Do We Want a King or a Constitution?

“The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.” — George Washington (1796)

On last Thursday night President Obama announced his plans for issuing an Executive Order (he called it an Executive Memo) that would halt the deportation of roughly 5 million illegal immigrants and grant them Social Security cards and work permits. In essence this is amnesty.

All but the most dedicated progressive-liberal spinners and so-call Democratic Strategists realize that what Obama is doing is in total violation of the Constitution and is a slap in the face of our Founders’ construction of the balance of powers in the Constitution.

Article I, Section 8.4 of the Constitution clearly states: The Congress shall have power to “To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States

As Constitutional lecturer Obama has to know this. If he does not then his resume is a fraud. If he does he is willfully violating his oath of office when he stated; “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” (Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution) This could be considered legal grounds for impeachment.

Barack Obama claims to be a “professor of constitutional law,” but a genuine constitutional scholar, George Washington University’s Jonathan Turley, a self-acknowledged liberal Obama supporter, has offered severe criticism of Obama’s “über presidency,” his abuse of executive orders and regulations to bypass Congress.

When asked by Fox News host Megyn Kelly how he would respond “to those who say many presidents have issued executive orders on immigration,” Turley responded, “This would be unprecedented, and I think it would be an unprecedented threat to the balance of powers.”

In July, Turley gave congressional testimony concerning Obama’s abuse of executive orders: “When the president went to Congress and said he would go it alone, it obviously raises a concern. There’s no license for going it alone in our system, and what he’s done is very problematic. He’s told agencies not to enforce some laws [and] has effectively rewritten laws through active interpretation that I find very problematic.”

He continued:

“Our system is changing in a dangerous and destabilizing way. What’s emerging is an imperial presidency, an über presidency. The president’s pledge to effectively govern alone is alarming but what is most alarming is his ability to fulfill that pledge. When a president can govern alone, he can become a government unto himself, which is precisely the danger that the Framers sought to avoid in the establishment of our tripartite system of government. … Obama has repeatedly violated this [separation of powers] doctrine in the circumvention of Congress in areas ranging from health care to immigration law to environmental law. … What we are witnessing today is one of the greatest challenges to our constitutional system in the history of this country. We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis with sweeping implications for our system of government. There could be no greater danger for individual liberty. I think the framers would be horrified. We are now at the constitutional tipping point for our system. No one in our system can ‘go it alone’ – not Congress, not the courts, and not the president.”

Turley reiterated this week:

“[Obama has] become a government of one. It’s becoming a particularly dangerous moment if the president is going to go forward, particularly after this election, to defy the will of Congress yet again. What the president is suggesting is tearing at the very fabric of the Constitution. We have a separation of powers to protect Liberty, to keep any branch from assuming so much authority that they become a threat to Liberty. The Democrats are creating something very, very dangerous. They’re creating a president who can go it alone – the very danger that are framers sought to avoid in our Constitution. I hope he does not get away with it.”

On Thursday night Obama said in his address:

“Now here’s the thing: we expect people who live in this country to play by the rules. We expect that those who cut the line will not be unfairly rewarded. So we’re going to offer the following deal: If you’ve been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes – you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily, without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law.”

He’s talking about roughly 5 million people not the 186 thousand Reagan gave amnesty to in 1986 with the full support of Congress. All Presidents do not take this unilateral, unconstitutional action.

For six years President Obama has failed to lead on any meaningful immigration reform. Now, following a sweeping Republican victory on Election Day and just over a month before a new Republican Senate majority will take over, President Obama has announced a blatantly unconstitutional move to grant amnesty to at least 5 million illegal immigrants by executive order.

For years, President Obama has chastised Republicans, used immigrants as props for political purposes, and time and again deflected responsibility from his own party’s failure to act on immigration reform. Keep in mind that for the first two years of Obama’s presidency, Democrats controlled the House, Senate and White House -- yet he failed to pass immigration reform.

So why the rush to grant amnesty now?

President Obama knows that in January the new Republican House and Senate plan to take action on a long term solution to our nation’s immigration problem. The plan would likely include, but not be limited to, immediately securing our southern border, developing an effective legal immigration system that meets the needs of our nation’s employers, and repealing Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which led to the humanitarian crisis at the border earlier this year.

After six years of Democrats’ inaction, President Obama doesn’t want Republicans to get even an ounce of credit for finally addressing our nation’s broken immigration system. But further, by granting mass amnesty during the lame duck right before members go home for Thanksgiving, President Obama is setting a divisive tone for the immigration battle, effectively poisoning the well for Republican-led bipartisan reform next year. This is an effort by the White House to sabotage the best shot at a long-term immigration solution since this president took office -- and all to make sure Republicans don’t receive credit.

Simply put, President Obama’s immigration strategy is all about politics and getting credit rather than about families and people. This is not what the American people deserve.

President Obama’s DACA gave us a glimpse into the problems that will arise from granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. DACA led to a mass influx of illegal immigrant children crossing the Mexican border into the U.S. who came believing they would likely be able to stay.

Between October 2013 and July 2014 more than 63,000 unaccompanied children were caught at the border. Many others tragically never made it. These children risked exploitation, kidnapping, abuse at the hands of coyotes, and even their lives to make the dangerous trek hundreds of miles through the desert terrain.

The president’s latest amnesty move signals to millions in Central and South America that U.S. laws don’t hold any real weight anymore, and if they illegally enter the U.S., they’ll likely be able to stay. This creates a dangerous environment of lawlessness and puts immigrant and American families at great risk.

Notably, the majority of Americans do not support executive action on immigration. Among Americans of Latino descent, only 43 percent supported executive amnesty, according to an NBC/WSJ poll.

Further, President Obama’s executive amnesty is an unprecedented abuse of executive power. I’d invite President Obama to refer to Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, (as stated above) which clearly grants the authority to make laws on naturalization to Congress, not the Executive Branch.

In his address Obama also stated:

“Families who enter our country the right way and play by the rules watch others flout the rules. Business owners who offer their workers good wages and benefits see the competition exploit undocumented immigrants by paying them far less. All of us take offense to anyone who reaps the rewards of living in America without taking on the responsibilities of living in America. And undocumented immigrants who desperately want to embrace those responsibilities see little option but to remain in the shadows, or risk their families being torn apart.”

….

“Third, we’ll take steps to deal responsibly with the millions of undocumented immigrants who already live in our country.

I want to say more about this third issue, because it generates the most passion and controversy. Even as we are a nation of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws. Undocumented workers broke our immigration laws, and I believe that they must be held accountable – especially those who may be dangerous. That’s why, over the past six years, deportations of criminals are up 80 percent. And that’s why we’re going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security. Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mother who’s working hard to provide for her kids. We’ll prioritize, just like law enforcement does every day.”

