![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/images/quotes_7a.gif)
American • Re: An Even Bigger Scandal: Why Are IRS Audits Being Used To
IRS Employees Disproportionately Donate to Obama
Statistics reveal an imbalance in a nominally nonpartisan agency. By Andrew Stiles
Andrew Stiles President Barack Obama received more than twice as much in campaign donations from IRS employees in 2012 as did his opponent, Mitt Romney, records show.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, which maintains an online database of political contributions, individuals listing their employer as “IRS” or “Internal Revenue Service” donated a total of $48,827 to Obama in 2012 and gave just $20,361 to Romney. That disparity is mild compared with that of 2008, when IRS employees donated $59,959 to Obama, and just $1,950 to his challenger John McCain.
Slightly over 100 IRS employees donated to Obama in 2012, while only 25 contributed to Romney, according to the database, and most contributed less than $1,000. At least one of the IRS employees who donated to Obama in 2012 — Kim Kitchens — appears to have worked in the agency’s Exempt Organizations Rulings and Agreements office in Cincinnati, Ohio, as of October 2012, according to IRS documents.
AdvertisementThe IRS is under fire this week after a report by the Treasury Department’s inspector general found that agency employees engaged in “inappropriate targeting” of conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status. Groups had their applications significantly delayed, for years in some cases, and were asked to answer dozens of invasive questions. USA Today reported that even as tea-party groups had their applications delayed for more than two years, similar liberal organizations were swiftly approved for tax-exempt status.
Although IRS officials initially said the wrongdoing was limited to a few “front-line people” in the Cincinnati office, subsequent reports reveal that IRS offices in California and Washington, D.C., were also involved. Senior officials, including acting commissioner Steven Miller, were aware of the targeting as early as May 2012. A number of Republican lawmakers have called on Miller to resign; he is sure to face contentious questioning on Friday when he testifies before the House Ways and Means Committee.
With only two politically appointed employees, the IRS is nominally one of the least partisan bodies in the federal government. In statement released last week, the IRS acknowledged that “mistakes were made” but denied that “any political or partisan rationale” was involved.
President Obama on Tuesday called the behavior revealed in the Treasury inspector general’s report “intolerable and inexcusable” and promised to “hold those responsible for these failures accountable.” However, White House press secretary Jay Carney declined to say Wednesday whether any IRS employees should be fired. “I’m not going to get into specifics about what outcomes should happen here,” he told reporters.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 … nate-obama
Statistics: Posted by yoda — Wed May 15, 2013 5:38 pm
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com
American • An Even Bigger Scandal: Why Are IRS Audits Being Used To Pun
An Even Bigger Scandal: Why Are IRS Audits Being Used To Punish Obama’s Political Enemies?
By Michael, on May 15th, 2013
Is it right for Barack Obama to use IRS audits to punish his political enemies? As crazy as that sounds, there is a mounting body of evidence that indicates that this is actually happening. And if this can be proven, it is a much, much larger scandal than the IRS giving "extra scrutiny" to the applications of conservative non-profit groups. Let me be clear – if Barack Obama has been using IRS audits to punish his political enemies, that is an impeachable offense. Of all of the other scandals that are out there right now, this is the one that could actually bring down the presidency of Barack Obama. That is how serious this is. As you will read about below, there is a huge amount of circumstantial evidence that political enemies of Barack Obama have been singled out for IRS audits. We need to find out who initiated these audits. Whether you are a Republican, a Democrat or an Independent, this kind of abuse of government power should sicken and horrify you. If it can be proven that Barack Obama has been using IRS audits to attack his enemies, every single U.S. citizen should be calling for him to resign. This is something that is beyond politics – this is a direct threat to the very integrity of our system.
The recent revelation that the IRS has been specifically targeting patriot groups and Tea Party organizations for "extra scrutiny" has opened up the floodgates. In recent days, a large number of highly respected people have come forward claiming that they were the subject of IRS audits that were politically motivated.
For example, Larry Conners, a respected local news anchor at KMOV Channel 4 in St. Louis, Missouri says that he was hit with an IRS audit almost immediately after he conducted an interview with Barack Obama in April 2012…
Shortly after I did my April 2012 interview with President Obama, my wife, friends and some viewers suggested that I might need to watch out for the IRS.
I don’t accept "conspiracy theories", but I do know that almost immediately after the interview, the IRS started hammering me.
At the time, I dismissed the "co-incidence", but now, I have concerns … after revelations about the IRS targeting various groups and their members.
Originally, the IRS apologized for red-flagging conservative groups and their members if they had "Tea Party" or "patriot" in their name.
Today, there are allegations that the IRS focused on various groups and/or individuals questioning or criticizing government spending, taxes, debt or how the government is run … any involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the constitution and bill of rights, or social economic reform/movement.
In that April 2012 interview, I questioned President Obama on several topics: the Buffet Rule, his public remarks about the Supreme Court before the ruling on the Affordable Care Act. I also asked why he wasn’t doing more to help Sen. Claire McCaskill who at that time was expected to lose. The Obama interview caught fire and got wide-spread attention because I questioned his spending.
I said some viewers expressed concern, saying they think he’s "out of touch" because of his personal and family trips in the midst of our economic crisis.
The President’s face clearly showed his anger; afterwards, his staff which had been so polite … suddenly went cold.
That’s to be expected, and I can deal with that just as I did with President George H. Bush’s staff when he didn’t like my questions.
Journalistic integrity is of the utmost importance to me. My job is to ask the hard questions, because I believe viewers have a right to be well-informed. I cannot and will not promote anyone’s agenda – political or otherwise – at the expense of the reporting the truth.
What I don’t like to even consider … is that because of the Obama interview … the IRS put a target on me.
Can I prove it? At this time, no.
But it is a fact that since that April 2012 interview … the IRS has been pressuring me.
