IRS official pleads the Fifth
An IRS technology official at the center of a House investigation into whether he pushed the agency to award contracts worth up to $500 million to an inexperienced company owned by a personal friend pleaded the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify at a House hearing Wednesday.
A House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report Tuesday said Greg Roseman, an IRS deputy director, may have influenced the IRS to award lucrative IT contracts to Strong Castle, Inc.
The same report also said the company had given the Small Business Administration misleading information to win approval so it could obtain set aside contracts, and that its Veterans Affairs awarded status as a so-called service disabled veteran company was based on a nearly three decade old sports injury by its owner.
The House investigation also uncovered numerous text messages between Roseman and Strong Castle’s owner, Braulio Castillo. The company was previously called Signet Computers.
Appearing before the committee, Roseman declined to testify other than giving his title, and he declined to say whether he was still employed by the IRS.
The House report called the relationship between Roseman and Castillo “cozy.”
“Text messages … show that Castillo and Roseman had a long-term friendship that extended well beyond a professional relationship,” the report said, adding that many of the messages were vulgar.
Investigators also found a February 2012 email from Roseman to Castillo in which Roseman provided the name of a supervisory contract specialist at the General Services Administration, where Roseman previously worked, who could help Castillo get a contract on GSA’s Schedule 70, a catalog of governmentwide contracts for information technology products and services. In the email, Roseman told Castillo, “I’ve talked to her and she will look into expediting.”
http://blogs.federaltimes.com/federal-times-blog/2013/06/26/irs-official-pleads-the-fifth/
No, 'Progressive' Groups Weren't Targeted by the IRS Like Conservative Organizations Were
Yesterday's IRS news bulletin was a bit perplexing. It was no real surprise that the agency had used inappropriate 'BOLO' lists more widely and for longer than we'd previously known. Sweeping malfeasance and subsequent dishonesty is par for the course with them at this point. What was intriguing, though, was the apparent revelation that the IRS had also used key words like "progressive" and "occupy" during their screening process. This begged the question, why didn't these facts come to light much earlier? Liberals and the IRS have been eager to tamp down the festering controversy for weeks, all while insisting that the abuse wasn't politically motivated -- a tale few Americans believe. If the wrongful targeting affected both sides of the spectrum, that would have represented solid evidence for the 'innocent incompetence' defense. As I've written previously, pleading ineptitude boosts conservatives' case that the federal government has become too sprawling and unaccountable, but it's still less damaging than leaving a general impression of deliberate partisan malice. Are we to believe that as the latter assumption calcified in the public's imagination, the IRS and its defenders chose not to disclose the other side of the story? Remember, lefty groups had already stated that they weren't targeted, evidence abounds that left-leaning applications sailed through while righty applications languished, the Inspector General's report clearly showed a distinct ideological imbalance, and Stephen Miller conceded under oath that right-leaning groups were exclusively victimized by the practice. The IRS admitted and apologized for their disparate treatment of conservatives, for crying out loud. So why, after all of that, are we finally being informed that liberal groups were ensnared in the scandal, too? National Review's Eliana Johnson cuts through the fog and makes some important distinctions that help illuminate the truth:A November 2010 version of the list obtained by National Review Online, however, suggests that while the list did contain the word “progressive,” screeners were in fact instructed to treat “progressive” groups differently from “tea party” groups. Whereas screeners were merely alerted that a designation of 501(c)(3) status “may not be appropriate” for applications containing the word ”progressive” – 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from conducting any political activities – they were told to send those of tea-party groups off IRS higher-ups for further scrutiny. That means the applications of progressive groups could be approved on the spot by line agents, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were “currently being coordinated with EOT,” which stands for Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive groups were not.
So the terms employed during initial screening processes did include words like "progressive" (although from what we know about the original 'BOLO' lists, they were overwhelmingly skewed toward conservative descriptors), but only conservative applications were marked for additional scrutiny -- including micromanagement from Washington. This abuse led to plainly uneven outcomes along ideological lines, as reported by USA Today:
In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked. That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months. In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows. As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with liberal-sounding names had their applications approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," the liberal groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.
