Category Archives: DoJ

SCOTUS Speaks

Posted on by

And they’ve upset everyone on one thing or another.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton need to watch their blood pressure after SCOTUS annouced their decision on the VRA suit as do all the DOMA supporters. Frankly, I’m not surprised DOMA went down, it was flawed from the beginning and a violation of the 10th Amendment. Many conservatives have overlooked that. What really bothers me is how inconsistent SCOTUS is in determining 10th Amendment violations.

Let’s take a look at three of the cases this week: VRA, DOMA and California’s Ban on same-sex marriage.

A Mississippi county brought suit on the last renewal of VRA. Note, they didn’t sue the original act, just this last renewal. A renewal that was, in effect, a rubber-stamp of the original act. It lost, the DoJ oversight of voting laws for segments of the country, because today’s issues are not the same as was the issues in 1965—nor have they been for 40 years. The criteria used to justify the oversight no longer exist because Congress, in their laziness, used outdated information.

The 5-4 ruling on Tuesday addressed a 1960s-era provision that largely singled out states and districts in the South — those with a history of discrimination — and required them to seek federal permission to change their voting laws.

The court ruled that the formula determining which states are affected was unconstitutional.

In doing so, the court potentially opened the door for certain states to proceed with voter ID laws and other efforts that to date had been held up because of the Voting Rights Act. Prominent among those are voter identification laws in Alabama and Mississippi.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott also put out a lengthy statement vowing to proceed with both a voter ID law and potentially a new set of redistricting maps without federal oversight.

“Today’s ruling ensures that Texas is no longer one of just a few states that must seek approval from the federal government before its election laws can take effect,” he said. “With today’s decision, the state’s voter ID law will take effect immediately. Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government.” — The Hayride.

That does not mean VRA went down, only the oversight by the DoJ. Jesse and Al, obviously, disregard that. It also ends a revenue stream for them. They can no longer sue and extort money from states and municipalities using that part of VRA as an excuse.

The Texas Voter ID law was being held in limbo by the DoJ. It was nearly identical to the Indiana law that passed SCOTUS review. With the DoJ blockage removed, the Texas AG, rightly in my opinion, moved to enforce the Texas law.

He’s making hay, so to speak, while the sun shines. Why? Because the dems in Congress with immediately attempt to address the 2006 VRA flaw—outmoded data in the 2006 renewal, that was thrown out. There will be massive pressure on ‘Pubs to rollover on it and renew VRA using valid data…just to reinstate federal control over those specific states and counties to correct a situation the democrats created in the years before 1965. The Hayride notes this bit of irony.

Which gives rise to the following thought.

Namely, that the federal government found the management of the electoral system and the protection of voting rights to be so noxious and incompetent in the South in the 1960′s that Congress had to pass, and the courts to enforce, a remedial and corrective regime largely putting that system and protection under the supervision of the federal government.

That was when the South was exclusively run by Democrats.

The South is now more or less exclusively run by Republicans, and the Supreme Court has found there is no discernible reason to continue that supervision because the electoral system and the protection of voting rights in the South are no longer noxious or incompetent.

This is somehow proof that Republicans are racists as accused by the Democrat Party. You’re welcome to explain that one however you like. — The Hayride.

Looking at the SCOTUS decision on DOMA and the California ban on homosexual Marriage, both were decided on 10th Amendment basis. If you read between the lines, SCOTUS said DOMA was inappropriate use of federal power because it treated one segment of the population, those in heterosexual marriages, differently that those who weren’t married and wanted to be, i.e., homosexual marriage. It was an area the FedGov should not be in but since they were, they couldn’t discriminate. Hence, the court said homosexuals had to be treated the same as non-homosexuals.

As much as I don’t like the decision, I can understand it. If you combine that decision to the one concerning the California ban on homosexual marriage, you’ll notice the Court is saying that the definition of marriage is a state issue, not that of the FedGov.

The California ban was a Prop 8 issue. The state government refused to support their citizens in supporting the popular vote. In fact, the California state government actively opposed the Prop 8 vote. Gay advocates sued and the State courts agreed, that the Prop 8 vote was illegal. The Prop 8 supporters sued in Federal Court to overthrow the state court decision. When the state failed to support the ban, other outside agents stepped in to fill the gap—out-of-state agents. SCOTUS said those agents had no standing since they were not California agent. Therefore the Appellate decision overturning the ban was upheld.