Reverend Franklin Graham, the son of Reverend Billy Graham, recently wrote a letter to Barack Obama claiming that the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse were both hit with IRS audits very shortly after they ran full-page ads supporting North Carolina’s Marriage amendment. In fact, both organizations were notified about the audits on the same day. The following is from a recent article posted on redstate.com…
The man known as America’s pastor was among those targeted by the Internal Revenue Service after the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association ran newspaper advertisements promoting traditional marriage and biblical values.
“I am bringing this to your attention because I believe that someone in the Administration was targeting and attempting to intimidate us,” wrote Franklin Graham in a letter to President Obama. “This is morally wrong and unethical – indeed some would call it ‘un-American.’”
Graham is president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association as well as the international charity Samaritan’s Purse. Both organizations received word of audits on the same day – not long after they ran full –page ads supporting North Carolina’s Marriage amendment.
The ads encouraged voters to “cast our ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel.”
The ad concluded with the words, “Vote for biblical values this November 6, and pray with me (Billy Graham) that America will remain one nation under God.”
Graham said on Sept. 6, 2012 they received notification that the IRS would audit their taxes.
“In light of what the IRS admitted to on Friday, May 10, 2013, and subsequent revelations from other sources, I do not believe that the IRS audit of our two organizations last year is a coincidence – or justifiable,” Graham wrote.
You can find a full copy of Franklin Graham’s letter to Barack Obama right here.
The Blaze is reporting on another example of this phenomenon. A respected Catholic professor that had written things critical of the Obama administration was hit with an IRS audit that she believes was politically motivated…
On Wednesday, Dr. Anne Hendershott, a devout Catholic and a noted sociologist, professor and author, exclusively told The Blaze that she believes she may have been one of the IRS’s targets.
According to Hendershott, the IRS audited her in 2010 and demanded to know who was paying her and “what their politics were.”
It all started with a phone call she received at her home in May of that year — a call during which Hendershott was told she would be audited. A letter that followed on May 19, 2010 solidified the IRS’s request to meet her in person two months later in July.
Unfortunately, these are not just isolated incidents. In fact, attorney Cleta Mitchell recently told Newsmax that she has seen a systematic pattern of politically motivated IRS harassment that only began once Barack Obama entered the White House…
In the case of one such client, she and her family subsequently became targets for audits to their personal and business tax returns, and were even visited by three different government agencies. She also knows of other groups who had surprise visits from the FBI after they applied for IRS status.
Mitchell said she doesn’t believe the president or the White House was uninvolved in the IRS activities, as the administration has claimed.
"I’ve thought for some time that this is politically motivated and that’s the reason it was happening. And, as I said, I’ve been doing this for more than 20 years and I’ve never seen anything like this until 2009, 2010. And the only thing that changed was we had a different administration," she said.
There are some that have been trying to bring awareness to these politically motivated audits for quite some time. One of these individuals is a former classmate of Obama’s named Wayne Allyn Root…
“I feel like a million bucks. I feel absolutely vindicated. I knew this was going on,” Wayne Allyn Root told WND.
Root, the Libertarian Party vice-presidential candidate in 2008 who has claimed Obama was strangely unknown to him and his fellow Columbia University classmates, recounted his story to WND last October of becoming the target of unusual audits, beginning in January 2011, despite a “spotless” 30-year tax record.
He charged in October that the order to audit him came from Obama himself, and he is even more convinced now.
“I believe this is not rogue agents, who would be risking their pension and careers,” he said.
In October, Root said the order to audit him “must have come from the highest levels of government.”
“Obama is using the power of the IRS and other government agencies to punish his political opposition and intimidate and silence his critics,” Root charged at the time.
In that same article, a number of other examples of this phenomenon were cited…
Last year, billionaire Frank VanderSloot became the target of investigations by both the IRS and the Labor Department after he gave $1 million to a super PAC that supported Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. The GOP’s biggest donor, Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, said a federal criminal investigation into his company’s business practices was politically motivated. Another casino giant, Steve Wynn, also has been investigated.
This week, Root has received many emails from people who identify as conservative and believe the IRS has been harassing them for political reasons.
What happened to businessman Frank VanderSloot is particularly noteworthy. The following is from an article that Rob Bluey authored last year…
On April 20, President Obama’s campaign named VanderSloot to the first presidential “enemies list” since the Nixon era. Eight private citizens were singled out for their donations to Romney. They committed no crimes, sought no attention, and yet they became the subject of Obama’s scorn.
VanderSloot is now facing persecution from the federal government. Kimberly Strassel reveals in The Wall Street Journal that two federal agencies — the Internal Revenue Service and Labor Department — both launched investigations of VanderSloot after his name appeared on Obama’s enemies list.
No matter what you think of Obama’s politics, shouldn’t we all be deeply alarmed that he has an "enemies list"?
With each passing day, the similarities between Barack Obama and Richard Nixon become more glaring.
And Obama has even joked about sending the IRS after people that he does not like. When Obama found out that he was not going to be receiving an honorary doctorate from Arizona State University, he made the following statement…
"President [Michael] Crowe and the Board of Regents will soon learn all about being audited by the IRS."
The IRS is not supposed to be used as a weapon, and the White House is not allowed to use information gathered by the IRS for political gain either. But apparently last year someone at the IRS was leaking tax information to someone within the Obama campaign. The following is from a recent article by Matt K. Lewis…
A little over a year ago, I reported that, ”It is likely that someone at the Internal Revenue Service illegally leaked confidential donor information showing a contribution from Mitt Romney’s political action committee to the National Organization for Marriage, says the group.”
Now — on the heels of news the IRS’s apology for having targeted conservative groups — NOM is renewing their demand that the Internal Revenue Service reveal the identity of the people responsible.
“There is little question that one or more employees at the IRS stole our confidential tax return and leaked it to our political enemies, in violation of federal law,” said NOM’s president Brian Brow, in a prepared statement. “The only questions are who did it, and whether there was any knowledge or coordination between people in the White House, the Obama reelection campaign and the Human Rights Campaign. We and the American people deserve answers.”
The IRS has been doing all sorts of things that they should not be doing. They are a rogue agency that is completely out of control.
