing conclusion that it can.”

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said that allowing Congress to enroll in an exchange meant for small businesses is both “unlawful and unethical.”

“It is an abuse of District taxpayers to use D.C. funds to subsidize illegal health insurance for Congress,” Fitton said in a statement. “It is unlawful and unethical for District officials to use local dollars to participate in Congress’s Obamacare fraud.

“The highest court in the District of Columbia must affirm the right of District taxpayers to protect their monies from being misappropriated by corrupt District officials.”

.

.

Arizona Sheriff To House Judiciary Committee: Only 44% Of Southern Border Under Operational Control

Babeu To Congress: Only 44% Border Operational Control, 30% Of Border Crossers Caught Already Have A U.S. Criminal Record – Universal Free Press

.

.
While Hussein Obama and his minions make proclamations that a border he has never laid his own eyes on is more secure than it’s ever been, people who really know and who have no reason to try to hide the truth are disputing his false claims.

On Tuesday, Pinal County Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the state of affairs in the United States and his county as it pertains to the issue of illegal immigration. The sheriff had nothing good to say regarding the impact of the lawlessness of the Obama regime is having on law enforcement, the nation at larger and his community.

Sheriff Babeu noted in his prepared text that his county is the number one area for drug and human trafficking into the United States in the entire country, so he is qualified to address the issues. He cited statistics that show between 87,915 and 127,285 illegals were captured annually in his sector alone, figures which do not include the amount of illegals who successfully entered the United States without being apprehended. Of the ones who were caught, Babeu states that between 17 and 30 percent were criminals who already had a record for crimes they previously committed within the United States.

He also cited a recent GAO report which stated that for 56% of our border the United States did not have operational control and that due to natural geographic features and road access, much of the illegal traffic from the three of four Arizona sectors which still are not controlled is funneled through his county.

He noted that his office led the largest drug bust in Arizona history, valued at $3 billion dollars, which resulted in the arrest of 76 members of the Sinaloa Drug Cartel, and the confiscation of 108 firearms, two of which led back to Eric Holder’s fast and furious gun smuggling operation.

He used the presence of 28,600 troops presently stationed in Korea to provide contrast to the situation in America where our own border is largely left to the responsibility of local law enforcement who face what in essence is a foreign militarized criminal operation.

Sheriff Babeu advised Congress of the February 2013 release by ICE of 207 illegal alien inmates in one day, 48 percent of the serious or violent offenders, with a total of 408 in his county that year and the releases now totaling into the hundreds of thousands. These criminal predators now roam our streets, seeking American victims, rather than those of their native lands. In 2014 alone ICE charged only 24 percent, 143,000 of 585,000 potentially deportable illegal aliens which had already been apprehended by law enforcement, releasing the others onto the streets of America. In his county alone, Babeu has been informed by ICE insiders that they are releasing 30 to 50 illegals per day.

He also addressed multiple deportations and the policy of no consequence for subsequent immigration violations as well as the reward system created by allowing the Central American border crashers to remain and supporting their every need.

He also notes how the declaration of Hussein Obama is that five million illegals will receive amnesty, and how that figure is, as is customary, a blatant lie to the American people. He refers to the memorandum of DHS Director and Obama criminal co-conspirator Jeh Johnson which indicates that virtually none of the estimated eleven million illegals in the country will be prosecuted or even pursued. He says, “This is not prosecutorial discretion, but instead an intentional and flagrant disregard of the law and we will all suffer the consequences.”

He proposed a simple but aggressive plan that will solve the problem if it were to be adopted. Babeu recommended, “First, deploy 6,000 armed soldiers for a period of two years. While armed soldiers are deployed, complete the double barrier fence with the security platforms, lighting, sensors and asphalt roads to support rapid deployment of U.S. Border Patrol. Thirdly, fully enforce the law without any diversion option for illegals.”

He called upon Congress to take aggressive action to defend our borders, our communities and our nation as well as highlighting their responsibility to stand up for themselves and their legislative body which is under assault by this dictatorial regime.

The problem is fixable, but it won’t happen without taking action.

.

.

Obamacare Architect Caught On Tape Again Saying Subsidies Are Only Supposed To Go To State Exchanges (Audio)

Obamacare Architect Says Again That Subsidies Were Only Supposed To Go To State Exchanges – Daily Caller

While Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber has brushed aside a video of himself arguing that Obamacare subsidies are only allowable in state-run exchanges as a “speak-o” – or verbal typo – a second audio tape has now emerged of Gruber making the very same comments yet again.

“That is really the ultimate threat – will people understand that gee, if your governor doesn’t set up an exchange, you’re losing hundreds of millions of dollars in tax credits to be delivered to your citizens,” Gruber says in the audio clip, resurfaced by Morgan Richmond and John Sexton. “So that’s the other threat, is will states do what they need to do to set it up.”

Gruber made the comments in a public appearance at the Jewish Community Center of San Francisco in January 2012. Gruber’s argument in the clip is even stronger that only state-run exchanges will be given premium tax credit subsidies.

