— Virginia Lt. Gov. nominee E.W. Jackson, in a video posted last year, compared Planned Parenthood to the Ku Klux Klan and bemoaned black voters’ “slavish devotion” to the Democratic Party, Politico reports.

Change in the GOP’s unfavorability ratings, according to a new CNN poll in which 59% of respondents said they have an unfavorable opinion of the Republican party, while 35% were still favorable. The numbers were more even for Democrats, with 52% of those polled saying they view the party favorably and 43% seeing it unfavorably. The response to the tea party movement was, as would be expected, the strangest, with 37% seeing it favorably, 45% unfavorably, an astounding 7% reporting that they never heard of it, and 11% withholding any opinion.

Amount of cash, as of April 30, that The National Rifle Association of America Political Victory Fund reported it has on hand. The NRA raised $1,290,539 during April and spent only $27,318, Political Moneyline reports.

— Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), quoted by the Louisville Courier-Journal.

@rudepundit on Twitter, no doubt recalling that most Republicans, even those from the tornado-prone Midwest and prairie states, voted against providing disaster relief to the areas worst affected by super storm Sandy.

There is good news about the economy — the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has reported that the federal budget deficit is reducing even more quickly than had been projected– so, naturally, it is being spun by Fox News as bad news:

Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade reacted to a new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report showing the 2013 deficit dropping by $200 billion by lamenting that the report might discourage further austerity measures…

Kilmeade reacted to this news with calls for increased austerity, lamenting that the “positive news” in the CBO report might lead away from a mindset of “fiscal discipline.” Kilmeade concluded, “I just hope we still feel the urgency to get our budget in order.”

Rachel Maddow’s report follows:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It hasn’t yet seeped into the political media’s central narrative about the Benghazi attacks yet — and if the past is a guide, it probably never will — but there has finally been a bona fide revelation of doctoring information about the attacks for political purposes, just as Republicans have claimed from the outset of the attack on September 11, 2012, in which Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others were killed at what is now being described as a CIA outpost.

The culprits who have been caught red-handed are not the administration officials Republicans have accused of spinning intel in order to make Pres. Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton look good, but rather the Republican accusers themselves.

Last Friday, Republicans, probably from the House, leaked a document to right-wing ABC reporter Jonathan Karl that was said to contain paraphrased selections from emails circulated among CIA, State Department and other officials who were charged with developing talking points in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.

On Tuesday, former ABC reporter Jake Tapper, who now works for CNN, acquired one of the actual emails Republicans had included in the leaked document. When he compared it to the Republican version, he found that Republicans had substantively altered the text:

In the e-mail sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 9:34 p.m., obtained by CNN from a U.S. government source, [then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben] Rhodes wrote:

“All –

“Sorry to be late to this discussion. We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.

“There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.

“We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies.”

ABC News reported that Rhodes wrote: “We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

ABC News notes in its report that it was provided summaries of White House and State Department emails, not the emails themselves.

After the White House released the full set of emails to reporters Wednesday night, CBS News compared the actual text of an email sent by State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland with the version of it in the Republican leak document and found that it, too, had been altered:

The Republican version quotes Nuland discussing, “The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda’s presence and activities of al-Qaeda.”

The actual email from Nuland says: “The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings.”

The CIA agreed with the concerns raised by the State Department and revised the talking points to make them less specific than the CIA’s original version, eliminating references to al Qaeda and affiliates and earlier security warnings. There is no evidence that the White House orchestrated the changes.

Analysts who have read the full set of emails say they prove that, contrary to Republican accusations, no one in the government tried to spin the incident for political purposes — the CIA removed certain references in order to protect its investigation into the group behind the attack.

The emails also prove that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice did nothing wrong when she relied upon the talking points during her appearance on the Sunday morning political shows immediately after the attack.After her appearance, Republicans used their Fox News propaganda outlet to manufacture outrage by accusing Rice of downplaying the role of terrorism in the attack in order to bolster the president’s campaign.

Rice later withdrew her nomination for secretary of state because of the criticism — which we now know was based on nothing but Republican spin.

It seemed to come as a great shock when it was recently revealed that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) examines some taxpayers more closely than others.

Really? Because no one has ever objected to the IRS targeting some tax returns for audit. Among them:

• Millionaires (in fiscal 2011, the IRS audited 12.5% of them)
• People reporting more than $200,000 in income
• People claiming confusing tax breaks like the first-time homebuyer credit
• Home office workers
• Small business and self-employed people generally
• Very low income filers who claim the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)

So why, in the wild west of the first election years since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling allowing political action groups, many with questionable funding, to mushroom and proliferate…why should anyone be surprised the IRS would exercise scrutiny on these here today, gone tomorrow groups? Why, in fact, would they not demand that the IRS do precisely that before granting tax-exempt status to whoever applies for it?

And why not specifically take a hard, cold look at tea party groups?

For one thing, there were more of them. The tea party spent buckets in 2012 to hang on to the gains they made in the U.S. House in 2010, even though they lost ground. GOP/Tea Congressional candidates received nearly $6.2 million in the 2012 elections while Democrats raised less than $4.9.

The other reason to look closely at tea party groups is that in their short history, they have demonstrated both a disdain for tax laws and a willingness to color outside the lines.

Let’s start with one local (for me) example. Richard Willich first made a name for himself as one of the early tea party zealots, back when they embraced the label, “tea baggers” for its wit and for showing that they were the modern day descendants of the Boston Tea Party organizers, who staged a rebellion against paying taxes.

In 2009, Willich, the CEO of a business called MDI Holdings and chair of the Florida arm of the tea party group Americans for Prosperity, announced a “leaded tea party” to be held on his company’s grounds to celebrate Labor Day. Patriots would bring the kids, their guns, some meat for grilling, and have a real good time shooting things up. What could go wrong?

Local law enforcement could think of a few things, and tried to contact Willich about discharging firearms outside a gun range and near high-dollar homes. Willich ordered his private security guards to eject any government representatives who came calling but, just as it looked like things were going to go all David Koresh Waco, he backed down.

Fast forward to 2012, when Willich, who has spent the intervening years making lavish and very public donations to school groups, was sued by Wells Fargo. The bank said the company welched on at least $30 million loaned to MDI and on which they said its CEO was living large.

Willich used loans to buy a 2010 Tesla Roadster, a high-end electric vehicle, according to court documents. Wells Fargo also claims Willich loaned himself $4.9 million for his farm and more than $300,000 for a biography and screenplay about his life.

There’s much more, including deals that MDI made as a government contractor (Yes! This is who gets the money when Republicans privatize) to provide prison health care that left North Carolina’s Duke University Health System on the hook for $8.3 million, and suits and counter-suits, but the point is…why should the IRS not be looking very hard at the Richard Williches of the world?

Why not go over the financial dealings of Rep. Michele Bachmann, founding chair of Congress’s Tea Party Caucus, who might have used 2012 election contributions to her campaign and to her tea party causes as her own personal ATM?

Why not look at Sheldon Adelson, who spent at least $53 million in the 2012 election cycle on rightwing candidates and causes, and whose Sands casino is being investigated for money laundering?

I’m not saying the IRS should target according to ideology. I’m saying it should target according to likelihood that tax laws are being flouted and circumvented. If that means that tea party groups float to the top of the audit pile, so be it.