Addressing the second statement first I have one burning question — how is ICE going to vet 5 million people. They cannot even deal with those illegals who have committed felonies such as murder, rape, and robbery and have been arrested and convicted. There are numerous case across the nation where these illegals are not even deported and languish in our prision system or are released to commit more crimes. Gang members are filled with illegals just ask and police chief in any large city.

The other is issue is jobs. President Barack Obama once declared that an influx of illegal immigrants will harm “the wages of blue-collar Americans” and “put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”

“[T]here’s no denying that many blacks share the same anxieties as many whites about the wave of illegal immigration flooding our Southern border—a sense that what’s happening now is fundamentally different from what has gone on before,” then-Senator Obama wrote in his 2006 autobiography, “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.”

”Not all these fears are irrational,” he wrote.

“The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century,” Obama noted. “If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole—especially by keeping our workforce young, in contrast to an increasingly geriatric Europe and Japan—it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”

If these feel like the words of one of Obama’s opponents, it’s because they’re the exact argument the president’s critics have been making as he now rushes to announce a sweeping executive order that would give work permits to millions of illegal immigrants in the country.

Via his executive order, he is also about to provide work permits to at least 3 million illegal immigrants, allowing them to compete against the very Americans — black, white, Latino and Asian — who he once said would be harmed by such a move.

The new work permits would be in addition to the 600,000 work permits given to younger illegals under the 2012 “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” program.

Roughly 4 million Americans will enter the job market this year.

Careful observers of Obama’s modern-day immigration rhetoric will note that he does not discuss the impact millions of formerly-illegal immigrants would have on the wages of American workers. Rather, Obama has repeatedly declared, “It’s the right thing to do.”

Yesterday I had a conversation with my African-American neighbor who is a contractor. His small business provides sub-contracting services to larger contracts on mainly infrastructure projects. During our conversation he hesitantly asked me if I supported President Obama. I replied that I did not. He said he voted for Obama and that he now thought that was a big mistake and he called himself stupid. He felt it would be good for him and the nation when Obama was gone.

I then asked him how this new Executive Order would affect him and his business. He told me that the influx of these 5 million new “legals” would have a big impact on the construction industry. He said that many small sub-contractors, who were fearful of hiring illegals due to the severe penalties and loss of contracts would now hire the new “legals” and reduce their payroll. Labor amounts to about 50% of the cost for these contractors. They would be replacing a laborer earning $20-$25 per hour (mainly Latinos and Blacks) with persons who would now be paid $15 per hour. This would lower their labor costs by 20 to 25 percent and allow them to put forth lower bids to gain more work. Pity the worker who was earning 25$ per hour. He was now out of work. At $15 per hour a worker would earn $30,000 per year if he or she worked every available day – which is rare in construction. $30, 000 per year puts the worker in the earned income tax bracket and makes them eligible for food stamps and WIC.

All of the small contractors like my neighbor would have to do this in order to compete. Many of those Latinos who marched waving Mexican flags and demanding amnesty would now find themselves out of work and on welfare unless they accept a 20% pay cut. They will now find out that there are always unintended consequences or a Bastiat stated — the seen and the unseen.

I have not even addressed the increased burden this amnesty will place on the states. These illegals now with work permits and social security cards will be eligible, and no doubt apply for, all the benefits that are available. This will include things like food stamps, Medicaid, WIC, aid to dependent children, and the earned income tax credit. This will far outweigh any income derived from taxes these 5 million will pay — if they pay it.

It is estimated that the cost of an illegal immigrant family is $20,000 per year. If you consider a family of five the additional cost in benefits would be $20 billion per year and this does not include the earned income tax credit or the financial burden on the public school system.

Granting amnesty to those who willfully broke the law makes a mockery of our legal system and encourages even more lawlessness — potentially more severe crimes than entering the U.S. illegally. It also does a disservice to those who followed the legal routes to gain entry into the country and sends the message that lawlessness will be tolerated—in fact, it will be rewarded.

The American people spoke on Election Day. The Republican victory wasn’t simply a referendum on failed Democratic policies pushed by the White House and Harry Reid — it was also a referendum on the inability of Congress and the White House to work together to get things done.

President Obama’s decision to bypass Congress and to act unilaterally on amnesty is a slap in the face to American voters, sends the wrong signal to immigrants, and jeopardizes the first real shot at bipartisan, long-term immigration reform.

Once again, it is politics over people for this administration. A classic example of the administrative state and the actions of a king — something we did away with in 1776.

Hero or Something Else

“He wasn’t simply a hostage. He was a prisoner of war.” — National Security Adviser Susan Rice

In writing this post I am not accusing recently released Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl of anything, but I believe that many questions need to be answered.

Top Obama administration officials on Sunday praised the diplomatic and military efforts to recover Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, a prisoner of war in Afghanistan, saying it was an “extraordinary” and “life-saving” mission while disagreeing with the arguments that officials negotiated with terrorists and failed to inform Congress.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and National Security Adviser Susan Rice made their comments roughly 24 hours after Americans learned that Bergdahl was recovered in exchange for the release of five Taliban detainees at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

On May 31, 2014, U.S. officials from the White House and Pentagon announced that Bergdahl had been released by his captors and recovered by U.S. special operations forces in eastern Afghanistan. The release was brokered by the American, Qatar and Afghanistan governments with the Taliban, in exchange for five Guantanamo Bay detainees transferred to Qatari custody for at least one year. On 10:30 a.m. (EDST) May 31, 2014, Bergdahl was handed over by 18 Taliban members to a U.S. Navy Seal team in eastern Afghanistan, near Khost on the Pakistani border, in what was described as a "peaceful handover.

On June 1 Bergdahl arrived at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, a facility that treats serious war injuries from the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, a U.S. Defense official said. His “reintegration process” will include “time for him to tell his story, decompress, and to reconnect with his family through telephone calls and video conferences,” a senior Defense official said.

When Bergdahl is ready to leave Landstuhl he will be transported to Brooke Medical Center in San Antonio.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said on Sunday that the United States saw “an opening” and acted quickly to rescue Sgt. Bergdahl.

“We believed that the information we had, the intelligence we had, was such that Sgt. Bergdahl safety and health were both in jeopardy and in particular his health deteriorating,” Hagel said. “It was our judgment that if we could find an opening and move very quickly with that opening, that we needed to get him out of there essentially to save his life. I know President Obama feels very strongly about that, I do as well.”

According to U.S. government officials, Sgt. Bergdahl was the only remaining American soldier captured in recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. His release was part of a negotiation that includes the release of five Afghan detainees who are held in the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay. The BCC reports that the detainees have already been freed, and on Saturday Obama said that they would be transported to Qatar.

