Taylor claimed that Lerner’s life has been threatened if she testified. TheDC has independently verified Taylor’s claim.
Taylor claimed that Lerner’s life has been threatened if she testified. TheDC has independently verified Taylor’s claim.
In case you haven’t seen this yet, it’s a reminder of why conservatives fell in love with this guy prior to his involvement with the gang of eight’s amnesty push and it’s why he still has a bright future ahead of him in the Republican party.
Via John Sexton at the Conversation:
Rubio’s 14 minute speech was apparently prompted by comments Sen. Tom Harkin made after a visit to Cuba last month. One of the points Harkin raised was Cuba’s low infant mortality rate. Rubio questioned the reliability of Cuba’s official infant mortality statistics, noting that “totalitarian communist regimes don’t have the best history of accurately reporting things.”
Rubio also noted with regard to Cuba’s high literacy rate that “They can only read censored stuff.” He added “I wish that someone on that trip would have asked the average Cuban: With your wonderful literacy skills, are you allowed to read the NY Times or the Wall Street Journal or any blog for that matter? Because the answer is no.”
Five minutes into the speech Rubio pivoted by noting that Cuba had “exported” their system of repression to Venezuela. He showed a series of large posters, talking about each one in turn. The first was of Leopoldo Lopez, the Venezuelan opposition leader, who was arrested last week.
The second was the famous photo of Genesis Carmona being rushed to the hospital after being shot in the head. “She’s on that motorcycle because the government in Venezuela and the thugs, these so called civilian groups that they’ve armed–another export from Cuba, a model the Cubans follow–they shot her in the head!” Rubio said, pointing at the photo.
In fairness – after going on five Sunday talk shows to spout the Regime’s phony cover story – what else is she gonna do? Admit it was all a huge lie to deflect from the ugly truth that al Qaeda was not “on the run” in 2012, but “on the offensive?”
Still, this is pathetic, and it inspired John McCain to burst out in derisive laughter when he saw it.
National Security Adviser Susan Rice says she has no regrets about her Sunday show appearances where she peddled the false talking point that the Benghazi terrorist attack was a spontaneous reaction to a video.
Actually Miss, what you peddled on the Sunday talk shows was not the best you had at the moment, and contrary to your assertions, your bogus narrative has not been validated. Your “best information” defense has in fact been, invalidated. We know the White House knew, okay already?
The only question is whether Rice was acting as an unknowing stooge at the time, or a willing participant in the subterfuge. There is no question of what she currently is doing.
Oh – and kudos to Meet the Depressed host, David Gregory who did such a splendid job holding Rice’s feet to the fire, there. Always nice to see a hard-nosed journalist doing his part to keep a Washington power broker honest with a few tough follow up questions. What’s that you say? There wasn’t a followup question to that obvious lie? Wow. (The FCC seen nodding in approval.) NBC knows what its audience’s “critical information needs” are – and the truth about Benghazi – or any of the Regime’s other scandals are not among them.
Here’s John McCain’s “almost speechless” response to Rice’s BS on CBS, this morning:
Fox News’ “Political insiders”, Pat Caddell, Doug Schoen, John LeBoutillier with Harris Faulkner talked about Rice’s appearance on NBC still peddling what Caddell called “the greatest lie of my lifetime.”
LeBoutillier saw the appearance as an indication that the Regime is still getting away with the cover-up, and took the opportunity to repeat what all the insiders have been calling for – a Select Committee to investigate Benghazi.
(By the way, I don’t agree that a Select Committee would be some kind of panacea – I think the multiple House hearings have actually done an adequate job rooting out the truth, myself. A Select Committee would remove some of the most effective House Oversight members (like Gowdy and Chaffetz) from involvement because ranking members (dead wood) would be appointed to the committee. The investigation is taking time because we’re dealing with a bunch of shameless, lying, stonewalling, Fifth Amendment-pleading, ends-justify-the-means, Alinsky trained corruptocrats. As Darrell Issa has said, “the fact is, I have all the same powers and have used the same authorities as a Select Committee would use. This administration is slow.”)
Anyway, LeBoutillier was adamant. He said, “We have a 180 members of the House Republican Conference who have called for a Select Committee to finaally get to the bottom of Benghazi. They need to get together tomorrow, and they need to tell Boehner, Cantor, and McCarthy, you’ve got one day to appoint the Committee, and if you will not do it, we’re throwing all of you out of the leadership….”
The Rice discussion starts 6:35 minutes in…
Video via Johnny Dollar
On Wednesday night’s On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, a panel discussed the Obama Regime’s latest power grab – an FCC pilot program that would send “researchers” to newsrooms to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. Former FCC Commissioner AJIT PAI wrote about the plan in his Wall Street Journal piece, The FCC Wades Into the Newsroom.
The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about “the process by which stories are selected” and how often stations cover “critical information needs,” along with “perceived station bias” and “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.”
