Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on May 16, 2013, 08:00:28 AM
-
EPA makes information requests more difficult for conservatives
Posted By Michael Bastasch On 11:20 AM 05/14/2013 In Daily Caller News Foundation | No Comments
The IRS may not be the only federal agency singling out conservative groups. Records suggest that the Environmental Protection Agency has made it easier for environmental groups to file Freedom of Information Act requests than conservative organizations.
According to EPA records obtained by the free market Competitive Enterprise Institute, since January 2012 the agency has granted fee waivers for 75 out of 82 Freedom of Information Act requests sent by major environmental groups, denying only seven of them — meaning green groups saw their fees waived 92 percent of the time.
At the same time, the EPA frequently denied fee waivers to conservative groups. EPA records show that the agency rejected or ignored 21 out of 26 fee waiver requests from such conservative groups as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Institute for Energy Research, and Judicial Watch — an 81 percent rejection rate.
Fees vary based on how many documents are requested, what medium they are requested in and how much government research is involved.
“This is as clear an example of disparate treatment as the IRS hurdles selectively imposed upon groups with names ominously reflecting an interest in, say, a less intrusive or biased federal government,” said CEI senior fellow Chris Horner, author of “The Liberal War on Transparency.”
Horner described the EPA’s actions as “a clear pattern of favoritism for allied groups and “a concerted campaign to make life more difficult for those deemed unfriendly.”
The Competitive Enterprise Institute has filed 15 fee waiver requests with the EPA since January 2012, but 10 of them have been denied by the agency and only one was granted. CEI won a lawsuit over their FOIA request regarding former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s alias email account, and the EPA ignored three other requests.
The Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity had both of its fee waiver requests denied, and the Institute for Energy Research had its only fee waiver request denied. The watchdog group Judicial Watch had two of four fee waivers denied, as did the National Center for Public Policy Research.
However, environmental groups were much more successful in getting the agency to cooperate. The Natural Resources Defense Council made 20 fee waiver requests, had 19 granted, and one denied; EarthJustice made 19 requests, had 17 granted, and two denied; the Sierra Club made 15 requests, had four granted and four denied, and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility had all 17 of its requests granted.
The Waterkeeper Alliance had all three fee waiver requests granted, the Southern Environmental Law Center had both of its requests granted, the Center for Biological Diversity had all four of its requests granted and Greenpeace had both of its fee waiver requests granted.
The fee waivers to environmental groups were also granted on the “initial determination” stage, meaning these green groups did not have to appeal for fee waivers. However, Horner said he had to fight many fee waiver denials, all of which were overturned on appeal.
“Their practice is to take care of their friends and impose ridiculous obstacles to deny problematic parties’ requests for information,” Horner said.
Many of these environmental groups also regularly sue the EPA in what are called “sue and settle” lawsuits. This occurs when the EPA quickly settles a lawsuit with an outside group — frequently environmental organizations — and then is forced by a court order to promulgate new regulations.
Among the groups that frequently sue the EPA are the Sierra Club, NRDC, and the Center for Biological Diversity. Many of these settlements also result in taxpayers paying for the attorneys’ fees of environmental groups.
Republicans have criticized the EPA for settling with environmental groups because it results in less public scrutiny over rule-making. Others critics charge that it is a way for the agency to collude with environmental groups, giving activists the policy outcomes they originally wanted.
“Sue-and-settle litigation damages the transparency, public participation and judicial review protections Congress has guaranteed for all of our citizens in the rulemaking process,” said Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley. “And, it’s a tremendous burden on job-creating businesses, especially small businesses.”
The EPA did not respond to a request for comment.
Follow Michael on Twitter
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com
URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/epa-makes-information-requests-more-difficult-for-conservatives/
-
Obama dreams of ‘going Bulworth,’ New York Times reports
Yahoo News ^ | 16 May 2013 | Olivier Knox,
Posted on Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:20:19 AM by mandaladon
President Barack Obama—exasperated by scandals, a seemingly stalled domestic agenda and armchair chiefs of staff in the media—wants to tell you what he really thinks, Washington. Really let you have it. In fact, he’s so frustrated with all of the inside-the-Beltway BS that he might hire an assassin to target him in a couple of days, but not before he’s really ripped politicians (especially Democrats), denounced the outsized weight of money in elections and used “socialism” as a rallying cry against health insurance companies. Wait, what? The New York Times reported on Thursday that Obama "has talked longingly of ‘going Bulworth,’ a reference to a little-remembered 1998 Warren Beatty movie about a senator who risked it all to say what he really thought." “Probably every president says that from time to time,” the Times quoted longtime Obama adviser David Axelrod as saying. ''It's probably cathartic just to say it. But the reality is that while you want to be truthful, you want to be straightforward, you also want to be practical about whatever you're saying.'' The Times' description of the movie is a bit antiseptic. Bulworth, a disillusioned veteran Democratic senator from California facing a tough primary, takes out a rich life insurance policy on himself, with his daughter as beneficiary, and hires an assassin to kill him in a few days' time. Thinking he's going to die, Bulworth decides he has nothing to lose and hits the campaign trail skewering the state of politics—and notably the Democratic Party and race relations.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
LMFAO!!!!!
HA HA HA HA!!!!!
OTWINK is more like Bullwinkle and Bullworth
-
:o
-
http://weaselzippers.us/2013/05/16/pelosi-irs-and-ap-scandals-are-subterfuges-republicans-fear-a-visionary-obama-because-hes-such-a-great-president
LMFAO!!!!!
HA HA HA HA!!!
-
33, even YOU yourself have said obama won't be impeached over this.
in that case, all repubs are doing is making it easier for hilary to contrast herself for a 2016 run. Mccain couldn't shit on Bush while running in 2008 - hilary will have plenty to criticize him for.
I dont understand repubs - they're having a circle jerk, but don't want to bust a nut? They are all dancing at these obama crimes, but don't want to impeach? WTF?
-
33, even YOU yourself have said obama won't be impeached over this.
in that case, all repubs are doing is making it easier for hilary to contrast herself for a 2016 run. Mccain couldn't shit on Bush while running in 2008 - hilary will have plenty to criticize him for.
I dont understand repubs - they're having a circle jerk, but don't want to bust a nut? They are all dancing at these obama crimes, but don't want to impeach? WTF?
I dont know - im just relishing and enjoying obama crashing and burning like you cant belive
Scandalpalooza is giving me much laughs right now
-
VDH: It's 1973 All Over Again
Townhall ^ | May 16, 2013 | Victor Davis Hanson
Posted on Thursday, May 16, 2013 12:27:18 PM by 2ndDivisionVet
In Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, he ran to the left of Hillary Clinton as a moral reformer. Obama promised to transcend the old politics and bring a new era of hope-and-change transparency to Washington. Five years later, those vows are in shambles.
True, the murder of four Americans in Benghazi has become a mess of partisan bickering. But the disturbing facts now transcend politics. The Obama administration -- the president himself, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney -- all at various times blamed an obscure video maker for the "spontaneous violence" that killed Americans last September.
The problem is not just that such scapegoating was untrue, but that our officials knew it was untrue when they said it -- given both prior CIA talking-point briefings and phone calls from those on the ground during the attacks.
One theme ties all the bizarre aspects of Benghazi scandal together -- the doctored talking points, the inexplicable failure to beef up diplomatic security before the attacks and to send in help during the fighting, the jailing of a petty con artist on the false charge that his amateur video had led to attacks on our consulate, and the shabby treatment of nonpartisan State Department whistleblowers.
There was an overarching pre-election desire last year to downplay any notion that al-Qaeda remained a serious danger after the much ballyhooed killing of Osama bin Laden. Likewise, Libya was not supposed to be a radical Islamic mess after the successful "lead from behind" removal of Muammar Gadhafi. Facts then had to change to fit a campaign narrative.
As the congressional hearings on Benghazi were taking place last week, we also learned that the IRS, administered by the Department of the Treasury...
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
-
33, even YOU yourself have said obama won't be impeached over this.
in that case, all repubs are doing is making it easier for hilary to contrast herself for a 2016 run. Mccain couldn't shit on Bush while running in 2008 - hilary will have plenty to criticize him for.
I dont understand repubs - they're having a circle jerk, but don't want to bust a nut? They are all dancing at these obama crimes, but don't want to impeach? WTF?
They don't want it to come back and bite them in the ass. They didn't fair well after the lewinsky debacle. A lot of these Rep have a lot to answer for themselves
-
First on CNN: Witness protection program lost two former "known or suspected terrorists"
This has been updated.
By Jake Tapper, CNN Chief Washington Correspondent
The U.S. Marshal Service had been “unable to locate” two former participants in the federal Witness Security Program “identified as known or suspected terrorists,” states the public summary of an interim Justice Department Inspector General’s report obtained by CNN.
The Marshals have concluded that “one individual was and the other individual was believed to be residing outside of the United States.”
Read the public summary here.
The news comes from an audit of the Witness Security Program by the IG’s office, which states that “the Department did not definitively know how many known or suspected terrorists were admitted into the WITSEC program,” among other “significant issues concerning national security.” The report makes 16 recommendations.
The “Interim Report on the Department of Justice’s Handling of Known or Suspected Terrorists Admitted Into the Federal Witness Security Program” notes that while in the midst of an audit of the WITSEC program, the Inspector General felt the need to notify the Justice Department of national security vulnerabilities, and the IG’s office “developed the interim report to help ensure that the Department promptly and sufficiently addressed the deficiencies we found.”
The news comes in the midst of a week of horrible news for the Obama administration, with revelations that the Justice Department secretly collected months of phone records for reporters and editors at The Associated Press; renewed speculation over the White House’s response to the Benghazi attack; and revelations that the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups.
The Justice Department issued a statement, saying, "The number of former known or suspected terrorists ever admitted into the WitSec Program represents a fraction of one percent of the total WitSec population, and the vast majority were admitted into the program prior to Sept. 11, 2001.
"To date, the FBI has not identified a national security threat tied to the participation of terrorism-linked witnesses in the WitSec program."
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/16/first-on-cnn-witness-protection-program-lost-two-former-known-or-suspected-terrorists/?hpt=hp_t2
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325606/During-Rose-Garden-press-conference-Obama-refuses-apologize-secretly-seizing-AP-phone-records-shifts-blame-Congress-Benghazi-security-lapses-dodges-question-White-House-IRS-knowledge.html
LOL!!!
He lied his frigging ass off countless times today.
-
They don't want it to come back and bite them in the ass. They didn't fair well after the lewinsky debacle. A lot of these Rep have a lot to answer for themselves
oh, like voter backlash? You may be right. SO they're scared to impeach, even if obama broke the law repeatedly and deserves it.
So at the end of the day -
333386 will laugh hysterically, getbig will pwn obama over and over
Issa will not prosecute and there will be no obama
Hilary will remain frontrunner and probably win in 2016
Obama will retire a 100x millionaire.
All Obama policies will remain in place, but he'll be "pWn3t" on the forums.
Sound about right?
-
Second appeals court invalidates Obama's NLRB recess appointments
87
278
By TAL KOPAN |
5/16/13 12:10 PM EDT
A second appeals court has joined the D.C. Circuit in ruling that President Barack Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional, concluding that some board actions taken in the wake of those appointments were also invalid.
The issue has far-reaching implications for both the NLRB and other boards, including Obama’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has been a frequent target of conservatives and whose director was a recess appointment.
The 2-1 decision Thursday from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (posted here) found that the presidential recess appointment power is limited to breaks between sessions of Congress, not breaks within sessions or other adjournments during which the Senate might meet in pro forma sessions. The reasoning mirrors that in a ruling of the D.C. Circuit Court in January.
(Also on POLITICO: Obama tries to stop the bleeding)
The 3rd Circuit case centered on decisions the NLRB made on the authority of three members including Craig Becker, who was appointed by the president on March 27, 2010, while the Senate was adjourned for two weeks.
The case was brought by a New Jersey nursing and rehabilitation center whose nurses were allowed to form a union by one such NLRB decision. The facility, New Vista, contended that the board’s decision was invalid because it did not have enough members active when the decision was issued because the naming of Becker to the board was not a valid recess appointment.
The NLRB must have three members participate in a decision for it to be valid, and the court found that because Becker was not appointed during a break between sessions of Congress, he was not a valid member of the board and thus invalidated the NLRB’s orders.
The opinion, written by Judge D. Brooks Smith, said the recess clause of the Constitution should be read not just to give the president executive power, but also to preserve the “advice and consent” role of the Senate.
In his dissent, Judge Joseph. A Greenaway Jr. said the majority’s reading of the clause was needlessly narrow and ignored the Founding Fathers' intent to give the president the ability to act when the Senate is not available to “advise and consent.”
The administration late last month petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the D.C. Circuit Court’s ruling on the issue.
The decision comes the same day that the Senate Help Subcommittee held a hearing on five nominations to the NLRB. Sen. Tom Harkin said they nominations would be moved next Wednesday.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/05/second-appeals-court-invalidates-obamas-nlrb-recess-164150.html
-
Obama Got Asked About Comparisons To Richard Nixon During His Press Conference
Brett LoGiurato|May 16, 2013, 2:00 PM|1,000|13
President Barack Obama would not engage a reporter who asked him about comparisons to Richard Nixon over the Department of Justice's recent obtaining of phone records from Associated Press journalists.
"How do you feel about comparisons by some of your critics of this week's scandals to those that happened under the Nixon administration?" the reporter asked at Obama's joint press conference with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
"Well, I'll let you guys engage in those comparisons," Obama said, smirking. "You can go ahead and read the history, I think, and draw your own conclusions.
"My concern is making sure that if there's a problem in the government, that we fix it. That's my responsibility. And that's what we're going to do."
On the Department of Justice's obtaining of phone records, Obama said he wouldn't comment on the specific case. Broadly, he said he would not apologize for leak investigations with a clear tie to national security.
"I make no apologies and I don't think the American people would expect me not to be concerned," Obama said.
Watch the clip below, courtesy of the Washington Free Beacon:
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-nixon-comparisons-irs-ap-phone-press-conference-2013-5#ixzz2TULqhhAD
-
Obama breaches Marine umbrella protocol
4:28 PM 05/16/2013
inShare.
Mike Piccione
Editor, Guns & Gear See All Articles
Email Mike Piccione
Subscribe to RSS
Bio
Ads by Google
0
inShare.
0
The commander in chief of the American armed forces today forced a violation of Marine Corps regulations, so he wouldn’t get wet.
According to Marine Corps regulation MCO P1020.34F of the Marine Corps Uniform Regulations chapter 3, a male Marine is not allowed to carry an umbrella while in uniform. There is no provision in the Marine Corps uniform regulation guidelines that allows a male Marine to carrying an umbrella.
Nevertheless, during a press conference under a light drizzle with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan this morning, President Obama allowed the First Head to be protected from the elements by an umbrella held by a male Marine corporal.
Ads by Google
The relevant portion of the regulation reads, “3035. UMBRELLAS (Female Marines). Female Marines may carry an all-black, plain standard or collapsible umbrella at their option during inclement weather with the service and dress uniforms. It will be carried in the left hand so that the hand salute can be properly rendered. Umbrellas may not be used/carried in formation nor will they be carried with the utility uniform.”
Items not expressly delineated as authorized components of the Marine Corps uniform are prohibited. Male Marines are informed never to carry an umbrella from the earliest phases of training.
Not even the President of the United States can request a Marine to carry an umbrella without the express consent of the Commandant of the Marine Corps, according the Marine Corps Manual.
The Marine Corps Manual, the guidebook that defines protocol for officers and enlisted Marines, in section 2806 paragraph 2, specifically states “The Marine Corps Uniform Regulations, published by the Commandant of the Marine Corps, shall be binding on all Marines. No officer or official shall issue instructions which conflict with, alter, or amend any provision without the approval of the Commandant of the Marine Corps.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/16/obama-breaches-marine-umbrella-protocol/#ixzz2TUXU5Z5L
-
CARNEY TO PIERS: THE THREE GOVERNMENT SCANDALS THIS WEEK ‘DON’T EXIST’
The Blaze ^ | 5-16-2013 | Eddie Scarry
Posted on May 16, 2013 10:47:06 PM EDT by smoothsailing
CARNEY TO PIERS: THE THREE GOVERNMENT SCANDALS THIS WEEK ‘DON’T EXIST’
Eddie Scarry
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.” ...
