“This is nuts.”

McConnell was recently addressing the storm cloud looming on the horizon over the Obama administration’s strategy that the tax-collecting arm of Uncle Sam be given the authority over people’s health care, too.

“The IRS is in charge of administering some of the most important elements of Obamacare. And, for many Americans, that’s going to mean submitting to probing questions about their health insurance,” McConnell said in a floor speech Thursday.

He pointed out that the law allows the agency itself to define what it means to not comply with its demands.

And that’s an agency that over the past week has been in the spotlight because of its own admissions that it used its vast and sweeping power to illegally target those with ideologies that disagreed with Obama’s.

But what will happen when the IRS not only is tied to your bank accounts and checkbook, but your medical records, prescriptions and doctors?

“When people realize that their most personal, sensitive, intimate, private health-care information is in the hands of the IRS that’s been willing to use people’s tax information against political opponents of this administration, then people have pause and they pull back in horror,” said U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.

She was horrified by the blatant use of raw governmental power against conservatives by the IRS under Obama.

“The IRS couldn’t do enough to part the waters to make sure that every progressive, left-wing leaning organization got their new tax-exempt status,” she said. “So they were able to get a favorable tax treatment, while Christians, pro-Israel, conservative, tea partiers, pro-growth, pro-job, pro-business, they were hurt.”

At the Washington Post, Michael Gerson was putting into words some of America’s fears.

“Let us stipulate that now might not be the best time – with IRS officials exposed for abusing power, caught in self-serving deceptions, invoking their constitutional right against self-incrimination – to dramatically expand the authority and size of their agency,” he wrote. “But this is what Obamacare requires.”

He said, “The largest tax law and social policy change in a generation will be imposed on a skeptical public by a government agency whose credibility is in ruins.”

He said the Obamacare law is “shoddy,” and its foundation is a “flimsy bureaucratic excuse.” And, the IRS is a “discredited mess.”

In an ABC report, Bachmann said it’s just that the Obama administration is using the power of the government to advance a political agenda.

Last week she said the best response is to repeal it, and she worked with other House members to take that vote. She said now it’s up to the Senate, and its chief, Obama advocate Harry Reid, to make sure that Americans are protected from the further abuse from the agency that already has established its willingness to violate constitutional rights.

For anyone who still thinks that the implementation of Obamacare’s requirements by the IRS will go smoothly for Americans, the IRS already has created eight offices with special “teams” to make sure the government’s will is done.

Paul Bedard at the Washington Examiner said the IRS is filling the eight Obamacare offices with 2,137 agents and officials to make sure citizens and companies comply – or pay a penalty.

Wynton Hall, wrting at Breitbart, noted there’s a developing attempt to separate the IRS from Obamacare.

“House and Senate Republicans have introduced bills to stop IRS involvement in implementing Obamacare,” he said.

Sen. John Corynyn, R-Texas, promoted “Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act of 2013″ in the Senate and Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., carried it in the House.

Cornyn said, “The official who oversaw the targeting of tea party groups is now in charge of implementing Obamacare at the IRS. Now more than ever, we need to prevent the IRS from having any role in Americans’ health care.”

The biggest changes in the health care are set to being over the time period of the next 10-12 months. And so far, Democrats in Congress have worked with Obama to make sure that the Big Brother agent looking over your income, savings, expenses, taxes and cash also will be looking over your health insurance provisions, requirements, allowances, deductibles and coverages.

A McClatchy report from Kevin G. Hall and David Lightman pinpointed the concern.

“The scandal over how the IRS granted tax-exempt status … has dented the perception that the agency operates as a neutral, nonpartisan player.”

“Are they competent to do it? Are they trustworthy enough?” Rep. Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn., openly wondered.

Jeffrey A. Lovitky earlier approached Delta because it was working under a cooperative agreement with Saudi Arabia to feature flights directly to the kingdom. But in order to do that, Delta was asking potential passengers about their religious affiliation, since Saudi Arabia does not allow Jews to enter.

Eventually, Delta agreed not to ask those questions.

But now Lovitky has dispatched a letter to Khalid A. Almolhem, director general of Saudi Arabian Airlines, in Jeddah.

“The purpose of this letter is to request that Saudi Arabian Airlines immediately discontinue its practice of refusing to sell tickets to persons of Israeli nationality,” he wrote, citing the company’s online ticketing procedures.

“The website requires the ticket purchase to identify the nationality of the passenger from a dropdown list which reflects every nationality, except for Israeli. It is impossible to purchase a ticket unless the nationality of the passenger is selected from the list on the dropdown screen. As a result, persons of Israeli nationality are precluded from purchasing a ticket through the Saudi Arabian Airlines website.”

Read the insiders’ plans for America under Shariah, in “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America,” autographed, from WND’s Superstore.

Officials at the airline’s offices in Jeddah could not be reached immediately, but a screen capture of the website revealed there is no option for a person to identify themselves as Israeli.

Lovitky said while Saudi Arabia has a right to deny visas to Israeli citizens, the kingdom’s own rules do not require a visa if the passenger is traveling through Saudi Arabia en route to another location, such as someone wanting to travel from New York to Mumbai, through Jeddah.

“However, an Israeli national cannot purchase a ticket on Saudi Arabian Airlines between New York and Mumbai, even if the passport of the Israeli national contains the appropriate visa endorsements from the government of India.

See the letter.

“Simply put,” he wrote, “Saudi Arabian Airlines refuses to sell tickets to Israeli nationals, regardless of which country they are going to.”

And that, he said, violates a number of anti-discrimination requirements in the United States.

“There are numerous federal laws which prohibit discrimination on the basis of national origin. … Discrimination in air transportation on the basis of national origin, race, religion, or sex is specifically prohibited,” he wrote.

The Civil Rights Act addresses the issue, as does Title VI.

Since the airline flies to Virginia and New York, those state laws also would be applicable, he noted.

State law in Virginia “states that conduct that violates any federal statute governing discrimination on the basis of national origin shall be deemed an unlawful discriminatory practice in the State of Virginia. … The New York statute is equally explicit,” he said.

“A cause of action exists under state law, as well as federal law, against any airline which practices discrimination on the basis of national origin,” he noted. “Moreover, the operation of an airline is a commercial activity. Saudi Arabian Airlines is thus not immunized from the jurisdiction of either federal or state courts …

“I am awaiting your prompt response as to the corrective actions which will be taken,” he said.

Copies of the letter also went to the Department of State, Department of Transportation, the Saudi Arabian Embassy and others.

It was in 2011 when the earlier dispute arose. Less than two months after WND broke the story about a plan that would have Delta Air Lines impose Saudi Arabia’s Islamic rules on Americans in Washington and New York in order to fly directly to the Muslim kingdom, officials for Delta have promised not to ask anyone about their religious affiliation.

A statement from the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles reported that the airline, following a meeting with center officials, wrote in a letter to the center that, “Delta employees do not currently and will not in future, request that customers declare their religious affiliation. We would also not seek such information on behalf of any Sky Team partner or any airline.”

The letter from Andrea Fischer Newman, senior vice president of government affairs, followed a meeting between Delta officials and Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the center about the airline’s policy.

