Bookeemonster: a voracious appetite for books, mostly crime fiction.
Friday, May 17, 2013
Current Events - May 17, 2013
Amid scandals, White House announces star-studded concert in East Room
Amid sequester and scandal in Washington, the White House announced
Friday that the president and first lady will be hosting another concert
as part of their “In Performance at the White House” later this month.
Carney to Piers: The Three Government Scandals This Week ‘Don’t Exist’
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney
appeared on CNN’s “Piers Morgan Live” Thursday night to answer questions
related to the three separate scandals that have turned the federal
government on its head over the last two weeks.
Carney’s answers summed up: There are no scandals.
“You’re concocting scandals that don’t
exist,” Carney said, when show host Piers Morgan asked how the Obama
administration would “restore the faith that some Americans have lost”
in its transparency.
“Especially with regard to the Benghazi
affair that was contrived by Republicans and, I think, has fallen apart
largely this week,” Carney said.
He continued, “The fact of the matter
is that this administration has a record on transparency that outdoes
any previous administrations. And we are committed to that. The
president is committed to that.”
Beginning last week when several
high-level government officials testified on what happened leading up to
the attack on an American consulate in Libya in September, two other
scandals potentially implicating the Obama administration have
developed: One in which the IRS unfairly targeted conservative
non-profits for scrutiny, the other involving the Department of Justice
secretly seizing the phone records of Associates Press reporters and
editors last year.
Regarding the Benghazi attack, Carney dismissed it as “a faux controversy stirred up by Republicans.”
On the IRS issue: “When [President
Obama] found out… that there had been inappropriate and wrong conduct by
IRS personnel… he spoke out about it, he made clear he thought it was
an outrage and he has taken action.” (Acting IRS Director Steven Miller
submitted his resignation Wednesday.)
And on the Associated Press scandal,
which Obama has only commented on to say that the White House had no
knowledge of: “It is entirely inappropriate for a president… to engage
in… a criminal investigation.”
At the start of the program, Carney said it’s been “a challenging week, but a week that I’ve enjoyed.”
Report: IRS Deliberately Chose Not to Fess Up to Scandal Before Election
NBC's Lisa Myers reported this morning that the IRS deliberately chose
not to reveal that it had wrongly targeted conservative groups until
after the 2012 presidential election.
The IRS commissioner "has known for at least a year that this was going
on," said Myers, "and that this had happened. And did he share any of
that information with the White House? But even more importantly,
Congress is going to ask him, why did you mislead us for an entire year?
Members of Congress were saying conservatives are being targeted.
What's going on here? The IRS denied it. Then when -- after these
officials are briefed by the IG that this is going on, they don't
disclose it. In fact, the commissioner sent a letter to Congress in
September on this subject and did not reveal this. Imagine if we -- if
you can -- what would have happened if this fact came out in September
2012, in the middle of a presidential election? The terrain would have
looked very different."
Acting IRS Commissioner Doesn't Know Who's Responsible, Objects to "Targeting" as "Pejorative" Term
Stephen Miller, the acting IRS chief who "resigned" this week despite being on his way out the door
anyway, appeared before the House Ways and Means Committee this morning
to testify about his agency's documented malfeasance. Here are the
biggest take-aways so far:
(1) Miller repeatedly objected to the term "targeting" to describe
the IRS' practices, which involved...targeting conservative groups for
heightened scrutiny. He said the term was "pejorative" and "loaded."
Miller later denied that conservative groups were even "treated differently,"
and faced no "litmus test." Who believes this? Both he and the
Inspector General insisted there's no evidence (yet) that the targeting
scheme was motivated by political bias -- aside from the entire basis of the scandal and any number of specific cases,
I guess. Miller did fleetingly admit that liberal groups were not
subjected to similar definitional "triage," which seems to be the
preferred term. "Targeting" is so judgmental.
(2) Under intense questioning from several members, Miller said he doesn't know
who was responsible for the agency's inappropriate conduct. He wasn't
even sure who investigated it within the organization. No names. Over
and over again, he said that he didn't know answers to questions. He
also claimed to have become aware about certain aspects of the scandal
(such as the auditing of conservative donors and the leaking of private information to outside groups) through the news media.
(3) Miller revealed that the manner in which the IRS made the scandal public was coordinated and staged
during a Q&A session last Friday. Someone outside the IRS was
tipped off to ask the question that prompted the initial revelation.
Hugh Hewitt makes a great point:
Focus on Lois Lerner-Celia Roady revelation. Roady tipped, got inside
IRS info. How often does IRS tip it's "friends" and for what reasons
(4) Incredibly, Miller said that Sarah Hall Ingram -- the woman who
was in charge of the division that chiefly responsible for the
targeting program, and who now runs the IRS' Obamacare office -- is a "superb public servant." He added that the division she ran provided "horrible customer service here."
(5) On disciplinary action, Miller stated that one employee has been "reassigned." (He and one other IRS official have announced a "resignation" and "retirement").
(6) Democrats on the committee seemed to be working from a similar
playbook: Expressing "outrage" over the targeting, then (a) invoking
Bush and Citizens United, (b) explaining why this was all a
stupid mistake that wasn't partisan or malicious, and (c) complaining
about the influence of money in politics. They circled the wagons
around the White House and relied on heavy misdirection to change the
subject. Benghazi, redux.
