SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: MJ who wrote (65107)5/17/2013 4:53:25 PM
From: FJB3 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 



To: MJ who wrote (65107)5/19/2013 9:28:49 AM
From: Peter Dierks1 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 71588
 
The Stasi IRS?
By Fay Voshell
May 19, 2013

It's often been said the Internal Revenue Service is the most feared bureaucracy in the United States.

Little wonder.

As the agency openly proclaims on their own website, concerning what actions they might take if your taxes are unpaid:

We could seize and sell property that you hold (such as your car, boat, or house), or we could levy property that is yours but is held by someone else (such as your wages, retirement accounts, dividends, bank accounts, licenses, rental income, accounts receivables, the cash loan value of your life insurance, or commissions).


You could even wind up in jail like Al Capone, who found that not paying taxes brought down more wrath and judgment from the government than murder.

But recent events have given Americans even more reason for fear.

Deep in the subterranean bowels of the IRS, there are electronic folders full of deeply personal, private information about nearly every American and every tax exempt organization. We now know this treasure trove of information is exponentially expanding and has been put to the use for the aims of a corrupt administration interested in crippling political opposition such as the Tea Party movement.

The harassment of the Richmond Tea Party group, which applied for tax exempt status, exemplifies the badgering many conservative groups have received over the last few years. A long letter from the IRS to the organization includes an almost impossible list of requirements demanded by lackeys who obviously invented as many obstacles as possible to prevent conservative organizations from achieving tax exempt status.

In the letter, the IRS admitted the group had already provided "thorough responses" in its 2009 application, but stated that "unfortunately, we need the following for the period of 2010 to now..." Among the plethora of demands for information from October 2010 on:

? Detailed information about board members, officers, employees and volunteers, including work hours and compensation.

? Information on all events and programs on all events and programs, including time, location; detailed description plus hard copies of all handouts; detailed lists of the names and credentials of all organizers, the contents of all speeches, the names of all speakers and info on their credentials.

? Provision of information on all publishing activities, including books, CD's, DVD's, newsletters, flyers, brochures, pamphlets, voter guides -- plus copies of all publications and advertising materials.

? Information on any and all attempts to influence the outcome of specific legislation, including information on all attempts to do so.

? Information of all other IRC 501© (3) or 527 organizations with whom the Tea Party is associated, including details about the "nature of the relationship," along with the names and employer ID numbers of the leaders of such organizations.


Other demands included the provision of details about future activities being planned. The IRS also wanted all the names of "donors, contributors and grantors." If the donors, contributors and grantors planned to run for office, the Tea Party was to provide such information, including the title of the office for which the aforementioned people might be running.

In short, the Richmond Tea Party was basically asked to act as a spy on itself and other similarly minded organizations on behalf of the IRS. It was asked to give every possible detail not only about its private inner mechanisms and modes of operation, but those of any organization with which it is even remotely connected. It goes without saying that such detailed information could be conveniently put to use by political enemies.

Obtaining access to files would be all that was needed to know everything about a prospective candidate for office who just happened to be conservative.

Where have we seen this sort of intensive scrutiny and record keeping before? Where have we seen the use of detailed records used to repress opposition to government?

We saw it in Eastern Germany before the fall of the infamous Wall in 1989 in the form of the Stasi, the arm of the secret police, which kept voluminous information on every individual and every organization within that hapless and oppressed nation. The Stasi's motto was "To know everything." At its height of power, it employed 100,000 and had 200,000 informants. (According to its website, the IRS has about 115,000 employees.)

The result of the continual spying in the GDR was a collection of information so huge that it defied belief. Der Spiegel, Germany's top newspaper, reported in 2009, "The files occupy over 100 kilometers of shelf space, though this doesn't even include the 16,000 sacks of shredded documents the Birthler Authority is currently trying to reassemble with the aid of computers."

Included in the files, later opened to scrutiny of the citizens the Stasi harassed, arrested, tortured and whose relatives were killed, are horrifying examples of how little it took to destroy lives. "Mundane everyday events were picked up by the Stasi and used to change the course of people's lives. Some 'suspicious activities' were nothing more than simple misunderstandings: One file tells of a man subjected to close surveillance at the Leipzig convention hall because the agent monitoring him didn't understand what he meant by checking his 'mail box.' The official was unaware of the English term and reported it as 'Mehl box' -- a box of flour." The poor stooge was arrested.