“Delta has now done the right thing, sending a signal to the Saudis that it will not cooperate with Riyadh’s policy of religious apartheid,” Cooper said. “We hope that all other U.S.-based airlines and around the world will declare and follow a similar policy.

“We also urge the Obama administration to lead the way in demanding that the Saudis drop their overt policy of religious discrimination,” Cooper said.

The airline declined to respond to a request from WND for a comment on the situation, or to explain how such a commitment might affect its contractual arrangements with Saudi Arabian Airlines for Delta to fly into the closed kingdom.

But actor and talk radio host Fred Grandy, who raised the issue before members of Congress, told WND at the time, “Delta passengers have won a significant victory over creeping Shariah. Hopefully, what the Saudis have learned from this experience is that while international corporations and government officials may look the other way at religious discrimination, American air travelers will not.”

The meeting and statements followed weeks of mounting criticism from Jews, Christians, Hindus and others who may have been targeted by Delta’s procedures.

The controversy became public after Lovitky questioned the airline about its plans to discriminate – on the U.S. soil of Washington and New York airports – against Jews and prevent them from boarding flights to Saudi Arabia – based on the religious discrimination present in that nation.

The American Center for Law and Justice called on the Federal Aviation Administration and Congress to investigate the relationship between Delta Air Lines and Saudi Arabian Airlines over the government-owned Saudi operation’s discrimination against Jews.

And ACLJ chief Jay Sekulow noted that U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., sent a letter to the FAA requesting a probe into the matter “to determine whether Delta Air Lines violated U.S. law or regulation and to ensure no U.S. citizen is denied their right to fly solely on the basis of their religion.”

Larry Klayman, the Washington attorney who founded Judicial Watch and now is of Freedom Watch USA, told WND at the time that Delta had joined Barack Obama in “kowtowing” to “nefarious Muslims.”

His reference was to the famous image of Barack Obama greeting the Saudi king with a bow.

Obama bowing to Saudi Arabian leader

The dispute even pulled the Saudi government into the fray.

“Rumors being circulated via the Internet regarding passenger flight restrictions on Saudi Arabian Airlines are completely false. The government of Saudi Arabia does not deny visas to U.S. citizens based on their religion,” the government said on PRNewswire.

“Liars,” said Pamela Geller on her Atlas Shrugs blog. She noted that on Delta’s own website is the statement, “The government of Saudi Arabia refuses admission and transit to nationals of Israel.”

Delta’s website also stated, “Visitors holding passports containing any Israeli visa or stamp could be refused entry.”

WND reported earlier the issue first was presented to Congress, the public and others by talk radio host and former U.S. Rep. Grandy, whose engaged in his own battle against discrimination when his former radio station demanded he tone down criticism of Islam on his program. He then left the station.

Grandy and “Mrs. Fred,” – Catherine – were interviewed by Talk 1200 show host Jeff Katz about the controversy, which was described as “outrageous.”

Their conversation:

“Creeping Shariah? Now [it is] jetspeed Shariah. Hat’s off to Delta. It looks like Delta will be the first Shariah-compliant airline in the United States,” Catherine Grandy said.

Katz noted, “As a Jewish man, I might not be able to fly on Delta Air Lines in the future.”

Fred Grandy told Katz that he spent time in Washington briefing members of Congress and other policy makers “on this kind of threat.”

“This creeping Shariah, economic jihad, gets you everywhere you turn,” Catherine Grandy said. “This is just not right. I’m sure this will be tested.”

The letter from the Department of Education trashed the standard of whether a “reasonable person” would consider actions harassing, and explained that any comment, action, insinuation or implication would be harassment if it was unwanted.

The letter warned that the school’s sexual harassment policy “improperly suggests that the conduct does not constitute sexual harassment unless it is objectively offensive.”

For example, the university explains – incorrectly according to Washington – that “whether conduct is sufficiently offensive to constitute sexual harassment is determined from the perspective of an objectively reasonable person of the same gender in the same situation.”

Not good, said the letter signed by Anurima Bhargava, chief of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Educational Opportunities Section, and Gary Jackson, a region chief for the U.S. Department of Education.

“Whether conduct is objectively offensive is a factor used to determine if a hostile environment has been created, but it is not the standard to determine whether conduct was ‘unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature’ and therefore constitutes ‘sexual harassment,’” the letter said.

Read the full letter.

It was addressed to University of Montana President Royce Engstrom and its lawyer, Lucy France. The startling new standard came in the 31-page document that was a “resolution” of an investigation into the sexual harassment climate at the school and its “compliance review” of officials’ actions.

“Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. When sexual harassment is sufficiently severe or pervasive to deny or limit a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the school’s program based on sex, it creates a hostile environment,” the federal officials warned the state.

Hans Bader at the Chronicle of Higher Education noted the position adopted by the Education Department is “radical.”

“The department criticized the university for defining sexual harassment based on previous Supreme Court rulings, including a 1993 decision that said conduct is not harassment if it does not offend a ‘reasonable person,’ and a 1999 ruling in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education that emphasized that conduct must be ‘severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive’ to constitute illegal sexual harassment under Title IX,” he wrote.

Nonsense, suggested the federal letter. What must be enforced is a standard that classifies as sexual harassment “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.” And that includes “verbal” conduct.

The report noted that under those conditions, a professor who references issues such as HIV transmission would be guilty of sexual harassment if any one of his students was uncomfortable.

The letter explains that while the narrower definition might be usable if there is a lawsuit, for the enforcement the schools must use, the broader and much more vague definitions are required.

Bader, a lawyer for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, previously worked in the Office for Civil Rights in the Education Department, and he said the department in 2003 reached the opposite conclusion. He reported that the standard then was that harassment must be “something beyond the mere expression of views … that some person finds offensive.”

It then referenced the perspective of that “reasonable person.”

Bader warned of the complications of the new Obama administration ban on all unwelcome speech. Every sex-education class would fall under that ban if even one squeamish student objects, he noted.

“Defining any romantic overture as harassment merely because it turns out to be unwelcome – even if it only occurred once, and was not repeated after its unwelcomeness became known – has dire implications for dating,” he wrote. “Since no one is a mind reader, the only way to avoid ever making an ‘unwelcome advance’ is to never ask anyone out on a date.”

Further, the instruction letter violates the due process requirements of the Constitution by insisting that punishment may be required before the hearing process regarding allegations of sexual harassment may be completed.

The impact of a letter is to “cast a dark could over academic freedom and the ability to debate important issues about sexual morality, norms, and roles that may offend some listeners,” he concluded.

The report was generated because the school was concerned after two sex assaults were reported and officials had asked a retired judge to make recommendations. Washington stepped in immediately to do a concurrent evaluation.

It concluded that the university wasn’t adequately addressing “sexual harassment” that was “verbal” or “nonverbal” or “unwelcome” sexual advances.

Washington also recently came under fire for determining that on-campus sex assault cases would not be decided, as in courts, by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

In fact, Washington requires colleges to use a preponderance of evidence standard, which simply means someone would think there is more evidence something did happen than not.

On April 4, 2011, the Education Department issued a directive on campus sexual assault that states, “A school’s grievance procedures must use the preponderance of the evidence standard to resolve complaints of sex discrimination.”

And by “sex discrimination,” they also mean rape. The direction on grievance procedures is listed under a heading titled: “What are a school’s obligations under Title IX regarding sexual violence?”

