Sky News reports (h/t Gateway Pundit):

Two attackers armed with meat cleavers filmed their deadly assault on a man in London, according to Sky sources.

A man reported to be a serving soldier died and two people have been shot in Woolwich, after what Sky sources understand is being treated as a terrorist attack.

Senior Whitehall sources said the two attackers asked passers-by to film them, and they shouted “Allahu Akbar” (Allah is great).

In footage that has emerged, one of the attackers wields a bloodied meat cleaver and says: “We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you.”

The black man, dressed in a grey hooded jacket and black woolly hat, apologises to members of the public who witnessed the horrific scenes before making a number of political statements.

In the footage, he is heard to say: “We must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

“I apologise that women have had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe.

“Remove your government, they don’t care about you.”

Witnesses also described seeing the “crazed” Woolwich attackers “hacking” at their victim and posing for pictures before charging at police wielding meat cleavers.

Via the Daily Telegraph:

Local MP Nick Raynsford said he had been told the man attacked in the street was a soldier serving at the Royal Artillery Barracks near the attack.

Mr Raynsford said the soldier had been returning to the barracks after a day out when he was attacked.

London Ambulance Service said one man, believed to be the victim of the machete attack, had died in the incident and two others were injured, one seriously.

Several witnesses described seeing a “beheading” while another described seeing a man wearing a Help for Heroes T-shirt being attacked with a machete-style knife and dumped.

Prime Minister David Cameron called a meeting of the Government’s Cobra crisis committee, describing the incident as “truly shocking”.

The attackers were shot by police, but at this point it remains unclear if they were killed.

What they call ‘opening up the doors to education’, we call a voter recruitment drive.

Via the Star Gazette:

The state Assembly proposed legislation Tuesday that would allow undocumented immigrants access to financial aid for higher education, but Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Senate Republicans signaled that the legislation does not have a bright future.

Under the state-level DREAM Act, immigrants who are not citizens would have access to the state Tuition Assistance Program and other aid. The bill would also create a private scholarship fund for immigrants. The Democratic-led Assembly was set to pass the bill late Tuesday.

“The DREAM Act is not about pitting citizens who were born here against those who were not. It’s not a question of taking resources from one group and giving them to another,” Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan, said at a Capitol news conference Tuesday. “It’s about opening the doors to higher education.”

This particular aspect of immigration is not relegated to those who were born here and those who were not.  But it is about those who entered the country legally and those who did not.

Granting tuition assistance and scholarship funds to ‘undocumented’ immigrants certainly does take resources from one group and give to another – specifically, the ‘documented’ immigrants.

Legal immigration requires people to go through a process that takes years of hard work and learning to achieve citizenship.  And by taking funds from that pool of people you are punishing them, while simultaneously rewarding those who have entered the country by breaking the laws of a sovereign nation.

And if the moral argument doesn’t get your attention, try this New York taxpayers – The tuition assistance for illegal immigrants program price tag?  $25 million.

Disgraced pol Anthony Weiner, who resigned amidst a Twitter scandal that involved sending pictures of his junk to people that were not his wife, and eventually became known as Weinergate, has announced a run for New York City mayor.

Via the New York Times:

Anthony D. Weiner, once a rising star of New York politics whose career cratered over revelations of his sexually explicit life online, announced an improbable bid on Wednesday for the job he has long coveted: mayor.

After a rocky re-emergence into public life over the past few weeks, marked by circuslike scenes of tabloid photographers chasing him onto the subway, Mr. Weiner opted to declare his candidacy from the safe remove of a video.

Watch the video…

Ali at Viral Read explains that this may have been the perfect time for a scandal-plagued politician to make an announcement.

It’s a busy news-cycle for the country as a whole. Hiding under the constant coverage of the tragic tornado that ripped Moore, Oklahoma a part, President Barack Obama’s scandal-ridden DC, and coming after Mark Sanford’s redemptive run, it appears to be perfect timing for the disgraced former Congressman to make the bid.