Zero Tea Party conservative groups' applications were approved for more than two years, as dozens of lefty groups were rubber-stamped. Yes, it seems as though the word "progressive" appeared on some of those 'BOLO' lists (see update below), but the screening and approval process went on as usual for those groups. Not so for the other side, against whom Beltway managers directed added scrutiny, onerous follow-up questionnaires, and interminable delays. Also bear in mind two other elements of the IRS scandal: The targeting of conservative donors, and the wildly improper (and illegal) leaking of conservative groups' confidential donor lists to their political adversaries. When liberals can provide evidence that the IRS shipped, say, a private roster of Planned Parenthood's donors to the Susan B. Anthony List, then we'll talk. That's a hypothetical. In reality, the IRS was actually instructing pro-life groups not to picket Planned Parenthood clinics under penalty of law, and inquiring as to the contents of their prayers. Some on the Left are seizing on yesterday's developments as "proof" that conservative "conspiracy theories" have at last been debunked, or whatever. Nice try. Johnson's piece, plus reams of additional evidence, belie that spin. I repeat: The IRS apologized for its wrongful actions against conservative groups. It's not a conspiracy theory if the harmed party elicits an apology from the culprit, based on the culprit's own internal review.
UPDATE - The DC's Patrick Howley points out another significant difference:
The term “progressive” appeared on a heavily redacted November 2010 ”Be On the Lookout” (BOLO) list released this week by Ways and Means Democrats. The term was used to help the IRS identify political activity that “may not be appropriate” among 501(c)(3) charities eligible for tax-deductible contributions. However, the targeting of conservative groups largely focused on applicants for 501(c)(4) “social welfare organization” status, which shields groups from having to disclose their donors. The scrutinized “progressive” applications were not required to be sent to a special IRS unit for additional review — but tea party and conservative applications were subjected to extra scrutiny by 12 different working groups within the IRS. Tea Party groups were also marked for extra scrutiny in the same document...Ways and Means Democrats did not call any progressive victims of IRS targeting at the committee’s hearing on IRS victims. “I do want to note that the minority was given the opportunity to call a witness, but did not present a witness that had been affected by taxpayer activity — by IRS activity. So, that’s why there is no minority witness at the table today,” Camp said at the June 4 Ways and Means hearing, in response to Democratic Rep. Ron Kind’s complaint that no progressive victims were present at the hearing. Camp later said at the hearing that he welcomed potential progressive victims to come forward, but that no progressive groups had done so by June 4.
Committee Democrats now claim the targeting was bipartisan, so there's no "scandal" to see here. If liberal organizations were equally -- or somewhat equally -- swamped with inappropriate questions, hyper scrutiny from IRS headquarters, and massive delays, why couldn't Cummings' brigade produce a single witness to testify to those facts? And were any IRS working groups formed to review liberal organizations' applications? The agency mobilized twelve such units for scrutinizing conservatives.
ACLJ lawsuit against IRS swells to 41 conservative groups
The American Center for Law and Justice Tuesday added 16 additional tea party and conservative groups to their original 25 organization lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service — bringing the number of groups in their court challenge to 41.“The floodgates opened after we filed our initial lawsuit,” ACLJ chief counsel Jay Sekulow said. “We have been contacted by many additional organizations that have been unlawfully targeted by the IRS — revealing that this unconstitutional scheme was pervasive and damaging to our clients.”
ACLJ is arguing that the IRS unfairly targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status for extra scrutiny, delaying applications, making “unconstitutional” requests for information such as donor lists, Internet passwords and user names, copies of social media activities and the political activities of family members.
Of the now 41 groups 19 of the organizations received their tax-exempt status after long delays, 17 are still waiting, and 5 withdrew due to frustration over the process.
ACLJ believes the Obama administration, by targeting these groups violated First and Fifth Amendment of the Constitution as well as the the Administrative Procedure Act, and the rules and regulations governing the IRS. They are seeking injunctive relief to protect their clients from retaliation as well as compensatory and punitive monetary damages.
A pro-life group is among the groups added to the suit today. AMEN (Abortion Must End Now) of Yuma, Arizona received a letter from the IRS in October of 2010 questioning whether their goals to educate about the effects of abortion would be acceptable. The group’s tax-exempt application is still pending.