(7) Perhaps emboldened by Democrats' stirring defense, Miller actually asked Congress to give the IRS more funding. Really.
(8) Here's a key exchange,
in which Paul Ryan clearly lays out the evidence that Miller was not
truthful with the committee last time he testified on the subject,
before everything blew up. Miller flatly rejected that he'd been
anything less than honest, and "stands by" his previous testimony.
Damning stuff: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/05/17/acting-irs-commissioner-doesnt-know-whos-responsible-objects-to-targeting-as-pejorative-term-n1599512
IRS head on targeting tea party: ‘It is absolutely not illegal’
The outgoing leader of the Internal Revenue Service drew audible “wows” from Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee on Friday for saying he doesn’t think what the agency did to tea party groups was illegal.
“It is absolutely not illegal,” Steve Miller, the acting commissioner
of the IRS who resigned this week because of the scandal, said while
being questioned by Georgia Rep. Tom Price.
A number of legislators let out bursts of “wow” at his answer.
Here’s their exchange:
Price: Is it illegal what they’ve done?
Miller: It is absolutely not illegal.
Price: It is not illegal what the IRS has done?
Miller: So let me understand the question. What is your statement as to what is illegal?
Price: Do you believe that it is illegal for
employees of the IRS to create lists, to target individual groups and
citizens in this country?
Miller: I think the [Department of] Treasury inspector general indicated it might not be, but others will be able to tell that.
Price: What do you believe?
Miller: I don’t believe it is. I don’t believe it should happen.
Price: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Miller: Please don’t get me wrong. It should not happen.
In his prepared remarks
on the IRS’s targeting of his political opponents, President Obama said
that “we’re going to hold the responsible parties accountable,” but
only once we determine “who is responsible.” In today’s Wall Street Journal, Kim Strassel offers some helpful thoughts on determining responsibility, writing that it’s really not all that hard — and, indeed, it’s not.
According to the IRS’s own website, “The IRS is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury.” Under the heading, “Statutory Authority,” the IRS site reads:
“The IRS is organized to carry out the
responsibilities of the secretary of the Treasury under section 7801 of
the Internal Revenue Code. The secretary has full authority to
administer and enforce the internal revenue laws and has the power to
create an agency to enforce these laws. The IRS was created based on
this legislative grant.”
The Department of the Treasury, in turn, was
established in 1789, the same year that the government under our
Constitution began. The Treasury website reads,
“The First Congress of the United States was called
to convene in New York on March 4, 1789, marking the beginning of
government under the Constitution. On September 2, 1789, Congress
created a permanent institution for the management of government
finances:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That there shall be a Department of Treasury, in which shall be the
following officers, namely: a Secretary of the Treasury, to be deemed
head of the department; a Comptroller, an Auditor, a Treasurer, a
Register, and an Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury, which
assistant shall be appointed by the said Secretary.”
As this language suggests, Congress was empowered
to establish the Department of the Treasury and the offices that would
compose its leadership. However, the decisions about who should fill
those posts (made with the advice and consent of the Senate), and the
responsibility for how to run the department (or any executive
department), was not Congress’s to grant. Rather, that power was
granted by the Constitution itself, which reads, “The executive Power
shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
So, in short, the IRS is a part of the Treasury
Department, the Treasury Department exercises a part of the executive
power, the executive power — in its entirety — is vested in the
president, and Barack Obama is president.
Unity in the executive was supposed to focus responsibility, not blur it. In Federalist
70, President Washington’s appointee as the first Treasury secretary,
Alexander Hamilton, responded to claims that we should have a
multi-headed executive (an idea that was advanced, and defeated, at the
Constitutional Convention). Hamilton wrote,
“[O]ne of the weightiest objections to a plurality
in the executive…is that it tends to conceal faults and destroy
responsibility. Responsibility is of two kinds — to censure and to
punishment. The first is the more important of the two, especially in
an elective office. Men in public trust will much oftener act in such a
manner as to render them unworthy of being any longer trusted, than in
such a manner as to make them obnoxious to legal punishment. But the
multiplication of the executive adds to the difficulty of detection in
either case. It often becomes impossible, amidst mutual accusations, to
determine on whom the blame or the punishment of a pernicious measure,
or series of pernicious measures, ought really to fall. It is shifted
from one to another with so much dexterity, and under such plausible
appearances, that the public opinion is left in suspense about the real
author. The circumstances which may have led to any national
miscarriage or misfortune are sometimes so complicated that where there
are a number of actors who may have had different degrees and kinds of
agency, though we may clearly see upon the whole that there has been
mismanagement, yet it may be impracticable to pronounce to whose account
the evil which may have been incurred is truly chargeable.
…[I]n a word…all multiplication of the executive is rather dangerous than friendly to liberty.”
Thankfully, we have a unitary executive, whose
responsibility over all aspect of “the executive Power” — a power that
he alone is vested with under the Constitution — is abundantly clear
The bureaucrats at the Internal Revenue Service did exactly what the president said was the right and honorable thing to do.
Was the White House involved in the IRS's targeting of conservatives?