College campus courts using the preponderance of evidence standard of evidence to weigh sexual assault cases have many onlookers outraged.

The group Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, or SAVE, believes the department policy is unconstitutional. SAVE issued a statement declaring the preponderance of evidence standard is “stripping the accused of the presumption of innocence and allowing students to be expelled without the benefit of legal counsel.”

SAVE has published a list of 13 organizations that have issued letters calling on the department to rescind its sexual assault directive, including the American Association of University Professors, the American Council for Trustees and Alumni, the National Association for Scholars, Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University, eight civil rights scholars, Accuracy in Media, the Heartland Institute, the Alliance Defending Freedom and Feminists for Free Expression.

A year ago, WND reported a case of severe injustice caused by the department’s preponderance of evidence policy.

Student Caleb Warner was found guilty of sexual assault by a campus court at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks in 2010 despite the facts established at the time by city police.

Officers not only refused to charge him, but also alleged his accuser made a false report. Police issued a warrant for her arrest.

It took 18 months – during which Warner not only was banned from the UND campus, but also from all college campuses in the state – for the university to agree to reconsider the conviction and clear his record.

The Foundation For Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, said, “Nobody should be surprised that [Warner] does not want to return to UND.”

“The university showed less than zero concern for disrupting his life and career and branding him a criminal based on an extremely low standard of evidence, and has shown zero inclination to be remorseful about what it has done,” the group said.

WND reported earlier this year that the region that survived a communist regime and emerged from war and violence into a form of democracy was being torn apart by a social civil war.

It was all over a dead sex researcher who based much of his research on pedophiles – Alfred Kinsey.

Reisman, who was the principal investigator for a Department of Justice research project on child sex abuse, told WND at the time she was working with attorneys in the former Yugoslav republic on a lawsuit against those who falsely accused her of being a Holocaust denier, a criminal offense in Croatia, and defamed her by calling her a “walking mockery.”

The genesis of the story is a move by the Croatian government to impose a Kinsey-based sex education program on school children without parental input or alternatives.

As Reisman has documented in her book, “Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences,” Kinsey’s controversial reports 50 years ago on human sexuality “involved illegal sexual experimentation on several hundred young children.”

His survey, she wrote, “was based on a nonrepresentative group of Americans – including hundreds of sex offenders, prostitutes, prison inmates and exhibitionists.”

She told WND one of the authors of the proposed sex curriculum in Croatia, Aleksandar Stulhofer, is linked to Kinsey’s research and the ongoing work of an institute that bears Kinsey’s name.

Now reports from Croatia confirm that its top court suspended the use of those sex education lessons – ruling that the government refused to consult parents in its effort to introduce the explicit lessons.

Judge Mato Arlovic noted, “Enabling parents to take part in the preparation of a curriculum is a country’s constitutional obligation.”

Several groups from within Croatia had protested to the court that the sex education lessons violated the constitution because educators imposed them without parental involvement.

The decision means sex education classes for school students will be suspended.

An estimated 90 percent of the 4.2 million Croatians are Roman Catholics whose church objects to the lessons.

WND reported earlier that according to Project Censored, a respected Croatian journalist working for a state-run network, Karolina Vidovic-Kristo, had a story Dec. 29, 2012, on the government’s sex education program.

Project Censored noted: “The sex-education issue has been a topic of widespread debate in Croatia, in the media and by the people on line in various forums. The program was well researched, professionally produced and of significant interest to the citizens of Croatia.

“The program, as are most Croatians, was critical of the government policy and the foundations on which the [sex education] program is based,” the report said.

Within 24 hours, she was sanctioned by the state-run network HRT/HTV, which suspended her from duties, canceled her show and publicly threatened her with “strong measures.”

Reisman then was invited to Croatia to speak in support of Vidovic-Kristo and underwent what a report from the regional Dnevno.hr website called “the staunch and aggressive, at times shockingly rude and utterly uncivilized opponents of Dr. Reisman’s views.”

The report said: “The pinnacle of such intolerance was when the faculty’s dean [at the Faculty of Political Sciences in Zagreb], Nenad Zakosec, came out and aggressively, shouted at Reisman before hundreds of students many of which had shouted insults and barraged bigoted questions/comments): ‘What are you doing here!’”

Croatian blogger Ina Vukic wrote, “It is no wonder that Reisman said later that she had never before in her life been confronted by so many bullies as during this visit to Croatia.”

Reisman told WND that some in the media who were attacking her worked for a local print publication whose parent company also owns a Playboy publishing franchise in Croatia. The publisher is Europa Press Holding, which produces newspapers Jutarnji List and Slobodna Dalmacija in addition to Playboy, according to reports.

While officials, she reported, “said I had no right to say anything that I said,” the people of Croatia responded with overwhelming thankfulness that she was putting into words their concerns about the sex-education demands.

“I couldn’t go anywhere without someone coming up and apologizing for the behavior of these hooligans,” she told WND.

She said she was received by some government officials as well as leaders of both the Jewish and Catholic communities. She said she fears for Croatia, which as a historically conservative country has a low rate of sexually transmitted diseases.

Others made the campaign by some in Croatia for an explicit sex-ed program for children into an international dispute.

British filmmaker Timothy Tate’s horror at the situation has been posted online:

He said he was astonished, as a filmmaker and a journalist, when he found out about Kinsey.

“It’s absolutely crystal clear in his own words, he was using pedophiles to sexually assault children,” he said.

He noted that even today, Kinsey’s claims are the basis for much of sex education around the world.

“Yet here was this appalling record of the sexual assault and I think in some cases you could call it torture of children masquerading as science,” he said.

He said Kinsey should be considered “complicit” in the assaults on children because of his ongoing relationship with the offenders.

He expressed alarm at the punishment for Vidovic-Kristo, noting that if journalists can’t raise issues about which society needs a discussion, there is an absence of freedom.

And he said the issue at hand – Kinsey’s “myth” that children are sexual from birth – is significant.

According to supporters for the Croatian journalist, the government introduced the mandatory sex education just last fall, without any discussion with parents or religious leaders.

The curriculum would include “touching” exercises starting in the third grade. It’s premised on Kinsey’s contention that children are sexual from birth. Pornography is taught in the sixth grade.

Stulhofer, who teaches sexology in Zagreb, was trained at the Kinsey Institute in Indiana, and, on his behalf, “Reisman was viciously smeared by the Croatian press,” his critics said.

One article suggested she be deported. She was accused of trivializing the Holocaust and now has hired attorney Zvonimir Hodak to represent her in a legal challenge against the media.

“The fact that an elderly Jewish lady was viciously attacked is unprecedented for Croatia’s young democracy,” wrote one of Reisman’s supporters. “Croatia is scheduled to join the E.U. in July 2013. The recent visit of Dr. Reisman has exposed major deficits re fairness in the media, as well as ideological baggage from the Communist time. It would be very useful to get this news out into the international press.”

Just last year, Reisman, said pedophilia advocates are using the same strategy that was successfully employed to make homosexuality a classroom subject for small children in the nation’s public schools.

As WND reported, Reisman attended a symposium held by the “minor-attracted people” advocacy group B4U-ACT to disseminate “accurate information” on the position that pedophilia is just one more alternative sexual orientation.

