Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 17, 2014, 02:48:50 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82485 Posts in 2249 Topics by 1062 Members
Latest Member: seawolfpack5
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 Print
Author Topic: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.  (Read 69321 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12036


« Reply #350 on: May 21, 2013, 01:29:19 PM »

In Obama's America, Bill Ayers is a "respected academic" while the federal government gathers intelligence on conservative college students.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5937


« Reply #351 on: May 22, 2013, 11:04:09 PM »

The IRS targeting scandal is a blockbuster that is sweeping the nation.  Imagine if the reaction to it now was the reaction to it then, if made public heading into the summer before the election, when Obama was ripping Romney's business background and Sandra Fluke was making her plea for free birth control - at a Catholic College.

The President's Chief of Staff knew and the President didn't.  

A special prosecutor in the IRS matter is inevitable

By Ed Rogers, Published: May 22, 2013 at 10:56 amE-mail the writer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/05/22/the-insiders-a-special-prosecutor-in-the-irs-matter-is-inevitable/

This administration’s management of the Obama Internal Revenue Service scandal so far consists of a slow-walking, rolling disclosure of facts; equal parts equivocation, amnesia and indignation from IRS witnesses; deer-in-the-headlights non-responses by the White House press secretary; parsed, lawyerly statements from the president himself; and now one of the central key players is taking the Fifth. And all this comes from what the president claimed would be the “most transparent administration ever…”

If we give the president the benefit of the doubt and assume he knows the truth is going to come out, the question remains: Does the administration appoint the special prosecutor sooner or later? The calculus inside the White House is how to best protect the president’s political interests. They have two options. They could delay the appointment and let more of the story develop, weather the ugly piecemeal disclosures, give the players time to get their stories straight and lawyer-up and hope Republicans continue their overreach, giving the whole affair a nutty partisan patina. Or, they could accelerate the appointment of a special prosecutor, thereby slowing the congressional inquiries and giving Jay Carney some relief from his daily embarrassing routine by supplying him with the escape hatch of not being allowed to comment on matters associated with the special prosecutor’s ongoing investigation. Not to mention, the White House all the while could blast the appointed counsel as a partisan ideologue à la the hatchet job that was done on Ken Starr.

Anyway, if the president is innocent, he will end up needing and wanting a special prosecutor sooner rather than later. If he and his White House already have too much to hide, then they must clam up, cry partisanship and hope their allies on the Hill and in the media have the stamina for the long, hard slog ahead.

- – - – -

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. The legal counsel would assume the chief of staff would know how and when to bring up the matter. The chief of staff would be expected to know if there were additional factors surrounding the issue that needed to be considered before the president was told, or whether or not others needed to be included in the conversation when the information was shared with 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.

The legal counsel would never assume that information shared with the chief of staff would not go to the president. In my experience, a legal counsel never would believe that there was information that was appropriate for the chief of staff to know but that was inappropriate for the president to know. Out of all the news that has emerged regarding the Obama IRS scandal, this is the most curious whopper I’ve heard so far. I can’t wait to hear the real story.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2013, 10:19:45 AM by DougMacG » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5937


« Reply #352 on: May 23, 2013, 10:42:17 AM »

I think it was a House member who said when they break into the bank, we assume it is for the money, and when they step on the free speech and political association rights of tea party groups we assume it is for partisan political reasons.
-----------------

But imagine you made the mistake to the IRS and make your apology back to them.  This letter was published in the Philadelphia Inquirer yesterday:

Sorry about that little IRS error
May 22, 2013  Philadelphia Inquirer 
http://articles.philly.com/2013-05-22/news/39448243_1_trixie-tax-return-customer-service

By George Parry

Dear Internal Revenue Service:

Regarding your targeting of conservatives before the presidential election, I found last week's testimony by your former commissioner to be very reassuring. As he explained it, what appeared to be your intentional and politically motivated punitive, totalitarian, and chilling measures against conservative groups and individuals in a clandestine effort to affect the outcome of the election were, in fact, simply the inadvertent consequences of "horrible customer service" provided by a bunch of flunkies in Cincinnati. What a relief!

Which brings me to the purpose of this letter. As you may recall, my business is being audited for reporting gross annual income of $12,125 when, as your revenue agents have so snarkily noted, the actual figure is closer to $9.75 million. As I have repeatedly explained, though I signed the tax return as CEO, this regrettable mistake is attributable to Trixie, our bookkeeper who forgot to disclose in her job interview that she had failed arithmetic for seven straight years before dropping out of grade school and joining an outlaw biker gang.

To further explain, when I first met Trixie in a Las Vegas hot tub, she was employed in the escort hospitality industry. Though I found her to be amply well-qualified for a position under me, I must admit that the subject of her math skills may not have been sufficiently discussed under the distracting circumstances. Boy, have I learned my lesson! No more job interviews of bikini-clad women in hot tubs!

In any event, I wish to apologize to you for the somewhat inaccurate tax return and the horrible customer service that produced it. Once I learned how the error had occurred, I immediately removed Trixie as bookkeeper and put her in charge of our Obamacare Compliance Unit. So, as you can see, we took the problem seriously, and it has been solved.

In light of my sincere apology and prompt corrective measures, I ask that you cease your efforts to collect all back taxes, penalties, and interest. Hopefully this apology will mark a new beginning to our relationship, one based on mutual trust and belief in each other's integrity.

Sincerely,

L. George Parry

P.S. And could you also ask the Justice Department to withdraw Trixie's grand jury subpoena?

George Parry is a former state and federal prosecutor practicing law in Philadelphia.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5937


« Reply #353 on: June 03, 2013, 11:23:30 AM »

The political activities of the wife bring into further question the political activities of the IRS chief during his 167 trips to the White House.  Maybe they were hammering out new depreciation schedules and not planning and executing Nixonian enemy targeting.  In that case, where are the new depreciation schedules?

Wife of Former IRS Chief Campaigned for Obama, Questioned Romney's Taxes

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/02/Wife-of-Former-IRS-Chief-Campaigned-for-Obama-Questioned-Romney-s-Taxes

Former Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Douglas Shulman is under fire from Congress for his agency's targeting of Tea Party and other conservative organizations. Shulman himself is under suspicion for his numerous visits to the White House compared to other administration officials. Additionally, Shulman's wife Susan L. Anderson reportedly works for the Washington D.C. based liberal organization Public Campaign.

Anderson's group, Public Campaign, describes itself as, "a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to sweeping campaign reform that aims to dramatically reduce the role of big special interest money in American politics."

(The article goes on at the link to publish many of her tweets during the campaign. "If Romney loses the election, I bet he can file an amended return and claim the deductions he didn't claim.”",  "Romney in class by himself - see @SunFoundation charts comparing Romney's tax returns to other presidents. ", "Folks go to Caymans to dodge taxes or dive reefs - wanna bet what Mitt was doing there?")

During a Congressional hearing, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) questioned Shulman if he knew how Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had information in supporting a July 2012 claim that Romney had not paid taxes for the last ten years. Shulman appeared not to know how or why Senator Reid made such a claim.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4071


« Reply #354 on: June 03, 2013, 09:17:07 PM »

"Shulman himself is under suspicion for his numerous visits to the White House compared to other administration officials"

Aren't there records of any of these meetings?  Minutes?

If yes why can't they be had the same as Nixon tapes?

Too bad we can't water-board...

Issa called Carney a liar.  I am very glad to see the L word is suddenly not so politically incorrect.   Time to call a spade a spade.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4071


« Reply #355 on: June 08, 2013, 10:13:45 AM »

I tried to look up if non citizens can vote or not.  No succinct answer.  I get this endless diatribe.   So when Brock the Terrible gestures that illegals would have to get in the back of the line for citizenship (and learn English) that does not mean they wouldn't be able to vote for his party effective immediately.   Brock the scheister doesn't tell us that. 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/07/the-threat-of-non-citizen-voting
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5937


« Reply #356 on: June 08, 2013, 02:15:28 PM »

I tried to look up if non citizens can vote or not.  No succinct answer.  I get this endless diatribe.   So when Brock the Terrible gestures that illegals would have to get in the back of the line for citizenship (and learn English) that does not mean they wouldn't be able to vote for his party effective immediately.   Brock the scheister doesn't tell us that. 
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/07/the-threat-of-non-citizen-voting

Good question.  What I take from this piece is that those non-citizens are voting illegally - because they are here, already illegal, and because they can.  One could quite easily make the argument that under 'reform', those who were formerly illegal and choose the contract for the 'pathway' would be less likely to risk committing vote fraud while working and paying their way to citizenship. 

Their inability to vote for 14 year(?) is one reason Obama wanted his own plan, not this one, IMO.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12036


« Reply #357 on: June 08, 2013, 09:22:19 PM »

Voter suppression !!

