Coincidence? Ben Carson audited by IRS after calling out President Obama at National Prayer Breakfast

It's reported that Ben Carson, world renowned neurosurgeon, was audited by the IRS starting in June, a few months after he challenged some of President Obama's views at the National Prayer Breakfast.

Just months after he gave a speech earlier this year that challenged America's leadership in President Obama's presence, Dr. Ben Carson was targeted by IRS agents who requested to review his real estate holdings and then conducted a full audit without finding any wrongdoing.

"I guess it could be a coincidence, but I never had been audited before and never really had any encounters with the IRS," Dr. Carson said in an interview Thursday with The Washington Times.  "But it certainly would make one suspicious because we know now the IRS has been used for political purposes and therefore actions like this come under suspicion."

Dr. Carson is a world-renown neurosurgeon whose rise from poverty and a single-parent home, and his medical work with pediatric patients was celebrated in a movie called "Gifted Hands."

He has electrified the conservative world with speeches and columns since his February National Prayer Breakfast speech in front of Mr. Obama, in which he decried the "moral decay and fiscal irresponsibility" of America in recent years. He writes a weekly column for The Times.

Dr. Carson first hinted at the problem earlier this week during a speech in Alabama when he made a vague reference to having his first "encounter with the IRS" earlier this year.

Dr. Carson told The Times that IRS agents contacted him in June — less than four months after the speech — and requested to review his real estate holdings. After finding nothing that concerned them, the agents then informed him they were conducting a full audit of his finances, and then asked to go back an additional year to review his records, he said.

They finally ended the review in August after finding no problems, Dr. Carson said.
"They told me everything was in good standing and left," he said.

Asked whether he thought the audit was a retaliation for his speech, Dr. Carson quipped: "I guess I'm surprised it took them that long."

He said the more serious issue is that the IRS has been politicized — "something that should never have happened" — and that leaves all of its activities open to suspicion.

A coincidence?  I doubt it.

Scandal in the Obama Administration. Chicago style? And the buck stops where?

Here's an interesting exchange on FOX News' "Political Insiders" segment, featuring Pat Caddell and  Doug Schoen former Democrat political pollsters and former Rep. John LeBoutillier (R-NY) on the three major controversies swirling around the Obama Administration.  They think the Benghazi scandal is bigger than people think and the IRS scandal and invasion of the privacy of media and other opponents of the Obama Administration are just starting to come to light.

If so, it looks like things could drag on for a long time.  Some have noted that the Obama Administration's response is reminiscent of the Nixon White House.  Not that these scandals will rise to the level of Watergate but the response is similar -- refuse to be forthright, attack one's political opponents, etc., etc.

Also given where Obama learned his politics, Chicago, one wonders if the corruption endemic in Chicago politics has made its way into the White House.  If so, I'd expect a lot more stuff to come dribbling out.

And ultimately, will it implicate the man at the top, President Obama.  Only time will tell both the severity of the activities and whether President Obama had any personal knowledge of what went on.

President Obama has said in the past "the buck stops here" to borrow the famous Harry Truman line.  Certainly he's ultimately held accountable for what happens in his administration whether he had first hand knowledge or personally directed particular activities.  However, who one hires and the tone and values set by the top person and his close associates usually filter down through a particular organization.  What these scandals tell us about President Obama will be very interesting to say the least.

Fox in charge of chicken coop? IRS agent in charge of tax exempt audits now in charge of Obamacare enforcement in IRS.

Sarah Hall Ingram, the person responsible for over seeing tax exempt organizations during 2009 to 20012 the time when Tea Party, evangelical and Jewish groups were being targeted for audits, is currently in charge of enforcement of Obamacare in the IRS.  She also received significant work bonuses during this time.

Sarah Hall Ingram, the IRS executive in charge of the tax exempt division in 2010 when it began targeting conservative Tea Party, evangelical and pro-Israel groups for harrassment, got more than $100,000 in bonuses between 2009 and 2012.