The state government did not support the Prop 8 decision and it was the state’s position the ban was illegal so said the California Supreme Court. The proponents of the Prop 8 ban sued in Federal Court. The Appellate court affirmed the state decision. That was appealed to SCOTUS.

SCOTUS said that the FedGov and Federal courts had no business deciding purely state issues. In this case, it was homosexual marriage. Since the state failed to support the suit of the Prop 8 backers, the federal courts had no jurisdiction. Again supporting California’s 10th Amendment rights.

I strongly suspect if the opponents of the ban were California based, and if the state had supported the Prop 8 vote, the ban via the Prop 8 vote. So SCOTUS left the ban in place. That didn’t happen.

One limitation of the SCOTUS decision is that California homosexual marriages are ONLY valid inside California. Other states have no obligation to accept those marriages.

The Court rules that the petitioners did not have standing – the Circuit Court  should not have been able to hear the appeal, because the state of California had declined to pursue it.  This clears the way for gay marriages to resume in California, but it does not affect the other 49 states. From the opinion: “We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here.” — WNYC.

Now, each state can make their own definition of marriage, but that definition is valid only within the boundaries of the state. In a sense, the suits against DOMA and California was a win for State’s Rights, State Sovereignty, and the 10th Amendment. However, I suspect many of my conservative and libertarian readers will not see the SCOTUS decision in that same light.

Facebook

The Return of the Friday Follies, May 24, 2013

Posted on by

My time as chauffeur is over. (As least for awhile.) Now that I’ve time to scan headlines and news articles, I’ve decided it was well worth the absence. For the first time in a decade, perhaps, the media and Washington pols and staffers speak of a flat tax to rein in the power of the IRS.

I’ve listened to conservative and libertarian friends and acquaintances say the IRS must be abolished—NOW! I can agree with the sentiment. They pronounce scheme after scheme. None that are realistic. Some, all too many of them, also have their tin-foil hats screwed on too tight. And that, is dismaying.

Why? Because it prevents them from looking and seeing the reality of government. They have a firmly held fantasy and won’t give it up. That same attitude led them to stay home in the last election and ruined our chance to remove Obama from office.

OK. ‘Nuff said on that issue. Getting back to the post. The IRS—as a function of government, will NOT go away. As long as government receives funds, income, money to operate, there will have to be an agency to insure the government gets their legal share. Note, I didn’t say fair share. There is nothing fair about government. We, the people, must control government to insure we receive as much “fairness” as feasible. For the rest, well, life…and government, isn’t fair. Live with it.

As long as government requires funds to accomplish the task of government, some agency, whether it is called the IRS or by another name, must exist. Our task, our duty, is to insure that mechanism is controllable and as simple as possible, while still accomplishing it’s single task. To insure the government receives its legal share of the wealth of the people and the nation.

Too many of my friends believe a national sales tax is the solution. For the nation, I don’t believe it is the answer. As long as the 16th Amendment exists, the income tax can return as soon as the dems, once again, control Congress. If that happens not only will the income tax return, but we’ll still have the national sales tax—both forms of taxes—like Europe. And how long will that sales tax exist until it becomes a VAT tax? Only until the dems gain power again in Congress.

The promises of, by, and from Congress are only valid until the next election. The probability of repeal of the 16th Amendment is so low as to be impossible. It can neither gain 2/3rds approval in Congress nor can it gain 2/3rds approval from the states. It won’t happen. Any plan to reduce the power of the IRS must, therefore, be formulated within the bounds of that amendment. The Flat Tax does.

I’ve yet to hear any cry from Congress nor the states to repeal the 16th Amendment. That leaves the Flat Tax as an option…and it has little support either. What can we do?  Really not much with the dems controlling the Senate. If we conservatives can control both houses of Congress and have enough real Tea Party conservatives elected, maybe, just maybe, we can repeal Obamacare in its entirety and shrink the IRS back to its original function. Strip the IRS of everything else—including its criminal investigative function. Relegate that to the FBI or within the Treasury…the Secret Service, perhaps?

We can’t eliminate the IRS. We can reduce it to its core functions and strip it of much of its extra-legal power.

***

I wrote earlier this week how the present events remind me of those leading to Nixon’s resignation. Nixon’s woes began with the desire to eavesdrop on his political opposition, i.e., the Watergate affair.