Next thing you know, the dead will be denied their right to vote democrat.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5937


« Reply #358 on: June 14, 2013, 10:12:44 AM »

FBI Director Testifies He Doesn't Know Who's Leading Investigation in IRS Case

http://cnsnews.com/blog/joe-schoffstall/fbi-director-testifies-he-doesnt-know-whos-leading-investigation-irs-case#sthash.xJyCnL17.dpuf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPrUCPTWTAo&feature=player_embedded

Good luck America.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #359 on: June 18, 2013, 09:05:03 AM »



http://www.wsbt.com/news/wsbt-former-st-joseph-county-democratic-chairman-sentenced-to-4-years-in-petition-fraud-20130617,0,1153255.story
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #360 on: June 18, 2013, 09:26:53 AM »

I was disappointed to see a 7-2 decision penned by Scalia banning AZ from requiring proof of citizenship to vote on the basis of federal pre-emption.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12036


« Reply #361 on: June 18, 2013, 03:19:58 PM »

I was disappointed to see a 7-2 decision penned by Scalia banning AZ from requiring proof of citizenship to vote on the basis of federal pre-emption.

http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2013/06/17/left-loses-big-in-arizona-supreme-court-case/

Left Loses Big in Citizenship-Verification Supreme Court Case

June 17th, 2013 - 5:35 pm

Something perverse happened after the Supreme Court’s decision today invalidating citizenship-verification requirements in Arizona for registrants who use the federal voter registration form. The Left knows they lost most of the battle, but are still claiming victory. That’s what they do. Election-integrity proponents and the states are saying they lost, but don’t realize they really won.
 
The Left wins even when they lose, and conservatives are often bewildered and outfoxed in the election-process game.

 


Earlier today, I called the decision a nothingburger. After re-reading the case and reflecting a bit more, it’s clear that the decision was a disaster for the Left and their victory cackles are hollow — and they know it.
 
Worse, conservatives dooms-dayers who have never litigated a single National Voter Registration Act case have taken to the airwaves, describing the case as a disaster which invites illegal-alien voting.
 
In the last year, I’ve litigated five NVRA cases and worked on the preemption issues for years, and there is more to cheer in today’s opinion than there is to bemoan. Those complaining about the opinion don’t understand what the Left’s goal was in this case: total federal preemption. On that score, Justice Scalia foiled them; indeed, the decision today was a huge war won, even if the small Arizona battle was lost.
 
From my time in the Justice Department Voting Section, I can remember intimately the wars over some of the preemption issues decided today.
 
The Left essentially believes that anyone who fills out a federal Election Assistance Commission registration form should be allowed on the rolls, no questions asked. There were complex fights over the “citizen check-off box” issues, with the Left wanting the box rendered meaningless, and conservatives and election-integrity proponents believing a registration cannot be processed until a registrant affirms on the box that he or she is a citizen.
 
Before the decision today, here is what the Left wanted:
 
● Invalidation of Arizona’s requirement that those submitting a federal form provide proof of citizenship with their federal form. Mind you, the citizenship-proof requirement is NOT part of federal law and the Election Assistance Commission does NOT require it in the form they drafted.
 
● Invalidation of state citizenship-verification requirements when a state voter registration form is used (yes, such forms exist separate from the federal requirement) on the basis of federal preemption. They wanted the Arizona case to invalidate all state citizenship-verification requirements.
 
● Automatic registration if a registrant submits a completed federal EAC approved registration form, no questions asked.
 
● Federal preemption on the ability for states to have customized federal EAC-approved forms that differed from the default EAC form.
 
● Federal preemption over states, like Florida and Kansas, looking for independent information on citizenship to root out noncitizens from the voter rolls. Again, the Left wanted the federal EAC form to be the no-questions-asked ticket to the voter rolls.
 
So what is the score on these five goals after Justice Scalia’s opinion today? Election-integrity advocates are batting .800; left wing groups, .200. And the most insignificant issue of the five is the one issue the Left won. Justice Scalia foiled 4 of 5 of their goals, and the 4 biggest ones.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #362 on: June 18, 2013, 03:31:34 PM »

Thank you for that piece GM.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5937


« Reply #363 on: June 18, 2013, 03:50:17 PM »

I was disappointed to see a 7-2 decision penned by Scalia banning AZ from requiring proof of citizenship to vote on the basis of federal pre-emption.

[Silver lining aside, addressing the point lost], yes, this seems terrible!  Analysis is saying that Scalia and the others are throwing it back on congress to correct the standard. Arizona should sue the Feds to fix the problem?  

"Justice Thomas’s dissent was mainly devoted to arguing that the Constitution gives Congress no role in judging who may register to vote, and that this is a power given exclusively to the states."

If true, does this tend to support my contention that we are down to about one conservative/originalist on the Court.  Okay, add Justice Alito to the very short list in this case.  Alito's dissent is separate.  Who has time to do the Court's work for them, and finding the right answer in the dissent doesn't solve anything.

The Constitution "authorizes states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied," Thomas said in his dissent.

Is it not part of equal protection that my right to one vote cannot be diluted by liberals facilitating the vote of undocumented Dems?  Where is our protection?

Arizona law goes further than a 1993 federal law to address a serious problem.  But how does Arizona law violate the constitution?  Unequal protection?

I don't know if the Scalia-Ginsburg coalition gets out much, but a driver's license is not proof of citizenship in a state that issues licenses to non-citizens.  It is also not proof of citizenship in the state does not require proof of citizenship to check the citizen box on the driver's license application.

The remedy for a wrongly decided Supreme Court question is to elect a new President, new Senate and wait for current Justices to die.  How does that work when the issue is election fraud?  A different remedy, overlooked by Scalia, for the total malfeasance of the federal government to do its job is secession.

Right now we have government of the Washington DC, by the Washington DC, and for the Washington DC, IMHO.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/opinion-recap-one-hand-giveth/
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/AZ-reaction.pdf
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/17/supreme-court-arizona-citizenship-proof-law-illegal/
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #364 on: June 18, 2013, 04:04:39 PM »

"The Constitution "authorizes states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied," Thomas said in his dissent."

This seems rather definitive to me, what was Scalia thinking?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #365 on: June 28, 2013, 08:55:48 PM »

Hope 'n' Change: IRS Scandal Broadens
New IRS chief Danny Werfel revealed this week that -- surprise -- the agency's targeting of political groups went on longer than previously stated. Investigators originally claimed that the persecution of conservative groups ended in May 2012, but in fact it continued even after the scandal broke a few weeks ago. Werfel told Congress that he has called for an immediate end to the practice although he insists that there wasn't a pattern of intentional wrongdoing. That, however, is actually more troubling than if the IRS received marching orders from the White House because it indicates that the agency took it upon itself to placate the party in power in Washington (by sheer chance the Democrats). If that's true, then the federal government is fundamentally corrupt, not just run by a few corrupt politicians.
Congress finally received lists of trigger words that IRS agents used to target non-profit applications for further scrutiny, and most of the identifiers track back to a variety of conservative causes. In an attempt to take the heat off the agency and the Obama administration, congressional Democrats contend that "progressive" groups were also targeted. The Treasury Department Inspector General made clear, however, that his investigation revealed that only six leftist groups were probed while at least 292 Tea Party groups were given "special" attention.
The American Enterprise Institute makes the case that the IRS targeting and harassment of Tea Party groups swung the 2012 election in Democrats' favor. Researchers compared voter turnout in 2010 and 2012 using data from a variety of government and media sources and surmised that the neutralization of many Tea Party groups by the IRS in the 2012 election cycle led to a suppression of conservative voter turnout. According to the report, had the Tea Party groups' effect been similar in 2012 to that of the "shellacking" they dealt Obama and Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections, "they would have brought the Republican Party as many as 5 - 8.5 million votes compared to Obama's victory margin of 5 million."
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #366 on: June 30, 2013, 09:24:07 PM »

http://www.tpnn.com/obama-admin-supports-voter-ids-for-kenyans/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #367 on: July 01, 2013, 10:48:42 PM »

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/090712-624998-obama-ignores-military-absentee-voting-problems.htm?ven=OutBrainCP
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #368 on: July 02, 2013, 06:31:37 PM »

Representative John Lewis of Georgia speaks with considerable authority on the question of voting rights, for he still bears the scars of his March 1965 beating at the hands of a racist mob in Selma, Alabama. Not surprisingly, Mr. Lewis was unhappy last week when the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act establishing a formula that kept voting practices in certain jurisdictions, including most of the Deep South, under strict federal supervision.

Mr. Lewis claimed on MSNBC that in recent years "there's been a systematic, deliberate attempt to take us back to another period," by which he meant the Jim Crow South. He observed that the Justices who decided the case "never had to pass a so-called literacy test." That's probably true, since Justice Clarence Thomas wasn't old enough to vote until 1969.

For a little historical perspective, the liberal online magazine Slate last week reproduced a transcript of a Louisiana "literacy" test, believed to date from 1964, which it obtained from the Civil Rights Movement Veterans website (http://www.crmvet.org). The test is a baffling series of 30 brainteasers that was to be administered to anyone who could not "prove a fifth grade education." You can see the original at http://on.wsj.com/1964orig.