How does the FCC plan to dig up all that information? First, the agency selected eight categories of “critical information” such as the “environment” and “economic opportunities,” that it believes local newscasters should cover. It plans to ask station managers, news directors, journalists, television anchors and on-air reporters to tell the government about their “news philosophy” and how the station ensures that the community gets critical information.
Susteren is outraged. She had on The Hill’s AB Stoddard, The Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty and the Washington Examiner’s Byron York to discuss the Regime’s stealth attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, and they all agreed that it was a horrible idea that no self-respecting newsroom would tolerate.
Greta named three things that she thought she’d never see happen in her own country – the NSA spying on all American citizens, the use of drones to kill American citizens, and now this. Tumulty noted the FCC was also planning to visit newspapers which they don’t even have the power to regulate.
“You ask a news organization what their news philosophy is – it’s to cover the news and make a profit out of that”, Tumulty declared.
Greta retorted, “if they asked me, you know what I’d say? None of your business.” She went on to say she hoped any other news organization would respond the same way.
Stoddard wondered why any newsroom or newspaper would feel like they would have to comply with these FCC inquisitions. ”I can’t imagine even the most liberal outfit coming from this profession being willing to share their philosophy and change the way they cover anything…” She said.
Greta asserted that the whole thing is “meant to intimidate and to stifle and to chill,” and expressed shock and horror that someone thought that this was a good idea to begin with.
AB Stoddard agreed, “it seems so ludicrous – so unAmerican – that I can’t believe that it would ever become real, but the fact that someone had an idea about it and it didn’t get slapped down – is more than strange.”
One gets the uneasy feeling that Obama looks to Communist South American Dictators who take control of the news media with great admiration and envy.
Every major repressive regime of the modern era has begun with an attempt to control and intimidate the press.
As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently said, “our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”
The federal government has absolutely no business determining what stories should and should not be run, what is critical for the American public and what is not, whether it perceives a bias, and whose interests are and are not being served by the free press.
It’s an unconscionable assault on our free society.
Imagine a government monitor telling Fox News it needed to cover stories in the same way as MSNBC or Al Jazeera. Imagine an Obama Administration official walking in to the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal and telling it that the American public would be better served if it is stopped reporting on the IRS scandal or maybe that reporting on ObamaCare “glitches” is driving down enrollment.
It’s hard to imagine anything more brazenly Orwellian than government monitors in newsrooms.
Via Dick Morris:
Surveys will be distributed to reporters, news editors, assignment editors, publishers, owners, on-air reporters, film editors and other station or newspaper staff. These are the questions they will ask:
–What is the news philosophy of the station?
–Who else in your market provides news?
–Who are your main competitors?
–Is the news produced in-house or is it provided by an outside source?
–Do you employ news people?
–How many reporters and editors do you employ?
–Do you have any reporters or editors assigned to topic “beats”? If so how many and what are the beats?
–Who decides which stories are covered?
–How much influence do reporters and anchors have in deciding which stories to cover? –How much does community input influence news coverage decisions?
–How do you define critical information that the community needs?
–How do you ensure the community gets this critical information? On-Air Staff? Reporters? Anchors?
–How much news does your station air every day?
–Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers (viewers, listeners, readers) that was rejected by management? If so, can you give an example? What was the reason given for the decision? Why do you disagree?
These intrusive questions, prying into station politics and policies, can only send a chilling message to radio and television outlets.
A Federal Communications Commission proposal to “study” how the news media operates by placing researchers in newsrooms, “The Kelly File” reported on Wednesday.
“It’s very reminiscent of the kinds of questions that were asked of my clients in the IRS matter that is currently in federal court,” said Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice. “Same kind of questioning process of content, determination on point of view, and I think this government, this administration is bent on aiming and targeting those they don’t like.”
Katie Pavlich, the news editor of Townhall.com, wondered why the Obama administration didn’t learn following the fallout over the Justice Department’s wiretapping of Associated Press journalists.
“Now, they want to send investigators into newsrooms all over the country,” she said. “This is about controlling what people say, and this is about intimidating the news.”
Pavlich agreed with host Megyn Kelly’s assertion that the proposal provides a window into “how the FCC is thinking” when it comes to an independent press.
I emboldened what Sekulow said because I was thinking the same thing and I think it is key.
Do a Google search on this story, and you’ll quickly notice which media outfits are the most concerned about this – the WSJ, which broke the story, Fox News, the ACLJ, Mediaite, and lots of conservative blogs.
Why do you suppose ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, the Washington Post and NYTs (the Democrat media complex as Andrew Breitbart used to call them) are mum? Why is this not a big story for them? Could it be because they are already voluntarily complying with the Regime’s PC requirements? Are they not already simpatico with the Regime’s Statist worldview? In 2016, can we fully expect them to run interference for the Democrat candidate like they did so shamelessly for Obama in 2008 and 2012? Of course they will. They pretend to be impartial, but when it counts – they will sting the Republican. It is their nature.