Not to mention, with New York Democrats being arrested for corruption seemingly daily, Weiner’s scandal may seem less … scandalous.

Weiner already starts behind the eight ball however, with a Clinton aide saying that neither Bill or Hillary will be providing support.  Why?  Because “every time he pops up, it’s a reminder of Bill’s scandal with Monica Lewinsky.”

The Clintons flaccid response to Weiner’s mayoral aspirations has to be hard on the former Congressman, and delivers a tough blow to an already rigid uphill battle in the race to become mayor of New York City.

Will he overcome?

What many had assumed would be a meeting regarding New York State Sheriffs’ Association concerns about New York’s strict new gun laws, turned into a verbal scolding from the Governor which included the threat of some people’s jobs if they didn’t toe the line and shut up about the SAFE Act.

Via the Times Union:

The sheriffs thought they were being summoned to the Capitol to discuss ideas for changes to New York’s gun control law, the SAFE Act. Instead, Gov. Andrew Cuomo told them to keep quiet.Opposition to the new law has simmered in upstate areas since Cuomo signed the law in January. Many county sheriffs oppose it, particularly its expanded definition of banned assault weapons, and have spoken out around the state. In January, the New York State Sheriffs’ Association wrote Cuomo with an analysis, and later suggested tweaks.

Cuomo invited its leaders to the Capitol last month, people briefed on the meeting said.

Rather than discuss the merits of the letter, Cuomo asked those in attendance to stop publicly discussing opposition to the SAFE Act.

One individual briefed on the meeting claimed that Cuomo had threatened to remove some sheriffs from office.

What has raised the ire of the Governor is a lawsuit the Association has joined in, challenging the Constitutionality of the SAFE Act.

Via Empire State News:

The New York State Sheriffs’ Association has  joined as amicus curiae in a lawsuit brought by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association challenging the constitutionality of several provisions of SAFE Act. Sheriff Maciol has been a member of the NYS Sheriff’s Association since taking office as Sheriff in 2011, serves on many of their committees, and is currently serving as the association’s Sergeant at Arms.

The amicus brief will support the main suit by setting forth legal arguments against the SAFE Act specifically from the view of law enforcement.  Some of the arguments contained in the brief are that the law impinges upon the 2nd Amendment to a degree that renders it unconstitutional, that the law is fatally vague, and that the law does not provide sufficient guidance to law enforcement.

Much as he did when ramming the gun legislation through in January by avoiding a three-day public screening, Governor Cuomo is simply trying to silence opposition.

Silencing opposition is a good way to flesh out one’s Democrat credentials for national office, no doubt.  If his presidential aspirations fall through, there may be a position available for Cuomo at the IRS.

Via Guns Save Lives:

Second Amendment activist, James Kaleda, was forcefully removed from a hearing on a new gun control bill in NJ during his testimony.

Yes, James’ testimony got a little heated, but he was still making an intelligent argument.

Notice in the video the legislators laugh as they have their security (armed with guns of course) remove Kaleda before he finished his testimony.

The YouTube description reads:

James Kaleda explains that the proposed NJ Gun Bills will not save any lives but will endanger them. He is ejected by Committee Chair Senator Norcross. This took place at the NJ Senate gun control hearings in Trenton on April 30, 2013.

The Chair is Donald Norcross, District 5.

What followed after the ejection was pretty amazing.  After the legislators shut down a private citizens right to speak freely at the hearing, the remaining citizens shut down the legislators by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

Via Guns Save Lives:

Several members of the audience yelled at the state senator in charge from the audience, several called him out of order, and at least one more was escorted from the room.

Then in one of the best displays of civil disobedience I’ve ever seen, the entire audience recited the pledge of allegiance, while most of the lawmakers remained seated.

Watch below…

Good to see some citizens still willing to stand up for their rights, and the rights of others.

Evan Mathis, Philadelphia Eagles offensive lineman, responded to the recent Obama administration/IRS scandal by doing what comes naturally – pretending to pee on their office sign.