Some of the questions were confusingly worded: "Circle the first, first letter of the alphabet in this line." (We guess that's the "a" in "alphabet.") Others tried to overload the test-taker with instructions: "Place a cross over the tenth letter in this line, a line under the first space in this sentence, and circle the last the in the second line of this sentence." And some tested not reading but math: Would-be voters had to complete the sequence "2 4 8 16 __" and to "draw five circles that have one common interlocking part."

To be permitted to vote, a citizen had to answer every question correctly within 10 minutes—an average of 20 seconds per question. That would be a tall order even for somebody with a college education.

The test powerfully illustrates how determined white Southern Democrats were to keep blacks from voting, and why the Voting Rights Act's extraordinary measures were necessary in 1965. Louisiana was among the states subjected to federal "preclearance" until last week.

But today no one is proposing to reinstitute literacy tests, which are banned by a section of the Voting Rights Act that was unaffected by last week's decision. Louisiana has an Indian-American Governor, an African-American Member of Congress and a 32-member Legislative Black Caucus in Baton Rouge. Without meaning to, Slate has offered a powerful illustration of how far we have left that "earlier period" behind—and how little reason there is to fear its return.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5937


« Reply #369 on: July 05, 2013, 01:04:52 PM »

Does anyone remember a) that in 2009 the Obama White House took the 2010 Census away from the Commerce Dept and brought it in-house, and b) in 2010 the Obama allies got their asses handed to them by the tea party.

Then in the 2012 campaign the Obama-IRS shut down tea party operations and then won the election based on turnout derived from "data mining" in "The Cave" in Chicago with secret sources of information that they already happened to have via Census, IRS etc.
---------------
Today on Townhall.com:  http://townhall.com/columnists/barneybrenner/2013/07/05/data-mining-and-elections-n1633684/page/full

Data Mining and Elections
Barney Brenner | Jul 05, 2013

"these anything goes, Alinsky acolytes now have access to data, and its electoral ramifications, which Nixon couldn’t begin to dream of. And this administration can’t be trusted not to use it. ...

The Left is attempting a bloodless coup."
---------

Please see also:   
 
JOHN FUND ON THE TRAIL
    February 10, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123423384887066377.html
Why Obama Wants Control of the Census
Counting citizens is a powerful political tool.


Get Ready For the U.S. Census Fight, Chicago-style
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2009/02/get_ready_for_the_us_census_fi.html
Republicans are fit to be tied over the Obama administration's Tom DeLay-style strategy of removing the U.S. Census Bureau from the jurisdiction of the Commerce Department and transfering it to the White House.

Let Statisticians, Not White House, Conduct the 2010 Census
http://www.discovery.org/a/9071
By: Bruce Chapman
DiscoveryBlog.org
February 7, 2009


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #370 on: July 05, 2013, 01:50:56 PM »

Nice work supporting with relevant citations!
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5937


« Reply #371 on: July 10, 2013, 02:34:39 PM »

Lois Lerner, the IRS’s director of tax-exempt organizations who is overseeing the investigation, says many schools are rethinking how and what they report to the government. Receiving a thick questionnaire from the IRS, she says, is a “behavior changer.”

  - November 17, 2011 Business Week,  article about business operations of non-profits

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/the-irs-takes-a-closer-look-at-colleges-11172011.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #372 on: July 12, 2013, 02:43:27 PM »

Another IRS Scandal Waiting to Happen
Federal Elections Commissioner Donald McGahn wants to rein in the bureaucracy of this sensitive agency. The political left is furious.

    By
    KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
 

The Obama administration claims it wants to ensure that the rank political abuse perpetrated by the Internal Revenue Service is never repeated. Ask Donald McGahn how that's going.

Mr. McGahn is a Republican appointee to the Federal Election Commission, an agency with every bit as much potential for partisan meddling as the IRS. Due to leave the agency soon, Mr. McGahn's parting gift is a campaign to rein in an out-of-control FEC bureaucracy. But the left is fighting that oversight and is determined to keep power in the hands of unaccountable staff.


The FEC was created in the wake of Watergate, in part to remove primary power over political actors from the Justice Department. It sports an equal number of Democratic and Republican commissioners, so that neither side can easily impose a partisan agenda. This means a lot of deadlocks, a situation that infuriates the left, which prefers a fire-and-brimstone regulator.

It also frustrates the FEC's staff, which has responded by going around the commissioners. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), for instance, makes it clear that staff may not commence investigations until a bipartisan majority (four members) of the commission votes that there is a "reason to believe" a violation has occurred. In theory, this provision should guard against IRS-like witch hunts.

Except that over the years staff have come to ignore the law, and routinely initiate their own inquiries—often on little more than accusations they find on blogs or Facebook FB -0.15% . For a sense of how these investigations can go off the rails, consider that Lois Lerner—before serving as the center of today's IRS scandal—was the senior enforcement officer at the FEC. A Christian Coalition lawyer has testified that during a (sanctioned) FEC investigation in the 1990s—in addition to generating endless subpoenas, depositions and document requests, Ms. Lerner's staff demanded to know what Coalition members discussed at their prayer meetings and what churches they belonged to. Once staff gets rolling, there is little to stop them.

More troubling to some FEC commissioners has been the staff's unsanctioned and growing ties to the Obama Justice Department. In September 2011, Tony Herman was named FEC general counsel. Mr. Herman in early 2012 brought in Dan Petalas, a Justice prosecutor, as head of the agency's enforcement section. FECA is clear that a bipartisan majority of commissioners must vote to report unlawful conduct to law enforcement. Yet FEC staff have increasingly been sending agency content to Justice without informing the commission.

For instance, when a complaint is filed with the FEC against a political actor, the general counsel is required to write a report for the commissioners on whether there is a "reason to believe" the actor committed a violation. This report is confidential and never made public until a case is closed. Yet FEC staffers have sent these reports to Justice, in one case before the report was considered by the commissioners.

In a June memo, Mr. Herman defended staff supremacy with the astonishing argument that big decisions are best made by "non-partisan, career leadership." (No joke.) That way, the commission is shielded from "claims that it is deciding whether to assist DOJ criminal prosecutions" on the basis of "political considerations." Better, apparently, to keep the public completely in the dark.

These ties are disturbing, since the Obama campaign pioneered the tactic of demanding that Justice pursue criminal investigations of its political opponents as a means of intimidation. The FEC's info-funneling to Obama Justice raises the obvious question of whether Obama Justice wasn't in turn influencing FEC reports. (It also raises another question: If Justice had this kind of pipeline to the FEC, did it have one to the IRS?)

These questions are why election law requires bipartisan diligence over investigations and information sharing. Mr. McGahn is attempting to right the ship by getting the commission to adopt a new enforcement manual that would require uniform procedures. Yet FEC Chairman Ellen Weintraub has been uncharacteristically quiet on the issue, and liberal groups such as the Center for American Progress (via its Think Progress blog) have launched howling accusations that Mr. McGahn is trying to "block enforcement" and "weaken the agency." Some have suggested he's trying to ram through the change while the commission has a temporary 3-2 Republican majority.

In fact, Mr. McGahn hasn't forced this issue, because he's intent on getting all his colleagues to stand up for institutional responsibility. He's made clear he's not trying to end the relationship with the DOJ, or to stop investigations. As he told me this week, the only question is who will make the decisions: "The presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed commissioners who answer to the public, or an unaccountable staff?"

The left wants the latter, since it provides more latitude to use the FEC to their political ends. This has worked to their benefit at agencies like the (currently illegitimate) National Labor Relations Board, where (Acting) General Counsel Lafe Solomon is single-handedly running U.S. labor policy, much to their liking.

But Americans, and the FEC commissioners, need only recall our recent experience of letting federal employees meddle in politics. Mr. McGahn deserves great credit for trying to avoid the potential for another IRS scandal. Let's see if the Obama team is just as serious.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #373 on: July 18, 2013, 05:05:05 PM »


Dear Mr. Denny:
 
Thank you for contacting my office to express your opposition to more federal regulation of elections.  I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond. 
 
Our Constitution sets out an extraordinary balance between Federal and State regulation of elections to Federal office.  Under the Elections Clause of the Constitution, the States generally have power to regulate Federal elections.  However, Congress can create or change such regulations, and supersede state law, with respect to Federal elections.  For example, in 1842, Congress provided for the first time that members of the U.S. House of Representatives would be elected from single-member districts.  This is still done today.  In addition, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact appropriate legislation to protect voting and civil rights.  The landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 is an example of such legislation. 
 
As you mentioned, several bills have been introduced in Congress that would encourage improvements in how federal elections are conducted.  These pieces of legislation include the "Streamlined and Improved Methods at Polling Locations and Early Voting Act" (H.R. 50), to provide early voting procedures for federal elections; the "Same Day Registration Act" (H.R. 280), to allow same day registration at polling places; the "Value Our Time Elections Act" (H.R. 289), to allow online voting; and the "Voter Access Protection Act" (H.R. 281) to make photo ID laws unlawful. 
 
