Steve Hayes, Weekly StandardThe documents, first reported by THE WEEKLY STANDARD in articles here and here, directly contradict claims by White House press secretary Jay Carney and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the revisions of those talking points were driven by the intelligence community and show heavy input from top Obama administration officials, particularly those at the State Department. The emails provide further detail about the rewriting of the talking points during a 24-hour period from midday September 14 to midday September 15. As THE WEEKLY STANDARD previously reported, a briefing from the Office...

Hicks & Kindy, Washington PostThe Common Sense Campaign, a self-described constitutionalist group based in Montgomery, Ala., aspired to be a smaller version of the National Rifle Association "” powerful and influential, without having to pay federal income taxes."We wanted to have a voice too," said the group's chairman, Pete Riehm. "The biggest difference between us and them is money."But Common Sense never reached the nonprofit stage. The organization gave up seeking tax-exempt status after two years of Internal Revenue Service demands for everything from the...

Sen. Marco RubioRUBIO: "The president doesn't have clean hands in this because, as I said yesterday on the floor of the Senate "¦ this administration has created a culture of intimidation."

Ben Domenech, The TransomThe sudden deluge of scandal which dominates the discussion around President Obama’s administration at the moment has handed a golden opportunity to Republicans. Yet if they aren’t careful, they’ll squander this opening completely by allowing their intense dislike of the president to cloud their judgment, missing the broader political lessons for the sake of personal point scoring.Personal scandals are personal. They are tied to defects and appetites, as in the case of Bill Clinton, John Edwards, John Ensign, and a host of others. With rare exceptions, such...

Austin Bay, TownhallIn a column published on Sept. 18, 2012, I argued that verified tactical military details of the engagement, the iconic date itself, and subsequent, very explicit statements by Libyan government authorities, left no doubt that on 9-11-2012 the U.S. consulate in Benghazi suffered a planned attack by an organized anti-American militant Islamist militia. A terrorist force had hit us with another 9-11 terror attack, and Americans had died, among them our ambassador to Libya.Given the facts, the Obama administration's bizarre claim that a sacrilegious Internet video had inflamed peaceful...

The Truth-o-Meter says: Half-True | Nancy Pelosi says Obamacare is bringing down health care costs House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says Democrats care about frugality — and the president’s health care law is one example. It’s bringing down the cost of health care, she told MSNBC host Chris Hayes. While key elements of the Affordable Care Act don’t go into effect until 2014, we wondered if the law has already brought down the cost of care. It depends partly on what you mean by "down." Growth rate Hayes and Pelosi chatted May 13, 2013, about Republicans’ focus on reducing the deficit. "It strikes me that they have been remarkably ... >> More

My American journey has taken many twists and turns. From Panama, where I was born -- to Bed-Stuy where I moved at age four -- to my days as an entrepreneur and banker -- to my role as husband, father, grandfather -- and to my calling as an ordained minister leading the largest church in New York City with 37,000 congregants -- I count every blessing. I am also a committed Republican. But I am a Republican who has grave concerns about the GOP's future. What happened to the party of Lincoln? To the party that abolished slavery and championed a woman's right to vote? To the party of Reagan who ended the Cold War and revitalized a moribund economy? To the party of George H. W. Bush who passed the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990? What happened to the party of ideas? New and innovative ideas win elections. The GOP will not win elections on a platform of restoring the past. This is the 21st century and things have changed. We are no longer the country we were under Reagan or even George W. Bush. If the GOP hopes to become relevant again, it needs more than a re-branding effort. As RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said when he came to my church in Brooklyn earlier this year, the Party needs to listen to everyone, not just the base. Within 24 hours of Priebus' visit, I sat down at the same table with Al Sharpton -- with whom I disagree on many issues, but I respect and listen to him. Creating a dialogue with people who espouse opposing ideology helps us understand not only our position, but forces us to consider, buttress, and defend our own ideals as well. It also is a source of new ideas and finding common ground that we would otherwise not know existed. The GOP has become complacent and unwilling to adapt. They think that the election of President Obama was an anomaly -- a political fluke; they are wrong. His reelection is a wake-up call. Our Party leaders need to rethink their messages and implement new policies that reflect and respond to the changing demographics of America. A smart three-pronged GOP strategy will help attract new voters, win over those we have lost, and maybe even convert some from the Democratic side of the aisle. First, the Republican Party must develop and pass comprehensive immigration reform. President Bush, in fact, tried to accomplish this with the McCain/Kennedy bill. He had the full support of Democrats; it was his own party that stopped him. Since then, Latinos -- the fastest growing demographic in the country -- have turned away from the GOP in significant numbers. We need to win them back -- something we will never do with the Party's current hard line stance, tough rhetoric, and perceived intolerance. Republicans must be willing to reevaluate their outlook and offer a reasonable bipartisan pathway to citizenship. Second, the long-held GOP concepts of limited government and self-reliance truly resonate in rural areas of our country, but less so in urban areas where government provides considerably more services at greater costs to taxpayers. Over the course of time, our citizens have relocated to the cities. According to census data, the nation was approximately 20 percent rural in 2000. Today, less than 14 percent reside in those areas. So when Republicans advocate a message of low taxes, we must be mindful of this migration. We must develop creative ways to lower taxes without cutting vital programs or services that so many millions of Americans rely on for basic survival. Finally, the GOP is lost and fragmented. There is division within -- the Tea Party, libertarians, Christian Conservatives, neocons, paleocons -- are all at each other's throats. Whereas Reagan was able to unite these groups into a coalition, we have become a patchwork party with each subgroup refusing to put petty squabbles aside to fight the larger war. From taxation and foreign policy to social issues, the party's conservatives clash with the moderates -- and in a very public way. We must establish a core message around our centrally-held values: limited government, limited taxation, personal responsibility and economic empowerment. Only then can we begin to build momentum. The GOP spends too much time defending itself against what it is not rather than asserting its core values. If we are to assume the mantle of power and lead this country once again to greatness, we must decide who we are and let America know in one clear, loud voice.