More recently, Ingram was promoted to serve as director of the tax agency's Obamacare program office, a position that put her in charge of the vast expansion of the IRS' regulatory power and staffing in connection with federal health care, ABC reported earlier today.

Ingram received a $7,000 bonus in 2009, according to data obtained by The Washington Examiner from the IRS, then a $34,440 bonus in 2010, $35,400 in 2011 and $26,550 last year, for a total of $103,390. Her annual salary went from $172,500 to $177,000 during the same period.

Sign Up for the Watchdog newsletter! Please enter your email address below to begin receiving the Watchdog newsletter.

You must enter a valid email address in the field above!

Thank you for signing up for the Watchdog newsletter! You should receive your first newsletter very soon.

We're sorry, there was an error processing your newsletter signup. Please click here to visit our Newsletter Signup Center to register for this newsletter.

The 2010, 2011 and 2012 bonuses were awarded during the period when IRS harrassment of the conservative groups was most intense. The newspaper obtained the data via a Freedom of Information Act request.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., described the Ingram awards as "stunning, just stunning."

Ingram has some history as a government lawyer receiving controversial bonuses. According to The Washington Post, she received a $47,900 bonus for distinguished service in 2004 from President George W. Bush.

Earlier Thursday, The Washington Examiner reported that the IRS paid out more than $92 million in bonuses during the four-year period of Ingram's awards to her and nearly 17,000 other agency employees. Those bonuses averaged more than $5,500 per employee.

Go here for a spreadsheet of the salary and bonus data for IRS employees getting bonuses between 2009 and 2012.

Talk about putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

Scandals hits the Obama Administration. Another Watergate?

It seemed like only a matter of time.  Two terms presidents invariably run into scandals which weaken their credibility and moral authority.  With Nixon it was obviously Watergate.  Clinton it was the Lewinski scandal.  And now with Obama it could be the trifeta Benghazi, IRS and AP. 

And now people are raising the specter of Watergate. As this article points out, "Not a Crook -Yet The Obama administration seems more Nixonian by the day."

The comparisons of the Obama and Nixon White Houses are suddenly coming—pardon the expression—fast and furious, and why not? The IRS investigations; the administration’s fixation on leaks and leakers and its obsession with enemies; the cover-ups, the blame-shifting to subordinates, the defiant chief executive, even the sweating, pathetically dissembling press secretary; it all has the odor of that earlier time. Again, it’s all happening early in the second term, following a triumphant reelection. Again, the operative terms are arrogance, contempt for law, and thuggery.

The growing awareness of administration malfeasance is evident in the numbers on Google: more than 59 million hits for “Obama and Nixon” and 24 million–plus for “Obama and Watergate.” For those interested, the 44th president’s face can already be found morphing into the 37th’s. Then there’s the rising tide of commentary. “Obama knee-deep in Nixon-esque scandal” runs the headline of columnist Joe Battenfield’s piece in the Boston Herald, which notes that Obama’s campaign slogan would have been more appropriate if it were not “Forward” but “Backward”—“All the way to, say, 1972.” “Benghazi, IRS—Son of Watergate?” asks Cal Thomas. “In IRS Scandal, Echoes of Watergate,” observes the Washington Post’s George Will.

Such talk is mostly confined to the Right so far, but a handful of principled liberals have also weighed in. “There’s no way in the world I’m going to defend that,” said U.S. Representative Michael Capuano of Massachusetts of the IRS’s going after the Tea Party. “Hell, I spent my youth vilifying the Nixon administration for doing the same thing.” Former Michigan Democratic congresswoman Lynn Rivers echoed him: “For anyone over 50, this news couldn’t help but stir memories of Richard Nixon’s Political Enemies Project. . . . To use Dan Rather’s ‘duck test,’ the IRS probe of ‘hostile’ ideological groups looks like, swims like, and quacks like government dirty tricks.” One of the heroes of Watergate weighed in, too. “This is outrageous, and it is totally inexcusable,” Carl Bernstein raged about the revelation that the Department of Justice had secretly seized the phone records of Associated Press journalists. “There is no reason that a presidency that is interested in a truly free press and its functioning should permit this to happen.”