I understand your concern that these bills could lead to increased voter fraud, and I share your concern that elections must be conducted in a fair and secure manner.  For example, in 2008, as Chair of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, I held a hearing on requiring photo identification by voters.  I found no evidence that in-person voter fraud – the kind of fraud that would be prevented by requiring that a voter present a photo ID at the polls – is a widespread problem.  In my view, the right to vote is the foundation of our democracy, and it must be protected – including by legislation at the federal level where appropriate.  Should any of the legislation you reference come before me for consideration in the Senate, I will be sure to carefully evaluate it to make sure that the right to vote and the security of our elections are protected.
 
Again, thank you for contacting my office. If you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact my Washington, D.C. office directly at (202) 224-3841 or on the Internet at http://feinstein.senate.gov. Best regards.

Sincerely yours,


  Dianne Feinstein
         United States Senator
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #374 on: July 22, 2013, 08:34:55 PM »

http://www.westernjournalism.com/poll-worker-headed-to-prison-for-voter-fraud/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12036


« Reply #375 on: July 22, 2013, 09:20:03 PM »


Strange that the MSM hasn't picked this story up....
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5937


« Reply #376 on: July 23, 2013, 11:02:29 AM »

"I understand your concern that these bills could lead to increased voter fraud..." [Yet I support the bills and the heroic efforts of these newly enfranchised, fraudulent, Democratic voters.  Thanks for writing.]
  Dianne Feinstein
         United States Senator
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5937


« Reply #377 on: July 23, 2013, 11:47:39 AM »

I have been arguing lately that the magic 'data mining - turnout operation' of the Obama reelection effort was focused on sharing government program recipient data with campaign targeting, while shutting down tea party opposition.

John Fund exposes the connection between program recipients and ballots:

Obamacare’s Branch of the NSA
Community organizers will use a Federal Data Hub to sign up people for subsidies — and even ballots.
By John Fund

President Obama has had a poor record of job creation, but at least one small economic sector is doing well: community organizing.

The Department of Health and Human Services is about to hire an army of “patient navigators” to inform Americans about the subsidized insurance promised by Obamacare and assist them in enrolling. These organizers will be guided by the new Federal Data Hub, which will give them access to reams of personal information compiled by federal agencies ranging from the IRS to the Department of Defense and the Veterans Administration. “The federal government is planning to quietly enact what could be the largest consolidation of personal data in the history of the republic,” Paul Howard of the Manhattan Institute and Stephen T. Parente, a University of Minnesota finance professor, wrote in USA Today. No wonder that there are concerns about everything from identity theft to the ability of navigators to use the system to register Obamacare participants to vote.
...
Indeed, voter registration is among the goals of the folks hawking Obamacare. The People’s World newspaper reports: “California’s Secretary of State Debra Bowen is designating the state’s new Health Benefit Exchange, Covered California, as a voter registration agency under the National Voter Registration Act. That means Covered California will be incorporating voter registration into every transaction — online, in-person and by phone — it has with consumers.” It seems as if some Obama supporters have found a new way to fill the void left by the bankruptcy of ACORN, the notorious left-wing voter-registration group that saw dozens of its employees in multiple states convicted of fraud.

...if Obamacare isn’t repealed, the government can, with enough effort and money, get the Data Hub up and running. That concerns many members of Congress.

“Giving community organizers access to the Federal Data Hub is bad policy and potentially a danger to civil liberties,” House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan told me recently. “But it’s one of the most under-reported stories I’ve seen. If people only knew about this Data Hub program, it would touch off a huge public outcry.”
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #378 on: July 25, 2013, 10:08:26 AM »

Holder Seeking to Require Texas to Clear Voting Changes With U.S.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced on Thursday that the Justice Department would ask a court to require Texas to get permission from the federal government before making voting changes in that state for the next decade. The move opens a new chapter in the political struggle over election rules after the Supreme Court struck down a portion of the Voting Rights Act last month.
In prepared remarks for a speech before the National Urban League in Philadelphia, Mr. Holder also indicated that the court motion — expected to be filed later on Thursday — is most likely just an opening salvo in a new Obama administration strategy to try to reimpose “preclearance” requirements in parts of the country that have a history of discriminating against minority voters.
His statements come as states across the South, from Texas to North Carolina, have been rushing to enforce or enact new restrictions on voting eligibility after the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Shelby County v. Holder case, which removed that safeguard.
READ MORE »
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/us/holder-wants-texas-to-clear-voting-changes-with-the-us.html?emc=edit_na_20130725

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5937


« Reply #379 on: July 25, 2013, 05:15:25 PM »

Yes, the IRS targeting scandal road leads to Lerner and Wilkins which ties it to the President, his political handlers andto the campaign.  Sitting out here one might ask how you can tie all these small, illegal acts to swing the election together to expose the wider corruption and criminal enterprise that it embodies.  The answer is RICO, the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act.
----------------------------

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/23/rico-the-real-way-to-hold-the-irs-accountable/

RICO: The real way to hold the IRS accountable

If you are looking for a political-judicial solution, such as congress, impeachment, or a special prosecutor to hold accountable the unlawful acts coming out of the Obama administration, beginning with the Internal Revenue Service’s abuse and targeting of conservatives, Tea Party groups, and Christians, you are looking in the wrong place. What the IRS did tilted President Barack Obama’s re-election in his favor.

The IRS targeting reportedly began as early as 2010. Three years later, no one has been held accountable and the facts continue to drip out in slow motion.

Last week, for instance, as the Daily Caller reported, retiring IRS lawyer Carter C. Hull testified before California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and implicated Obama appointee, IRS Chief Counsel William J. Wilkin, in addition to the Washington-based head of the IRS’s exempt organizations office, Lois Lerner, in the IRS targeting scandal. Lerner already has pled the Fifth. Hull made it clear that the targeting of conservatives and Tea Party groups started in Washington.
Ads by Google

Meanwhile, Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department declined to prosecute a government employee who apparently knowingly improperly accessed former Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell tax records.  Does anyone really believe they will see justice from the Obama administration in these cases?

The bottom line is this. You can’t get justice within the political system in America anymore because the politicians own it. What ultimately stopped the mafia? The Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). What can stop the Obama administration, starting with holding corruption at the IRS accountable? RICO.

For years, as documented in The Whistleblower: How the Clinton White House Stayed in Power to Reemerge in the Obama White House & World Stage, Washington’s ruling elite have comprised a protected class, with rules that don’t apply to everyday Americans. If you or I lied before Congress or to federal investigators we would have been charged with perjury long ago.

In Washington, Attorney General Holder and National Security Director James Clapper can lie to Congress and hold onto their powerful positions without consequence.

People forget how the Office of Independent Counsel Special Prosecutor Robert Ray used his prosecutorial discretion when he declined in the 1990’s to charge Hillary Clinton with perjury and obstruction of justice. Others might not know that additional potential crimes were not included in the articles of impeachment during former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment hearings which might have prevented the Clintons and the Clintonistas from re-emerging in the Obama administration and on the world stage. People have failed to recall how the Bush administration declined to prosecute quid-pro Pardongate in which Eric Holder was knee deep in.

Aside from the occasional PR-savvy fall-guy resignations the federal justice system has been dead for decades.

This is why RICO — the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act is the solution for Americans to use to see some long overdue justice in Washington. RICO provides a peaceful way to hold corruption accountable.

Successful cases against organized crime have been built around RICO, which was enacted in 1970 to target the mafia. What is needed is to use RICO to specifically hold corrupt politicians and federal officials accountable.

RICO has already held corrupt politicians like former mayor of Detroit Kwame Kilpatrick, and his childhood friend Bobby Ferguson, accountable. Under the RICO statute, they were convicted on March 11, 2013 of using Kilpatrick’s office to run a criminal organization to extort bribes in exchange for city contracts. It can be done.

According to 18 USC § 1961, crimes under RICO include everything from extortion, obstruction of justice, obstruction of a criminal investigation, and witness tampering, to kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter and financial institution fraud. RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of an enterprise to file a civil suit, and if successful, to collect treble damages (damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages).

In the U.S. the act of engaging in criminal activity as a structured group is referred to as “racketeering.” In short, RICO requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, establishing a pattern which occurred within ten years after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity. It’s clear based on the number of conservatives and Tea Party groups that were targeted by the IRS that a pattern exists. It’s also clear from the testimony before Congress and in the Inspector General report that a number of officials were involved who were following orders from above. The evidence of a pattern and conspiracy already has been established. It’s time to use it.

Americans who have been targeted by the IRS or deprived of their rights by other government agencies should consider filing civil RICO suit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 – Civil Remedy for Deprivation of Rights and RICO: Civil Remedies for Conspiracies to Deprive Rights. Civil RICO does not rely on the politicized criminal justice system to work. This is especially critical considering those politics appear to have corrupted justice within AG Holder’s own department.