So who do you think is being “targeted” here? As usual, it’s the disfavored conservative leaning rabble-rousers who don’t tow the Regime’s Statist line. And the Democrat media complex is once again, looking away from a scandal, giving the Regime their tacit approval.
Greta Van Susteren has every reason to be horrified.
Andrew Klavan, Truth Revolt: KLAVAN: A Sick Media #BOWDOWN To Their Own Oppressors:
…we don’t need a thuggish FCC to know this administration wants the media choir to sing the White House song castrato. Reporters Without Borders has already downgraded the U.S. fourteen spots to number 46 on the World Press Freedom Index this year alone. The president’s men have tapped reporters’ phones and email. And even Jill Abramson, editor of the leftist New York Times, says, “This is the most secretive White House… I have ever dealt with.”
And yet the Times and the news networks continue to play down presidential malfeasance — including that which threatens their own freedom!
It was unbelievably childish of journalists to believe, as Barbara Walters put it, that Obama was “the next messiah.” It is venal of them to turn a near-sighted eye to his IRS abuse, Benghazi cover-up and unconstitutional non-enforcement of law. But for American news people to #BOWDOWN before an administration that shows open hostility to the First Amendment — that’s just hashtag-pathological.
Ben Shapiro, Big Government: OBAMA CRACKDOWN ON PRESS FREEDOM ESCALATES:
Last week, Reporters Without Borders dropped America in the World Press Freedom Index 2014 from 33rd to 46th. James Risen of The New York Times rightly explained, “I think 2013 will go down in history as the worst year for press freedom in the United States’ modern history.” And he’s right. The violation of press freedoms has been egregious under this administration, even as the press fetes President Obama as an honest and effective commander-in-chief.
Selective Access. President Obama has regularly granted special access to reporters who give him preferential coverage. CBS’ Steve Kroft admitted as much after a late-2012 interview with the President during which CBS clipped Obama’s explicit refusal to label Benghazi an act of terror: “(Obama) knows that we’re not going to play ‘gotcha’ with him, that we’re not going to go out of our way to make him look bad or stupid.”
Michael Lewis, author of Moneyball, got special access for a profile of Obama for Vanity Fair – but Obama insisted on redlining his quotes. Lewis explained that “the White House insisted on signing off on the quotes that would appear.” A reporter from the San Francisco Chronicle was threatened for covering an anti-Obama protest. As early as 2008, candidate Obama was kicking dissenters off planes after their outlets endorsed John McCain.
Targeting Reporters. In May 2013, the Associated Press dropped the bombshell that the Department of Justice had grabbed phone records for its reporters and editors of the course of two months. Records for 20 telephone lines belonging to the AP and reporters for it were seized between April and May of 2012. Those seizures affected over 100 journalists.
The AP’s President and CEO Gary Pruitt stated, “There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters.” Fox News’ James Rosen was also targeted by the DOJ after running a story about North Korea nuclear development. His State Department visits were tracked and his movements were followed. His parents’ phone records were even grabbed.
In James O’Keefe’s latest sting in Texas, he catches the community organizing group Battleground Texas breaking Texas election law.
As PJ Media’s J Christian Adams explains, “the group registers voters as deputy registrars, illegally copies information from voter registration forms, and then cranks the illegal information into the Wendy Davis campaign for Texas governor.”
Battleground Texas Field Organizer Jennifer Longoria is caught on camera multiple times making statements such as, “So every time we register someone to vote we keep their name and number.” Which is of course – illegal.
” According to the Secretary of State, it is unlawful to transcribe, copy, or otherwise record a telephone number furnished on a voter registration application.”
“Battleground Texas, is the new ACORN”, O’Keefe explains in the video:
Bryan Preston: How the Texas Tribune Will Cover James O’Keefe’s Latest Video:
The Texas Tribune is a non-profit news gathering organization that bills itself as non-partisan. It has come under serious and sustained criticism recently for getting a sweetheart deal to cover a fundraiser and speech by Democrat gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis. The news content it generates is syndicated all over Texas, for free, to local news outlets, which calls into question its non-profit status — it’s not supposed to be in competition with for-profit news organizations.
When it comes to hidden camera video that makes Democrats and their allies look bad, the Tribune consistently handles such videos in a backhanded way.
The Community Organizer in Chief has his Top HHS Stooge scrounge around for possibly illegal Democrat votes….
On Friday, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius spoke and took questions on Obamacare in an online forum sponsored by Voto Latino. This group primarily exists for the purpose of encouraging Hispanics to register to vote, but it additionally advocates for leftist causes. From their website:
In 10 years and with your support, we have engaged and developed the leadership skills of Latino Millennials; registered nearly a quarter million voters; rallied for immigration reform; ensured our community got counted in the 2010 Census and enrolled in the new healthcare law; and together, we have fought against laws that would make it harder for Latinos to vote.By “laws that would make it harder for Latinos to vote,” they are referring to Voter ID laws.
They are using ObamaCare to encourage likely Democrats to register to vote (possibly illegally) and they are doing it in the open. Disgusting.