In fact, one new lawsuit alleges that the IRS stole the health records of approximately 10 million Americans…
The Internal Revenue Service is now facing a class action lawsuit over allegations that it improperly accessed and stole the health records of some 10 million Americans, including medical records of all California state judges.
According to a report by Courthousenews.com, an unnamed HIPAA-covered entity in California is suing the IRS, alleging that some 60 million medical records from 10 million patients were stolen by 15 IRS agents. The personal health information seized on March 11, 2011, included psychological counseling, gynecological counseling, sexual/drug treatment and other medical treatment data. "This is an action involving the corruption and abuse of power by several Internal Revenue Service agents," the complaint reads. "No search warrant authorized the seizure of these records; no subpoena authorized the seizure of these records; none of the 10,000,000 Americans were under any kind of known criminal or civil investigation and their medical records had no relevance whatsoever to the IRS search. IT personnel at the scene, a HIPPA facility warning on the building and the IT portion of the searched premises, and the company executives each warned the IRS agents of these privileged records," it continued.
And guess what?
The IRS is going to be the primary government agency in charge of implementing Obamacare.
Will we soon see the IRS use health information to attack the political enemies of the man or woman sitting in the White House?
Unfortunately, thanks to new "Big Brother" technology that the IRS has been implementing, pretty soon there will be very little about us that the IRS does not know. The following is from a recent article by Richard Satran of U.S. News & World Report…
Consumers are already familiar with Internet "cookies" that track their movements and send them targeted ads that follow them to different websites. The IRS has brought in private industry experts to employ similar digital tracking—but with the added advantage of access to Social Security numbers, health records, credit card transactions and many other privileged forms of information that marketers don’t see.
"Private industry would be envious if they knew what our models are," boasted Dean Silverman, the agency’s high-tech top gun who heads a group recruited from the private sector to update the IRS, in a comment reported in trade publications.
So what is the IRS going to do with all of this information?
Well, the following are just a few of the things that they have already said that they plan to do with it…
• Charting and analyzing social media such as Facebook
• Targeting audits by matching tax filings to social media or electronic payments
• Tracking individual Internet addresses and emailing patterns
• Sorting data in 32,000 categories of metadata and 1 million unique "attributes"
• Machine learning across "neural" networks
• Statistical and agent-based modeling
• Relationship analysis based on Social Security numbers and other personal identifiers
So are you alarmed by all of this?
You should be.
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/arch … al-enemies
Statistics: Posted by yoda — Wed May 15, 2013 5:08 pm
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com
An Even Bigger Scandal: Why Are IRS Audits Being Used To Punish Obama’s Political Enemies?
Is it right for Barack Obama to use IRS audits to punish his political enemies? As crazy as that sounds, there is a mounting body of evidence that indicates that this is actually happening. And if this can be proven, it is a much, much larger scandal than the IRS giving “extra scrutiny” to the applications of conservative non-profit groups. Let me be clear – if Barack Obama has been using IRS audits to punish his political enemies, that is an impeachable offense. Of all of the other scandals that are out there right now, this is the one that could actually bring down the presidency of Barack Obama. That is how serious this is. As you will read about below, there is a huge amount of circumstantial evidence that political enemies of Barack Obama have been singled out for IRS audits. We need to find out who initiated these audits. Whether you are a Republican, a Democrat or an Independent, this kind of abuse of government power should sicken and horrify you. If it can be proven that Barack Obama has been using IRS audits to attack his enemies, every single U.S. citizen should be calling for him to resign. This is something that is beyond politics – this is a direct threat to the very integrity of our system.
The recent revelation that the IRS has been specifically targeting patriot groups and Tea Party organizations for “extra scrutiny” has opened up the floodgates. In recent days, a large number of highly respected people have come forward claiming that they were the subject of IRS audits that were politically motivated.
For example, Larry Conners, a respected local news anchor at KMOV Channel 4 in St. Louis, Missouri says that he was hit with an IRS audit almost immediately after he conducted an interview with Barack Obama in April 2012…
Shortly after I did my April 2012 interview with President Obama, my wife, friends and some viewers suggested that I might need to watch out for the IRS.
I don’t accept “conspiracy theories”, but I do know that almost immediately after the interview, the IRS started hammering me.
At the time, I dismissed the “co-incidence”, but now, I have concerns … after revelations about the IRS targeting various groups and their members.
Originally, the IRS apologized for red-flagging conservative groups and their members if they had “Tea Party” or “patriot” in their name.
Today, there are allegations that the IRS focused on various groups and/or individuals questioning or criticizing government spending, taxes, debt or how the government is run … any involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the constitution and bill of rights, or social economic reform/movement.
In that April 2012 interview, I questioned President Obama on several topics: the Buffet Rule, his public remarks about the Supreme Court before the ruling on the Affordable Care Act. I also asked why he wasn’t doing more to help Sen. Claire McCaskill who at that time was expected to lose. The Obama interview caught fire and got wide-spread attention because I questioned his spending.
I said some viewers expressed concern, saying they think he’s “out of touch” because of his personal and family trips in the midst of our economic crisis.
The President’s face clearly showed his anger; afterwards, his staff which had been so polite … suddenly went cold.
That’s to be expected, and I can deal with that just as I did with President George H. Bush’s staff when he didn’t like my questions.
Journalistic integrity is of the utmost importance to me. My job is to ask the hard questions, because I believe viewers have a right to be well-informed. I cannot and will not promote anyone’s agenda – political or otherwise – at the expense of the reporting the truth.
What I don’t like to even consider … is that because of the Obama interview … the IRS put a target on me.
Can I prove it? At this time, no.
But it is a fact that since that April 2012 interview … the IRS has been pressuring me.
Reverend Franklin Graham, the son of Reverend Billy Graham, recently wrote a letter to Barack Obama claiming that the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse were both hit with IRS audits very shortly after they ran full-page ads supporting North Carolina’s Marriage amendment. In fact, both organizations were notified about the audits on the same day. The following is from a recent article posted on redstate.com…
The man known as America’s pastor was among those targeted by the Internal Revenue Service after the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association ran newspaper advertisements promoting traditional marriage and biblical values.