No investigation needed to answer that one. Of course it was.
President Obama and Co. are in full deniability mode, noting that the
IRS is an "independent" agency and that they knew nothing about its
abuse. The media and Congress are sleuthing for some hint that Mr. Obama
picked up the phone and sicced the tax dogs on his enemies.
But that's not how things work in post-Watergate Washington. Mr.
Obama didn't need to pick up the phone. All he needed to do was exactly
what he did do, in full view, for three years: Publicly suggest that
conservative political groups were engaged in nefarious deeds; publicly
call out by name political opponents whom he'd like to see harassed; and
publicly have his party pressure the IRS to take action.
Mr. Obama now professes shock and outrage that bureaucrats at the IRS
did exactly what the president of the United States said was the right
and honorable thing to do. "He put a target on our backs, and he's now
going to blame the people who are shooting at us?" asks Idaho
businessman and longtime Republican donor Frank VanderSloot.
At the White House, President Obama addresses the IRS scandal, May 15.
Mr. VanderSloot is the Obama target who in 2011 made a sizable donation to a group supporting Mitt Romney.
In April 2012, an Obama campaign website named and slurred eight Romney
donors. It tarred Mr. VanderSloot as a "wealthy individual" with a
"less-than-reputable record." Other donors were described as having been
"on the wrong side of the law."
This was the Obama version of the phone call—put out to every government investigator (and liberal activist) in the land.
Twelve days later, a man working for a political opposition-research
firm called an Idaho courthouse for Mr. VanderSloot's divorce records.
In June, the IRS informed Mr. VanderSloot and his wife of an audit of
two years of their taxes. In July, the Department of Labor informed him
of an audit of the guest workers on his Idaho cattle ranch. In
September, the IRS informed him of a second audit, of one of his
businesses. Mr. VanderSloot, who had never been audited before, was
subject to three in the four months after Mr. Obama teed him up for such
scrutiny.
The last of these audits was only concluded in recent weeks. Not one
resulted in a fine or penalty. But Mr. VanderSloot has been waiting more
than 20 months for a sizable refund and estimates his legal bills are
$80,000. That figure doesn't account for what the president's
vilification has done to his business and reputation.
The Obama call for scrutiny wasn't a mistake; it was the president's
strategy—one pursued throughout 2012. The way to limit Romney money was
to intimidate donors from giving. Donate, and the president would at
best tie you to Big Oil or Wall Street, at worst put your name in bold,
and flag you as "less than reputable" to everyone who worked for him:
the IRS, the SEC, the Justice Department. The president didn't need a
telephone; he had a megaphone.
The same threat was made to conservative groups that might dare play
in the election. As early as January 2010, Mr. Obama would, in his state
of the union address, cast aspersions on the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, claiming that it "reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests" (read conservative groups).
The president derided "tea baggers." Vice President Joe Biden
compared them to "terrorists."In more than a dozen speeches Mr. Obama
raised the specter that these groups represented nefarious interests
that were perverting elections. "Nobody knows who's paying for these
ads," he warned. "We don't know where this money is coming from," he
intoned.
In case the IRS missed his point, he raised the threat of illegality:
"All around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names
like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of
ads against Democratic candidates . . . And they don't have to say who
exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a
foreign-controlled corporation."
Short of directly asking federal agencies to investigate these
groups, this is as close as it gets. Especially as top congressional
Democrats were putting in their own versions of phone calls, sending
letters to the IRS that accused it of having "failed to address" the
"problem" of groups that were "improperly engaged" in campaigns. Because
guess who controls that "independent" agency's budget?
The IRS is easy to demonize, but it
doesn't exist in a vacuum. It got its heading from a president, and his
party, who did in fact send it orders—openly, for the world to see. In
his Tuesday press grilling, no question agitated White House Press
Secretary Jay Carney more than the one that got to the heart of the
matter: Given the president's "animosity" toward Citizens United,
might he have "appreciated or wanted the IRS to be looking and
scrutinizing those . . ." Mr. Carney cut off the reporter with "That's a
preposterous assertion." Preposterous because, according to Mr. Obama, he is "outraged" and
"angry" that the IRS looked into the very groups and individuals that he
spent years claiming were shady, undemocratic, even lawbreaking. After
all, he expects the IRS to "operate with absolute integrity." Even when
he does not.
Well Obama may have kept his makeup from running,
but the public relations hole he's digging for himself just got deeper.
Of course, someone else is sure to get the blame for the incomparable
insolence demonstrated by this clueless commander-in-chief when he
imperiously summoned two young, Marine NCO's to stand in the rain and
hold umbrellas over his royal highness and Turkish Premier Erdogan. This
pic and this one say it all. The
military community, that is all those except the politically-correct,
perfumed princes in the Pentagon, are genuinely ticked over this public display
of ignorance and contempt for military tradition. It is a particularly
egregious offense because, as many veterans are pointing out, male
military personnel aren't even supposed to carry umbrellas when in
uniform. A partial concession has been made for females, most likely due
to the need to protect hair and makeup and thus, their general
appearance.