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
-
Barack Obama's Presidency Is Imploding
Nile Gardiner, The Daily Telegraph |May 17, 2013, 5:05 AM|1,579|14
White House
This has been a nightmare week for Barack Obama, without a doubt the worst of his presidency so far. Steven T. Miller, acting commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service has resigned over his agency’s targeting of conservative groups, which even The Washington Post labeled this morning a “horror story”. Yesterday Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the House Judiciary Committee on a host of issues including the Benghazi debacle, in what can only be described as a train wreck of a performance. Holder was simply unable or unwilling to answer most key questions, and demonstrated a level of contempt for elected officials in Congress that was breathtaking. It was yet another public relations disaster for the Obama team.
In addition the administration has come under heavy fire over the Justice Department’s monitoring of phone records belonging to Associated Press journalists. All this has combined to create a perfect storm in the first year of Obama’s second term, a wave of scandals that has been so damaging to the standing of this administration that even The New York Times today carries the headline on its front page: “An Onset of Woes Raises Questions on Obama Vision”. When even the usually subservient inflight newspaper of Air Force One has doubts over the job the president is doing you know the situation is really desperate for The White House.
George F. Will, one of America’s most influential political commentators, and a columnist for The Washington Post, believes there are “echoes of Watergate” in both the IRS and Benghazi scandals. As Will wrote earlier this week:
The burglary occurred in 1972, the climax came in 1974, but40 years ago this week — May 17, 1973 — the Senate Watergate hearings began exploring the nature of Richard Nixon’s administration. Now the nature of Barack Obama’s administration is being clarified as revelations about IRS targeting of conservative groups merge with myriad Benghazi mendacities.
Will doesn’t go as far as saying that Barack Obama will suffer the same fate as Nixon. After all, Obama benefits from a Senate controlled by the Democrats. But there is no denying the parallels between the sense of impunity in this White House and that of Richard Nixon’s four decades ago. In fact it’s considerably worse on many fronts.
Political analyst Michael Barone warned back in October 2008 of what he called “The Coming Liberal Thugocracy,” referring to then Senator Obama’s call for his supporters “to get in their face” when confronting Republicans and Independents. Barone argued at the time that “Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Mr. Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech they don’t like and seem utterly oblivious to claims this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment.”
Barone’s predictions have been proved correct. As I’ve noted in previous pieces, this is a nasty, brutish, imperial-style presidency that is highly intolerant of dissent, and which goes out of its way to target political opponents. It is ironic that one of the journalists threatened by the Obama White House in recent months has been Bob Woodward, one of two Washington Post reporters who originally broke the Watergate scandal, and who was immortalised in the 1976 Oscar winner All The President’s Men, where he was played by Robert Redford. Woodward was warned back in February by White House economic adviser Gene Sperling that he would “regret” remarks he made on the sequester issue. Other writers, including Bill Clinton’s former special counsel Lanny Davis, have faced similar threats.
Is it any surprise that conservative groups have been targeted en masse by the federal government following the kind of deeply unpleasant rhetoric used by Vice President Joe Biden, who supported the charge by Democrat Congressman Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania that Tea Party Republicans had “acted like terrorists” over the debt issue? Biden has been a master of this kind of divisive, heated language, telling union members at an AFL-CIO rally in Detroit in September 2011 that “you are the only folks keeping the barbarians from the gates.” At the same rally, Teamsters president Jimmy Hoffa declared: "President Obama, this is your army, and we are ready to march. Everybody here’s got a vote. If we go back, and we keep the eye on the prize, let’s take these son of a bitches out and give America back to America where we belong.” Needless to say, President Obama remained silent on both the Biden and Hoffa remarks, and in the following year called on his supporters to take “revenge” against Republicans at the ballot box.
This week, thanks to unprecedented levels of Congressional and mainstream media scrutiny of the actions of the Obama administration, the American people have been given a powerful insight into the way in which this presidency has operated. For far too long, the Obama administration has acted like an imperial court rather than a government that is accountable to the nation. The White House’s culture of arrogance and impunity, coupled with a deeply unpleasant vindictiveness, is increasingly there for all to see. Suppression of political dissent, a callous disregard for the loss of American life in Benghazi, and the relentless rise of big government – these will be three of the most of enduring images of Barack Obama’s imperial presidency.
Read more by Nile Gardiner on Telegraph Blogs
Follow Telegraph Blogs on Twitter
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/barack-obamas-presidency-is-imploding-2013-5#ixzz2TY3q96VJ
-
This Is No Ordinary Scandal 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.
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, Facebook FB -1.80%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.
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.
Peggy Noonan's Blog
Daily declarations from the Wall Street Journal columnist.
.
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.
-
Another Obama administration scandal is brewing
May 15, 2013 by Michael Dorstewitz 5 Comments
Just when we thought it was safe to turn the news on again, a new scandal is brewing in the Obama administration, this one involving the Environmental Protection Agency. It has every possibility of being as big as the IRS scandal, because just like that one, it centers on administration officials playing favorites.
Photo credit www.npr.org
At issue is the waiver of fees for Freedom of Information Act, commonly called FOIA, requests. FOIA fees are supposed to be summarily waived in all instances where the information will be released to the general public, such as the press and government watchdog groups.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute reviewed FOIA requests received by the EPA from January 2012 to the spring of 2013, according to The Washington Examiner and the results were startling.
“This is as clear an example of disparate treatment as the IRS’ hurdles selectively imposed upon groups with names ominously reflecting an interest in, say, a less intrusive or biased federal government,” said CEI fellow Chris Horner to the Examiner.
The Examiner’s Michal Conger reported:
For 92 percent of requests from green groups, the EPA cooperated by waiving fees for the information. Those requests came from the Natural Resources Defense Council, EarthJustice, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, The Waterkeeper Alliance, Greenpeace, Southern Environmental Law Center and the Center for Biological Diversity.
Those “green” groups that were charged a fee either didn’t indicate that the information being requested would be disseminated to the public or failed to respond to the agency’s request to justify the fee waiver.
CEI received almost the exact opposite results — 93 percent of their requests for fee waivers to the EPA were denied. One, admittedly, because CEI failed to note that the information would be disseminated to the public. However, The Examiner reported:
The rest were denied because the agency said CEI “failed to demonstrate that the release of the information requested significantly increases the public understanding of government operations or activities.” Similarly, requests from conservative groups Judicial Watch and National Center for Public Policy Research were approved half the time, and all requests from Franklin Center and the Institute for Energy Research were denied.
“Their practice is to take care of their friends and impose ridiculous obstacles to deny problematic parties’ requests for information,” said Horner.
The White House’s Chicago-style politics served as a blueprint for all the agencies under its control — the IRS, HHS, EPA, Justice and Labor to name a few. As Sen. Marco Rubio noted in a floor speech Wednesday, “These are the tactics of the third world.”
The president is turning the United States into a banana republic.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/17/vitter-epa-foia-scandal-no-different-than-the-irs-disaster
New scandal coming out.
FORWARD!!!!
-
all these pretend scandals and nothing comes of them,at lease it keeps 333386 occupied :D
-
all these pretend scandals and nothing comes of them,at lease it keeps 333386 occupied :D
::) ::)
Yeah - nothing at all amis in the Obama Admn culture of corruption.
-
all these pretend scandals and nothing comes of them,at lease it keeps 333386 occupied :D
oh i forgot FORWARD :D :D :D
-
-
-
the goal isn't to impeach. the goal is to just embarass obama and have a good time. we don't want to change his policies or punish his open disregard for US law.
Rather, we want to be able to pwn3t him on the forums for years.
-
Lanny Davis: Did WH counsel know IRS was targeting conservatives?
posted at 8:41 am on May 17, 2013 by Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/17/lanny-davis-did-wh-counsel-know-irs-was-targeting-conservatives
If it’s true, it would be the first time anyone has linked the issue in any way to the White House. Lanny Davis writes in The Hill today that he’s heard White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler knew for “several weeks” without informing Barack Obama, and she needs to resign … if his sources are correct.
So who are his sources? Hmmmm:
I’ve been told today by several reporters that President Obama’s White House counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, knew for several days — perhaps weeks —that some Internal Revenue Service officials were engaging in political targeting of conservative groups, and that she did not tell the president as soon as she knew even partial reports about the story.
With all due respect to someone who has impeccable legal credentials, if she did have such foreknowledge and didn’t inform the president immediately, I respectfully suggest Ms. Ruemmler is in the wrong job and that she should resign.
The White House counsel to the president, one of the two or three most important positions on the White House staff, must be more than a great lawyer, which Ms. Ruemmler reportedly is. The White House counsel must also have a sensitive political and media ear — in other words, must be a first-rate crisis manager who understands the fundamental need to get the president out in front of the facts, and not be reactive or overly legalistic in determining crisis management strategy.
If Ms. Ruemmler did know about this IRS story and didn’t inform the president immediately, then, respectfully, that must mean she didn’t appreciate fully the mammoth legal and political implications for the U.S. government as well as the American people of a story involving IRS officials abusing power and possibly violating criminal laws.
The story itself would be huge — making a connection earlier than the IG report’s first leak, which came from Lois Lerner herself at the IRS. Don’t forget that Obama yesterday parsed his response very carefully when it came to knowing about the targeting at the IRS. He would only say that he first became aware of the IG report last Friday; he left open the question of when he first knew about the targeting.
If Ruemmler knew about it earlier than that, it becomes a much bigger problem for Obama. First, just as with the IRS chief counsel’s briefing on the matter in August 2011, it’s almost impossible to believe that the lawyers wouldn’t immediately tell their bosses what was going on, unless they had good reason to believe their bosses already knew about it. If Obama found out a few weeks before the IG report came out, why didn’t he act then to clean house at the IRS? And it then also prompts the Watergate-ish question: What did the President know, and when did he know it?
For that matter, what did the White House press know, and when did they know it? Davis is wondering about that, too:
It is also hard to understand why some people in the media who apparently knew about this foreknowledge by the White House counsel and her failure to tell the president missed this story and its significance.
Maybe they didn’t miss the significance. Perhaps they only decided to use it when the administration’s attack on the Associated Press became widely known, and they realized that this White House isn’t a friend of the media. That AP scandal has wide-ranging ramifications, and I wouldn’t be surprised if we start seeing a whole lot of revelations over the next few weeks.
-
Schieffer On Scandals: "It's Very, Very Disturbing What We're Seeing"
CHARLIE ROSE: You have seen lots of second terms. This one came in on a big political victory, wanting to do things. And you have this picture, one, of intrusive government and yet a president who seems like a bystander in his own government.
BOB SCHIEFFER: People were talking in Washington about -- some people were saying, "Are we back to the Nixon administration? This is what they did in the Nixon administration." This is not the Nixon administration, where you had burglars and people talking about blowing up the Brookings Institution. This is more of a case, is anybody home?
I mean, just all of a sudden you have this thing with the Justice Department where they’re getting all these phone records of all the reporters. The Attorney General, well he didn’t know anything about it. You get to the IRS, they don’t seem to know anything about the Tea Party thing. You come to White House, they don’t know anything about Benghazi. Somebody’s got to grab hold of this thing. It’s very, very disturbing what we’re seeing here.
NORAH O’DONNELL: What do you make of the president’s actions yesterday? He dealt with all three things yesterday: He fired the head of the IRS. Released 100 pages of emails that deal with Benghazi. And then on the third scandal the snooping into the AP reporters’ phone records, the president then put out that he’s for this shield law for journalists. The White House took a lot of proactive action yesterday.
SCHIEFFER: They did. But that was yesterday. How is it these things all – nobody seemed to be taking very seriously up until this point? There is no question though, that the administration was trying to get the story out that the War on Terrorism, the threat of terrorism had been lessened, wasn’t as serious as it had been pictured, and that erupts into this thing with all these emails. We see at the State Department, the spokesman there saying “my higher-ups in the building are worried about this.” Well which higher-ups? Why?
O’DONNELL: You’re speaking about Victoria Nuland, who is the State Dept. spokesperson, and in these emails back and forth, she was saying “my higher ups were worried about this.” And the question is, was it the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton?
SCHIEFFER: And we still don’t know the answer to that. It’s a pretty easy thing. Obviously, I think the president did the right thing in letting the temporary head of the IRS go, but what happens now? Where does this go from here? That should not have happened.
ROSE: It all goes to the center of government: The Oval Office, doesn’t it? The president has to take control of his own government.
SCHIEFFER: Well, that’s where you’re seeing some of the criticism now, there’s no question that the situation in Washington is as toxic as I’ve ever seen it. But you are now seeing those on the left saying that the president got to start participating in the presidency, I believe is the way Dana Milbank phrased it in the Washington Post – this is not somebody coming at him from the right. The president has got some serious problems here, and can he grab hold of this? If he doesn’t he’s not going to get anything done in the second term.
-
An Unethical Solicitation
Sebelius under fire for asking health care execs for Obamacare advertising money
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius / AP
BY: Alana Goodman
May 17, 2013 9:00 am
The former chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush said that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius appears to have violated federal ethics rules when she asked health care executives to contribute to the campaign to implement Obamacare.
Sebelius personally called health industry executives asking them to contribute to nonprofits that are working to enroll uninsured Americans under President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, the Washington Post first reported last week.
HHS confirmed that administration officials had been involved in fundraising in a capacity despite initially denying the reports, according to the New York Times. The administration says it was done in a personal, not official, capacity.
Richard Painter, who served as Bush’s ethics counsel from 2005 to 2007, said this type of fundraising still appears to violate Office of Government Ethics rules, which prohibit federal officials from soliciting money from sources over which they have regulatory authority.
“To me it’s a clear violation of the rules if you’re asking insurance companies to put money in,” Painter said.
According to ethics rules, federal employees cannot solicit money from a source that “does business or seeks to do business with the employee’s agency,” “conducts activities regulated by the employee’s agency,” or “has interests that may be substantially affected by performance or nonperformance of the employee’s official duties.”
Painter called Sebelius’ health care fundraising “an end run around the Hatch Act,” the law prohibiting federal employees from engaging in political activity under their official capacity.
With violations of the Hatch Act, “the presumptive penalty is firing,” Painter said. “There could even be criminal charges. But with this, it’s really just you violated the ethics rule, and then the president gets to decide what to do.”
Because the Office of Government Ethics does not conduct investigations, any inquiries into Sebelius’ actions would likely be handled by the HHS inspector general’s office or a congressional oversight committee.
Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and the House Ways and Means Committee have written letters to Sebelius requesting more information and called on the Government Accountability Office to investigate.
It is not clear whether the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will hold hearings into the matter. Chairman Darrell Issa’s (R., Calif.) office did not respond to a request for comment. The committee is juggling several high-profile investigations at the moment, including inquiries into the IRS targeting conservative organizations and the events surrounding the Benghazi terrorist attack.
“It’s all a question about whether Congressman Issa’s team, whether they want to move [the Sebelius issue] to the front burner,” Painter said.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) defended Sebelius Thursday, saying “I don’t have any problem with her doing that.”
This is not the first time Sebelius has come under scrutiny for alleged ethics violations.
The Office of Special Counsel concluded in 2012 that Sebelius violated the Hatch Act, after she gave a speech supporting Obama’s reelection at an official event. Obama declined to take disciplinary action against her.
Painter said he does not recall any Bush administration officials engaging in similar fundraising during his time in the White House.
“[I told them] ‘Don’t even think of asking anybody for money until you’ve left the White House,’” Painter said. “I don’t remember anybody violating that. …The question was asked, yeah, but I don’t remember anybody doing it.”
-
IRS Targeted National Security Org
BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
May 17, 2013 10:07 am
The IRS targeted a national security organization that criticized the Obama administration’s response to Benghazi, reports the Wall Street Journal. The group, Secure America Now is a nonprofit that promotes “U.S. national security related to North Korea, Iran, Israel and Libya.”
SAN’s misadventure with the IRS resembles the harassment of the tea party groups. Its IRS application has been stuck in a never-ending review process that started in April 2011. Most groups get approval for their 501(c)(4) tax exempt status within a year, according to nonprofit lawyers. SAN’s application for tax exempt status has twice been held up by the agency. The IRS inspector general found that some groups have been in legal limbo for more than three years.
The IRS began to closely scrutinize SAN activities after it produced a video (now viewed more than 4 million times) highly critical of how President Obama handled the Benghazi crisis. When SAN ran radio and television ads in Florida and Ohio in the weeks before the election, the IRS intensified its investigation. The group spent about $8 million in 2012.
This entry was posted in Federal Bureaucracy, National Security and tagged Benghazi, IRS, Secure America Now. Bookmark the permalink.
-
Senior Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, who recently slapped Obamacare as a "train wreck," believes that the IRS scandal is just beginning and that "a lot more" damaging information will be revealed, likely at congressional hearings.
"I have a hunch that a lot more is going to come out, frankly," Baucus, whose pending retirement seems to have freed him up to speak bluntly, told Bloomberg Government's "Capitol Gains" TV show.
