Dave Emory’s entire lifetime of work is available on a flash drive that can be obtained here.  (The flash drive includes the anti-fascist books available on this site.)
Updated on 5/28/2013
COMMENT: Dating to his election in 2008, we’ve forecast the impending de-stabilization of President Barack Obama or “Lee Harvey Obama,” as we call him.
With his second term barely underway, we are seeing “scandals” (note the quotation marks) derailing Obama’s political agenda.
In addition to seizing on the Benghazi incident  as an “October Surprise,” as we predicted in the follow-up to the long For The Record series on the Arab Spring , the GOP is harping on the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups.
In addition to the fact that GOP administrations have a proven track record  of using the IRS to bludgeon political opponents (rendering their caterwauling over this business spectacularly hypocritical), the IRS was headed by a Bush appointee during the time period in which the scrutiny of the Tea Party was taking place!
The Bush administration targeted groups that simply opposed his policies (see below.) 
Note that Donald Shulman left his position in early November of 2012, right after the election!
In other words, a GOP fox was watching the IRS hen house.
The crack-whores of the working press have managed to ignore the central element in the Tea Party/IRS dynamic–the systematic abuse of tax exempt status by Ole 666 himself–Karl Rove (see below). 
Many of the Tea Party groups were, indeed, engaged in questionable activities that warranted IRS scrutiny. (See the story excerpted  below.)
EXCERPT: Acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller has resigned, President Barack Obama announced Wednesday.
“It’s inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it. Obama said. “I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency, but especially in the IRS.”
Given the controversy surrounding this audit, it’s important to institute good leadership, Obama said. . . .
. . . . Miller became acting commissioner in early November, after Commissioner Douglas Shulman completed his five-year term. Shulman had been appointed by President George W. Bush. . . .
EXCERPT: A comparison of two high profile IRS investigations into allegations of election intervention – the All Saints Church and NAACP cases -highlights the vagueness of the regulation and the inconsistency of IRS enforcement. According to OMB Watch’s analysis, the facts and circumstances of the All Saints Church and NAACP cases are very similar, but the IRS findings were very different. According to IRS Revenue Ruling 2007-41, the IRS decides whether a charity has violated the ban on election intervention using “all of the facts and circumstances of each case.” The IRS provides little information on how it evaluates these facts and circumstances, however, leaving the charitable community to wonder: Which facts and circumstances are most important? If one fact suggests a violation and another fact indicates compliance, how does the IRS reach a conclusion? How does the IRS ensure consistency in its enforcement of the ban across different and complex situations?
The IRS concluded that All Saints Church violated the ban, while the NAACP did not. In a warning letter to the church, the IRS wrote that All Saints had committed political intervention, but that no further action would be taken. Both organizations retain their nonprofit tax exempt status.
Similarities Between NAACP and All Saints:
The NAACP and All Saints Church cases have several characteristics in common. . . .
Criticism of the Bush administration. In both situations, speakers condemned the policies of the Bush administration during the lead up to the 2004 elections. . . . .
EXCERPT: Karl Rove is the real poster boy for the so-called Internal Revenue Service “scandal” of mid-level functionaries taking a closer look at applications by political organizations seeking a 501©(4) tax status that makes them not only tax-exempt but protects their donors with anonymity.
That 501(c )(4) is one sweet deal: not only do these organizations get untraceable, tax-free money laundering for their political activities, they get a taxpayer subsidy to do it. It was not always such: some of these activities used to be illegal.
People working for the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP) – Richard Nixon’s campaign organization in 1972 – were convicted of law-breaking, as were some corporate donors. CREEP was “illegally hauling in many millions of dollars from corporations, many of which felt pressured into making contributions,” wrote Jill Abramson of the New York Times in a 2010 article about the rapidly changing rules on political contributions.
“The fund-raising practices that earned people convictions in Watergate — giving direct corporate money to a campaign and doing so secretly — are back in a different form in 2010. This time around, the corporations are still giving secretly, but legally,” Abramson wrote.
“This election year is the first since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which allows corporations for the first time to finance ads that directly support or oppose political candidates. And tax laws and loopholes have permitted a shadow campaign network of Republican-leaning nonprofit groups to collect a flood of anonymous donations and spend it widely.”
Indeed, Abramson noted, “Some players shaking the corporate money trees for nonprofit groups this year cut their teeth in the Nixon re-election campaign. … There is Fred Malek, a founder of the American Action Network, [who] was the White House personnel chief in 1972 and helped dispense patronage for major Nixon donors as well as serving as deputy director of Creep. … The American Action Network shares office space with American Crossroads, led by Mr. Rove, who also was an active participant in Nixon’s re-election as executive director of the College Republican National Committee.”
Early in 2010, Rove founded American Crossroads, a perfectly legal, openly political, tax-exempt 527 organization, with no limits on the amount or source of their contributions, and no spending limits. Despite these freedoms, 527s were still prohibited from openly supporting particular candidates, and they had to register with the IRS, disclose donors, and file reports.
The Problem: Some Transparency
These 527 organizations (a broad category that includes Super PACs) have been an open charade in the democratic process for years, avoiding direct support of candidates while producing material that could only support their chosen candidates. For example, the 527 organization Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacked presidential candidate John Kerry during the 2004 election, without expressing direct support for President George W. Bush.
In June 2010, Karl Rove and American Crossroads founded Crossroads GPS (Grassroots Policy Strategies) that, as a 501©(4), had even fewer constraints. American Crossroads was one of 1,500 applicants for 501©(4) status in 2010. In 2012 there were some 3,400 applications.
According to the Internal Revenue Code passed by Congress, 501©(4) status is reserved for “civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare” [emphasis added]. In 1959, during the Eisenhower administration, the IRS decided to ignore the letter of the law, and wrote rules for 501©(4) organizations requiring only that they be primarily for the promotion of social welfare.
The difference between “exclusively” and “primarily” created a loophole even a non-lawyer could exploit, but it became most useful to $100 million outfits like American Crossroads only after the Supreme Court, with its January 2010, 5–4 decision in Citizens United (558 US 310), opened the American political process to virtually any money from any source, with almost no duty to disclose anything. . . .
EXCERPT: When CVFC, a conservative veterans’ group in California, applied for tax-exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service, its biggest expenditure that year was several thousand dollars in radio ads backing a Republican candidate for Congress.
The Wetumpka Tea Party, from Alabama, sponsored training for a get-out-the-vote initiative dedicated to the “defeat of President Barack Obama” while the I.R.S. was weighing its application.
And the head of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, whose application languished with the I.R.S. for more than two years, sent out e-mails to members about Mitt Romney campaign events and organized members to distribute Mr. Romney’s presidential campaign literature.
Representatives of these organizations have cried foul in recent weeks about their treatment by the I.R.S., saying they were among dozens of conservative groups unfairly targeted by the agency, harassed with inappropriate questionnaires and put off for months or years as the agency delayed decisions on their applications.
But a close examination of these groups and others reveals an array of election activities that tax experts and former I.R.S. officials said would provide a legitimate basis for flagging them for closer review.
“Money is not the only thing that matters,” said Donald B. Tobin, a former lawyer with the Justice Department’s tax division who is a law professor at Ohio State University. “While some of the I.R.S. questions may have been overbroad, you can look at some of these groups and understand why these questions were being asked.” . . .