“Now we have evidence that the IRS is somehow uniquely qualified to make a determination about content and regulate how a pro-life organization can explain its mission and beliefs,” Sekulow said of the IRS’ questions to AMEN. “Imagine the outcry if Planned Parenthood or NARAL was subjected to this abuse. This is another blatant example of an IRS out of control — an agency that embraces unlawful and unconstitutional conduct.”
Another group added to the complaint, the Arlington Tea Party of Arlington, Texas, received an IRS request for a “a temporary Username and Password that we could use to review your organization’s website” as well as print outs of its social media pages, fundraising solicitations, workshop materials, and handouts.
The group applied for tax-exempt status in 2011.They are still waiting for approval.
IRS Spent Taxpayer Money on Porn, Wine, Bathtub Toys, Popcorn Machine and More
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration has released a new report showing abuse and waste of taxpayer dollars on everything from porn and romance novels, to wine and bathtub toys. Bad management and a lack of oversight is being blamed for the transactions.We identified almost $4,000 in improper decorative and give-away items that were approved through the required IRS process. When these improper transactions were presented to IRS management, they did not concur with our assessment that these items were inappropriate. The IRS does not have an oversight process currently in place to identify potentially inappropriate items purchased, such as items purchased for personal use or cardholders who may be abusing the purchase card. This represents a control weakness because it is the CCS Branch’s functional responsibility to identify and refer instances of inappropriate use.And how did IRS employees get away with this?
One woman made 38 transactions totaling $2,655 for what appeared to be personal purchases covered up with fake receipts. Taxpayers paid for her purchases of diet pills, romance novels, steaks and a smartphone, which the report said were falsely categorized as "reference books and office supplies."The House Oversight Committee is holding a hearing today on Capitol Hill about the improper relationship between the IRS and Strong Castle, Inc. Strong Castle received help landing sweetheart contracts and deals from someone inside the IRS.
And the government credit cards of two other employees, one of them still with the IRS, bought pornography online, the inspector general said.
Both of them reported that their cards had been stolen or compromised, which the report said it hadn't been able to verify or discredit — although it noted that one of the cardholders had reported at least five cards as having been lost, stolen or counterfeited, something the report said the IRS might want to consider a red flag in the future.
Keep working America!
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/06/26/irs-spent-taxpayer-money-on-porn-wine-bathtub-toys-popcorn-machine-and-more-n1628021
PK'S NOTE: Remember, climate change is always about CONTROL and furthering the agenda of destroying America's economy.
New Carbon Regulations, at Greater Cost to America
Five years into Obama's presidency, twelve million Americans remain unemployed, ten million others are underemployed, the unemployment rate is rising, and Obama wants to make it worse.In the fourth year of the Reagan presidency, the national economy grew by 6.8%. Last year, under Obama, it was still stuck at 2.2%. That difference is not accidental. It is the result of the contrasting policies of the two administrations. Sadly, the economic destruction of America continues in Obama's second term.
One example of this continuing damage is Obama's determination to fight the phantom of climate change. For the past 15 years, the global climate has been cooling, not warming. And yet Obama, together with his "climate and energy advisor," Heather Zichal, has just announced a costly new initiative to halt global warming.
On Tuesday, Obama announced sweeping new regulations that will effectively block the construction of new coal-fired power plants and force the closure of many if not most existing coal-fired plants as well. With the economy crawling along at 2% GDP growth, this announcement is a disaster for every American (except for those like Ms. Zichal and Mr. Obama, who have spent their entire lives working in government).
Obama's new restrictions on coal-fired power plants will supposedly help to cool the planet. America's carbon emissions have been declining for decades, and yet global carbon emissions have been rising. If emissions cause temperatures to rise, why are temperatures falling?
Even though global emissions continue to rise, U.S. levels are falling rapidly. Having already cut U.S. carbon emissions back to 1992 levels, how much farther back do we have to go? 1950? 1900? How about 1776? The president, who once spoke of the goal of cutting carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, now says that is not good enough.