"It's broader than the current focus. And I think it's important that we have the hearings, and I think that will encourage other information to come out that has not yet come out. I suspect that we will learn more in the next several days, maybe the next couple three weeks which adds more context to all of this," added Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
But a House leader, Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp, said the scandal hasn't reached the level where a special prosecutor is warranted.
"I don't think we're [at the point of appointing a special counsel]. At least I'm not there yet," Camp told the show. "We need to know how and why and certainly try to restore the faith that's been broken and the trust that's been broken as people have been targeted for their political beliefs, which is completely unacceptable."
Camp's committee today opens the first of a series of hearings on the IRS and their political harassment of Tea Party groups.
Bloomberg released a series of highlights from the interview, to be aired Sunday. They are below:
Dave Camp on the IRS scandal:
"I don't think we're [at the point of appointing a special counsel]. At least I'm not there yet. We need to know how and why and certainly try to restore the faith that's been broken and the trust that's been broken as people have been targeted for their political beliefs, which is completely unacceptable."
Max Baucus on the IRS scandal:
"I have a hunch that a lot more is going to come out, frankly. It's broader than the current focus. And I think it's important that we have the hearings, and I think that will encourage other information to come out that has not yet come out. I suspect that we will learn more in the next several days, maybe the next couple three weeks which adds more context to all of this."
Dave Camp on the IRS targeting groups for political reasons:
"Clearly there has been taxpayer confidential information leaked, and potentially for political reasons. And obviously only one political perspective was targeted, so it does seem to have significant political overtones. But we just don't know where this will lead until we take a serious look at it."
Max Baucus on the IRS targeting groups for political reasons:
"This actually leads to new momentum for tax reform because this is an important provision in the code. And this provision has raised lots of questions now, and also how it's tied with another significant provision, the so-called section 527. And that's - that's - that's going to help I think encourage more momentum for tax reform.
Dave Camp on republicans supporting legislation to refocus rules on 501(c)4 organizations: Well, this is I think much larger than that because we've had donors who were targeted. We've had obviously confidential information leaked. And clearly we've had one political persuasion group - conservative group had their information held up. So it's just hard to know exactly what the solution will be. But the purpose of the hearings will be to find out is there some legislative action, like tax reform, that would actually give less discretion to the IRS through a simpler, fairer tax code.
Max Baucus on republicans supporting legislation to refocus rules on 501(c)4 organizations:
This actually leads to new momentum for tax reform because this is an important provision in the code. And this provision has raised lots of questions now, and also how it's tied with another significant provision, the so-called section 527. And that's - that's - that's going to help I think encourage more momentum for tax reform. There'll be a lot of senators. The public's going to wonder, hey, what about this statute? Should it be changed? We'll see.
Dave Camp on whether the IRS scandal will slow down progress on tax reform:
I think it just points out how complex the tax code is and - and the discretion then that is in the hands of the IRS because of the complexity of the code. So I think a more transparent, simpler, fairer code is clearly a goal. But obviously we need to find out what really happened here, and then we can decide what conclusions should be drawn afterwards.
Max Baucus on whether the IRS scandal will slow down progress on tax reform:
I don't think this is going to slow down tax reform, not at all.
Dave Camp on completing tax reform:
First of all, we're both [Max Baucus] very committed to doing it. And clearly the complexity of the current code is I think case in point. Secondly, we need a healthier economy. And if we can get a pro-growth tax plan that really brings us into the 21st century, I think that's really something that the American people will support."
Max Baucus on completing tax reform:
"There's a huge need for reform. Other countries have changed since 1986, made their companies more competitive. We have to as well. In fact, there's an opportunity even to get a little ahead of the game. We've got to work now.
"And the big question about revenues is one that I think that can be put off for a while. That should not get in the way."
Dave Camp on specifics of tax reform:
"We get those lower [individual and business rates] by closing off some of the loopholes and deductions and thousands of provisions that have been added to the code. Let's start with a clean sheet of paper and see what kind of code do we want to design for the best economy, the strongest America, the most prosperous families."
Max Baucus on specifics of tax reform:
"Everything's on the table. Everything. Otherwise if we start taking pet items off the table, another group will rationalize their pet item should be off the table. So everything's on the table. We're looking at everything."
Dave Camp on the legislative calendar and getting tax reform to the floor for a vote:
The calendar's kind of like the weather. It's pretty hard to predict. But I think we're all looking at trying to do this as soon as possible and trying to get it done certainly. But this is something we need to get on and just begin to work and really get it done this session. They gave me HR 1, so that's a pretty indication of where the speaker is."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/democrat-baucus-warns-more-to-come-out-on-irs-scandal/article/2529913
-
so impeach already!
Why the circle jerk and "I'm laughing so hard that obama is so embarrassed!"
fck that drama shit... impeach his law breaking ass.
-
so impeach already!
Why the circle jerk and "I'm laughing so hard that obama is so embarrassed!"
fck that drama shit... impeach his law breaking ass.
I want this to drag out for months on end and completely cripple obama admn
-
I want this to drag out for months on end and completely cripple obama admn
fck that, man.
He still have executive order power. He can still give guns to syrians, enact amnesty/dream acts, and a lot of other shit.
I'm a little surprised - this is FINALLY what is needed to get obama out of office, resigned in disgrace, impeached.
Instead, YOU are HAPPY with "he will be embarrassed and we can all laugh".
All kidding and trolling aside, this is the ONLY chance repubs will have to boot obama from office. And they're skipping it, completely content with the damage he can do with exec power for the next 190 weeks. Think about that man. Drag it out for months and he wins - you wanted the same 'dragging' on F&F, ,and I wanted fast impeachment like monicagate. Result? Obama promoted/redacted everything.
I can't believe you're cool with him staying in office. I can't believe YOU aren't the one scremaing loudest for impeachment, bro. He broke law. Boot him. Let him give speeches and whine on MSNBC. Stop his destructive policies and exec powers. It's like you're so caught up in the teenage, reality tv drama aspect that you'd rather see him have a few embarrassing moments, than strip him of his very dangerous legal powers. WTF?
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
Bro - I want him Impeached, Deported, and Exiled to North Korea where he belongs.
fck that, man.
He still have executive order power. He can still give guns to syrians, enact amnesty/dream acts, and a lot of other shit.
I'm a little surprised - this is FINALLY what is needed to get obama out of office, resigned in disgrace, impeached.
Instead, YOU are HAPPY with "he will be embarrassed and we can all laugh".
All kidding and trolling aside, this is the ONLY chance repubs will have to boot obama from office. And they're skipping it, completely content with the damage he can do with exec power for the next 190 weeks. Think about that man. Drag it out for months and he wins - you wanted the same 'dragging' on F&F, ,and I wanted fast impeachment like monicagate. Result? Obama promoted/redacted everything.
I can't believe you're cool with him staying in office. I can't believe YOU aren't the one scremaing loudest for impeachment, bro. He broke law. Boot him. Let him give speeches and whine on MSNBC. Stop his destructive policies and exec powers. It's like you're so caught up in the teenage, reality tv drama aspect that you'd rather see him have a few embarrassing moments, than strip him of his very dangerous legal powers. WTF?
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
Bro - I want him Impeached, Deported, and Exiled to North Korea where he belongs.
I haven't heard any other political board getbiggers joining your battle cry. Why is that?
-
I haven't heard any other political board getbiggers joining your battle cry. Why is that?
We are not retarded nor delusional.
-
We are not retarded nor delusional.
no - you are just in utter denial that obama will be lucky to avoid prison as this keeps going.
-
KUHNER: Lawless in office
All the president’s problems lead to his own doorstep
Comments (53)
Size: + / -
Print
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on google_plusone_shareShar e on redditShare on linkedinShare on stumbleuponShare on emailMore Sharing Services
By Jeffrey T. Kuhner
Friday, May 17, 2013
Enlarge Photo
Illustration by Alexander Hunter for The Washington Times more >
Ads by Google
Verengo™ SolarGo Solar for $0 Down with Verengo. Plus Earn up to $5K in Tax Credits! VerengoSolar.com/Free_Quote
Story Topics
Politics
Internal Revenue Service
Barack Obama
Nixon
White House
Follow Us On
Facebook
Question of the Day
Will the mainstream media be able to bury the IRS scandal?
Yes
No
Undecided
Other
Login to Vote
View results
President Obama is facing a perfect storm of scandals, cover-ups and criminality that threatens to sweep him from power. This week marks the 40th anniversary of the first Watergate hearings. They eventually brought down President Nixon, forcing him to resign. Mr. Obama is the liberal Nixon — a corrupt chief executive, who is presiding over a lawless administration.
Like Tricky Dick, the Obama administration has an “enemies list.” The Internal Revenue Service has admitted that its agents deliberately targeted conservative, Tea Party, evangelical and pro-Israel Jewish groups, denying or blocking their requests for tax-exempt status. During the 2012 election cycle, the IRS— under the direction of its Washington office — became an arm of the Obama regime to persecute its political opponents. The agency abrogated personal freedoms and violated numerous laws.
Agents requested that anti-Obama groups hand over Facebook posts and Twitter messages. The IRS insisted on obtaining the resumes of board members and names of confidential donors. The agency demanded to know the groups’ reading lists. Prominent businessmen, such as Frank L. VanderSloot, who donated to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, were aggressively audited. Even a Catholic professor critical of Mr. Obama’s policies was allegedly targeted. In short, the IRS was transformed into a political battering ram to smash Mr. Obama’s critics. Its behavior was not only illegal and unconstitutional, but a menacing assault on civil liberties and democracy.
Mr. Obama is desperately trying to shield himself from responsibility. There is only one problem: He can’t. Senior IRS officials would never have sanctioned such a vast, dangerous operation without political approval from the White House. In fact, the more evidence emerges, the more it reveals a trail leading straight to Mr. Obama’s close friends and allies.
ProPublica, a progressive-leaning investigative journalism group, admits that the IRS sent it nine confidential applications of conservative groups whose tax-exempt status was still pending. The action was criminal. The goal: Enable a pro-Obama group to potentially dig up dirt on the president’s enemies. George Soros funds ProPublica. The billionaire is a major Obama backer and sugar daddy of the Democratic Party. Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., who the president has publicly called a “friend,” is a member of the group’s board of directors.
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a group devoted to defending the traditional family, claims the IRS leaked confidential information regarding Mr. Romney during the 2012 election. The GOP nominee donated $10,000 to the organization. The Huffington Post and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) acquired this information. In March 2012, they publicly used it to paint Mr. Romney as a homophobic bigot. The HRC president was the same man who would also be the co-chairman of Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign: Joe Solmonese. It appears the IRS, working in coordination with the president’s election team, deliberately leaked secret information in order to undermine Mr. Obama’s challenger. This was more than a flagrant abuse of power. It shows the IRS became a partisan organ of the administration.
Yet the rampant corruption does not stop here. We now know that the Justice Department secretly obtained the phone records of numerous reporters and editors at The Associated Press. The Obama administration has been caught spying on the press corps. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. admits that he “does not know” how many other reporters from different media outlets have had their phone logs subpoenaed. Fearful of whistleblowers and leakers, the Obama regime is obsessed with tracking down — and intimidating — journalists’ sources. This is a flagrant attack on freedom of the press.
Then there is Benghazi. The administration’s latest document dump reveals one irrefutable fact: The White House and State Department systematically manipulated the intelligence to cover up the terrorist killings of four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. The administration misled the public in order to protect Mr. Obama’s political credibility, enabling him to win in November. The president’s campaign was based on a seminal premise: He had smashed al Qaeda. If the truth got out — namely, that al Qaeda was not on the run, but it had just mounted a stunning terrorist assault on our diplomatic mission in Libya — Mr. Obama would have been exposed as a fraud. It would have cost him the election. He knew it, the Democrats knew it, and the liberal media knew it. That’s why Benghazi had to be swept under the rug.
Beyond the IRS, AP and Benghazi lies a deeper scandal: Obamagate. Ultimately, Mr. Obama is the root cause of the White House’s woes. The problem is not the president’s men (and women). It is the president himself. He has no respect for the Constitution or for legal constraints on his power. He has presided over a scandal-ridden administration — Fast and Furious, Solyndra, the open bribery and abuse of parliamentary procedures to pass Obamacare, suing states seeking to uphold our immigration laws, enabling the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens simply if they’re accused of being “terrorists,” and now the use of government power to suppress dissent, persecute opponents, spy on the press and cover up the jihadist slaughter of Americans. Mr. Obama is a political thug masquerading as a progressive reformer. He is worse than Nixon: No one died as a result of Watergate.
Republicans should insist that several special prosecutors be appointed to investigate the administration’s purported crimes. In the end, Nixon was unable to run from the truth. Mr. Obama is now running as fast as he can. It is our responsibility to catch and expose him.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a radio host on Boston’s WRKO AM-680.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/17/lawless-in-office/#.UZYvbJeuRJQ.email#ixzz2TZGL5vyM
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
-
no - you are just in utter denial that obama will be lucky to avoid prison as this keeps going.
^^ Evidence of retardation and delusions right there.
-
Congressmen: Were Conservative Car Dealers Targeted for GM Closures?
by Alexander Marlow
17 May 2013, 1:24 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/17/Obama-Appointed-IRS-Union-President-To-Group-In-Charge-of-Federal-Raises-In-2010
Two Congressmen are asking the Treasury Department if it inappropriately scrutinized conservative-owned businesses the same way it targeted Tea Party groups filing for tax-exempt status.
Republicans Mike Kelly (PA-03) and Jim Renacci (OH-16) circulated a letter Thursday requesting Treasury Secretary Jack Lew release documents detailing the process and methodology the Automotive Task Force used to shut down General Motors dealerships in 2009 during the automotive industry crisis.
Renacci's Northeast Ohio Chevrolet dealership was closed in 2010 after losing a battle with General Motors. Congress loaned General Motors $50 billion in 2009 after declaring bankruptcy, which resulted in the federal government owning a majority share of the company. Roughly 2000 dealerships received "wind-down" agreements, and while hundreds were able to survive an exhaustive arbitration process, Renacci-Doraty Chevrolet in Wadsworth did not. Renacci, then a Congressional candidate challenging incumbent John Boccieri, placed the blame squarely on President Obama.
“I jumped into the campaign because of what happened to the car business,” Renacci said in 2010. “This is another example of the devastation of this administration’s massive government intrusion into the private sector.” He went on to describe the government takeover of GM as "the Obama Administration dictating to small-business owners whether they can continue to operate privately owned businesses."
Mike Kelly has a similar story. He decided to run for Congress when it was announced that Obama's Automotive Task Force slated Wayland Chevrolet in Butler, Pennsylvania for closure. The dealership was started by Kelly's father in 1953.
Now that it has been confirmed that the Treasury Department unfairly profiled conservatives around that time, the Congressmen are wondering if that could have been a factor in the selection of certain dealerships for closure.
The IRS scandal "raises serious questions about past decisions made by the [Treasury] Department regarding auto dealership closures that occurred in 2008 and 2009," reads the letter. "We formally request that the Treasury Department provide all e-mails, phone records, notes, memoranda, reports, and other communications regarding the decision-making process for dealership closures from the Automotive Task Force headed by Car Czars Steve Rattner and Ron Bloom."
The letter also notes that while the Automotive Task Force claimed to have objectively evaluated each dealership, a Special Inspector General Report found that there was "little or no documentation" that proves objective criteria were used.
"At the heart of this request," the letter concludes, "is the obligation we have to the American people to ensure that political profiling has not been a systemic issue within this administration."
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
Lanny Davis calling for WH Counsel to resign
-
IRS wasn’t only agency hassling True the Vote
Watchdog.org ^ | May 16, 2013 | Jon Cassidy
Posted on Friday, May 17, 2013 2:39:29 PM by penelopesire
By Jon Cassidy | Watchdog.org
HOUSTON — Since filing for tax exemption at a 501(c)(3) nonprofit in 2010, the founders of True the Vote, a Houston-based group that tries to prevent elections fraud, have been overwhelmed with scrutiny from a host of government agencies, in particular, by the Internal Revenue Service.
. TRUE THE VOTE: Catherine Engelbrecht’s organization has revealed multiple cases of voters casting ballots in two states in the same election. Catherine and Bryan Englebrecht have suffered through 18 separate encounters with five government agencies, from surprise audits to FBI visits to never-ending demands for paperwork.
The government has been scrutinizing True the Vote, the Engelbrechts’ tea party group, which is called King Street Patriots, and the family’s oil services manufacturing business.
King Street Patriots sought tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit.