For many of us, the initials I, R and S strike fear into our heart. But now the Internal Revenue Service is apologizing. The IRS has admitted that during the 2012 elections some relatively low-level employees in Ohio required additional information from some conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. Groups with the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their applications were flagged and asked to submit additional materials. Other groups may have been targeted as well. There is little doubt that the IRS' approach to determining whether to grant tax-exempt status should be politically even-handed, without regard to partisan affiliation. But this kerfuffle is merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The IRS' actions evoke a much larger question about which groups should be able to obtain the benefit of tax-exempt status and lack of transparency that inures to certain non-profit organizations. Thanks in large part to the United States Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, corporations are constitutionally free to raise and spend unlimited sums to advocate for the election or defeat of political candidates as long as that spending is not coordinated with candidate campaigns. This is true for non-profit corporations as well, unless, as discussed below, there are statutory or regulatory restrictions placed on those groups. How important are nonprofit organizations and other committees to election campaigns? Estimates put independent spending by nonprofit corporations -- political action committees (PACs) and super PACs -- at more than $1 billion during the 2012 elections. Unlimited spending by all of these entities is harmful to the integrity of our electoral process, but the worst offenders may be those entities organized under section 501c4 of the IRS code. The 501c4s, as they are commonly known, are social welfare organizations. However, the IRS has interpreted the regulations affecting these nonprofit organizations as allowing them to engage in some political activity, as long as that does not become the organization's primary activity. This is, at best, a line drawn in the sand on a windy day, to quote Justice Scalia in another campaign finance case. And here is the kicker: while these 501c4 non-profit corporations can engage in some political activity, they need not disclose their donors. This leaves the public without the most important piece of information about those spending money to try to sway their votes; the identity of those organizations' supporters. While other organizations, such as PACs and super PACs, must disclose their donors, when those donors are 501c4 corporations then all that is disclosed is the name of the corporation, but again, not those supporting that corporation. This situation blasts an enormous hole through our nation's web of disclosure provisions. Hence once an organization obtains non-profit status under section 501c4 of the IRS code, any political fundraising by that organization is essentially clothed in secrecy. This is a perilous state of affairs. When organizations "speak" to us by spending money to try to influence whom we chose to represent us in our government, then we the people have an important interest in knowing the identities, the true identities, behind those attempting to persuade us. In addition, it remains to be seen whether many of these organizations, purportedly dedicated to social welfare, are little more than political committees. Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS comes to mind as but one example. If it looks like a political committee, and it raises and spends like a political committee, then it just might be a political committee. One of the differences between political committees and 501c4s is, of course, that political committees must disclose their donors. While there has been a good deal of public outcry concerning the IRS' admitted targeting of certain organizations applying for nonprofit status, the problem isn't that the IRS asked for too much information from organizations seeking favorable tax treatment, it is that they only asked for that information from conservative organizations. The IRS should be more, not less, inquisitive, but it should do so in an even-handed fashion. Aggressive inquiries by the IRS will only help the further the important interests served by disclosure provisions. Entities should no longer be able to wrap themselves in the protective layer of the IRS code only to operate in the shadows.

Joe Klein, TimeAll right. everyone take a deep breath. Now exhale. The rush of Obama "scandals" in recent weeks has been, well, breathtaking, and so has the rush to extrapolate, to discern a larger pattern of failure and incompetence in the Obama Administration--indeed, to make a cosmic argument about the inability of government to "organize a two-car funeral," as Bill Clinton used to say. I have a certain amount of sympathy for that last extrapolation. We may have reached a point where the federal government is so sclerotic and archaic that it needs a total overhaul. But putting...