Herbert Ziehm, who formerly lived in East Germany and who was appointed to be in charge of managing the Stasi files, relates the files are testament to a darker side of humanity. Ziehm says that films like The Lives of Others, an award-winning film revelatory of the human consequences of Stasi activities, does not even come close to plumbing the depths to which human beings can sink when they are encouraged to spy on one another. Ziehm said, "More often than not, the Stasi did not need to apply pressure at all. In fact, many often felt snubbed if their information was deemed to be of no interest. People informed for personal gain, out of loyalty to the East German regime, or simply because they wanted to feel like they had some power."

Where else has the Stasi mentality been found?

In his massive study of the oppression of the Soviet communist regime, The Gulag Archipelago, Alexander Solzhenitsyn documented the results of a vast bureaucracy dedicated to spying on fellow Russians. He wrote: "Any action directed toward the weakening of state power was considered to be counterrevolutionary."

He cited the results of the communists' criminal code which forbade "propaganda or agitation containing an appeal for the overthrow, subverting, or weakening of Soviet power... and, equally, the dissemination or possession of literary materials of similar content [...] The famous extensions of this section were as follows: The scope of 'agitation containing an appeal' was enlarged to include a face-to-face conversation between friends or even between husband and wife, or a private letter. The word 'appeal' could mean personal advice. And we say 'could mean' because, in fact it did [...] The term 'preparation of literary materials' covered every letter, note, or private diary, even when only the original document existed. [...] I myself experienced the subtle application of this section. Two of us had secretly exchanged thoughts -- in other words, we were the beginnings of an organization, in other words, an organization."

The result of the exchange of letters between Solzhenitsyn and his friend was that Alexander was sent to the gulag. A group of photos of him during and after imprisonment can be found here(https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=Alexander+Solzhenitsyn+prison+photo&oq=Alexander+Solzhenitsyn+prison+photo&gs_l=hp.12...14680.14919.3.17277.2.2.0.0.0.0.78.136.2.2.0...0.0...1c.1.12.psy-ab.r-bjguJc_Hw&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.46471029,d). His ravaged face tells it all.

Solzhenitsyn's story as well as the stories of millions of East Germans and Russians who were entrapped by the machinations of a faceless, remorseless, and oppressive bureaucracy dedicated to spying on and persecuting fellow citizens is a solemn warning to us.

The letter that went out to the Richmond Tea Party reveals the IRS has been committed to tracking detailed information on U.S. citizens who are conservatives; information it could later choose to use or to give to others for persecutory purposes. One shudders to think such a corrupt entity is supposed to be in charge of enforcing Obamacare.

What might prevent a Stasi mentality from completely taking over the IRS? What are some possible solutions which might prevent further excesses by the IRS?

For starters, Congress must demand abuses by the IRS stop, seeing to it a neutral watchdog group is standing by ready to bark before abuse happens.

Second, the IRS must not be allowed to expand its authority any further by making it the enforcer of Obamacare. In fact, having the IRS as enforcer is a very good reason to repeal Obamacare altogether.

Third, Congress needs to mount a serious effort to reform our behemoth and onerously elaborate tax code, as it offers too many opportunities for the IRS to go after citizens who have no way to keep track of every minute rule and regulation.

Fourth, enraged Americans must keep the pressure on, protesting the abuses of the IRS in every way the law allows: Petitions, letters, law suits, civil protests and more.

Fifth, a multi-million man march on Washington comprised of angry conservatives and liberals alike just might make an impression.

Wouldn't that be an interesting display of bipartisanship?

Last, all Americans should remember that when private information held by the government exceeds public information given out by the government, the tendency toward tyranny always increases. We need to know at all times just what our government is doing.

Fay Voshell may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com

americanthinker.com



To: MJ who wrote (65107)5/19/2013 7:51:56 PM
From: greatplains_guy  Respond to of 71588
 
People inside government have repeatedly claimed that career bureaucrats remain apolitical, direction comes from political appointees. If these statements are truthful then Obama's stinky fingerprints are all over this scandal.



To: MJ who wrote (65107)6/3/2013 2:14:19 AM
From: greatplains_guy2 Recommendations  Respond to of 71588
 
Not Whether Holder Lied, But When
By Daniel Foster
May 28, 2013 3:26 PM

The House judiciary committee is investigating whether Eric Holder lied under oath to Congress. Actually, they are investigating whether Holder lied to Congress or lied to a federal judge, since it sure seems like he did one or the other. Jennifer Rubin explains:


The panel is looking at a statement Holder made during a back and forth with Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) about whether the DOJ could prosecute reporters under the Espionage Act of 1917.