This American University Law Review report called, Using the Master’s Tools: Fighting Persistent Police Misconduct with Civil RICO, by Steven P. Ragland, could serve as a blueprint. This case shows how civil RICO was successfully used to root out corrupt policemen in the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and can be applied to corrupt officials at the IRS and other agencies where corruption exists. Substitute the bad cops with the individual corrupt government workers, LAPD with the government agency in question and off you go.

Remember, the beauty of RICO is it can begin at the local and state level, and be brought as a civil RICO action first that doesn’t require the federal government to participate. It “provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.” That means state and local lawyers, sheriffs, attorney generals, and prosecutors can bypass the corrupted Federal justice system. From there, as these civil RICO suits evolve and new potential criminal information is brought to light through the discovery process, these suits can merge and potentially become criminal actions that can be brought before a grand jury and spread to D.C. But victims of IRS targeting can and should start throwing down the gauntlet now.

Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #380 on: July 25, 2013, 05:27:35 PM »

Interesting read, Doug. Thanks!
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #381 on: July 31, 2013, 08:50:41 PM »

http://nationalreview.com/corner/354801/e-mails-suggest-collusion-between-fec-irs-target-conservative-groups-eliana-johnson

 E-mails Suggest Collusion Between FEC, IRS to Target Conservative Groups
By  Eliana Johnson
July 31, 2013 6:00 AM
 

Embattled Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner and an attorney in the Federal Election Commission’s general counsel’s office appear to have twice colluded to influence the record before the FEC’s vote in the case of a conservative non-profit organization, according to e-mails unearthed by the House Ways and Means Committee and obtained exclusively by National Review Online. The correspondence suggests the discrimination of conservative groups extended beyond the IRS and into the FEC, where an attorney from the agency’s enforcement division in at least one case sought and received tax information about the status of a conservative group, the American Future Fund, before recommending that the commission prosecute it for violations of campaign-finance law. Lerner, the former head of the IRS’s exempt-organizations division, worked at the FEC from 1986 to 1995, and was known for aggressive investigation of conservative groups during her tenure there, too.

“Several months ago . . . I spoke with you about the American Future Fund, a 501(c)(4) organization that had submitted an exemption application the IRS [sic],” the FEC attorney wrote Lerner in February 2009. The FEC, which polices violations of campaign-finance laws, is not exempted under Rule 6103, which prohibits the IRS from sharing confidential taxpayer information, but the e-mail indicates Lerner may have provided that information nonetheless: “When we spoke last July, you had told us that the American Future Fund had not received an exemption letter from the IRS,” the FEC attorney wrote.

The timing of the correspondence between Lerner and the FEC suggests the FEC attorney sought information from the IRS in order to influence an upcoming vote by the six FEC commissioners. The FEC received a complaint in March 2008 from the Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party alleging that the American Future Fund had violated campaign-finance law by engaging in political advocacy without registering as a political-action committee. The American Future Fund responded to that complaint in June 2008, telling the commission that it had applied for tax exemption in March of that year and was a “501(c)(4) social-welfare organization that was organized to provide Americans with a conservative and free-market viewpoint and mechanism to communicate and advocate on the issues that most interest and concern them.” According to the e-mail correspondence, a month after receiving the American Future Fund’s response, the FEC general counsel’s office — which is prohibited under law from conducting an investigation into an organization before the FEC’s six commissioners have voted to do so — contacted Lerner to investigate the agency’s tax-exempt status.

The FEC general counsel’s office, in its recommendation on the case, apparently didn’t tell the agency’s commissioners about how it had obtained the information about the group’s tax-exempt status. Recommending that the commissioners prosecute the American Future Fund, the general counsel’s office wrote, “According to its response, AFF submitted an application for tax-exempt status to the Internal Revenue Service . . . on March 18, 2008.” The footnote to that sentence reads, “The IRS has not yet issued a determination letter regarding AFF’s application for exempt status. Based on the information from the response and the IRS website, it is likely that the application is still under review.” In fact, an FEC lawyer knew that the organization had yet to obtain tax-exempt status because Lerner provided the confidential information.

The general counsel’s report was issued in September 2008, but it was over five months before the six FEC commissioners voted, in late-February 2009, on whether to prosecute the American Future Fund for violations of campaign-finance laws. (The typical lag time between the submission of a general counsel’s recommendation and a commission vote is about a month, according to a source familiar with the workings of the commission.) As the vote approached, on February 3, 2009, the FEC lawyer went back to Lerner for an update on the status of the American Future Fund’s application. “Could you please tell me whether the IRS has since issued an exemption letter to the American Future Fund? Also if the IRS has granted American Future Fund’s exemption, would it be possible for you to send me the publicly available information and documents related to American Future Fund?”

Despite the recommendations of the general counsel’s office, the six FEC commissioners split on whether to pursue the American Future Fund’s case and voted six-to-zero to close the case.

House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dave Camp and oversight-subcommittee chairman Charles Boustany are calling on the IRS, in the wake of these revelations, to provide all communications between the agency and the FEC between 2008 and 2012. “The American public is entitled to know whether the IRS is inappropriately sharing their confidential tax information with other agencies,” Camp and Boustany write in a letter they will send to acting IRS administrator Danny Werfel on Wednesday.

The FEC enforcement attorney also inquired about the tax-exempt status of another conservative organization, the American Issues Project. “I was also wondering if you could tell me whether the IRS had issued an exemption letter to a group called the American Issues Project? The group also appears to be the successor of two other organizations, Citizens for the Republic and Avenger, Inc.” Also sought were “any information and documents that would be publicly available in relation to the American Issues Project, Citizens for the Republic, or Avenger, Inc.”

Lerner was placed on paid administrative leave in late May after she revealed the IRS had inappropriately targeted conservative groups. The IRS has yet to respond to requests from lawmakers about her current employment status with the agency.

UPDATE: This piece has been amended since its initial posting.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5937


« Reply #382 on: July 31, 2013, 11:17:27 PM »


Good for Eliana Johnson to keep the reporting of this going and thanks to Crafty for posting.  My belief is that this is still barely the tip of the iceberg of the RICO level, reelection conspiracy scandal.  I believe the 'data mining' operation was using government program recipient data and contact information in the campaign.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #383 on: August 05, 2013, 05:35:25 PM »

http://www.nextgeneration.tv/?cmd=mpg&load=8732&mpid=517
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12036


« Reply #384 on: August 05, 2013, 07:05:59 PM »


Re: Dems looking to use voter registration fraud and amnesty for illegal aliens to turn red states blue.

Fixed it!
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5937


« Reply #385 on: August 05, 2013, 10:33:17 PM »

Re: Dems looking to use voter registration fraud and amnesty for illegal aliens to turn red states blue.
Fixed it!

Vote fraud, aiding and abetting vote fraud, and conspiracy to commit vote fraud are crimes that undermine and attack our republic on a par equivalent to treason.  The penalty for these crimes should be severe enough that an illegal would face certain deportation and a citizen would never again vote after serving his or her felony level sentence. Vote fraud committed on a large scale is comparable to an act of war against the United States.

Somewhere near the start of this thread I posted a story of ACORN block workers telling me they had neighbors ready to vouch for me to vote on election day in a neighborhood in which I did not live.  While some want to make it easier and easier and easier to vote and harder and harder and harder to detect vote fraud, reasonable people I think should favor far greater enforcement and far stiffer penalties for subverting any basic founding principle of our nation.

Right to vote, right to bear arms, and the right of law abiding tea party leaning people to form political associations are all similar constitutional rights.  Maybe the restrictions and waiting periods for all of these should defined in law as exactly the same.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #386 on: August 06, 2013, 12:06:49 PM »

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/06/fec-official-new-emails-show-agency-may-have-colluded-with-irs-in-political-targeting-scandal/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #387 on: August 30, 2013, 08:20:28 AM »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10268870/Million-foreign-voters-could-sway-result-of-next-general-election-warns-report.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #388 on: September 06, 2013, 12:19:19 PM »

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/05/this-county-had-124-more-registered-voters-than-eligible-voters-counting-dead-people-and-felons/

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/23/No-Car-Finds-2-214-Registered-Voters-110-Years-of-Age-Older

http://gunsnfreedom.com/early-voting-fraud-already-seen-in-colorado-recall-elections/
« Last Edit: September 06, 2013, 04:50:51 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5937


« Reply #389 on: September 12, 2013, 07:47:28 AM »

(Use RICO to prosecute these co-conspirators)

Lois Lerner's Own Words
Emails undercut the official IRS story on political targeting.

Congress's investigation into the IRS targeting of conservatives has been continuing out of the Syria headlines, and it's turning up news. Emails unearthed by the House Ways and Means Committee between former Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner and her staff raise doubts about IRS claims that the targeting wasn't politically motivated and that low-level employees in Cincinnati masterminded the operation.