Thus it is that questions that once seemed unfathomable take on unexpected plausibility. Where and how far will it all go? Is it remotely conceivable that where Richard Nixon led, Barack Obama might follow? The answer, of course, depends primarily on the nature and severity of the crimes committed—if, indeed, they are crimes—and whether presidential culpability can be established.

But such an observation instantly gives rise to two other considerations. Lest we forget, while Democrats led the congressional inquiries into the Nixonites’ misdeeds—Sam Ervin’s committee in the Senate, Peter Rodino’s in the House—in the end, it was principled Republicans, led by Barry Goldwater (who told Nixon he could count on no more than 15 Republican votes in the Senate), who forced the president’s resignation. Can we expect such nation-above-party behavior on the part of today’s Democrats? Can you imagine Patrick Leahy ever deserting Obama? Or Al Franken? Or Barbara Boxer?

 Then there's the response of the liberal media.

Then there’s the role of the press. Unsurprisingly, the media on the far left have circled the wagons in defense of the president. “Desperate for a Scandal, Fox’s Dobbs Attacks Obama’s ‘Inner Nixon,’” read a dismissive headline on Media Matters for America, while DailyKos has harped on previous “GOP-Fabricated Non-Scandals” that went nowhere. And it’s true that, whether it was the president’s associations with his racist pastor or the Fast and Furious boondoggle, such allegations have gone nowhere—but primarily because the press has protected Obama. So it is a given that the media will again play a key role in determining whether the current scandals are pursued to their logical conclusion or are allowed to fizzle out.

Benghazi? With a few notable exceptions, such as CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson and CNN’s Jake Tapper, reporters shrugged off the administration’s cover-up in the immediate aftermath of the attack, when it might have harmed Obama’s presidential fortunes. They have at last been forced by whistleblowers to start asking obvious questions, but their impulse to protect Obama is presumably undiminished. The IRS scandal? Reporters have as little sympathy for the Tea Party as other liberals do, but this story can’t be ignored, at least for the moment. Even administration apologist Joe Klein opines: “I don’t think Obama ever wanted to be on the same page as Richard Nixon. In this specific case, he now is.” But the “specific case” wording is telling; Klein’s piece is generally tepid, arguing that the IRS matter is an exception to what has been a generally scandal-free administration. It is a line that many in the media are apt to adopt.

As Bernstein’s outburst makes clear, the media generally saves its greatest outrage for government attacks on . . . the media. Thus, the DOJ/AP episode may be the most dangerous to the administration of the mushrooming scandals. It’s likely that a prominent head or two will roll, perhaps even Attorney General Eric Holder’s. Reporters are nothing if not creatures of the pack, and the pack has been dissed here, big-time. How hard will they go after the president? Probably not very. Think battered-woman syndrome: he may be an abuser, but he’s still their man—the one they covered for when he was caught with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, the one they played along with on the faux war on women and the anti-Islam video as the cause for the Benghazi attack. With Nixon, by contrast, once the media picked up the faintest scent of blood, they were relentless and increasingly joyous in pursuit.

As George Will writes: “Episodes like this separate the meritorious liberals from the meretricious. The day after the IRS story broke, The Post led the paper with it, and, with an institutional memory of Watergate, published a blistering editorial demanding an Obama apology. The New York Times consigned the story to page 10.” So it’s also the case that, amid all the stunning events of the past few days, the story that will likely prove the most relevant is this one, courtesy of hotair.com: “Top CBS, ABC, CNN execs all have relatives working as advisors for White House.”

 It remains to be seen how this will play out but the way the IRS story is going, it looks like involvement could move up the org chart.  If nothing else all of this will only increase the alienation millions of Americans feel towards their government.