“I am bringing this to your attention because I believe that someone in the Administration was targeting and attempting to intimidate us,” wrote Franklin Graham in a letter to President Obama. “This is morally wrong and unethical – indeed some would call it ‘un-American.’”
Graham is president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association as well as the international charity Samaritan’s Purse. Both organizations received word of audits on the same day – not long after they ran full –page ads supporting North Carolina’s Marriage amendment.
The ads encouraged voters to “cast our ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel.”
The ad concluded with the words, “Vote for biblical values this November 6, and pray with me (Billy Graham) that America will remain one nation under God.”
Graham said on Sept. 6, 2012 they received notification that the IRS would audit their taxes.
“In light of what the IRS admitted to on Friday, May 10, 2013, and subsequent revelations from other sources, I do not believe that the IRS audit of our two organizations last year is a coincidence – or justifiable,” Graham wrote.
You can find a full copy of Franklin Graham’s letter to Barack Obama right here.
The Blaze is reporting on another example of this phenomenon. A respected Catholic professor that had written things critical of the Obama administration was hit with an IRS audit that she believes was politically motivated…
On Wednesday, Dr. Anne Hendershott, a devout Catholic and a noted sociologist, professor and author, exclusively told The Blaze that she believes she may have been one of the IRS’s targets.
According to Hendershott, the IRS audited her in 2010 and demanded to know who was paying her and “what their politics were.”
It all started with a phone call she received at her home in May of that year — a call during which Hendershott was told she would be audited. A letter that followed on May 19, 2010 solidified the IRS’s request to meet her in person two months later in July.
Unfortunately, these are not just isolated incidents. In fact, attorney Cleta Mitchell recently told Newsmax that she has seen a systematic pattern of politically motivated IRS harassment that only began once Barack Obama entered the White House…
In the case of one such client, she and her family subsequently became targets for audits to their personal and business tax returns, and were even visited by three different government agencies. She also knows of other groups who had surprise visits from the FBI after they applied for IRS status.
Mitchell said she doesn’t believe the president or the White House was uninvolved in the IRS activities, as the administration has claimed.
“I’ve thought for some time that this is politically motivated and that’s the reason it was happening. And, as I said, I’ve been doing this for more than 20 years and I’ve never seen anything like this until 2009, 2010. And the only thing that changed was we had a different administration,” she said.
There are some that have been trying to bring awareness to these politically motivated audits for quite some time. One of these individuals is a former classmate of Obama’s named Wayne Allyn Root…
“I feel like a million bucks. I feel absolutely vindicated. I knew this was going on,” Wayne Allyn Root told WND.
Root, the Libertarian Party vice-presidential candidate in 2008 who has claimed Obama was strangely unknown to him and his fellow Columbia University classmates, recounted his story to WND last October of becoming the target of unusual audits, beginning in January 2011, despite a “spotless” 30-year tax record.
He charged in October that the order to audit him came from Obama himself, and he is even more convinced now.
“I believe this is not rogue agents, who would be risking their pension and careers,” he said.
In October, Root said the order to audit him “must have come from the highest levels of government.”
“Obama is using the power of the IRS and other government agencies to punish his political opposition and intimidate and silence his critics,” Root charged at the time.
In that same article, a number of other examples of this phenomenon were cited…
Last year, billionaire Frank VanderSloot became the target of investigations by both the IRS and the Labor Department after he gave $1 million to a super PAC that supported Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. The GOP’s biggest donor, Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, said a federal criminal investigation into his company’s business practices was politically motivated. Another casino giant, Steve Wynn, also has been investigated.
This week, Root has received many emails from people who identify as conservative and believe the IRS has been harassing them for political reasons.
What happened to businessman Frank VanderSloot is particularly noteworthy. The following is from an article that Rob Bluey authored last year…
On April 20, President Obama’s campaign named VanderSloot to the first presidential “enemies list” since the Nixon era. Eight private citizens were singled out for their donations to Romney. They committed no crimes, sought no attention, and yet they became the subject of Obama’s scorn.
VanderSloot is now facing persecution from the federal government. Kimberly Strassel reveals in The Wall Street Journal that two federal agencies — the Internal Revenue Service and Labor Department — both launched investigations of VanderSloot after his name appeared on Obama’s enemies list.
No matter what you think of Obama’s politics, shouldn’t we all be deeply alarmed that he has an “enemies list”?
With each passing day, the similarities between Barack Obama and Richard Nixon become more glaring.
And Obama has even joked about sending the IRS after people that he does not like. When Obama found out that he was not going to be receiving an honorary doctorate from Arizona State University, he made the following statement…
“President [Michael] Crowe and the Board of Regents will soon learn all about being audited by the IRS.”
The IRS is not supposed to be used as a weapon, and the White House is not allowed to use information gathered by the IRS for political gain either. But apparently last year someone at the IRS was leaking tax information to someone within the Obama campaign. The following is from a recent article by Matt K. Lewis…
A little over a year ago, I reported that, ”It is likely that someone at the Internal Revenue Service illegally leaked confidential donor information showing a contribution from Mitt Romney’s political action committee to the National Organization for Marriage, says the group.”
Now — on the heels of news the IRS’s apology for having targeted conservative groups — NOM is renewing their demand that the Internal Revenue Service reveal the identity of the people responsible.
“There is little question that one or more employees at the IRS stole our confidential tax return and leaked it to our political enemies, in violation of federal law,” said NOM’s president Brian Brow, in a prepared statement. “The only questions are who did it, and whether there was any knowledge or coordination between people in the White House, the Obama reelection campaign and the Human Rights Campaign. We and the American people deserve answers.”
The IRS has been doing all sorts of things that they should not be doing. They are a rogue agency that is completely out of control.
In fact, one new lawsuit alleges that the IRS stole the health records of approximately 10 million Americans…
The Internal Revenue Service is now facing a class action lawsuit over allegations that it improperly accessed and stole the health records of some 10 million Americans, including medical records of all California state judges.
