Monday, June 3, 2013



The Portrait








Good News


The Audit




Me, me, me


Told ya so!




Take a good hard look


Pure Tyranny


Smoking Gun


What Army?


Freedom of the press


Liberal Logic


Hiding the truth




Cincinnati IRS employee: Washington was ‘basically throwing us underneath the bus’ ^ | 6-2-2013 | Caroline May 

In interviews with House Oversight Committee investigators, Cincinnati IRS employees said that they believed that targeting of conservative groups came from Washington, not from a couple of “rogue agents. “
Sunday the House Oversight Committee released partial transcripts of Oversight Committee investigators’ interviews with unnamed Cincinnati IRS employees, which contradicts the line coming from the White House.
“It’s impossible,” an IRS employee responded to an investigator’s question about the allegations that the targeting of conservative groups was due to “two ‘rogue agents.” “As an agent we are controlled by many, many people. We have to submit many, many reports. So the chance of two agents being rogue and doing things like that could never happen.”
Answering a question about the employee’s reaction to news reports that the targeting was contained in Cincinnati and the fault of the Cincinnati office, the employee said that Washington has been throwing them under the bus.
“Well, it’s hard to answer the question because in my mind I still hear people saying we were low‑level employees, so we were lower than dirt, according to people in D.C. So, take it for what it is,” a Cincinnati IRS employee said. “They were basically throwing us underneath the bus.”
The employee further noted that it was a supervisor who requested they do a search for tea party and similar applications in March of 2010.
“Did [your supervisor] give you any indication of the need for the search, any more context?” an investigator asked.
“He told me that Washington, D.C., wanted some cases,” the employee responded, going on to answer that by April 2010 the group was handling fewer than 40 cases and had sent seven cases to Washington, D.C.
When asked for the reason behind the request that cases be sent to Washington, D.C. the employee responded, “He said Washington, D.C. wanted seven. Because at one point I believe I heard they were thinking 10, but it came down to seven. I said okay, seven.”
The employee explained that the Cincinnati office sent the first seven cases that had come into the system.
The employee further noted that Washington, D.C. had additionally requested the applications or parts of the applications for two specific groups.
Investigator: “But just to be clear, she told you the specific names of these applicants.” IRS employee: “Yes.” Investigator: “And she told you that Washington, D.C. had requested these two specific applications be sent to D.C.” IRS employee: “Yes, or parts of them.”
According to the partial transcript, the employee noted that this was an unusual request.
The employee added that the Cincinnati IRS employees were just following orders and that the employee believed those instructions came from Washington, D.C.
Investigator: “So is it your perspective that ultimately the responsible parties for the decisions that were reported by the IG are not in the Cincinnati office?” IRS employee: “I don’t know how to answer that question. I mean, from an agent standpoint, we didn’t do anything wrong. We followed directions based on other people telling us what to do.” Investigator: “And you ultimately followed directions from Washington; is that correct?” IRS employee: “If direction had come down from Washington, yes.” Investigator: “But with respect to the particular scrutiny that was given to Tea Party applications, those directions emanated from Washington; is that right?” IRS employee: “I believe so.”
Another interviewee, described by the Oversight Committee as a more senior IRS employee, complained about micromanagement from Washington, D.C. that ultimately led the employee to apply for another job in July 2010.
“It was the whole Tea Party. It was the whole picture. I mean, it was the micromanagement. The fact that the subject area was extremely sensitive and it was something that I didn’t want to be associated with,” the more senior IRS employee told an investigator who was asking about his decision to find another job.
The more senior employee added that what was going on was “inappropriate.”
Investigator: “Why didn’t you want to be associated with it?” IRS employee: “For what happened now. I mean, rogue agent? Even though I was taking all my direction from EO Technical [Washington, D.C], I didn’t want my name in the paper for being this rogue agent for a project I had no control over.” Investigator: “Did you think there was something inappropriate about what was happening in 2010?” IRS employee: “Yes. The inappropriateness was not processing these applications fairly and timely.”
Sunday, Committee Chairman Darrell Issa unveiled that committee’s findings on CNN, promised that the full transcripts will come out, and called White House spokesman Jay Carney a “paid liar.”


