Saturday, 18 May 2013

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTION: THE RULING YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW ABOUT

Ken Berwitz

Here's a question for you:  remember when President Obama pretended congress was in recess, so that he could make recess appointments?  I'm guessing that some do and some don't.

Here's another question:  Are you aware that two federal courts have nullified those appointments, because President Obama had no constitutional right to make them -- the second ruling issued just this past Thursday?  I'm betting very few know.

Why don't more citizens know about this overt abuse of power, and that it has been shot down, twice, by federal courts?  Because our wonderful "neutral" media have decided the public should not be aware of this...not while their lord and savior, Barack Obama, is busy fending off three other scandals.  Hey, it's not fair!

-In January, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals nullified four of President Obama's recess appointments - three of them to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) which Mr. Obama is determined to stack with pro-union hacks who are about as impartial as his White House staff.  You can click here to read the court's decision, which is none to diplomatic in its nullification.

-And now, the Third Court of Appeals has made the same ruling (If you're into legalese, click here to read it).

This is huge.  The President has been told, by two separate federal courts, that he has acted outside the constitution.  Is that a news story, or what?

Well, to ABC, CBS and NBC, the answer is..."or what".  Because - as noted by Ken Shepherd in his blog for newsbusters.org - not one of the three reported it on their national news shows Thursday night or on their Friday morning shows.  Not one word. 

In other words, the millions and millions of people who rely on these networks for news, don't even know these rulings exist, let alone what they say about how Barack Obama is running his presidency.

And then they wonder why people call them biased?  Unbelievable.


ANATOMY OF A COVER-UP: THE LIE-RS SCANDAL

Ken Berwitz

I have a feeling there will be a lot of posts like this one.

Here is the latest attempt to cover up one of the burgeoning Obama administration scandals - which are so big and so obvious that even his Accomplice Media, at least for the short run - have been forced to report on.

It comes in the form of a back-and-forth between Illinois Representative Aaron Schock, and acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller - the guy President Obama sternly told us he had accepted a resignation from, but who was, in actuality, leaving the IRS in a couple of weeks anyway because his temporary term was up (how does anyone believe a word that comes from Barack Obama's mouth?):

SCHOCK: "Mr. Chairman, I have with me a 150-page document given to me by the Thomas More Society detailing a number of pro-life organizations throughout the country which in application for 501(c)(3) status were given horrible instances of IRS abuse of power, political and religious bias, and a repression of their Constitutional rights.

"A letter from the IRS office of exempt organization specialist in El Monte, California, specifically the Pacific Coast Division - I would note this is not in the Cincinnati division - to the Christian Voices for Life of Fort Bend County in Sugarland, Texas dated March 31, 2011, that I have here with me today. They were asked specifically, again this is a pro-life group, 'In your educational program do you do education on both sides of the issues in your programs?' Mr. Miller, your knowledge of the 501(c)(3) application, is that an appropriate question to ask?"

MILLER: "Sir, I'm going to be honest and I'm not going to be able to speak to a specific development letter in a specific case I don't know that I can do that under 6103"

SCHOCK:  "Okay, let me ask you about another letter that was received by a pro-life group, this one in Iowa. Their question specifically asks from the IRS to the Coalition for Life of Iowa, 'Please detail the content of the members of your organization's prayers.' Would that be an appropriate question to a 501(c)(3) applicant? The content of one"s prayers?" 

MILLER:  "It pains me to say I can't speak to that one either. But that's an..."

SCHOCK:  "You don't know whether or not that would be an appropriate question to ask an applicant?"

MILLER:  "Speaking outside of this case, which I don't know anything about, it would surprise me that that question was asked".

SCHOCK:  "And finally during another applicant's conversation or back and forth they were asked specifically, 'Please detail certain signs that may or may not be held up outside of a Planned Parenthood facility.' Would that be an appropriate follow up to an applicant for 501(c)(3) application?"

MILLER:  "(It did not) sound like the usual question."

There you have it.  The "Gee, I don't know a thing about that" defense.  Learned, no doubt from the ongoing use of that same defense by Barack Obama, who, after over four years in the White House, is still claiming to whichever boobs still believe him that his Presidency is some kind of out-of-body experience.

If you believe this sorry bunch, you have to wonder if they ever showed up at their offices at all (hmmmm, though I meant that as a sarcasm,....in Mr. Obama's case, between the golf games, celebrity events he runs on the taxpayers' money and the fundraisers, it might be an actual issue).

More to come.  Count on it.


THE QUOTE OF THE DAY

Ken Berwitz

Today's quote comes to us from the execrable Sarah Hall Ingram, who, from 2009 into 2012, ran the IRS division responsible for granting or not granting tax-exempt status to the groups which applied for it:  this was the most notorious period in which groups with things like "Tea Party" and "Patriot" in their names were held up, literally for years while left wing groups had no such problems*.