The U.S. has released five Taliban prisoners kept at Guantanamo Bay — all of them either senior Taliban figures or Taliban officials with connections to Taliban leaders, and all labeled by the Pentagon as highly dangerous to the security of the U.S. and its allies if released. They are:

Mohammad Fazl, the former Taliban defense minister during the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, chief of staff of the Taliban army, and commander of its 22nd Division. According to a U.S. Department of Defense document obtained by Wikileaks, Fazl is believed to be an associate of Supreme Taliban Commander Mullah Omar and was “wanted by the UN for possible war crimes including the murder of thousands of Shiites,” surrendered to the Northern Alliance commander Gen. Dostum in November 2001.

“Detainee is assessed to be a HIGH risk, as he is likely to pose a threat to the US, its interests, and allies,” his Guantanamo detainee file reads. “If released, detainee would likely rejoin the Taliban and establish ties with ACM [anti-coalition militia] elements participating in hostilities against US and Coalition forces in Afghanistan.”

Mullah Norullah Noori, a former Taliban military commander and Taliban governor of two Afghan provinces, who led Taliban forces against U.S. and coalition troops and was also “wanted by the United Nations (UN) for possible war crimes including the murder of thousands of Shiite Muslims” as Fazl was, according to Noori’s Guantanamo prisoner file as obtained and posted by Wikileaks. He is also believed to be associated with Supreme Taliban Commander Mullah Omar.

Noori commanded the Taliban in the northern city of Mazar e-Sharif. Like Fazl, he surrendered to Gen. Dostum in 2001.

Rated a “HIGH” threat to U.S. security interests if released, Noori is or was associated with members of al Qaeda, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, and Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin.

Mohammed Nabi, another senior Taliban official with ties to al Qaeda, the Haqqani Network, Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin, and other anti-U.S., Taliban-allied groups, according to his Guantanamo Bay file as posted by Wikileaks.

Also rated as a “HIGH” security threat if released, Nabi fought with the Mujahideen against the Soviets. After that, he told the Americans who captured and detained him, he was an off-and-on Taliban member in the early 2000s, worked for the chief of the Taliban’s Border Department, which controlled smuggling. In early spring of 2002, he left the Taliban to sell used cars in a small village near Khost and became a CIA informant.

According to his Defense Dept. file, Nabi was involved in attacks against U.S. and coalition forces and facilitated smuggling routes for the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Khairullah Khairkhwa, a direct associate of Osama bin Laden according to his Defense Dept. detainee file obtained by Wikileaks, and a senior Taliban military commander who also served as the Taliban’s minister of Interior and the governor of Herat.

He represented the Taliban at meetings with Iranian officials seeking to support actions against U.S. and coalition forces after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the document. He attended a meeting at the direction of bin Laden, reportedly accompanied by members of Hamas, the document says, and is believed to have been one of the major opium lords of western Afghanistan.

In 2002, he sought to negotiate an integration into the new government through Wali Karzai, the brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai who has been accused of corruption and drug smuggling, but was arrested by Pakistani border patrol and released by Pakistan into U.S. custody.

He is also deemed a “HIGH” threat if released.

Abdul Haq Wasiq, the Taliban’s former deputy minister of intelligence, had direct connections to Taliban leadership and was “central to the Taliban’s efforts to form alliances with other Islamic fundamentalist groups” to fight against U.S. and coalition forces, according to his Defense Dept. file obtained by Wikileaks.

He also used his position to support al Qaeda, assist Taliban personnel in eluding capture, and arranged for al Qaeda members to train Taliban intelligence staff, according to the file.

He seems to have later turned informant, as his file notes that Wasiq was arrested after a meeting with two Americans and a translator, in which he was supposed to deliver information leading to the capture of Mullah Omar. Shortly after the meeting, U.S. forces arrested him.

“Trading five senior Taliban leaders from detention in Guantanamo Bay for Berghdal’s release may have consequences for the rest of our forces and all Americans. Our terrorist adversaries now have a strong incentive to capture Americans. That incentive will put our forces in Afghanistan and around the world at even greater risk,” said House Armed Services Chairman Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., and Senate Armed Services Ranking Member James Inhofe, R-Okla., in a joint statement.

“In executing this transfer, the President also clearly violated laws which require him to notify Congress thirty days before any transfer of terrorists from Guantanamo Bay and to explain how the threat posed by such terrorists has been substantially mitigated. Our joy at Sergeant Berghdal’s release is tempered by the fact that President Obama chose to ignore the law, not to mention sound policy, to achieve it,” they said in the joint statement.

A senior administration official responded: “Due to a near-term opportunity to save Sergeant Bergdahl’s life, we moved as quickly as possible. The administration determined that given these unique and exigent circumstances, such a transfer should go forward notwithstanding the notice requirement” of the National Defense Authorization Act, the law in which Congress levied the Guantanamo-transfer restrictions.

The detainees left Guantanamo in the afternoon of May 31^st for Qatar, which will take them into custody. After that, it’s not clear exactly what their status will be.

Of course there is great jubilation in Bergdahl’s home town of Hailey, Idaho. Understandably his parents and friends have expressed great joy at his release. This is to be expected. His father has even studied Pashto, the language of the Taliban, so he could communicate with his son who according to reports has trouble speaking English after his five years in captivity.

A recent article by CBS News asked the Question; Is Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl a hero or a deserter?

“While tattered yellow ribbons still adorn utility poles in his native Hailey, Idaho, others are expressing conflicting thoughts about Bergdahl's plight as the war winds down, with President Barack Obama threatening to withdraw all U.S. troops by year's end unless the Afghan government signs a crucial security agreement.

They are convinced that on June 30, 2009, just a few months after he arrived in Afghanistan, Bergdahl willingly walked away from his unit, which was deployed in Paktika province in eastern Afghanistan, adjacent to the border with Pakistan. While they do want Bergdahl home, they think he should have to answer allegations that he deserted his unit.”

…

“Rolling Stone magazine quoted emails Bergdahl is said to have sent to his parents that suggest he was disillusioned with America's mission in Afghanistan, had lost faith in the U.S. Army's mission there and was considering desertion.

Bergdahl told his parents he was "ashamed to even be American." Bergdahl, who mailed home boxes containing his uniform and books, also wrote: "The future is too good to waste on lies. And life is way too short to care for the damnation of others, as well as to spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong."

The Associated Press could not independently authenticate the emails published by the magazine in 2012. Bergdahl's family has not commented on the allegations of desertion, according to Col. Tim Marsano, a spokesman for the Idaho National Guard. Marsano is in regular contact with Bergdahl's mother, Jani, and father, Bob, who has grown a long, thick beard and has worked to learn Pashto, the language spoken by his son's captors.

A senior Defense Department official said that if Bergdahl is released, it could be determined that he has more than paid for leaving his unit - if that's what really happened - "and there's every indicator that he did."

