by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
There was a short piece in the Wall Street Journal on July 7th in the “Notable and Quotable” section that should really be much more publicized. It documents how the FBI intentionally undermined the case against Senator Ted Stevens in 2008, thanks to a brave whistleblower.
The reason that this revelation is so incredulous is that the political aftermath of the case had long-lasting consequences on this nation, particularly through the passage of several controversial bills which may never have passed if the balance of power had not shifted in the Senate.
How did this happen? Prosecutors in the Department of Justice chose to indict Stevens on flimsy charges three months prior to the pivotal 2008 elections. Stevens himself pleaded not guilty and requested a swift trial in order to clear his name before the November elections:
“This case is about concealment,” the Department of Justice’s lead lawyer stated in her opening statement, claiming that the senator had concealed that he had not paid full value for renovations to his modest Alaska cabin. In fact, Ted Stevens and his wife had paid more than $160,000 for renovations that independent appraisers valued at less than $125,000 at the time.
But relying on false records and fueled by testimony from a richly rewarded “cooperating” witness that the senator was merely “covering his ass” when he wrote a note stating that his desire to comply with all Senate rules, government prosecutors convinced jurors to find the him guilty just eight days before the general election, which he lost by less than 2 percent of the vote. The cooperating witness, wealthy Alaska businessman Bill Allen, was testifying for his own freedom (he was guilty of unrelated crimes), that of his children (who received immunity from prosecution after the government apparently threatened them) and the ability to sell his company for hundreds of millions of dollars.”
The FBI failed to divulge that, during the initial interview with the contractor, he stated he was overpaid — then later changed his testimony to underpaid. Only because of a whistleblower did the knowledge come out that the FBI intentionally hid information that would have been damning to their case.
As a result of the FBI’s tactics, Ted Stevens was convicted of a crime. Stevens, at the time of his conviction, was the longest-serving Senate Republican in congressional history and the Senate at the time was evenly split. His defeat by a Democrat merely days after his conviction contributed to a multi-seat gain by the Democrats in the Senate.
The case was later invalidated and thrown out by another judge; however, the damage had been done. The loss of this seat changed the makeup of the Senate, meaning that a series of questionable Congressional decision were able to be passed at a later date. Now we have Dodd-Frank, we have Obamacare, and we have the worst recovery in the history of this country — all because the Department of Justice interfered with and ousted a sitting Senator that was perceived to be an impediment to “progress”.
Those at the FBI that withheld the evidence were punished, but not fired. But to add insult to injury, due to procedural error involving their disciplinary case, they “later had their review thrown out and punishment lifted. The board did not clear the attorneys of wrongdoing, it found that justice officials committed a “harmful procedural error that likely had a harmful effect on the outcome of the case before the agency,” according to the board’s 18-page decision.”
The Wall Street Journal had a fine summary of the whole sordid affair: “Did the government react in horror at having been caught with its hands in the cookie jar? Did Justice Department lawyers rend their garments and place ashes on their head to mourn this violation of their most fundamental duty of candor and fairness? No way, no how. Instead, the government argued strenuously that its ill-gotten conviction should stand because boys will be boys and the evidence wasn’t material to the case anyway. . . . Instead of contrition, what we have seen is Justice Department officials of the highest rank suffering torn glenoid labrums from furiously patting themselves on the back for having “done the right thing.”
The “right thing” in this case was removing a high ranking Republican Senator in order to help secure a Democrat majority and pave the way for transformative, unpalatable legislation to be passed in this country.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Earlier this week, President Obama did an interview with Jon Stewart. Jon Stewart pointed to a number of government agencies that have had various scandals under his watch — including the IRS, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Office of Personal Management — and inquired as to why his Administration has been plagued with so many problems.
As the Washington Times reported, “Mr. Obama said Congress ‘passed a crummy law’ that provided vague guidance to the people who worked at the IRS. And he said that employees implemented the law ‘poorly and stupidly.’
The president went on to say that the ‘real scandal around the IRS is that they have been so poorly funded that they cannot go after these folks who are deliberately avoiding tax payments.'”