GSA Blows Quarter Billion Dollars on Breaking Lease; Lies to Congress About It ^ | June 3, 2013 | John Ransom 

Just a few blocks away from Nationals Park the federal government holds a below-market lease at 2100 2nd Street, SW, Washington D.C.
The 600,000 square foot lease doesn’t expire until May 15, 2018 and is valued at least $48 million in rent and likely represents another $40 million in savings below market rates for commercial real estate.
But, in a time of tight budgets, when taxes have been raised on all Americans to support Washington’s addiction to spending, bureaucrats at the General Services Administration (GSA) have decided to…wait… abandon the cost-effective space, move the employees to a new, higher rent building and pay rent on the vacated building; at the cost to taxpayers of at least $250 million according to sources familiar with the terms of the lease.
And we wonder why the government has such a tough time cutting their budget while having such an easy cutting our household budgets through taxes?
Sources close to Capitol Hill, however, say there is growing outrage over this specific illustration of the waste of more than $250 million taxpayer dollars.
“The GSA is making a major mistake by neglecting to take advantage of existing below market lease rates for an extended term. It is outrageous that they simply seem to be ignoring a significant cost savings to the taxpayer,” said a source close to Congress. “This is a time we all need to be exercising prudent fiscal responsibility, a basic responsibility of the GSA. They have dropped the ball and had better pick it up soon”.
I guess that’s the reason why the GSA has suddenly gone all “Eric Holder” on Congress, testifying to the House subcommittee responsible for the oversight of federal real estate that the broken lease won’t cost taxpayers a dime, when in fact the opposite seems true.
From the Washington Business Journal:
The federal government will be on the hook for at least $30 million in lease payments for the Coast Guard's current Buzzard Point headquarters after the agency moves to St. Elizabeths later this year, according to sources familiar with terms of the agency's lease with Monday Properties Inc.
That would contradict congressional testimony from Dorothy Robyn, public buildings service commissioner for the General Services Administration, who told a House subcommittee May 22 that the federal government has an early termination clause with Monday and will not owe any rent.
Sources say the Coast Guard is allowed to terminate its Buzzard Point lease in May 2015, meaning the government would have to pay the lease term until then. There remains disagreement over how much that exposure would be: Some sources say it would be $30 million, while others say it will be as high as $60 million.
That’s not just Contempt of Congress- or even perjury- that’s Contempt of Common Sense, Taxpayers, Economics and, most likely, at least a minor violation of Einstein’s concept of space-time.
Negotiated in 2008, the lease is estimated to save the government at least $14 per square foot in a real estate market that often fetches $50 per square foot for commercial property. For all intents and purposes, the lease is a shrewd one to hold at a time that the government is trying to save a few dollars.
“Not only is the remaining 18 months of vacant/wasted space a problem,” said a person familiar with the lease, “but also that GSA foolishly terminated early a major federal asset that it had for years into the future – very cheap space that is perfectly well suited for numerous federal requirements. This is possibly the most foolish of all GSA blunders, and hurts the taxpayers the most.”
The government could save a lot of taxpayer dollars if it continued to occupy the building including:
· $60 million in lease liability in an unoccupied building
· $40 million they already spent in infrastructure improvements
· $140-280 million in savings by extending the terms already negotiated at below market rates.
Because of the below-market deal negotiated in 2008, instead of moving out, the government should be moving more people in.
I know we see this type of government waste every day – but hundreds of millions of dollars are going to be wasted by keeping this building unoccupied – an outrage for sure.
But unlike a lot of other government outrages, this one can still be remedied.
Congress? Can you hear us?
Because someone has been taking “Eric Holder” lessons from you.

Fascism of the United States of America

Freedom Outpost ^ | June 3, 2013 | Fred DeRuvo 

The federal government appears to think that it has the right to tell people what to do and how to do it. When citizens fail to comply, this same government believes it has the right to force those citizens to comply through intimidation, force, or both. We have been hearing a great deal about this of late and it shows no sign of letting up.
With the revelations that the IRS was targeting and even intimidating Tea Party and other conservative groups, it has become obvious that our government – or at least facets of it – stand opposed to conservatism. In doing so, whether they are willing to admit it or not, they also stand against the values upon which this nation was founded, especially the rule of law created by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
For generations, it was clear that conservatism was the hallmark of constitutional law, mirrored throughout society. The changes that have taken place in society as far back as the 1960s (or to FDR’s presidency depending upon how a person views things) make it clear that since the inception of America, conservative, traditional values defined America.
This has accelerated to the point where the New Left has obviously been working very hard to rewrite history. This has been done by either attempting to stamp the truth out or by giving history a new meaning altogether.
Fascism can be defined as “A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.” This is merely one definition. There are many, but even with all those definitions, there are things which remain the same among all of them.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Let’s be vigilant as more sludge bubbles to the top. We need to keep the issues alive, not allow them to sink back to the bottom.
The sludge has already bubbled to the top - there is no higher position than the one usurped by that puddle of moral sludge - but I agree with keeping the issues alive. 