The only thing more bizarre than a massive initiative to cool the climate when the climate is already cooling is the administration's determination to lower U.S. carbon emissions when emissions have already dropped to 1992 levels. It is estimated that Obama's climate initiative will cost 50,000 jobs in the coal industry alone, not counting ancillary damage to the economy in coal-mining regions and broader damage to the national economy resulting from higher energy costs. And regulation of new and existing coal-fired power plants is only part of the president's broader initiative. Stricter mileage standards for heavy vehicles is another.
Obama also plans to set up a huge new bureaucracy to track carbon emissions across the economy -- an effort that will undoubtedly lead to further executive orders shutting down other industries. Coal is just the beginning.
If the president can direct the EPA to impose industry-killing restrictions on coal, he can do the same for oil and gas. He can cost American manufacturers the lead they now enjoy in heavy vehicle production. He can shut down chemical plants and fertilizer plants. He can impose crippling restrictions on agriculture. He can enact costly new standards on commercial and residential construction. In other words, in the name of carbon emissions, he can seize control of the entire economy. That has been the goal of the left since Karl Marx first dreamed up the "dictatorship of the proletariat." And now we have it in America.
To be sure, nothing that human beings do can will ever "control" the climate. Have human actions in the past ever reduced the number or intensity of tornados or hurricanes? Did human beings cause the warming that began in the mid-19th century and continued until the mid-1990s? If so, what caused the vastly greater alteration in global climate that began with the Little Ice Age in 1250 A.D.? Was it because humans were lighting fewer fires or clearing fewer forests? Or was it a natural alteration in the climate -- the same sort that is taking place today, and that has taken place in every era of the earth's history?
None of this matters to the Obama administration. What Obama seeks, what the left has always sought, is total control of the economy by the state, and "climate change" is a useful pretext. The only way government can control the energy sector -- a sector of the economy traditionally regulated by the states -- is to operate under the pretext of carbon emissions.
The nature of the pretext does not really matter. Whether it is "workers' rights," as it was for Marx and Engels, or "economic recovery," as it was in the 1930s, or climate change, as it is today, the left will always come up with some excuse. What matters for the left is power -- and an end to individual liberty. What the left seeks in its regulation of the energy sector, in other words, is the complete regulation of the individual by government.
As the new regulations pile up, enforced by climate czars like Heather Zichal and EPA Director Gina McCarthy, what liberties do the American people have left? One can no longer speak or write or assemble or pray without being tracked and, if a conservative, targeted by the IRS. One cannot receive medical treatment without government approval. One cannot obtain a mortgage or student loan without government controlling the transaction. One cannot drive to work or heat one's home without Washington deciding how to do it. And now, it seems, one will not be able to purchase electricity produced by a coal-fired power plant.
That does not sound like liberty to me. But that's the way Obama wants it.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/06/new_carbon_regulations_at_greater_cost_to_america.html#ixzz2XKsNXLsM
Things That Will Cost More Under Obama's Climate Change Plan
President Obama doesn’t “have time for a meeting of the flat-Earth society.” And he probably considers you a member if you disagree with him on his crushing regulatory approach to climate change.
The heck of it is, the policies he advocates actually would not help the Earth.
Before Obama’s speech yesterday, Heritage’s Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow, Nicolas Loris, explained the President’s dilemma:
But let’s pretend we were able to stop emitting all carbon immediately. Forget the electricity to cool our homes in the summer months. Shut down the power plants. Stop driving our cars. No talking. The Science and Public Policy Institute found that the global temperature would decrease by 0.17 degrees Celsius—by 2100. These regulations are all pain no gain.That’s what President Obama’s climate change plan would not do.
What President Obama’s climate change plan would do: increase the price of just about everything.
Whether it’s regulating appliances or eliminating coal from the nation’s energy diet, Obama’s plan has the same effect: hiking the cost of living.
Think through your day. Everything you buy, everything you eat, everything you wear… it was all produced using energy. Just a few of the things that will be more expensive under Obama’s plan:
- Heating and cooling your home
- Buying a car and driving—from your work commute to soccer practice and everywhere in between
- Turning on the lights
- Washing and drying clothes
Sure, you may have a gas-powered furnace or oven. But natural gas is powering much more, as Heritage’s Loris, David Kreutzer, and Kevin Dayaratna explain:
Natural gas is not only a critical source of electricity generation; natural gas and other gases extracted from natural gas provide a feedstock for fertilizers, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, waste treatment, food processing, fueling industrial boilers, and much more.From food processing to waste treatment—the entire cycle of life will cost more!