A recently uncovered memo to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner reveals that he approved a policy that ensures that the “existing common equity holders will not have access to any positive earnings from the G.S.E.’s in the future.” Experts say this previously undisclosed arrangement could violate securities laws and amounts to a de facto nationalization of the companies.
The New York Times dropped this little bombshell over the weekend.
The memo was addressed to Timothy F. Geithner, then the Treasury secretary, from Jeffrey A. Goldstein, then the under secretary for domestic finance. In discussing Fannie and Freddie, the beleaguered government-sponsored enterprises rescued by taxpayers in September 2008, the memo referred to “the administration’s commitment to ensure existing common equity holders will not have access to any positive earnings from the G.S.E.’s in the future.”
The memo, which was produced in a lawsuit filed by Fannie and Freddie shareholders, was dated Dec. 20, 2010. Securities laws require material information — that is, information that might affect an investor’s view of a company — to be disclosed. That the government would deny a company’s shareholders all its profits certainly seems material, but the existence of this policy cannot be found in the financial filings of Fannie Mae. Neither have the Treasury’s discussions about the future of the two finance giants mentioned the administration’s commitment to shut common stockholders out of future earnings. Freddie Mac’s filings do refer, albeit incompletely, to the administration’s stance, noting that the Treasury “has indicated that it remains committed to protecting taxpayers and ensuring that our future positive earnings are returned to taxpayers as compensation for their investment.” Note that this reference does not say all earnings.
Lewis D. Lowenfels, a securities law expert in New York, found this statement insufficient. “If there is disclosure regarding future Fannie and Freddie earnings and the administration has a commitment that existing Fannie and Freddie common equity holders will never receive any future positive earnings,” he said, “this commitment would be material to investors and should be disclosed.”
When the memo was written, plenty of people held these stocks. Regulatory filings show that 18,000 investors held 1.1 billion shares of Fannie Mae common stock, while just over 2,100 investors held 650 million Freddie Mac shares.
The Washington Free Beacon has more…
Thousands of investors in the companies were not made aware of the memo, which outlined a policy that deprived them of future earnings. Securities laws require the disclosure of any “material” information that might affect an investor’s view of a company.
James Cummins, a leading securities lawyer who has litigated against Fannie and Freddie since 2004 on various issues, said in an interview that the information in the memo would have been of great interest to potential investors at the time.
“It’s material information because it was going to tell people who might want to buy stock, ‘Hey, by the way, you’re not going to get any dividends and all of the earnings of the company are going to U.S. Treasury,’” he said.
Critics accuse Fannie, Freddie, and the FHFA—which still guarantee nine out of every 10 U.S. mortgages—of crowding out competition from private mortgage insurers.
“It’s like a sick person going into a hospital, being cured of the illness, and then having the hospital refuse to release the patient,” Cummins said.
“It’s so different from what the entrepreneurial, capitalistic dream of the U.S. is supposed to be,” he added. “It’s just totally different from what anybody anticipated was going to happen.”
Cummins said Treasury’s control of the earnings, coupled with presidential appointments to the board of directors for Fannie and Freddie, more closely mirrors nationalized industries “in the Soviet Union or in Mexico.”
Or perhaps Venezuela.
I’ve always considered “hope and change” to be a euphemism for Communism. There are a lot of useful idiots out there who haven’t figured that out, yet.
They say one picture is worth a thousand words – just look how chummy they all look in the picture above – those three fellow travelers, Obama, Chavez and the thug Maduro smirking in the background.
Via Carin, a preview of things to come here perhaps in the not so distant future?
Just turn your eyes to Venezuela.
Think of not being able to buy soap, rice or toilet paper or order a cup of coffee, where even the rich are feeling poor. “In the serene private clubs of Caracas, there is no milk, and the hiss of the cappuccino machine has fallen silent. In the slums, the lights go out every few days, or the water stops running. In the grocery stores, both state-run shops and expensive delicatessens, customers barter information: I saw soap here, that store has rice today. The oil engineers have emigrated to Calgary, the soap opera stars fled to Mexico and Colombia. And in the beauty parlours of this nation obsessed with elaborate grooming, women both rich and poor have cut back to just one blow-dry or manicure each week.”
Toyota Motor Company shut down assembly. GM and Ford aren’t assembling cars either, because they can’t get parts. Inflation is at 50%. The TV stations are all now state controlled. Propaganda posters boast of socialist Venezuela, while there isn’t even toilet paper to wipe their asses.
They ran the country into the ground nationalizing huge segments of the economy just like Obama is trying to run our country into the ground….nationalizing huge segments of the economy… Read this and tell me how it differs from what we are going through, in the United States.
The genius of the Left — Chavez’s for example — is that it destroys things from the inside out. They pervert religion, collapse the mores, abolish the family, shred the constitution and gradually expropriate the property. The differences from one day to the next are apparently imperceptible, but it is harder and harder to go back until finally there is no reversal of ‘progressive gains’ possible at all. The public is finally faced with the stark choice between chaos or authoritarianism. And most people will chose the Boss over the Mob.