In a February 2011 email, Ms. Lerner advised her staff—including then Exempt Organizations Technical Manager Michael Seto and then Rulings and Agreements director Holly Paz—that a Tea Party matter is "very dangerous," and is something "Counsel and [Lerner adviser] Judy Kindell need to be in on." Ms. Lerner adds, "Cincy should probably NOT have these cases."

That's a different tune than the IRS sang in May when former IRS Commissioner Steven Miller said the agency's overzealous enforcement was the work of two "rogue" employees in Cincinnati. When the story broke, Ms. Lerner suggested that her office had been unaware of the pattern of targeting until she read about it in the newspaper. "So it was pretty much we started seeing information in the press that raised questions for us, and we went back and took a look," she said in May.

Earlier this summer, IRS lawyer Carter Hull, who oversaw the review of many Tea Party cases and questionnaires, testified that his oversight began in April 2010. Tea party cases under review are "being supervised by Chip Hull at each step," Ms. Paz wrote to Ms. Lerner in a February 2011 email. "He reviews info from TPs, correspondence to TPs etc. No decisions are going out of Cincy until we go all the way through the process with the c3 and c4 cases here." TP stands for Tea Party, and she means 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) nonprofit groups.

The emails also put the targeting in the context of the media and Congressional drumbeat over the impact of conservative campaign spending on the 2012 elections. On July 10, 2012 then Lerner-adviser Sharon Light emailed Ms. Lerner a National Public Radio story on how outside money was making it hard for Democrats to hold their Senate majority.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had complained to the Federal Election Commission that conservative groups like Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity should be treated as political committees, rather than 501(c)(4)s, which are tax-exempt social welfare groups that do not have to disclose their donors.

"Perhaps the FEC will save the day," Ms. Lerner wrote back later that morning.

That response suggests Ms. Lerner's political leanings, and it also raises questions about Ms. Lerner's intentions in a separate email exchange she had when an FEC investigator inquired about the status of the conservative group the American Future Fund. The FEC and IRS don't have the authority to share that information under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code. But the bigger question is why did they want to? After the FEC inquiry, the American Future Fund also got a questionnaire from the IRS.

Ms. Lerner famously invoked her right against self-incrimination rather than testify under oath to Congress. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee reported this summer that its investigation had found Ms. Lerner had sent official IRS documents to her personal email account, and many questions remain unanswered. Democrats want to pretend the IRS scandal is over, but Ms. Lerner's role deserves much more exposure.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2013, 10:12:58 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5937


« Reply #390 on: September 19, 2013, 08:41:31 PM »

 Senior Treasury Department Officials Knew of IRS Targeting in Spring 2012, Documents Suggest
By  Eliana Johnson
September 19, 2013 1:05 PM

New documents are raising questions about when senior Treasury Department officials, including deputy treasury secretary Neal Wolin and even former treasury secretary Timothy Geithner, learned about the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of tea-party groups. They suggest top brass at the Treasury Department may have been aware of the scandal in spring of 2012, a year before it became public.

An e-mail uncovered in the course of the House Oversight Committee’s investigation into the scandal shows that Treasury Department inspector general J. Russell George was briefed by his staff in preparation for a “Secretary’s meeting” that was to take place at the Treasury Department on June 4, 2012. The briefing notes sent to George by a member of his staff read, “We obtained documentation indicating that certain organizations’ applications for tax-exempt status were targeted by the Exempt Organizations Determination office based on the organizations’ name or political beliefs. Additional audit work is needed to determine the extent, if any, of inconsistent treatment of these organizations’ applications for 501(c)(4) status.” Another document indicates that George briefed Treasury Department general counsel Christopher Meade the same day.

It is unclear if either Geithner or Wolin were present at the June 4, 2012, meeting. It does not appear on Geithner’s public schedule for the day (see below). In May, George described the secretary’s meetings to the committee this way: “The secretary holds a monthly meeting with bureau heads and in conjunction with those meetings, I meet monthly with the general counsel of the Department of the Treasury and then on an as-needed basis with the deputy secretary, Mr. Wolin.” George said that he told Wolin about the scandal “shortly” after he briefed Meade, but could not recall the precise day. Wolin has testified that he was made aware of an audit of “the IRS’s review of tax-exempt organizations” in 2012. George’s testimony is consistent with Wolin’s statement: He told Congress he informed the deputy treasury secretary and the department’s general counsel only about “the nature of the audit,” though the notes prepared for him by his staff go into further detail.

The documents also show that former IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman knew more about the scandal than he has previously disclosed. On May 30, 2012, according to a timeline from the inspector general’s office, Shulman learned that ”criteria targeting ‘tea party,’ ‘patriots,’ or ‘9/12′” as well as “educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights” were being used in reviewing applications for tax-exempt status.

Shulman told Congress in March 2012 that no targeting was taking place. Asked why he did not approach lawmakers to correct the record, he said, “What I knew sometime in the spring of 2012 was that there was a list who was being used, knew that the word ‘tea party’ was on the list” but ”didn’t know what other words were on the list” or “the scope and severity” of the problem.

On the basis of the newly discovered documents, Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa and subcommittee chairman Jim Jordan are demanding all Treasury Department documents and communication “referring or relating to the IRS’s misconduct.” In a letter to treasury secretary Jack Lew on Thursday, they wrote, “This information raises serious questions about the awareness of the Treasury Department in the IRS’s mistreatment of tax-exempt applications.” Issa and Jordan are reiterating a previous request to Lew with which the treasury secretary has yet to comply. The department, they said, “has produced only about 350 pages of responsive documents and did not provide any responses to several of our requests.”

UPDATE: A public schedule provided by the Treasury Department shows that former treasury secretary Timothy Geithner did not attend the June 4, 2012 meeting.

http://nationalreview.com/corner/358969/senior-treasury-department-officials-knew-irs-targeting-spring-2012-documents-suggest
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5937


« Reply #391 on: October 02, 2013, 01:57:09 PM »

The overlap and data share between these groups is so obvious IMO that no one hardly bothers to investigate or report on it:

The workforce that did the census, asked every person what programs they are on and how much they make, whether the kids go to daycare etc., and the people that come back to work the neighborhoods for Obamacare, and the people that used to do community action for ACORN and the people that worked the street on voter identification, registering and getting out the vote for Obama and all the local liberals - these people tend to be one and the same. It is RICO level corruption that these people pay each other salaries to go out and find out everything about you and then use that data to know exactly who to contact politically to elect and re-elect all the people who build and continue these programs.

It takes a far-right publication to even be suspicious about the connection.
---------------------------

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/acorn-crooks-on-the-march-for-obamacare/

ACORN Crooks on the March for Obamacare

A corrupt union ringleader who orchestrated massive campaigns involving identity fraud in furtherance of voter fraud and who covered up a million-dollar embezzlement involving pension funds will soon have unfettered access to confidential information on thousands of people seeking health insurance.

The union thug is disgraced ACORN founder Wade Rathke whose shady union will soon be helping people enroll in Obamacare exchanges.

Rathke’s labor vehicle, United Labor Unions (ULU) Local 100 in New Orleans, announced on its Facebook page Sept. 15 that it was gearing up “to do mass enrollment and help navigate people into the marketplaces in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas under the Affordable Care Act!”

“Local 100′s role as a Navigator, suggest the program is less about health care and more about building a new progressive infrastructure,” says longtime ACORN-watcher Mike Flynn of Breitbart.com.

The fact that Wade Rathke, a disreputable, radical left-wing community organizer, is allowed anywhere near the enrollment process ought to give all Americans pause. The only reason Rathke hasn’t been federally investigated for racketeering is because his allies control the federal law enforcement apparatus. President Obama pretends he has no connection to ACORN and Attorney General Eric Holder doesn’t care what laws have been broken because he approves of ACORN’s goals.

Of course, ACORN and the labor movement go way back. In 1979, ACORN created the United Labor Unions, which it used to organize low-wage, fast-food, and home healthcare workers in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas.

Yes, that’s President Obama’s former employer, ACORN, or the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

ACORN is the nonprofit group that knowingly hired felons convicted of identity theft to work on voter registration drives, giving them custody of sensitive voter information.

As I showed in my ACORN/Obama expose, Subversion Inc., ACORN is also infamous for hiring felons without bothering to do background checks, storming hospital emergency rooms and city council chambers, using voter fraud to turn graveyards across the nation into Democratic electoral strongholds, using mob violence against bank executives and other shakedown targets, and for ruthlessly exploiting its own employees and going to court to seek an exemption from minimum wage laws.

The 400,000-member organization, which filed for bankruptcy almost three years ago, was the nation’s preeminent Saul Alinsky-inspired street protest group — and the creepiest by far.

There are so many reasons why anyone connected to ACORN, especially the sleazy, smooth-talking, neo-communist con man Wade Rathke, cannot be trusted.