Judith Reisman (Photo credit: Sherrie Buzby)

“If a foreign country came in and did this to our nation, the nation would be outraged,” Reisman said about the B4U-Act event, also attended by J. Matt Barber, vice president of Liberty Counsel Action.

The speakers urged the removal of pedophilia from the American Psychiatric Association’s list of mental defects in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Reisman explained the same strategy was used by homosexual activists in the 1970s when same-sex attractions were removed from the APA’s list of disorders.

Eventually, the legalization of “gay marriage,” the mandatory homosexuality lessons in public schools and the policy of allowing open homosexuality in the U.S. military resulted.

“Dr. John Sadler (University of Texas) argued that diagnostic criteria for mental disorders should not be based on concepts of vice since such concepts are subject to shifting social attitudes and doing so diverts mental-health professions from their role as healers,” the B4U-ACT organization said in a report about its symposium in Baltimore.

Another celebrity was Fred Berlin of Johns Hopkins who argued in favor of “acceptance of and compassion for people who are attracted to minors,” the report continued.

The report pointedly referred to “minor-attracted people” in reference to pedophiles and explained that the concerns can be resolved with “accurate information.” Richard Kramer, who represented B4U-ACT at the event, contended listing pedophilia as a disorder stigmatizes the “victims” of the lifestyle choice.

WND also previously reported when a campaign by Reisman, now a visiting professor of law at Liberty University, began taking her seminars on the fallacies of Kinsey to Rome, Ireland and London.

One of her books exposing the agenda of Kinsey’s lifelong campaign recently has been translated into Chinese.

“People in other countries are contacting me, asking me to please come and deliver the truth,” she told WND.

Kinsey’s extreme view of sexuality is typified by a statement posted on the website of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, which advocates sex between adults and children.

The statement, from Kinsey’s book “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female,” defends adult-child sex and accuses those who object to it of being responsible for “serious effects” suffered by children:

“When children are constantly warned by parents and teachers against contacts with adults, and when they receive no explanation of the exact nature of the contacts, they are ready to become hysterical as soon as any older person approaches, or stops and speaks to them in the street, or fondles them, or proposes to do something for them, even though the adult may have had no sexual objective in mind. Some of the more experienced students of juvenile problems have come to believe that the emotional reactions of the parents, police officers, and other adults who discover that the child has had such a contact, may disturb the child more seriously than the sexual contacts themselves. The current hysteria over sex offenders may very well have serious effects on the ability of many of these children to work out sexual adjustments some years later.”

Reisman has lectured at Princeton, Notre Dame, Georgetown, Pepperdine, Johns Hopkins, the FBI, the U.S. Air Force Academy, the University of Jerusalem, University of Haifa and Tel Aviv University. She has been cited by the London Times, Time, Newsweek, the New York Times and the Washington Post. She has appeared on “Entertainment Tonight,” “Larry King Live,” “Donahue,” the”Today” show and “Crossfire.”

She’s been listed in “The World’s Who’s Who of Women.”

WND Managing Editor David Kupelian, shortly after publication of “The Marketing of Evil” in 2005, predicted publicly that the next “liberation movement” to assault America would be “the mainstreaming of adult-child sex.”

Now he has noted, “The same godless logic that leads to normalization of homosexual marriage will lead also to the de-stigmatization and decriminalization of pedophilia. Remember, consensuality has replaced morality in today’s legal system, so a young person’s ‘consent’ to have sex will ultimately trump the old-fashioned desire to protect the innocent. Also, since adult-child sex is a ‘cultural preference’ in certain non-Western countries, child-molestation lobbyists are now making the argument that criminalizing adult-child sex amounts to condemning another culture. So that’s where multiculturalism has brought us.”

At least that’s the way it looks, based on a report from the activist group ACLU, where staff attorney Nathan Wessler recently wrote that the most feared federal agency believes it has the right to access private emails.

The recent scandals are creating a huge wall for the Obama administration in its efforts to move its agenda forward. In brief, Congress is investigating now why the IRS deliberately targeted conservative and tea party organizations over the last three years with what some recipients have described as harassment when they applied for a tax status.

Secondly, the Department of Justice has been gaining access to journalist’s telephone records without telling them when it suspects a leak of information to the media.

Now comes the report from Wessler, who explained that the IRS long has held the position that it can obtain and read a person’s emails – essentially without permission, without a warrant and without even notification.

The recent report from Wessler explained how the ACLU sought information about the IRS through the Freedom of Information Act.

“So does the IRS always get a warrant? Unfortunately, while the documents we have obtained do not answer this question point blank, they suggest otherwise,” Wessler wrote.

He explained the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which was written when people likely still paid bills by mailing a check and communicated with family through letters, is “hopelessly outdated.”

“It draws a distinction between email that is stored on an email provider’s server for 180 days or less, and email that is older or has been opened,” he wrote. “The former requires a warrant; the latter does not.”

He said a court decision, from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Warshak, ordered that the government must obtain a probable cause warrant before compelling email providers to turn over information.

But that actually is a requirement in only the 6th Circuit, he noted.

The report said the IRS documents that were obtained show the IRS before the court opinion had a policy “to read people’s email without getting a warrant.”

In fact, the IRS believes the Fourth Amendment doesn’t really mean anything in that context, the report said.

For example, the “Search Warrant Handbook” from the lawyer of the agency’s criminal tax division, asserted “The Fourth Amendment does not protect communications held in electronic storage, such as email messages stored on a server, because Internet users do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such communications.”

A subsequent IRS memo, the report said, explained the court ruling applies only in the 6th Circuit.

A report from the World Privacy Forum, dated only a few years ago, also warned that information “stored by a business or an individual with a third party may have fewer or weaker privacy or other protections than information in the possession of the creator of the information.”

It found that “both government agencies and private litigants may be able to obtain information from a third party more easily than from the creator of the information.”

“To the present,” wrote Wessler, “Has the IRS’ position changed this tax season? Apparently not. The current version of the Internal Revenue Manual, available on the IRS website, continues to explain that no warrant is required for emails that are stored by an ISP for more than 180 days.

“Apparently, the agency believes nothing of consequence has changed since ECPA was enacted in 1986, or the now-outdated Surveillance Handbook was published in 1994,” Wessler said.

“Let’s hope you never end up on the wrong end of an IRS criminal tax investigation. But if you do, you should be able to trust that the IRS will obey the Fourth Amendment when it seeks the contents of your private emails. Until now, that hasn’t been the case. The IRS should let the American public know whether it obtains warrants across the board when accessing people’s email. And even more important, the IRS should formally amend its policies to require its agents to obtain warrants when seeking the contents of emails, without regard to their age,” Wessler said.

The circumstances have created a market for alternatives to keeping information on email servers and other points. Companies such as CloudLocker offer products that allow consumers to store virtually unlimited data at home.

The company’s advocates explain, “Instead of keeping your files on some unknown server in who knows where, everything stays on your CloudLocker in your home or office. … You don’t send copies of your files .. the files stay on your CloudLocker and you merely send a link to the original file.”

Tancredo, a columnist for WND who has written opposing amnesty, about the problems within the GOP and the threat of terrorism, made the announcement on radio talk-show host Peter Boyles’ KHOW-AM program in Denver.