Warning: strong language. One of the commenters there included a link to the photo page of the 173rd Airborne Brigade which shows how a bunch of battle-hardened paratroopers deals with hard rain
during a public ceremony. Notice how soaked those uniforms are. Of
course the VIP's and visiting dignitaries are under a roofed pavilion,
something the White House staff might have given consideration to in
setting up this botched press conference.
Our metrosexual commander-in-chief should understand that those Marines are not his butlers.
Homeland Security guidelines advise deference to pro-Shariah Muslim supremacists
Homeland Security docs warn about conservatives, advise deference to Muslim extremists
The Department of Homeland Security, which under Secretary Janet
Napolitano has shown a keen interest in monitoring and warning about
outspoken conservatives, takes a very different approach in monitoring
political Islamists, according to a 2011 memo on protecting the free
speech rights of pro-Shariah Muslim supremacists. In a checklist obtained by The Daily Caller entitled “Countering
Violent Extremism Dos and Don’ts” the DHS’s Office of Civil Rights and
Civil Liberties notifies local and national law enforcement officials
that it is Obama administration policy to consider specifically Islamic
criticism of the American system of government legitimate. This policy stands in stark contrast to the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis’ 2009 memo “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” [pdf],
which warned of the dangers posed by pro-life advocates, critics of
same-sex marriage and groups concerned with abiding by the U.S.
Constitution, among others. The advice of the Dos and Don’ts list is far more conciliatory.
“Don’t use training that equates radical thought, religious expression,
freedom to protest, or other constitutionally-protected activity,
including disliking the U.S. government without being violent,” the
manual’s authors write in a section on training being “sensitive to
constitutional values.” The manual, which was produced by an inter-agency working group from
DHS and the National Counterterrorism Center, advises, “Trainers who
equate the desire for Sharia law with criminal activity violate basic
tenets of the First Amendment.” The checklist also advised against using moderate Muslim “trainers who
are self-professed ‘Muslim reformers’” because they “may further an
interest group agenda instead of delivering generally accepted, unbiased
information.” The Homeland Security document also seems to discount evidence unearthed
by the Justice Department about the aims of some mainstream Muslim
organizations, warning law enforcement not to rely on “unsubstantiated
theories” and “conspiracies,” such as the belief that “many mainstream
Muslim organizations have terrorist ties” or are “fronts for Islamic
political organizations whose true desire is to establish Sharia law in
America.” The manual advises trainees not to assume Muslim Americans are “using
democratic processes, like litigation and free speech, to subvert
democracy and install Sharia law.” In fact, the Justice Department proved that some very prominent
Muslim organizations do have terror ties in a 2009 case and that they
share the Muslim Brotherhood’s goal of Shariah law. “The government has
produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR [Council
on American-Islamic Relations], ISNA [Islamic Society of North America],
NAIT [North American Islamic Trust], with the Islamic Association for
Palestine, and with Hamas,” U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis said
in the July 1, 2009 ruling. Tim Clemente, a former FBI agent who hunted Anwar Al-Awlaki and who
has worked with Muslims to help stop terrorist plots, told The Daily
Caller the government overdoes its sensitivity. Clemente says that the
Muslim community “needs a realization, not necessarily a reformation,”
that only it can stop terrorist attacks. “Muslims are the ones that should notice this and should nip it in
the bud,” Clemente told TheDC. “When you see the guy radicalizing and
yelling at an imam, do more. Take it to the next level. Don’t go turning
a blind eye.” “While it is true that the vast majority of Muslims, especially in
America, will never ever be radicalized, the greatest percentage of
those that will commit terrorist acts happen to Muslim,” continued
Clemente, who was critical of DHS’s 2009 report on rightwing groups. Although the two reports originated from different wings of
Napolitano’s vast Homeland Security bureaucracy, the contrast in their
deference to constitutional rights and presumption of innocence is
striking. The “Rightwing Extremism” report warned that the economic recession,
Barack Obama’s election, and the “return of military veterans facing
significant challenges reintegrating” might lead to a rise in
white-power domestic terrorist activity — a threat that, unlike the
threat posted by radical Islam, has failed to materialize in the four
years since the report was issued. The 2009 report also defined “rightwing extremism in the United
States” as including not just racist or hate groups, but also those who
reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority and who
“are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or
immigration.” The 2009 report’s authors conceded that DHS “has no specific information
that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of
violence.”
Putting the Lie to the IRS' "Foolish Mistakes" Narrative
Testifying before Congress this morning, outgoing IRS Acting
Commissioner Steven Miller sought to convince everyone that the
targeting of conservative groups in the run-up to the 2012 presidential
election was nothing more than a "foolish mistake." There are many reasons this narrative is profoundly unconvincing --
in addition to the fact that it's being peddled by Miller, who
previously withheld information from Congress about the targeting
despite inquiries on it. The main reason, however, has to do with
activity by the Determinations Unit's "team of specialists." Check out the bottom of page 7 of the IG report. It notes that in
June 2011, the Director of Exempt Organizations directed that the
targeting criteria be changed and the next month, they were indeed
changed to, as the IG report puts it, "focus on the potential
'political, lobbying, or [general] advocacy' activities of the
organizations," rather than using "organization names and policy
positions." But then, "the team of specialists subsequently changed
the criteria in January 2012 without executive approval . . . the
January 2012 criteria again focused on the policy positions of
organizations instead of tax-exempt laws and Treasury Regulations."(emphasis added). That admission alone highlights how absolutely unbelievable the
"foolish mistake" excuse is. Had it simply been a matter of clueless
IRS employees -- and who can believe anyone in good faith believes it's
OK to practice viewpoint discrimination in administering the tax law?!