“In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material — this is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy,” Holder said during the hearing.


As I and some other right-leaning journalists pointed out last week, this cannot be squared with the revelation that Holder signed off on the James Rosen search warrant.

The catch is this: If Holder never considered prosecution of journalists including Rosen, then the affidavit laying out a purported criminal case against Rosen was a ruse, a false statement under oath, directed to the court to conduct a wide-ranging dragnet. If, on the other hand, the affidavit which Holder signed off on is true in laying out the case against Rosen, then he didn’t level with Congress. In either event, he needs to come back and explain himself. If he refuses or takes the Fifth, there is no alternative but to name a special prosecutor.

Obviously, either possibility is bad for the AG. And, of course: Holder could have named Rosen as a coconspirator pro forma, just to get his court orders, and misled congress.

nationalreview.com



To: MJ who wrote (65107)6/4/2013 9:13:26 AM
From: Peter Dierks1 Recommendation  Respond to of 71588
 
Holding pattern: The attorney general is hobbled by controversy
June 4, 2013 12:06 am

Next to his boss the president, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. may have the hardest job in government. As the recent history of both major parties illustrates, the person who serves as the nation's chief law enforcement officer pleases few people and infuriates many.

Mr. Holder himself appears to recognize that he has become a political liability. According to a story in Sunday's New York Times, he considered stepping down after four years but did not in part because he wanted to move beyond the disputes that had characterized his tenure. The article made it clear that although President Barack Obama stands with him, some in the White House privately say he should step down.

To be fair, much of what he has done would be excoriated by Republicans, no matter who was attorney general. His resistance to GOP efforts to pass onerous voter ID laws has been stout -- he said such a law in Texas amounted to a poll tax -- and he has been a firm advocate of the Affordable Care Act.

But he has also offended civil libertarians by trying to justify deadly drone attacks by American citizens accused of terrorism. Lately his Justice Department has offended journalists by monitoring calls made by Associated Press reporters in a leak investigation and also targeting a Fox News reporter in a separate probe (Republicans claim he lied to Congress about his knowledge of this case).

There is no doubt that sometimes Mr. Holder has not been deft. To calm the media, he held an off-the-record interview with editors and tried to mollify them with promises of a federal shield law to protect reporters' sources. He was held in contempt by Congress for not handing over documents in the Fast and Furious "gun walking" fiasco. Although that was political grandstanding by Republicans, it was also an embarrassment to administration claims of being transparent.

Even if he were not close to Mr. Holder, the president knows that replacing one lightning rod with another will not stop the lightning -- and that assumes GOP senators would confirm any replacement nominee. No wonder Mr. Obama stands by the attorney general who politically isn't doing him much good. If Mr. Holder goes, it may have to be through the self-realization that he can't be effective under the weight of successive controversies, fair or not.


First Published June 4, 2013 12:00 am

post-gazette.com



To: MJ who wrote (65107)10/6/2013 11:01:23 AM
From: greatplains_guy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
MJ

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
Will Fast And Furious Justice Finally Befall Eric Holder?
Larry Bell, Contributor

10/06/2013 @ 10:00AM

Serial abuses of justice by America’s top law enforcement official should be enough to make just about any tinhorn banana republic dictator blush. Yet regarding any embarrassment evidenced by the leader of the free world… not so much. Despite the fact that our attorney general has been indicted for contempt of Congress on both felony and civil charges, has repeatedly lied under oath, and has routinely turned a blind eye to laws that he is duty-bound to enforce, Mr. Holder continues to serve at the behest of his presidential mentor. At least he has so far.

Apparently not so very much of that promised transparency after all:

On September 30, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman turned down Holder’s Justice Department request to dismiss a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee lawsuit seeking “Operation Fast and Furious” gun-running scandal documents hidden by the self-proclaimed “most transparent administration in history”.

Up until now, Obama and company have refused to do so after the president asserted executive privilege. Their position argued that the oversight committee’s demand for information had been settled by a February 4, 2011 letter to Congress in which Assistant Attorney General Ron Welch stated that “the allegation that ATF ‘sanctioned’ or otherwise knowingly allowed the sale of weapons…is false”. DOJ pleaded that since their letter contended that they had done nothing wrong, and that there was nothing more to see following its issuance, the matter should be settled. Congress should just accept their word… get over it… move on.

