Tea Party Patriots Ordinary citizens reclaiming America's founding principles.

Friday, January 31, 2014

The Party of Stupid caves on immigration “reform”

Politico reports on the GOP “immigration principles” – caving on amnesty -- as of yesterday afternoon. 
The House Republican leadership is trying to sell their colleagues on a series of broad immigration principles, including a path to legal status for those here illegally.
But Mr. Speaker, there already are numerous paths to legal status for those here illegally.
Speaker John Boehner’s leadership team introduced the principles at their annual policy retreat here. Top Republicans circulated a tightly held one-page memo titled “standards for immigration reform” toward the tail-end of a day that include strategy conversations about Obamacare, the economy and the national debt.
http://ib.adnxs.com/seg?add=147716&t=2In the private meeting where the language was introduced, Boehner (R-Ohio) told Republicans that the standards are “as far as we are willing to go.”
And Mr. Speaker, they go way too far.
The strategy marks a shift for House Republicans. In 2013, Boehner’s chamber ignored the bipartisan immigration reform bill passed by the Senate. But toward the end of last year and early this year, Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) began hashing out this approach to rally Republicans toward reform.
. . .
Some Republicans fear of the political fallout from immigration reform, but the proposal suggests GOP leaders are taking the long view: Republicans need to woo the booming Hispanic population to stay relevant.
See Ann Coulter’s column here for a thorough rebuttal of that idea.
Read the rest of Politico's report here.

Townhall has the text of the “immigration principles” here.

Once again, Speaker Boehner phone & fax numbers. And send postcards to his Ohio office (shorter security delay):

Butler County Office  PH (513) 779-5400
Miami County Office PH (937) 339-1524
Clark County Office   PH (937) 322-1120

D.C. Office
PH  (202) 225-6205
FAX (202) 225-0704

And his mailbox:
Speaker John Boehner
7969 Cincinnati-Dayton Road, Suite B
West Chester, OH 45069
# # #

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Amnesty approaching

Photo credit: westernjournalism.com


Ann Coulter has had access to a report on immigration by Phyllis Schlafly. Until Schlafly’s report is released, here are some excerpts from Coulter’s Townhall column yesterday:

GOP Crafts Plan to Wreck the Country, Lose Voters
As House Republicans prepare to sell out the country on immigration this week, Phyllis Schlafly has produced a stunning report on how immigration is changing the country. The report is still embargoed, but someone slipped me a copy, and it's too important to wait. 
Leave aside the harm cheap labor being dumped on the country does to the millions of unemployed Americans. What does it mean for the Republican Party? 
Citing surveys from the Pew Research Center, the Pew Hispanic Center, Gallup, NBC News, Harris polling, the Annenberg Policy Center, Latino Decisions, the Center for Immigration Studies and the Hudson Institute, Schlafly's report overwhelmingly demonstrates that merely continuing our current immigration policies spells doom for the Republican Party. 
. . .
According to a Harris poll, 81 percent of native-born citizens think the schools should teach students to be proud of being American. Only 50 percent of naturalized U.S. citizens do. 
While 67 percent of native-born Americans believe our Constitution is a higher legal authority than international law, only 37 percent of naturalized citizens agree. 
No wonder they vote 2-1 for the Democrats.
The two largest immigrant groups, Hispanics and Asians, have little in common economically, culturally or historically. But they both overwhelmingly support big government, Obamacare, affirmative action and gun control. 
. . .
Also surprising, a Pew Research Center poll of all Hispanics, immigrant and citizen alike, found that Hispanics take a dimmer view of capitalism than even people who describe themselves as "liberal Democrats." While 47 percent of self-described "liberal Democrats" hold a negative view of capitalism, 55 percent of Hispanics do. 
. . .
How are Republicans going to square that circle? It's not their position on amnesty that immigrants don't like; it's Republicans' support for small government, gun rights, patriotism, the Constitution and capitalism. 
Reading these statistics, does anyone wonder why Democrats think vastly increasing immigration should be the nation's No. 1 priority? 
. . .
It's terrific for ethnic lobbyists whose political clout will skyrocket the more foreign-born Americans we have. 
And it's fantastic for the Democrats, who are well on their way to a permanent majority, so they can completely destroy the last remnants of what was once known as "the land of the free." 
The only ones opposed to our current immigration policies are the people.  