Obama’s excesses, crimes as some claim, make Nixon appear to be a piker. The common statement heard on the ‘net is that no one died in Watergate. Four died in Benghazi.

Obama’s support appears to be shifting. The segments he once had in his pocket may be escaping. Scott Rasmussen published this column today.

The Political Ground Is Shifting Under the President

A Commentary By Scott Rasmussen

Friday, May 24, 2013

Despite a tough couple of weeks, President Obama’s job approval ratings are holding up fairly well. As I write this, 47 percent of voters nationwide offer their approval. That’s little changed from attitudes of late and essentially the same as the president enjoyed during most of his first term in office.

But if you dig just a bit beneath the surface, it becomes clear that the controversies dogging the White House have had an impact. So far, there are three major issues — the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservatives, the Justice Department’s secret media probe and the circumstances surrounding the murder of the U.S. ambassador to Libya in Benghazi last Sept. 11.

White House press secretary Jay Carney, speaking on CNN, dismissed “the premise, the idea that these were scandals.” However, voters see it differently. Just over half believe each of the three qualifies as a scandal. Only one out of eight sees them as no big deal.

Voters also reject the notion that the IRS targeting was the work of some low-level rogue employees. Just 20 percent believe that to be the case. A slightly larger number (26 percent) thinks the decision came from IRS headquarters. But 39 percent believe the decision to target conservative groups was made by someone who works at the White House.

This isn’t just a case of people believing politicians always behave this way. Only 19 percent think the IRS usually targets political opponents of the president.

Skepticism is so high that few are convinced the IRS acted alone. Sixty percent believe that other federal agencies also were used to target the tea party and other conservative groups. Ominously for Democrats, two out of three unaffiliated voters share that view.

So, why hasn’t it hurt the president’s overall job approval? Some believe it has. The theory is that with a recovering economy, his ratings should be higher. Another possibility is that the president’s base may have doubts, but they are still sticking by their man.

It also may be that the doubts are popping up in other ways. For example, at Rasmussen Reports we regularly ask voters which party they trust to deal with a range of issues including government ethics and corruption. Before the scandals broke, Democrats had an 8-point advantage on this particular issue. But there has been a 10-point swing, and the GOP now has a 2-point edge.

Among unaffiliated voters, Republicans enjoy a 23-point advantage on the ethics front. Before the controversies, it was a toss-up.

The last week has seen serious slippage in the president’s numbers when it comes to national security. From the moment Obama took office, he has always received better ratings on national security matters than he did on the economy. However, just 39 percent of voters now give him good or excellent marks in this area. That’s down 7 points from a week ago and the lowest ratings he’s had on national security since Osama bin Laden was killed two years ago.

There is obviously no way of knowing where things will lead. At this point, however, it’s fair to say that the controversies have had an impact, and the political environment is shifting against the president.

***

When Holder approved the investigation of the AP and FOX’s James Rosen, he gored a major ox—the MSM. They thought they were Obama’s partners (in crime). When they realized they were perceived as just another tool to be used—or abused as needed, they responded. Like this.

Huffington Post: Time for Eric Holder to go

By Charlie Spiering May 23, 2013 | 7:55 pm | Modified: May 23, 2013 at 8:05 pm

“We have a message for Attorney General Holder over at http://huffingtonpost.com,” read a message from the Huffington Post political Twitter account earlier this evening.

The website’s home page is one big splash calling for Eric Holder’s exit from the Obama administration, suggesting that the news reported earlier by NBC News was the final straw for liberals who are critical of Obama’s attorney general.

NBC News’ Michael Isikoff reported that Holder signed off on the search warrant that identified Fox News reporter James Rosen as a “possible co-conspirator”authorizing seizure of his private emails.

The Huffington Post page also highlights Holder’s record on banks, marijuana, mortgage settlements, drones and the prosecution of Aaron Swartz.

***

Not only has the HuffPuff beat on Holder, Peggy Noonan, a so-so conservative, chimed in on Obama this week in the Wall Street Journal. Her column is another ram, battering at Obama’s walls.

Noonan: A Battering Ram Becomes a Stonewall

The IRS’s leaders refuse to account for the agency’s corruption and abuse.May 23, 2013, 7:25 p.m. ET

“I don’t know.” “I don’t remember.” “I’m not familiar with that detail.” “It’s not my precise area.” “I’m not familiar with that letter.”