The Smoking Gun in Plain Sight (Obama and the demonization of conservatives) ^ | 6/3/2013 | Herbert Meyer 

Study history, and you will understand why no such document is ever likely to be found: That just isn't how these things work. Very few people are aware of this, but there is no document -- not one -- linking Adolf Hitler to the Holocaust. Why not? Because Hitler didn't need to sign a document ordering the slaughter of six million Jews. All he needed to do was to demonize his enemy in speeches at the Reichstag, on the radio, and from one end of Germany to the other -- then hire thugs like Herman Goering, Heinrich Himmler, Adolf Eichmann, and Josef Goebbels. They knew what der Fuhrer wanted, and der Fuhrer knew he could trust his henchman to get the job done -- no matter how, no matter what may be the law -- and to not bother him with the gory details.
Reader, take a deep breath. Nowhere in this essay will I suggest, or even imply, that President Obama plans the mass murder of his opponents the way Hitler murdered his. That's absurd. I am merely pointing out that President Obama has been going about the business of demonizing his political enemies, and then hiring thugs to destroy them without regard to the law, in precisely the same way that Hitler and his fascists did it in Germany. This isn't an accusation; it's an observation.
Look at the record: From the moment he took office in January 2009, President Obama has spoken before Congress, on television, and at countless rallies across the country describing his political opponents in terms we haven't seen before in the United States. Time and again he's insisted that Republicans aren't merely wrong, but evil.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Killing the Dreams Soldiers Died to Preserve ^ | June 3, 2013 | Terry Paulson 

On Memorial Day, tears were shed as programs across the country honored and prayed for those men and women who sacrificed their dreams in order that we might live out our own. Some Americans who had lost a son or daughter, a spouse, or a parent never got to see their loved one reach their full potential. Those soldiers who died left their dreams in their graves.
Their loss is made even worse by an administration that is doing all it can to kill the dreams of Americans they fought to preserve. President Obama's plan for creating jobs takes more and more money from private citizens and companies so that his administration can hire more government workers and fund more government projects. This funds President Obama's dream, not yours.
Many complain that conservatives only want to protect "the rich." It's not the rich that conservatives need to protect. The truly wealthy will take care of themselves. They can move resources, relocate companies, and shelter income to avoid the worst machinations of Washington's tax policies.
Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary because he receives no salary. He doesn't need a salary. His extensive investments feed his lifestyle and fund his future investments. Government taxes investment income at a lower level to encourage savings and the capital investment all economies need.
President Obama's assault on the top 2% of wage owners is not a punishment on the truly wealthy; it's an assault on the "new rich." His taxes hit those successful entrepreneurs who invested in their own idea, worked hard, created jobs, and reaped the benefits of their success. Instead of being honored and rewarded, they watch as Washington takes more and more of their earned reward. At a time many would want to expand their companies, ObamaCare and increased government regulations have just increased their costs.
The gap between the average "rich" and "poor" American may have grown, but the "new rich" do not easily stay rich. In the 2007 Treasury Study--"Income Mobility in the US from 1996 to 2005," the biggest losses in income came not from the poor but from the wealthiest income earners. The top 1% of income earners in 1996 had their incomes halved by 2005. They were not getting ahead at the expense of others; many lost ground.
Those aspiring to reach their dream, the top 20% of wage earners watched their income increase a mere ten percent. Those Americans originally in the bottom 20 percent saw a 91 percent increase in income. This is missed in many statistics because such increases move people out of the lowest 20 percent. In short, there is no permanent underclass or overclass. People can still succeed, but President Obama is doing everything he can to punish those Americans who do!
He isn't punishing "old wealth”; he's punishing "new wealth." He doesn't bring down the wealthy; he keeps out those trying to become wealthy. Abraham Lincoln knew the value of preserving the American Dream: “I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war on capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.”
Though often wrongly attributed to Abraham Lincoln, it was William John Henry Boetcker, an American religious leader and influential public speaker, who first penned "The Ten Cannots:" "You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help little men by tearing down big men. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence. And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves."
Lincoln and Boetcker understood what President Obama and his fellow class warriors just don’t understand. In a country that is built on personal achievement and free enterprise, there need be no war between capital and labor. When America is working its magic, capital and labor are the same people at different stages of their lives. Workers work to save, then to invest, and ultimately to become owners of capital themselves. They want opportunity not more government programs designed to keep them dependent.
Though we should never forget those who gave their lives that we might have the freedom to dream, may we do what we can to ensure that this and future generations can still profit from the dreams those soldiers died to preserve.