“I’m going to run for governor of the state of Colorado. And I’m going to do it this time as a Republican.”

He pursued the office under the banner of the American Constitution Party in 2010 following a series of missteps by the state GOP that left it with a shaky candidate in Dan Maes.

The established Democrat, John Hickenlooper, ultimately squeaked out a victory with 51 percent of the vote. Tancredo took 36 percent in his third-party role. Maes got 11 percent.

With a Democrat in the governor’s office, and majority Democrats in both the state House and Senate, this year’s state legislature unleashed a torrent of ultra-liberal issues – including one that may be targeted should Tancredo win – a decision to give in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens.

Critics charge the Democrats in the statehouse essentially are taking funds from taxpayer residents and allocating them to those who are breaking the law under the plan.

Tancredo long has been an advocate for secure borders and ways to manage immigration into the United States.

In fact, he’s written “In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America’s Border and Security,” pointing out that for years after the terror attacks on 9/11 the U.S. government had done nothing to secure its borders.

He warns it’s a multilevel problem. Not only is there the threat of terrorists coming into the U.S. through uncontrolled borders, but the flood of advocates for “multiculturalism” actually are “sapping out strength from within.”

He writes that the nation is in an identity crisis and as a nation, the U.S. no longer knows who it is or what it believes.

“Instead of ‘one nation under God,’ we are divided, confused and angry. We need to understand how this has happened and the underlying causes that have us to this divided point,” a book review explains.

Get Tancredo’s book right now.

He charges that unless the direction changes, catastrophe is coming.

Tancredo explained that the tipping point was Hickenlooper’s decision to “reprieve” a mass murderer. The governor’s decision means that the death penalty for Nathan Dunlap, who in 1993 shot and killed four workers at a pizza shop because he wanted the estimated $1,500 in the cash register, is on hold indefinitely.

Dunlap’s execution has been upheld at every court level over the 17 years since it was determined, and it had been scheduled for August, until Hickenlooper stepped in and took a position, polls reveal, nearly 90 percent of Coloradans dislike.

Other possible GOP candidates include Secretary of State Scott Gessler and state Sen. Greg Brophy of Wray.

Tancredo also said that allowing Democrats to have control of the legislature and governor’s office is bad for the state.

“There has got to be a change here. You can’t have one-party rule,” said Mr. Tancredo. “It becomes a nightmare.”

Among the left-wing results from the Democrats was a flood of anti-gun legislation as well as the subsidies for illegal alien students.

The legislature’s actions already have resulted in a lawsuit by the state’s sheriffs.

The suit, which was filed in federal district court, lists 54 out of the state’s 64 sheriffs as plaintiffs in the case.

The lawsuit isn’t just limited to law enforcement officials, but lists a variety of organizations including the Colorado Farm Bureau, which has expressed concerns about rural farmers and ranchers having to deal with predators, Women for Concealed Carry, and the Colorado Outfitters Association.

It was during debate over the gun control measures when the vast majority of citizens testifying before the legislature were opposed to any new gun control laws. However, frequently their testimony was dismissed and treated with disdain by Democratic lawmakers who seemed to have already made up their minds about passing the laws.

The process allowed for some revelations regarding the attitudes of state lawmakers.

State Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Westminster, scolded a witness opposing one of the gun restrictions.

Amanda Collins, 27, of Reno, Nev., was telling her story of being assaulted and explained that had she been carrying a concealed weapon, the incident might have ended differently.

“I just want to say that, actually statistics are not on your side even if you had a gun,” Hudak scolded. “And, chances are that if you would have had a gun, then he would have been able to get that from you and possibly use it against you.”

Hudak continued, speaking over the committee witness, “The Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence says that every one woman who used a handgun in self-defense, 83 here are killed by them.”

Finally able to resume her testimony, Collins said, “Senator, you weren’t there. I know without a doubt [the outcome would have been different with a gun].

“He already had a weapon,” she told the meeting of the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee. “He didn’t need mine.”

A similar attitude was displayed by state Rep. Joe Salazar.

He said that a woman who feels threatened by rape on a college campus doesn’t need to be armed because she can use a call box to get help.

Salazar’s statement came in a debate over a proposal to ban citizens possessing a concealed-carry permit from being armed on university campuses.

“It’s why we have call boxes,” said Salazar, “It’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at.

“And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around, or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop a round at somebody.”

Perhaps the most surprising statement came from U.S. Rep. Diane DeGette, a Denver Democrat who displayed her perspective on gun magazines.

“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them; so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot, and there won’t be any more available,” she said.

The Denver Post said DeGette didn’t appear to understand that a firearm magazine can be reloaded with more bullets.

State officials admitted they were doing the bidding of the White House. In February, Vice President Joe Biden flew to the state to strong-arm Democratic lawmakers who were feeling pressure from their constituents to vote against the bills.

“He (Biden) said it would send a strong message to the rest of the country that a Western state had passed gun-control bills,” Tony Exhum, a Democratic lawmaker from Colorado Springs, told the Denver Post.

House Majority Leader Mark Ferrandino, an open homosexual who also pursued a “civil unions” agenda this year, admitted the gun-control bills introduced by fellow Democrats had national implications.

“I was shocked that he called. He said he thought the bills could help them on a national level,” Ferrandino said.

Gregory J. Millman of the Wall Street Journal, who says his telephone records were targeted by the IRS many years ago, writes that the communications of citizens could come to the attention of the government in a number of ways, including by getting a call from someone in whom the government has interest.

The issue has arisen because of the admission by the Department of Justice that it obtained records of Associated Press telephone lines in the House Gallery at the U.S. Capitol over a period of months.

WND reported the Obama administration said it pursued AP’s records because a double agent in the war on terror was compromised by a story. However, the news wire’s reporting on the issue didn’t mention the agent.

It was CIA Director John Brennan, who then was President Obama’s terror adviser, who told members of Congress that the U.S. had “inside control” of the situation. Media then reported on the use of a double agent, according to  a profile of the government’s justification for pursuing the reporters’ telephone records published in the Los Angeles Times.

See the list of news media members under Washington’s watch.

Millman writes that his records were targeted in 1991 when he wrote a story citing an Internal Revenue Service memo.

However, he pointed out that when his records were taken by the IRS, he wasn’t the only one

“That’s how they happened to scoop up the phone records of a home builder, a trade association of corporate finance officers, an old friend who happened to live in Washington, D.C., and the Alicia Patterson Foundation, which supports investigative journalism and which I had called to discuss a fellowship.”

Millman says none of those people or organizations “had anything to do with the story at issue, and none learned until long afterward that IRS investigators had been secretly riffling through records of all their phone calls.”

Millman explains he learned only by accident that the records had been given to the government.

“In what may be another good example of government waste and duplication, several months after the IRS had started going through the phone records, the Department of Justice launched its own investigation,:” he writes. “In keeping with the DOJ’s policy, in mid-January of 1992 I got a notice that it wanted my records. … In the course of our fight, my attorney learned from my phone company that it had already turned the records over to the IRS months before.”

Millman reported Michael Altschul, a lawyer for the CTYIA-The Wireless Association, estimated industry-wide, companies respond to up to 2 million requests for phone records per year.