Of course, it doesn’t help that you will also have less income. Forthcoming research from these Heritage experts shows that Obama’s anti-coal policies will cause a family of four to lose more than $1,000 in annual income.
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/26/morning-bell-things-that-will-cost-more-under-obamas-climate-change-plan/?roi=echo3-16080357204-13384451-3d168d462f50243e91fda3b8fbdc2f9c&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
Obama’s Radical Climate Agenda
It
is remarkable that when the scientific consensus on global warming is
at its weakest state in years, President Barack Obama has decided to
make the issue a new focus of his troubled presidency — and, indeed,
that he intends to use the issue as the launching pad for a radical
extension of federal power even more significant than his health-care
takeover.
President Obama campaigned as a man
of science, though he himself has no scientific training. He lambasted
his critics as being anti-science Luddites and even enjoyed an
endorsement from Bill Nye the Science Guy, who allowed his name to be
associated with dishonest and unfair attacks on Republicans. Barack
Obama, of course, is not a science guy. For example, he has flattered
far-left conspiracy theories about common vaccinations, saying, “The
science right now is inconclusive,” which is a position about as
scientifically defensible as claiming that the dinosaurs went extinct
because Fred Flintstone ordered too many bronto-burgers.
Global
warming, contrary to the predictions of the best climate models, is not
accelerating. It is slowing, and some estimates show it having been
reversed. The warmest year on record was 1998, and there has been
significantly less warming in the last 15 years than there was in the 20
years before that. The Economist, which supports measures to
control greenhouse-gas emissions and has been a reliable hotbed of
warming alarmism, conceded: “There’s no way around the fact that this
reprieve for the planet is bad news for proponents of policies, such as
carbon taxes and emissions treaties, meant to slow warming by moderating
the release of greenhouse gases. . . . They will become harder, if not
impossible, to sell to the public, which will feel, not unreasonably,
that the scientific and media establishment has cried wolf.”
If only President Obama simply had cried wolf. Instead, the president
announced that, on behalf of “all of humankind,” he is in effect
directing the EPA to take over the American economy. New power plants
will be subject to emissions controls, and existing plants will have to
be retrofitted to comply with new standards. New restrictions on heavy
trucks will affect the movement of freight and goods across the country.
New subsidies will be handed down for politically connected energy
firms, and federal lands will be set aside for their use. New federal
impositions will affect the construction of factories, commercial
buildings, and private homes. The president says that this is all
enabled by the “overwhelming judgment of science.”
It certainly has not been enabled by something so
mundane as the law. We rather suspect that the overwhelming judgment of
Congress would be against the president’s program of regimenting the
entire American economy under the management of a newly empowered EPA.
But the president has made it clear that he intends to act largely
through administrative fiat, subverting the democratic process and the
people’s elected representatives. Unhappily, the Supreme Court has
abetted this ambition by misconstruing the Clean Air Act as a warrant of
action on global warming.
Every economic activity
involving energy or transportation — which is to say, every economic
activity — will be affected by the president’s global-warming program.
Consider
the president’s thinking: While the value of vaccinations is undisputed
among scientists, he believes that it requires more research, because
people who are prone to lunatic theories about vaccines vote Democratic.
But when it comes to the climate, he acts not only as though there were
no scientific questions in dispute but as though capital-S Science had
corporately blessed his policy agenda. Even if the scientific consensus
on global warming had not been weakened by the past 15 years’ worth of
data, the policies the president proposes would not necessarily
logically follow from that consensus. Limits on greenhouse gases in the
United States are likely to have no effect at all on the atmosphere of a
planet that includes China, India, and their factories and people. Even
the most radical changes in the United States would likely have a
negligible effect on climate change, which is if nothing else a global
phenomenon by definition. Even if we had absolute scientific certainty,
we would also have another kind of certainty: that China and India, and
many other countries, are not going to radically reduce their peoples’
standards of living to accommodate Barack Obama’s policy preferences.