Congress cut funding this past year as a response to the targeting scandal. The IRS’s “internal auditor concluded that the agency did, in fact, target conservative and tea party groups for intrusive scrutiny”; Obama’s Department of Justice has not finished its own investigation.
The allegation that the IRS is underfunded is absolutely ridiculous; what’s worse is that Obama has repeated tried to blame the funding cut this past year as the reason for reduced customer service. However, their customer service had already been worsening over the past year and was orchestrated by the IRS itself.
A recent House Ways and Means report showed that, “while congressional funding for the IRS remained flat from 2014 to 2015, the IRS diverted $134 million away from customer service to other activities. In addition to the $11 billion appropriated by Congress, the IRS takes in more than $400 million in user fees and may allocate that money as it sees fit. In 2014, the IRS allocated $183 million in user fees to its customer service budget, but allocated just $49 million in 2015–a 76 percent cut.”
Just as Obama dared to close national parks and monuments and cut off treatment for cancer kids during the government shutdown, in order to inflict pain on ordinary citizens, the IRS decided follow the same tactic and abrogate its basic responsibility to help taxpayers with compliance. Reducing the ability to provide customer service is particularly shameless — and using it as a red herring to try to scoop up more funding to Congress is even more repugnant. Then to also blame funding on the reason why Congress wrote a “vague” law and therefore the IRS employees were helpless in implementing it, well, that is the worst excuse of all.
It just goes to show the Obama is still willing to deflect any blame he can for anything that reflects poorly on his abominable Administration and lack of leadership.
by | BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
For months now, I have written about “disparate impact”. The idea of “disparate impact” holds that “a defendant can be held liable for discrimination for a race-neutral policy that statistically disadvantages a specific minority group even if that negative “impact” was neither foreseen nor intended. Loretta Lynch, the new Attorney General, recently signaled a strong interest in making “disparate impact” a priority of her term.
Disparate impact is rapidly being expanded into other sectors such as housing and labor, beyond the business world where it originated. In disparate impact cases, defendants can be forced to pay for harm caused not by their own actions, but by economic and statistical realities, even if beyond their control.
The Obama Administration is particularly interested in this tactic. They first put forth Thomas Perez, the current Labor Secretary, as the preferred nominee for Attorney General. Thomas Perez has arguably been one of the biggest proponents of disparate impact in the workplace; his confirmation would have thrust “disparate impact” firmly into the spotlight.
Ultimately, Loretta Lynch became the next Attorney General . Lynch is a tough woman, known for her penchant for civil asset forfeiture cases. As such, it became apparent she would be a great choice for advocating and implementing disparate impact policies as well. After two cases before the Supreme Court that were unsuccessful putting forth disparate impact, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the policy on June 25th with the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. Lynch put out a press release praising the outcome and the policy of disparate impact; you can read that here.
Now it has subsequently been revealed by The New York Post a few days ago that the Obama Administration has created a secret database. It is apparent now that “a key part of President Obama’s legacy will be the fed’s unprecedented collection of sensitive data on Americans by race. The government is prying into our most personal information at the most local levels, all for the purpose of “racial and economic justice.”
The purpose of this endeavor is to help expand disparate impact claims. “This Orwellian-style stockpile of statistics includes a vast and permanent network of discrimination databases, which Obama already is using to make “disparate impact” cases against: banks that don’t make enough prime loans to minorities; schools that suspend too many blacks; cities that don’t offer enough Section 8 and other low-income housing for minorities; and employers who turn down African-Americans for jobs due to criminal backgrounds.”
Besides the enormous invasion of privacy that such databases represent, just as alarming is the fact that race will now be analyzed and micromanaged in every aspect of modern society. With that, disparate impact claims, led by Lynch and the Department of Justice are certain to grow, impact, and cripple many industries in the years to come.
Below is the New York Post article in its entirety, for those who are interested:
Obama Collecting Personal Data For A Secret Race Database
A key part of President Obama’s legacy will be the fed’s unprecedented collection of sensitive data on Americans by race. The government is prying into our most personal information at the most local levels, all for the purpose of “racial and economic justice.”
