Thursday, May 23, 2013

Top-Down Targeting, Not IRS Rogues, Responsible For Scandal

by / Personal Liberty Digest

Top-Down Targeting, Not IRS Rogues, Responsible For Scandal
An Investigative reporter in Cincinnati, the epicenter (so far as we know) of the Internal Revenue Service discrimination conspiracy against conservatives, has all but demolished President Barack Obama’s claim that the two-year hit job was the work of self-willed, autonomously acting “rogue” employees far down the chain of command.

Common sense would naturally tell anyone the same thing; and the known facts in this case do nothing but corroborate the suspicions of both liberals and conservatives convinced that the President was involved in the sandal, which obviously benefitted his re-election campaign, from the beginning.

Cincinnati’s FOX 19 investigative reporter Ben Swann checked into the administrative hierarchy within the IRS to determine where the supposedly “rogue,” low-level IRS grunts, whom the Obama Administration blames for targeting more than 300 Tea Party nonprofit groups, fit in.

Of the six IRS plebes (five IRS “agents” and one “supervisor”) Swann identified by name, none answers to the same manager. Instead, each answers to a separate manager, who in turn is managed by a “territory manager.”

But the process of applying for tax exemption — the very process the IRS used to green-light pro-Obama nonprofits while making sure the wheels fell off their conservative competitors — ultimately ends with one person. That person — Cindy Thomas, Program Manager of the Tax Exempt Division — is the one manager all the low-level agents, as well as their managers and those managers’ managers, have in common.

Swann explains the process:
When an application for tax exempt status comes into the IRS, agents have 270 days to work through that application. If the application is not processed within those 270 days, it automatically triggers flags in the system. When that happens, individual agents are required to input a status update on that individual case once a month, every month until the case is resolved.
Keep in mind, at least 300 groups were targeted out of Cincinnati alone. Those applications spent anywhere from 18 months to nearly three years in the system, and some still don’t have their nonprofit status. Three hundred groups multiplied by at least 18 months for each group means thousands of red flags would have been generated in the system.
Swann goes on to point to the events that have befallen the rest of the IRS chain of command since the scandal went public, noting that former Acting Commissioner Steven Miller and the Commissioner of Tax Exempt Entities, Joseph Grant, have both retired. Above them is Lois Lerner, head of Exempt Organizations, who took the stand Wednesday to tell Congress she’s pleading the Fifth on any questions about the fiasco. And the Director of the IRS’ Exempt Organizations division, Holly Paz, has been subpoenaed and will soon have the same opportunity.

None of the administrators in the preceding paragraph is based in Cincinnati; they are all based in Washington, D.C.

Writing in The Washington Post Wednesday, Ed Rogers related the story of how far up the chain of command the scandal went before being shielded from Obama’s delicate eyes:
My personal favorite of all the new revelations from the Obama IRS scandal is that White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler told White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough about the impending IRS inspector general report, but of course the White House chief of staff did not tell the president.
I sat in a White House chief of staff’s office every day for more than two years. The only reason the legal counsel would tell the chief of staff about an impending report or disclosure would be so the chief of staff could tell the president… There are many valid reasons why the chief of staff would tell the president, but I can’t think of a reason why he and the legal counsel would both agree that this news nugget would go no further. It’s very odd.
It’s not just odd; it’s criminal. And everyone knows who the chief perpetrator is.

UK jihad murderer: "There are many, many ayah throughout the Koran that says we must fight them as they fight us"

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

Watch the video above: he refers to the Qur'an right at the beginning. It is quite clear. It is not surprising at all that the British press would leave out his reference to the Qur'an. "Chilling video of London attacker explaining machete attack on reported soldier," by Max Fisher in the Washington Post, May 22 (thanks to Suneil):

See the video here:
It’s not clear how or why two men attacked a man believed to be a British soldier in the London neighborhood of Woolwich, but U.K. officials are already investigating it as a possible act of terrorism. 
A video broadcast by the U.K. network ITV purports to show one of the two attackers explaining himself to a camera immediately after the attack. His hands are covered in blood, a knife and a machete in his right hand. The victim is clearly visible on the ground with a crowd gathering in the background. Here’s what he said:
We swear by Almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. The only reasons we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day. This British soldier is an eye for an eye a tooth for tooth. We apologise that women had to see this today but in our lands our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government. They don’t care about you.
The Guardian cites eyewitnesses as describing the attack as a “beheading.” The BBC talked to an eyewitness who describes what he saw after arriving in the middle of the attack:
I saw two people lying over him and I thought they were trying to resuscitate him. I went down to the garage and another bloke come along and told me they were actually stabbing him. Apparently they actually ran the car into him and knocked him down before they did anything. And the next minute a silver car came along and a man got out and shouted he was going to phone the police. The next thing that happened was he actually pulled a handgun out. It was a gun that looked as if it could take about 12, 15 rounds so I definitely know it was handgun because I actually seen it in his hand.
The same witness also said that some unarmed police were nearby but did not want to approach the men, who appeared to be armed, until armed “Trojan” police arrived.
The two attackers were shot by police and are currently receiving medical treatment.
Update: The Washington Post’s Anthony Faiola, reporting from London, listened to the ITV video very carefully and came away with a different quote than the one circulating in British media. The first part of the attacker’s quote is difficult to hear because the ITV anchor is speaking over him. It’s not clear to me where the above version, which is cited in The Guardian and elsewhere, first appeared. Here’s the quote as heard by Faiola:
There are many, many ayah throughout the Koran [referring to religious verses] that says we must fight them as they fight us, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I apologize that women had to witness this today but in our land women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don’t care about you.