These are quotes from the Internal Revenue Service officials who testified this week before the House and Senate. That is the authentic sound of stonewalling, and from the kind of people who run Washington in the modern age—smooth, highly credentialed and unaccountable. They’re surrounded by legal and employment protections, they know how to parse a careful response, they know how to blur the essential point of a question in a blizzard of unconnected factoids. They came across as people arrogant enough to target Americans for abuse and harassment and think they’d get away with it.

So what did we learn the past week, and what are the essentials to keep in mind?

We learned the people who ran and run the IRS are not going to help Congress find out what happened in the IRS. We know we haven’t gotten near the bottom of the political corruption of that agency. We do not know who ordered the targeting of conservative groups and individuals, or why, or exactly when it began. We don’t know who executed the orders or directives. We do not know the full scope or extent of the scandal. We don’t know, for instance, how many applicants for tax-exempt status were abused.

We know the IRS commissioner wasn’t telling the truth in March 2012, when he testified: “There’s absolutely no targeting.” We have learned the Lois Lerner lied when she claimed she had spontaneously admitted the targeting in a Q-and-A at a Washington meeting. It was part of a spin operation in which she’d planted the question with a friend. We know the tax-exempt bureau Ms. Lerner ran did not simply make mistakes because it was overwhelmed with requests—the targeting began before a surge in applications. And Ms. Lerner did not learn about the targeting in 2012—the IRS audit timeline shows she was briefed in June 2011. She said the targeting was the work of rogue agents in the Cincinnati office. But the Washington Post spoke to an IRS worker there, who said: “Everything comes from the top.”

We know that Lois Lerner this week announced she’d done nothing wrong, and then took the Fifth. (Or tried to…Crucis.)

…

With all the talk and the hearings and the news reports, it is important to keep the essentials of this story in mind.

First, only conservative groups were targeted in this scandal by the IRS. Liberal or progressive groups were not targeted. The IRS leaked conservative groups’ confidential applications and donor lists to liberal groups, never the other way around.

This was a political operation. If it had not been, then the statistics tell us left-wing groups would have been harassed and abused, and seen their applications leaked to the press. There would be a left-wing equivalent to Catherine Engelbrecht.

And all of this apparently took place in the years leading up to the 2012 election. Meaning that before that election, groups that were anti-Obamacare, or pro-life, or pro-Second Amendment or constitutionalist, or had words like ‘tea party’ or ‘patriot’ in their name—groups that is that would support Republicans, not Democrats—were suppressed, thwarted, kept from raising money and therefore kept from fully operating.

That is some kind of coincidence. That is some kind of strangely political, strangely partisan, and strangely ideological “poor customer service.”

IRS officials have complained that the law is murky, it’s difficult to define what the tax exemption law really means. But they don’t have any problem defining it. They defined it with a vengeance.

Second, it is important to remember that there has never been an investigation of what happened in the IRS. There was an internal IRS audit, not an investigation, carried out by an inspector general, who was careful this week to note to the House what he’d done was not an investigation. He was tasked to come to conclusions on whether there had been wrongdoing at the agency. It was not his job to find out exactly why it happened, how and when the scandal began, who was involved, and how they operated.

A dead serious investigation is needed. The IRS has colorfully demonstrated that it cannot investigate itself. The Obama administration wants the FBI—which answers to Eric Holder’s Justice Department—to investigate, but that would not be credible. The investigators of the IRS must be independent of the administration, or their conclusions will not be trustworthy.

An independent counsel, with all the powers of that office, is what we need.

Again, if what happened at the IRS is not stopped now—if the internal corruption within it is not broken—it will never stop, and never be broken. The American people will never again be able to have the slightest confidence in the revenue-gathering arm of their government. And that, actually, would be tragic.

I’ve excerpted the section of Noonan’s column concerning the trials of Catherine Engelbrecht, “a nice woman, a citizen, an American.” Her story could make a post all by itself. I invite you to go and read Noonan’s entire column and the one from the National Review about Engelbrecht. I don’t always agree with Noonan, but this time, she’s hit the mark.

Facebook

Parade of the scapegoats

Posted on by

The Obama administration had a parade, a parade of scapegoats. First in the IRS scandal, Obama announced that Acting IRS Director Steven Miller had resigned. The problem is that statement? Miller was the Acting Director.