Dale Rathke, younger brother of Wade Rathke, stole a bit over $948,000 from ACORN in 1999 and 2000. Some of the money came from pension funds. Wade covered up the theft until it was discovered in mid-2008 at which point ACORN’s national board fired him and stifled an internal investigation into the crimes. With the richly deserved adverse publicity, grants from foundations began to dry up. ACORN filed bankruptcy on Election Day 2010.

The undercover videos shot by James O’Keefe III and Hannah Giles in 2009 that showed ACORN employees giving helpful advice on how to lie to the government, commit tax fraud, and trick banks into providing loans for brothels, helped kill off the group. That year Congress, which had given ACORN about $79 million in grants over the years, approved a law removing ACORN from the public teat.

It’s not that easy to get booted out of SEIU, America’s preeminent radical union, but somehow the ACORN-controlled Local 100 managed to do it.

As an SEIU official told me in October 2009, Local 100, which affiliated with SEIU in the mid 1980s, had its charter revoked by SEIU headquarters in September 2009. The bargaining unit was “not financially viable” and “simply couldn’t meet requirements to be a stand alone union,” she said without elaborating.

Given who’s running ULU, it is a foregone conclusion that ULU activists will abuse the sensitive financial, medical, and demographic information they take from vulnerable Americans, using the data for community organizing and partisan political advantage. That’s how Rathke operated over the 38 years that he headed ACORN.

Among the other left-wing organizations riding the Obamacare navigator gravy train are the Democrat-friendly groups Planned Parenthood, National Urban League, and Virginia Poverty Law Center Inc.

Many left-wing groups have not signed contracts with HHS or received government grants to enroll new patients but have nonetheless pledged to help promote the exchanges being created under Obamacare. Each recognized “Champion of Coverage” group vows to promote enrollment by emailing its members, hanging posters or giving out fact sheets and brochures, holding a conference call, or promoting enrollment in other ways.

Among the Champions of Coverage are Americans United for Change, Enroll America, Families USA, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), NAACP, MomsRising, Service Employees International Union, U.S. PIRG Education Fund, and Young Invincibles (Center for Community Change).

Enrollment will be a dangerous free-for-all because Obamacare “navigators” are barely regulated at all. By the way, the only reason there are any “navigators” is to help the Left, as Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has more or less admitted. Imposing rules would only interfere with community organizers’ ability to wreak havoc and spread the gospel of so-called social justice.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican office holder who is painfully aware of ACORN’s antics over the years, warns that the Obamacare navigator program, like all of Obamacare, is deeply flawed.

“‘Navigator’ is a crafty name, but in reality, there are very few restrictions on who they are, and what exactly they are supposed to be doing,” Jindal says. “‘Navigators’ are supposed to be hired to help consumers understand the law and the insurance coverage provisions in the new health exchanges. Sounds like a job for a rocket scientist.”

“The ‘navigators’ are prohibited from having financial ties to an insurance company, but other than that there are few constraints. Union organizers and community activists are among the types that are allowed to be hired as ‘navigators’, and having prior experience working in the health care field doesn’t seem to necessarily be a pre-requisite for the job. I wonder what percentage of these ‘navigators’ will be partisan Democrats?”

The navigators will have to undertake a mere 20 hours of online training, “which will apparently make them experts on the 1,000 page ObamaCare bill.”

These community organizers will have access to “social security numbers and tax information” and HHS isn’t even planning on running background checks before sending them out into the field. “Besides the obvious identity theft concerns, this is a frightening development in light of the political activities and invasion of privacy, which the IRS and others have engaged in during the Obama presidency,” Jindal writes.

But as we’ve learned in the Obama era, this kind of craziness is par for the course with community organizers.

HHS Secretary Sebelius previewed the Obamacare navigators program as she supplicated before racial arsonist Rev. Al Sharpton’s radical left-wing National Action Network (NAN) at its convention in the nation’s capital in April 2012. She urged activists to get into the trenches and fight for the misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) and to play Santa Claus, letting their neighbors know that the law gives them access to mountains of taxpayer-funded freebies.

“In our country what we know is health care inequality [has been] one of the most persistent forms of injustice but over the past three years, as Rev. Sharpton reminded us, we have begun to turn the tide,” Sebelius said. “Now is not the time to turn back.”

“We know that the best way to keep moving in the right direction is to get people the facts. Right now there are a lot of people who are benefiting from this law who don’t even know that’s why they are benefiting.”

“We need your help,” said the former Kansas governor, herself an accomplished shakedown artist.

Just last week President Obama picked up this statist narrative, declaring that his Soviet-style government health care scheme was all about civil rights. He expounded the ugly, neo-Marxist view that every American has the right to extract free medical care from taxpayers and unwilling providers.

“In the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one should go broke just because they get sick,” Obama bloviated. “In the United States, health care is not a privilege for the fortunate few, it is a right.”

Translation: No individual American will go broke because of Obamacare. Instead, the whole country will go broke.

And Wade Rathke’s ULU Local 100 will be at the forefront, helping to throw dirt on America’s coffin.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2013, 02:05:20 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #392 on: October 10, 2013, 06:52:25 AM »

This could also go in the First Amendment thread

Notable & Quotable
Justice Scalia asks about limits on aggregate campaign contributions during oral arguments in McCutcheon v. Federal Election.


From oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Tuesday in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, a case challenging limits on aggregate campaign contributions. Lawyer Bobby Burchfield argued against the caps:

Justice Scalia: Counsel, is it—is it correct that the consequence of this provision has been very severe with respect to national political parties?

Mr. Burchfield: It is, Your Honor, particularly in the current environment where the national political parties are—are being marginalized by outside forces.

Justice Scalia: And—and much of the money that used to go to them now goes to PACs; isn't that what has happened?

Mr. Burchfield: Exactly right, Your Honor.

Justice Scalia: So that this is really, you know, turning the dials on—on regulating elections. Now, I ask myself, why would—why would members of Congress want to hurt their political parties? And I answer—I answer to myself—

(Laughter.)

Justice Scalia: —well, ordinarily, the national political parties will devote their money to elections in those States where the incumbent has a good chance of losing. So, in fact, if you're an incumbent who cares about political parties, I don't want money to go to my opponents. And if you—if you turn down the amount of money that the national political parties have, that's that much less money that can be devoted against you if you're challenged in a close race. Isn't that the consequence of this?

Mr. Burchfield: Let me see you and raise you one. There are separate limits here, Your Honor, for candidates and for political parties. The effect of this is to insulate the incumbents from competing with the political parties for the dollars. And by imposing a cap on the candidate—on the amount candidates can raise, the incumbents realized that they're the favored class among—among candidates who are going to be getting the contributions.

Justice Scalia: What a surprise.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #393 on: October 30, 2013, 10:27:33 AM »

Toni Townes-Whitley is senior vice president at CGI Federal, which was awarded the no-bid contract to build the $678 million Healthcare.gov fiasco. Turns out that Toni is a classmate of Michelle Obama (Princeton '85) and they share membership in the Association of Black Princeton Alumni, which has fewer than 200 members for the entire decade, but plenty of Obama "friends." For example, John Rogers was Obama's Presidential Inaugural Committee Co-Chair.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #394 on: November 06, 2013, 09:55:30 PM »

http://nationalreport.net/evidence-voter-fraud-found-virginia-governors-race/

but not in Texas

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/11/06/so-how-many-votes-did-the-texas-voter-id-law-suppress/
« Last Edit: November 06, 2013, 10:54:06 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #395 on: November 17, 2013, 08:36:45 AM »

Wisconsin Political Speech Raid
Subpoenas hit allies of Scott Walker as his re-election campaign looms.


Updated Nov. 15, 2013 6:53 p.m. ET

Americans learned in the IRS political targeting scandal that government enforcement power can be used to stifle political speech. Something similar may be unfolding in Wisconsin, where a special prosecutor is targeting conservative groups that participated in the battle over Governor Scott Walker's union reforms.

In recent weeks, special prosecutor Francis Schmitz has hit dozens of conservative groups with subpoenas demanding documents related to the 2011 and 2012 campaigns to recall Governor Walker and state legislative leaders.

Copies of two subpoenas we've seen demand "all memoranda, email . . . correspondence, and communications" both internally and between the subpoena target and some 29 conservative groups, including Wisconsin and national nonprofits, political vendors and party committees. The groups include the League of American Voters, Wisconsin Family Action, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, Americans for Prosperity—Wisconsin, American Crossroads, the Republican Governors Association, Friends of Scott Walker and the Republican Party of Wisconsin.

One subpoena also demands "all records of income received, including fundraising information and the identity of persons contributing to the corporation." In other words, tell us who your donors are.
***

The probe began in the office of Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney Bruce Landgraf, though no one will publicly claim credit for appointing Mr. Schmitz, the special prosecutor. The investigation is taking place under Wisconsin's John Doe law, which bars a subpoena's targets from disclosing its contents to anyone but his attorneys. John Doe probes work much like a grand jury, allowing prosecutors to issue subpoenas and conduct searches, while the gag orders leave the targets facing the resources of the state with no way to publicly defend themselves.