Obama's Scandals -- and His Media Co-Conspirators

By: Larry Elder / Townhall Columnist

How does President Barack Obama, a man of such keen intelligence, with such promise to "change" America, find himself in so much serious trouble?

From the IRS targeting conservatives to the continued confusion over what happened at Benghazi to provoking a battle with The Associated Press by subpoenaing phone records that could involve as many as 100 reporters, what went wrong?

The answer is simple: arrogance, aided and abetted by a compliant, adoring "news" media.

CNN's Roland Martin urged the president to "go gangsta" on conservatives who wouldn't confirm his political appointments. Supporters like MSNBC's the Rev. Al Sharpton publicly said they will not criticize Obama -- on anything. Even though Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., called the then 15.9 percent black unemployment rate "unconscionable," she refused to publicly criticize the President.

Politicians, Waters candidly told a Detroit town hall audience on unemployment, want to get re-elected: "If we go after the President too hard, you're going after us. When you tell us it's all right and you unleash us and you're ready to have this conversation, we're ready to have the conversation."

So why shouldn't Obama feel that he operates under different, special rules, and can do so without risking loss of support?

By refusing to hold Obama to the same standard they would hold any garden-variety Republican, the media now face the monster they created.

With a straight face, Obama used lines like he's going to "save or create" 3.5 million jobs. What does that even mean? How do you measure whether a given policy "saves" a job?

"The inability to measure Mr. Obama's jobs formula is part of its attraction," wrote William McGurn in The Wall Street Journal. "Never mind that no one -- not the Labor Department, not the Treasury, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics -- actually measures 'jobs saved.'"

With a straight face, Obama told us over and over how his mother, as she lay dying from cancer in a Hawaii hospital, fought with her insurance carriers over paying her medical and hospital bills. But according to the book by Janny Scott, a former New York Times reporter, the sole dispute was over a disability policy his mother had taken out. Her bills were paid promptly and without dispute. To date, not one reporter has asked the President about this false narrative he used so effectively to personalize his fight for ObamaCare.

With a straight face, Obama told us that under ObamaCare the "cost curve" would "bend down"; that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; and that nobody will be worse off under ObamaCare. Yet premiums are going up. Employers are dropping plans and cutting hours to shed the number of "full-time workers" for whom employers must provide a health care policy or pay a fine.

With a straight face, Obama told us that the soaring annual deficits come from "two wars we didn't pay for" and "tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that were not paid for." Did his suck-up media do the math?

If you take the generally accepted estimate of the costs of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq -- over the 10 years from 2001 to 2011 -- they annually accounted for 10 percent of the then-deficit. As to tax cuts for the rich, Obama put the "cost" at $700 billion over 10 years and has said, "We need to get rid of ... tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires and ... corporate jet owners." But $700 billion over 10 years is $70 billion per year, a small fraction of the current deficit.

With a straight face, then-Sen. Obama, the Un-Bush, said he opposes any military intervention unauthorized by Congress unless the country faces imminent risk of attack. But as President, Obama joined with France and Britain in bombing Libya, a country that posed no imminent threat to America. Libya's then-leader, Moammar Gadhafi, had long before surrendered his weapons of mass destruction to the Bush administration. President George W. Bush obtained congressional approval for Afghanistan and Iraq. Not so with Obama and Libya. President Obama paid no political price for what Sen. Obama would have opposed.

Newsweek, after the passage of ObamaCare, published a gushing cover story: "We Are All Socialists Now." Somehow the piece failed to note economists like UCLA's Lee Ohanian, whose peer-reviewed work shows that FDR's New Deal lengthened and deepened the Great Depression -- the opposite of what most Americans learn in high school. But to Newsweek, the question has been settled. A bigger, activist government is simply right and proper and just. If it takes thuggery on the part of Obama to get us there, well, so be it.