Peter Baker, New York Times

Following news that the IRS subjected conservative and tea party groups applying for tax exempt status to additional scrutiny, most Americans now have a negative opinion of the agency, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll. According to the new poll, 59 percent of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the IRS, while 21 percent said they have a favorable opinion. Another 20 percent said they weren't sure. The survey found that most Americans have heard at least a little bit about the IRS unfairly scrutinizing conservative groups, but that few are paying close attention. Thirty-six percent of respondents said that they had heard a lot about the IRS subjecting conservative groups to additional scrutiny, and another 41 percent said they had heard a little about it. Twenty-three percent said that they had heard nothing at all. Forty-three percent of respondents to the survey said that they are very concerned that the government might use the IRS to target political enemies, while another 25 percent said they were somewhat concerned. Another 15 percent said they were not very concerned, and 5 percent said they were not at all concerned. Still, an even greater share of respondents said that they were at least somewhat concerned that some organizations might abuse their nonprofit status for personal or political gain, with 42 percent saying they were very concerned and 36 percent saying they were somewhat concerned. Republicans and independents in the survey were particularly likely to have a negative opinion of the IRS, with 76 percent of Republicans and 65 percent of independents saying that they had an unfavorable opinion. Democrats were more closely divided, with 34 percent saying they had a favorable opinion and 39 percent saying they had an unfavorable opinion. In fact, a 48 percent to 29 percent plurality of Republicans and a 41 percent to 33 percent plurality of independents said that the IRS should be eliminated entirely, while Democrats said they were in favor of the agency's continued existence by a 62 percent to 20 percent margin. Overall, 35 percent of respondents said that the agency should be eliminated, and 42 percent said it should continue to exist. The poll was conducted May 13-14 among 1,000 adults using a sample selected from YouGov's opt-in online panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population. Factors considered include age, race, gender, education, employment, income, marital status, number of children, voter registration, time and location of Internet access, interest in politics, religion and church attendance. The Huffington Post has teamed up with YouGov to conduct daily opinion polls. You can learn more about this project and take part in YouGov's nationally representative opinion polling.

Our story begins late last week when I got a tweet from @AlphaInvictus telling me to go check

* White House fights back on all three budding scandals * With effort to limit damage, Obama answers critics By John Whitesides WASHINGTON, May 15 (Reuters) - With no sign of an end to three mushrooming scandals, the White House acknowledged the rising political dangers on Wednesday by launching a concerted effort at damage control. In a whirlwind few hours, the administration moved forcefully to counter criticism of its handling of the deadly attacks in Benghazi, Libya, the seizure of reporters' phone records in a Justice Department leak investigation, and the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative groups for extra scrutiny. In the most aggressive response, President Barack Obama ousted the acting IRS commissioner on Wednesday evening. It was the sort of concerted response that Obama's political allies had been waiting for, but Republicans' skeptical reaction shows that Obama has a long way to go to dig his way out of the scandals and build goodwill as he tries to salvage his second-term legislative agenda. "This was a belated acknowledgment that Obama is in trouble," said Jack Pitney, a politics professor at Claremont McKenna College in California. "The question is whether it was too little, too late." After a largely scandal-free first term, the administration had been slow to respond decisively to the growing criticism - mostly from Republican foes but in some cases from Democrats - in the three controversies. Days of deflecting blame by administration officials had sparked criticism of Obama's willingness to accept responsibility. During a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday afternoon with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Republicans repeatedly attacked the administration for not being forthright on the emerging scandals. "I believe there has been a pattern by this administration in not taking responsibility for failures, avoiding blame, pointing the fingers in somebody else's direction," said U.S. Representative Steve Chabot, a Republican from Ohio. But Obama, known for his deliberative style and an aversion to overreacting, decided on Wednesday it was time to fight back. Appearing at the White House, he said the administration had forced the resignation of acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller and he strongly condemned the agency's apparent targeting of conservative groups for extra scrutiny. He promised to cooperate with Congress in an investigation. Obama's appearance came shortly after the White House released a series of emails detailing discussions about the now famous "talking points" memos that U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice used when discussing the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks that killed four Americans in Benghazi. 'POLITICAL DAMAGE CONTROL' Those emails had been the focus of Republican criticism that the Obama administration had not been forthright about the nature of the attack on a diplomatic compound by Islamic militants. Hoping to defuse criticism about the secret seizure of phone records from Associated Press journalists, the administration sought to revive a 2009 media shield bill sponsored by Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York. The bill would give federal protection to reporters who decline to reveal their confidential sources, but would also allow national security needs to outweigh those journalists' rights. Nobody expected the White House response to put an end to the controversies, but it showed the administration was finally willing to openly confront the potential political fallout. "They clearly have realized it's time to mount political damage control," said Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist at the University of Texas. "You can't just stay quiet and take it, although it does fit Obama's personal style of not foaming at the mouth every time something goes wrong, which is actually something people seem to like about him," he said. Pitney said the Obama administration appeared to be caught off-guard by the scandals, which have not taken the classic form of a public official caught with his hand in the fiscal till. "They perhaps didn't anticipate that scandal can take many forms," he said. "They obviously did not see this coming and they weren't prepared for this kind of controversy." Republicans plan to press congressional investigations of all three incidents in a growing political assault that could still overwhelm Obama's effort to work with his political rivals on immigration reform and looming budget negotiations. With congressional elections approaching in 2014, any longstanding political damage also could hurt Democrats' efforts to maintain control of the Senate and retake the majority in the House. But without additional evidence of wrongdoing that traces directly to the White House, Buchanan said, the three scandals may not resonate widely with voters over the long term. "I don't think they are in trouble except in D.C.," he said. "There might be something there but in the absence of a smoking gun it will blow over." (Editing by Karey Van Hall)