According to a report by Courthousenews.com, an unnamed HIPAA-covered entity in California is suing the IRS, alleging that some 60 million medical records from 10 million patients were stolen by 15 IRS agents. The personal health information seized on March 11, 2011, included psychological counseling, gynecological counseling, sexual/drug treatment and other medical treatment data. “This is an action involving the corruption and abuse of power by several Internal Revenue Service agents,” the complaint reads. “No search warrant authorized the seizure of these records; no subpoena authorized the seizure of these records; none of the 10,000,000 Americans were under any kind of known criminal or civil investigation and their medical records had no relevance whatsoever to the IRS search. IT personnel at the scene, a HIPPA facility warning on the building and the IT portion of the searched premises, and the company executives each warned the IRS agents of these privileged records,” it continued.
And guess what?
The IRS is going to be the primary government agency in charge of implementing Obamacare.
Will we soon see the IRS use health information to attack the political enemies of the man or woman sitting in the White House?
Unfortunately, thanks to new “Big Brother” technology that the IRS has been implementing, pretty soon there will be very little about us that the IRS does not know. The following is from a recent article by Richard Satran of U.S. News & World Report…
Consumers are already familiar with Internet “cookies” that track their movements and send them targeted ads that follow them to different websites. The IRS has brought in private industry experts to employ similar digital tracking—but with the added advantage of access to Social Security numbers, health records, credit card transactions and many other privileged forms of information that marketers don’t see.
“Private industry would be envious if they knew what our models are,” boasted Dean Silverman, the agency’s high-tech top gun who heads a group recruited from the private sector to update the IRS, in a comment reported in trade publications.
So what is the IRS going to do with all of this information?
Well, the following are just a few of the things that they have already said that they plan to do with it…
• Charting and analyzing social media such as Facebook
• Targeting audits by matching tax filings to social media or electronic payments
• Tracking individual Internet addresses and emailing patterns
• Sorting data in 32,000 categories of metadata and 1 million unique “attributes”
• Machine learning across “neural” networks
• Statistical and agent-based modeling
• Relationship analysis based on Social Security numbers and other personal identifiers
So are you alarmed by all of this?
You should be.
As I discussed in my previous article entitled “100 Years Old And Still Killing Us: America Was Much Better Off Before The Income Tax“, Congress should close the doors of the IRS and throw away the key. It is a deeply, deeply corrupt government agency that has gotten wildly out of control.
After what you have just read above, is there anyone out there that would disagree with me?
View full post on The Economic Collapse
American • Truth About to Be Exposed Even After Eight Months of Lies an
Jay Carney: Benghazi Happened ‘a long time ago.’
Truth About to Be Exposed Even After Eight Months of Lies and Stonewalling?
By John Lillpop
Sunday, May 5, 2013
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney tried to minimize the importance of questions about the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya and subsequent cover-up allegations with these words:
“Benghazi happened a long time ago. We are unaware of any agency blocking an employee who would like to appear before Congress to provide information related to Benghazi.”
Carney’s weasel word-answer makes it all the more imperative to get to the bottom of the leftist media-White House cover-up which, had the press corps been even slightly professional, might have seen Barack Obama sent home with just four years of harm inflicted on the nation and its people, rather than still in the White House and doing greater damage every day.
Nonetheless, as reported at reference 2, determined patriots remain committed to unraveling the Benghazi nonsense and appear ready to unravel with a bang next week:
Their identities have been a well-guarded secret, known only to their high-powered lawyers and a handful of House lawmakers and staff. But now Fox News has learned the names of the self-described Benghazi “whistleblowers” who are set to testify before a widely anticipated congressional hearing on Wednesday.
Appearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will be three career State Department officials: Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks; Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for Operations in the agency’s Counter terrorism Bureau; and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was the regional security officer in Libya, the top security officer in the country in the months leading up to the attacks.
U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya.
At the time of Stevens’s death, Hicks became the highest-ranking American diplomat in Libya.
Nordstrom previously testified before the oversight committee, which is chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., in October 2012. Of the three witnesses, he is the only one who does not consider himself a whistleblower. At last fall’s hearing, however, Nordstrom made headlines by detailing for lawmakers the series of requests that he, Ambassador Stevens, and others had made for enhanced security at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in the period preceding the attacks, requests mostly rejected by State Department superiors.
“For me the Taliban is on the inside of the [State Department] building,” Nordstrom testified, angry over inadequate staffing at a time when the threat environment in Benghazi was deteriorating. The other two witnesses have not been heard from publicly before.
Hicks is a veteran Foreign Service officer whose overseas postings have also included Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican and committee member, said Hicks was in Tripoli at 9:40 p.m. local time when he received one of Stevens’ earliest phone calls amid the crisis.
“We’re under attack! We’re under attack!” the ambassador reportedly shouted into his cell phone at Hicks.
Chaffetz, who subsequently debriefed Hicks, also said the deputy “immediately called into Washington to trigger all the mechanisms” for an inter-agency response.
“The real-life trauma that [Hicks] went through,” Chaffetz recalled to Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren, “I mean, I really felt it in his voice. It was hard to listen to. He’s gone through a lot, but he did a great job.”
According to the State Department web site, Thompson “advises senior leadership on operational counter terrorism matters, and ensures that the United States can rapidly respond to global terrorism crises.”
Five years before the Benghazi attacks, he lectured at a symposium hosted by the University of Central Florida and titled “The Global Terrorism Challenge: Answers to Key Questions.”
Joe diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, and wife Victoria Toensing, a former chief counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee—Republicans—disclosed this week that in their private practice in the nation’s capital, they now represent, pro bono two career State Department employees who regard themselves as “whistleblowers” and would be testifying before Issa’s committee at its next Benghazi hearing, on May 8.
The lawyers said their clients believe their accounts of Benghazi were spurned by the Accountability Review board (ARB), the official investigative body convened by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to review the terrorist attacks, and that the two employees have faced threats and intimidation from as-yet-unnamed superiors.
