Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
December 06, 2013, 05:54:07 AM
Login with username, password and session length
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
Dog Brothers Public Forum
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
Politics & Religion
The war on the rule of law
Topic: The war on the rule of law (Read 4497 times)
Re: IRS gave WH confidential data
Reply #150 on:
October 11, 2013, 11:50:55 AM »
"House investigators: IRS gave White House confidential data in order to fight HHS mandate lawsuits"
This surprises no one, doesn't even offend liberals, and there is no indication that the perpetrators will face criminal prosecution. Instead, our answer is to have more agencies gather and enter even more personal information into these corrupt, insecure networks.
When they look deeper, they will also find that the agencies effectively shared information with the swing state, get out the liberal vote campaigns, enabling these programs.
Death of the Hatch Act
Reply #151 on:
October 20, 2013, 11:08:04 AM »
Housing Grant to ACORN
Reply #152 on:
October 21, 2013, 11:11:52 AM »
Judicial Watch: Feds give housing grant to ACORN affiliate despite federal ban
Reply #153 on:
October 21, 2013, 05:56:27 PM »
What a coincidence: ACORN founder’s organization serving as Obamacare navigators
By Doug Powers • October 17, 2013 11:35 PM
**Written by Doug Powers
There was $67 million doled out in Obamacare navigator grants, and the organization below doesn’t appear on the list of “navigators” receiving that money. The other options are that they are being subcontracted, or that they’re doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. You decide:
A community organization established by Wade Rathke, founder of ACORN, will be participating in a “navigator” drive aiding people attempting to sign up for health-care coverage under the Affordable Care Act, according to a Fox News report. The organization, United Labor Unions Council Local 100, is based in New Orleans and was created by Rathke after ACORN went bankrupt amidst widespread scandal.
United Labor Unions Council Local 100’s website links to ACORN International, another offshoot of the now defunct ACORN, on their website.
Though Local 100 is not officially related to ACORN, former ACORN administrators, including Wade Rathke and Bertha Lewis, have reconstituted the scandal-plagued community-organizing group in the form of a multiplicity of local organizations.
The Obamacare site at HealthCare.gov includes this option:
Your ACORN-ish “navigator” will no doubt be happy to assist you with that. It’s probably the only part of the website that actually works.
DOJ walks grenades into Mexico
Reply #154 on:
October 21, 2013, 06:20:45 PM »
Re: DOJ walks grenades into Mexico
Reply #155 on:
October 21, 2013, 06:22:43 PM »
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on October 21, 2013, 06:20:45 PM
But they were just undocumented grenades seeking work...
The war on the rule of law, Obama’s fingerprints all over IRS Tea Party scandal
Reply #156 on:
October 22, 2013, 12:01:31 PM »
Obama’s fingerprints all over IRS Tea Party scandal
by Jay Sekulow
It’s past time for the media to begin asking President Obama tough questions about the IRS conservative targeting scandal. After all he was involved, publicly, from the beginning.
Last Friday, the American Center for Law and Justice (where I serve as Chief Counsel) filed its Second Amended Complaint against the United States, the IRS, and a legion of IRS officials. This Complaint, in which we represent 41 organizations in 22 states, presents perhaps the most complete story yet of the IRS conservative targeting scandal.
And it is an ugly story indeed.
What was sold to the American public as a low-level scandal perpetrated by a few rogue employees – a scandal stopped after senior officials became aware and asserted control – is now (to borrow a Watergate phrase) “no longer operative.”
Was Obama involved in the IRS scandal? He was the one who identified the targets – in the most public manner possible.
Instead, we detail a long-running assault on the Tea Party, beginning shortly after its emergence in 2009, that is empowered, encouraged, and orchestrated not only by senior IRS officials in Washington, but also through outright targeting by the White House, Congressional Democrats, and the mainstream media.
In fact, the IRS was doing little more than focusing its attention exactly where the president of the United States told it to focus – on the groups the president himself identified as a “threat to democracy.”
Consider President Obama’s aggressive public statements – made just as we now know senior IRS officials were intentionally and aggressively scrutinizing conservative groups’ applications for tax exemption.
On August 9, 2010 the president warned of “attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names” during his weekly radio address. The President said: We don’t know who’s behind these ads and we don’t know who’s paying for them . . . you don’t know if it’s a foreign controlled corporation. ... The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.”