Here is what Ingram had to say at a Georgetown University Law Center event in 2009:

"As a practical matter, we cannot subject every application for tax-exempt status to a painstaking, leave-no-rock-unturned review. Nor can we audit every organization's 990 every year. Nor would you want us to do so, right? To govern is to choose, and we must choose appropriately which applications or 990s to focus most attention on."

As is now crystal-clear, even to a good many Obamanite sycophants who have looked the other way at just about every other mess created by this administration (Chris Matthews and Piers Morgan being two of the most recent, and two of the most surprising) Igram's definition of choosing appropriately was to say no to the groups likely to criticize/work against her boss, while saying "yes" to the ones willing to play ball.

Keeping in mind that Quote Of The Day recipients do not have to say good things, or even honest things, only things that stand out regardless of how they might be thought of, Ingram gets her well-deserved recognition.

Now, why does this person still have a job at the IRS?  Didn't President Obama say he would rid us of the people responsible for this enormous scandal? 

Does his capacity for doing so begin and end at accepting the resignation of acting commissioner, Steven Miller, who was leaving the IRS within the month anyway?

=====================================================

*The far-left web site, dailykos.com, has laughably floated a piece claiming both sides were treated the same.  To make its case dailykos.com dredged up a total of 3 left wing groups.

Assuming the article's information is accurate:

-One of the groups had its tax-exempt request denied, with blogger Joan McCarter noting that none of the "Republican groups" (what basis has she for calling every one of them Republican?  None) got rejections -- which, is true, because none of them got any disposition at all.  For years.  Evidently, Ms. McCarter sees this as preferred treatment.

-One faced "the same lines of questionning" as the rightward groups...with no proof offered, nor any indication that the number of questions over the period of time for this one group was in any way comparable.

-One other "received IRS inquiries", which sounds like nothing with nothing.

This is supposed to cancel out 75 different groups being subjected to a years-long inquisition that would have done Torquemada proud, and a number of large donors to the Mitt Romney campaign whom the IRS suddenly decided to audit that year.

Now you know why I call it laughable.


ANATOMY OF A COVER-UP: THE LIE-RS SCANDAL

Ken Berwitz

I have a feeling there will be a lot of posts like this one.

Here is the latest attempt to cover up one of the burgeoning Obama administration scandals - which are so big and so obvious that even his Accomplice Media, at least for the short run - have been forced to report on.

It comes in the form of a back-and-forth between Illinois Representative Aaron Schock, and acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller - the guy President Obama sternly told us he had accepted a resignation from, but who was, in actuality, leaving the IRS in a couple of weeks anyway because his temporary term was up (how does anyone believe a word that comes from Barack Obama's mouth?):

SCHOCK: "Mr. Chairman, I have with me a 150-page document given to me by the Thomas More Society detailing a number of pro-life organizations throughout the country which in application for 501(c)(3) status were given horrible instances of IRS abuse of power, political and religious bias, and a repression of their Constitutional rights.

"A letter from the IRS office of exempt organization specialist in El Monte, California, specifically the Pacific Coast Division - I would note this is not in the Cincinnati division - to the Christian Voices for Life of Fort Bend County in Sugarland, Texas dated March 31, 2011, that I have here with me today. They were asked specifically, again this is a pro-life group, 'In your educational program do you do education on both sides of the issues in your programs?' Mr. Miller, your knowledge of the 501(c)(3) application, is that an appropriate question to ask?"

MILLER: "Sir, I'm going to be honest and I'm not going to be able to speak to a specific development letter in a specific case I don't know that I can do that under 6103"

SCHOCK:  "Okay, let me ask you about another letter that was received by a pro-life group, this one in Iowa. Their question specifically asks from the IRS to the Coalition for Life of Iowa, 'Please detail the content of the members of your organization's prayers.' Would that be an appropriate question to a 501(c)(3) applicant? The content of one"s prayers?" 

MILLER:  "It pains me to say I can't speak to that one either. But that's an..."

SCHOCK:  "You don't know whether or not that would be an appropriate question to ask an applicant?"

MILLER:  "Speaking outside of this case, which I don't know anything about, it would surprise me that that question was asked".

SCHOCK:  "And finally during another applicant's conversation or back and forth they were asked specifically, 'Please detail certain signs that may or may not be held up outside of a Planned Parenthood facility.' Would that be an appropriate follow up to an applicant for 501(c)(3) application?"

MILLER:  "(It did not) sound like the usual question."

There you have it.  The "Gee, I don't know a thing about that" defense.  Learned, no doubt from the ongoing use of that same defense by Barack Obama, who, after over four years in the White House, is still claiming to whichever boobs still believe him that his Presidency is some kind of out-of-body experience.

If you believe this sorry bunch, you have to wonder if they ever showed up at their offices at all (hmmmm, though I meant that as a sarcasm,....in Mr. Obama's case, between the golf games, celebrity events he runs on the taxpayers' money and the fundraisers, it might be an actual issue).

More to come.  Count on it.


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!