“I’m not talking generally, I’m talking specifically about Benghazi—that people have been threatened,” Toensing told Fox News on Wednesday. “And not just the State Department; people have been threatened at the CIA. … It’s frightening. …They’re taking career people and making them well aware that their careers will be over.”
DiGenova told Fox News on Thursday, by way of describing his and Toensing’s respective clients: “There were people who were material witnesses, who wanted to talk to [the ARB], and they were not allowed to talk to them.
“The people that we are representing are career civil servants…people who have served the country overseas…in dangerous positions all over the world, have risked their lives and only want to tell the truth.”
Stay tuned, Jay Carney! You may be taught that time alone can not always prevent the pursuit of truth!
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/54969
Statistics: Posted by yoda — Sun May 05, 2013 6:38 am
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com
The Constitution Protects Even Old-Timey Property Rights
Ilya Shapiro and Trevor Burrus
In the 19th Century, when railroads were being built across the West, the federal government granted significant land and benefits to the railroad companies. The Great Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 allowed the government to give railroad companies easements to build tracks — that is, a right to use sections of another’s property without legally owning it. The Brandt family eventually acquired land in Wyoming that came with pre-existing railroad easements.
In 2001, the owner of the easement formally abandoned all claims to it, presumably returning the property to the Brandts. But the government wanted that land. In 2006, it sued for title to the former easement land on the theory that the government retained a residual claim to it after the railroad abandoned it. The Brandts argue that the government has no such right and that taking their land requires just compensation under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.
Although this may seem like a small, unique problem, the scope of the Old West’s railway system was huge and those old easements criss-cross the land of thousands of property owners. In 1983, Congress amended the National Trails System Act to allow the government to take abandoned railroad easements and turn them into land for public recreation and “railroad banking.” Landowners have been fighting the taking of their property under the Trails Act ever since, claiming, as here, that the government’s original grant to the railroads contained no residual right of possession for the government.
Indeed, two federal courts of appeals, the Seventh and Federal Circuits, have held that the government didn’t retain any residuary rights. In the Brandts’ case, however, the Tenth Circuit held otherwise. This circuit split is untenable. Over 5,000 miles of abandoned track has been taken by the government since the Trails Act, and about 10,000 property owners are currently fighting in federal courts to hold onto their property.
Of course, given the possible benefits of not having to pay compensation to landowners, the government has responded to these claims by being aggressively litigious, reaching into its endless war-chest of taxpayer-provided resources to challenge the landowners on every tiny point. As the Federal Circuit said, the government’s behavior is “puzzling” in that it is “foregoing the opportunity to minimize the waste both of its own and plaintiffs’ litigation resources, not to mention that of scarce judicial resources,” but also by advancing arguments “so thin as to border on the frivolous.”
Cato, along with the National Association of Reversionary Property Owners, has filed an amicus brief supporting the Brandts and asking the Supreme Court to rectify the above situation. We argue that the Tenth Circuit ignored the reasoning of its sister circuits and instead relied on far less persuasive authority. Given the scope of land possibly involved — there are approximately 130,000 miles of abandoned track in the country, with 3,000 more being abandoned every year — it’s difficult to imagine a decision more unsettling to the expectation of thousands of property owners than the Tenth Circuit’s unjustified ruling here.
Ironically, given the scope of the problem, the Court’s resolution of this issue against the government might actually save the government money, even if it has to pay just compensation. The government’s behavior in challenging these claims demonstrates not only the need for the Court to rectify circuit splits, but also to uphold the property rights of citizens against opportunistic, self-interested, and powerful governmental forces that often just don’t play fair.
The government will now have a chance to respond to the cert petition in Brandt v. United States, and then this fall the Supreme Court will decide whether to take the case.
View full post on Cato @ Liberty
Mourn For America: Whenever A Tragedy Happens They Take Even More Freedom From Us
What in the world is happening to America? Over the past couple of decades, the federal government has used just about every major national tragedy as an excuse to take even more liberty and freedom away from us. And without a doubt, the Boston Marathon bombing was a great national tragedy. I don’t think that any of us will forget the images that we have seen over the past week. All of those responsible for this attack should be exposed, hunted down, tried and punished. Unfortunately, what always seems to happen is that it is the American people that seem to get punished the most for these tragedies. Over the past couple of decades we have been told again and again that if we will just give up a little bit more freedom that the authorities will be able to keep us safe. But you know what? It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to keep us safe. There is no way in the world that the federal government can protect us from all of the bad guys in the world. We are a country that is absolutely teeming with “soft targets” – malls, churches, schools, concerts, sporting events, etc. No matter how much money we spend, there is no way that the federal government will ever be able to provide enough security for all of those soft targets. Even if our society morphed into something that resembled George Orwell’s “1984″, the government would still never be able to guarantee our safety. Unfortunately, in the aftermath of this attack there will inevitably be calls for “increased security” and “more anti-terror legislation”. The answer always seems to be to expand the emerging police state. But it is getting to the point where all of this “security” is becoming absolutely suffocating, and yet it doesn’t seem to be keeping us any safer. So where does all of this end? Are we going to completely throw out the entire U.S. Constitution in a desperate attempt to feel a little bit safer? Or are we going to choose to live our lives without fear no matter what others may try to do to us?
Benjamin Franklin once made the following statement…
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Sadly, the way that the American people have responded to national tragedies over the past couple of decades would have made our founding fathers greatly ashamed. The American people have been way too willing to give up liberty in exchange for the promise of safety.
We have been told that the terrorists hate us because of our liberties and freedoms. But we have also been told that in order to be “safe” from those terrorists we have got to give up those liberties and freedoms.
So who is really winning?
We seem to have forgotten some of the most basic lessons in life.
If you cower in fear when a bully comes after you, what is the bully going to do?
The bully is just going to keep coming after you because his actions are being rewarded.
Those that are trying to create fear love it when you become fearful. It is exactly what they want.
The appropriate response to a great national tragedy is to reject fear and to continue to boldly live our lives as if nobody could ever shake us.
But instead, the atmosphere of fear in America continues to grow.