The DOJ net for records also is widening.

The Washington Post noted the latest scandal for the White House is the Justice Department’s use of security badge access records and other information to monitor three Fox News journalists.

They were identified as reporters William La Jeunesse and James Rosen and producer Mike Levine.

The report said court documents reveal how they were was monitored.

“Search warrants like these have a severe chilling effect on the free flow of important information to the public,” First Amendment lawyer Charles Tobin told the Post.

Reports say their emails showed up in an inspector’s general report regarding the Fast and Furious gun-tracing scandal.

Breitbart reported: “What we have here is a case of the Obama administration criminalizing reporting. In June of 2009, James Rosen of Fox News reported that North Korea might respond to an increase in United Nations sanctions with even more nuclear tests. Rosen added that the CIA had learned this information from their sources within North Korea. According to the Washington Post, upon hearing … of Rosen’s report, the White House launched what many believe is an unprecedented leak probe that went so far as to criminalize standard newsgathering.”

Shockingly, the report continues, “FBI agent Regineld Reyes claimed there was evidence Rosen had broken the law, ‘at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator.’”

Rosen said the Obama administration never contacted him.

“It is called everyday journalism; and the Obama administration is attempting to criminalize everyday journalism,” the report said.

That’s an idea confirmed in an affidavit filed with a legal case pending before the Alabama Supreme Court. It was brought by attorney Larry Klayman on behalf of 2012 Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode and Alabama Republican Party leader Hugh McInnish, who are seeking to force Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman to verify that all candidates on the state’s 2012 ballot were eligible to serve.

The case, dismissed at a lower level, is now before the Alabama Supreme Court, where strict constitutionalist Roy Moore was elected chief justice last November. The case becomes all the more intriguing because Moore is on record previously questioning Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president.

The affidavit comes from Mike Zullo, the chief of a special Cold Case Posse assembled by Maricopa, Ariz., County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to look into the question at the request of his constituents, who were concerned they were being defrauded by having an ineligible candidate on the 2012 election ballot.

Last year, Arpaio held a press conference at which he and Zullo outlined their findings.

“At that time, we announced that we had concluded that there was probable cause that forgery and fraud had been committed in respect of two documents: 1) the long-form or original birth certificate computer image presented by Mr. Obama, which contained multiple errors and anomalies, many of them serious and: 2) the selective-service document for Mr. Obama, which contained a two-digit year-stamp. This was contrary to specifications issued by federal regulations to the effect that the year of issue should be expressed as four digits on the stamp, and also contrary to any other selective-service registration document that we had been able to examine,” Zullo wrote in his affidavit to the Alabama court.

The result of the evidence, he said, is one conclusion.

“Accordingly, Sheriff Arpaio continues to recommend that the Congress of the United States open an immediate investigation, including the appointment of a select committee, as regards to the authenticity of Mr. Obama’s documentation, whether any crimes have been committed, and to determine Mr. Obama’s eligibility for the office of president of the United States,” he said.

The Obama administration’s reaction to questions about his eligibility, which have been ongoing since before the 2008 election, has been to pooh-pooh any questions and make jokes about the questioner.

But those on the special team assembled by Arpaio to investigate are not laughing. Nor does Zullo’s affidavit to the Alabama Supreme Court joke around.

It was only a few weeks ago when Democrats quoted late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel in their demand that the case, a challenge to Obama’s eligibility to be president, be dismissed.

Get Judge Roy Moore’s classic book about his battle for liberty, “So Help Me God: The Ten Commandments, Judicial Tyranny, and the Battle for Religious Freedom.”

The party had insisted, “In order for one to accept the claim that President Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery [and that he is ineligible], one has to buy into a conspiracy theory so vast and byzantine that it sincerely taxes the imagination of reasonable minds.”

The document scoffs at “birthers” as a “tiny cabal of zealots” and quotes late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel – not widely recognized as a constitutional expert – to make its case: “These people could have personally witnessed Obama being born out of an apple pie, in the middle of a Kansas wheat field, while Toby Keith sang the National Anthem – and they’d still think he was a Kenyan Muslim.”

But Arpaio is one of few law enforcement authorities to look into the issue, and although his work largely has been under the radar in recent months, it is continuing, Zullo’s affidavit confirmed.

In a 2010 interview with WND, Moore said he’d seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” – as the U.S. Constitution requires of presidents – and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.

“This is the strangest thing indeed,” he said. “The president has never produced [evidence] in the face of substantial evidence he was not born in our country. People are accepting it blindly based on their feelings, not on the law.”

More recently, when a majority of the state’s high court denied a 2012 petition filed by McInnish seeking to require an original copy of Obama’s birth certificate before the sitting president would be allowed on the state’s ballot, Justice Tom Parker filed a special, unpublished concurrence in the case arguing that McInnish’s charges of “forgery” were legitimate cause for concern.

Parker wrote, “Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and the ‘long form’ birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public.”

In his concurrence, Parker describes McInnish’s petition as follows: “McInnish seeks from this court a writ of mandamus, directly ordering Beth Chapman, as secretary of state for the State of Alabama, ‘to demand that [President Barack Hussein] Obama cause a certified copy of his bona-fide birth certificate be delivered to her direct from the government official who is in charge of the record in which it is stored, and to make the receipt of such a prerequisite to his name being placed on the Alabama ballot for the … November 6, 2012, general election.’”

Parker, who also wrote a concurrence in another case arguing Roe v. Wade should be overturned, agreed that Arpaio’s findings were legitimate cause to question Obama’s presented documents, but nonetheless joined his fellow justices in denying McInnish’s petition.

“The Alabama Constitution implies that this court is without jurisdiction over McInnish’s original petition,” Parker explains. “The office of the secretary of state of Alabama is not a ‘court of inferior jurisdiction’ that this court may control through the issuance of a writ in response to a petition.”

Now, however, the case is coming from a lower court, suggesting the Supreme Court may have some opportunity for action.

Zullo testifies that the White House computer image .pdf file contained anomalies that were unexplainable unless the document had been fabricated piecemeal by human intervention, rather than being copied from a genuine paper document.

Things have yet to be resolved, even though Obama is into his second term, authorities noted.

“As of the date of this report, this investigation remains open and ongoing and additional forensic evidence continues to be uncovered, further validating the original investigational findings.”

His testimony continued, “Mr. Obama has in fact not offered any verifiable authoritative document of any legal significance or possessing any evidentiary value as to the origins of his purported birth narrative or location of the birth event.”

At issue is the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen,” something a foreigner likely would not be able to qualify as, he said.

“One of our most serious concerns is that the White House document appears to have been fabricated piecemeal on a computer, constructed by drawing together digitized data from several unknown sources,” Zullo wrote.

Zullo also noted that the governor of Hawaii was unable to produce an original birth document for Obama, and it should have been easy to find.

He said raising further questions is the fact Obama has refused to release: Original, long-form 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate, marriage license between Obama’s father (Barack Sr.) and mother (Stanley Ann Dunham), name change (Barry Sotero to Barack Hussein Obama), Obama’s adoption records, records of Obama’s and his mother’s repatriation as U.S. citizens on return from return from Indonesia, Obama’s baptism records, Noelani Elementary School (Hawaii), Punahou School financial aid or school records, Occidental College financial aid records, Harvard Law School records, Columbia senior thesis, Columbia College records, Obama’s record with Illinois State Bar Association, Obama’s files from career as an Illinois State senator, Obama’s law client list, Obama’s medical records and Obama’s passport records.