Call them a disagreeable lot, but the House oversight committee chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) wasn’t sufficiently trusting to do that. After they sued to obtain the outstanding records, the administration filed for dismissal. They maintained that if the lawsuit were allowed to proceed, every new document request would be unjustifiably subject to litigation.

But then a pesky problem arose. It seems that that February 4 letter that was supposed to end the House committee inquiry was…gasp…untruthful after all. As Deputy Attorney General James Cole was compelled to admit in another letter to Congress: “Facts have come to light during the course of this investigation that indicate the Feb. 4 letter contains inaccuracies.”

“Inaccuracies”? That’s one way to put it. Welch had contended that The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives “makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico.” Another document dump at the same time confirmed what agent testimony and other information had already shown… that the letter, and almost everything in it, was a complete fabrication. It was well known at the time that Fast and Furious was much more than simply a “botched” but well-intentioned operation in which the government simply “lost track” of thousands of weapons that eventually wound up in the hands of the Sinaloa cartel. Instead, it was actually intended to let guns be delivered to Mexican drug cartels.

As reported by Fox News at the time, ATF Agent John Dodson was provided with a letter allowing him to purchase semi-automatic weapons from federal firearms dealers without filling out required forms and was ordered to do so. Dodson then sold the guns to illegal buyers who took them to a stash house. Dodson’s request for 24-hour surveillance was disapproved, and he and his surveillance team were ordered to stand down. Violating those orders, Dodson stayed behind. A week later, when a vehicle showed up to transfer the weapons to their ultimate destination, he called for an interdiction team to move in, seize the weapons and arrest the traffickers. Again, his request was refused, and the guns disappeared without surveillance.

Appearing before Issa’s committee, Dodson testified: “Allowing loads of weapons that we knew to be destined for criminals — this was the plan. It was so mandated.”

On May 3, 2011, three months after the Feb. 4 letter, the attorney general was asked when he first heard of “Operation Fast and Furious”. In response, he falsely testified to Congress: “I’m not sure the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.” Yet the head of the National Drug Intelligence Center, Michael Walther, had clearly informed Holder about Fast and Furious in a July 2010 memo, and subsequent revelations show he knew all along. This being the case, he obviously did nothing to stop the illegal operation.

Tragically, two of the weapons linked to Fast and Furious were recovered from the murder scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in December 2011 where he had been shot by illegal immigrants who were smuggling drugs. Two other of those weapons were found at the scene of the murder of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Jaime Zapata in Mexico on February 15, 2011. Three more turned up at a violent crime location in Mexico where a local police chief and his bodyguard were killed by cartel members.

In June 2012, following a 16-month investigation, the House of Representatives voted to hold Holder in Contempt of Congress for his continued refusal to produce requested documents about the scandal. He was the first-ever sitting Cabinet member to be held in contempt…including both criminal and civil violations.

Obama’s grant of the DOJ’s 11th -hour request to hide the sought-after documents was issued on the eve of that vote. Yet it was not made known to Congress until just before the scheduled hearing and vote Issa received a letter from Deputy AG Cole stating : “I write now to inform you that the president has asserted executive privilege over the relevant post-Feb. 4, 2011 documents.” Remarkably (or perhaps not), it reportedly wasn’t mentioned during a last-minute meeting between Issa and Holder on that evening before.

Judge Jackson’s recent finding rejected the White House argument that the House oversight committee lawsuit to obtain documents would somehow threaten the separation between branches of government and inundate the courts with litigation in subsequent disputes. While clarifying that she wasn’t ruling on the merits of the lawsuit, she disagreed with arguments offered for dismissal. Her decision stated: “The court rejects the notion that merely hearing this dispute between the branches would undermine the foundation of our government, or that it would lead to the abandonment of all negotiation and accommodation in the future, leaving the courts deluged with subpoena enforcement actions.”

On the other hand, some additional subpoenas are probably long overdue:

President Obama has steadfastly retained an individual in America’s top law enforcement role who has made other false statements under oath to Congress. Holder previously lied to Congress claiming “decisions made in the New Black Panther Party case were made by career attorneys in the department.” In reality, his Associate A.G. Thomas Perrelli, an Obama political appointee, had overruled a unanimous recommendation for prosecution by DOJ attorneys.