Engelbrecht kept silent about all this scrutiny for more than two years, but after the abuse-of-power stories coming out of Washington this past week, she decided to go public, appearing on several conservative talk radio shows this week.
True the Vote spokesman Logan Churchwell sent Watchdog.org a timeline of the encounters, which include two unscheduled audits by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, six visits or phone calls by the Federal Bureau of Investigation looking for domestic terrorists, five rounds of questioning by the IRS over True the Vote’s application and one round over King Street Patriot’s application, both of which were filed in July 2010, and neither of which has been approved yet.
That’s not to mention the IRS audit (they actually got money back) or the audit by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and another by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Most of the audits went fine, aside from the hassle of having to shut down operations for the day, although OSHA “handed down a four grand fine where somebody didn’t have a seat belt on,” he said.
The most persistent and intrusive agency has been the IRS. Each round of questioning built on the round before, asking as many as 40 questions, with five or more parts to each question.
“Imagine it’s the worst essay test you ever took in college,” Churchwell said.
The IRS basically wanted every piece of paper True the Vote had, plus printouts of every page on its website, and every tweet or Facebook post the group had ever made.
It would take around 300 pages of material to answer a round of questions, Churchwell said. True the Vote would be given two weeks assemble and return all the materials under pain of having its application cancelled, according to the IRS letter he provided.
Questions included:
“You stated the organization may create documentaries. Provide copies of any completed documentaries including printed transcripts. “In regards to the organization’s public education activities you state the organization seeks to educate the public and influential individuals. Define influential individuals.” Contact Jon Cassidy at jon@watchdog.org or @jpcassidy000.
-
NYT: Obama Administration Knew of IRS Scandal 5 Months Before Election
by John Nolte
17 May 2013, 12:33 PM PDT191post a comment
In no uncertain terms and with no hedging, The New York Times reports that the Obama Administration was aware of the fact that the IRS was targeting Tea Party groups as far back as June of 2012. The Treasury Department's Inspector General confirmed that he told senior Treasury officials in June of 2012, a full five months before Election Day:
The Treasury Department’s inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was investigating the Internal Revenue Service’s screening of politically active organizations seeking tax exemptions, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.
We still don’t know for sure what the President knew or when he knew it, but this does confirm that the Administration was aware of the fact that Obama's political enemies were under fire by the IRS and covered that fact up during an election year.
As Lisa Meyers of NBC News told "Morning Joe" today, "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."
The first time President Obama was asked when he found out about the IRS scandal, he told the media that he learned of the news last Friday, the same way the rest of us did -- from the news media.
Thursday, a Bloomberg reporter asked the President when both he or anyone in the White House learned of the scandal. The President dodged the question.
With this latest news confirming when the Administration first learned of the IRS scandal, we now know that, along with Benghazi and the unfurling Associated Press scandal, that there were three scandals brewing and unfolding in the White House during an election year. But we are only now hearing about them -- six months after Barack Obama is safely re-elected.
This fact says as much about the failure of our lapdog national media as it does about President Obama. Why just this morning the Times itself dismissed the IRS scandal on its editorial page.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC
-
All the President’s Concealers tainted the 2012 election
Legal Insurrection ^ | May 17, 2013 | Professor William A. Jacobson
Posted on Friday, May 17, 2013 7:52:22 PM by 2ndDivisionVet
With each passing hour, it becomes more and more clear that the truth was concealed from the American public prior to the election about two major Obama administration scandals.
Benghazi was very much in the news prior to the election. The concealment went to the culpability of the Obama administration in failing to heed warnings about security at the Benghazi consulate, the nature of the pre-planned al-Qaeda attack, the scrubbing of the talking points used by Susan Rice, the failure to go to the aid of Americans in trouble, and the claim that the attack was a result of a YouTube video.
That concealment, which now has been exposed in part (much information still has not been released), helped Obama out on an issue which was very much a part of the campaign, and allowed Obama to rebound in the second and third presidential debates after a disastrous first debate put the election outcome in doubt.
The Benghazi concealment allowed the media and the Obama campaign to get away with distractions such as whether Mitt Romney should have issued a press statement, and whether Obama’s generalized non-specific use of the term “acts of terror” constituted an admission that the Benghazi attack was terrorism. These distractions, rather than the administration’s defalcation of duty, worked to Obama’s great advantage.
The other concealment went to an even more explosive issue, the deliberate and concerted targeting by the IRS of Tea Party and conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, and leaks of information about conservative groups.
The stories now are legion, and growing, of IRS stall tactics and inappropriate delving into religious and political beliefs, and the identification of persons with whom the groups interacted. No such targeting took place as to liberal and progressive groups.....
(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.com ...
-
Republican lawmakers are launching an investigation into claims that the Environmental Protection Agency, while giving preferential treatment to environmental groups, made it harder for conservative groups to obtain government records.
“According to documents obtained by the Committees, EPA readily granted FOIA fee waivers for environmental allies, effectively subsidizing them, while denying fee waivers and making the FOIA process more difficult for states and conservative groups,” wrote Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Darrell Issa and Sens. David Vitter, Chuck Grassley and Jim Inhofe in a letter to the EPA.
Citing a report by The Daily Caller News Foundation, Republicans are asking the EPA to hand over all Freedom of Information Act fee waiver requests, responses to requests, and FOIA officer training materials since the beginning of the Obama administration.
Lawmakers are also asking for all communications regarding FOIA fee waiver requests or appeals under the Obama administration....
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
-
For 92 percent of requests from green groups, the EPA cooperated by waiving fees for the information. Those requests came from the Natural Resources Defense Council, EarthJustice, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, The Waterkeeper Alliance, Greenpeace, Southern Environmental Law Center and the Center for Biological Diversity.
Of the requests that were denied, the EPA said the group either didn’t respond to requests for justification of a waiver, or didn’t express intent to disseminate the information to the general public, according to documents obtained by The Washington Examiner.
CEI, on the other hand, had its requests denied 93 percent of the time. One request was denied because CEI failed to express its intent to disseminate the information to the general public. The rest were denied because the agency said CEI “failed to demonstrate that the release of the information requested significantly increases the public understanding of government operations or activities.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
-
sigh..your umbrella non-scandal is even worse than the time when, according to you, Obama and Michelle were "overheard" by a white secret service agent making racist comments about whites..yet no such thing ever appeared in the news media
give it up will ya????...you're delusional
-
sigh..your umbrella non-scandal is even worse than the time when, according to you, Obama and Michelle were "overheard" by a white secret service agent making racist comments about whites..yet no such thing ever appeared in the news media
give it up will ya????...you're delusional
Being a 3rd worlder yourself of course you see nothing wrong w this country being run like Cuba or Venzeuala
-
-
http://blogs.ajc.com/mike-luckovich/2013/05/16/517-luckovich-cartoon-wake-up-call/
-
http://blogs.ajc.com/mike-luckovich/2013/05/17/519-luckovich-cartoon-dead-horse/
-
www.fundylibtards.com/youareone
-
Even Baucus is saying this is the tip of the iceberg on the IRS scandal
-
umbrella gate the stupid party lives on
-
A Marine's response to the Presidential umbrella umbrage
I thought the reaction to this photo was interesting:
Yes, the President of the United States of America had a boot Corporal hold an umbrella for him while he gave a speech.
The reactions were interesting because people let their political butthurtedness flow into their opinions on the matter. People seem to forget that we’re Marines, and this is exactly the kind of shit that Marines do. Somehow, holding an umbrella for the President and the Turkish Prime Minister is seen as demeaning, while all of the other bullshit that Marines do every day is not. I find it entertaining to see Marines on my Facebook page saying things like, “I would have told him to fuck off and hold his own umbrella.”
No you wouldn’t.
Shut up.
We’re Marines, if the President of the fucking United States asks you to hold a fucking umbrella, you hold a fucking umbrella. As well, the day I give a shit about a boot Corporal holding an umbrella is the day I’ve forgotten what the Marine Corps is. Honestly, holding an umbrella for the President is probably the least demeaning thing I could imagine doing as a Marine, as opposed to the other bullshit I had to do every day. No one would think twice about asking a boot to police call cigarette butts across the entire base at 5am, but the minute this boot has to hold an umbrella for the Commander in Chief, people get upset.
He’s the President, he rates an umbrella.
Get over it.
-
-
-
New Evidence IRS Laundering Money From Veterans Disability Checks
http://www.mrconservative.com ^ | May 18, 2013 | Kristin Tate
Posted on Sunday, May 19, 2013 12:51:41 PM by Whenifhow
You know what the IRS is really great at? Breaking its own laws. In addition to targeting conservative groups, the corrupt government agency has also been singling out disabled veterans. They do this by using banks to launder and then stealing the veterans’ disability checks.
Shameful.
The Veterans Disability Act of 2010 exempts VA disability from withholding of any sort. But the IRS has been stealing disabled veterans’ money anyways.
Kevin Lake is a 60% disabled veteran of the Iraq War. A few months ago, he noticed that his VA disability check had not been deposited, and that his bank account was in the negative. Lake contacted his bank, and was told that the IRS demanded all of the available funds be taken out of his account and wired to them. A confused Lake then called the IRS, and was placed on hold for a long time (bureaucratic government agencies tend to be efficient like that!) before he was finally able to speak with an agent. The agent claimed Lake had made $157,000 in 2010 and that he owed them money. Funny, since in 2010 Lake was still in the hospital recovering from injuries he’d sustained while in Iraq — he earned less than $10,000 that year.
Le After telling the IRS agent that VA disability money is 100% exempt, Lake was placed him on hold for another substantial chunk of time (surprise, surprise!) and was then told, “We do not take veterans’ disability money. We wait until the funds are deposited from the VA and then we take all of the funds from your bank account.”
Bureaucrat language for: “We stole your money.”
Lake was a contributing writer for key Tea Party personality “Joe the Plumber”. This likely played a role in Lake being targeted and stolen from by the IRS. Oh, never mind — I forgot that “partisanship or the perception of politics has no place in the IRS”, as acting commissioner Steven Miller put it.
Give me a break.
After a lot of persistence, Lake was eventually successful in having the IRS give back the money they stole. But other disabled veterans may be victims of this disgraceful (and seemingly partisan) crime. Vets fought tirelessly for all Americans, but now they are being forced to fight for themselves.
Someone must be held accountable for this obvious, disgusting government corruption
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
33 are you bipolar?
-
33 are you bipolar?
No - are you being paid by obama to defend his treason and corruption?
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
No Better for Obama Next Week, Either
Townhall.com ^ | Marita Noon
Posted on May 19, 2013, 3:45:48 PM EDT by Kaslin
It’s been a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week at the White House—and it isn’t looking like next week will be any better. You probably know about Obama’s trifecta of troubles: the Benghazi story about the attack that killed four Americans and the aftermath that falsely blamed a YouTube video that “continues to smolder on the far-right side of the dial,” the IRS targeting conservative groups for extra scrutiny while giving liberals a pass, and, the one that got the mainstream media engaged: the “broad and potentially chilling probe” conducted by the Justice Department on journalists’ phone calls at the Associated Press (AP).
The place in which the President finds himself has been compared to that of Nixon on May 17, 1973, about which US News and World Report states: “The scandal and cover-up came to define and destroy Richard Nixon's presidency. It’s too early to tell if the scandals plaguing President Barack Obama … rise to a similar level.”
It may be too early to tell whether the three scandals will “define and destroy” Barack Obama’s presidency—but they do reveal a propensity to massage the message and reward their friends while destroying their enemies. And, there are more than the trifecta of troubles that make this point, there’s a six-pack of scandals.
In addition to the three-widely covered stories, there are three more with the same characteristics.
EPA Favors Friendlies
We see favoritism in the EPAs treatment of friendly groups vs. a “concerted campaign to make life more difficult for those deemed unfriendly.” A few days ago, the Washington Examiner reported on the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s (CEI) review of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to see how equally the agency applies its fee waiver policy. The results are shocking.
Chris Horner, Senior Fellow at CEI, told me: “The IRS and EPA revelations are near-identical uses of the state to enable allies and disadvantage opponents. Granting or denying tax-exempt status can make or break a group. The same is true with FOIA fee waivers being tossed like Mardi Gras beads at greens, and denied to opponents of a bigger regulatory state. Fees for FOIA document productions can run into the six-figures.”
We’ll be hearing more about the EPA friendlies scandal. On Friday, May 17, Senator Vitter’s office sent a letter to EPA Acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe requesting “your prompt attention to this matter as we investigate EPA’s process for granting FOIA fee waivers.” The letter was signed by David Vitter, Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate; Darrel Isa, Chairman, Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, U.S. House of Representatives; James Inhofe, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate; and Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate.
The May 17 letter states: “According to documents obtained by the Committees, EPA readily granted FOIA fee waivers for liberal environmental groups–effectively subsidizing them–while denying fee waivers and making the FOIA process more difficult for states and conservative groups. This disparate treatment is unacceptable, especially in light of the recent controversy over abusive tactics at the Internal Revenue Service, which singled out conservative groups for special scrutiny.”
It reveals that the “EPA manipulated the FOIA fee waiver process.” Fee waiver requests sent by environmental groups were granted for 92% of the requests while EPA denied a fee waiver for 93% of requests from CEI and overall only granted fee waivers for other think tanks 27% of the time. “The startling disparity in treatment strongly suggests EPA’s actions are possibly part of a broader effort to collude with groups that share the agency’s political agenda and discriminate against states and conservative organizations. This is a clear abuse of discretion.”
The Washington Examiner reports: “all requests from Franklin Center and the Institute for Energy Research were denied.”
Wind farms get a pass
We see the same “startling disparity in treatment” in the way the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act is applied. Under both acts, the death of a single bird—without a permit—is illegal. On May 14, the AP reported on an investigation that showed that nearly 600,000 birds are killed each year by wind farms, including an average of about one golden eagle a month in Converse County, WY—which the AP calls: “one of the deadliest places in the country of its kind.” California’s Altamont Pass wind farms “kill more than 60 per year”—making it the “industry’s deadliest location.”
Yet, “so far, the companies operating industrial-sized turbines here and elsewhere that are killing eagles and other protected birds have yet to be fined or prosecuted—even though every death is a criminal violation. The Obama administration has charged oil companies for drowning birds in their waste pits, and power companies for electrocuting birds on power lines. But the administration has never fined or prosecuted a wind-energy company, even those that flout the law repeatedly.”
Back in August 2011, oil company executives were hauled into court, by Timothy Purdon, the US Attorney for North Dakota, over the death of 28 migratory birds—including ducks. Businessweek reported: “The maximum penalty for each charge under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is six months in prison and a $15,000 fine.” The case was thrown out of federal court in January of 2012 by district Judge Daniel Hovland, who rejected US Attorney Purdon's “expansive interpretation of the law” because it “would yield absurd results.” The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) called the ruling “withering” and said: the “selective prosecution was probably an expression of its political hostility to oil and gas companies.” The report concludes with: “Mr. Purdon takes the prize for dodo prosecutor of the year.”
The WSJ didn’t point out Purdon’s resume. The LA Times reports: “Purdon is a prominent Democratic donor and fundraiser,” who served on the Democratic National Committee and who “has no experience as a prosecutor.” Purdon was chosen over several, apparently, more qualified candidates, who probably didn’t have Purdon’s pedigree. He was selected because he’s a loyalist who’d do what the White House wanted—and that included prosecuting oil companies for duck deaths.
Similarly, the AP reports that ExxonMobil paid $600,000 for killing 85 birds and BP was fined “$100 million for killing and harming migratory birds during the 2010 Gulf oil spill. And PacifiCorp, which operates coal plants in Wyoming, paid more than $10.5 million in 2009 for electrocuting 232 eagles along power lines and at its substations.”
“Meanwhile, the Obama administration has proposed a rule that would give wind-energy companies potentially decades of shelter from prosecution for killing eagles.” The wind-energy industry has been part of the committee that drafted and edited the guidelines that the Interior Department updated last year that “provided more cover for wind companies that violate the law.” The AP states: “In the end, the wind-energy industry … got almost everything it wanted.”
Former US Fish and Wildlife Service enforcement agent Tom Eicher aptly sums up the scandal: “What it boils down to is this: If you electrocute an eagle, that is bad, but if you chop it to pieces, that is OK.” Yet, in an interview with the AP before his departure, former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar “denied any preferential treatment for wind.”
Expect more coverage of the preferential application of regulatory enforcement. Rep. Doc Hasting, Chairman of the House Natural Resources committee, made the following statement through spokeswoman Jill Strait: “There are serious concerns that the Obama administration is not implementing this law fairly and equally.” The Committee is in “the beginning stages of an investigation.”