 Read the rest here



Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Just a paragraph on Immigration “reform”

Photo credit: sodahead.com
The bad news: The GOP may yet pass an Amnesty bill. An article titled "Amnesty: The Next GOP Betrayal" by Michael R. Shannon appeared at CanadaFreePress over a week ago:
Amnesty is a payoff to big business, Democrat interest groups and tribal voters. There is no compelling Republican rationale for passage either morally or politically.
Yet the GOP leadership looks poised to cave. The good news: Roy Beck at NumbersUSA assessed the SOTU reactions from Congress:
It seems a good sign that [President Obama] thought it would be harmful to his cause to tell Americans anything specific that he wants on immigration. 
We had been told ahead of time that he would play nice with his immigration statement so as not to offend House Republicans who he is trying to win over. Still, I was a bit surprised -- and I think encouraged -- by his timidity.
Republican Response Speech A Bit More Troubling -- But Still Encouragingly Vague 
Republicans picked one of the House's top party leaders -- Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) -- to deliver the response.
Because many news media have practically declared the inevitability of House Republicans helping pass an amnesty this year, I was much more interested to hear what she would say.
Since she didn't really mention that many issues, it wasn't a good sign that she and her colleagues thought she should make such a big deal about immigration reform. Still, hers was also just a paragraph and more vague than specific:  
And yes, it’s time to honor our history of legal immigration.  We’re working on a step-by-step solution to immigration reform by first securing our borders and making sure America will always attract the best, brightest, and hardest working from around the world.  
Why do I have a strong idea that Mrs. McMorris Rodgers hasn't the first clue about our history of immigration or what we should honor about it?
Is she aware of our immigration history of a century ago, when mass immigration like we have today created increasingly wide income disparity, a huge underclass and was a primary tool for keeping the freed slaves and descendants of slaves in virtual servitude out of the mainstream of American jobs? How does she propose to honor that history?
I am particularly  concerned by her call that we make sure that America always attracts the "hardest working from around the world."  Sounds like she is committed to helping the corporate lobbies import any foreign worker who they think will work harder, longer and at lower wages and benefits and working conditions than the Americans who employers otherwise would have to recruit and train.
Is there any chance that a person giving any of these addresses could note that the point of immigration policy is to protect Americans. 
But her rhetoric is vague enough that the Republicans at their Chesapeake Bay retreat Wednesday through Friday won't have to embarrass her or seem to reject her when they show no enthusiasm for the GOP leadership's definition of "immigration reform."
Applause During Obama's Immigration Paragraph May Have Been Telling 
Back when I was a congressional correspondent sitting in the press box overlooking the SOTU proceedings, I took a lot of notes on how and when particular Members responded to parts of the speech. I had to depend on the camera feed for the TV networks, but I was intrigued with what I saw from the top 3 House Republican leaders during the President's immigration paragraph.
After his first sentence ending in "fix our broken immigration system," Vice President Biden quickly moved to his feet as did all Democrats in a pretty resounding ovation.
That certainly put Speaker Boehner in a tough position. He knew the cameras were on him. His corporate donors want him to give Mr. Obama what he wants. But Mr. Boehner also had earlier this morning seen a strong negative reaction from his Republican Members to the news reports about a possible GOP legalization plan. Does the Speaker rehearse his reactions ahead of time?  What would he do on this one?
I was relieved that Mr. Boehner didn't seem to have the slightest inclination to stand the way leaders of the "other party" sometimes feel they have to when baseball, mom and apple pie are being lauded.  Instead, Mr. Boehner gave a non-committal facial expression and slowly applauded while remaining seated.
The camera swung to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor who was giving a moderate applause while looking very serious.  At the edge of the camera shot was the No. 3 House Republican Kevin McCarthy also being careful not to look too enthusiastic, despite recently saying that he looked forward to moving legislation that gives work permits and legalization to most illegal aliens.
It looked like maybe a half-dozen Republicans were confident enough of their constituents to stand with the Democrats in the ovation. 
At the end of the President's immigration paragraph, there was more heavy applause.  The camera caught Mr. Cantor not joining at first and then offering a pretty slow clap.
I'm not going to read too much into what the various body language tells us about where these GOP leaders stand but I think it tells us worlds about where they think their constituency stands. 
Time to call Speaker Boehner. Again. And send postcards to his Ohio office (shorter security delay):
Speaker Boehner’s details:
Butler County Office  PH (513) 779-5400
Miami County Office PH (937) 339-1524
Clark County Office   PH (937) 322-1120