The president stood by Attorney General Holder after he was caught once again lying to Congress about knowing about his DOJ secretly subpoenaing personal phone records and emails in a trumped-up criminal co-conspirator information leak charge against Fox News reporter James Rosen. This action was in direct contravention of the First Amendment. The warrant also approved of tracking Rosen’s movements into and outside the State Department. As it turned out, Holder had personally signed off on that warrant. DOJ then unsuccessfully “shopped it around” to two judges before finding a third who would approve it without allowing Rosen to be notified as required.

The mainstream media finally began to show real signs of concern about DOJ’s breaches of constitutional rights when, during the same month, the AP learned that the DOJ had secretly collected phone records of some of its own reporters and editors. Here, the DOJ chose to avoid the court system altogether by serving subpoenas directly upon phone companies without telling the AP. They did so in exception to their own internal policy of notifying a media company in advance of a subpoena because doing so “would pose a substantial threat to the investigation.”

The attorney general has also failed to enforce legally mandated federal laws. Most recently, he directed federal prosecutors to conceal amounts of drugs seized during an arrest in order to circumvent mandatory minimum sentences set by Congress in 1986.

The AG has violated legally established voting rights and immigration policy decisions as well. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Shelby County v. Eric Holder that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is “unconstitutional”, and that “the formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdiction to preclearance”. But instead of complying with that ruling, Holder’s Justice Department filed suit ordering Texas to submit to preclearance in defiance of Congress’ authority to legislate. DOJ has ignored the Supreme Court’s authority to rule on the constitutionality of the law as well.

Undaunted by the Tenth Amendment which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited to only those powers granted in the Constitution, Holder’s DOJ is now once again suing Texas in an attempt to overturn state voter ID laws established to ensure election integrity. In response to Holder’s claim that such laws are racist, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott responded: “Voter IDs have nothing to do with race, and they are free to anyone who needs one.” Abbott also said: “Eric Holder’s outrageous claim that voter ID is a racist plot to disenfranchise minority voters is gutter politics and is offensive to the overwhelming majority of Texans of all races who support this ballot integrity measure.”

There can be no doubt that the Holder DOJ Texas suit to overturn state voting integrity safeguards is only the beginning of a national plan. About 20 states have photo-ID laws on the books or are in the process of implementing them. And by all appearances, DOJ is not alone in pursuing that agenda. The latest Texas litigation came on the heels of the harassment of True the Vote (TTV) founder Catherine Engelbrecht by the IRS, the BATF, and OSHA. As discussed in my May 30 article, this is in addition to separate IRS targeting of TTV and Engelbrecht’s other King Street Patriots non-profit for tax-exempt status interference.

Last year the Obama administration announced that it will stop deporting illegal immigrants under the age of 30 in a “deferred action” policy to circumvent immigration laws. That was after Congress rejected a similar measure about a year earlier. Since then, more than 500,000 illegals have received the deferment, while only 20,000 have been rejected. Meanwhile, law-abiding applicants must wait in line.

In July 2010, the Justice Department sued Arizona for a law requiring state officials to enforce federal immigration laws. Yet attacking a state for upholding federal law would again seem to violate the 10th Amendment which says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Arizona didn’t add any new laws. It simply gave local authorities the power to enforce federal responsibilities that were being neglected; failures which were impacting the security and well-being of its citizens. Article 4.4 clearly states that the U.S. shall protect states from invasion. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits states from assisting in enforcing federal laws. Meanwhile, the Justice Department has openly violated federal laws it is supposed to enforce, including allowing municipalities to declare immunity from those laws as “sanctuary cities”. Protecting sovereign borders is a federal responsibility, not an option.

As presumed legal scholars, President Obama and Eric Holder must be aware that our nation’s founding document established three co-equal branches of government, an Executive Branch, a Congress with legislative responsibility, and a Supreme Court with top judicial authority. Article 2, Section 3, Clause 5 of that marvelous document requires that the president “…shall take care that the Laws be carefully executed.”

A central and sustaining purpose of our Constitution is to preserve individual liberties and restrain government from grabbing unlimited power. While the president has authority to check the Legislative Branch by recommending legislation to be passed by Congress, or through presidential veto, neither he/she or the attorney general are permitted to legislate through executive fiat or pick which parts of the law to comply with or decline. Above all, their roles in the highest legal offices in our land are to set lofty standards that exemplify the wisdom of our laws and the character of our system of justice.

Our ancestors, current citizens and future generations deserve far better examples. The families and friends of slain Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Jaime Zapata must certainly agree.

forbes.com