Via NBC Sports:

Already the least popular of the federal governmental agencies, the IRS has taken a significant hit in recent days amid news confirming longstanding beliefs that the U.S. tax department exercised its discretion to conduct audits and generally give folks a hard time with politics in mind.

Like most if not all Americans, Eagles offensive lineman Evan Mathis doesn’t like it.  Unlike most if not all Americans, Mathis has opted to make his views known, in an entertaining way.

Mathis posted on Instagram a photo of himself in the universal standing pee position by an IRS sign, with the message “Audit this.”

A report released by state ethics regulators provides insight into the actions that led to Democrat Assemblyman Vito Lopez’ censure.  The report indicates that Lopez told female staffers to wear suggestive clothing, stay with him in hotel rooms, forcibly groped one woman until his hands wandered up her legs, and even infected one woman with pink eye when he made her give him eye drops.

As always however, the cover-up becomes a major aspect of the crime, and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is being accused of “encouraging” Lopez to continue his harassing actions by paying the victims to go away with over $100,000 in taxpayer funds.

Via the Times Union:

Reports unveiled on Wednesday by Staten Island District Attorney Dan Donovan and the state Joint Commission on Public Ethics also highlighted unusual steps taken by aides to Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver to keep under wraps a set of complaints from two Lopez victims that were settled just before another pair of women from Lopez’s staff began facing the same sort of mistreatment.

Donovan said the “secretive manner” used by Silver’s staff “encouraged” Lopez to keep up his harassing behavior. Silver’s press officer responded by noting that the reports found no criminal acts by the speaker’s staff.

Silver’s staff apparently takes pride in that they committed no tangible crimes, but were unable to spot and discipline morally reprehensible actions being committed by a colleague in the Assembly.

Lopez also, according to multiple sources, was even witnessed leering at a 14-year-old female intern, commenting on her “sexy attire”, and saying she should be emulated by the other ladies in his office.  The incident led to one woman’s mother calling 911, after which police filed a child abuse report.

But hey, at least a crime wasn’t committed, eh Sheldon?

Fred Dicker at the New York Post writes:

The scathing reports that found Assemblyman Vito Lopez harassed and abused several female staffers, coming on top of the latest indictments of several allegedly corrupt lawmakers, show why, at long last, it’s time for Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver to resign.

Despite Silver’s repeated claims to be shocked, shocked, to learn of repeated cases of sexual harassment and abuse of women at the Capitol — even after those cases reached criminal levels in his own counsel’s office a decade ago — the reports confirm what has long been suspected: Silver is trying to hide from the public what may be the most sexually abusive workplace in the nation.

Is the New York State Assembly the most sexually abusive workplace in the nation?  It may very well be.

Should Sheldon Silver resign?  No doubt.

Readers of the Mental Recession will note, that we have called for Silver’s resignation from the moment reports of a payoff to cover up Lopez’ actions first surfaced.  And for the very same reasons just now revealed in these reports – Silver’s actions in previous harassment complaints allowed Lopez to do these things to other women.  He allowed Lopez to victimize at least two others by pandering to his harassing ways.

Last summer we wrote:

Silver has consistently swept sexual harassment complaints under the rug, has continually used taxpayer funds to placate victims, and by extension has allowed these unprofessional and abhorrent behaviors to be perpetrated upon other victims.  He has proven willing to sacrifice ethics for his allies in government.

He is a panderer to predators, and must resign.

Remember, there was no political bias regarding the targeting and harassment of Tea Party or conservative groups.  The IRS is strictly a non-partisan entity.

Via the Center for Public Integrity:

President Barack Obama collected more than $110,000 from employees of the Internal Revenue Service during his 2008 and 2012 campaigns — significantly more money than any other contemporary political candidate, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of Federal Election Commission filings maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The donations were split roughly evenly between Obama’s two presidential bids.

Ahead of the 2012 election, IRS employees collectively gave Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney about $25,000 — less than half the amount received by Obama. For his part, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the GOP’s presidential nominee in 2008, collected only about $6,000 from IRS employees.