According to the IRS website, he assumed the position of Acting Director in November, 2012, six months ago. He told his staff previously that his term was ending in June, 2013. In other words, he was leaving that position anyway. Obama used that previously scheduled departure to appear to be doing something while actually doing nothing.

Then they blamed the low-level employees at the Cincinnati IRS office. First, it was just a single employee who was processing the Tax Exempt applications. Then, it was more than one, it was several, a number who acted on their own.  What do those low-level IRS employees have to say? “sources went on say that these four IRS workers claim ‘they simply did what their bosses ordered.’ (FOX News)“

FOX19 EXCLUSIVE: Four local IRS workers allegedly connected to scandal

Posted: May 15, 2013 9:50 PM CDT Updated: May 16, 2013 5:33 AM CDT By Ben Swann

CINCINNATI, OH (FOX19) –

FOX19 has exclusively learned that as many as four people may be the first Cincinnati Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employees to face disciplinary action, and possibly even criminal charges, for allegedly targeting Tea Party and Liberty groups applying for non-profit status.

On Wednesday, the IRS announced that it had pinpointed two employees at the agency’s Cincinnati office for being ‘primarily’ responsible.

In addition, acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller resigned his position, revealed by President Obama on Wednesday.

“Secretary Lew took the first step by requesting and accepting the resignation of the acting commissioner of the IRS, because given the controversy surrounding this audit, it’s important to institute new leadership that can help restore confidence going forward,” said President Obama in a statement on Wednesday evening.

Prior to his resignation, Steven Miller called the two Cincinnati employees ‘rogue’ and ‘off the reservation,’ adding that they were ‘overly aggressive’ in handling the requests from those conservative groups over the past two years.

Miller also added that those two employees have already been ‘disciplined’ by the agency.

However, despite the claim of just two employees being involved, FOX19 has exclusively learned from two separate sources that there could be at least four Cincinnati employees involved.

Those four employees, whose names we have chosen to withhold until they have been officially confirmed, have each worked in the IRS Exempt Organizations Department.

This is the same department that has admitted publicly to sending letters to Tea Party and other conservative organizations.

In the DoJ investigation of “national security” leaks to the press, Att’y General Eric Holder said he had recused himself of that investigation. When asked about the AP wiretaps and subpoenas, his repeated mantra was, “I don’t know.” In Holder’s session before congress, he appeared to be proud of his ignorance of the investigation.

Eric Holder Says He’s ‘Not Sure’ How Many Times DOJ Sought Journalists’ Records

The Huffington Post  |  By

Posted: 05/15/2013 10:40 am EDT  |  Updated: 05/15/2013 12:26 pm EDT

…Attorney General Eric Holder on Tuesday said he was unsure how many times he’d signed off on subpoenas to seize reporter records.

“I’m not sure how many of those cases that I have actually signed off on,” Holder told NPR’s Carrie Johnson. “I take them very seriously. I know that I have refused to sign a few, pushed a few back for modifications.”

The comments from Holder are bound to stir up additional criticism of the Obama administration’s approach to First Amendment protections for reporters. The president and his staff are already under intense scrutiny over the Department of Justice’s decision to subpoena the phone records for more than 100 journalists at the Associated Press. That Holder could not recall how many times he has done something similar in the past will only fan those flames.

Holder revealed Tuesday that he had recused himself from an FBI investigation into the alleged leak of classified intelligence to the AP. The leak revealed a would-be suicide bomber who was also a CIA undercover agent. The department seized records for more than 20 phone lines from AP offices in Washington, New York and Hartford, Conn., from April 2012 and May 2012.

Holder, in his press conference, remained vague about the scope of the subpoenas. “The people who are involved in this investigation who I’ve known for a great many years and who I’ve worked with for a great many years followed all the appropriate Justice Department regulations and did things according to DOJ rules,” he said. “Based on the people that I know — I don’t know about the facts — but based on the people that I know, I think that subpoena was done in accordance with DOJ regs.”

And what about the subordinate who was in charge of the AP investigation? It’s a classified matter and he can’t talk about it. Nice quandary isn’t it? Holder doesn’t know and the one who does, isn’t allowed to talk.

I don’t know who Holder assigned the AP investigation, but if I were him, I’d get my resume in order and be careful not to turn my back on Holder, lest a knife slips through my ribs.

Facebook