On September 16, 2010, President Obama once again warned that some unidentified “foreign-controlled entity” could be providing “millions of dollars” for “attack ads.” Less than one week later, he complained that “nobody knows” the identities of the individuals who support conservative groups.
On September 22, 2010, President Obama warned of groups opposing his policies “pos[ing] as non-for-profit social and welfare trade groups” and he claimed such groups were “guided by seasoned Republican political operatives” and potentially supported by some unidentified “foreign controlled entity.”
On October 14, 2010, President Obama called organizations with “benign sounding” names “a problem for democracy”; the next week he complained about individuals who “hide behind those front groups,” called such groups a “threat to our democracy,” and claimed such groups were engaged in “unsupervised” spending.
Next, consider the IRS’s actions following those statements. Not only did the IRS continue its targeting, it issued broad questionnaires that made unconstitutionally-intrusive inquiries designed to get answers to exactly the questions President Obama posed.
Who are your donors?
What is the political activity of your family and associates?
What are the passwords for your websites?
After all, according to the president, you’re only afraid to answer these questions if “you’ve got something to hide.”
The demagoguery is breathtaking. Not only does he raise the wholly-unsubstantiated possibility of shadowy “foreign” involvement in the Tea Party groups, a charge incredible on its face, but he goes the extra mile of calling such groups, a “threat to our democracy.”
When the president of the United States declares these groups a “threat to our democracy” is it any surprise that his enthusiastic supporters (and donors) within the IRS responded with an unprecedented campaign of selective targeting, intimidation, and governmental intrusion?
One grows weary of stating the obvious, but if President Bush had declared a specific category of citizen groups a “threat to democracy” potentially run by “political operatives” or “foreign-controlled,” and the IRS launched an unprecedented campaign of targeting and intrusive questioning, the mainstream media would have been relentless not only in its independent investigations but in its calls for accountability – at the highest levels.
Was the president of the United States involved in the IRS scandal? He was the one who identified the targets – in the most public manner possible.
A president singling out citizens groups for targeting and intrusive questioning merely because he dislikes their message and fears their political influence?
Now that is a “threat to democracy.”
Jay Sekulow is Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice
LAPD ‘Special Order 7′ a Godsend for Unlicensed Illegal Alien Drivers
Reply #157 on:
October 23, 2013, 07:06:52 PM »
LAPD ‘Special Order 7′ a Godsend for Unlicensed Illegal Alien Drivers
No license? No insurance? No problem!
Suppose as you read this that Officer Dunphy is out on patrol somewhere in Los Angeles. As he keeps an eye out for signs of crime and villainy, he also seeks to maintain good order on the roads through enforcement of the traffic laws. And what should he see directly in front of him but a flagrant violation of those laws, to wit, someone driving 45 miles per hour in a 25-miles-per-hour zone on a quiet residential street. Officer Dunphy pulls over the errant driver and, after cautiously approaching the car (because you never know), discovers that the driver speaks no English, only Spanish.
This is no impediment to Officer Dunphy, as he has learned a good deal of Spanish over the years, a necessity for police officers working in many parts of Southern California. So, in the driver’s native tongue, Officer Dunphy asks him for his driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance, all of which California law requires him to carry. The driver replies that he has none of these things, and that the car belongs to a friend of his whom he knows only as “Francisco.”
And now the question: What should Officer Dunphy do now? Of course he issues a citation to the driver for the speeding violation as well as for being unlicensed and uninsured, but what should happen to the car? California law allows for its impoundment for 30 days, which in this case would serve as a deterrent both to our driver, for being unlicensed, and to Francisco, for allowing the unlicensed man to drive.
“Yes, Officer Dunphy,” you say, “summon the tow truck immediately. Unlicensed drivers are a menace and the full weight of the law should be brought to bear upon them.”
Ah, but if that is indeed your response, you haven’t been paying attention to the news here in Los Angeles. What I must do, under the terms of the LAPD’s Special Order 7 (PDF), is allow the unlicensed driver to contact Francisco and allow him time to come to the scene and, assuming he has a driver’s license, take charge of the car. If Francisco does not have a license, he must be allowed to ask someone who does have one to come and take the car. In the event no qualified person is able to come, I can still impound the car, but only for one day, not thirty.