-- there wouldn't have been a concerted effort to refocus on policy
positions after the criteria had been changed to focus on applicants'
activities, rather than their beliefs. Miller's insistence on propagating an obviously misleading narrative
for what happened and why points out just how much independent
investigation is required. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/carolplattliebau/2013/05/17/putting-the-lie-to-the-irs-foolish-mistakes-narrative-n1599548
The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives voted to repeal President Barack Obama'shealthcare reform
law on Thursday in a symbolic move aimed as much at healing internal
Republican rifts as demonstrating dogged party opposition to
"Obamacare."
"No matter what, Americans will not want a politicized agency to have access to their most personal, intimate health care information or be in charge of important health care decisions," Bachmann said.
The
229-195 vote occurred largely along party lines and marked the 37th
time the House has voted to repeal or defund the 2010 Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act,
which is now in the final months before full implementation on January
1. Like previous attempts to dismantle the law, the measure will
likely go nowhere in the Democratic-run Senate.
For
Republicans, who hope to make Obamacare a winning campaign issue in
the 2014 congressional midterm elections, the action gave House
freshmen their first chance to vote against a law that is unpopular
with a large number of voters, particularly conservatives in their
districts back home.
"A full repeal is needed to keep this law from doing more damage to our economy and raising health care
costs," said House Speaker John Boehner at a press conference
alongside a seven-foot, three-inch tall stack of paper labeled "Obama
Regulations @theredtapetower". Democrats poked fun at the latest repeal vote.
"Apparently,
the Republicans are opposed to Obamacare," said Representative Steny
Hoyer, the second-ranking House Democrat. "I know that comes as a shock
to America, so we need to tell them one more time. Or 37 times, or
maybe a 38th or a 39th or a 40th or a 100th time." The
repeal measure was authored by Representative Michele Bachmann, former
Republican presidential candidate and Tea Party leader, who sought to
link healthcare reform to an Internal Revenue Service scandal that is threatening to undermine Obama's second-term agenda.
Democrats
may whine and complain about the vote to repeal Obamacare being a waste
of time, but the GOP rank and file knows where their bread is buttered
and voting once again to get rid of the ACA solidifies their support
among the base of the party. Besides,
you can never go on record often enough stating your opposition to a
law that will so fundamentally impact the lives of Americans. Once most
people are exposed to what this law really does - with theirinsurance
policies, the quality of care, and the rise in taxes - many voters are
going to start wondering why the Democrats didn't join Republicans in
ridding this country of a bad law in the first place.
Scandal-Plagued IRS Building Massive National Database of Americans
As the IRS is engulfed in scandal following its admission that it
targeted tea party and other conservative organizations, the agency is
preparing to assume vast new powers over Americans. The agency is tasked
with verifying that individuals and businesses are complying with
ObamaCare. In preparation, the agency is creating the largest, most
centralized national database on all Americans. Worse, the woman who
oversaw the agency's targeting of conservative organizations will be in
charge of this database. ObamaCare rests mosts of the enforcement of the law on the IRS. It
must ensure that individual Americans have health insurance. It must
evaluate whether insurance coverage offered by employers meets federal
guidelines. It will collect billions in new taxes and write the rules
for subsidies and tax credits to provide insurance coverage. It is a
task far outside the agency's skill-set and will require thousands of
new agents. To facilitate its implementation of ObamaCare, the IRS, in
conjunction with HHS, is building a massive new database of Americans,
drawing on records across federal and state governments. The WSJreports:
Known as the Federal Data Services Hub, the project is taking the
IRS's own records (for income and employment status) and centralizing
them with information from Social Security (identity), Homeland Security
(citizenship), Justice (criminal history), HHS (enrollment in
entitlement programs and certain medical claims data) and state
governments (residency). The data hub will be used as the verification system for ObamaCare's
complex subsidy formula. All insurers, self-insured businesses and
government health programs must submit reports to the IRS about the
individuals they cover, which the IRS will cross-check against tax
returns.
This development alone would be concerning before news of IRS's
political activism broke last Friday. More troubling, however, are reports
that the woman in charge of the IRS division that targeted conservative
organizations, Sarah Hall Ingram, in now in charge of implementing
ObamaCare for the agency. In other words, the woman who, at best, turned a blind's eye to IRS
political involvement will have at her command the most centralized and
comprehensive database of all Americans. This database is an
unprecedented accumulation of information about Americans. Those able to
access this information must be trusted not to use this information for
anything other than its intent. The growing IRS scandal suggests the agency is not worthy of this
trust. We are forced to cede a lot of information to government on a
regular basis. The implicit bargain is that this information will be
used narrowly and only for specific purposes. The IRS broke that
bargain. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/16/IRS-building-massive-national-database-of-americans
PK'S NOTE: Juan Williams is a liberal partisan hack and he proves it over and over again. He is spouting the new party line that blames the IRS corruption on the Supreme Court and the Citizen United decision. I DO NOT understand how their brains are wired. Oh, and Lois Lerner is a Bush appointee so it's Bush's fault - I'm NOT KIDDING.