But the science is not there, either. Even our friends at The New Republic
admit as much, writing of the warming slowdown: “Scientists themselves
aren’t entirely sure what the evidence means. If scientific models can’t
project the last 15 years, what does that mean for their projections of
the next 100?” Uncertainty about the amount of warming over the next
century entails uncertainty about the size, character, and cost of its
effects. But the next century is not what Democrats are thinking about:
They are thinking about 2014 and 2016.
But there are immediate concerns, too. Most significant, the president
telegraphed his intention to torpedo the Keystone XL pipeline project,
which has long been ready to go but has been snarled up by politics. President Obama has offered any number of excuses for not approving the
project, and his newest one is that the pipeline and the energy it
contributes to the economy must not “significantly exacerbate” the
emissions of greenhouse gases, which the president likes to call “carbon
pollution.” That term is itself an attempt to confuse the debate: It
refers not to traditional kinds of pollution such as carbon monoxide,
the stuff that comes out of your exhaust pipe, but to carbon dioxide,
the stuff that comes out of your nose.
In any case, the State Department long ago concluded
that the pipeline would not be a significant new contributor to
greenhouse-gas emissions, which should suggest a speedy approval. (We
are not inclined to take Obama’s State Department at its word, but that
is no reason the president shouldn’t.) Instead, what this likely
presages is another round of dilatory studies designed to hold the
project hostage while Democrats studiously avoid annoying their small
but generous environmental-extremist constituency.
The
United States is poised for an energy renaissance, which is already
under way in places such as Texas and Pennsylvania. The new energy
economy stands ready not only to put millions of Americans to work and
bring billions of dollars of new wealth into the economy but also to
significantly change the balance of power in the world: Oil is the top
contributor to our trade deficit, and energy supplies from the Middle
East, Venezuela, and other unstable areas are a key security and
economic vulnerability. Rather than develop what we already have, the
Obama administration is threatening to hamstring our most likely source
of economic growth and new jobs for the coming generation in the hopes
that fads such as solar power will pay off. That is not justified by
science, by economics, or by sensible policy analysis.
What it is, in fact, is an attempt by a foundering administration to change the subject from scandal to sunshine.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/352025/obamas-radical-climate-agenda-editors
Obama mocks skeptics of climate change as ‘flat-Earth society’
President Obama angrily blasted climate change skeptics during his energy policy speech Tuesday at Georgetown University, saying he lacked "patience for anyone who denies that this problem is real.""We don't have time for a meeting of the flat-Earth society," Obama said. "Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it's not going to protect you from the coming storm."
Earlier in his remarks, Obama said the "overwhelming judgement of science, of chemistry, of physics, and millions of measurements" put "to rest" questions about pollution affecting the environment.
"The planet is warming. Human activity is contributing to it," Obama said.
"We know that the costs of these events can be measured in lost lives and lost livelihoods."
The president noted that the 12 warmest years in recorded history have all come within the last 15 years, and said that rising temperatures were increasing the severity and impact of storms.
He noted that rising tide levels in New York increased the impact of Hurricane Sandy, while record temperatures killed crops and increased food prices in the Midwest.
“In a world that's warmer than it used to be, all weather events are affected by the warming planet,” Obama said.
"Those who are feeling the effects of climate change don't have time to deny it — they're busy dealing with it."
At the event, the president announced a timeline for setting new environmental regulations that will limit how much carbon pollution can be emitted from both new and existing power plants. The White House is directing the Environmental Protection Agency to write draft rules on carbon emissions from existing power plants within the next year, with the expectation they will be completed by June 2015.
Obama also said the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline should only be approved if the project would not “significantly exacerbate” greenhouse gas pollution.
Radical Muslim Cleric honored with White House meeting
Schoolchildren may still be unable to visit the White House, but radical Muslim cleric Sheik Abdullah Bin Bayyah
was welcomed and attended a June 13 meeting with National Security
Advisor Tom Donilon and White House communications director Jennifer
Palmieri.