The trend isn’t new either.  The report indicates that employees have donated over $840,000 between 1989 and 2012, with over two-thirds of it going to Democrat or liberal-leaning organizations.

So much for the low-level employees in Cincinnati defense.

Via the Washington Post:

Internal Revenue Service officials in Washington and at least two other offices were involved in the targeting of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, making clear the effort reached well beyond the branch in Cincinnati that was initially blamed, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.

IRS officials at the agency’s Washington headquarters sent queries to conservative groups asking about their donors and other aspects of their operations, while officials in the El Monte and Laguna Niguel offices in California sent similar questionnaires to tea party-affiliated groups.

IRS employees in Cincinnati also told conservatives seeking the status of “social welfare” groups that a task force in Washington was overseeing their applications, according to interviews with the activists.

Lois G. Lerner, who oversees tax-exempt groups for the IRS, told reporters on Friday the “absolutely inappropriate” actions were undertaken by “front-line people” working in Cincinnati to target groups with “tea party,” “patriot” or “9/12” in their names.

In one instance, however, Ron Bell, an IRS employee, informed an attorney representing a conservative group focused on voter fraud that the application was under review in Washington. On several other occasions, IRS officials in D.C. and California sent detailed questionnaires to conservative groups asking more than a dozen questions about their voter outreach and other activities, according to the documents.

“For the IRS to say it was some low-level group in Cincinnati is simply false,” said Cleta Mitchell, a partner in the law firm Foley & Lardner LLP who sought to communicate with IRS headquarters about the delay in granting tax-exempt status to True the Vote.

Meanwhile, if you’d like to take a look at some of the more inappropriate, probing questions being saved for conservative groups, please visit the Gateway Pundit.  There, you’ll find a rundown of actual questions posed to an Ohio Tea Party group, including requests for copies of Facebook and Twitter correspondences, printouts of all web site pages, and the resumes of all officers and board members.

Also, veteran reporter Larry Connors is claiming that the IRS started harassing him after a particularly hard-hitting interview he conducted with the President.

This is a big deal, folks.  So much so that Fox’s Bill O’Reilly has predicted that if the President is involved in this scandal “he’ll be impeached”.

What do you think?

In what is being called a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” of government power against the press, the Associated Press is reporting that the Department of Justice (DOJ) secretly obtained two months worth of telephone records of reporters and editors at the news organization, including the personal phone records of individuals.

Via the AP:

The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative’s top executive called a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into how news organizations gather the news.

The records obtained by the Justice Department listed incoming and outgoing calls, and the duration of each call, for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP.

In all, the government seized those records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.

In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.

“There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know,” Pruitt said.

The government would not say why it sought the records. U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have leaked information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.

Were specific reporters being targeted for specific messaging purposes?  The PJ Tatler reports:

The DoJ notified the AP on Friday but included no explanation for the seizure.

It included phone numbers for five reporters and an editor who were involved in this May 7, 2012, story on the thwarting of a new underwear bombing plot.

The plot was significant because the White House had told the public it had “no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the (May 2) anniversary of bin Laden’s death,” the AP noted today.

Which begs the question – Why is the White House so hell bent on covering up any story that may involve the concept of terrorism?

Meanwhile, the National Press Club is demanding an explanation.  Via Yid:

In the wake of reports today that the Justice Department secretly obtained phone records of several of AP’s reporters and four of its offices, the National Press Club requests that the Obama administration publicly explain the reasons behind the action.

…

“This appears to be a gross violation of press freedom,” said National Press Club President Angela Greiling Keane, a Bloomberg News reporter. “If there’s a good explanation for this, the public has a right to hear it promptly.”

The Benghazi scandal was swept under the rug because it hurt the American military and targeted Obama’s foreign policy.  The IRS scandal was swept under the rug because it targeted conservatives and reiterated Obama’s Chicago-style politics.  Until recently anyway.

But this scandal targets the President’s friends in the media.  Will they finally relent and accept that this is one of the most corrupt administrations in history?