At issue is a phrase written repeatedly in the Affordable Care Act that allows premium tax credit subsidies only for exchanges “established by the state.” Two appeals courts split earlier this week on whether the phrase makes subsidies in the 36 states that didn’t create their own exchanges illegal. Gruber, a chief author of the law, has repeatedly called the cases “nutty.”

But the audio recording is the second to emerge this week that shows that before the lawsuits were brought against the federal exchanges subsidies, Gruber appeared to believe that only states that ran their own exchanges would receive the payments.

In response, Gruber said his comments were a “just a speak-o – you know, like a typo.”

.

.

.

Catastrophe Update: NM Health Exchange Cancels Obamacare Seminar After Only 7 People RSVP

New Mexico Health Exchange Forced To Cancel Obamacare Seminar After Only 7 People RSVP – Weasel Zippers

.

And a whopping 10 people attended another seminar they held last week.

FARMINGTON – Officials from the New Mexico Health Insurance Exchange have reached out to communities throughout the state to explain the exchange and new insurance plans, periodically holding seminars in San Juan County.

But many of those seminars have been sparsely attended. A free health insurance exchange seminar and dinner scheduled last week in Bloomfield was cancelled due to a lack of response.

“We advertised for three weeks before, put it on our reader board and hand-delivered invitations to various doctor’s offices and small businesses,” said Bloomfield Chamber of Commerce President Janet Mackey. “We only had seven people RSVP, and since we were also going to be providing dinner, we thought with so few people it would be a waste of resources.”

Only 10 people attended a separate seminar in Wednesday at the Courtyard by Marriott in Farmington.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Illinois Rewarded For Misspending Only $52 Million On Food Stamps

Illinois Rewarded For Misspending Only $52 Million On Food Stamps – Illinois Watchdog

Since Illinois has seen an explosion in the number of people receiving food stamps, even a slight error costs taxpayers millions.

In this instance, a mistake rate of less than 2 percent means $50 million is misspent.

.

That’s the hard truth behind the press release lauding Illinois for having a 98.3 percent accuracy rate for its Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program.

Illinois’ error rate, from either overspending on food stamps or not spending enough, is 1.74 percent, according to Januari Smith, a spokeswoman for the state’s Department of Human Services.

Just more than 2 million people in the state, or 16 percent of the population, are enrolled in the federally managed SNAP. Washington D.C,. sent Illinois $3 billion for SNAP last year.

The numbers: 1.74 percent of $3 billion is $52 million. That’s a lot of taxpayer waste.

“The more people you add and the bigger the program gets, the more cumbersome it gets. The more difficult it gets to manage. And you have money being given away that shouldn’t be given away,” said Ted Dabrowski, vice President of policy for the Illinois Policy Institute.

Dabrowksi said Illinois saw its food stamp population jump 11.5 percent last year.

Smith said the increase in the number of families receiving food stamps can be blamed on the economy, and admits the program is becoming difficult for the state’s bureaucracy to manage.

DHS had 1,870 case workers handling 1.75 million cases last December, compared to 2,000 workers handling about 1 million cases in 2006, Smith said.

The food stamp rolls have also seen a significant national rise. Since 2011, nearly 2 million more people have signed up for food stamps each year.

Figures from the U.S. Department of Agriculture show that 47.6 million people Americans receive some type of food stamp assistance. The average payout per person is about $133 dollars a month. The average payout per family is about $275 dollars a month.

Dabrowksi said Illinois is the “middle of the pack” nationally in total recipients, but noted the state was second in the nation in food stamp growth last year.

“We had a growth of 11.5 percent of the number of people on food stamps,” Dabrowksi said. “Only Wyoming was worse.”

Dabrowksi said Illinois needs to add more jobs to get more people off food stamps.

By growing the economy, more people can get away from government programs and allow the state to help those who truly need help, he said.

Illinois is being awarded $4 million by the USDA as recognition of it 98 percent accuracy rate. Smith said she doesn’t know how Illinois will spend that money.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

IRS Employees Ordered To Send Tea Party Cases To IRS’s Only Obama Political Appointee

IRS Employees Ordered To Send Tea Party Cases To IRS’s Only Obama Political Appointee – CNS

IRS employees were ordered by their superiors – including Lois Lerner who pleaded the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination rather than testify in Congress – to send certain Tea Party tax-exemption applications to the office of the IRS’s Chief Counsel, which was headed by William Wilkins, who at that time was the only Obama political appointee at the IRS, according to a letter released today by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

.

“As a part of this ongoing investigation, the Committees have learned that the IRS Chief Counsel’s office in Washington, D.C. has been closely involved in some of the applications,” reads a letter released today by the House committees on Oversight and Government and Ways and Means. “Its involvement and demands for information about political activity during the 2010 election cycle appear to have caused systematic delays in the processing of Tea Party applications.”

It further states, “[B]ased on his decades of experience, [career IRS official Carter Hull] determined he had enough facts to make recommendations whether to approve or deny the applications… However, Mr. Hull’s recommendations were not carried out. Instead, according to Michael Seto, the head of Mr. Hull’s unit in Washington, Lois Lerner instructed that the Tea Party applications go through a multi-layer review that included her senior advisor and the Chief Counsel’s office.”