By Krista Kapralos Religion News Service (RNS) A German family seeking asylum in the U.S. so they can home-school their children lost their appeal in federal court on Tuesday (May 14), but their lawyers say they’re prepared to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case. The German government persecuted the Romeike family for their faith, said Mike Donnelly, a lawyer with the Home School Legal Defense Association, a religious organization that is representing the Romeike family. “It is treating people who home-school for religious or philosophical reasons differently,” he added. The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagrees. The U.S. grants safe haven to people who have a well-founded fear of persecution, but not necessarily to those under governments with laws that simply differ from those in the U.S., Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote in the court’s decision. “The German authorities have not singled out the Romeikes in particular or homeschoolers in general for persecution,” he wrote for the three-judge panel in the case, Uwe Romeike v. Eric Holder, Jr. Uwe Romeike said in an email on Wednesday that his family began home schooling to protect their children from bullying and teachings they didn’t agree with. “As we were confronted with opposition to our choice we began to feel more and more that our faith required us to homeschool our children,” he said. Uwe and Hannelore Romeike moved their five children to Tennessee (a sixth child has since been born) in 2008 to escape thousands of dollars in fines and increasing pressure from local police and education officials to enroll their children in school. All German parents are required by law to send their children to a state-recognized school, whether public or private. The Romeikes are evangelical Christians, and say they should be allowed to keep their children home to teach them Christian values. Before they left Germany, the police forcibly escorted the older Romeike children to school one day. Other German families have lost custody of their children because they persist in home schooling. An immigration judge in Tennessee granted the Romeikes’ bid in 2010, but the Board of Immigration Appeals tossed that ruling in 2012, arguing that religious home-schoolers don’t face any special consequences that aren’t applied to other families whose children don’t attend school. The 2012 decision sparked an outpouring of support for the Romeike family among conservative U.S. Christians. More than 120,000 people signed an online petition urging President Obama to let the family stay. Conservative talk show host Glenn Beck described the case as evidence of crumbling religious freedom. The Romeikes’ legal team plans to request an en banc hearing, which would present the case before the 6th Circuit’s entire 15-judge panel. Approval for such a hearing is unlikely, Donnelly said, adding that the Romeikes are already preparing to fight for asylum in the U.S. Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON — The House Agriculture Committee has approved a sweeping farm bill that would trim the $80 billion-a-year food stamp program. The panel approved the bill 46-10 late Wednesday after rebuffing Democratic efforts to keep the food stamp program whole. The legislation would cut about $2.5 billion a year – or a little more than 3 percent – from the domestic food aid program, which is used by 1 in 7 Americans. The cuts are part of massive legislation that costs almost $100 billion annually over five years and would set policy for farm subsidies, rural programs and the food aid. The Senate Agriculture Committee approved its version of the bill Tuesday. THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below. A House committee rebuffed Democratic efforts Wednesday to keep the $80 billion-a-year food stamp program whole, as debate on the farm bill turned into a theological discourse on helping the poor. The House bill would cut about $2.5 billion a year – or a little more than 3 percent – from the food stamp program, which is used by 1 in 7 Americans. The committee rejected an amendment by Democrats to strike the cuts 27-17, keeping them in the bill. The legislation would achieve the cuts partly by eliminating an eligibility category that mandates automatic food stamp benefits when people sign up for certain other programs. It would also save dollars by targeting states that give people who don't have heating bills very small amounts of heating assistance so they can automatically qualify for higher food stamp benefits. Republicans argued that the cut is small relative to the size of the program, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, and that people who qualify for the aid could still sign up for it, they just wouldn't be automatically enrolled. They defended the cuts after Rep. Juan Vargas, D-Calif., quoted the Book of Matthew in opposing them: "When I was hungry you gave me food. When I was thirsty, you gave me drink." Several Republicans talked about their Christianity and said the Bible encourages people to help each other but doesn't dictate what the federal government should do. "We should be doing this as individuals, helping the poor," said Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Calif. Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., offered the amendment to do away with the cuts. He said taking the hunger assistance away from people will just make the poor "more vulnerable and more miserable." "Christians, Jews, Muslims, whatever – we're failing our brothers and sisters here," McGovern said. The cuts are part of massive legislation that costs almost $100 billion annually over five years and would set policy for farm subsidies, rural programs and the food aid. The House panel started work on the legislation Wednesday, one day after the Senate Agriculture Committee approved its version. Last year more than 47 million people used the SNAP program with the cost more than doubling since 2008. The rolls rose rapidly because of the economic downturn, rising food prices and expanded eligibility under President Barack Obama's 2009 economic stimulus law. Republicans criticized Obama in last year's presidential campaign for his expansion of the program, and many House conservatives have refused to consider a farm bill without cuts to food stamps, which make up about 80 percent of the bill's cost. The Senate approved much smaller cuts to the program, about $400 million a year. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., will have to appease all sides as he tries to push the farm bill through for the third year in a row, balancing calls from House conservatives to cut the program with Senate Democrats who are reluctant to touch it. "I expect it to come from all directions," Lucas said last week of the food stamp debate. The House bill would cut around $4 billion a year from food aid and farm spending, while the Senate bill would trim roughly $2.4 billion. Those reductions include more than $600 million in yearly savings from across-the-board cuts that took effect earlier this year. Much of the savings in the House and Senate bills comes from eliminating annual direct payments, a subsidy frequently criticized because it isn't tied to production or crop prices. Part of that savings would go toward the deficit reduction, but the rest of the money would create new programs and raise subsidies for some crops while business is booming in the agricultural sector. The Senate bill would eliminate direct payments immediately, while the House bill would phase out payments to cotton farmers, who rely on the program, over the next two years. Like the Senate bill, the House measure also includes concessions to Southern rice and peanut growers who also depend on direct payments. The bills would lower the threshold for rice and peanut subsidies to kick in when prices drop. There are protections for other crops as well. Both bills would boost federally subsidized crop insurance and create a new program that covers smaller losses on planted crops before crop insurance kicks in, favoring Midwestern corn and soybean farmers, who use crop insurance most often. The committee made no changes to the subsidy programs in the bill Wednesday, and Lucas made no apologies for broadening some farm programs. "Let's give certainty to an industry that has been a bright spot in an otherwise dismal economy," he said as he opened the committee meeting. The farm bill passed the Senate last year but the House declined to take it up after conservatives in that chamber objected to the cost and insisted on higher cuts to food stamps. This year, the full House will consider the bill. ___ Follow Mary Clare Jalonick on Twitter: http://twitter.com/mcjalonick