The problem with Venezuela is that Chavismo has left people with nowhere else to go. It’s burned the bridges. There’s no reopening the car plants or restarting the factories, or even repairing the power plants. The engineers have all emigrated to Alberta, Canada. The same can be said of Syria. Who wants to open a store in Homs? In ten years nobody left in Homs will even remember how to do it. A whole generation of children is now growing up who know nothing other than war.
The Obama Regime’s war against religion – against the family, his shredding of the Constitution, etc. Yes, the steady changes that are made from day to day, seem imperceptible to those who are not paying attention.
Apparently, the Regime is trying to take on the role of “moderator” in the clashes between the Chavista government and the protesters, and failing badly.
Fears of more clashes between pro- and anti-government supporters ratcheted up in Venezuela as both sides prepared to march in the capital Tuesday and opposition leader Leopoldo López dared authorities to arrest him when he reappears in public.
The competing demonstrations loomed one day after President Nicolás Maduro’s government gave three U.S. Embassy officials 48 hours to leave the country, claiming they were supporting what he says are opposition plots to topple his socialist administration. The U.S. denied that.
Supporters of López, who is Maduro’s strongest foe and the target of an arrest order, rerouted their protest march away from the central plaza in Caracas where pro-government oil workers planned their own demonstration.
The Venezuelan government accuses the Obama administration of siding with student protesters it has blamed for violence that led to three deaths last week. Maduro claims the U.S. is trying to stir up unrest to regain dominance of South America’s largest oil producer.
In Washington, the State Department said allegations that the U.S. is helping to organize protests are “baseless and false” and called on Venezuela’s government to engage the opposition in “meaningful dialogue.”
This excellent primer of what is happening in Venezuela has been making the rounds:
LauraW at AoSHQ: It’s Happening Again – Communism Fails:
Communism* is nothing more than an organized crime ring run by the state. It just extorts, parasitizes, and kills everything it touches, and then fails. Always. Always, and again. Punitive redistribution absolutely requires the creation of a brutal tyranny to carry it out.
Self-regarded ‘elite,’ but actually very dumb journalists have to be shown this, and their own stupidity, over and over again, and the dimwits made to understand that the repetitive failure of leftist ideology to produce a livable state, is absolutely preordained by its own tenets and goals.
So how many times do we humans have to try Communism before wefigure out it doesn’t work?
As Carin notes, it’s happening in real time. Again. Right here in our hemisphere.
And the foolish newscasters are silent, because the foolish newscasters all loved Hugo Chavez, who was ‘democratically elected,’ in an election that was ‘certified by former President Carter!’
Egads, what fools they are all shown to be now; it is no wonder they want to avert their eyes from this mess.
Climate change may be very low on the list of issues that are important to most Americans, but to Sec. of State John Kerry (who served in Vietnam), it is ”among the world’s biggest problems”, ”as big a threat as terrorism, poverty, WMDs”, and ’Perhaps The World’s Most Fearsome Weapon Of Mass Destruction.’
Lurch was in Indonesia Monday, warning the impoverished Indonesian citizens that climate change could threaten their “entire way of life” as he pushed for the world to do more to stop global warming.
On Monday night’s Special Report, the panel talked about the Regime’s latest Global Warming fear-mongering and the political implications of Obama’s economy crushing green policies.
Krauthammer disputed the idea that Climate Change is “settled science” and correctly called the ideology behind it, a matter of theology to the left. The panel agreed that the Regime’s big climate change push was a risky proposition for Democrats.
Dr. K. concluded, “killing coal is not going to help Democrats in Kentucky. So this is a losing proposition for the country, and Democrats.”
Powerline: JAKARTA JAPES:
For those who lack a rooting interest in the United States, American foreign policy has become a joke. We are fools who appear to lack the most elementary ability to distinguish friend from enemy. Functionally speaking, we’ve gone over to the other side — “the other side” being the side of our enemies. Those who wish us ill — both at home and abroad — have a friend in John Kerry, speaking yesterday in Jakarta.
The Year of Living Dangerously was set in Jakarta, was it not? That works too. From the detached point of view, however, we’re living comically in the Age of Obama.
Powerline: KERRY ON, DUDE:
I see Scott has already commented on this story, but here’s my 2 cents worth, too:
Let’s see if I’ve got this straight: Secretary of State John Kerry, owner of five multi-million dollar mansions along with a luxury yacht, has seen fit to lecture Indonesians (average income in 2012: $3,420) about why
global warmingclimate change is “perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.”
Powerline: JOHN KERRY, SLOW LEARNER:
We are ganging up on John Kerry this morning. Here’s the thing–Kerry has a number of problems, but the most basic is that he isn’t very bright. He doesn’t have a high enough IQ for difficult work. As a senator, he hid his incapacity by ignoring virtually all of his job duties. As Secretary of State, his ineptitude–one might say shocking ineptitude, if this were not the Obama administration–is being exposed.