Propping up green energy
We see similar favoritism across the bigger energy spectrum. Despite President Obama’s frequent touting of increased domestic oil and gas production, “federal government policies are suppressing development,” says Kathleen Sgamma, Vice-President of Government and Public Affairs for the Western Energy Alliance (WEA). “Unfortunately, the federal government is standing in the way of increasing production of valuable energy resources that could spur further job creation, economic growth, and energy security.” To support her comments, the WEA press release offers the following numbers: “From FY2008 to FY2011 the Bureau of Land Management offered 81% less acreage, which has resulted in a 44% drop in leasing revenue, down from $356 million to $201 million. Nationwide, royalty and leasing revenue have declined 12% from $4.2 billion to $3.7 billion.” Meanwhile production and revenue on private lands increased.
Additionally, despite numerous reports regarding the positive economic impacts and environmental safety of the Keystone pipeline it has been continuously delayed—now for more than 1700 days. On Thursday, the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee passed a bill that, according to the WSJ, “effectively pushes through approval of the 875-mile pipeline by eliminating the need for Mr. Obama to issue a special permit for it.” Transportation committee chair Rep. Bill Shuster said: “After more than four years of bureaucratic delays, this bill will finally allow construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. This project has been studied more than any other project of its kind.”
While federal policies are suppressing traditional energy that is effective, efficient and economical, they are propping up projects that have been repeatedly found to be failures—but that benefit Democratic donors.
Through Obama’s 2009 Stimulus Bill—which Democratic donors such as John Doerr, and George Soros (personally and through the Soros-funded Apollo Alliance) helped craft—nearly $100 billion dollars have been made available for green energy projects. With the help of researcher Christine Lakatos who’s been working on it since 2009, I’ve been extensively covering the green-energy crony-corruption scandal for the past 12 months. We’ve found that nearly all of the Department of Energy-funded projects had meaningful political connections and many got special treatment—such as fast-tracked approvals with little scrutiny over environmental damages that would have taken any other energy company months, if not years, to get—from the Department of Interior. The policies benefitted insiders such as Treasury Secretary Jack Lewand Secretary of State John Kerry—just to name a few. To date, 25 have gone bankrupt and four are about to go under—though 29 others have various issues. Denying the dismal record, Obama’s 2014 budget calls for more taxpayer dollars for green energy projects. It’s scandalous.
Now that The Hill is holding hearings and investigations on Benghazi, the IRS, the AP, the EPA, and the green energy industry’s not-so-green slaughter of protected species, it is time to look at the financial and regulatory favors extended to friendlies while erecting obstacles to anything or anyone they oppose—and that includes the green-energy crony-corruption scandal that could be the biggest of them all.
These six scandalous stories illustrate the standard operating procedure of the Obama White House—and, as such, there’s likely to be even more. It may be too early to tell whether these scandals will “define and destroy” Barack Obama’s presidency, but they are certainly a distraction to his second-term agenda and display a side the administration didn’t want made public.
-
i think thats 3 up and 3 down with obama scandal gate....
smellin like roses
-
i think thats 3 up and 3 down with obama scandal gate....
smellin like roses
Lmfao. Typical if the leftist like yourself to condone corruption and crimes by fellow leftist blacks simply cause they are black.
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/19/white-house-adviser-nothing-suggests-irs-official-/
unreal - they are standing by this bitch
-
CBS' Bob Schieffer unleashes on White House official: 'Why are you here today?'
By Ben Wolfgang - The Washington Times
May 19, 2013, 11:10AM
Enlarge Photo
Bob Schieffer (AP Photo/Evan Agostini) more >
Veteran CBS newsman Bob Schieffer on Sunday morning unloaded on a top White House official, comparing the Obama administration’s handling of the ongoing Internal Revenue Service scandal to former President Richard Nixon’s initial strategy for dealing with Watergate.
The assertion came after White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer said the president will continue with his objectives and will not become bogged down by the IRS debacle, the Benghazi affair or other missteps.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEE RELATED: White House aide: ‘Nothing that suggests’ IRS official at center of scandal ‘did anything wrong’
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I don’t want to compare this in any way to Watergate … but I have to tell you, that is exactly the approach the Nixon administration took. You’re taking exactly the same line,” Mr. Schieffer said.
He then castigated the White House for taking credit when the federal government does something right, but passing the buck when problems arise. Republicans and other critics have made similar claims that Mr. Obama seems to have little knowledge of what’s happening in his own federal government.
“When the executive branch does things right, there doesn’t seem to be any hesitancy for the White House to take credit for that,” Mr. Schieffer said, citing the killing of Osama bin Laden as an example. “When these [scandals] happen, you seem to send out officials many times who don’t even seem to know what’s happened.”
He even demanded to know why Mr. Pfeiffer was making the rounds on Sunday talk shows, rather than a higher-ranking official.
“Why are you here today? Why isn’t the chief of staff here today?” Mr. Schieffer asked.
← return to Inside Politics
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/may/19/cbs-bob-schieffer-unleashes-white-house-official-w/#ixzz2Tn9bSfXQ
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
-
He then castigated the White House for taking credit when the federal government does something right, but passing the buck when problems arise. Republicans and other critics have made similar claims that Mr. Obama seems to have little knowledge of what’s happening in his own federal government.
“
4.5 fucking years of that. Amazing that they are finally waking the fuck up.
-
Sen. Portman: IRS will need special counsel
By Meghashyam Mali - 05/19/13 01:43 PM ET
Interview begins at 0:33 second mark.
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) on Sunday said he believed a special counsel to investigate the IRS targeting scandal would ultimately be “necessary."
Speaking on ABC’s “This Week,” Portman welcomed an inspector general’s report and the launch of congressional hearings, but said there were still many unanswered questions.
“I also think that special counsel is going to end up being necessary here, because it has to be independent of the White House,” said Portman of the ongoing investigation.
“What we do know is that politics was put ahead of the public interest. And it was done in two of the most sensitive areas of our government. One, of course, the tax collection agency, which has this enormous power over all of us. And second, our national security,” said Portman referring to the Justice Department’s seizure of journalists’ phone records in a leak probe.
“There's a lot of issues here we need to get bottom of. We need to find out what really happened and ensure that we can begin to regain some trust in our government. That's my concern,” he added.
But other lawmakers expressed caution, saying that Congress needed more time to gather facts.
Fellow GOP lawmaker, Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), said that while the IRS actions were “chilling” it was still “premature” to say whether a special counsel would be needed.
“I do believe that the committees of jurisdiction in the House and in the Senate need to continue their investigation and determine exactly who made these decisions,” said Price, also appearing on ABC.
The IRS admitted to subjecting Tea Party groups seeking tax exempt status to higher scrutiny. The announcement led to criticism from both parties, with Obama requesting and accepting the resignation of the acting director of the IRS last week.
RELATED ARTICLES
•Rangel: Honest IRS agents 'getting a bad shake'
GOP lawmakers have pledged to find out if the political targeting was directed by anyone at the White House.
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), however, said he did not see a need yet for a special counsel.
Menendez said that the law governing tax-exempt status should be the real focus of Congress.
“I think there are two scandals here. And clearly what the IRS did in this regard is absolutely wrong and it's outrageous. It's a lack of management,” he said.
“But there's second scandal, and that fact is, is that hundreds of millions of dollars had been used in C-4s that are supposed to be used a nonprofit social welfare entities for political purposes,” Menendez added.
Senior Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer on Sunday said no one at the White House knew of the IRS targeting beforehand and vowed the president would investigate the scandal thoroughly.
Read more: http://thehill.com/video/senate/300613-sen-portman-irs-will-need-special-counsel#ixzz2TnKnhS4Z
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
Flood of bombshells to come, FORWARD TO COMMUNISM
-
Schieffer to Obama Advisor: ‘Why Are You Here? Why Isn’t the White House Chief of Staff here?'
News Busters - CBS ^ | May 19, 2013 | Noel Sheppard
Posted on Sunday, May 19, 2013 9:42:42 PM by Xcoastie
See the video of the exchange via the link
DAN PFEIFFER, SENIOR WHITE HOUSE ADVISOR: The point that our Chief of Staff is making is that this is the Republican playbook here which is try, when they don't have a positive agenda, try to drag Washington into a swamp of partisan fishing expeditions, trumped up hearings and false allegations. We're not going to let that distract us and the President from actually doing the people's work and fighting for the middle class.
BOB SCHIEFFER, HOST: You know, I don’t want to compare this in any way to Watergate. I do not think this is Watergate by any stretch. But you weren't born then I would guess, but I have to tell you that is exactly the approach that the Nixon administration took. They said, “These are all second-rate things. We don't have time for this. We have to devote our time to the people's business.” You’re taking exactly the same line they did.
After Pfeiffer continued with evasive talking points, Schieffer again scolded:
SCHIEFFER: But Mr. Pfeiffer, and I don't mean to be argumentative here, but the President is in charge of the executive branch of the government. It’s my, I'll just make this as an assertion: when the executive branch does things right, there doesn't seem to be any hesitancy of the White House to take credit for that. When Osama bin Laden was killed, the President didn't waste any time getting out there and telling people about it.
But with all of these things, when these things happen, you seem to send out officials many times who don't even seem to know what has happened. And I use as an example of that Susan Rice who had no connection whatsoever to the events that took place in Benghazi, and yet she was sent out, appeared on this broadcast, and other Sunday broadcasts, five days after it happens, and I'm not here to get in an argument with you about who changed which word in the talking points and all that. The bottom line is what she told the American people that day bore no resemblance to what had happened on the ground in an incident where four Americans were killed.
-
:D
-
bwahahahahhaha
-
4.5 fucking years of that. Amazing that they are finally waking the fuck up.
Obama fired the head of the IRS......what more do you want???.....you expect for him to give a speech before congress and proclaim "I knew what was going on"..????
-
:D
hey...this is funny....you did something worthwhile for a change
-
Obama fired the head of the IRS......what more do you want???.....you expect for him to give a speech before congress and proclaim "I knew what was going on"..????
Are you joking or what ?
-
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE WWW.NATIONALREVIEW.COM PRINT
MAY 20, 2013 4:00 AM
True Scandal
A tea-party group targeted by Democrats gets attention from the IRS—and the FBI, OSHA, and the ATF.
By Jillian Kay Melchior
Catherine Engelbrecht’s tale has all the markings of a classic conspiracy theory: She says she thinks that because of her peaceful political activity, she and her family was targeted for scrutiny by hostile federal agencies.
Yet as news emerges that the Internal Revenue Service wielded its power to obstruct conservative groups, Catherine’s story becomes credible — and chilling. It also raises questions about whether other federal agencies have used their executive powers to target those deemed political enemies.
Advertisement
Before the Engelbrecht family’s three-year ordeal began, Catherine says, “I had no real expectation or preparation for the blood sport that American politics is.” Sounding weary on the phone, she continues: “It’s all been a through-the-looking-glass experience.”
Cleta Mitchell, a lawyer who specializes in representing conservative organizations, says that the Engelbrecht family’s experience is “just the tip of the iceberg. . . . I think there’s definitely a Chicago-politics-style enemies list in this administration, and I think it permeates this branch of the federal government.”
* * *
The Engelbrechts were not, until recently, particularly political. They had been busy running a tiny manufacturing plant in Rosenberg, Texas. After years of working for others, Bryan, a trained machinist, wanted to open his own shop, so he saved his earnings, bought a computerized numerical-control machine, which does precision metal-cutting, and began operating out of his garage. “That was about 20 years ago,” he says. “Now, we’re up to about 30 employees.”
For two decades, Bryan and Catherine drove to work in their big truck. Engelbrecht Manufacturing Inc. now operates out of a 20,000-square-foot metal building on the prairie just outside of Houston, where a “semi-pet coyote lives in the field just behind us,” Bryan says. They went back to their country home each night. Stress was rare, and life was good.
But the 2008 elections left Catherine feeling frustrated about the debates, which seemed to be a string of superficial talking points. So she began attending tea-party meetings, enjoying the political discussion. A spunky woman known for her drive, Catherine soon wanted to do more than just talk. She joined other tea partiers and decided to volunteer at the ballot box. Working as an alternate judge at the polls in 2009 in Fort Bend County, Texas, Catherine says, she was appalled and dismayed to witness everything from administrative snafus to outright voter fraud.
These formative experiences prompted her to found two organizations: King Street Patriots, a local community group that hosts weekly discussions on personal and economic freedoms; and True the Vote, which seeks to prevent voter fraud and trains volunteers to work as election monitors. It also registers voters, attempts to validate voter-registration lists, and pursues fraud reports to push for prosecution if illegal activity has occurred.
Bryan says that when his wife began focusing on politics, working less often at the manufacturing shop, “I told her, â€You have my undying support.’” He pauses, then adds in his thick Texan drawl: “Little did I know she’d take it this far!”
In July 2010, Catherine filed with the IRS seeking tax-exempt status for her organizations. Shortly after, the troubles began.
That winter, the Federal Bureau of Investigation came knocking with questions about a person who had attended a King Street Patriots event once. Based on sign-in sheets, the organization discovered that the individual in question had attended an event, but “it was a come-and-go thing,” and they had no further information on hand about him. Nevertheless, the FBI also made inquiries about the person to the office manager, who was a volunteer.
The King Street Patriots weren’t the only ones under scrutiny. On January 11, the IRS visited the Engelbrechts’ shop and conducted an on-site audit of both their business and their personal returns, Catherine says.
“What struck us as odd about that,” she adds,“is the lengths to which the auditor went to try to — it seemed like — to try to find some error. . . . She wanted to go out and see [our] farm, she wanted to count the cattle, she wanted to look at the fence line. It was a very curious three days. She was as kind as she could be, and she was doing her job . . . [but] it was strange.”
Bryan adds: “It was kind of funny to us. I mean, we weren’t laughing that much, but we knew we were squeaky clean. Our CPA’s a good guy. And who says God doesn’t have a sense of humor: I got a little bit of a refund.”
Advertisement
Two months later, the IRS initiated the first round of questions for True the Vote. Catherine painstakingly answered them, knowing that nonprofit status would help with the organization’s credibility, donors, and grant applications. In October, the IRS requested additional information. And whenever Catherine followed up with IRS agents about the status of True the Vote’s application, “there was always a delay that our application was going to be up next, and it was just around the corner,” she says,
As this was occurring, the FBI continued to phone King Street Patriots. In May 2011, agents phoned wondering “how they were doing.” The FBI made further inquiries in June, November, and December asking whether there was anything to report.
The situation escalated in 2012. That February, True the Vote received a third request for information from the IRS, which also sent its first questionnaire to King Street Patriots. Catherine says the IRS had “hundreds of questions — hundreds and hundreds of questions.” The IRS requested every Facebook post and Tweet she had ever written. She received questions about her family, whether she’d ever run for political office, and which organizations she had spoken to.
“It’s no great secret that the IRS is considered to be one of the more serious [federal agencies],” Catherine says. “When you get a call from the IRS, you don’t take it lightly. So when you’re asked questions that seem to imply a sense of disapproval, it has a very chilling effect.”
On the same day they received the questions from the IRS, Catherine says, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) launched an unscheduled audit of their machine shop, forcing the Engelbrechts to drop everything planned for that day. Though the Engelbrechts have a Class 7 license, which allows them to make component parts for guns, they do not manufacture firearms. Catherine said that while the ATF had a right to conduct the audit, “it was odd that they did it completely unannounced, and they took five, six hours. . . . It was so extensive. It just felt kind of weird.”
That was in February. In July, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration paid a visit to Engelbrecht Manufacturing while Bryan, Catherine, and their children were out of town. The OSHA inspector talked with the managerial staff and employees, inspecting the premises minutely. But Bryan says the agent found only “little Mickey Mouse stuff, like, â€You have safety glasses on, but not the right kind; the forklift has a seatbelt, but not the right kind.’” Yet Catherine and Bryan said the OSHA inspector complimented them on their tightly run shop and said she didn’t know why she had been sent to examine it.
Not long after, the tab arrived. OSHA was imposing $25,000 in fines on Engelbrecht Manufacturing. They eventually worked it down to $17,500, and Bryan says they may have tried to contest the fines to drive them even lower, but “we didn’t want to make any more waves, because we don’t know [how much further] OSHA could reach.”
“Bottom line is, it hurt,” he says. Fifteen thousand dollars is “not an insignificant amount to this company. It might be to other companies, but we’re still considered small, and it came at a time when business was slow, so instead of giving an employee a raise or potentially hiring another employee, I’m writing a check to our government.”