WASHINGTON -- One after another, the charges have tumbled out – allegations of sexual assaults in the military that have triggered outrage, from local commanders to Capitol Hill and the Oval Office. But for a Pentagon under fire, there seem to be few clear solutions beyond improved training and possible adjustments in how the military prosecutes such crimes. Changing the culture of a male-dominated, change-resistant military that for years has tolerated sexism and sexist behavior is proving to be a challenging task. "We're losing the confidence of the women who serve that we can solve this problem," the top U.S. military officer, Gen. Martin Dempsey, said in unusually strong terms Wednesday. "That's a crisis." Dempsey, whose comments during a flight from Europe to Washington were reported by the Pentagon's internal news service, suggested that a deepening of the sexual assault problem may be linked to the strains of war. "I tasked those around me to help me understand what a decade-plus of conflict may have done to the force," he said. "Instinctively, I knew it had to have some effect." Dempsey added: "This is not to make excuses. We should be better than this. In fact, we have to be better than this." As new sexual assault allegations emerged this week involving an Army soldier who was assigned to prevent such crimes – the second military member involved in similar accusations – the Pentagon said Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is working on a written directive to spell out steps aimed at resolving the escalating problem. But President Barack Obama, fuming at a news conference last week, warned that he wanted swift and sure action, not "just more speeches or awareness programs or training." Sexual offenders need to be "prosecuted, stripped of their position, court-martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged. Period," he said. "The president has made very clear his expectations on this issue," said Pentagon press secretary George Little, adding that Hagel told Obama on Tuesday about an Army sergeant first class at Fort Hood, Texas, who faces allegations of sexual misconduct. The case involves the soldier's activities with three women, including an allegation that he may have arranged for one of them to have sex for money, according to a defense official. Those allegations come on the heels of a Pentagon report last week that estimated that as many as 26,000 military members may have been sexually assaulted last year, based on survey results, out of 1.4 million in the services. That report, and a recent series of arrests and other sexual assault problems across the military, have triggered a rush of initiatives from the Pentagon and proposed legislation on Capitol Hill. But experts warn that stemming an increase in assaults will require concrete changes – both in law and in military culture. "There is not a quick fix," said Anu Bhagwati, former Marine captain and executive director of the Service Women's Action Network. "The military can't train its way out of this problem." She said that changing the prosecution system is critical, but victims also have to be convinced that they won't be punished if they come forward. Changing the culture in the military, to foster greater respect, she said may require using outside groups and advocates to deal with assault cases so that victims don't feel intimidated by having to go to senior officers with their assault allegations. According to Little, Hagel is considering changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice that would prevent commanders from reversing sexual assault convictions, along with other efforts to improve training, assist victims and strengthen discipline. Hagel has also ordered the re-training, re-certifying and re-screening of all sexual assault prevention and response personnel, as well as military recruiters, who also have been accused in recent sexual misconduct cases. "He is going to spare no effort to address the problem," Little said, adding that additional training is "foundational" to any credible effort against sexual assault. He said Hagel is "open to any and all" ideas about how to improve training, and that this will be just one element in a broader effort to fight the problem. On Capitol Hill, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., plans to introduce legislation on Thursday that would reform the military justice system by taking top commanders out of the process of deciding whether a sexual misconduct case goes to trial. For sexual offenses with authorized sentences of more than one year in confinement – akin to felonies in the civilian judicial system – that decision would rest instead with officers at ranks as low as colonel who are seasoned trial counsels with prosecutorial experience. And, Sens. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., introduced legislation Wednesday to require the Pentagon to establish strict new criteria for service members who can serve in sexual assault prevention programs throughout the military. In the latest case, the Texas sergeant, whose name has not been made public, was assigned as a coordinator of a battalion-level sexual assault prevention program at Fort Hood. He has been suspended from all duties but has not been charged with any crime. A defense official in Washington said it was not yet clear if one of the three women was forced into prostitution, and also added that the sergeant is being investigated for allegedly sexually assaulting one of the other two women. The allegations involving the third woman were not known. Another U.S. official said the sergeant had service in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and that there were no obvious problems with his military record on an initial review. Both officials spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the matter. The soldier was being investigated by the Army Criminal Investigation Command. No charges had been filed, but officials say they expect them fairly soon. Just last week an Air Force officer who headed a sexual assault prevention office was himself arrested on charges of groping a woman in a Northern Virginia parking lot. Little said Hagel was angry and disappointed at "these troubling allegations and the breakdown in discipline and standards they imply." He said Hagel had met with Army Secretary John McHugh and ordered him to "fully investigate this matter rapidly, to discover the extent of these allegations and to ensure that all of those who might be involved are dealt with appropriately." In the recent Pentagon report, officials said that of the estimated 26,000 military members who may have been sexually assaulted last year, fewer than 3,400 reported the incidents. Nearly 800 of those simply sought help and declined to file formal complaints against their alleged attackers. ___ Associated Press writer Donna Cassata and AP Radio correspondent Sagar Meghani contributed to this report. ___ Follow Robert Burns on Twitter: https://twitter.com/robertburnsAP Follow Lolita C. Baldor on Twitter: https://twitter.com/lbaldor