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, is representing 41 conservative groups that say they were illegally targeted by the IRS.
After testifying on the scandal before the House Oversight committee yesterday, he appeared on Fox News’ America’s Newsroom to talk about the latest.
During his testimony, he pointed to what he called “smoking gun” emails sent by former IRS official Lois Lerner that directly contradict the Regime’s claims that there wasn’t a “smidgen of corruption.”
The emails were released by the House Ways and Means Committee as part of its probe of the IRS scandal.
Sekulow explained that the emails show Lerner in contact with the IRS’ chief counsel and other top lawyers at least a year before the scandal became public. He said that Lerner wrote about coming up with new rules to restrict non-profit groups.
“They wanted to do it ‘off-plan,’ which means off the books so it’s not on the public calendar. And all of that was taking place while the targeting was going on,” he explained. Sekulow says the emails disprove the Obama administration’s story about the targeting originating in a remote office among lower level IRS agents.
“Legally, the IRS has been caught red-handed and the American people and certainly our plaintiffs are not taking it lying down,” said Sekulow. He believes a special prosecutor must be called on to investigate, since the head of the current probe has been found to be a big Obama campaign donor.
“When you see these emails and you understand what’s in them, you realize the highest level of the IRS was conspiring with Lois Lerner at least a year before this scandal broke. And what they’ve attempted to do now is just cover their tracks.”
“The reality is, the more information that comes out – including the information that we are now receiving with the high level IRS Chief Counsel involved with this – I think this is the smoking gun in this case, and of course the Chief Counsel is appointed by the President of the United States,” Sekulow said.
In a statement after the hearing, Sekulow said:
The Obama Administration refuses to provide Americans with the truth about the unlawful and unconstitutional targeting scheme by the IRS – a scheme that violated the First Amendment rights of numerous Tea Party and conservative groups,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, following today’s hearing. “The latest proclamation from President Obama himself – asserting that there’s ‘not even a smidgen of corruption’ at the IRS – simply fails to reflect the facts.”
It is difficult to overstate the extent and magnitude of federal government misconduct so far uncovered,” added Sekulow. “In our lawsuit, we provide specific evidence that focuses on no less than 12 IRS officials, including the IRS’s Commissioner and Chief Counsel. The facts clearly show that our clients were unlawfully singled out because of their political views – a politically-motivated attack designed to derail the emergence of a new political movement. With the Obama Administration continuing its strategy of denial and deflection, Congressional oversight is absolutely essential. That’s why the work of this – and other – committees must continue unimpeded.”
Meanwhile, Republican leaders are requesting that the newly appointed IRS commissioner scrap the new 501 (C) (4) rule that would codify into law the illegal targeting…
“This proposed rule is an affront to free speech itself,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen.
The letter — signed by House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and others — marks the most coordinated effort yet by the GOP to fight the rule change, first proposed in November.
The letter comes as more conservative groups testified Thursday about IRS targeting, before a House oversight subcommittee.
“They were harassed at the hands of their very government,” Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said.
There are currently 22,587 comments on the rule change at the Regulations.gov website - almost all of them negative.
Does the Regime really think they’re going to get away with this?
Linked by Doug Ross, thanks!
Tuesday, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Regulatory Affairs Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan today requested that IRS Commissioner John Koskinen withdraw the controversial proposed IRS regulation that would limit political speech by nonprofit organizations. Issa argues that his Committee’s investigation into the IRS’s targeting scandal “has raised serious flaws and concerns about the process and substance of the proposed rule.”
“The proposed regulation is intended to clarify the tax-exemption determinations process and resolve problems identified in a Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) audit report. It does not,” wrote Chairman Issa and Chairman Jordan. “As written, the Administration’s proposed rule will stifle the speech of social welfare organizations and will codify and systemize targeting of organizations whose views are at odds with those of the Administration. In addition to these substantive concerns, we also have serious concerns about the process by which the Administration promulgated this rule.”
Concerns include the following, detailed in the letter:
· The proposed rule codifies the Obama Administration’s earlier attempts to stifle political speech.
· The proposed rule improperly applies Federal Election Commission standards to tax-exempt organizations.
· The IRS’s efforts to develop new restrictions on political speech for non-profit groups, led by Lois Lerner and the IRS chief counsel’s office, began long before the TIGTA audit was released.
· The proposed regulation will needlessly harm social welfare organizations.
Read today’s letter here.
Meanwhile, it is now being reported that Obama didn’t consult Justice before saying there was not a smidgen of corruption at the IRS.
President Obama didn’t check with the Justice Department before saying there was no corruption at the IRS, the department’s deputy told Congress on Tuesday, ahead of several potential showdowns on Capitol Hill this week.
IRS Commissioner John Koskinen is scheduled to appear before the tax-writing committee Wednesday, where he will likely have to defend new rules clamping down on non-profit groups. And Republicans have invited a Justice Department lawyer involved in investigating the IRS to testify Thursday — though Deputy Attorney General James Cole has said he won’t allow her to appear.