Congressman denies involvement in staffer’s alleged vote fraud attempt [Guess Which Party]

CNN ^ | 6/2/13 | Gregory Wallace 

U.S. Rep. Joe Garcia (D not shown by CNN) said Saturday he was saddened and disappointed by absentee ballot fraud allegations leveled against his former chief of staff.

The congressman said at a press conference he asked for the staffer’s resignation and called for fixes to the “flawed voter absentee process” which left the system vulnerable.

Garcia said he demanded the resignation of chief of staff Jeffrey Garcia (no relation, according to local media reports), then fired him shortly after learning of the allegations Friday afternoon.

No fraudulent ballots were cast as a result of this alleged plot, the congressman said.

“I’ve asked an attorney to investigate what went on and interview the people. I have asked all of my staff to fully cooperate with any investigation,” he said. “Here’s the good part about this — from my conversations thus far, no ballots were tampered with, no ballots were touched.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

A Pattern of Perjury ^ | June 3, 2013 | Bob Beauprez 

Even the most ardent liberal defenders of Eric Holder acknowledge that the embattled Attorney General "is in a mess of his own making," as Dana Milbank of the Washington Postput it.
Under fire for his Justice Department going after AP reporters' personal records, Holder testified in May 2013 to Congress: "With regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I have ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be a wise policy."
But, Holder was caught in a lie when the Washington Post exposed an affidavit bearing Holder's signature naming Fox News reporter James Rosen as a "co-conspirator" in a 2009 foreign espionage case.
Holder then went "judge shopping." Rejected by two federal judges, a third judge finally granted Holder's covert targeted request. The DOJ traced Rosen's movements, his calls, his personal e-mails, even his parents' phone records.
Recognizing that Holder's actions belie his claim that targeting reporters was "not something that I have ever been involved in," the two top ranking members of the House Judiciary Committee have written a letter to Holder looking for answers. Politely pointing out that the media reports and DOJ documents uncovered in the case "appear to be at odds with your sworn testimony before the (Judiciary) Committee," Chairman Bob Goodlatte and James Sensenbrenner, Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Investigations, then list a page and half of questions for which they want answers by June 5.
As the worm turns and a perjury case builds against the Attorney General, it is worth noting that this is hardly the first time Holder has crossed the line between truth and fiction with Congress. In fact, it started almost immediately after he took office.
On Election Day 2008, members of the New Black Panther Party in paramilitary garb wielded night sticks and intimidated voters at a Philadelphia polling location with threatening racial slurs. The DOJ's attorneys in the Voting Right Division obtained a default judgment against the thugs in what has been called "perhaps the most clear cut case of voter suppression and intimidation ever." Just prior to sentencing, however, the DOJ dropped the prosecution with barely a slap on the wrist for the Panthers.
In March 2011, Holder was questioned about his involvement in the decision by a Congressional Committee and said that the "decisions made in the New Black Panther Party case were made by career attorneys in the department."
That was not true. As part of an effort to get at the truth, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information lawsuit in U.S. District Court. Among the findings, the court ruled that, "The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case."
J. Christian Adams, a career attorney in the Voting Rights Section of DOJ that prosecuted the New Black Panther case testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that it was in fact Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, an Obama political appointee and top aid to Holder, who overruled the unanimous recommendation for full prosecution by Adams and his colleagues.
Another lie involved the Fast and Furious scandal wherein the Administration "walked" hundreds of highly lethal weapons into the hands of the ultra-violent Mexican drug cartel. Some of those weapons were eventually linked to the assassination of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
Rep.Darrell Issa grilled Holder in a House Oversight Committee hearing in May of 2011; "When did you first know about the program officially I believe called Fast and Furious? To the best of your knowledge, what date?" Holder replied, "I'm not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks."
That was not true. As Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News and many others reported, a July 2010 memo – ten months before the Congressional hearing – to Holder from the head of the National Drug Intelligence Center briefed the AG that through F&F "1500 firearms were then supplied to the Mexican drug trafficking cartels." Attkisson documented at least six additional briefings between July and November 1, 2010 to Holder about F&F including from Holder's Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer.
Holder has defended himself by suggesting that he didn't understand Issa's question, and that he meant to say a "couple months" instead of "weeks."
The President continues to stand by his man, at least publicly. "The President thinks the Attorney General is doing a good job, and he has confidence in the Attorney General,"according to White House Spokesman Jay Carney.
New Black Panthers, Fast and Furious, and Rosen-Fox News – three strikes should be enough to call Eric Holder out. Regardless of Obama's feigned "absolute confidence" in Holder, look for a resignation by July 4.