And yes, there are common sense things that our government should be doing to keep bad guys away from us.
For example, the number one thing that the federal government should be doing is to secure the border. Every single day, thousands upon thousands of people that we don’t know anything about pour into this country. And yet the federal government has absolutely refused to secure our borders for decades.
Until the federal government secures our borders, they should not ask any of us to sacrifice a single ounce of liberty or freedom in the name of “national security”.
But even as the Obama administration treats our border security like a joke and continues to import huge numbers of people from radical areas of the Middle East, they continue to tell us that “domestic terror” is the next great threat that we are facing.
Many of our other politicians are buying into this philosophy as well. Senator Lindsey Graham says that the attack in Boston is a perfect example of “why the homeland is the battlefield“.
So if “the homeland is the battlefield”, then who is the enemy?
Well, a U.S. Army Reserve training presentation recently identified evangelical Christians as “religious extremists“, and since Barack Obama entered the White House there have been numerous government reports that have identified Christians, “constitutionalists”, patriots, anti-abortion activists, conspiracy theorists and gun owners as “potential terrorists”.
So where does all of this end?
Are the American people rapidly becoming the enemy?
Will we be constantly scared to death of one another?
Will the entire nation exist in a never ending environment of fear?
Will we eventually have the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security patrolling every mall, every church, every school, every concert and every sporting event?
Unfortunately, the bad guys will always be able to find a soft target, and there will be more terror attacks in the future no matter how much security we pour on. Once upon a time this nation was greatly blessed with peace and security, but now that hedge of protection is gone. The federal government could give the Department of Homeland Security trillions of dollars a year and it would not make much of a difference. We live in a world that is becoming increasingly unstable, and bad guys are going to do bad things.
Yes, there are some common sense things that we can do to make our nation more secure. At this point, the federal government is not doing most of those things.
But no matter how hard we try, bad things are going to happen. When those bad things happen, what we can control is how we respond to them.
That is why what just happened in Boston is so alarming. The entire city was put into a complete lockdown for nearly two days. It was a preview of what could happen nationwide if martial law was declared. It was an over the top display of force that clearly demonstrated to the rest of the world how incredibly frightened we are.
Some of the things we saw in Boston were absolutely disgraceful. For example, you can see video of an innocent Watertown family being ripped out of their home at gunpoint right here.
Do you know what this tells the rest of the world?
It tells them that terrorism works.
It tells them that one small incident is enough to send the entire nation into a full-blown panic attack.
You can see some more photos of martial law in Boston right here. Instead of making things better, this is just going to make the atmosphere of fear in this nation even worse.
And you know what? None of those heavily armed men even found the second suspect. He was actually found by a neighbor that had gone out to take a smoke.
Like most Americans, I absolutely hate terrorism in all the forms that it takes.
But we are not going to prevent future terrorism by treating the U.S. Constitution like a piece of trash. We have now shown the world that we are willing to throw out our most important constitutional rights the moment that a “threat” arises, and this is just going to encourage even more terrorism.
You see, those that engage in terrorism want attention and they want to create fear. When we give them attention and we allow them to create fear we give them exactly what they want.
Is there anyone out there that can defend what we just saw in Boston? I can’t imagine any American that still loves the Constitution being proud of what just happened. I think that Karl Denninger put it quite eloquently the other day…
By effectively occupying a part of the Boston metro area they made an utter mockery of the 4th Amendment. There was no “hot pursuit” and thus no argument available to them allowing searches of private property without consent or a warrant. Not only did they search without a warrant there were multiple reports through the day of seizure of firearms, among other things.
Sadly, most Americans seem to be more than willing to disregard the U.S. Constitution these days. Most of them are incredibly scared and they just want someone in a position of authority to assure them that they will be safe.
So I am sure that in the months ahead we will see “security” get even tighter in this country. With each subsequent tragedy, it will just get tighter and tighter until we can barely even breathe.
This is not the answer to any of our problems. In fact, it is just going to make many of the problems that we are facing as a nation far worse.
View full post on The Economic Collapse
The Non-Aggression Principle Can’t Be Salvaged—and Isn’t Even a Principle
Jason Kuznicki makes a game attempt to salvage the “Non-Aggression Principle” from Matt Zwolinski’s six-pronged assault, essentially arguing that the NAP is something like Euclidian geometry or high school physics—a simplified model that may be, strictly speaking, false in its pure form, but serves as a good enough rough rule for most circumstances. And this may seem promising if we think about other moral principles and rules about which something similar can be said. Parents typically teach their children that one ought always to tell the truth, but most will acknowledge that there are many exceptions—cases where some degree of deviation from the general rule is either permissible (to spare someone’s feelings or protect a confidence, if the subject is trivial) or even obligatory (the canonical “murderer at the door” asking where his prospective victim may be found). I doubt this will work for the NAP, however, for several reasons.
First, the viability of a principle has to be judged in the context of what role it is meant to be playing in your ethical thinking. If the NAP is understood as akin to “tell the truth”—one among many rules of thumb that establish rebuttable presumptions for guiding your daily conduct—then it is perfectly servicable. May I respond to an insulting remark by throwing a punch? I may not. But that is not really how libertarians usually want to use the NAP: Rather, it is meant to serve as a kind of master principle from which other more concrete rules may be derived, and against which competing forms of social order may be evaluated. And for that purpose it is not particularly useful. When we are not looking for rough guides to our day-to-day conduct, but engaged in the rather more leisurely activity of theory-building, there is less practical reason to rely on simplified models because “the math is easier,” and more to the point, we are most likely to be wrestling with precisely the kind of hard cases that arguably constitute exceptions to the rough rule, or deciding between variant forms of the very concepts on which the NAP relies.