Still, it's a conundrum for commanders under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the equal application of the law, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss the Bergdahl case.

Eugene R. Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School, said if there is evidence that Bergdahl left his unit without permission, he could be charged with being absent without leave (AWOL) or desertion.”

Bowe was reportedly “disillusioned” when he went missing. In an interview with Rolling Stone in 2012, Bowe’s family shared the sergeant’s final email­ to his parents:

“I am ashamed to be an American. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools. The US army is the biggest joke the world has to laugh at. It is the army of liars, backstabbers, fools, and bullies. The few good SGTs are getting out as soon as they can, and they are telling us privates to do the same. These people need help, yet what they get is the most conceited country in the world telling them that they are nothing and that they are stupid, that they have no idea how to live.”

Bergdahl’s parents also spoke Saturday at the White House and expressed gratitude for their son’s pending return. His father, Robert, said Bergdahl is having trouble speaking English after the trauma he endured.

Robert Bergdahl, Bowe’s dad, who enjoys passing along pro-Taliban anti-American “invader” tweets for Taliban spokesperson Abdulqahar Balkhi and whose Twitter feed is an odd mix of anti-American and anti-war sentiments, Bible verses, strange quotes, and hippie-dippy tree-hugging weirdness, took it upon himself to celebrate his son’s release by sending a Tweet to the spokesman for his son’s captors.

The Tweet read: “@ABalkhi I am still working to free all Guantanamo prisoners. God will repay for the death of every Afghan child, Ameen [sic].” The Tweet was quickly deleted, but not before being captured on the Twitchy feed.

Bergdahl the elder’s correspondence with the Taliban’s spokesperson certainly coincides with Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s alleged sentiments prior to his ‘capture.’ According to emails quoted in Rolling Stone magazine, Bowe told his parents he was “ashamed to even be American,” and that he was disgusted with the U.S. mission in Afghanistan and with the Army.

According to a report in the Christian Science Monitor:

“In his final message, Bergdahl refers to having mailed home boxes with his uniforms and books.

“Feel free to open them, and use them,” he wrote.

Later that night, Bowe Bergdahl’s father Bob Bergdahl, a UPS truck driver, sent his son an email from their home in Hailey, Idaho, with the subject line: OBEY YOUR CONSCIENCE!

"Dear Bowe," he wrote. "In matters of life and death, and especially at war, it is never safe to ignore ones' conscience. Ethics demands obedience to our conscience. It is best to also have a systematic oral defense of what our conscience demands. Stand with like-minded men when possible. dad."

…

“In the early-morning hours of June 30th, according to soldiers in the unit, Bowe approached his team leader not long after he got off guard duty and asked his superior a simple question: If I were to leave the base, would it cause problems if I took my sensitive equipment?

“Yes, his team leader responded – if you took your rifle and night-vision goggles, that would cause problems.

“Bowe returned to his barracks, a roughly built bunker of plywood and sandbags. He gathered up water, a knife, his digital camera and his diary. Then he slipped off the outpost.”

When his absence was discovered, Bergdahl was listed as “DUSTWUN” – Duty Status: Whereabouts Unknown.”

A Report by NBC News states:

“Two years ago, Bergdahl was handed over to members of the Quetta Shura, or council — the decision-making body of the militants — for his scheduled release in exchange for five Taliban commanders being held by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay, said a senior Taliban commander affiliated with the Haqqani network, a major militant faction of the Afghan Taliban.

"The talks at that time failed, and he was again handed over to his captors, and that's why he didn't trust when [he] was told about his likely release," the Taliban commander told NBC News on the phone from Afghanistan.

But this time, “our talks finally proved successful for [a] prisoners' swap. We returned our valued guest to his countrymen and they released our people.” said the Taliban commander.

"The talks at that time failed, and he was again handed over to his captors, and that's why he didn't trust when [he] was told about his likely release," the Taliban commander told NBC News on the phone from Afghanistan.

But this time, “our talks finally proved successful for [a] prisoners' swap. We returned our valued guest to his countrymen and they released our people.” said the Taliban commander.”

Russ Vaughn writing in American Thinker states:

“Obama got his pig, and I make no apology for that description of PFC Bergdahl (he was promoted to sergeant while being held captive) for this is where this discussion turns deadly serious. As a former non-commissioned officer who served in combat with another airborne unit, my first reaction upon hearing of Bergdahl’s desertion many years ago was, get him back, give him a fair court-martial and put him in front of a firing squad. Good, honorable paratroopers lost their lives searching for this treasonous bastard. Various sources from Bergdahl’s unit, the 501st Airborne Infantry are reporting in around the Web with this information:

PFC Matthew Michael Martinek, Staff Sgt. Kurt Robert Curtiss, SSG Clayton Bowen, PFC Morris Walker, SSG Michael Murphrey, 2LT Darryn Andrews, were all KIA from our unit who died looking for Bergdahl. Many others from various units were wounded or killed while actively looking for Bergdahl.”

(You can read more and see the photos by clicking here)

“Those deaths, every single one, are on Bergdahl’s head. For the squeamish among you who find my opinion too harsh, here’s Article 85 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the statutory regulation dealing with desertion:

(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

And there is damning evidence against PFC Bergdahl from those in his unit. He made no secret of his disillusionment with America, sending emails to his parents, one of which contained this statement, “The system is wrong. I am ashamed to be an american. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools. I am sorry for everything here”

Notice that non-capitalization of "American". A fellow trooper, Jason Fry, has reported that Bergdahl told him, "If this deployment is lame, I'm just going to walk off into the mountains of Pakistan."

So yes, we can court-martial this dishonorable deserter whose selfish views and actions caused all those unnecessary deaths and take his life or lock him away for the rest of it for the simple reason that the son of a bitch walked out on his band of brothers in an active combat zone in an act of betrayal that caused the deaths of his brothers in arms who willingly went in search of him, to save his sorry, weasel ass. Those events have immeasurable consequences on those both above and below his rank that he deserted. There is no greater crime that a combat infantryman can commit than desertion to the enemy on the battlefield. Were he to be judged by his fellow paratroopers, he’d be dead in the blink of an eye for the deaths that he caused. He willingly manipulated and violated the code of, “No man left behind,” for his own selfish sense of fulfillment that proved deadly to troopers in the 501st Infantry, and who knows how many more in special operations, who sent in patrols for years trying to find this weak-ass traitor.

As a viewer of the HBO series “Homeland” I cannot help but see the parallels between the fictional series and Sgt. Bergdahl’s story. In the series Nicholas Brody, a Marine Sgt. (played by Damian Lewis) was taken prisoner by al Qaeda and eventually converted to Islam. After five years he was released and returned to the United States as a sleeper terrorist with the mission of killing the Vice President who had authorized a drone attack on the headquarters of the al Qaeda commander killing his young son.