Wednesday Thursday morning’s Oversight hearing, The IRS Targeting Investigation: What is the Administration Doing? starts at 9:30 a.m.
Linked by Doug Ross, thanks!
And how. If you haven’t yet read Mike Vanderboegh’s superb expose and take-down of Michael Lawlor, Connecticut Governor Dannell Malloy’s “hatchet man” on the State’s gun control efforts, you need to stop everything and read it, right now. Take it all in and know that there are many more such men and women peppered throughout the Democrat/Media Complex – right to the highest reaches of government. And I do mean highest.
“You can either surrender the weapon to us, destroy the weapon, or sell it to a federal firearms licensee. After that date (January 1) that hasn’t been declared or register is banned and if you get caught, you’re going to get arrested.” — Michael Lawlor.
You know it is quite ironic that on the morning I sit down to write this letter we discover that Adam Lanza (whose evil deeds were the supposed excuse for your Intolerable Act) was something of a twisted fellow traveler of collectivism being an apparently homosexual, environmentalist vegan who was anti-Christian enough to forbid his mother to put up a Christmas tree. “Gee,” I thought when I read that, “This kid could have grown up to be a Connecticut Democrat politician.” That he provided the bloody excuse for tyrant wannabes such as yourself is certainly the Devil’s own joke — send a collectivist killer to enable future collectivist power. Old Scratch must be laughing his ass off.
You know after just a cursory reading of your biography here and here, I realized that I owed you an apology. Previously I had described you as Malloy’s “Eichmann.” But Eichmann was a rather colorless bureaucrat, defining as Hannah Arendt spelled out, “the banality of evil.” But you, sir, are no bureaucratic handmaiden of evil. No, to call you an Eichmann would require an apology to both you and Eichmann. You, sir, are a true believer — more of a Heydrich than an Eichmann. Or, if you raise a Godwin’s objection, shall we say a Felix Dzerzhinsky? Yes. Dzerzhinsky is certainly more fitting.
I note that while you were at UConn in 1977 you “participated in language studies in Russia in 1977″ at Moscow and Leningrad. You then earned a Master’s Degree in Soviet Area Studies from the University of London in 1981. You were, what, 20 when you first experienced the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War? It must have fascinated you early on in life. Yet after you got your Masters in Soviet Area Studies from the University of London at a time when that and other British universities were prime recruiting grounds for KGB “political warfare” assets, and you subsequently “received a Fulbright-Hays Scholarship to study economic reform in Hungary in 1982,” you decided to change course and become, in quick succession, a lawyer, a prosecutor and then a Democrat Party politician.
Why the change, Mike?
Your KGB file might provide some clues along those lines, of course. I had a long chat with a former CIA Cold Warrior who is intimately familiar with the KGB infiltration and subversion tactics of the time of your stay in the Soviet Union. He says that you certainly have a KGB file and had a KGB officer assigned to your case with the object of making an asset of you. No one from the United States got into the Soviet Union back then without the close inspection of the KGB. NO ONE.
And what would the KGB be looking for, I asked? “A lot of dewy-eyed kids were going to the Soviet Union back then with this fascination for the other side. They thought the Vietnam War proved the evil nature of American society and they wanted to see what the other side was like. So they (the KGB) would look for someone with those misconceptions and then look for other vulnerabilities. And their recruitment operations were vast. VAST.” What other vulnerabilities? I asked.
“For one, homosexuality or other sexual deviance,” he answered. He drew my attention to these passages regarding the Prime case from The New KGB: Engine of Soviet Power by William Corson and Robert Crowley:
Prime exhibited most of the disabilities on the KGB check list and more than qualified as a target for recruitment. A loner, a young man with sexual problems and someone who, by his own admission, believed that the downtrodden of the world would fare better under communism. Such symptoms and attitudes assured that, at an appropriate moment, he would fall into the Soviet bag. The case is not a tribute to the Soviets’ prescience but another instance of their readiness for an event such as Prime’s self-selection, their single-minded patience, clerical effort, and corps of competent case officers who were trained and fully aware of what their jobs entailed.
In Berlin the Soviet support nets are massive. In addition to surveillance, drivers, couriers, police, and postal employees, they include “swallows” who specialize in foreigners who enjoy mild or other forms of perversion. . . The KGB’s ‘girls’ . . . provide the organs with volumes of information about their clients. . . The girls are also alerted to spot the six “d’s” — discontent, disaffection, depression, drunkenness, desperation, and sexual dysfunction — nany one of which might provide a future lever. — pp. 390-361.
It is a matter of record that after being long in the closet, you “came out” only in 2006.
Of course Prime was not a homosexual but the KGB did not lack for male “swallows” if their target had those appetites.
Read the whole thing, here.