Obama's arrogance flows from our fawning, gushing, Bush-hating "news" media, which shirk their responsibility to fairly report the news. The media's fecklessness creates overconfidence. With good reason, Obama expects his media cheerleaders to look the other way, accept excuses without much challenge and turn the President's critics and whistleblowers into enemies.

Conservatives have alleged that progressives have been engaged in a callous attempt under this plutocratic administration in creating artificial crises so that the plutocracy can abridge citizens' rights.

I mean further than they’ve already abridged them.

And until now the press has ignored this vast right wing conspiracy theory time after time: Fast and Furious, Solyndra, TARP, HARP, Benghazi, the IRS, Gun Grabbing, Libya, Iran, Syria, Russia, stimulus spending, the Boston Bombing and the phony math on Obamacare.

Wisconsin’s Jim Sensenbrenner summed it up during a House hearing on Fast and Furious when he said: "There is really no responsibility within the Justice Department."

He was right. But why stop there?

There is really no responsibility in the White House either; or at the State Department, the EPA, the FBI, the Department of Labor or the Defense Department.

Because Sensenbrenner should have included the executive branch of the federal government, the SEC, the IMF, SCOTUS, Congress and just about everyone from the rank of bird-Colonel on up in his indictment. The government has seemed strangely reticent about getting to the bottom of any of many missteps that the Obama adminstration has produced for years.

When Attorney General Eric Holder responded to the House committee on Fast and Furious by comparing those hearings to the hearings conducted by Senator Joe McCarthy in the 1950s on communists in government, the press was delighted.

“Have you no shame,” cried Holder in mock righteousness, displaying that the administration has neither shame nor a responsible adult in charge.
His tone was a bit more mature once press reporters found out that they weren’t just allies of the plutocracy, but targets as well.

Holder went from mock righteousness to mock ignorance as he stood before the House committee investigating why his department decided to spy on press reporters, saying:

"I was not the person involved in that decision," "I am not familiar with the reasons why the subpoena was constructed in the way that it was because I'm simply not a part of the case."
"I do not know, however, with regard to this particular case, why that was or was not done."
"I simply do not have a factual basis for answering that question."
"Again, Mr. Chairman, I don't know."
"I assume he was, but I don't know."
"I don't know what has happened in this matter."

“This is both an ongoing matter and an ongoing matter about which I know nothing.”

"The thing is, if we don't get to the bottom of this -- and that requires your assistance on that,” Sensenbrenner warned Holder on Fast and Furious, “there is only one alternative that Congress has and it is called impeachment."

It’s time now for Sensenbrenner and Republicans to be true to their word.

Because here’s our thing: Some of us hicks out here in the countryside, in flyover country, clinging to our guns and our religion, are starting to get the idea that mistakes aren’t just being made by the administration, but rather that mistakes are being manufactured-- and then ignored by Republicans in Congress.

At ATF, at Justice, at DOE, at FBI, at Boston and Benghazi, at the Federal Reserve Bank, at Solyndra, the answer’s always the same: “Oops. We made a mistake.”

And they don’t just make one mistake; they make a series of mistakes, they obfuscate, then lie, then lie about the lie… and then it’s time to cue up a two-week Obama vacation or for Hillary to bang her head accidentally and be unavailable for comment.

The administration is mistaken in its reaction when evidence first comes forward of wrongdoing; it is mistaken in its statements it makes under oath; it is mistaken when it mistakenly answers a question that it mistakenly answered mistakenly in the first place in front of Congress, or the press. or the people. No wonder Obama doesn't doesn't want to hear from anyone in his own administration.

They are so mistaken in what they mean and what they say they mean that everything is suddenly dependent on the legal definition of the word “is.”

Call it the Clinton defense, the best legal novelty invented since the insanity plea. But of course the Clinton defense only works for government workers. The rest of us have to face the plain, ordinary law.   

And make no mistake: You know those paranoid people who think that Obama and his cronies are purposefully crashing the system from within to serve a political agenda where no crisis goes to waste?

They have a pretty darn good point now at the Department of Justice. 

And the longer these “mistakes” are allowed to happen with no remission, no trial, no perp walk, the clearer the picture becomes even without the most transparent administration in the history of the Nobel Prize.

And those weren’t just congressmen demanding justice from Holder.

That’s you and me who Holder is comparing to drunken Joe McCarthy.

It’s not we, the people, who are drunk on the power to deceive right now.

We still have some of our rights unabridged.

And if Holder doesn't want to cooperate, impeachment is good first start.

Some are finally waking up...

Even some of ObamaCare's previously most staunch supporters are beginning to see the dangers that is ObamaCare's reality...