Wilkins, the IRS chief counsel, had been appointed by President Obama to his position in 2009, and was one of only two politically appointed officials at the IRS. The other employee was IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, a Bush appointee. Shulman was commissioner from March 2008 to November 2012. He was followed Steve Miller, who was appointed acting commissioner by Obama and served until May 2013. The current acting commissioner is Daniel Werfel, appointed by Obama in May.

The nine-page letter was sent to IRS Principal Deputy Commissioner Daniel Werfel and was signed by House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrel Issa (R-Calif.), Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.), Regulatory Affairs Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Way and Means Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Charles Boustany Jr. (R-La.).

.
……….
IRS official Lois Lerner is sworn in on Capitol Hill on May 22, 2013, before a House Oversight Committee hearing, where she pleaded the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

The letter is based upon interviews by the Committees of several long-term IRS employees, including Carter Hull, a tax-law specialist and 501c(4) expert with 48 years of experience at the IRS, according to the letter. From his interview, “the Committees were informed that Tea Party applications under his review were, in an unusual turn of events, referred to the Chief Counsel’s office for further review at the direction of Lois Lerner, the head of the Exempt Organizations division. The IRS Chief Counsel is one of two politically appointed officials in the agency.”

Hull is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on Thursday, July 18, along with several other IRS employees cited in today’s letter.

Back in April 2010, according to the letter, Hull was instructed by his superiors to analyze several Tea Party tax-exemption applications as “test” cases to determine the best way for the IRS, as Hull explained, to “approach these organizations, and how [the IRS] should handle them.”

Hull sent development letters to the Tea Party groups requesting additional information, gathered and analyzed the data, and then concluded he had enough facts to make a decision on whether the groups had engaged in a permissible amount of political activity.

“However, Mr. Hull’s recommendations were not carried,” states the letter. Instead, as the head of Hull’s unit in Washington, D.C., Michael Seto, related, Lois Lerner “sent me an email saying that when these cases need to go through multi-tire review and they will eventually have to go [through her staff] and the chief counsel’s office.”

.
…………………
……………IRS Chief Counsel William Wilkens. (Photo: IRS)

Hull also told the committees that Lerner’s senior adviser instructed him in the winter of 2010-2011 that the IRS Chief Counsel’s office would have to review the applications. Hull stated this was the first time in his career he had been told to send applications to Lerner’s senior adviser. As the committee reported:

Q: “Have you ever sent a case to [the senior adviser to Ms. Lerner] before?”

Hull: “Not to my knowledge.”

Q: “This is the only case you remember?”

Hull: “Uh-huh.”

Q: “Correct?”

Hull: “This is the only case I remember sending directly to [ the senior adviser to Ms. Lerner].”

Q: “Did [the senior adviser to Ms. Lerner] indicate to you whether she agreed with your recommendations?”

Hull: “She did not say whether she agreed or not. She said it should go through the Chief Counsel.”

Q: “The IRS Chief Counsel?”

Hull: “The IRS Chief Counsel.”

The letter from the Committees to Werfel goes on to state that after a “substantial delay,” the Chief Counsel’s office finally met with Hull, with Lerner’s senior adviser, and with other Washington officials “to discuss these test case applications.”

.
…………………
………….Acting IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel (AP Photo)

“During the intervening months, these applications lingered,” states the letter. Three years after Hull had been instructed to review the Tea Party applications, he told the Committees that he did not know whether those applications were still open or closed.

Hull’s superviser, Ronald Shoemaker, also was interviewed by the Committees. He stated that from that August 2011 meeting, the Chief Counsel’s office was still seeking more information about the Tea Party applicants’ political activities, specifically activities “leading up to the 2010 election.”

In that election, the Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives and a Republican, John Boehner of Ohio, became the new Speaker.

As Shoemaker recounted to the Committees’ staff, the Chief Counsel’s office “indicated that they wanted more development of possible political activity or political intervention right before the election period; that that had not occurred and that that’s what was missing… [R]ight before the election period. In other words, immediately before.”

The letter to Werfel says, “the lengthy and unusual review of the test applications in Washington created a bottleneck and caused the delay of other Tea Party applications in Cincinnati. Indeed, multiple IRS employees in Cincinnati have told the Committee they were waiting on guidance from Washington on how to move the applications forward.”

Cindy Thomas, head of the IRS Cincinnati office, repeatedly asked officials in Washington, D.C. for guidance on the applications but did not receive definitive responses.

As the Committees’ interview reports:

Q: “So the cases that [Cincinnati employee] was working from October 2010 through September 2011 were still in kind of a holding pattern awaiting guidance from Washington? Is that right?”

Thomas: “That’s correct.”

Q: “And were there additional applications that were coming at this time?”

Thomas: “To my knowledge, yes.”

Q: “And those were also in a holding pattern?”

Thomas: “that’s correct.”

Q: “Pending guidance from Washington?”

Thomas: “That’s correct.”

In conclusion, the letter from the Committees to the IRS’s Werfel requests further documents and communications between or among employees of the IRS’s Chief Counsel’s office, the Treasury Department’s General Counsel’s office, and the Executive Office of the President between Feb. 1, 2010 and the present concerning all tax-exempt applications.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.