Unbeknown to most Americans, Obama’s racial bean counters are furiously mining data on their health, home loans, credit cards, places of work, neighborhoods, even how their kids are disciplined in school — all to document “inequalities” between minorities and whites.
This Orwellian-style stockpile of statistics includes a vast and permanent network of discrimination databases, which Obama already is using to make “disparate impact” cases against: banks that don’t make enough prime loans to minorities; schools that suspend too many blacks; cities that don’t offer enough Section 8 and other low-income housing for minorities; and employers who turn down African-Americans for jobs due to criminal backgrounds.
Big Brother Barack wants the databases operational before he leaves office, and much of the data in them will be posted online.
So civil-rights attorneys and urban activist groups will be able to exploit them to show patterns of “racial disparities” and “segregation,” even if no other evidence of discrimination exists.
Housing database
The granddaddy of them all is the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing database, which the Department of Housing and Urban Development rolled out earlier this month to racially balance the nation, ZIP code by ZIP code. It will map every US neighborhood by four racial groups — white, Asian, black or African-American, and Hispanic/Latino — and publish “geospatial data” pinpointing racial imbalances.
The agency proposes using nonwhite populations of 50% or higher as the threshold for classifying segregated areas.
Federally funded cities deemed overly segregated will be pressured to change their zoning laws to allow construction of more subsidized housing in affluent areas in the suburbs, and relocate inner-city minorities to those predominantly white areas. HUD’s maps, which use dots to show the racial distribution or density in residential areas, will be used to select affordable-housing sites.
HUD plans to drill down to an even more granular level, detailing the proximity of black residents to transportation sites, good schools, parks and even supermarkets. If the agency’s social engineers rule the distance between blacks and these suburban “amenities” is too far, municipalities must find ways to close the gap or forfeit federal grant money and face possible lawsuits for housing discrimination.
Civil-rights groups will have access to the agency’s sophisticated mapping software, and will participate in city plans to re-engineer neighborhoods under new community outreach requirements.
“By opening this data to everybody, everyone in a community can weigh in,” Obama said. “If you want affordable housing nearby, now you’ll have the data you need to make your case.”
Mortgage database
Meanwhile, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, headed by former Congressional Black Caucus leader Mel Watt, is building its own database for racially balancing home loans. The so-called National Mortgage Database Project will compile 16 years of lending data, broken down by race, and hold everything from individual credit scores and employment records.
Mortgage contracts won’t be the only financial records vacuumed up by the database. According to federal documents, the repository will include “all credit lines,” from credit cards to student loans to car loans — anything reported to credit bureaus. This is even more information than the IRS collects.
The FHFA will also pry into your personal assets and debts and whether you have any bankruptcies. The agency even wants to know the square footage and lot size of your home, as well as your interest rate.
FHFA will share the info with Obama’s brainchild, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which acts more like a civil-rights agency, aggressively investigating lenders for racial bias.
The FHFA has offered no clear explanation as to why the government wants to sweep up so much sensitive information on Americans, other than stating it’s for “research” and “policymaking.”
However, CFPB Director Richard Cordray was more forthcoming, explaining in a recent talk to the radical California-based Greenlining Institute: “We will be better able to identify possible discriminatory lending patterns.”
Credit database
CFPB is separately amassing a database to monitor ordinary citizens’ credit-card transactions. It hopes to vacuum up some 900 million credit-card accounts — all sorted by race — representing roughly 85% of the US credit-card market. Why? To sniff out “disparities” in interest rates, charge-offs and collections.
Employment database
CFPB also just finalized a rule requiring all regulated banks to report data on minority hiring to an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion. It will collect reams of employment data, broken down by race, to police diversity on Wall Street as part of yet another fishing expedition.
School database
Through its mandatory Civil Rights Data Collection project, the Education Department is gathering information on student suspensions and expulsions, by race, from every public school district in the country. Districts that show disparities in discipline will be targeted for reform.
Those that don’t comply will be punished. Several already have been forced to revise their discipline policies, which has led to violent disruptions in classrooms.
Obama’s educrats want to know how many blacks versus whites are enrolled in gifted-and-talented and advanced placement classes.