Like the HBO series, this real life story revolves around an American soldier who got taken as a Prisoner of War by terrorists while battling on foreign soil. Having spent five years in captivity (and having grown a large beard a la Damian Lewis' on-screen character), Bergdahl just got released and is now heading back to his homeland in Hailey, Idaho.

But the comparisons don't end there. In fact, this is only the beginning. After he was captured in Afghanistan by Haqqanigroup terrorists, his then-19-year-old lover Monica Lee actively participated in protests to get him freed. But as years went by, the efforts waned and she got on with her life. Bergdahl himself told her in one of the messages his captors let him sent out to not wait for him.

Having thought that Bergdahl may never return, she began dating someone new. But yesterday she was told that Bergdahl is not only alive but has been freed and will soon be heading back home.

While the news brought of joy and relief for her, she quickly realized how awkward a situation would become when she comes face to face with her returning ex who may not know that she is now with someone else. This is basically what happens in the critically acclaimed HBO series.

Something to watch out for- the Homeland protagonist was turned by al-Qaeda while in captivity. Although rumors of Bergdahl assisting his captors did make the rounds in 2010, let's hope that's not actually the case here.

I say the following fully respecting the fact that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl and his family/loved ones might have an extremely understandably different opinion on the situation:

1. The people we exchanged for Sgt. Bergdahl will end up running terrorist operations in Afghanistan if we’re lucky, and Afghanistan and abroad if we are not. And they will likely be doing it considerably sooner than a year from now.
2. The Taliban will step up their kidnapping campaigns, because from their point of view said campaigns have been proven to work.
3. Democratic, liberal, and progressive partisans like Alan Combs will freak if you point out either #1 or #2 to them.

It’s a heck of a thing when your only hope is maybe they put a remote tracker in one guy’s gut or some other techno-thriller nonsense. Unfortunately, no, this is not a Tom Clancy novel and we do not have a Jack Ryan in office. And I’m sorry that I have to be the one that gets to tell people hard truths like rewarding kidnapping gets more people kidnapped. But apparently telling people the things that they don’t want to hear is part of the entire ‘Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy’ thing.

All of this while Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi languishes in a Mexican prison chained to a bed. Tahmooressi was not a deserter. He is still in Marines as a reservist and has been said to be hero on the battlefield. What will his Commander-in-Chief do for this Marine?

It’s Time for Mexico to Act Like a Civilized Nation

“Americans are so enamored of equality, they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.” — ― Alexis de Tocqueville

On May 28, U.S. Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi, who is being held in a jail in Tijuana for crossing into the country with firearms, appeared before a Mexican judge for what was supposed to be his first evidentiary-type hearing. It wound up being delayed until June 4 because on Wednesday of this week Tahmooressi fired his initial attorney Alejandro Osuna.

On March 31, Tahmooressi was arrested by the Mexican border patrol after he accidentally drove across the San Ysidro checkpoint and into Mexico with his three legally owned guns. It is a crime to knowingly enter Mexico with firearms and ammunition. The sentence can be up to 30 years in prison.

Tahmooressi's arrest has reignited the debate about Mexico's legal system. Based on my conversation with a former State Department official who spent 15 months on the border handling numerous border issues including the arrests of U.S. citizens, the hearing on June 4 will be “very cut and dry.”

The judge will determine basic facts. There will be questions such as did Tahmooressi violate Mexican law by entering the country with guns? Can Tahmooressi read? Can he see? Were the international border signs properly posted, warning that it is illegal to enter Mexico with firearms?

According to a spokesman for Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), the judge will also determine if Tahmooressi really does suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), as he has alleged. Mexican prosecutors are apparently conducting an independent psychological analysis. Tahmooressi’s attorney is in possession of his Department of Veteran's Affairs mental health records to prove his claims about his condition.

There is no dispute that Tahmooressi violated Mexico's gun-control laws, even though it was an accident. According to the Mexican Consulate General's website, "Claiming not to know about the law will not get you leniency from a police officer or the judicial system."

But legal procedure is not the only issue in this case. Tahmooressi’s “honest mistake” defense invokes an equally important issue of politics.

According to the former U.S. official, Mexico takes its sovereignty seriously and feels as if the United States does not respect its laws and independence.

For example, the U.S. and Mexico have inherent differences in criminal sentencing. Mexico does not have a death penalty; it views such punishment as cruel and unusual. Texas, on the other hand, does have the death penalty.

At the time Tahmooressi was arrested, Mexico was pleading with Texas not to execute convicted murderer and rapist Ramiro Hernandez, a Mexican citizen. Texas disregarded Mexico’s request and executed Hernandez on April 4th.

The Mexican Foreign Affairs Ministry opposed Texas’ decision, stating, “This is the fourth case of a Mexican being executed in clear violation of the judgment of the International Court of Justice. The Government of Mexico expresses its most vigorous protest at the failure to comply.”

Mexico might be thinking, “You did not listen to us (about Hernandez) so why should we listen to you (about Tahmooressi)? You want us to respect your right to prosecute and punish. Now you must respect our right to prosecute and punish.”

Mexico may also be upset because our agencies and officials have a decades-long pattern of entering its country to fight the War on Drugs without its permission or knowledge.

In the nineties, U.S. Customs agents carried out Operation Casablanca, a money-laundering sting, without Mexico’s knowledge. This operation caused great friction between the two countries. “Casablanca was a hard punch to mutual cooperation and trust because it implied, in some ways, the violation of bilateral and international agreements,'' said then-foreign ministry official Miguel Ruiz Caba Mfas.

According to a report on Fox News Greta Van Susteren, a crusader for the release of Tahmooressi the officer found him guilty of crime from beginning.

This week past week we were reminded of the sacrifices of our military heroes on numerous TV shows. Today we are reminded of by a high-profile story in the news right now. We have an explosive international incident developing over the false imprisonment of a U.S. Marine hero in Mexico. Remarkably, our President and Secretary of State have not even chosen to bring this issue up with Enrique Peña Nieto, the President of Mexico.

I believe the United States would have great leverage in this situation – if we had a real leader running this country. Unfortunately, we have the weak, feckless, neutered, bowing Barack Obama. Our President doesn’t understand American exceptionalism. Our fearful leader doesn’t believe in the greatness of our military. He certainly doesn’t understand what Donald Trump would call “the art of the deal.” It’s time to explain the situation to our southern neighbor. It’s time to make an offer he can’t refuse. This is the letter a real leader of the United States would send to the President of Mexico to rescue a true American hero and patriot, who is languishing in a filthy, dangerous Mexican jail under false pretenses. Here is what I would tell the President Obama if he were to ask me for my advice.