And now there’s…
MBV Note to Readers: In my first letter to Connecticut’s own Felix Dzerzhinsky,Mike Lawlor, we explored the subject of that tyrannical collectivist’s KGB file. The response to that missive was very gratifying, as well as rewarding in terms of further clues and offers of assistance. I hope you like this letter as much as you liked the first.***
You know, it’s the arrogance about you collectivist pricks that always strikes me as ironically misplaced. You’re always the smartest guy in the room, dispensing orders from on high as if to the purple born, yet when it comes to the important things you really aren’t all that bright.
Take that slip you made in the interview when you played the subject of treason for laughs. Of course you have long thought yourself safe from scrutiny of any questions about what you were up to back in the 70s and early 80s. But mentioning that a. you had tried to get a job with the CIA right out of law school and b. that they had turned you down, well, even to a guy like me who’s nothing particularly special other than an amateur student of history, why, that’s just plain stupid.
It raises so many questions and reinforces the ones I’ve already asked. Why would the CIA, at the height of the Cold War when it needed every trustworthy Russian speaker and analyst, turn you down? I guess the key word there is “trustworthy.” The CIA, and not because of the bad joke, must have found compelling reasons to find you untrustworthy. That must have stung, huh? Not that you weren’t accepted — you would play that for laughs, for you are the smartest guy in the room and that just proves their stupidity, right? As a homosexual you already were struggling with issues of identity, loyalty, societal trust, etc. And again, homosexuality is not the issue. It is not now, nor was it then, grounds (by itself) for exclusion from employment by the CIA. According to my sources, the Agency knowingly hired many homosexuals from its inception onward as long as it was convinced of their loyalty, their trustworthiness. And, my sources say, as long as that was understood up front there was no blackmail risk and the Agency only very rarely was proved wrong about their pick.
So why did they turn you down, Mike? What was it that they spotted about you? I am told by sources who were once in a position to know that you have not only a KGB file and a CIA file, but an FBI file as well. We’ll never get anything out of the CIA, but I wonder what a FOIA of the FBI might turn up? Have you got the juice to work your will upon the Fibbies as well?
And again, why apply to the CIA at all? Why did you change your career from Soviet Studies academic to zealous public prosecutor seeking the brass ring of political power? You are a public official. These are legitimate questions. Not that I expect an answer from you, at least not a written one.
Hat tip: Larwyn’s Links.
Linked by Maggie’s Farm, thanks!
I know this because lots of people are finding their way to my “What’s Wrong With Henry Waxman’s Nose” post from many moons ago. See, when folks gets a gander at that man’s schnoz for the first time, they run to their computers and google up “henry waxman’s nose” “what’s wrong with henry waxman’s nose” or in one case, today, “henry waxman rhinoplasty” I kid you not.
Well, we won’t have Henry Waxman’s nose to kick around anymore. Word on the street is – it ain’t fun being in the minority party in the House – so he’s taking his ball and going home.
“I just think it’s time to move on,” Waxman [said].
He specifically denies that he’s dropping out of congress after nearly thirty yearsof, um, “service” due to the fact that Democrats have no chance of taking the House.
“I don’t accept the idea that Democrats won’t get the House back,” Waxman said. “I think that the Republicans have nothing to offer. They’re against everything. They’re against everything Obama wanted. They have no alternatives on health care policy. They have nothing to say, they have nothing to offer.”
But I can tell he’s lying because he has a “tell.” That tell is that he’s Henry Waxman, three-decades-long Democratic Congressman from California.
Yeah, I’ve got nothing to add to that.
On Sunday, the Cuomo administration lashed out at the New York Post and its Albany bureau chief, Fred Dicker—a one-time Cuomo supporter who now stands accused of being an “extreme conservative” for reporting Cuomo’s claims.
In an open letter posted to the governor’s website, Mylan Denerstein, counsel to the governor said, “As we approach the political season we expect the campaign dialogue to become more heated on both sides. We understand the New York Post is an opinionated newspaper and that Fred Dicker is an extreme conservative. However responsibility must not be forsaken. Dicker’s story that the Governor said Conservatives have no place in New York is unfair, false and the exact opposite of what his tenure as Attorney General and his state administration has been all about.”She added, “The Governor was making the point that he makes often: New York is a politically moderate state and an extremist agenda is not politically viable statewide. New York has a long history of electing Democrats and Republicans statewide who are moderate rather than on the extreme ends of the political spectrum. That is an inarguable fact.”
Via Fox News:
Conservative activist James O’Keefe is accusing New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration of targeting his group with document requests and a subpoena, claiming the Democratic governor’s recent comments critical of conservatives “aren’t simply words.”
O’Keefe, whose Project Veritas is behind a series of hidden-camera investigations against left-leaning groups and causes, made the claims on the heels of the controversy over a recent Cuomo interview. In it, Cuomo blasted “extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay” and said they “have no place” in New York. He later walked back his remarks, and said they were being taken out of context in the media.
But O’Keefe claimed that Cuomo’s government is acting on those words, revealing that the Department of Labor has hit his office in Westchester County, N.Y., with demands for financial documents for months. He compared it to IRS targeting of conservative groups nationwide.