WASHINGTON -- In a sign of how organized labor is trying to spread its roots more broadly in the progressive movement, Fred Azcarate, a longtime labor leader who's been heading the AFL-CIO's jobs campaign, is leaving the union federation to take the helm at U.S. Action, a 21-state federation of community organizing groups. Azcarate was the longtime director of Jobs with Justice, a national network of groups that advocates for low-wage workers, before leading the AFL-CIO's campaign on the ill-fated Employee Free Choice Act. At U.S. Action, he'll build campaigns on some of the issues where organized labor is trying to find more progressive allies, like health care, Social Security, taxes, immigration and voting rights. "I think our future, not just for labor but for progressives, is around building alliances between labor and community groups," said Azcarate, 48. Labor groups could certainly use some help on the local and state levels. Unions have spent the last several years trying to beat back GOP-sponsored state legislation aimed at curbing collective bargaining rights or weakening organized labor. Wisconsin Republicans passed a state law in 2011 that stripped collective bargaining from most public-sector employees, and late last year Michigan Republicans fast-tracked bills making the cradle of the U.S. auto industry a right-to-work state. The AFL-CIO, in turn, has tried to broaden its reach with non-union workers and families. Azcarate said it's clear that organized labor can no longer fight such battles on its own, particularly as union density has dropped to a historic low in the U.S., with just 6.6 percent of private-sector workers belonging to a union last year. "The labor movement can't win the fights they're engaged in without making alliances in communities," said Azcarate, the son of a union nurse. "I think we’re in a crisis. It’s a decades-long attack on working families and their organizations and their unions, and it's put us in a pretty big hole, but I see hope there." At the 14-year-old U.S. Action, Azcarate will replace founding director Jeff Blum.

By Jonathan Kaminsky OLYMPIA, Washington, May 15 (Reuters) - Key officials helping to create Washington state's potentially lucrative recreational pot market say its success may hinge on preventing consumers from choosing to get high on readily available medical cannabis because of low and sometimes nonexistent taxes on it. The officials say it may be necessary to raise taxes or impose more stringent rules on medical pot to avoid undercutting the new recreational market and the tax dollars it is expected to inject into state coffers. Many "patients," they say, are in reality heavy recreational users who fake or exploit their maladies. The idea of changing the rules for medical marijuana alarms some patients and providers of the drug as medicine. Under current state law, a range of medical professionals, including naturopaths and even some nurses can recommend marijuana for health problems ranging from cancer to persistent pain. While Washington state has no patient registry for the drug, officials in Colorado, which also has medical marijuana, have said the overwhelmingly male and relatively young demographics of their patient population line up with statistics for recreational consumers of the drug. The higher tax rate for recreational marijuana would effectively create two markets - an example of the type of obstacle officials must navigate as they work to allow sales of pot to recreational users 21 and older, something no state has done. "We as a state will fail unequivocally at a well-regulated and well-taxed system if we don't treat it as one market," said state Representative Reuven Carlyle, a Democrat representing Seattle and chair of the state House Finance Committee. "I appreciate and acknowledge the sensitive position that medical marijuana patients are in, but there are ways to support them without providing a blanket exemption from all taxation." On Thursday, Washington state is set to release proposed rules on who can grow, process and sell the drug, and on how to obtain licenses. Voters in Washington state and Colorado in November became the first in the nation to approve ballot measures legalizing recreational weed. The federal government considers cannabis to be an illegal narcotic, and U.S. officials say they are studying how to respond to the moves by the two states. Washington state has allowed medical marijuana since 1998 and Colorado followed suit in 2000. Because the medical marijuana industry in Washington state exists in a legal gray area, many storefronts selling the drug pay no taxes, while the recreational-use industry faces a voter-approved mandate to tax the drug at a rate of 75 percent, in addition to standard state and local sales taxes. The state's marijuana consultant, Mark Kleiman, and other observers, including some state lawmakers in Washington and some of the other 17 states with medical marijuana, say that many people treated as patients are actually recreational users. Most pot will likely continue to be consumed by a minority of price-conscious heavy users, so their ability to buy significantly cheaper medical cannabis will make it hard for the recreational market to take hold, he said. Kleiman, a professor of public policy at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that in his view one approach to solving the threat posed to the recreational market would be to raise taxes on medical marijuana. "Another would be limiting medical marijuana to people who are actually sick," said Kleiman, who was appointed to his position with the state in March and has been popularly dubbed the state pot czar, a term he dislikes. Kleiman is the co-author of the book "Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know" and has also written about crime policy and incarceration. NO SALES BEFORE 2014 Last year, the Washington state Office of Financial Management estimated that taxes on the drug sold for recreation could generate up to $532 million in fiscal year 2015, the first full year legalized sales could occur. Marijuana legalization backers touted the potential windfall for the state, but Kleiman has cautioned that, largely because of the availability of cheaper medical pot, actual tax collection could be less than half that projection. Sales of the drug to recreational users are not expected to occur before March 2014. Brian E. Smith, spokesman for the state's Liquor Control Board, the agency tasked with overseeing the recreational pot industry, agrees that competition from medical pot will pose "a challenge" to the viability of the new system. Washington's medical marijuana industry, which has its roots in a 1998 voter-approved measure, is among the most lightly regulated in the country. There is no provision under the law allowing for the sale of medical marijuana, but dispensaries collect "donations" from authorized patients of about $10 per gram of the drug. Estimates vary for how many medical-pot storefronts exist statewide, but in Seattle alone officials estimate they have over 150 such storefronts. Some Washington state dispensaries have sought to gain legitimacy and lessen the chances of authorities shutting them down by following state Department of Revenue instructions to pay taxes. As a result, the department reports collecting $1.2 million from 52 providers of the drug in fiscal year 2012, mostly in the form of sales taxes. But because of the gray zone in the law that medical marijuana occupies, Department of Revenue spokesman Mike Gowrylow said some dispensaries were not paying taxes on the advice of their lawyers. State lawmakers are considering legislation to direct the Liquor Control Board to recommend ways to create a single marijuana market with defined tax rates for medical pot. State Representative Chris Hurst, a Democrat, calls the state's medical cannabis industry "a sham" that he predicts will not long survive once recreational-use stores open. He anticipates that federal or state authorities will crack down on unlicensed dispensaries. "All you have to do is make examples of five or six people and the entire industry collapses almost immediately," Hurst said. "You have to have something to replace it, and that's what the recreational market is." Such talk horrifies many medical marijuana providers. "Legalization (of recreational use marijuana) will be exactly what we were afraid of," said Steve Sarich, a medical marijuana entrepreneur who helped lead the campaign against the November ballot initiative. (Editing by Alex Dobuzinskis and Prudence Crowther)