That makes it hard to confirm any details. But one target who did confirm receiving a subpoena is Eric O'Keefe, who realizes the personal risk but wants the public to know what is going on. Mr. O'Keefe is director of the Wisconsin Club for Growth, which advocates lower taxes, limited government and other conservative priorities. He has worked in political and policy circles for three decades, including stints as national director of the Libertarian Party in 1980 and a director of the Cato Institute, and he helped to found the Center for Competitive Politics, which focuses on protecting political speech.

Mr. O'Keefe says he received his subpoena in early October. He adds that at least three of the targets had their homes raided at dawn, with law-enforcement officers turning over belongings to seize computers and files.

Mr. O'Keefe and other sources say they don't know the genesis of the probe, and Mr. Schmitz declined comment. The first public reference appeared in an October 21 blog post by Daniel Bice of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Mr. Bice is well known for his Democratic sources.

The kitchen-sink subpoenas deserve skepticism considering their subject and targets. The disclosure of conservative political donors has become a preoccupation of the political left across the country. In the heat of the fight over Governor Walker's reforms, unions urged boycotts of Walker contributors and DemocraticUnderground.com published a list of Walker donors for boycotting.

The subpoena demand for the names of donors to nonprofit groups that aren't legally required to disclose them is especially troubling. Readers may recall that the Cincinnati office of the IRS sent the tax-exempt applications of several conservative groups to the ProPublica news website in 2012.

The subpoenas don't spell out a specific allegation, but the demands suggest the government may be pursuing a theory of illegal campaign coordination by independent groups during the recall elections. If prosecutors are pursuing a theory that independent conservative groups coordinated with candidate campaigns during the recall, their goal may be to transform the independent expenditures into candidate committees after the fact, requiring revision of campaign-finance disclosures and possible criminal charges.
***

Another reason for skepticism is the probe's timing as Mr. Walker's 2014 re-election campaign looms. This is the second such investigation against Mr. Walker in three and a half years, following one that began in the office of Milwaukee County Democratic District Attorney John Chisholm in spring 2010.

That probe examined whether staffers used government offices for political purposes while Mr. Walker was Milwaukee County Executive, but after three years turned up nothing on Mr. Walker and embarrassingly little else. The final charges included a case of an aide sending campaign emails on county time, two Walker aides stealing money, and charges of child enticement against the domestic partner of a former staffer.

Mr. Walker's Democratic recall opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, nonetheless used the probe against the Governor, saying in a debate that "I have a police department that arrests felons, he has a practice of hiring them." So it's notable that the new batch of subpoenas began flying just days before Democrat Mary Burke announced her candidacy for Governor. District Attorneys are partisan elected officials in Wisconsin, and Mr. Landgraf works for Mr. Chisholm. Neither of them returned our call for comment.

The investigation's focus on campaign-finance law also falls into the wheelhouse of the Government Accountability Board, Wisconsin's political speech regulator. The GAB, which is made up of retired judges appointed by the Governor, has a history of pushing aggressive regulations of issue advertising. Mr. O'Keefe's Wisconsin Club for Growth has fought in court with the GAB over regulating political speech.

A person who has seen one of the Wisconsin search warrants tells us that the warrants were executed based on the request of Dean Nickel, who filed an affidavit for probable cause. Mr. Nickel is a former head of the Wisconsin Department of Justice Public Integrity Unit and has worked as an investigator for the GAB. Mr. Nickel told us he is a contractor for the GAB but wouldn't discuss the John Doe probe. GAB Director and General Counsel Kevin Kennedy declined to comment.
***

Perhaps the probe will turn up some nefarious activity that warrants this subpoena monsoon and home raids. But in the meantime the effect is to limit political speech by intimidating these groups from participating in the 2014 campaign. Stifling allies of Mr. Walker would be an enormous in-kind contribution to Democrats. Even if no charges are filed, the subpoenas will have served as a form of speech suppression.

Mr. O'Keefe told us that the flurry of subpoenas "froze my communications and frightened many allies and vendors of the pro-taxpayer political movement in Wisconsin and across the country." Even if no one is ever convicted of a crime, he says, "the process is the punishment."
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31223


« Reply #396 on: November 19, 2013, 11:21:49 AM »

http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-2012-election-jobs-report/

In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply — raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.

The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.

And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.

Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.

And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.

“He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.

The Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon, according to confidential Census documents obtained by The Post. Buckmon told me in an interview this past weekend that he was told to make up information by higher-ups at Census.

Ironically, it was Labor’s demanding standards that left the door open to manipulation.

Labor requires Census to achieve a 90 percent success rate on its interviews — meaning it needed to reach 9 out of 10 households targeted and report back on their jobs status.

Census currently has six regions from which surveys are conducted. The New York and Philadelphia regions, I’m told, had been coming up short of the 90 percent.

Philadelphia filled the gap with fake interviews.

“It was a phone conversation — I forget the exact words — but it was, ‘Go ahead and fabricate it’ to make it what it was,” Buckmon told me.

Census, under contract from the Labor Department, conducts the household survey used to tabulate the unemployment rate.

Interviews with some 60,000 household go into each month’s jobless number, which currently stands at 7.3 percent. Since this is considered a scientific poll, each one of the households interviewed represents 5,000 homes in the US.

Buckmon, it turns out, was a very ambitious employee. He conducted three times as many household interviews as his peers, my source said.

By making up survey results — and, essentially, creating people out of thin air and giving them jobs — Buckmon’s actions could have lowered the jobless rate.

Buckmon said he filled out surveys for people he couldn’t reach by phone or who didn’t answer their doors.

But, Buckmon says, he was never told how to answer the questions about whether these nonexistent people were employed or not, looking for work, or have given up.

But people who know how the survey works say that simply by creating people and filling out surveys in their name would boost the number of folks reported as employed.

Census never publicly disclosed the falsification. Nor did it inform Labor that its data was tainted.

“Yes, absolutely they should have told us,” said a Labor spokesman. “It would be normal procedure to notify us if there is a problem with data collection.”

Census appears to have looked into only a handful of instances of falsification by Buckmon, although more than a dozen instances were reported, according to internal documents.

In one document from the probe, Program Coordinator Joal Crosby was ask in 2010, “Why was the suspected … possible data falsification on all (underscored) other survey work for which data falsification was suspected not investigated by the region?”

On one document seen by The Post, Crosby hand-wrote the answer: “Unable to determine why an investigation was not done for CPS,” or the Current Population Survey — the official name for the unemployment report.

With regard to the Consumer Expenditure survey, only four instances of falsification were looked into, while 14 were reported.

I’ve been suspicious of the Census Bureau for a long time.

During the 2010 Census report — an enormous and costly survey of the entire country that goes on for a full year — I suspected (and wrote in a number of columns) that Census was inexplicably hiring and firing temporary workers.

I suspected that this turnover of employees was being done purposely to boost the number of new jobs being report each month. (The Labor Department does not use the Census Bureau for its other monthly survey of new jobs — commonly referred to as the Establishment Survey.)

Last week I offered to give all the information I have, including names, dates and charges to Labor’s inspector general.

I’m waiting to hear back from Labor.

I hope the next stop will be Congress, since manipulation of data like this not only gives voters the wrong impression of the economy but also leads lawmakers, the Federal Reserve and companies to make uninformed decisions.

To cite just one instance, the Fed is targeting the curtailment of its so-called quantitative easing money-printing/bond-buying fiasco to the unemployment rate for which Census provided the false information.

So falsifying this would, in essence, have dire consequences for the country.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12036


« Reply #397 on: November 19, 2013, 11:44:44 AM »

Another milestone in the death of the dollar. The world is waking up to the fact that America has been fundamentally transformed into Chicago writ large.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5937


« Reply #398 on: November 19, 2013, 04:41:06 PM »

Is this Watergate yet?

What is monumental about this scandal is that it is on top of the other reelection scandals, IRS targeting conservative groups, blocking the Benghazi discovery, the Obamacare fraud and the use of government data in the reelection.  Now the doctoring of economic data to influence the election.  The executive executive branch and the campaign are one and the same, breaking laws and destroying the integrity of our nation.  This calls for a special prosecutor and a RICO criminal prosecution (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) to connect all the different parts of a criminal organization.

Talk about a double standard, Scooter Libby went to jail without being being the source and Lois Lerner is a free woman 6 months after saying that the answers to routine questions might incriminate her.  Watergate was a lie about a two bit burglary and this was an organized operation to break laws in the effort to reelect the President.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4071


« Reply #399 on: November 19, 2013, 06:33:19 PM »

Your right of course.  But,

it is not the lies that will undue Brock full of crock.
It is only when more of us get hit in the wallet then get checks that will make the difference.

I guess we are seeing this now with the drop in poll numbers with the AHA thing.  Now and only now. 

Unfortunately, truth and honesty doesn't seem to mean as much these days.

IF it did we wouldn't even be listening to Bill Clinton.  Yet we have to hear his opinion on the MSM to this day.

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!