You see, the law authorizing police to impound cars driven by unlicensed drivers was enacted in the bad old days, when legislators and police officers alike considered it a duty to discourage and punish affronts to public safety. This of course was before enlightened Democrats, who now enjoy super-majorities in both houses of the California legislature, set to the task of making the state more hospitable to illegal immigrants. Under a law recently passed, illegal immigrants in California will soon be granted driver’s licenses, so the question of impounding their cars when they’re found to be driving without a license will become a bit trickier. But you can bet there will be those who will look to cut them even more slack than the new law requires.
Among those surely will be LAPD Chief Charlie Beck, under whom Special Order 7 came to be implemented. Appointed by former mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Chief Beck was and remains a willing servant in Villaraigosa’s effort to make Los Angeles more friendly to immigrants, legal or not. Special Order 7 has been challenged in court, both by the police officers labor union and by Judicial Watch, and in August a Superior Court judge ruled that it was preempted by state law. This forced Beck to rescind the order, but last week an appeals court set aside that ruling, allowing Beck once again to implement his order. Beck has called it an issue of “fairness,” saying that the fees attendant to lengthy impounds were too high for many illegal immigrants to pay, resulting in the permanent loss of their cars.
Someone with a different perspective on “fairness” is Don Rosenberg, whose son Drew was killed by an unlicensed illegal immigrant in a San Francisco traffic collision in 2010. Rosenberg, who has since become an activist on the issue, says unlicensed drivers are killing over 7,000 people a year in the United States. “About 4,000 of those deaths are illegal aliens that are causing them,” he says, “so, I don’t see it as some minor offense.”
But why let a few thousand deaths stand in the way of social justice? For Chief Beck and his like-minded allies on the issue, it is somehow “fair” to allow people who should not be here to drive the cars they should not drive to the jobs they should not have.
There are neighborhoods in Los Angeles where, if a police officer pulls over a driver and finds that he has a driver’s license and insurance, and that his car is properly registered at his current address, the officer is so moved at the rarity of the event he is tempted to take a picture with the man so he can show it to his friends.
When people ask me why I moved out of Los Angeles, the city where I was born and lived most of my life, the city where my father was born and lived most of his life, I have a long list of reasons. You’ve just read about the latest one.
Patriot Post: IRS' Lerner and the FEC
Reply #158 on:
November 04, 2013, 09:13:11 AM »
Lerner Leaked Secret Info
More emails reveal that the IRS gave confidential Tea Party tax information upon request to the Federal Election Commission. And -- brace yourselves -- you'll never guess who allegedly approved the leak. According to Washington Times reporter Paul Bedard, "The public watchdog group Judicial Watch [says] … it was former scandal boss Lois Lerner who shared the information on groups including the American Future Fund and the American Issues Project." Additionally, "The emails also revealed the exact working of the prying political questions the IRS wanted the groups to reveal, such as their goals and the requests for brochures and ads." But despite breaking federal law, Congress is undoubtedly in no hurry to get to to the bottom of this scandal, either.
VDH: The rule of law?
Reply #159 on:
November 17, 2013, 09:17:35 AM »
The Rule of Law?
By Victor Davis Hanson
November 14, 2013 1:55 PM
When his pet businesses did not like elements of the Affordable Care Act, Obama simply exempted them. When employers objected that their mandate would unduly hamper job creation, the president simply ignored the settled law and exempted them. Now, when millions have lost their coverage, the president is said to be ready to again reinterpret settled law and no longer demand that private insurance plans conform to the ACA statute, at least for a year.
Aside from the question of whether it is legal or right for the president to decide arbitrarily which elements of legislation to faithfully execute, it is also a sort of new way of ad hoc governing: The president grandly introduces a new piece of unworkable legislation, does not know or care much about the consequences of implementing it, demagogues the bill, demonizes the opposition, gets it passed, uses the passage for political purposes, and then waits to see what happens in the real world.
When more than 50 percent of the country is outraged, he scraps what he finds politically useful to scrap (“enforcement discretion”). Apparently, Obama believes that after such trial and error he will work the bugs out of the ACA and end up with what he can call a success — too bad for those who lose coverage or pay more in the meantime and for the legalists who worry that what he is doing is against the law.
All this is right out of the radical Athenian assembly, which on any given day could do whatever its majority wished and then the next undo whatever it wished. But such governance is not what the framers had in mind when they established the checks and balances of a republican tripartite government and entrusted the president with faithfully executing all the laws passed by congress and signed by him.