Interview with Pastor Gus Booth.

The following is a re-print of an interview with Pastor Gus Booth that appeared in the July, 2008 edition of the Pro Family News.

Recently, MFC had a chance to catch up with Pastor Gus Booth of Warroad Minnesota. Pastor Booth became a subject of national news after he preached a sermon that questioned whether Christians should vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton or Sen. Barak Obama because of their support of abortion. Booth sent a copy of the sermon to People United for the Separation of Church and State and the Internal Revenue Service.

PFN: Pastor, why did you send the sermon to the IRS and People United?

“I didn’t pick a fight with the IRS. The IRS picked a fight with the United States Constitution. The IRS has made an unconstitutional law. Who trumps whom? Is the IRS or the constitution more important? This needs to be decided once and for all.”

PFN: “Why?”

“This is about a pastor’s right to religious speech. It’s not about politicking. A pastor should not be forced out of the pulpit to speak Biblical truths about candidates and their positions.

Scripture is clear; we are to be involved in picking our leaders. Isaiah 1 says, ‘I will punish you because your leaders are wicked. In fact, up until 1954 pastors spoke out regularly on the issues of the day. If pastors don’t speak out on moral issues that affect government then no one will.”

PFN: Some say that the church should not get involved in politics.

Booth: “There is a theology that has crept into the church that quotes scripture out of context. It claims that Christ separated our world into two separate realms, Caesar’s and God’s. This has created an environment that keeps faith segregated behind the doors of the church and excludes it from influencing issues in the public square.

Morals are a major part of the churches business. How can we spread the gospel when we keep it behind the doors of the church?”

PFN: What would you say to pastors?

Booth: “A pastor’s duty to speak truth from the pulpit is a duty owed to God, not the tax man. Too many pastors believe the lie that the constitution prohibits them from speaking out on the moral issues of the day, or that Christ avoided the same. The exact opposite is true. The devil rules via deception.

As pastors we must preach that Jesus is Lord of the entire world. That includes the whole of life, culture, science sociology, economics and politics.

There is nothing in the constitution that prohibits a pastor from speaking from the pulpit about the moral implications of all of these issues. The truth about separation of church and state is that it was originally intended to protect the church from the state, not the state from the church. Our forefathers were simply prohibiting a national religion.

We as the church have not well combating these lies. Just preach about it. Just one sermon a year is enough to break these lies.”

PFN: Did you always think this way?

No. I had been a liberal democrat all my life. Then I read the democratic platform and I saw it was a “how to” manual on how to sin. It was awful. That’s what caused me to get involved in the political process and stop worrying about offending anyone.

PFN: Pastor, you were our guest to David Barton’s Congressional Pastors’ Briefing in Washington, D.C. last September. How did that affect you?

Booth; “It, (the trip) solidified a lot of things for me. I saw men of courage and character and love of Christ and realized I wanted to be a man like that.

The trip was a springboard on how godly and righteous the founding fathers were. These men were ministers with seminary degrees. However today the belief is that if you have a seminary degree you don’t get involved in politics.

I would make it mandatory for all pastors to attend a David Barton Congressional Pastors briefing.

PFN: “What did you learn when we called on Senator Norm Coleman?”

I learned that if you can bend the ear of a United States Senator you have influence in his life. You can influence home towards righteousness or wickedness

PFN: You’ve done a lot of interviews with the media. What can you share with us about your experience?

Booth: “The media doesn’t understand our nations history regarding the establishment clause and the role of pastors. You may recall the Blacked Robbed regiment. (See article) They were pastors that preached about rebelling against the tyranny of England. They played a large role in affecting public opinion and influencing the Revolutionary War.

Ironically, until 1954, most pastors looked to their pastors for advice on who to vote for.

PFN: Is this an isolated event? What happens next.?

Booth: Time to be on the offensive in Christ like way. Too many pastors are afraid. The church has sat back for too long while prayer and teaching about the bible has been chased out of schools and the public square.