D.C. Office
PH  (202) 225-6205
FAX (202) 225-0704

And his mailbox:
Speaker John Boehner
7969 Cincinnati-Dayton Road, Suite B
West Chester, OH 45069

NumbersUSA blog is here
# # #

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

How to listen to the State of the Union speech

State of the Union this evening


If you don’t want to watch it live, you can always check in at VodkaPundit (Stephen Green), who, as usual, will be drunkblogging the speech. 9 PM.


Saturday, January 25, 2014

Another waiver – this one from the NFL

Lawless government? No respect for NFL rules and mandates, either. From nj.com’s report “HowMetLife Stadium scored Super Bowl 2014, bringing the big game to N.J.”:
It took four votes and more than 10 years.
Kickoff for the 2014 Super Bowl is now [less than] two weeks away, and the NFL has already taken possession of MetLife Stadium. 
. . .
It’s been a long march up the field already, marked by quiet, behind-the-scenes lobbying and phone calls, getting the enthusiastic support of the state’s governor, and raising millions from sponsors for what will be the most expensive Super Bowl in history.

The bidding specifications for this year’s Super Bowl, obtained by The Star-Ledger, mandated tens of millions in expenses that would be borne by whoever won the honor of hosting the game. The 127-page document outlined everything from the minimum size of the stadium (the NFL mandates a seating capacity of at least 70,000, after an allowance of 3,000 seats for camera and production locations), to power and lighting needs.
Keep all those “NFL mandates in mind. Here’s another mandate [emphasis added].
And it required a climate-controlled domed stadium "if the historical average daily temperature over a 10-year period in the host city on the week of the game is below 50 degrees" — a mandate that needed agreement from the owners to at least a one-time exception before a cold-weather Super Bowl with a view of the New York skyline was even possible.
Obviously, as with Obamacare, some mandates are more equal than others.
[Jets owner Woody Johnson] said the only real negative he heard about was the weather.

"If you embrace the weather as we have, it doesn’t sound so bad. We’ve had bad weather at previous Super Bowls," Johnson said he argued. The message was drilled home repeatedly. "New York knows how to do this," he said he told other owners. "We’re experts at it."

Tell that to residents on Manhattan’s upper east side.  Brrrr. 

One Month Left To Comment On IRS Rule

From NumbersUSA, a 501(c)(4) organization committed to legal and reduced immigration:
One Month Left To Comment On IRS Rule
There's a little more than one month left for anyone to submit a comment to the IRS's proposed rule that would silence certain non-profit organizations, including NumbersUSA. Thanks to those who have already joined the more than 10,000 concerned citizens who have left a comment!
The proposed rule presents a real threat to our grade cards and faxing in the months leading up to federal elections. If enacted, certain non-profit organizations would not be able to even mention a candidate's name within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of the general election - even if the mention has nothing to do with the election itself. Nor, would we be able to tell you when a Member of Congress who is also running for office is pushing an amnesty.
This rule would require us to take down our grade cards and non-partisan candidate comparison pages and shut down most of our activism efforts during the election window.
If you want to learn more about the proposed rule and leave a public comment on the federal register's website, please visit http://www.ProtectC4FreeSpeech.com.

 # # #

According to examiner.com, as of January 21:

At the time of this writing, not one public comment on a proposed IRS rule for 501(c)(4) nonprofit groups is positive.

 # # #

Friday, January 24, 2014

Article V Symposium webinar announcement

Photo credit: whichway.com

Announcement from Tea Party Patriots:

Last week, the third webinar in Tea Party Patriots' Article V Symposium highlighted some of the most popular amendments being discussed in conservative circles. The final webinar is scheduled for next Tuesday and will continue to discuss possible amendments in an Article V Amending Convention.