Steven Emerson and John Rossomando of The Investigative Project on Terrorism, who broke the story of the meeting, explain who Bayyah is:
Bin Bayyah's boss Qaradawi:
According to Bin Bayyah's website, it was the White House which asked for the meeting:
Here is a picture of the meeting from Bin Bayyah's website:
Patrick Poole notes at The PJM Tatler that this meeting was brewing for quite some time:
The White House has a lot of explaining ahead on this outrageous honor accorded Bin Bayyah. Without the work of the IPT, we would not have known of it.
Steven Emerson and John Rossomando of The Investigative Project on Terrorism, who broke the story of the meeting, explain who Bayyah is:
Bin Bayyah is vice president of the International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS), a group founded by and headed by Qaradawi. The IUMS has a long history of supporting Hamas -a top Hamas leader is an IUMS member - and of calling for Israel's destruction.
Bin Bayyah's boss Qaradawi:
Radical Egyptian cleric Yusuf Qaradawi is considered so radical that the United States bans him from entering the country.
Qaradawi, considered the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, has called for the killing of Jews andAmericans.
That history makes the June 13 White House meeting with Sheik Abdullah Bin Bayyahall the more inexplicable.
According to Bin Bayyah's website, it was the White House which asked for the meeting:
"We asked for this meeting to learn from you and we need to be looking for new mechanisms to communicate with you and the Association of Muslim Scholars (another name used for the IUMS)," Gayle Smith, senior director of the National Security Council, reportedly said.
Bin Bayyah's June 13 account placed other senior officials in the meeting, including:Rashad Hussain, the U.S. special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and White House spokeswomanJennifer Palmieri. But the account was later changed to delete the reference to Donilon's presence at the meeting.
Here is a picture of the meeting from Bin Bayyah's website:
Patrick Poole notes at The PJM Tatler that this meeting was brewing for quite some time:
Obama's OIC envoy Rashad Hussain and other top Islamic advisers to the president, including ISNA president Mohamed Magid, traveled to Mauritania last year (where slavery is still openly practiced) to confer with bin Bayyah.
What's even more remarkable about bin Bayyah's White House reception is that he was one of the clerics endorsing a IUMS fatwa in November 2004 authorizing the killing of Americans in Iraq. Bin Bayyah was vice president of the organizationat the time. The IUMS fatwa was even promoted on the official Iraqi resistance website.
More recently, bin Bayyah capitalized on the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi last September to appeal to Western governments to criminalize defamation of Islam (a call seconded by some U.S. Islamic organizations), as the administration began pushing the bogus "YouTube video" justification for the attack:
We are extremely concerned with a small active minority in your countries that seeks to perpetuate a state of conflict and war.
We estimate that such objectives do not serve the general interest. Therefore, it is our hope that you reconsider and criminalize the denigration of religious symbols, as such provocations do not serve the principles of free speech, principles that you and us both seek to uphold.
The White House has a lot of explaining ahead on this outrageous honor accorded Bin Bayyah. Without the work of the IPT, we would not have known of it.
Eye on the ball: Washington authorities crack down on guy planting unauthorized flowers
We’ve talked about the Washington, D.C. Metro system’s multitude of management, accountability, safety, and general performance problems before.With those problems nowhere close to solved, Metro is keeping its priorities straight:
Quirky garden artist Henry Docter has been surreptitiously planting flowers in public places on four continents since 1979. His unauthorized beautification efforts have frequently aroused surprise and delight — but never a problem until this month, when he ran afoul of Washington’s Metro transit system.
Metro threatened Docter with “arrest, fines and imprisonment” if he dared to weed, water or otherwise tend to more than 1,000 morning glories and other flowers whose seeds he planted in 176 barren flower boxes alongside the top stretch of the north escalators at the Dupont Circle station.Metro claims, as the city does in overreaches from silly to abusive to lucractive, that it’s all about safety. The empty flower boxes the city has abandoned are on a steep incline down which Docter might fall, you see. Docter has said he’ll sign a waiver or wear a harness, but no dice. He’s never been clamped down on until now.
“I’ve never gotten in trouble for planting flowers,” Docter, 52, said last week. “Never has anyone overreacted with such an absence of common sense.”