AG Holder asks for appeal in Fast and Furious case holding him in contempt
Reply #160 on:
November 17, 2013, 10:01:39 AM »
Lawless administration continued...
AG Holder asks for appeal in Fast and Furious case holding him in contempt
Attorney General Eric Holder wants to appeal a recent judge’s ruling that allows the House to continue with its contempt case, related to Holder’s refusal to turn over documents concerning the Justice Department’s failed Operation Fast and Furious gun-tracking program.
Holder made the request Friday night to U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, asking that the Justice Department be allowed to put the case in front of a federal appeals court before Jackson makes any final decisions.
In September, Jackson rejected the Obama administration’s request to have the case dismissed.
IRS Targeting, Wilkins Testifies: I Don't Recall - 80 Times
Reply #161 on:
November 27, 2013, 09:38:23 PM »
expressing gross dissatisfaction with Wilkins’s testimony and, in a letter sent to him on Wednesday, offering him the opportunity to amend it. “In your testimony, you stated ‘I don’t recall’ a staggering 80 times in full or partial response to the Committee’s questions,” committee chairman Darrell Issa and Ohio representative Jim Jordan wrote. “Your failure to recollect important aspects of the Committee’s investigation suggests either a deliberate attempt to obfuscate your involvement in this matter or gross incompetence on your part.”
The most pertinent subject on which Wilkins’s memory failed him was the nature of his communications with Treasury Department officials: in particular, whether he discussed the applications of tea-party groups with anybody at the Treasury Department, whether he discussed with Treasury Department officials regulatory guidance for 501(c)(4) entities engaged in political activities, and whether he discussed with them the inspector general’s report that blew the lid off of the targeting scandal in mid May.
In the summer of 2011, former IRS official Lois Lerner and her senior adviser sought guidance from lawyers in Wilkins’s office on the processing of two “test” applications from conservative groups, whose treatment was intended to guide how Cincinnati agents would process the bulk of the tea-party cases. Wilkins told the committee he was unaware of their involvement in the issue but did know about the draft guidance on the treatment of tea-party applications that, on April 25, 2012, emerged from Lerner’s meetings with lawyers reporting to him. (The guidance was never finalized.)
Wilkins met with President Obama on April 23, two days before the guidance was provided.
Re: The war on the rule of law
Reply #162 on:
November 27, 2013, 10:20:26 PM »
Coincidentally it was announced today that the IRS is working on new regs yanking the leash of 501(c) groups , , ,
Charles Krauthammer: An outbreak of lawlessness
Reply #163 on:
November 29, 2013, 11:16:27 AM »
An outbreak of lawlessness November 28, 2013
For all the gnashing of teeth over the lack of comity and civility in Washington, the real problem is not etiquette but the breakdown of political norms, legislative and constitutional.
Such as the one just spectacularly blown up in the Senate. To get three judges onto a coveted circuit court, frustrated Democrats abolished the filibuster for executive appointments and (non-Supreme Court) judicial nominations.
The problem is not the change itself. It’s fine that a president staffing his administration should need 51 votes rather than 60. Doing so for judicial appointments, which are for life, is a bit dicier. Nonetheless, for about 200 years the filibuster was nearly unknown in blocking judicial nominees. So we are really just returning to an earlier norm.
The violence to political norms here consisted in how that change was executed. By brute force — a near party-line vote of 52 to 48 . This was a disgraceful violation of more than two centuries of precedent. If a bare majority can change the fundamental rules that govern an institution, then there are no rules. Senate rules today are whatever the majority decides they are that morning.
What distinguishes an institution from a flash mob is that its rules endure. They can be changed, of course. But only by significant supermajorities. That’s why constitutional changes require two-thirds of both houses plus three-quarters of the states. If we could make constitutional changes by majority vote, there would be no Constitution.
As of today, the Senate effectively has no rules. Congratulations, Harry Reid. Finally, something you will be remembered for.
Barack Obama may be remembered for something similar. His violation of the proper limits of executive power has become breathtaking. It’s not just making recess appointments when the Senate is in session. It’s not just unilaterally imposing a law Congress had refused to pass — the Dream Act — by brazenly suspending large sections of the immigration laws.
We’ve now reached a point where a flailing president, desperate to deflect the opprobrium heaped upon him for the false promise that you could keep your health plan if you wanted to, calls a hasty news conference urging both insurers and the states to reinstate millions of such plans.