A few months later, True the Vote became the subject of congressional scrutiny. In September, Senator Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) wrote to Thomas Perez, then the assistant attorney general of the civil rights division at the Department of Justice (who has now been nominated for labor secretary). “As you know, an organization called â€True the Vote,’ which is an offshoot of the Tea Party, is leading a voter suppression campaign in many states,” Boxer wrote, adding that “this type of intimidation must stop. I don’t believe this is â€True the Vote.’ I believe it’s â€Stop the Vote.’”
And in October, Representative Elijah Cummings (D., Md.), the ranking minority member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, attacked True the Vote in a letter. He wrote that “some have suggested that your true goal is not voter integrity, but voter suppression against thousands of legitimate voters who traditionally vote for Democratic candidates.” He added that: “If these efforts are intentional, politically motivated, and widespread across multiple states, they could amount to a criminal conspiracy to deny legitimate voters their constitutional rights.” He also decried True the Vote on MSNBC and CNN.
Advertisement
Catherine now says that she “absolutely” thinks that because she worked against voter fraud, the Left was irked and decided to target her.
The next month, in November 2012, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state’s environmental agency, showed up for an unscheduled audit at Engelbrecht Manufacturing. Catherine says the inspector told her the agency had received a complaint but couldn’t provide any more details. After the inspection, the agency notified the Engelbrechts that they needed to pay for an additional mechanical permit, which cost about $2,000 per year.
Since then, the IRS has sent two further rounds of questions to Catherine for her organizations. And last month, the ATF conducted a second unscheduled audit at Engelbrecht Manufacturing.
Catherine says she still hasn’t received IRS approval for her nonprofits, though she filed nearly three years ago. And “the way all of these personal instances interweave with what was going on on the nonprofit side . . . it amounts to something. You can’t help but think that statistically, this has to be coordinated on some level.”
On behalf of the True the Vote and King Street Patriots, Representative Ted Poe (D., Texas) sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the FBI, OSHA, and the ATF, inquiring whether the organizations were under criminal investigation. A statement on Poe’s website states that “the reply from these agencies was that none of these individuals were under criminal investigation. Well, if they’re not, why are they being treated like criminals? Just because they question government.”
Catherine says she knows of at least one other group that received government inquiries about its relationship with True the Vote, and she suspects more did, too. And other Tea Party groups decided not to form nonprofits at all after learning about her experience, she says. “They were scared,” she explains, “and you shouldn’t be scared of your government.”
Meanwhile, Catherine says the harassment has forced her to seriously reconsider whether her political activity is worth the government harassment she’s faced.
“I left a thriving family business with my husband that I loved, to do something I didn’t necessarily love, but [which] I thought had to be done,” she says. “But I really think if we don’t do this, if we don’t stand up and speak now, there might not [always] be that chance.”
Her husband offers an additional observation: “If you knew my wife, you’d know she doesn’t back down from anybody. They picked on the wrong person when they started picking on her.”
— Jillian Kay Melchior is a Thomas L. Rhodes Fellow of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity.
-
A bushel of Pinocchios for IRS’s Lois Lerner
Posted by Glenn Kesslerat 06:00 AM ET, 05/20/2013
21
Share to Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share via Email
Print Article
More
(Andrew Harrer/BLOOMBERG)
In the days since the Internal Revenue Service first disclosed that it had targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, new information has emerged from both the Treasury Inspector General’s report and congressional testimony Friday that calls into question key statements made by Lois G. Lerner, the IRS’s director of the exempt organizations division.
The clumsy way the IRS disclosed the issue as well as Lerner’s press briefing by phone were seen at the time as a public relations disaster. But even so, it is worth reviewing three key statements made by Lerner and comparing them to the facts that have since emerged.
“But between 2010 and 2012 we started seeing a very big uptick in the number of 501(c)(4) applications we were receiving and many of these organizations applying more than doubled, about 1500 in 2010 and over 3400 in 2012.”
Lerner made this comment while issuing a seemingly impromptu apology at an American Bar Association panel (it was later learned that this was a planted question—more on that below.) In her telling, the tax-exempt branch was simply overwhelmed by applications and so unfortunate shortcuts were taken.
But this claim of “more than doubled” appears to be a red herring. The targeting of groups began in early 2010, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizen’s United was announced on Jan. 21. The ruling paved the way for political groups to apply under a tax-exempt status known as 501(c)4. Most charities apply under 501(c)3, but under 501(c)4 nonprofit groups that engage in “social welfare” can also perform a limited amount of election activity.
At first glance, the Inspector General’s report appears to show that the number of 501(c)(4) applications actually went down that year, from 1,751 in 2009 to 1,735.
But it turns out that these are federal fiscal-year figures, meaning “2010” is actually Oct. 1, 2009 to Sept. 30, 2010, so the “2010” year includes more than three months before the Supreme Court decision was announced.
Astonishingly, despite Lerner’s public claim, an IRS spokeswoman was not able to provide the actual calendar year numbers. By allocating one-quarter of the fiscal year numbers to the prior year, we can get a very rough sense of the increase on a calendar-year basis.(Figures are rounded to avoid false precision; 2012 is not possible to calculate)
2009: 1745
2010: 1865
2011: 2540
In other words, while there was an increase in 2010, it was relatively small. The real jump did not come until 2011, long after the targeting of conservative groups had been implemented. Also, it appears Lerner significantly understated the number of applications in 2010 (“1500”) in order to make her claim of “more than doubled.”
“I think you guys were reading the paper as much as I was. So it was pretty much we started seeing information in the press that raised questions for us and we went back and took a look.”
Here, Lerner suggests that she only found out about this issue when news reports appeared in February and March 2012 about tea party groups complaining that they were being targeted. But the IG timeline shows this claim to be false.
According the IG, Lerner had a briefing on the issue on June 29, 2011, in which she was told about the BOLO (“Be On the Look Out”) criteria that included phrases such as “Tea Party” or “Patriots.” The report says she raised concerns about the wording and “instructed that the criteria be immediately revised.” She continued to be heavily involved in the issue in the months preceding the new reports, according to the timeline.
“I don’t believe anyone ever asked me that question before.”
This was Lerner’s excuse during the media call for why she had not publicly addressed the issue before.
But in congressional testimony Friday, former acting director Steven T. Miller said he had discussed with Lerner about arranging to make a statement at a May 10 conference sponsored by the American Bar Association, knowing that the IG report would soon be released.
Lerner then contacted a friend, Celia Roady, a tax attorney with the Washington firm Morgan Lewis, to ask a question about the targeting, according to a statement by Roady on Friday. (Roady had previously denied this was a planted question when asked directly by participants at the meeting.)
So Lerner was dissembling when she suggested that a simple well-aimed question prompted the disclosure.
In fact, just two days before the ABA conference, Lerner appeared before Congress and was asked about the status of investigations into 501(c)(4) companies by Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.). She provided a bland answer about a questionnaire on the IRS Web site, failing to take the opportunity to disclose the results of the probe. (The clip is embedded below, with the question coming at 5:09.) Small wonder that Crowley is now calling for her to resign, saying that Lerner lied to him.
We gave the IRS the weekend to provide a response. A spokeswoman said they were not able to offer an explanation for Lerner’s remarks in time for our deadline.
The Pinocchio Test
In some ways, this is just scratching the surface of Lerner’s misstatements and weasely wording when the revelations about the IRS’s activities first came to light on May 10. But, taken together, it’s certainly enough to earn her four Pinocchios.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-bushel-of-pinocchios-for-irss-lois-lerner/2013/05/19/771687d2-bfdd-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_blog.html
-
It Can Happen Here
May 19th, 2013 - 10:39 pm
Shortly before the second-term inauguration of Barack Obama this January, I wrote the following of my worries over the Obama way of doing business:
But the untruths and hypocrisy hover in the partisan atmosphere and incrementally and insidiously undermine each new assertion that we hear from the president — some of them perhaps necessary and logical. Indeed, the more emphatically he adds “make no mistake about it,” “let me be perfectly clear,” “I’m not kidding,” or the ubiquitous “me,” “my,” and “I” to each new assertion, the more a growing number of people will come to know from the past that what follows simply is not true. Does this matter? Yes, because when the reckoning comes, it will be seen as logical rather than aberrant — and long overdue.
I ended my prognostications with the warning, “And so a reckoning is on the near horizon. Let us pray it does not take us all down with his administration.”
Four months later, it almost has.
In January, of course, we all knew that Obama had misled the country on the nature of the disaster that is called Obamacare—a bill forced through on an entirely partisan basis through extraordinary legislative pay-offs and exemptions. The author of the bill, Sen. Max Baucus, dubbed it a “train wreck”; the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (who helped ram through the bill), claimed that we needed to pass the bill to find out what is in it.
Obama’s first-term methodology was in line with his history of dissimulation—promising to accept public campaign financing before becoming the first presidential candidate in the general election to refuse it; demagoguing the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism protocols as a senator as useless or unlawful (e.g., Guantanamo as “al-Qaeda’s chief recruiting tool”), only to embrace or expand them all once he became president; and stoking racial animosity by weighing in during the Professor Henry Louis Gates psychodrama and the Trayvon Martin murder case, and asking La Raza activists “to punish our enemies.” The president had a strange habit, like a moth to a flame, of demagoguing the wealthy as toxic (spread the wealth, pay your fair share, fat cat, you didn’t build that, etc.), while being attracted to the very lifestyle that he damns, a sort of Martha’s Vineyard community organizer. Sometime in 2009, $250,000 in annual income became the dividing line between “us” and “them.” When we hear the president remind us that he is not a tyrant or monarch, then we assume he laments that fact; “make no mistake about it” ensures that you should believe that the president is not being “perfectly clear.”
Of course, in January I did not know yet that the IRS had targeted conservatives, in partisan fashion, to deflate their activism by denying their organizations pre-election tax-exempt status. (Do we now suspect why Harry Reid claimed that he knew the tax records of Mitt Romney, or why Austan Goolsbee popped off about the tax records of the Koch brothers, or how ProPublica had access to confidential tax information about Crossroads GPS [compare the ProPublica boast on their website: “Now, for the first time, ProPublica has obtained the group's application for recognition of tax-exempt status, filed in September 2010. The IRS has not yet recognized Crossroads GPS as exempt, causing some tax experts to speculate that the agency is giving the application extra scrutiny”]?)
I did not think that the administration would be so haughty to go after the Associated Press and monitor their official and private communications, especially given that the source of most national security leaks par excellence was the Obama White House itself. Recall the sordid details of the AP scandal: the AP sat on a story until they were given a quiet administration go-ahead to publish the account—even as the administration desperately wanted to scoop them and high-five over the story of the Yemeni double agent 24 hours earlier than the AP.
The AP was not first advised of the administration investigations, nor were the phone checks focused and narrow. Instead, the administration went whole hog after two months of phone records to send a message to its pets in the press—secure that Eric Holder, in Fast and Furious fashion, could always go to Congress with “I don’t now,” followed by executive privilege and stonewalling.
Meanwhile, in Machiavellian fashion the Obama administration had divulged classified information about the Stuxnet virus, the bin Laden raid, and the drone targeting—in order that sympathetic Washington Post and New York Times reporters might have pre-election fuel for the hagiographic accounts of Obama, the underappreciated commander-in-chief.
While we all knew that a filmmaker did not prompt a riot that just happened to kill four Americans, we did not, until the testimony of State Department officials and the published communications of White House, CIA, and State Department staffers, appreciate just how far the administration would go to further a false narrative. And quite a myth it was: lead-from-behind Libya was still a success; al-Qaeda was still scattered; Obama was still on the global front lines condemning anti-Islamic bigots like Mr. Nakoula, whose religious hatred supposedly had spawned violence that even the Nobel laureate Barack Obama could not deter.
Yet in some sense, Obama won. The IRS, AP, and Benghazi scandals were all adroitly kept under wraps for months before the 2012 election, as Goolsbee and Reid thundered about right-wing wealthy people not paying their fair taxes, and the press echoed a “how dare you” when anyone questioned the frightening state of events.
Living in Oceania
And now?
Suddenly in 2013, what was once sure has become suspect. All the old referents are not as they once were. The world is turned upside down, and whether the government taps, politicizes, or lies is not so important if it subsidizes the 47%. Does anyone care that five departments of government are either breaking the law or lying or both (State [Benghazi], Defense [the harassment issues], Justice [monitoring of phone lines], Treasury [corruption at the IRS], Health and Human Services [shaking down companies to pay for PR for Obamacare])?
The National Rifle Association is now supposed to be a suspect paramilitary group, in the way the Boy Scouts are homophobes. One day we woke up and learned that by fiat women were suddenly eligible to serve in front-line combat units—no discussion, no hearings, no public debate. We had a “war on women” over whether upscale Sandra Fluke could get free birth control from the government, but snoozed through the Dr. Gosnell trial. The latter may have been the most lethal serial killer in U.S. history, if his last few years of snipping spinal cords were indicative of the his first three unmonitored decades of late-term aborting.
The Obama administration had decided to shut down as many coal plants as it can, stop most new gas and oil drilling on federal lands, and go after private companies ranging from huge aircraft manufacturers to the small guitar concerns—based not on law, but on certain theories of climate change and labor equity. As in the case with the IRS, the EPA is now synonymous with politically motivated activism designed to circumvent the law. The president in his State of the Union address assured us that cap-and-trade will be back, given, he says, the atypical violent weather that hit the U.S. in his term—even as global temperatures have not risen in 15 years, and hurricanes are now occurring more rarely than during the last administration.
The government, we were also told, would not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, and would grant de facto amnesty for large numbers of illegal aliens as the election approached. Enforcement of existing law now is a fluid idea, always up for discussion For the first time in my life, I can not even find rifle shells on the store shelves—amid rumors that the Department of Homeland Security, at a time of national acrimony over the Second Amendments, believes it is an opportune moment to stockpile gargantuan amounts of ammunition—again, a sort of force multiplier in ensuring panic buying.
Are You a Correct Citizen?
So we are in unchartered territory. The IRS has lost our trust, both for its rank partisanship and its inability to come forward and explain its crimes. Eric Holder wants us to believe that he has no idea why his office was monitoring the communications of journalists, and yet now warrants the renewed trust of the president. Susan Rice serially misled on national television about Benghazi and so will probably be promoted to national security advisor. Even the Washington Post has decided that the president was lying in his defense about Benghazi (albeit with the funny sort of childhood rating of “four Pinocchios”) after the president’s team serially blamed the violence on an internet video, while the president simultaneously claimed that he also identified the crime immediately as a terrorist hit.
On campuses, the Departments of Justice and Education have issued new race/class/gender guidelines that would effectively deny constitutionally protected free speech in universities, a sort of politically correct idea that proper thinking is preferable to free thinking.
If you oppose “comprehensive immigration reform” you become a nativist or worse—and apparently are one of the “enemies” the president wants to “punish.” The president just condemned American guns that wind up in Mexico–implying right-wingers opposed his own remedies of new gun control and neglecting to mention that his own Fast and Furious operation sold thousands of lethal weapons to Mexican drug cartels.
The end of the revolving doors, lobbyists, and non-transparency resulted in Jack Lew—recipient of a $1 million bonus from Citibank as it both lost money and gulped down federal bailout money—taking over from the tax-dodger Timothy Geithner as our new Treasury secretary to oversee the new IRS. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is now pumping corporations for money to help spread the gospel about how eager we are for the implementation of Obamacare, as the government now sort of freelances on its own—the federal equivalent of California Highway Patrol officers suddenly ubiquitous along our roadsides ticketing in a frenzy, in fear of their bankrupt state pension funds.
Now What?
What happens to a corporation that says “nope” to Sebelius? An IRS audit? Phone monitoring? Presidential denunciation as a “fat cat”? Talking points? Harry Reid taking to the floor to claim it had not paid its fair share in taxes?
Government has become a sort of malignant metasisizing tumor, growing on its own, parasitical on healthy cells, always searching for new sources of nourishment, its purpose nothing other than growing bigger and faster and more powerful—until the exhausted host collapses. We have a sunshine king and our government has become a sort of virtual Versailles palace.
I suppose that when a presidential candidate urges his supporters to get in someone’s face, and to take a gun to a knife fight, from now on you better believe him. And, finally, the strangest thing about nearing the threshold of 1984? It comes with a whimper, not a bang, with a charismatic smile and mellifluous nonsense—with politically correct, egalitarian-minded bureaucrats with glasses and iPhones instead of fist-shaking jack-booted thugs.
-
Honestly, if Rush starts his show today with UmbrellaGate.... something tells me that will get his listeners' blood flowing more than any other issue.
-
Honestly, if Rush starts his show today with UmbrellaGate.... something tells me that will get his listeners' blood flowing more than any other issue.
He will probably attack obama's lie filled speech at the college commencement that was laughable beyond words.