Docter spoke in the first interview in which he openly discussed 34 years of clandestine horticulture. The District resident estimated that he’s planted more than 40,000 flowers in spots ranging from the Israeli Embassy and Navy Memorial in the District to faraway locales, including Argentina, Spain and Cambodia.
He has newspaper clips to support his account. The Israeli Embassy acknowledged that it has tolerated his plantings in security barriers on the street for four years.Sure, it’s not Docter’s private property, and Metro’s entitled to throw a fit I guess, but a taxpayer planting flowers in the flower beds you haven’t bothered to fill seems close enough to a free public works project we should be able to let it go. Is the objection that the city would rather pay thousands of dollars to do a no doubt crappier job keeping up these flower beds? If nothing else, I love it when a quirky performance artist type clashes with overbearing nanny staters in a neighborhood that may have trouble picking a side. What will you do, Dupont?! Are you going to let this “if it can save one sprained ankle” rationale allow the state to protect us from the dangerous knit bombs and public guerilla art that make yours a community of artistic dialogue and creativity? Fight the power. Teachable moment. There are signs they’re rallying behind Docter.
Note how the government discourages good-faith efforts be honest about one’s intentions and views action by private citizens as sorta fundamentally suspicious:
Ironically, Metro wouldn’t have known about Docter’s act if he hadn’t sent it a polite letter June 3 describing how he’d planted the flowers a week earlier. His letter said he’d like to continue caring for them.
“In retrospect, it was a mistake to ask for permission,” Docter said last week. “After I planted the seeds, they sprouted very quickly. I kind of panicked and got concerned they would interpret it as a weed and destroy it.”
It’s clear that Metro wasn’t paying much attention. In October, Docter planted 150 daffodils and tulips in the same boxes. After they bloomed and died, he pruned the spent flowers and turned down and secured the leaves for future vitality.
Metro spokesman Dan Stessel said that round of gardening apparently slipped under the radar. “It’s sort of beyond the scope of what you would imagine some private citizen would do,” he said.Moving onto a national story of petty tyrants and misguided policies squelching creativity. This time, it’s a successful business run by an entrepreneur mom that’s in the crosshairs. Meet Rhea Lana Riner, founder of a children’s consignment clothing business with an innovative model that’s run afoul of some 1938 Labor Department rules. Her events end up looking like streamlined, modernized garage sales that cut down on work and increase profits for parents (they get 70 percent), who are therefore willing to volunteer running the events in exchange. Think a yard sale with a splash of eBay and a dash of crowdsourced disruption. Too disruptive, say labor bureaucrats:
What started as a small family business operating out of our home has grown to 22 states. Now, though, it might all turn out to be illegal, thanks to the bureaucratic thinking of the Department of Labor…
A big part of our success are the hundreds of parents — both consignors and shoppers — who voluntarily work brief shifts to help set up before the sale starts. In exchange, these parents get to shop first with more choices and better merchandise.
In January, though, the Department of Labor noticed all this cooperation going on. Months later, investigators concluded that volunteers are “employees” under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
This means paying the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, filling out IRS paperwork and complying with who-knows-what other rules. And all for a pop-up business that lasts days.Times are tough and the economy is changing. People who forge new ways of doing business are more necessary than ever. This is a business that serves moms and dads trying to raise families in tight times in a cool, new way, giving them an opportunity to make more money with less work than they might spending an entire Saturday running a yard sale. And, we’re just going to bury that innovation and those parents under a mountain of paperwork, thereby disabling the business model and destroying the exact reason parents like it enough that it’s expanded to 22 states? Brilliant.
Liner offers a funny comparison:
I’ve offered regular parents the same opportunities that eBay gives independent resellers. When I do it in the real world to recycle used clothes, the Department of Labor says no way. That’s bunk. My volunteers are not employees or independent contractors. They’re customers.“I’m gonna need a W-9 before you can take Mrs. Honeypaw home. I’m a beary overbearing bearucrat!”
By this dreadful logic, Build-a-Bear Workshop employs child labor when it lets its young customers assemble their own teddy bears.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/25/eye-on-the-ball-washington-authorities-crack-down-on-guy-planting-unauthorized-flowers/
No comments:
Post a Comment