“Dear President Enrique Peña Nieto:

Greetings from the United States of America — you know, the great Nation just above your crime-ridden country, who has taken in millions of your citizens and spent hundreds of billions of dollars in welfare, food stamps, housing allowances, healthcare, education, police and prison costs, free meals at school, and income tax credits on your citizens here in our country illegally. I think you owe it to us to listen to what we have to say.

I write you today because you’re holding one of our citizens hostage in one of the hellholes that you call a federal prison. The citizen you are holding is my Marine. His name is Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi. He is an American hero. During the four years he served in the U.S. Marines, he did two tours in Afghanistan. While on the battlefield, he saved the lives of eight Marines from the Taliban; and in a separate incident he saved a Marine from bleeding to death after that soldier lost both legs from an improvised explosive device explosion. This American hero is now languishing in your prison in Tijuana, Mexico.

What crime did he commit? Murder? Robbery? Kidnapping? Drug smuggling? No those are the things that happen to law-abiding citizens in your country every day. But Tahmooressi didn’t do any of those bad things. He accidentally drove across the border in his own vehicle with three legally owned guns. Yes, that’s his “crime.” Bad driving and getting lost. This American hero entered your country because of poor signage leading to your border outside San Diego (possibly combined with confusion from his post-traumatic stress disorder).

As a result of that honest mistake, my Marine has been under constant death threat from Mexican drug gangs in your prison. Because you can’t control your own violent prisoners, my Marine has been isolated in a filthy prison cell, chained to his bed for weeks. This is called torture, and it is a violation of his civil (and human) rights.

I want to make sure you understand the gravity of this situation. Your Mexican citizens enter our country illegally, and we let them live and work here. Our citizens are kindhearted enough to oppose deportation of millions of your citizens for fear of breaking up their families. We hire your citizens and provide them with a better life than they ever had in Mexico. They send money home to Mexico that keeps your economy afloat. That money comes from our citizens and taxpayers. Even Mexican felons are treated better in our prisons and legal system than they are in your country. That’s why your citizens are willing to die to escape to our country.

Let’s also discuss your military. This U.S. Marine hero made a mistake wandering into your country. But your military has purposely wandered onto U.S. soil many times, which is a violation of U.S. laws. But we have chosen not to arrest your soldiers. We’ve given our neighbors the benefit of the doubt. Is this how you treat us in return?

Let’s review the direct military aid we’ve gifted to your country. Between 2008 and 2011, the Department of Defense gave $428.7 million worth of equipment to Mexican security forces, including planes, Black Hawk helicopters and scanners. Last year alone, we trained more than 3,000 Mexican troops. All this money came from U.S. taxpayers — like Tahmooressi’s parents.

My Marine was armed with three firearms because he has the Constitutional right to own and possess those firearms in the United States. I understand that your country does not have those same rights. That’s too bad for you and your citizens. I’ve noticed that even though you have disarmed your citizens, gun violence is out of control in Mexico. It’s strange how in your “gun-free” country, there are incredible numbers of gun murders. It appears that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens has not worked out very well for your disarmed citizens.

I understand that you have “issues” keeping your citizens from crossing over into our country and keeping drug lords from smuggling drugs into our country. Until now, we have never properly addressed these issues with you. I think that time has come. But we will deal with those issues at a later date. Right now, we have only one issue on the plate. Rest assured, the future of American-Mexican relations depend on the resolution of this issue.

I hope you will consider this a formal (but friendly) request, as one neighbor to another. As the Commander in Chief of Tahmooressi, I’m giving you until 5 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time tomorrow to return my Marine (along with his truck and weapons) to the U.S. border crossing in San Diego.

I will have the appropriate U.S. officials and military officers waiting there at precisely 5 p.m. to inspect the condition of my Marine and to report his physical and mental condition to me immediately. I expect him to be in perfect health.

If you choose to disregard my simple and reasonable “friendly” request, please be aware that I have already ordered the U.S. Marine Corps commandant at Camp Pendleton to have his 100,000 Marines “stand to” and ready to proceed into Mexico to retrieve my Marine.

One way or another, my Marine is coming home — whether you send him home or we have to come get him. We leave no man behind. If we are forced to retrieve Tahmooressi at great effort and expense to the United States, we will also send you a bill for the $500 million or so we’ve spent on training and equipment for your military since 2008.

I’ll deal with the hundreds of billions of dollars we’ve spent on housing your citizens illegally in the United States at a future date — after this incident has been resolved to my satisfaction.

This is not a threat. This is a promise. I pray, for your sake and for your citizens’ safety, that you choose to do the right thing, neighbor. But know one thing: One way or another, my Marine is coming home by tomorrow evening at 5 p.m.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

The President of the United States of America

P.S. Semper Fi.

No doubt this letter will never be sent by our sitting President. Remember President James Madison went to war in 1812 with the greatest power in the world over British attempts to restrict U.S. trade and the Royal Navy’s impressment of American seamen. It’s about time for President Obama to step up the plate and protect not only his citizens, but those who he commands.

As The Scandals Deepen will the Democrats be Hurt in 2014

"The natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men." — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 21

On December 12, 1787 Alexander Hamilton writing on the Defects of the Articles of Confederation in Federalist 21 stated:

“The inordinate pride of State importance has suggested to some minds an objection to the principle of a guaranty in the federal government, as involving an officious interference in the domestic concerns of the members. A scruple of this kind would deprive us of one of the principal advantages to be expected from union, and can only flow from a misapprehension of the nature of the provision itself. It could be no impediment to reforms of the State constitution by a majority of the people in a legal and peaceable mode. This right would remain undiminished. The guaranty could only operate against changes to be effected by violence. Towards the preventions of calamities of this kind, too many checks cannot be provided. The peace of society and the stability of government depend absolutely on the efficacy of the precautions adopted on this head. Where the whole power of the government is in the hands of the people, there is the less pretense for the use of violent remedies in partial or occasional distempers of the State. The natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men. A guaranty by the national authority would be as much leveled against the usurpations of rulers as against the ferments and outrages of faction and sedition in the community.” (Emphasis added)

In essence what Hamilton was saying is that even with the checks and balances provided in the Constitution there could still be abuses by the Executive and the only solution outside of revolt is a change of men. This is very apparent today with the current epidemic of scandals facing the Obama administration: Benghazi, IRS, Justice Department, and Health and Human Services.

Almost on a daily basis more and more information on these scandals dribble out in drips and drops as reporters begin doing the job they should have done five years ago when it came to opening the curtain on Barack Obama — a curtain that had been constructed by his Chicago supporters and their sycophants in the main stream media. Now many members of that same Main stream media are joining the ranks of the honest, hard-working reporters that have been maligned for these past five years.

President Barack Obama's job approval rating has taken a huge hit in the wake of the scandals surrounding the White House, a new poll has found.