In action related to the same case, Klayman asked the court to strike the brief from the Alabama Democratic Party. He called in “frivolous and arrogant, and said “in addition to mocking in disrespectful fashion the seriousness of this case and the integrity of our judicial system, [Democrats] seek to improperly present new evidence not on the record for appeal.”

He also argues the case needs to be decided even though Secretary of State Beth Chapman doesn’t think so.

The faux stone columns from his Denver acceptance speech are crumbling, the fireworks have fizzled and the unadulterated adulation of Barack Obama is a sour feeling of disillusion, as a new poll reveals half of America wants him impeached, including a stunning one in four Democrats.

“It may be early in the process for members of Congress to start planning for impeachment of Barack Obama, but the American public is building a serious appetite for it,” said Fritz Wenzel, of Wenzel Strategies, which did the telephone poll Thursday. It has a margin of error of 4.36 percent.

“Half or nearly half of those surveyed said they believed Obama should be impeached for the trifecta of scandals now consuming Washington.”

Actually, on the issue of the Benghazi scandal, where four Americans were killed when in what may have been a politically motivated series of moves, a surging danger to Americans at the foreign service facility there was ignored until al-Qaida-linked terrorists attacked, 50.1 percent of Americans said Obama should be impeached. That included 27.6 percent of the responding Democrats.

All of America is buzzing about impeaching Obama. Now you can order Aaron Klein’s latest blockbuster, “Impeachable Offenses: The Case for removing Barack Obama from Office.”

On the scandal of the Internal Revenue Service intentionally harassing conservative and Christian organizations? Forty-nine percent said they agree that impeachment is appropriate, including 24.4 percent of the Democrats.

And on the fishing trip the Obama administration took into AP reporters’ telephone records in search of something that may well have been done by his own administration, 48.6 percent impeachment is appropriate. That included 26.1 percent of the Democrats.

Sign the petition urging Congress to impeach Obama.

It was only two months ago that respondents to the same poll suggested, although in smaller numbers, that impeachment was appropriate for other Obama scandals. At that time 44 percent said he should be impeached for his campaign to give amnesty to illegal aliens inside the U.S., and 46 percent said he should be impeached for launching the war to remove Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.

“What is clear from the data is that Obama is at risk of losing his base,” Wenzel explained. “On each of these questions, about one in four Democrats said they agreed Obama should be impeached. What could be more alarming to the White House is that it appears that most of American is tuned in to these issues now, as 93 percent of registered voters said they get at least one news update on these issues every day.”

He continued, “Of the three issues now in the news, the one that has been there the longest, and the only one that has to do with the death of American citizens, is seen as the most important to Americans. While 49 percent said the Benghazi murders of U.S. diplomatic personnel is the most serious issue, 26 percent said IRS harassment was most serious, and 25 percent said the seizure of AP phone records was most serious. With news still breaking on all three fronts, it is impossible to know which of the three scandals will ultimately be the most damaging to the Obama administration. These findings clearly show Americans are concerned about what is going on in Washington.”

It spells headwinds for Obama, too, as he lobbies American voters to grant him his wish of having a Democrat Congress during the last two years of his reign, Wenzel said.

“What could be most concerning to the White House is that the Democratic Party effort to retake the U.S. House of Representatives next year may be at risk because of these issues. Asked whether they would lean to vote for the Democrat or the Republican in their own congressional district based on what they know about these three situations, 46 percent said they would lean toward voting for the Republican, while 39 percent said they would lean toward voting for the Democrat. Another 16 percent said these issues make no difference in their congressional vote,” Wenzel said.

He said, “The appetite is growing for impeachment proceedings. It is too early to say it is time for those proceedings to start, but it’s now possible to see that day on the far horizon.”

Of those who did not vote in 2012, based on their knowledge of Obama’s administration now, 37 percent say they would have gone back to vote for Republican Mitt Romney, 27 percent for Obama, and others undecided.

That the situation is serious for Obama was confirmed by former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan.

“We are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate. The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous. No one likes what they’re seeing. The Justice Department assault on the Associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration’s credibility deeply, probably irretrievably damaged. They don’t look jerky now, they look dirty. The patina of high-mindedness the president enjoyed is gone,” she said.

“The president, as usual, acts as if all of this is totally unconnected to him. He’s shocked, it’s unacceptable, he’ll get to the bottom of it. He read about it in the papers, just like you. But he is not unconnected, he is not a bystander. This is his administration. Those are his executive agencies. He runs the IRS and the Justice Department,” she continued. “A president sets a mood, a tone. He establishes an atmosphere. If he is arrogant, arrogance spreads. If he is too partisan, too disrespecting of political adversaries, that spreads too. Presidents always undo themselves and then blame it on the third guy in the last row in the sleepy agency across town.”

It’s even being compared to Watergate, that breakin episode that ultimately led to the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon.

That was confirmed by no less than Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, whose reporting on Watergate eventually snared the sitting president.

Woodward said recently, “If you read through all these emails, you see that everyone in the government is saying, ‘Oh, let’s not tell the public that terrorists were involved, people connected to al Qaeda. Let’s not tell the public that there were warnings.’ And I have to go back 40 years to Watergate when Nixon put out his edited transcripts to the conversations, and he personally went through them and said, ‘Oh, let’s not tell this, let’s not show this.’ I would not dismiss Benghazi. It’s a very serious issue.”

A Republican congressman recently brought up the subject.

“I would say yes. I’m not willing to take it [impeachment] off to take it off the table, but that’s certainly not what we’re striving for,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told CNN.

“We want truth, we want to bring the people who perpetrated the terrorism in Benghazi to be brought to justice, and we want to have the president do what he has said he would always do. And that is be open and transparent. Thus far, the White House has not done that.”

Earlier, Chaffetz was interviewed by the Salt Lake Tribune, and was asked if impeachment were within the realm of possibilities.

“It’s certainly a possibility,” he told the paper. “That’s not the goal but given the continued lies perpetrated by this administration, I don’t know where it’s going to go. … I’m not taking it off the table. I’m not out there touting that but I think this gets to the highest levels of our government and integrity and honesty are paramount.”

Chaffetz has been championing the call to probe the Sept. 11, 2012, onslaught at Benghazi that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Other Republicans have also voiced impeachment as a potential final outcome.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., said last week impeachment was possible over the “most egregious cover-up in American history.

“People may be starting to use the I-word before too long,” Inhofe told radio host Rusty Humphries, according to the Hill.

“The I-word meaning impeachment?” Humphries asked.

“Yeah,” Inhofe responded.

Additionally, radio host Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and one-time presidential candidate, predicted Obama won’t serve out his full second term because of his complicity in a cover-up with Benghazi.

Other members of Congress who have uttered possible impeachment for a variety of reasons in recent years include Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.; Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.; Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas; Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; Rep. Trey Radel, R-Fla.; and Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.

Others who have raised the subject?

Rock legend and gun-rights defender Ted Nugent said there’s “no question” Obama should be impeached, and he’s calling CNN anchor Piers Morgan an “effective idiot” in the battle over the Second Amendment.