Will real villains in IRS scandal ever be punished?
The biggest player going scot-free here is the Supreme Court. They
stand far from the spotlight of shame in the IRS scandal but any honest
account of what happened points to them. Make no mistake about it: the original sin of the IRS scandal is the
Supreme Court’s ruling on campaign finance that opened the floodgates to
unlimited “dark money” contributions to influence elections. In their 2010 decision in the “Citizens United” case, they ruled in
favor of unlimited political donations by corporations, unions and
others with specific and clear special interests in the outcome of
elections. The law, including the tax code, is the law as interpreted by the courts. That is their job. But the High Court’s ruling erased the old rules and did not establish any new ones. In doing so, they sent an engraved invitation to political elites to
rewrite the rules to their benefit and have Uncle Sam effectively foot
the bill. Millions of dollars were spent (and are still being spent) to
influence elections under the guise of “social welfare.” And the people
doing it are underwriting it using loopholes in the tax code. The calculating, big money players have long wanted to keep their
donations secret. Citizens United allowed them to give all the money
they wanted without having their names attached to it. They don’t want to deal with the public fall-out of being seen as a
puppet master puling the strings of the politician they helped elect
with their contributions. They don’t want to be seen as supporting
corporate welfare or the gutting of labor and environmental regulations
or any other unpopular causes that will line their corporate coffers. They combined the Supreme Court’s ruling with the existing a
non-profit status under IRS rules to create a devilish vehicle for their
political tricks. But the political moneyman and high-power consultants are not being hauled in front of Congress. They are the reason why the number of applications doubling in a few
months after the court ruling from political groups seeking to be
designated as “social welfare” advocates, a 501 c-4 finding by the IRS.
Those groups are allowed to engage in some political activity for their
cause. But in the Citizens United case the court never set the limits to
what constitutes political activity by social welfare groups. It was left to middle managers at the IRS to come up with the rules
for who properly qualified and who was perpetrating a hoax because the
Supreme Court did not do its job. The IRS managers inappropriately came up with a “Be On the Look-Out”
list for groups with names such as “Tea Party,” and “Patriot,” names
often used by conservative groups. They should have been equally suspicious of liberals, conservatives
and everyone else trying to game the system. But they wrongly focused on
those conservative groups. They tried to justify it by saying most of the applicants for the
tax-free status came from newly formed right-wing groups and the IRS
lacked clear rules for separating the frauds from the legitimate
applicants. It is important to note that of the 296 groups that got added
scrutiny from the IRS no applications were denied but over half were
left open. The inappropriate scrutiny of conservative political groups began
under a Bush Administration appointee, former IRS commissioner Douglas
Shulman. He knew of the rogue targeting by May of 2012 but did not
reveal the bad behavior to Congress. And Lois Lerner, who is in charge of the IRS’s tax-exempt division,
also never said a word to Congress even after letters from Congress – as
early as June of 2012 --asking about complaints of IRS giving unfair
scrutiny to conservative applicants. The right wing groups, and some liberal groups, too, wanted a tax
code status that freed them from paying taxes. They also wanted their
donors to remain anonymous. And the Supreme Court ruling allowed them to
have that tax status even as bought political ads and supported
political candidates. Miller, the acting IRS commission, has been forced out. There will be more firings and resignations of IRS staff members. There is blood on the floor. But it is incredible how none of it ever
seems to end up on the fancy shoes of the rich and powerful and their
protectors on the Supreme Court and in Congress.
Another Pelosi Gem: GOP Makes So Much Of Scandals Because Obama Is 'Such A Great President'
Nancy Pelosi, like Joe Biden, is the gift that keeps on giving. Today
she offered up more brilliant analysis as to why The GOP is “making so
much” of the scandals: because Barack Obama is “such a great president.”
“They make so much of these issues, because this
president is such a great president. He’s a visionary – you’ve heard me
say this so many times.
This is a great president. He’s a visionary. He has a knowledge
of our country, concerns of the American people that give him judgment
as to what plan we should have to go forward to strengthen the middle
class.
And he has an eloquence to convey that message. They fear that, and so any issue that comes up, they will try to exploit.”
What planet does this woman live on? Correct me if I’m wrong, but if
Barack Obama is such a “visionary,” how on earth did he get himself into
such a mess? He’s either in these scandals up to his eyeballs – or he’s
the most uninformed, out-of the-loop president in modern history.
Either way, not exactly the stuff vision and greatness are made of, is
it? Oh, and that “fear” thing? The only people afraid right now are Obama
and the Democrats – as they see O’s world crashing down around them.
Political abuse of the IRS threatens the basic integrity of our government.