Fewer than half the registered voters surveyed now believe Obama is "honest and trustworthy," according to the poll conducted by Quinnipiac University. That figure had stood at 58 percent the last time the question was asked in September 2011. Now it is at 49 percent.

The Quinnipiac Poll stated:

“President Barack Obama gets a negative 45 — 49 percent job approval rating, compared to 48 – 45 percent positive in a May 1 survey by the independent Quinnipiac University, conducted before the IRS allegations surfaced. The president’s biggest drop is among independent voters, who give him a negative 37 — 57 percent score, compared to a negative 42 — 48 percent May 1. He gets a negative 9 — 86 percent from Republicans and a positive 87 — 8 percent from Democrats, both virtually unchanged. Women approve 49 — 45 percent while men give a negative 40 – 54 percent score...Americans are divided 49 — 47 percent on whether Obama is honest and trustworthy, down from 58 — 37 percent, the last time Quinnipiac University asked the question September 1, 2011.”

And it is the scandal involving the Internal Revenue Service that is hitting Obama hardest, the survey found. The voters, who were surveyed between Wednesday last week and Tuesday of this week, believe that controversy is more worrying than those surrounding the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, or the seizure of phone records from journalists.

According to the Connecticut University’s survey, more people now view the president negatively than positively. Slightly under half — 49 percent — say they have a negative view of Obama, while 45 percent have a positive view.

Just one month ago, before news of the IRS controversy broke, the president's job approval rating was more positive than negative, at 48 to 45 percent.

When it comes to the individual controversies swirling around the Obama administration, 44 percent of voters see the IRS prying into conservative groups as the most important, while 24 percent say they are most concerned about the administration's handling of the terrorist attack in Benghazi, and 15 percent say the records seizure at news organizations is most important.

Many voters believe criticism of the administration's handling of the Benghazi attack as "just politics," the survey shows with 43 percent describing it that way

Meanwhile, more than three out of four voters — 76 percent — believe a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the IRS scandal. That figure includes 63 percent of Democrats, 88 percent of Republicans, and 78 percent of independent voters.

"There is overwhelming bipartisan support for a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS," said Peter Brown, assistant director of Quinnipiac's Polling Institute.

"Voters apparently don't like the idea of Attorney General Eric Holder investigating the matter himself, perhaps because they don't exactly think highly of him," Brown said. Holder got a negative 39 percent job approval rating, compared to 23 percent who approved of the way he is doing his job.

According to Newsmax: A special prosecutor will be needed to investigate the IRS' targeting of conservative groups, Sen. Rob Portman told Newsmax in an exclusive interview, because there are limits to what Congress can achieve on its own.

The Ohio Republican said that while he believes the congressional investigation should continue for a while longer, it's unlikely that lawmakers will be able to extract the information they need from the administration to get to the bottom of the issue.

A new Rasmussen Reports poll finds that only 25 percent of likely voters have a favorable opinion of Attorney General Eric Holder and 42 percent would like for him to resign.

The telephone survey of 1,000 likely voters conducted on May 29-30, also revealed that 47 percent of those polled have an unfavorable opinion of him.

On the other hand a recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal— No IRS Special Prosecutor – Indictments are less important than Political Accountability states:

“Like dumber follows dumb, the scandal of politicized IRS tax enforcement has been followed by calls for a "special prosecutor." Republicans are predictably leading this call against a Democratic Administration, but this is one case in which the GOP should hope it doesn't get its way.

The case for a special counsel is that Attorney General Eric Holder can't be trusted to investigate his Administration, and that the Administration will stonewall Congress. We don't trust Mr. Holder either, but letting him pass the buck to a special prosecutor is doing him a favor. This scandal is best handled in Congressional hearings that educate the public in the next year rather than wait two or three years for potential indictments. No fewer than three Congressional committees are digging into the facts, and they have the power to issue subpoenas, compel depositions and demand emails and documents. All of this can then make its way into the public record. If the White House chooses not to turn over relevant information, it will have to assert executive privilege. Such resistance carries its own political price.

With a special prosecutor, the probe would immediately move to the shadows, and the Administration and the IRS would use it as an excuse to limit its cooperation with Congress. Special prosecutors aren't famous for their speed, and a decision on indictments would extend well past the 2014 election. If there were no indictments, whatever the prosecutor has discovered would stay secret. And even if specific criminal charges were filed, the facts of an indictment couldn't stray far from the four corners of the violated statute. Beyond proving his specific case in court, a special prosecutor will not be as concerned with the larger public policy consequences and political accountability. That accounting should include how this started, what IRS officials thought they were doing, how far the knowledge and genesis went up the chain of government command, or what pressure was brought to bear on those supposed "rogues" in Cincinnati.”

But the poll also shows that almost three-quarters of voters, or 73 percent, believe that dealing with the economy and unemployment is a higher priority than investigating these three issues. Only 22 percent disagree.

But those who were surveyed are also optimistic that the economy is finally improving.

"The fact that voters say, 34–25 percent, that the economy is getting better also may be a reason the president's job approval numbers have not dropped further," said Brown.

Other points from the poll include:

• Political parties and groups are generally held in disdain. Voters have an unfavorable view of both the main parties and the tea party. The Republican Party fares worse, with an unfavorable rating of 50 percent, compared to 35 percent who rate it favorably. The same is said of the Democrats by 47 percent who rate their party favorably, and 42 percent unfavorably; and the tea party by 38-28 percent.

• A minuscule 3 percent of voters surveyed say they trust the federal government to do the right thing all the time. Twelve percent says they trust the feds most of the time, 47 percent say some of the time, and 36 percent say hardly ever.

• A congressional election today would be evenly split, with 38 percent saying they would vote for a Republican to sit in the House of Representatives and the same number saying they would vote Democrat.

On the same note Scott Rasmussen, founder and president of Rasmussen Reports, says there are signs the trio of scandals surrounding the Obama administration could cause more serious problems for the president and the Democratic Party if they persist.

Speaking to Newsmax TV, the pollster and political analyst explained: "As some people argue, his job approval ratings have already been hurt because they should be going up. The economy is getting stronger, the stock market is setting records, but the president's job approval is not going anywhere:"

"When we look at a question of, say, who do you trust more on the issue of ethics and corruption, it used to be Democrats had a big edge on the issue, but now with the scandals and controversy, the Republicans have a slight advantage; there's been a 10-point swing on that."

As for the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status, Rasmussen said, "Fifty-seven percent believe that the IRS really did target people and they don't buy the notion that it was some low-level people at the Cincinnati office. Sixty-five percent believe the decisions came from Washington at either the IRS headquarters or the White House."

In addition, he said of Obama, "We do know that his overall efforts, his desire, his whole public life has been spent on the mission to restore faith in the federal government, trust in the federal government. That was an uphill fight to begin with; it's probably an unwinnable fight at this point."