Referring to Obama, Nugent says: “There’s no question that this guy’s violations qualify for impeachment. There’s no question.”

He blasted “the criminality of this government, the unprecedented abuse of power, corruption, fraud and deceit by the Chicago gangster-scammer-ACORN-in-chief.”

“It’s so diabolical,” he said.

Nugent made his comments in a recent interview with radio host Alex Jones.

Even Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin called for the impeachment of Obama over his policy of permitting drone strikes on American citizens overseas who are members of terrorist organizations.

On WABC Radio’s “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” Benjamin affirmed she believes the drone warfare is an impeachable offense.

You asked for it! Sign the petition urging Congress to impeach President Barack Obama.

See Denis Kucinich advocate for impeachment over Libya:

See Texas congressman lobby for impeachment over gun control:

See Andrew Napolitano talk about impeachment over the budget:

WND also compiled a special report on the various offenses Obama is blamed for committing and reported what experts on the Constitution believe should be happening.

See detailed results of survey questions:

Overall, how would you rate the job performance of President Barack Obama – would you say he is doing an excellent job, a good job, only a fair job, or a poor job?

The administration of Democrat Barack Obama has still not satisfied congressional and media questions about just what it knew and when it knew it about the terrorist attack on U.S. diplomats in Benghazi, Libya, last September 11. That attack killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya. The Obama administration has changed its explanation of that attack several times since and has so far refused to identify those officials who made key decisions not to send help to stop the attacks, and who decided not to initially call the killings a terrorist attack. Knowing that and anything else you may be aware of about this issue, do you agree or disagree that President Obama should be impeached over his handling of this situation?

It has been learned that the Internal Revenue Service, under the administration of Democrat Barack Obama, has purposely targeted conservative and Christian groups for harassment over their tax exempt status while giving liberal nonprofit groups little or no scrutiny. Further, the IRS apparently leaked private tax information from these conservative groups to opposing liberal groups who were able to use that confidential information for political advantage. Knowing this and anything else you may be aware of about this issue, do you agree or disagree that President Obama should be impeached over his handling of this situation?

It has been learned that the U.S. Department of Justice under the administration of Democrat Barack Obama secretly obtained confidential telephone records of many reporters of the Associated Press in Washington, D.C. Attorney General Eric Holder has said his department obtained the phone records without the permission or knowledge of the Associated Press in order to find who in the federal government was leaking information about terrorist plots against America. AP officials have strongly protested this invasion of their privacy but the administration stands by its actions. Knowing this and anything else you may be aware of about this issue, do you agree or disagree that President Obama should be impeached over his handling of this situation?

How much would you say you are paying attention to news coverage of these issues in recent days and weeks?

Thinking of the issue regarding the murders of American diplomats in Benghazi, the IRS’s harassment of the president’s political opponents, or the government’s secret snatching of private telephone records without permission, IF YOU HAD TO CHOOSE, which of the three issues do you think is the most serious?

Please tell me if you agree or disagree with this statement: None of these three issues involving Barack Obama is enough to trigger impeachment proceedings against him, but the totality of the mishandling or wrongdoing involving all three issues together IS enough to justify impeaching Obama?

Considering the totality of these three issues and their impact on our nation, and knowing that Obama is the head of the Democratic Party, are you more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate for Congress or the U.S. Senate in your area so Obama might have more political support in Congress – OR – are you more likely to vote for the Republican candidate to counter Obama in the final years of his term?

Thinking about everything you know and have heard about these three issues, if you could go back and change your vote for president because of what you have learned about them, would these current situations cause you to change your vote?

Thinking about everything you know and have heard about these three issues, if you could go back and vote for president because of what you have learned about them, would these current situations cause you to vote for Republican Mitt Romney, Democrat Barack Obama, or would you still not have voted? (Includes only those who did not vote in the November 2012 election.)

That was confirmed today when Dr. James Dobson, whose has served as an adviser to presidents and now runs Dr. James Dobson’s FamilyTalk, said his organization’s status was threatened because it didn’t present “all views.”

Dobson has been an outspoken lightning rod standing up for Christian values for decades as an author, broadcaster, speaker and adviser. He has written more than 30 books including, “The New Dare to Discipline,” “Love for a Lifetime,” “Life on the Edge,” “Love Must Be Tough,” “The New Strong-Willed Child,” Bringing Up Boys,” “Bringing Up Girls” and “Head Over Heels.”

He was an associate clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California School of Medicine for 14 years and on the attending staff of Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles for 17 years.

He has advised three U.S. presidents on family matters, and holds 17 honorary doctoral degrees. In 2008 he was inducted into the National Radio Hall of Fame and recently he received the “Great American Award” from The Awakening.

In a statement released through his FamilyTalk Action headquarters in Colorado Springs, it was confirmed the organization was set up two years ago “for the purpose of spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ, of providing Christ-oriented advice and education to parents and children; and of speaking to cultural issues that affect the family.”

The group’s Form 1024 was filed with the IRS requesting 501(c)4 status, which is a nonprofit status but with permission to comment on political issues. Its contributions and donations are not tax deductible to donors. It is not the same status as the ministry itself, where donations are tax deductible, and the arrangement represents a common setup for ministries that want to engage in limited political activity on issues such as marriage, family, abortion, same-sex “marriage,” civil rights and freedom.

FamilyTalk Action said, “The attorney completing this form had submitted scores of similar applications over his 26-year career with none being rejected. In January and February 2013, Family Talk Action’s counsel called the IRS reviewing agent, R. Medley (ID no. 52402), to inquire regarding when there would be a determination of the application. Her voice mail box was full on each of these calls so no message could be left. On March 6, he called Ms. Medley again and got routed to her voice mail again. This time, he was able to leave a voice mail message and requested a return call.

“Ms. Medley did not call back until March 19. Family Talk Action’s attorney asked her when the IRS would issue its determination letter. Ms. Medley responded saying, I don’t think your Form 1024 (application for exemption) will be granted because Family Talk Action is ‘not educational’ because it does not present all views. She continued, saying that Family Talk Action sounded like a ‘partisan right-wing group’ because, according to Ms. Medley, it only presents conservative viewpoints. She then added, ‘you’re political’ because you ‘criticized President Obama, who was a candidate.’”

The organization said it had submitted sample radio programs after the IRS had demanded them, although none was aired during an election year.

“It was the opinion of Family Talk Action’s legal counsel that these samples were not only 501(c)(4) qualified but 501(c)(3) qualified,” the statement said.

“Family Talk Action’s legal counsel had never heard an IRS agent express biased statements like those he heard during the March 19 call. He also felt that the this agent did not understand the difference between 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) entities,” the report said.

“The American people deserve better treatment from its government than this. Christian ministries and others supporting the family must not be silenced or intimidated by the IRS or other branches of the government,” Dobson said.

President Obama fired the acting commissioner of the IRS today over the war against conservatives and Christians, members of Congress demanded that all those responsible lose their jobs and it has been revealed that nearly 500 groups were targeted in the “don’t-disagree-with-Obama” effort.

Documentation suggests the attacks started as early as 2010, shortly after Obamacare, which now is mandating that Christians in business violate their faith and pay for abortifacients, was adopted.