-
He will probably attack obama's lie filled speech at the college commencement that was laughable beyond words.
somehow, you seem to lack credibility when you use the term "lie-filled" to refer to anyone else
-
somehow, you seem to lack credibility when you use the term "lie-filled" to refer to anyone else
Obama said blacks have to work 2x as hard just to get bye. Really? Obama and his wife have done .0000001% the work of anyone else and have gotten farther ahead than most others by looting the taxpayer, making liberal whites feel guilty into voting for him, and chooming his way to the top.
-
somehow, you seem to lack credibility when you use the term "lie-filled" to refer to anyone else
so true ;D
-
Obama said blacks have to work 2x as hard just to get bye. Really? Obama and his wife have done .0000001% the work of anyone else and have gotten farther ahead than most others by looting the taxpayer, making liberal whites feel guilty into voting for him, and chooming his way to the top.
sighhhhhh........first of all in what way did Obama make Liberal whites feel guilty into voting for him....in your racist mind EVERY WHITE who votes for a black does so out of "guilt"....we conveniently ignore the fact that the white candidates (Romney and McCain/Palin) were disasters....I guess whites should vote for them anyway so they don't feel "guilty" huh?
Obama worked harder to become president than GWB did...I love GWB but he had a silver spoon in his mouth and rode that to the white house...Obama put in time as a lawyer and community organizer and strewdly picked his spots when deciding what offices to run for....
I will agree he got lucky......but to say he got his position by not working for it and because of guilty whites is unbelievable and further erodes the .00001% of credibility you had left...however, credibility was never something you cared about anyway
-
He voted present the entire time remember?
sighhhhhh........first of all in what way did Obama make Liberal whites feel guilty into voting for him....in your racist mind EVERY WHITE who votes for a black does so out of "guilt"....we conveniently ignore the fact that the white candidates (Romney and McCain/Palin) were disasters....I guess whites should vote for them anyway so they don't feel "guilty" huh?
Obama worked harder to become president than GWB did...I love GWB but he had a silver spoon in his mouth and rode that to the white house...Obama put in time as a lawyer and community organizer and strewdly picked his spots when deciding what offices to run for....
I will agree he got lucky......but to say he got his position by not working for it and because of guilty whites is unbelievable and further erodes the .00001% of credibility you had left...however, credibility was never something you cared about anyway
-
somehow, you seem to lack credibility when you use the term "lie-filled" to refer to anyone else
Traits of a Sociopath
4. PATHOLOGICAL LYING -- can be moderate or high; in moderate form, they will be shrewd, crafty, cunning, sly, and clever; in extreme form, they will be deceptive, deceitful, underhanded, unscrupulous, manipulative, and dishonest.
6. LACK OF SELF RESPONSIBILITY -- a lack of feelings or concern for the dignity and credibility of their own character.
7. SHALLOW AFFECT -- emotional poverty or a limited range or depth of feelings; interpersonal coldness in spite of signs of open gregariousness. Often due to extreme self loathing.
13. LACK OF REALISTIC, LONG-TERM GOALS -- an inability or persistent failure to develop and execute long-term plans and goals; a nomadic existence, aimless, lacking direction in life.
16. FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR OWN ACTIONS -- a failure to accept responsibility for one's actions reflected in low conscientiousness, an absence of dutifulness, antagonistic manipulation, denial of responsibility, and an effort to manipulate others through this denial.
Traits of a Psychopath
Pathological lying
Emotionally shallow
Feelings of insecurity
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
Parasitic lifestyle
Lack of realistic, long-term goals
Impulsiveness
Irresponsibility
The terms Sociopath and Psychopath are often used interchangeably. While either can be used in most cases it is telling that a psychopath is often more organized than a sociopath, and better able to imitate normal behavior.
Both refer to a personality or mental disorder[2][3][4][5] characterized partly by antisocial behavior, a diminished capacity for remorse, and poor behavioral controls.[5][2] As a diagnostic category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, psychopathy has been replaced by antisocial personality disorder (ASPD).[5]
-
Great find - explains obama to the hilt.
Traits of a Sociopath
4. PATHOLOGICAL LYING -- can be moderate or high; in moderate form, they will be shrewd, crafty, cunning, sly, and clever; in extreme form, they will be deceptive, deceitful, underhanded, unscrupulous, manipulative, and dishonest.
6. LACK OF SELF RESPONSIBILITY -- a lack of feelings or concern for the dignity and credibility of their own character.
7. SHALLOW AFFECT -- emotional poverty or a limited range or depth of feelings; interpersonal coldness in spite of signs of open gregariousness. Often due to extreme self loathing.
13. LACK OF REALISTIC, LONG-TERM GOALS -- an inability or persistent failure to develop and execute long-term plans and goals; a nomadic existence, aimless, lacking direction in life.
16. FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR OWN ACTIONS -- a failure to accept responsibility for one's actions reflected in low conscientiousness, an absence of dutifulness, antagonistic manipulation, denial of responsibility, and an effort to manipulate others through this denial.
Traits of a Psychopath
Pathological lying
Emotionally shallow
Feelings of insecurity
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
Parasitic lifestyle
Lack of realistic, long-term goals
Impulsiveness
Irresponsibility
The terms Sociopath and Psychopath are often used interchangeably. While either can be used in most cases it is telling that a psychopath is often more organized than a sociopath, and better able to imitate normal behavior.
Both refer to a personality or mental disorder[2][3][4][5] characterized partly by antisocial behavior, a diminished capacity for remorse, and poor behavioral controls.[5][2] As a diagnostic category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, psychopathy has been replaced by antisocial personality disorder (ASPD).[5]
-
Great find - explains obama to the hilt.
I guess we can add hypocrite to your resume as well.
-
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/5-ways-obama-can-restore-the-public-s-trust-and-rescue-his-presidency-20130520
White House
5 Ways Obama Can Restore the Public's Trust and Rescue His Presidency
Painful choices include appointing a special prosecutor on the IRS and offering an apology to The Associated Press.
By Ron Fournier
Updated: May 20, 2013 | 10:08 a.m.
May 20, 2013 | 9:40 a.m.
(AP)
Swamped in controversies, President Obama and his slow-footed team are essentially telling the American public, “We’re not crooked. We’re just incompetent.”
The IRS targeting conservatives, the Justice Department snooping at The Associated Press, the State Department injecting politics into Benghazi, the military covering up sexual assaults, and the Department of Veterans Affairs leaving heroes in health care limbo – each of these so-called scandals share two traits.
First, there is some element of “spin," the cynical art of telling just enough of the truth to avoid political embarrassment. Obfuscation and demagogy, the dirty tools of political quackery that Obama pledged to purge from Washington, enjoy top-shelf status at his White House.
Second, there is almost comical bungling. While denying involvement in high crimes and misdemeanors, the Obama administration appears to be pleading guilty to lesser crimes of bureaucratic incompetence. But that is an unsustainable position for a president who wants Americans to believe again in the power and grace of good government, particularly as it relates to the implementation of Obamacare.
--IRS agents targeted conservatives. Their bosses lied about it for months.
--Justice Department investigators violated internal guidelines to secretly spy on The Associated Press.
--White House and State Department officials minimized their role in shaping initial explanations for the Benghazi attack.
--Military officers assigned to sexual assault prevention units are charged with sexual battery. The Pentagon’s own study finds that 26,000 service members experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2012. It’s not a new problem.
--Despite a 40 percent increase in funding, the Department of Veteran’s Affairs cannot ease a backlog of cases. The typical wounded warrior waits more than 300 days for action on a claim. In major cities, the wait can be 642 days.
The backdrop to this parade of buffoonery is a decades-long decline in the public’s faith in government, a trend continued under Obama. Restoring the public’s trust in his governance is the only way Obama can survive the controversies with his agenda and legacy intact.
In interviews, allies of the White House privately suggested a few things Obama could do, including:
Appoint a bipartisan oversight board to oversee the implementation of Obamacare. There is no way around the fact that a vast majority of voters will not trust the IRS to implement the greatest piece of social legislation in decades. Before the tempests, Obamacare was unpopular and largely misunderstood by most Americans. The law’s success hinges on the government recruiting young adults into insurance pools. And polls show young adults are the least likely to trust government.
Layer the White House communication team with experienced crisis managers. As I wrote here last week, Obama needs to realize that the dedicated public servants in the West Wing are not getting the job done.
Apologize to the AP and announce a new policy for leaks investigations. The White House needs to punish people who leak classified information that endangers national security. But the scope of the snooping at AP combined with Obama's unprecedented zeal for leaks investigations raises doubts about his commitment to transparency and to an unfettered media. He has pursued more such cases than all previous administration combined, according to the Washington Post. The paper also reported that the administration spied on a Fox News reporter at the State Department. Again, this is a matter of trust.
Appoint a special prosecutor on the IRS. The last thing the country needs is another subpoena-powered fishing expedition like the Whitewater inquiries. But we might need a special prosecutor with a narrowly defined mission to investigate the actions and motives of IRS agents and their superiors. Is there a better way to restore the agency’s integrity? The administration investigating itself will not lift the cloud from Obama’s White House.
Reset the narrative and public expectations with a major speech on trust. Obama has spoken eloquently and convincingly about this issue. If his next address included painful solutions such as the ones above, he might restore the public’s audacity to hope.
Get the latest news and analysis delivered to your inbox. Sign up for National Journal's morning alert, Wake-Up Call, and afternoon newsletter, The Edge. Subscribe here.
-
Traits of a Sociopath
4. PATHOLOGICAL LYING -- can be moderate or high; in moderate form, they will be shrewd, crafty, cunning, sly, and clever; in extreme form, they will be deceptive, deceitful, underhanded, unscrupulous, manipulative, and dishonest.
6. LACK OF SELF RESPONSIBILITY -- a lack of feelings or concern for the dignity and credibility of their own character.
7. SHALLOW AFFECT -- emotional poverty or a limited range or depth of feelings; interpersonal coldness in spite of signs of open gregariousness. Often due to extreme self loathing.
13. LACK OF REALISTIC, LONG-TERM GOALS -- an inability or persistent failure to develop and execute long-term plans and goals; a nomadic existence, aimless, lacking direction in life.
16. FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR OWN ACTIONS -- a failure to accept responsibility for one's actions reflected in low conscientiousness, an absence of dutifulness, antagonistic manipulation, denial of responsibility, and an effort to manipulate others through this denial.
Traits of a Psychopath
Pathological lying
Emotionally shallow
Feelings of insecurity
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
Parasitic lifestyle
Lack of realistic, long-term goals
Impulsiveness
Irresponsibility
The terms Sociopath and Psychopath are often used interchangeably. While either can be used in most cases it is telling that a psychopath is often more organized than a sociopath, and better able to imitate normal behavior.
Both refer to a personality or mental disorder[2][3][4][5] characterized partly by antisocial behavior, a diminished capacity for remorse, and poor behavioral controls.[5][2] As a diagnostic category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, psychopathy has been replaced by antisocial personality disorder (ASPD).[5]
very nice psychological profile of 3333....I hope he learns something from this....I hope all his followers and sycophants on here pay attention as well
-
Did your minutes get renewed this month on the obamaphone?
very nice psychological profile of 3333....I hope he learns something from this....I hope all his followers and sycophants on here pay attention as well
-
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/20/DOJ-Inspector-General-confirms-US-Attorney-DOJ-headquarters-leaked-documents-to-smear-Fast-and-Furious-whistleblower
The Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General published a new report Monday that confirms former U.S. Attorney for Arizona Dennis Burke leaked a document intended to smear Operation Fast and Furious scandal whistleblower John Dodson.
The DOJ IG said it found “Burke’s conduct in disclosing the Dodson memorandum to be inappropriate for a Department employee and wholly unbefitting a U.S. Attorney.”
“We are referring to OPR our finding that Burke violated Department policy in disclosing the Dodson memorandum to a member of the media for a determination of whether Burke’s conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct for the state bars in which Burke is a member,” the IG wrote.
Burke resigned from his post as U.S. Attorney over the incident in August 2011, the first major Department of Justice official to leave his or her post in the Fast and Furious scandal. He said after the fact, in interviews with congressional investigators, that he now views leaking the document as a “mistake.”
In addition to Burke’s involvement in leaking the document, emails the IG uncovered show senior officials at the Department of Justice discussed smearing Dodson.
One of those was Tracy Schmaler, the Director of the Department’s Office of Public Affairs, who resigned her position at the DOJ after emails uncovered through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request showed that she worked with leftwing advocacy group Media Matters for America to smear whistleblowers and members of Congress and the media who sought to investigate DOJ scandals under Attorney General Eric Holder.
-
Notice how hypocrites always dodge and scramble when the issue of their hypocrisy comes up?
-
Notice how hypocrites always dodge and scramble when the issue of their hypocrisy comes up?
Notice how you can't even muster a half assed defense to the crime wave committed by the messiah you voted for TWICE?
-
http://nation.foxnews.com/irs/2013/05/20/more-romney-donors-audited
Yeah - totally legit.
15 Romney donors audited within 90 days of making a donation - yeah that is completely normal in a rep republic and not a fascist state ::)
-
Notice how you can't even muster a half assed defense to the crime wave committed by the messiah you voted for TWICE?
Notice how you can't even muster a half assed defense to the 8 year meltdown committed by yourself day after day?
Hypocrisy. A Republican specialty.
-
Traits of a Sociopath
4. PATHOLOGICAL LYING -- can be moderate or high; in moderate form, they will be shrewd, crafty, cunning, sly, and clever; in extreme form, they will be deceptive, deceitful, underhanded, unscrupulous, manipulative, and dishonest.
6. LACK OF SELF RESPONSIBILITY -- a lack of feelings or concern for the dignity and credibility of their own character.
7. SHALLOW AFFECT -- emotional poverty or a limited range or depth of feelings; interpersonal coldness in spite of signs of open gregariousness. Often due to extreme self loathing.
13. LACK OF REALISTIC, LONG-TERM GOALS -- an inability or persistent failure to develop and execute long-term plans and goals; a nomadic existence, aimless, lacking direction in life.
16. FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR OWN ACTIONS -- a failure to accept responsibility for one's actions reflected in low conscientiousness, an absence of dutifulness, antagonistic manipulation, denial of responsibility, and an effort to manipulate others through this denial.
Traits of a Psychopath
Pathological lying
Emotionally shallow
Feelings of insecurity
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
Parasitic lifestyle
Lack of realistic, long-term goals
Impulsiveness
Irresponsibility
The terms Sociopath and Psychopath are often used interchangeably. While either can be used in most cases it is telling that a psychopath is often more organized than a sociopath, and better able to imitate normal behavior.
Both refer to a personality or mental disorder[2][3][4][5] characterized partly by antisocial behavior, a diminished capacity for remorse, and poor behavioral controls.[5][2] As a diagnostic category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, psychopathy has been replaced by antisocial personality disorder (ASPD).[5]
Can you guys chill on all this personal crap already?
-
The scandals of the Obama administration seem to be hurting not just the White House but MSNBC as well while Fox News Channel scored its second-best week of the year. After double-digit gains during last year’s presidential election, May 13-17 saw the progressive-aligned “Lean Forward” news network hit new lows as the IRS scandal erupted and revelations that the Justice Department secretly obtained AP records became public. With 350,000 viewers on average and 94,000 among the adults 25-54 demo, MSNBC had its least-watched and lowest-rated total-day results of the year last week. That was also the lowest total-day demo result the network has had since the week of June 26-July 2, 2006, when MSNBC pulled in just 83,000 viewers among adults 25-54, according to Nielsen data.
Related: Fox News Tops 2012 Cable News Network Ratings; MSNBC Up
Last week’s total day results were down 17% in viewers and 22% among the demo from the comparable May 14 to May 18 week of last year. In primetime, the numbers were even worse for MSNBC as a steady decline from the beginning of the year continued. The network had 570,000 total viewers and 159,000 in the demo from 8 PM to 11 PM from May 13 to May 17, 2013. That’s the lowest rated week of the year so far for MSNBC in terms of viewers and the third lowest of 2013 in the demo. The week of May 6 to May 12 was worst in the demo with 148,000 viewers when the network had 604,000 viewers on average. These latest results come as the news network’s recently launched and struggling All In With Chris Hayes hit a new viewership of 396,000 and its second lowest demo audience of just 88,000 on May 14. It also comes on the heels of MSNBC falling in April ratings from its second place ranking of the year before.