Discussing how the scandals might help Republicans in the 2014 midterm elections, Rasmussen said public opinion is now "marginally in favor" of the GOP.

"In the last five weeks Republicans have been ahead on the generic congressional ballots twice; Democrats, three times. We saw that same kind of balance going back and forth in April and May of 2009 and then gradually the Republican wave began to build," he said.

"So we'll be watching over this summer. If the scandals pick up and the generic ballot begins to move in the Republican direction, you'll see definitely that's going to help."

On top of the scandals, Republicans might also be able to capitalize on the rollout of ObamaCare, according to Rasmussen. "It's likely to run into some administration hurdles, some bureaucratic issues, but it's also running into the fact that it has never become popular, and that's going to be a pretty healthy drag on Democrats in the 2014 elections."

Assessing the field of potential GOP contenders in the 2016 presidential race, Rasmussen said he does not think former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, or House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan will win the Republican nomination.

He did not rule out Florida Sen. Marco Rubio becoming the nominee, and he called Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul "a serious contender," noting the IRS scandal has boosted public opinion of the tea party.

"The tea party right now is viewed favorably by 44 percent of voters nationwide. That's up 14 points from before the targeting," he said. "Eighty percent of Republicans now have a favorable opinion of the tea party. That's a big jump. There's been this divide between the Republican establishment who really wanted to protect themselves from the tea party. Now, the IRS has put them all on the same team and that unity could not have been achieved in any other way."

On the Democratic side, Rasmussen is not optimistic about Hillary Rodham Clinton's prospects in 2016.

"I have a very hard time believing Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee," he said. "Benghazi is certainly not going to help but there will be other factors. We just don’t know what the Democratic field is going to look like.”

Asked on Wednesday if the White House is "satisfied with the responsiveness" of IRS officials testifying before Congress, Press Secretary Jay Carney answered, "Well, that's a broad question, but the answer is yes." Of course Barack Obama and his mouthpiece Carney are satisfied — the IRS targeted Patriot and Tea Party groups (and possibly pro-Israel groups) helping to swing the 2012 election in Obama's favor, and then IRS officials either pleaded complete ignorance of the doings of their subordinates or took the Fifth Amendment in order to avoid questions. They might be satisfied, but this is a serious abuse of power, not a Snickers commercial.

June promises to be a busy month for those investigating the IRS. The House Oversight Committee, the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee are all probing for answers. Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA), chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight, obtained all communications using the terms "tea party," "patriot" or "conservative" from former acting IRS director and first sacrificial lamb Steven Miller. Boustany now knows the names of others involved and will be pursuing them. Oh, and the IRS is investigating itself, so there's that.

This week, Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), filed suit against the IRS on behalf of 25 conservative groups, saying, "The IRS and the federal government are not going to get away with this unlawful targeting of conservative groups." Ten of the organizations he represents still have not been approved for tax-exempt status. Sekulow provided letters to NBC News revealing that the extra scrutiny didn't originate in the IRS's Cincinnati office as we were told at first. Indeed, one letter bore the stamp-signature of Lois Lerner — the same official who last week claimed innocence before pleading the Fifth. Letters came "from four different offices, including the Treasury Department in Washington, DC," Sekulow says.

As for how high up the ladder this scandal goes, former IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman visited the White House an astounding 157 times during his tenure — which happens to coincide with the targeting in question. His successor, Steven Miller, visited numerous times as well. But Shulman's predecessor in the Bush administration, Mark Everson, visited the White House just one time. So what gives?

Shulman's first answer was, "Um, the Easter Egg Roll with my kids." Cute, but that doesn't explain why he visited the White House more than any cabinet member. He says he has "no memory" of discussing it and contends "it would not have been appropriate to have a conversation with anyone at the White House" on political audits at the IRS. Shulman further denied ever being told to scrutinize conservative groups. Then again, this is the same man who denied in March 2012 that the IRS was even targeting these groups. Can he be trusted now?

In the end, we don't expect anyone to truly be held accountable for this serious breach of trust by the Obama administration. In fact, one IRS official was promoted. The IRS has inordinate power as the agency with first dibs on your paycheck and the arbiter of tax status for political groups. And the IRS is beholden to a corrupt and thuggish administration run by a former community organizer from Chicago. As long as Barack Obama is in the Oval Office, there's only so much house cleaning that can happen. Besides, he's "satisfied" with how things are going.

On another front the scandal involving the Obama Justice Department's snooping into the electronic files of investigative journalists grew wider this week thanks in large part to Attorney General Eric Holder's congressional testimony. When asked by Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), (of Guam tipping fame) if the Justice Department could prosecute reporters under the Espionage Act for disclosure of material, Holder replied, "This is not something I've ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy." (The "I don't know" refrain was common in his testimony — see the montage.) Holder's words run contrary to his actions, however. Not only did he personally approve a warrant to search Fox News correspondent James Rosen's email account, but he also shopped it with two federal judges before finding a third willing to agree. This bald-faced contradiction opens Holder to perjury charges, which the House Judiciary Committee is currently investigating.

Holder did a great imitation of Sargent Schultz on the 1970s TV show Hogan’s Heroes

Holder may think he's got his bases covered, but he may become too much of a political liability even for this lawless administration. Then again, he contends that he's still the best candidate to investigate his own actions at Justice. House committee members are not so confident.

Holder tried to meet with bureau chiefs of major news organizations this week to lay out the Justice Department's subpoena policy. But Holder insisted that the meeting about "transparency" be off the record, and only a few unprincipled outlets, such as Politico, The Washington Post and Bloomberg News took the bait. The Associated Press, The New York Times, CNN, Reuters and Fox News were among those that stayed away.

Government policy under Barack Obama is to silence whistleblowers through intimidation, and its latest attack on the press indicates that the ends justify the means. Rosen is but one example of many reporters who have been investigated with or without their knowledge. What they all have in common is that they worked on stories critical of the Obama administration and its policies. If it should be proven that Eric Holder did commit perjury and engaged in the systematic intimidation and persecution of journalists trying to do their jobs, then nothing short of his resignation will serve to make up for the wrongdoing.

Individual liberty and free enterprise bring about good things both great and small — among them, potable water and sanitary toilets — and for those things we should be thankful. But according to Hollywood actor Matt Damon, "780,000,000 people — that's two and a half times the population of the United States — lack access to clean water." U2 front man Bono and celebrities Olivia Wilde and Richard Branson joined Damon to do something about it. For starters, the group is going on a "toilet strike." Damon explained that he "won't go to the bathroom until everyone in the world has access to clean water and sanitation." The ploy is, of course, a humorous one meant to draw serious attention to the problem, something made clear by the group's video. But in order to know whether these wealthy do-gooders actually made charitable contributions to the cause, we'll just have to wait for the IRS audits of their tax returns.