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the second-ranking Democrat in the House, said Wednesday he supports the Obama administration's ouster of Steven Miller, acting commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, after the agency targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. President Barack Obama announced Wednesday evening that Treasury Secretary Jack Lew requested Miller's resignation after a Treasury Department inspector general's report found that lower-level IRS staff acted out of incompetence holding conservative groups under greater scrutiny ahead of the 2012 elections. Some Republicans said Miller's job wasn't sufficient to halt questions, but Hoyer called the response appropriate for the short term. "I certainly think Jack Lew was correct, and it was good the president said there's going to be accountability and responsibility," Hoyer, the House minority whip, told The Huffington Post shortly after Obama's remarks. "And the guy who's the head, like the coach, takes the responsibility. I think it was the appropriate action." "The president's correct and Americans ought to be angry," Hoyer added. "We cannot have the IRS showing any favoritism or targeting people. They have to have the credibility and confidence of the American public." The inspector general's 48-page report released Tuesday confirmed the targeting of conservative groups was not politically motivated. But lawmakers on both sides of the aisle nonetheless called on Obama to respond forcefully. Beyond Miller's resignation, the president said he had instructed Lew to look further into why group with words like "tea party" in their names were subjected to greater scrutiny while applying for 501(c)(4) status. Obama also said he would "work with Congress as it performs its oversight role" in investigating the IRS. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called on the president to "work openly and transparently with Congress to get to the bottom of the scandal." Hoyer said he was reluctant to say what actions lawmakers should take. Asked whether he agreed with his colleague Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that Republicans were politicizing the IRS scandal, Hoyer said it was an "unfortunate" consequence of a polarized Congress. "The last Congress was one of the most political Congresses in which I've served," Hoyer said. "This Congress continues to be political, so I'm not surprised. I think it's unfortunate. I don't think the president had anything to do with this." He added: "I think it was the policy of the IRS to try and simplify their job, and they did it incorrectly."