WHAT: A continuation of proposed amendments

WHEN: Tues Jan-28 at 7:30 pm

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Obamacare does include a death panel

Photo credit: thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com

Kevin O’Brien’s opinion columns are always worth reading; here are a few excerpts from yesterday’s Plain Dealer online, Obamacaredoes include a death panel, and the separation of powers is its first target:

As the months have ticked by and the ludicrously misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has wobbled into reality, Americans have seen one promise after another come crashing down.
. . .
But the people still have some recourse — at least eventually. They can raise hell with Congress, which is still at least occasionally responsive. They can appeal for help from the courts.
Unless something that the forces of dictatorship want is purposely put out of reach of Congress and the courts.
Ladies and gentlemen, meet the  Independent Payment Advisory Board — the relatively tiny, incredibly powerful item in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that is designed, on purpose, to have dictatorial powers.
Some people call it the death panel, and it is, but there’s more to it than that. If it’s allowed to work, it certainly will kill a lot of Americans — any sick person who is deemed to be too great a drain on the federal government, an entity already deep in debt.
Worse than that, though, it’s a potential Constitution killer. There’s no way a nation like ours can abide a monstrosity like the IPAB. If we end up being forced to abide it, we will cease to be a nation like ours.
The IPAB is designed to centralize the powers that this nation’s founders worked so hard to separate.
The IPAB will legislate, setting all policy related to Medicare. It will be in a position to declare what will be acceptable regarding health care costs, patient access and quality.
. . .
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says IPAB decisions are not subject to judicial review.
So, let’s recap. Here we have a 15-member board appointed by the president that will make life-and-death decisions about which treatments will be allowed to which kinds of patients and what the people involved will pay and be paid, and the board is a law unto itself. Congress has no practical way of stopping it and the courts can’t intervene in what it does.
The time to stop the IPAB is now, before it becomes invincible. Fortunately, a lawsuit that takes aim directly at its consolidation of executive power, usurpation of legislative power and denial of judicial power is working its way through the federal court system.

The law that created the IPAB is so blatantly unconstitutional, even the reliably wacky 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should get this call right on Coons v. Geithner.

Read the rest here

Sunday, January 19, 2014

Update: pros and cons of the Article V Symposium Webinars

Photo credit: whichway.com

Following up on Tea Party Patriots’ webinar series to explore the pros and cons of the Article V Symposium, please note that the next one is on Tuesday evening:

The second webinar for the Article V Symposium brought both sides of the debate to a large audience. Please see below for the remaining webinar dates.
  • 01/21/14 – Proposed Amendments Part 1: What are some of the amendments being promoted by various groups? From a Balanced Budget Amendment to Term Limits to Repeal 16, learn about them on this webinar.
  • 01/28/14 – Proposed Amendments Part 2: A continuation of proposed amendments.

Saturday, January 18, 2014

Link of the Day: Jenny Beth Martin on the FBI "investigation" of IRS targeting

Photo credit: www.officialpsds.com

Fay Voshell at American Thinker takes a look at the IRS targeting of conservative groups and the phony-baloney FBI “investigation” and whitewash of the IRS’s harassment activities:
According to the Justice Department, an FBI investigation has found the IRS innocent of criminal activity concerning the targeting of Tea Party and other conservative groups.
Predictably, conservative non-profits caught in the crosshairs of the IRS are angry. Fox News reports that Jenny Beth Martin, the cofounder of the Tea Party Patriots, called the news "absolutely outrageous," adding, "It only leads us to the point where we can make guesses about their motives. Why are they protecting the IRS?"
Martin asks a good question.
Frankly, it is difficult for Tea Party and other conservatives to see the Justice Department's waiver of culpability by means of a cursory FBI investigation as anything other than a coverup.

Read the rest here 

Friday, January 17, 2014

Update on the Asian Carp

Photo credit: science.kqed.org

This blog posted an announcement of the public meeting yesterday at Cleveland Public Library. Here the report in The Toledo Blade:

Army Corps of Engineers criticized at meeting for slow pace on carp issue


CLEVELAND — U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D., Toledo) got a round of applause on Thursday when she criticized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the time it took reporting to Congress the most viable ways to fend off Asian carp from the Great Lakes.
“I wish I could say the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers understands the importance and urgency of the situation, but — alas — that does not seem to be the case,” said Miss Kaptur, the ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Water Committee that oversees the Corps’ budget.
“Indeed, the Corps of Engineers was negligent in addressing this issue. It took a bill in Congress to wake up the Corps from its hibernation. The Corps has done this region a disservice in failing to make a firm recommendation about the best course of action to prevent an Asian carp invasion. When the going got tough, the Corps — for whatever reason — punted,” she said at a public meeting inside the Cleveland Public Library auditorium.
The meeting drew about 125 people. Those who attended — a combination of fishermen, businessmen, and public officials — fought rush-hour traffic and icy roads to get there.
Miss Kaptur and several other members of the Great Lakes congressional delegation have said they favor a complete hydrologic separation of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River watersheds by rerouting the Chicago Area Waterway System that connects them.
But they anticipate an uphill fight in Congress because the Corps stated in its long-awaited report that option would cost $18.4 billion and take 25 years. If approved, it would be one of North America’s largest engineering projects.
At stake is the Great Lakes region’s fishery, valued at $7 billion a year.
The project is pitched as more than one option to fend off Asian carp and other invasive species.
In Chicago, it is being touted as a major investment to reduce flooding and pollution threats that have existed for decades.
“We have to build a movement to save our Great Lakes,” Miss Kaptur said. “We have to do the opposite of what the Corps did.”
Corps officials running the meeting did not respond as she spoke, although they later said they understand a lot of Great Lakes residents are frustrated by the Asian carp situation and want faster action.
The Corps announced at the outset of Thursday’s meeting it has slated meetings in Erie, Pa., for Jan. 24 and New Orleans for Jan. 31 because of strong interest in those areas. New Orleans wants to weigh in because of the possible effect the project could have on the Mississippi River and the shipping industry.
The next meeting is Tuesday in Ann Arbor. All meetings are from 4 to 7 p.m.
One of the first speakers Thursday was Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, who said he arrived “with a great deal of frustration” because of delays and because of litigation that Ohio, Michigan, New York, Minnesota, and Wisconsin initiated against the federal government and the state of Illinois over the matter. Illinois has resisted calls to temporarily close the Chicago-area locks, citing the need to save jobs.
“Some of us feel nothing is going to work except a complete separation. We do not want to be in a position someday where there is no more sport-fishing,” Mr. DeWine, a Republican and a former U.S. senator from Ohio, said.
As he left the meeting, Mr. DeWine told The Blade he remains in favor of a complete separation, despite its costs and length of time it would take.
The Corps said during most of that 25-year construction period, new reservoirs and tunnels in the Chicago area would be built to prevent flooding and improve water quality.
Mr. DeWine also implored the White House to pick up the pace.
“Now that this study’s finally done, it’s time to do something. Let’s not take another six months,” Mr. DeWine said. “It’s going to be expensive, but it’s going to be more expensive if we don’t [do a complete separation].”
Several Cleveland-area fishermen and property owners testified in favor of a hydrologic separation.
Sam Speck, a Republican who served eight years as Ohio Department of Natural Resources director under former Gov. Bob Taft, said the $18.4 billion price tag is not as enormous as it sounds, given that it could be phased in over 25 years.
“From everything I have seen to date, the most comprehensive approach is the one we need to take,”Mr. Speck said.
Larry Fletcher, Ottawa County Visitors Bureau director, said Ohio’s tourism and economy is supported in large part by the fishing industry.
But Mr. Fletcher said the state’s booming birding industry also would take a big hit if the fishing industry collapses because of the ecological connections between birds and fish. Lake Erie, he said, has become one of the world’s Top 10 birding destinations.
Kristy Meyer, Ohio Environmental Council managing director of agricultural and clean water programs, said nearly a third of Ohio’s $40 million tourism industry is supported by the state’s eight Great Lakes counties.
“We need to move quickly. We need to move with interim steps [to fend off Asian carp] that will put a complete separation in place,” Ms. Meyer said.
U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, and U.S. Sen. Rob Portman, a Republican, did not attend the meeting. A staffer for Mr. Brown delivered a statement in which he reiterated the senator’s support for a separation of the watersheds.