Related: Fox Tops April Cable News Ratings While CNN Posts Big Gains
Looking at last week’s numbers, MSNBC is down 27% in both viewership and among adults 25-54 in primetime next to the comparable week in 2012. In comparison, No. 1 cable news network Fox News Channel had 1.491 million total day viewers and 283,000 in the demo last week. That’s FNC’s second most watched week of the year after the week of the Boston Marathon bombings. FNC had 2.396 million total viewers and 356,000 among adults 25-54 in primetime from May 13 to May 17. That’s a 1% demo drop in total day and a 10% drop in primetime compared to the same frame last year. However it is a 31% total day viewership rise for FNC and a 17% primetime audience lift over the comparable week of May 14 to May 18, 2012. Boasting about his network’s victory over CNN last year and in February, MSNBC’s president Phil Griffin said earlier this year that he aimed to beat FNC by 2014. The Comcast-owned network did actually top FNC a couple of nights last year during the heat for the Presidential election. With that in mind, Griffin’s effort fell short last week. In total day, MSNBC was fourth after Fox News Channel, CNN and HLN in both viewers and among adults 25-54 last week. In primetime last week, MSNBC beat CNN’s 544,000 total viewers to snag third place but came fourth in the demo after FNC, HLN and CNN.
Deadline's Dominic Patten - tip him here.
http://www.deadline.com/2013/05/obama-msnbc-fox-news-scandals
-
How the white hat got stained
Like every administration, the Obamites let ends justify means
By Jim Geraghty / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Monday, May 20, 2013, 4:00 AM.
.
.
.
Carolyn Kaster/AP
President Obama this month.
.
.
.
.
..
Don’t let anyone fool you: Everyone in politics is tempted to believe that their noble ends could justify unethical and illegal means.
Those who had hoped that President Obama would usher in a new era of higher standards in Washington must be shell-shocked by last week’s revelations:
-The Internal Revenue Service admitted to delaying conservative organizations’ tax-exempt status while quickly approving groups that had liberal or progressive orientations. The IRS asked these groups all sorts of invasive questions, including what kind of books they read, and leaked some information to the media.
-The Department of Justice secretly obtained two months worth of telephone records of Associated Press journalists, more than 20 separate phone lines — a stunning amount of snooping into the interactions between reporters and their sources.
-The Environmental Protection Agency has reportedly been waiving fees for Freedom of Information Act requests from environmental groups while keeping them in place for conservative groups.
-Gregory Hicks, a career State Department employee whose account of events in Benghazi contradicted the administration’s initial claims that it was tied to a YouTube video, said he was harangued and demoted for not toeing the line.
While there are still chapters to be written in the story of how this administration went astray, one element appears clear: Obama’s crew in Washington, and those who worked under him in the federal bureaucracy, have bent, broken and ignored the rules — all quite certain that they were acting for the greater good. (At this point, it is not clear whether Obama turned a blind eye to all this or obliviously presided over the federal bureaucracy’s transformation into a partisan cudgel.)
Saul Alinsky, the activist whose writings influenced Obama in his community organizing days, scoffed at those who spent a lot of time worrying about whether the ends justify the means. In his most famous book, “Rules for Radicals,” Alinsky wrote, “One has to remember means and ends. It’s true that I might have trouble getting to sleep because it takes time to tuck those big, angelic, moral wings under the covers. To me, that would be utter immorality.”
But you don’t need to be a devotee of Alinsky to conclude that making an omelet requires cracking some eggs.
Undoubtedly, the men and women who made up the highest ranks of the Bush administration believed in a noble end of a free Iraq: dictator Saddam Hussein deposed, weapons of mass destruction eliminated and a functioning, secular democracy in the middle of the Arab world.
It is indeed a lovely vision, one that drove that administration to overlook questions about the Iraqi WMD programs and whether there were enough troops to keep order after the invasion.
Once the war began, one misdeed after another had to be excused or dismissed as a distraction from that noble end: military contractor profiteering, Abu Ghraib prison, an environment of runaway sectarian violence and so on.
Obama debuted on the political scene with an atmosphere of messianic excitement. A July 2008 column by Mark Morford in the San Francisco Chronicle asked, with no detectable sarcasm, whether Obama was a “Lightworker” — described as “that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet.”
These moments, when self-righteousness shines from every pore, are probably when politicians should be most careful — and since they rarely are, these are the moments when the public should be most vigilant. For almost every scandal is rooted in the belief that what you and your allies are doing is so good, so noble and so necessary that it can justify some moral shortcuts.
The Contras really needed those arms. A President is entitled to a little canoodling with an intern, and it’s acceptable to lie under oath about it. To quote Nixon, “When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
Good screenwriters know every villain believes he is the hero of his own story. The human capacity for self-justification can be pretty epic even outside a highly charged political atmosphere in which each side sees itself as the living embodiment of everything that makes America great — and the other side as a motley amalgamation of petty, corrupt, selfish special interests.
And now, we see what happens when an administration and the ranks of the federal bureaucracy become filled with folks who are convinced they can cut some corners because they’re doing the Lord’s work. Or, perhaps, the Lightworker’s work.
Geraghty, a contributing editor at National Review, writes the ‘Campaign Spot’ blog for the magazine's web site.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/white-hat-stained-article-1.1347507#ixzz2Tvhhl4Vi
-
The President Won — Sort Of
The administration spent the last six months of the campaign in cover-up mode.
By Victor Davis Hanson
On September 11, 2012, Barack Obama was 1 point ahead of Mitt Romney in the ABC and Washington Post polls. He was scheduled to meet Romney in three weeks for the first debate. The president was increasingly anxious. Unemployment was still at 7.8 percent, and the Solyndra and Fast and Furious scandals had only recently disappeared from the news — and they had done so only thanks to the use of executive privilege.
But the Tea Party seemed to have lost its 2010 momentum, despite its renewed warnings that Obamacare would be a disaster if not repealed in 2013. The president was running on the slogan that GM was alive and bin Laden was dead — the implications being that massive influxes of borrowed federal money had allowed GM’s work force to survive, and that with the death of bin Laden came the unraveling of the “core” of al-Qaeda. Libya, of course, was cited as an overseas success — a sort of implied un-Iraq.
The contours of the campaign, in other words, were well drawn. Obama claimed that he had brought peace overseas and restoration at home, while Romney claimed that we were less secure on President Obama’s watch and that the economy was ossified because of too much debt and government spending.
And the race was neck and neck. In a few days the secretly taped “47 percent” Romney video would emerge and tar with Romney with the charge of social insensitivity. And in the second debate, in mid-October, the moderator, CNN’s Candy Crowley, in utterly unprofessional fashion, would interrupt Romney’s reference to Benghazi and cite a transcript in such a way as to falsely turn Obama’s generic reference to terrorism into an explicit presidential condemnation of the Benghazi attacks as a terrorist action, and swing the momentum of the debate back to a stumbling Barack Obama.
Again, as of September 11, the race was dead even.
Beneath Obama’s calm veneer that September there were lots of things the public did not know, and from the administration’s point of view apparently should not know until after the election. Just three months earlier, the Treasury Department’s inspector general had reported to top Treasury officials that the Internal Revenue Service had been inordinately targeting conservative groups that were seeking tax-exempt status. Such political corruption of the IRS was a Nixonian bombshell, with enormous implications for the election, especially given that during the campaign Obama’s economic adviser Austan Goolsbee had claimed that he had knowledge about the Koch brothers’ tax returns, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was lauding himself as a “wrecking crew” as he swore he had the inside dope on Mitt Romney’s taxes. Note that while Nixon talked tough about using the IRS, the agency resisted his efforts; in Obama’s case, the more the administration has denied political pressure, the more the evidence has come out that politics had long ago corrupted the agency — whose reputation has been ruined under this administration for the foreseeable future.
The inspector general of the Treasury recently testified before Congress that he had told Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin of the IRS’s shenanigans in June 2012, five months before the election. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who had been grilled during confirmation hearings about his own improper tax deductions, must at some point have been told of the IRS mess, but somehow all these disturbing developments were kept under wraps for the duration of the campaign. Are we to believe that, each time Geithner met with the president between June and November, he did not mention the scandal brewing in his department because his own deputy had never told him?
In other words, in cynical fashion, the Obama team won on two counts: The IRS had intimidated conservative organizations for months and had very possibly helped to prevent them from repeating their successes of 2010, while keeping the illegal activity from the press and the public.
As of September 11, 2012, the American people also did not know that the attorney general’s office had four months earlier been conducting secret monitoring of two months’ worth of records of calls made from private and work phone lines of Associated Press reporters — this surveillance supposedly due to suspicions that administration sources were leaking classified information to these reporters.
But something was awry here too. First, the administration did not start by apprising AP that it wished to talk to their suspect reporters, as is normal protocol. Stranger still, the administration itself apparently had leaked classified information about the Stuxnet cyber-war virus, the drone protocols, and the Seal Team 6 raid that killed bin Laden (remember Defense Secretary Bob Gates’s “Shut the f*** up!”) — all in efforts to persuade the voting public that their president was far more engaged in the War on Terror than his critics had alleged.
These efforts to squelch any mention of the monitoring of journalists worked as well. Reporters were outraged when they eventually learned that some of their brethren had been subjected to stealthy government surveillance — but they learned this a year after the fact and only following the reelection of Barack Obama.
On September 11, 2012, of course, there was the violent attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead, and a host of unanswered questions in the heat of the campaign: What was such a large CIA operation doing in Benghazi? Why was our ambassador left so vulnerable both before and during the attack? Why had the much-praised “lead from behind” campaign to remove Qaddafi earned us a dead ambassador and a nation full of anti-American terrorists, some of them perhaps al-Qaeda–related?
Advertisement
We know now from a flurry of e-mails, public talking points, and public statements from staffers that when the president himself, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and Press Secretary Jay Carney insisted that the attack grew out of a spontaneous demonstration over an Internet video, they knew in reality that the video had nothing to do with the attack.
Yet coming clean before the American people apparently might have involved explaining why no one in Washington was willing to beef up security in answer to Ambassador Stevens’s requests. And during the attack, worry over a Mogadishu-like firefight two months before the election may have been why the administration ordered available units to stand down rather than sending in help by any means necessary. The truth was clear: Libya was not quiet, nor was al-Qaeda leaderless.
Instead, blaming the violence on a petty crook and supposed “Islamophobe” squared the circle: A right-wing bigot had caused the problem; he could be summarily jailed; and the president could both be absolved from blame for the unexpected violence and praised for his multicultural bona fides in condemning such a hateful voice on our soil. Again, the cover-up worked perfectly in accordance with the September campaign narrative. The American people did not find out the truth of what happened in Benghazi — the “consulate” was never attacked by “spontaneous” demonstrators enraged by a video emanating from the United States — until eight months after the attack.
In the matters of the Associated Press surveillance, the IRS scandal, and Benghazi, the White House prevailed — keeping from the public embarrassing and possibly illegal behavior until the president was safely reelected. As in the mysteries surrounding David Petraeus’s post-election resignation, and the revelation about the “train wreck” of Obamacare, what the voters knew prior to November about what their government was up to proved far different than what they are just beginning to know now. And so Obama won the election, even as he is insidiously losing half the country.
Because breaking the law and telling untruths eventually surface, we will come to learn that Obama was reelected into oblivion.
— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. His The Savior Generals is just out from Bloomsbury Books.
Â
-
Can you guys chill on all this personal crap already?
are you new here???
-
are you new here???
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/21/us-usa-healthcare-scandals-analysis-idUSBRE94K08420130521
(Reuters) - With the White House already reeling from three major controversies, some Republican lawmakers are zeroing in on what they perceive is another possible scandal tied to President Barack Obama's landmark health reform law just as it nears implementation.
On top of the troubles the administration is facing over its handling of the attack on the Benghazi mission, the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative groups, and the Justice Department's seizure of Associated Press phone records, Republicans hope to target Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
They are questioning her soliciting of funds on behalf of a non-profit group, called Enroll America, from two private entities, a practice which if not unprecedented is at the very least unusual. Federal law bars officials from soliciting any organization or individual with whom they do business or regulate.
Enroll America is run by the president's former campaign backers to do something Congress refused to fund: sell "Obamacare" to the public.
An HHS statement last week said that since March Sebelius solicited financial donations for Enroll America from H&R Block Inc, the tax preparation company, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a philanthropic entity devoted to public health issues. Asked Monday for a list of all solicitations before or after March, an HHS spokesman referred Reuters to the department's original statement.
Neither H&R Block nor the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation are regulated by HHS, the department's spokesman said, so there was nothing improper or illegal about soliciting them.
Enroll America is intended to serve as the private sector flagship for a massive public outreach campaign intended to get millions of uninsured Americans to sign up for subsidized insurance coverage through new online marketplaces, or exchanges, that will begin open enrollment on October 1.
NO COMMITMENT
H&R Block said it has made no commitment to Enroll America. "We received a phone call from the Secretary during which the Secretary discussed supporting Enroll America," the company said in a statement. "While we took her suggestion under consideration, we have made no commitment," it said.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation said in a statement that it had "recently approved new funding" for Enroll America, bringing its total contributions to the group to nearly $14 million since 2010. It did not say how much of that, if any, came in response to Sebelius' solicitation.
It's the second controversy over the novel method used by the Obama administration to promote its agenda: using campaign-style organizations staffed with loyalists and former campaign or White House aides to mobilize grassroots support for government policies. The first involved Organizing for Action, an independent non-profit group seeking to harness both the energy and personnel from Obama's re-election campaign in support of the president's legislative agenda.
The Enroll America issue is complicated by the fact that Republicans in Congress have succeeded in blocking proposed government spending that otherwise could have been used to achieve the ends pursued by the independent group.
That has given lawmakers, such as Republican U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander, an opening to allege a violation of the federal "anti-deficiency" act, which bars agencies from accepting "voluntary" services except when authorized by law.
In defense of the help the department is getting from Enroll America, an HHS spokesman said it is permitted by a section of the Public Health Service Act that allows the secretary to encourage support for new and innovative health programs.
Some conservative legal experts say finding a clear-cut violation of the law is a long shot. "I would be skeptical of the claim that it's illegal, unless someone made a really compelling case. However, the appearance is such that it at least raises questions," said Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western University who opposes healthcare reform.
But legal issues may be the least of the concerns for supporters of the healthcare law.
They worry that a political storm over Obamacare, with congressional hearings likely, could discourage private donors to Enroll America and jeopardize the administration's ability to find the funds needed to reach a public that is already largely unaware of the healthcare reforms.
One of the biggest concerns is that younger, healthier people will not sign up for health plans on the exchanges, driving the costs up for coverage of the people who do sign up.
"The danger" to the health program, said former Obama healthcare adviser Nancy-Ann DeParle, "is that people don't come and enroll and get insured. That leaves the health plans in the exchanges trying to cover people without any young, healthy people, and it drives the price up."
REPUBLICANS PROMISE PROBES
Republicans certainly see an opportunity.
"Our guys on the Hill think this is the fourth scandal," said Republican strategist Matt Mackowiak. "It fits into that narrative Republicans are building not only about incompetence in the executive branch but also dishonesty."
"This is a good issue for Republicans," Mackowiak added. "We want to maximize it."
The Republican-controlled House Energy and Commerce Committee has launched an investigation into the fundraising to determine whether it involved regulated companies and has asked nearly a dozen healthcare firms including major insurers such as Aetna Inc, a member of Enroll America's advisory council, to say whether they have received solicitations.
Republicans in the House and Senate have also called on the non-partisan Government Accountability Office to investigate.
"People are watching it very closely. We're hearing about it from constituents, people who are incredibly concerned," said Republican Representative Marsha Blackburn.
Enroll America was launched in September 2011 in part by leaders of Families USA, a key backer of the healthcare reform effort as it moved through Congress in 2009 and 2010. It is led by Anne Filipic, who worked on public engagement projects in the Obama White House. It's managing director, Chris Wyant, directed Obama's eastern Ohio field operation during the 2012 election campaign.
It includes on its boards of directors and advisers, executives of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Blue Shield of California, Kaiser Permanente, and CVS Caremark as well as officials of major health-related trade associations, such as the American Hospital Association and the National Association of Health Underwriters.
Filipic said she is confident that Enroll America will get the funds it needs for the outreach campaign. "We feel really good that we'll have the resources we need," she said.
(Reporting by David Morgan; Additional reporting by David Ingram and Fred Barbash; Editing by Fred Barbash, Martin Howell and Eric Beech)
-
HEHEHEHEEEE!!!!
So much for the messiah riding on a white horse to save America.
That is one useless "constitutional scholar".
-
HEHEHEHEEEE!!!!
So much for the messiah riding on a white horse to save America.
That is one useless "constitutional scholar".
They never imagined that the messiah would turn out to be such a disastrous failure.
-
The American people voted in 2008 hopint to avoid, supposedly, a third Bush term. They ended up getting Bush x 1000.