This won’t blow over. It will come in waves. In fact, I am one of 40 to 50 pastors that will preach similar sermons on September 28th. I will address them August 22 in Phoenix.

The Alliance Defense Fund will defend us should the IRS try to prosecute any of us.

IRS backs off from enforcing against MN pastor its regulation prohibiting pastors from expressly opposing/supporting political candidates from pulpit.

The IRS announced recently it was not going to enforce its regulation prohibiting pastors from expressly endorsing or opposing political candidates from the pulpit against a northern Minnesota pastor. Yet the IRS says it’s leaving the door open to future consideration. It looks like a classic case of intimidation to me.

The following is a copy of our press release on the matter.

IRS backs down from enforcing its election regulations against Minnesota pastor.

IRS says it’s closing its audit of pastor’s sermon encouraging church attendees not to vote for Obama in 2008 presidential election though it leaves the door open to further inquiry.

MINNEAPOLIS – Tom Prichard, President of the Minnesota Family Council, said today the IRS backed down from enforcing its regulation prohibiting pastors from expressly endorsing or opposing political candidates from the pulpit, yet seeks to maintain a cloud of uncertainty for pastors opposing or supporting political candidates from the pulpit. The case involves Warroad, MN, Pastor Gus Booth.

“This looks like a clear case of intimidation. The IRS is refusing to enforce its regulation prohibiting pastor endorsement of or opposition to political candidates from the pulpit yet leaves the door open to future enforcement of its controversial regulation. It looks like a classic David versus Goliath confrontation. However, in this instance Goliath, while unwilling to fight, wants to intimidate pastors into silence by maintaining uncertainty in the law,” said Prichard.

The pastor, Gus Booth from Warroad, MN, delivered a sermon from his church’s pulpit on September 28, 2008, encouraging those in attendance not to vote for then candidate Barack Obama because of his pro-abortion positions. Booth then sent his sermon to the IRS. Pastor Booth was participating in the Alliance Defense Fund’s “Pulpit Freedom” Sunday initiative which encouraged pastor’s to challenge the IRS regulation that prohibits pastors from explicitly supporting or opposing political candidates from the pulpit.

The IRS said it was closing the examination of Booth’s case, though it left the door open to future consideration. See http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/IRSletterClosingFile.pdf for a copy of the IRS’ letter to Pastor Booth.

"Pastors should be free to speak or not to speak in opposition to or support of political candidates according to the dictates of their consciences. They shouldn't have their free speech rights, guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, undermined by the IRS. Yet that appears to be what the IRS is trying to do in this instance," concluded Prichard.

Gag of pastors speaking on candidates challenged

There's an organized effort to legally challenge an IRS rule which prohibits pastors from explicitly supporting or opposing political candidates.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a social conservative, pro-family public interest law group, is working with pastors to deliver sermons in which they explicitly oppose particular candidates for political office because of their stand on the great moral issues of the day.

The religious and secular left is going apoplectic, arguing that ADF's efforts are unethical and even illegal.

I suspect what's motivating the Left's response is fear motivated by politics. They are fearful that the powerful, moral authority of pastors will be energized to speak out on the great moral issues of the day -- life and marriage -- and impact elections.

This sort of legal activity is nothing new or unprecedented. The ACLU and other liberal public interest legal groups have for decades systematically found plaintiffs and organized lawsuits to establish new legal principles advancing their agenda. Now when the conservative side does it they cry foul.

Nor, of course, is endorsement of candidates by pastors a violation of the separation of church and state myth that religiously based moral concerns have no right to be voiced in the public square. The appropriate separation of church and state is an institutional separation between the governmental and religious institutions, e.g. no state sponsored and financed churches.

The IRS regulation in question resulted from an amendment slipped into a bill in 1954 by then Senator Lyndon B. Johnson who was upset by Texas pastors who opposed him politically. Whether through the courts or Congress, the regulation should be eliminated.