Except that he is asking them to break the law. His own law. Under Obamacare, no insurer may issue a policy after 2013 that does not meet the law’s minimum coverage requirements. These plans were canceled because they do not.
The law remains unchanged. The regulations governing that law remain unchanged. Nothing is changed except for a president proposing to unilaterally change his own law from the White House press room.
That’s banana republic stuff, except that there the dictator proclaims from the presidential balcony.
Remember how for months Democrats denounced Republicans for daring to vote to defund or postpone Obamacare? Saboteurs! Terrorists! How dare you alter “the law of the land.”
This was nonsense from the beginning. Every law is subject to revision and abolition if the people think it turned out to be a bad idea. Even constitutional amendments can be repealed — and have been (see Prohibition).
After indignant denunciation of Republicans for trying to amend “the law of the land” constitutionally (i.e. in Congress assembled), Democrats turn utterly silent when the president lawlessly tries to do so by executive fiat.
Nor is this the first time. The president wakes up one day and decides to unilaterally suspend the employer mandate, a naked invasion of Congress’s exclusive legislative prerogative, enshrined in Article I. Not a word from the Democrats. Nor now regarding the blatant usurpation of trying to restore canceled policies that violate explicit Obamacare coverage requirements.
And worse. When Congress tried to make Obama’s “fix” legal — i.e., through legislation — he opposed it. He even said he would veto it. Imagine: vetoing the very bill that would legally enact his own illegal fix.
At rallies, Obama routinely says he has important things to do and he’s not going to wait for Congress. Well, amending a statute after it’s been duly enacted is something a president may not do without Congress. It’s a gross violation of his Article II duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
A Senate with no rules. A president without boundaries. One day, when a few bottled-up judicial nominees and a malfunctioning health-care Web site are barely a memory, we will still be dealing with the toxic residue of this outbreak of authoritative lawlessness.
Mark Steyn, always funny, Dissent is the Highest Form of Tax Bracket
Reply #164 on:
December 01, 2013, 09:43:40 AM »
In Ian Fleming’s Goldfinger, the eponymous Auric Goldfinger observes:
Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times, it’s enemy action.
That may be overly generous.
A couple of weeks back, cancer patient Bill Elliot, in a defiant appearance on Fox News, discussed the cancelation of his insurance and what he intended to do about it. He’s now being audited.
Insurance agent C Steven Tucker, who quaintly insists that the whimsies of the hyper-regulatory bureaucracy do not trump your legal rights, saw the interview and reached out to Mr Elliot to help him. And he’s now being audited.
As the Instapundit likes to remind us, Barack Obama has “joked” publicly about siccing the IRS on his enemies. With all this coincidence about, we should be grateful the President is not (yet) doing prison-rape gags.
Meanwhile, IRS chief counsel William Wilkins, in his testimony to the House Oversight Committee over the agency’s systemic corruption, answers “I don’t recall” no fewer than 80 times. Try giving that answer to Wilkins’ colleagues and see where it gets you. Few persons are fond of their tax collectors, but, from my experience, America is the only developed nation in which the mass of the population is fearful of its revenue agency. This is unbecoming to a supposedly free people.
The Conspiracy behind the Fraud
Reply #165 on:
December 01, 2013, 02:22:48 PM »
Re: The war on the rule of law
Reply #166 on:
December 01, 2013, 06:11:27 PM »
Mr. McCarthy certainly connects all the dots.
Obama is clearly on record as stating "single payer" total government controlled national health system is in his mind the best.
So are probably most if not all of the academic politburo members who are behind the present AHA. Berwick for example is well known for admiring the British system.
I am not totally convinced the flawed AHA was part of scheme to insure its own failure thus creating the vacuum for the government statists to move in a fill the void as though they were rescuing us with a mandatory single national health system.
It certainly could be. I just don't know if they are that clever.
I am not sure it would matter if this was preplanned or just bumbling.
We know they will never stop till they get to their goal of total control over our lives.
One question I have. I wonder how many Americans would be just fine if we do have a government only health system.
Socialism, communism, fascism, are not dirty words anymore.
Please select a destination:
DBMA Martial Arts Forum
=> Martial Arts Topics
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
=> Politics & Religion
=> Science, Culture, & Humanities
=> Espanol Discussion
Dog Brothers Information
=> Instructor Lists
=> Biographies & Instructor Details
Powered by SMF 1.1.17
SMF © 2011, Simple Machines