Schools that show blacks and Latinos under-enrolled in such curricula, to an undefined “statistically significant degree,” could open themselves up to investigation and lawsuits by the department’s Civil Rights Office.
Count on a flood of private lawsuits to piggyback federal discrimination claims, as civil-rights lawyers use the new federal discipline data in their legal strategies against the supposedly racist US school system.
Even if no one has complained about discrimination, even if there is no other evidence of racism, the numbers themselves will “prove” that things are unfair.
Such databases have never before existed. Obama is presiding over the largest consolidation of personal data in US history. He is creating a diversity police state where government race cops and civil-rights lawyers will micromanage demographic outcomes in virtually every aspect of society.
The first black president, quite brilliantly, has built a quasi-reparations infrastructure perpetually fed by racial data that will outlast his administration.
Paul Sperry is a Hoover Institution media fellow and author of “The Great American Bank Robbery,” which exposes the racial politics behind the mortgage bust.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
From my friend, Michael Cannon:
It appears that Medicaid-expansion enrollees are going to cost states a lot more than they thought. According to a just-released “2014 Actuarial Report on the Financial Outlook for Medicaid” from the Department of Health and Human Services, ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion is costing significantly more than projected:
“In 2014, the average benefit costs of newly eligible adult enrollees are expected to have been substantially greater than those for non-newly eligible adult enrollees in the program. Newly eligible adults are estimated to have had average benefit costs of $5,517 in 2014, 19 percent greater than non-newly eligible adults’ average benefit costs of $4,650. These estimates are significantly different from those in previous reports, in which average benefit costs for newly eligible adults in 2014 were estimated to be 1 percent lower than those of non-newly eligible adults.”
So the Obama administration had projected newly eligible Medicaid enrollees would cost about $50 less than other Medicaid-enrolled adults, but they actually cost nearly $1,000 more. Nice.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
The SCOTUS ruling against the EPA was a breath of fresh air (see what I did there?). Before adjourning until October, the Supreme Court decided that recent EPA rules did not consider cost compliance. The Washington Examiner had a good overview of the ruling. This decision will likely affect other recent EPA rules.
“The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against Environmental Protection Agency pollution rules for power plants Monday, in a blow to President Obama’s environmental agenda.
The majority decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the EPA has to consider the costs of complying with the rules and sent the air pollution regulations back to the agency.
The EPA rules in question regulate hazardous air pollutants and mercury from coal- and oil-fired power plants, known as the MATS regulations. The regulations went into effect April 16. The utility industry had argued that the rules cost them billions of dollars to comply and that EPA ignored the cost issue in putting the regulations into effect.
“EPA must consider cost — including cost of compliance — before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary. It will be up to the agency to decide (as always, within the limits of reasonable interpretation) how to account for cost,” Scalia wrote in agreeing with the industry.
The decision will have repercussions for other EPA regulations that are key to Obama’s climate change agenda. The EPA will now have to examine the cost of compliance for the Clean Power Plan, which is at the heart of the president’s environmental agenda.
Many of the companies have either made the investments or closed power plants to comply. If the investments necessary to upgrade a plant to comply with the regulation aren’t justified when considering the operational costs, revenues earned and other factors, then the decision is made to retire it.
The D.C. Circuit Court Appeals favored the EPA in a previous lawsuit filed by the industry, attempting to overturn the rules, which is why they took it to the Supreme Court to decide the cost issue.
The D.C. Circuit was split in its decision, but the majority ruling prevailed. At the center of the case is the question of whether the regulation of hazardous air pollutants from electric utilities are “appropriate and necessary.” On that issue the court was split, but a two-judge majority agreed that the EPA could ignore costs in determining whether to regulate the utility sector.
The D.C. Circuit majority also agreed the EPA could focus solely on the utilities’ contribution to the pollutants of concern, rather than identifying any specific health hazards attributable only to utility emissions.
The EPA had argued that the rules are both appropriate and necessary regardless of the costs, and that it has the discretion under the law to act as it deems fit in regulating hazardous pollutants.”