Personally, I wouldn't encourage pastors to get into the "endorsement of candidates" business. Rather I'd encourage them to articulate the moral principles involved, highlight candidates stand, and encourage people vote based on moral, biblical principles. I believe public support or criticism of a candidate's or elected official's positions is appropriate. However, I think pastors should have the freedom to endorse or oppose candidates as they see fit.

Pastors can already say and do a lot short of explicit endorsements. Another problem with the current situation is the laws are so unclear, it's difficult to know where exactly the line is. The result is a chilling effect on pastors in regards to voicing their views on even the issues and candidates' positions on the issues. Striking down the ban on endorsement of candidates would clarify the situation.

Are pastors finding their voices on the moral issues of the day? I think so.

I noted yesterday that Catholic leaders took Nancy Pelosi to task for misrepresenting the position of the Catholic Church on abortion. We saw the Presidential Civil Forum hosted by evangelical pastor Rick Warren's church. And we recently hosted a pastors' briefing for area pastors. I believe this election year maybe the beginning of a new engagement of pastors in the public square on the great moral issues facing our state and nation.

It's both significant and important. Significant because pastors carry important moral authority in the community and their voices have not been heard enough. And important because the great moral issues of the day, e.g. abortion, marriage, sexuality and so forth are ultimately spiritual issues for which the spiritual leaders of the community need to weigh in.

I don't think the engagement will be so much partisan as it will be on the moral aspects of these issues. Of course, there are political implications, but that's a subsidiary effect of simply taking a stand.

I know many pastors have and will be challenging the IRS gag regulation on churches regarding political speech. Some pastors have engaged in negative endorsements in terms of telling people who they can't vote for because of the candidate's stand on issues. I think there will be more pastors challenging this rule in the future.

Caution - separation anxiety ahead

Well, the news is finally out. According to the Jewish Daily, the Alliance Defense Fund has recruited 50 pastors to deliver sermons in September that will include direct endorsements of political candidates.

Pastor Gus Booth of Warroad, (Pastor Booth was our guest on a trip to David Barton’s Congressional Pastor’s Briefing last fall.) was the first shot across the bow.

Caution – separation anxiety ahead.

This bold move is sure to cause a severe case of separation anxiety for the IRS, the First Amendment and revisionist history. But let’s start with a short history lesson.

I want to encourage everyone that has a dog in this hunt to educate themselves regarding the origins of the IRS code. It's an historical fact that it was legal for pastors to endorse candidates and preach on the political issues of the day until then Senator Lyndon Johnson inserted language into the IRS code that prohibited non-profits, including churches, from endorsing or opposing candidates for political office.

“The history of Johnson’s IRS gag order is instructive,” writes Kasey Kelly. "It began with what some historians believe to be a fraudulent election of Johnson to the Senate in 1948. It has been maintained by both conservative and liberal historians that Lyndon Johnson’s election to the Senate in 1948 was won by massive voter fraud. Known as “Landslide Lyndon,” this aspiring politician was “elected” by only 87 votes. His challenger, Coke Stevenson, challenged his election and presented credible evidence that hundreds of votes for Johnson had been faked. Johnson, however, was successful in blocking Stevenson’s effort by the clever use of “cooperative” court injunctions.”

Mean-spirited gag-order

“In 1954, Johnson was facing re-election to the Senate and was being aggressively opposed by two non-profit anti-Communist groups that were attacking Johnson’s liberal agenda. In effect, Senator Johnson used the power of the go-along Congress and the IRS to silence his opposition. Unfortunately, it worked. Some in Johnson’s staff claimed that Johnson never intended to go after churches, only the two “nonprofits” in Texas. Nevertheless, his sly amendment to the tax code affected every church in America, and it is a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.”

Although the law has been tested, recent decisions have actually strengthened it by prohibiting political campaign activity by charities and churches by defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one "which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."