By 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. Something big has shifted. The standing of the administration has changed. As always it comes down to trust. Do you trust the president's
answers when he's pressed on an uncomfortable story? Do you trust his
people to be sober and fair-minded as they go about their work? Do you
trust the IRS and the Justice Department? You do not. 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. A president sets a mood, a tone. He establishes an atmosphere. If he
is arrogant, arrogance spreads. If he is to 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. The IRS scandal has two parts. The first is the obviously deliberate
and targeted abuse, harassment and attempted suppression of conservative
groups. The second is the auditing of the taxes of political activists. (PK'S NOTE: The third part is releasing income tax information to political opponents) In order to suppress conservative groups—at first those with words
like "Tea Party" and "Patriot" in their names, then including those that
opposed ObamaCare or advanced the second amendment—the IRS demanded
donor rolls, membership lists, data on all contributions, names of
volunteers, the contents of all speeches made by members, FacebookFB+1.26%
posts, minutes of all meetings, and copies of all materials handed out
at gatherings. Among its questions: What are you thinking about? Did you
ever think of running for office? Do you ever contact political
figures? What are you reading? One group sent what it was reading: the
U.S. Constitution. (PK'S NOTE: Death by a thousand cuts) The second part of the scandal is the auditing
of political activists who have opposed the administration. The
Journal's Kim Strassel reported an Idaho businessman named Frank
VanderSloot, who'd donated more than a million dollars to groups
supporting Mitt Romney. He found himself last June, for the first time
in 30 years, the target of IRS auditors. His wife and his business were
also soon audited. Hal Scherz, a Georgia physician, also came to the
government's attention. He told ABC News: "It is odd that nothing
changed on my tax return and I was never audited until I publicly
criticized ObamaCare." Franklin Graham, son of Billy, told Politico he
believes his father was targeted. A conservative Catholic academic who
has written for these pages faced questions about her meager freelance
writing income. Many of these stories will come out, but not as many as
there are. People are not only afraid of being audited, they're afraid
of saying they were audited. All of these IRS actions took place in the years leading up to the
2012 election. They constitute the use of governmental power to intrude
on the privacy and shackle the political freedom of American citizens.
The purpose, obviously, was to overwhelm and intimidate—to kill the
opposition, question by question and audit by audit. It is not even remotely possible that all this was an accident, a
mistake. Again, only conservative groups were targeted, not liberal. It
is not even remotely possible that only one IRS office was involved.
Lois Lerner, who oversees tax-exempt groups for the IRS, was the person
who finally acknowledged, under pressure of a looming investigative
report, some of what the IRS was doing. She told reporters the actions
were the work of "frontline people" in Cincinnati. But other offices
were involved, including Washington. It is not even remotely possible
the actions were the work of just a few agents. This was more systemic.
It was an operation. The word was out: Get the Democratic Party's foes.
It is not remotely possible nobody in the IRS knew what was going on
until very recently. The Washington Post reported efforts to target the
conservative groups reached the highest levels of the agency by May
2012—far earlier than the agency had acknowledged. Reuters reported
high-level IRS officials, including its chief counsel, knew in August
2011 about the targeting. The White House is reported to be shellshocked at public reaction to
the scandal. But why? Were they so high-handed, so essentially ignorant,
that they didn't understand what it would mean to the American people
when their IRS—the revenue-collecting arm of the U.S. government—is
revealed as a low, ugly and bullying tool of the reigning powers? If
they didn't know how Americans would react to that, what did they know? I
mean beyond Harvey Weinstein's cellphone number. And why—in the matters of the Associated Press and Benghazi too—does
no one in this administration ever take responsibility? Attorney General
Eric Holder doesn't know what happened, exactly who did what. The
president speaks in the passive voice. He attempts to act out
indignation, but he always seems indignant at only one thing: that he's
being questioned at all. That he has to address this. That fate put it
on his plate. We all have our biases. Mine is for a federal government that, for
all the partisan shootouts on the streets of Washington, is allowed to
go about its work. That it not be distracted by scandal, that political
disagreement be, in the end, subsumed to the common good. It is a
dangerous world: Calculating people wish to do us harm. In this world no
draining, unproductive scandals should dominate the government's life.
Independent counsels should not often come in and distract the U.S.
government from its essential business. But that bias does not fit these circumstances. What happened at the IRS is the government's essential
business. The IRS case deserves and calls out for an independent
counsel, fully armed with all that position's powers. Only then will
stables that badly need to be cleaned, be cleaned. Everyone involved in
this abuse of power should pay a price, because if they don't, the
politicization of the IRS will continue—forever. If it is not stopped
now, it will never stop. And if it isn't stopped, no one will ever
respect or have even minimal faith in the revenue-gathering arm of the
U.S. government again. And it would be shameful and shallow for any Republican operative or
operator to make this scandal into a commercial and turn it into a mere
partisan arguing point and part of the game. It's not part of the game.
This is not about the usual partisan slugfest. This is about the
integrity of our system of government and our ability to trust, which is
to say our ability to function. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323582904578487460479247792.html
Government to Spend $146,944 Texting Low-Income People with Depression
The federal government is spending $146,944 in taxpayer funds to research sending automated text messages to people with depression to remind them to take their medication and monitor their mood and thoughts. The text messages will “prompt patients to monitor mood, thoughts and
behaviors.” It will also “provide medication and appointment
reminders,” and send personalized cognitive behavioral therapy based
tips. “Poor adherence to depression treatments (psychotherapy and
pharmacotherapy) limits their effectiveness in community settings.