So where does Sen. Portman stand? He led the charge to get action from . . . the Army Corps. of Engineers.  Here's part of a news release on his website from last November:

Portman, Stabenow Lead Senate Effort to Stop Asian Carp

Call on the Army Corps of Engineers to Identify Remaining Steps Needed to Permanently Cut Off Asian Carp Entry Points into the Great Lakes

Washington, D.C. – Today, a bipartisan group of all 16 Great Lake Senators, led by U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan), joined in an ongoing effort in the fight to stop Asian carp from destroying the Great Lakes ecosystem. In a letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the bipartisan group of Senators called on the Corps to identify remaining steps needed to permanently cut off Asian carp entry points into the Great Lakes.
Last year, the Stop Invasive Species Act, written by Portman and Stabenow, was signed into law by President Obama.  The law requires the Army Corps of Engineers to present Congress, by the end of the year, with a report (known as the GLMRIS report) on possible strategies to permanently prevent Asian carp from entering the Great Lakes.  Today’s bipartisan action urges the Corps to outline the steps it will take once that report is submitted to determine the best approach among the possible options so work can begin as soon as possible.
The Great Lakes Senators’ letter reads in part:  “It is our expectation that the Corps will work with Congress, our staff, and regional stakeholders before and after the report is issued so that we can expeditiously determine how to best move forward with a comprehensive approach to address Asian Carp and other aquatic invasive species. We ask you to identify how you intend to work with stakeholders on a comprehensive alternative that will maintain commerce, enhance and not degrade water quality, and permanently safeguard the Great Lakes from Asian carp and other invasive species following the release of the GLMRIS report.… Upon release of the GLMRIS report, it is imperative that the Corps continue its evaluation process under existing authority so that we can move very quickly on a comprehensive approach to best protect the environmental and economic health of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River.”

photo credit: mlive.com

IRS Targeting and the 2014 Mid-terms

Outrageous! The IRS is taking aim again at patriot groups -- to muzzle our voices. Kimberley A. Strassel reports today in the Wall Street Journal: 

Democrats are working hard to make sure conservative groups are silenced in the 2014 midterms. 

President Obama and Democrats have been at great pains to insist they knew nothing about IRS targeting of conservative 501(c)(4) nonprofits before the 2012 election. They've been at even greater pains this week to ensure that the same conservative groups are silenced in the 2014 midterms.
That's the big, dirty secret of the omnibus negotiations. As one of the only bills destined to pass this year, the omnibus was—behind the scenes—a flurry of horse trading. One of the biggest fights was over GOP efforts to include language to stop the IRS from instituting a new round of 501(c)(4) targeting. The White House is so counting on the tax agency to muzzle its political opponents that it willingly sacrificed any manner of its own priorities to keep the muzzle in place.
. . .
The fight was sparked by a new rule that the Treasury Department and the IRS introduced during the hush of Thanksgiving recess, ostensibly to "improve" the law governing nonprofits. What the rule in fact does is re-categorize as "political" all manner of educational activities that 501(c)(4) social-welfare organizations currently engage in.
It's IRS targeting all over again, only this time by administration design and with the raw political goal—as House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R., Mich.) notes—of putting "tea party groups out of business."
. . .
With one little IRS rule it can shut up hundreds of groups that pose a direct threat by restricting their ability to speak freely in an election season about spending or ObamaCare or jobs. And it gets away with it by positioning this new targeting as a fix for the first round.
. . .
Mr. Camp's committee has meanwhile noted that Treasury appears to have reverse-engineered the carefully tailored rule—combing through the list of previously targeted tea party groups, compiling a list of their main activities and then restricting those functions.
And an IRS rule that purports to—as Mr. Werfel explained—"improve our work in the tax-exempt area" completely ignores the biggest of political players in the tax-exempt area: unions. The guidance is directed only at 501(c)(4) social-welfare groups—the tax category that has of late been flooded by conservative groups. Mr. Obama's union foot soldiers—which file under 501(c)(5)—can continue playing in politics.
Treasury is also going to great lengths to keep secret the process behind its rule. Cleta Mitchell, an attorney who represents targeted tea party groups, in early December filed a Freedom of Information Act request with Treasury and the IRS, demanding documents or correspondence with the White House or outside groups in the formulation of this rule. By law, the government has 30 days to respond. Treasury sent a letter to Ms. Mitchell this week saying it wouldn't have her documents until April—after the rule's comment period closes. It added that if she didn't like it, she can "file suit." The IRS has yet to respond.
Mr. Camp has now authored stand-alone legislation to rein in the IRS, though the chance of Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) allowing a Senate vote is approximately equal to that of the press corps paying attention to this IRS rule.

Read the rest here