NEW YORK -- Verizon Wireless turned over personal cellphone records for Associated Press journalists without giving them a chance to challenge subpoenas as part of an extraordinary Department of Justice national security leak investigation, the New York Times reported on Tuesday. But there was nothing extraordinary about what Verizon Wireless apparently did. Hundreds of thousands of times every year, cellphone companies turn over personal call records to law enforcement with neither a warning nor a judge's involvement. Privacy activists said it's no way for carriers to treat paying customers. They said they hope the AP controversy will force the big cell companies to change their ways. "This is the phone companies putting the interest of law enforcement before their customers, and that's wrong," said Christopher Soghoian, principal technologist for the American Civil Liberties Union. "None of them tell users. They all suck." Verizon Wireless spokeswoman Debi Lewis said, "We comply with legal processes when dealing with requests from law enforcement, and don't comment, can't comment on any specific individual request or customer." But the Times reported that an AP employee said "at least two of the journalists’ personal cellphone records were provided to the government by Verizon Wireless without any attempt to obtain permission to tell them so the reporters could ask a court to quash the subpoena." That should come as no surprise for cellphone users. Since the 1970s, the Supreme Court has ruled that information recorded by third parties like cellphone carriers is not protected by the Constitution's Fourth Amendment safeguards against unreasonable searches. So law enforcement need not obtain a warrant from a judge to gain access to records of who we call and when. (A full wiretap, recording the actual calls, would require a judge's approval.) A judge likely never saw the Justice Department's request. Instead, Assistant Attorney General James Cole signed the subpoena, most likely stating simply that the information was needed for an investigation, before it was presented to Verizon Wireless. The phone company probably had no idea who was the investigation target, or why. The Associated Press only found out that its reporters' phone records had been subpoenaed because of Justice Department regulations written in response to Watergate-era abuses. Similar user data requests fly at the big wireless carriers fast and furiously. In 2011, Verizon Wireless received about 130,000 subpoenas amid 260,000 total requests for customer information. Requests for user data had increased by 15 percent a year for the five years before. That information was provided to Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) as part of an investigation he conducted into cellphone privacy last year. Markey discovered the big cell carriers received a stunning 1.3 million requests for customer data in 2011. Sprint had a team of 226 workers dedicated to fulfilling all the requests. “If carriers receive a lawful request, they must honor it," Michael Altschul, the general counsel for CTIA, the wireless industry association, wrote in a written statement. He added that if user data was "illegally obtained, the courts will suppress it and not allow it in the case, which provides the incentive for law enforcement to abide by the rules." But all of the carriers' legal manpower, privacy activists said, could be applied more often to give users an opportunity to protect their privacy before they are charged with federal crimes. None of the big carriers have a stated policy that they will tell users targeted by a subpoena, or that they will ask a judge to approve a records search. "The FBI doesn't tell you what they're investigating -- you just get a subpoena, so the only way you get to stick up for your good customers is by having a policy of always telling your users," said Soghoian. By contrast, several big Internet companies have aggressively fought for users' privacy. Twitter, for example, went to a judge who quashed a subpoena issued for information on activists associated with the transparency activist group WikiLeaks. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based privacy organization, produces an annual scorecard of how companies protect users' data from the government. Many Internet companies, including Google and Twitter voluntarily disclose government requests for user data. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has had no problem gaining the attention of tech companies located in Silicon Valley, near its San Francisco office. But despite entreaties, said staff attorney Nate Cardozo, the big phone companies have shown no signs of following suit. "It might just be generational," said Cardozo. "Phone companies come from an earlier era of business -- and they're monopolies." Altschul of the wireless association did not respond to a question about how difficult it would be for carriers to follow Twitter's example of asking a judge to review law enforcement subpoenas. Lewis of Verizon Wireless said she was not aware of any plans for her company to create a transparency report or new privacy policies. But Soghoian is adamant that implementing strict, broad policies would create "very little additional work for the phone companies." The subpoenas targeting the Associated Press, he said, show the crucial importance of trying to give users a chance to fight for their rights. "This AP incident should be a wakeup call to everyone about the scale of the warrantless, judgeless requests that he phone companies are receiving," he said. "Surveillance happens without any neutral magistrate. Our constitutional system has the presence of this third branch, the judiciary, and their purpose is to make sure the executive is not abusing the law."

Disgraced former Rep. Anthony Weiner on Wednesday morning said it will be a "matter of days, not months" before he announces whether he is running for mayor of New York City. "I definitely have to decide soon," Weiner said, speaking outside his Manhattan home and office on Park Avenue South. "People have a right to be skeptical, and hopefully if I run, they'll get a chance to judge me based on the issues." The Democrat, who is polling second in the mayor's race behind City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, said he is having no trouble attracting interest in his campaign, "that's for sure." Weiner, 48, has been largely under the radar since a Twitter scandal cost him his congressional career in 2011. He was forced to resign after he posted a lewd photo of himself to his Twitter account and was caught lying that the account had been hacked. Weiner, who is married with a son, also admitted to inappropriate exchanges of texts and photos with six women. He wouldn't say Wednesday whether he had begun staffing his mayoral campaign, but published reports said he has hired Danny Kedem, former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee adviser to Mark Murphy, to lead the team as campaign manager. Kedem could not be reached for comment Wednesday morning. Weiner began returning slowly to the spotlight last month, first in a candid profile in The New York Times Magazine and then by creating a new Twitter handle and profile. The account, @anthonyweiner, has so far been used mostly to tout his 20-page political statement, "Keys to the City: 64 Ideas to Keep New York City the Capital of the Middle Class." Last month, a Marist Poll showed the disgraced former congressman would be Democratic voters' second choice for mayor of New York City, after Quinn, if he entered the race. He polled at 15 percent, following Quinn at 26 percent. A Quinnipiac University poll that also included Weiner last month similarly showed he would receive 15 percent support, second only to Quinn at 28 percent. The New York Times Magazine profile painted Weiner as a family man to his wife, Huma Abedin, a former aide to Hillary Clinton, and his toddler son, Jordan. Since the scandal, he has moved from his home in Forest Hills, Queens, to one on Manhattan's Park Avenue South, where he is working as a consultant. Weiner's planned political comeback has lately been compared to that of former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, a Republican who fell from grace in 2009 after admitting to an extramarital affair but who earlier this month won a congressional seat in a special election. ___ (c)2013 Newsday Visit Newsday at www.newsday.com Distributed by MCT Information Services