Problems with adherence are especially pronounced in low-income
settings. Innovative and cost-effective methods are needed to improve
adherence to treatments and maximize mental health resources,” the
project description said. “Mobile phone based text messaging (or short messaging service: SMS)
is a ubiquitous technology that has been used in various health
applications across socioeconomic status. This technology has the
potential to increase the fidelity of mental health treatments via
increased adherence,” it said. “The proposed research project will test whether adding an automated
SMS adjunct to group cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for depression
can increase adherence (homework adherence, attendance, medication
adherence) and further reduce depression symptoms,” it added. The $146,944 grant given to the University of California Berkeley is
made up of $136,059 in direct cost and $10,885 in indirect costs and is
administered by the National Institute of Mental Health. The project starts on May 23, 2012 and ends on Feb. 28, 2017. The
budget start date was March 1, 2013, and the budget end date is Feb. 28,
2014. Phone calls to project leader Adrian Aguilera, assistant professor
for the School of Social Welfare/Work at UC Berkeley, were not returned
by press time. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/government-spend-146944-texting-low-income-people-depression
School Reverses Course on Christian Song Ban
A California elementary school has decided to allow a kindergartner
to perform in an upcoming talent show after the student was initially
banned because the song had Christian lyrics.
Michael Peffer, senior counsel for the Pacific Justice Institute said
the unnamed child had wanted to perform “Our God is Mercy” during a May
23 talent show at Salt Creek Elementary School in Chula Vista, Calif. School officials reportedly turned down the child’s request because
the song has Christian lyrics. The child’s mother contacted the Pacific
Justice Institute for help. “This issue exemplifies the ongoing fear from school administrators
to allow anything even remotely connected to Christianity in the
school,” said PJI president Brad Dacus. “In their attempt to avoid the
wrath of anti-religionists, misguided school officials end up
inadvertently embracing secularism as the school’s official religion.” School district spokesman Anthony Millican told Fox News they were
still looking into the matter – but they’ve decided to allow the child
to sing the song. “We’re not the ones endorsing it or sanctioning it,” Millican said. “It’s the child’s choice.” Millican said they are in the process of writing a letter to the family letting them know of the change. “We are sensitive to religious issues,” he said. We’ve let the administration to allow the child to sing the song. we don’t see a problem with it. issue is being resolved. The song, written by Brenton Brown, includes the following lyrics:
The kingdom of our God is near Lift your eyes, lift your eyes The hope of heaven’s drawing near Lift your eyes, lift your eyes
You’re blessed if you’ve been torn apart You’re blessed if you’ve a broken heart For hope is waiting at the door Salvation’s near Our God is mercy, our God is mercy If your heart is heavy, if your soul is thirsty There is a refuge, a home for the lonely Our God is near, Our God is near Our God is near, Our God is near Lift up your eyes, lift up your eyes Lift up your eyes and sing
Peffer had fired off a letter to the school’s principal urging them to reconsider – citing legal precedent. “Because such censorship on the basis of a student’s religious
beliefs is a violation of his constitutional rights, we write to request
that you immediately allow [the student] to perform his song at the
upcoming talent show,” he wrote. http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/school-reverse-course-on-christian-song-ban.html
British National Archives show a son was born to Obama Sr. in 1961 in Kenya
Records at the British National Archives
(BNA) show that Barack Obama Sr. had a son born in Kenya in 1961 which
is the same year in which the current U.S. president was born. BNA is
an executive agency of the government of the United Kingdom and is an
official archive containing 1,000 years of records and documents. In April 2012, the BNA released files from Britain’s former colony of
Kenya. Reporters found that the name of Barack Obama Sr. is among the
names of Kenyans studying in the United States. A query of the archives
using the search term “Obama” found that an unnamed son was born in
Kenya in 1961. The president's birthday is August 4, 1961. Additionally, subsequent
investigations of his submitted birth certificate showing that he was
born in Hawaii is alleged by forensic experts to be a crude forgery.
According to BNA records, British Protectorate of East Africa
recorded Obama’s birth records before 1963 and sent returns of those
events to Britain’s Public Records Office and the Kew branch of British
National Archives. In a disturbing turn of events, in 2009 Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton made an unexpected visit to the British Foreign and Commonwealth
Office, which oversees public records archives from colonial
protectorates. Several months after Barack Obama was sworn in as
president, Clinton arrived unannounced and spoke with the chief
executive of the archives in early August of 2009. In 2012, CIA director John Brennan was accused of scrubbing evidence on Obama's passport
regarding the latter's travels outside of the United States in the
1980's. Those trips suggested that Obama may not have been a U.S.
citizen during that period and likely used an Indonesian passport. In
February, the Supreme Court declined to grant a hearing to a team of birthers who question Obama's eligibility to serve as president. Hillary Clinton's unexpected visit is fueling speculations that she
removed evidence which suggests that Barack Obama (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro)
may not be eligible to occupy the White House as president. In 2005,
the Russian government held then-U.S. senator Barack Obama
in the airport and accused him of being a British spy. The
embarrassing incident was never reported by media outlets in the United
States. http://www.examiner.com/article/british-records-show-obama-was-born-kenya
Ways and Means Committee on Friday for saying he doesn’t think what the agency did to tea party groups was illegal.
No comments:
Post a Comment