If the NAP were truly a universal, exceptionless master principle—if the apparent counterexamples were either bullets we could bite or cases where the principle would yield the right answer after all once properly understood—then we could employ it directly even at the highest theoretical level. But if, as Jason seems to concede, we are allowing that the exceptions are really exceptions, then we are implicitly relying on some other higher-level principles—respect for autonomy or hedonic utility or Kantian universalization or contractualist agreement—to limn the boundaries. But at the theory building level, the appropriate thing to do is to refer directly to those deeper principles. To extend the initial metaphor, it is precisely when you are trying to do fundamental physics that you end up needing to step back from the approximate truths of classical mechanics. The NAP is no help deciding the questions you’re attempting to answer at this level, because as Zwolinski notes, it’s parasitic on theories of property and coercion that reside at this same level of abstraction. You can’t resolve a philosophical debate between a classical liberal and a socialist by appealing to the NAP, because each can claim their view is consistent with that principle given their theories of property: The state is not “aggressing” on an individual “property owner” if in fact The People ultimately own (or have some kind of share right in) all property, given the normatively loaded way “aggression” is used here. The appeal of the NAP lies in its apparent simplicity and intuitive plausibility (tautologies tend to be intuitively plausible), but it’s typically deployed in a way that amounts to a kind of shell game: I argue that socialism must be rejected on the grounds that it violates this one simple moral principle, and hope my interlocutor doesn’t notice that I’ve essentially begged the question by baking a theory of strong property rights incompatible with socialism into my conception of “aggression,” when of course libertarian property rights are ultimately backed by the threat of (individual or state) violence as well.
This gets us to the deeper problem with the Non-Aggression Principle: It is not really a principle at all, but a tautology gesturing in the direction of a theory. Suppose I tell you that I have, at long last, discovered the simple principle from which all morality derives. Assuming you suppress your initial skepticism about this bold claim, you are likely to be disappointed if I then reveal that my principle is something like “One ought not to commit wrong actions,” or “Never violate the rights of others.” The latter is not completely content free—it specifies that it is the moral claims of individuals that matter, rather than compliance with some natural or divine law unmoored from human consequences—but neither principle really gives us the concrete guidance we had expected, even at a highly abstract level: These are formaltruths given the meaning of the normative terms “right,” “wrong,” and “ought,” not substantive guides to which actions or social orders satisfy these conditions. This is slightly less obvious in the case of the NAP because the partly-descriptive term “aggression” seems to add a substantive component. Yet this amounts to little more than the recognition that we are creatures made of matter whose moral entitlements are ultimately guaranteed or made effective by the application or (more often) implicit background threat of physical force in the last resort. A “right” is a claim that you are justified in ultimately resorting to (direct or indirect) force to make effective; whether or not a particular act counts as “aggression” or “initiation” of force depends on whether the right enforced is a genuine one. But all the real action is in the definition of rights; invoking the NAP adds nothing. It is tantamount to saying “only enforce rights that are really rights.” To establish your right over (say) your car just is to establish that I ought not to take or use it without your permission (perhaps barring extraordinary circumstances, the parameters of which will tend to be implicit in the argument establishing the right). It is neither necessary nor illuminating to add the additional premises that taking what you have a right to counts as “aggression,” and that one ought not to aggress.
Now, it is surely true, as Jason suggests, that any simple principle is going to be highly incomplete and tied to a larger theoretical apparatus. The utilitarian principle of “the greatest good for the greatest number” does not tell us whether to maximize aggregate or average utility, or whether to concieve of utility in purely hedonic and subjective terms, as a measure of preference satisfaction, or something else. The Rawlsian Difference Principle, which stipulates that social inequalities are justified only to the extent they benefit the worst off group in society, does not in itself tell us how to understand “worst off”: For Rawls, it is determined by a laundry list of “primary goods,” but one could just as easily apply a variant difference principle that used hedonic utility instead. The Millian Harm Principle—individuals may be restrained only to prevent harms to others, not to themselves—notoriously runs into a thicket when we try to specify precisely what counts as a “harm.” It is no objection to a principle that it depends on theory. But it is an objection if the principle is being made to do load-bearing work—treated as a fundamental “axiom” rather than a presumptive rule derived from higher-order principles—that conceals those dependencies. The utilitarian principle—though “gappy” and therefore susceptible to a wide array of variant interpretations—really is “axiomatic” in some sense: The basic idea that one ought to weigh the interests of all equally—and then act in the way that (or follow the rule that) generates the greatest net of benefits minus burdens—really is fundamental in utilitarian theory. It is not quite that there is nothing further to say about why it might be plausible or not, but we are pretty close to the core intuition at the heart of any moral theory that one ultimately either shares or doesn’t. The Harms Principle and Difference Principle, by contrast, are transparently derivative rules, the upshot or result of a lengthy preceding argument in light of which they are to be interpreted, fleshed out, and applied to particular circumstances.
The NAP as deployed in much libertarian rhetoric tends to trade on an ambiguity between these two types: It often masquerades as the former, even though it only really has content if understood as the latter. We then often end up being misled into thinking we can defend a particular form of sociopolitical order just by appealing to the simple and intuitively plausible NAP, without noticing that the highly intuitive formal NAP only gets substantive content by choosing a specific cluster of contestable conceptions of “aggression,” “property,” “coercion,” “consent,” and so on. Yet the choice between these conceptions ultimately just is the choice between competing sociopolitical orders—so arguments of this form are circular.
None of this is to deny that the NAP may be a perfectly servicable way to sum up what libertarianism is all about to the fellow on the next stool at the bar who’s never heard of it. But if we are doing political philosophy, we are probably better off leaving it behind: It is a principle that does no independent work, but tends to muddy the waters by appearing to. If we are interested in building sound theories, rather than winning quick debates against inattentive opponents, we should hope to do more than that.
View full post on Libertarianism.org
Still Contemptuous of the Court, TSA Doesn’t Even Try to Justify its Strip-Search Machine Policy
Jim Harper
It took the Transportation Security Administration 20 months to comply with a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals order requiring it to issue a justification for its policy of using strip-search machines for primary screening at airports and to begin taking comments from the public.
In that time, it came up with a 53-page (double-spaced) notice of proposed rulemaking. That’s 2.65 double-spaced pages per month.
This may be the most carefully written rulemaking document in history. We’ll be discussing it next week at an event entitled: “Travel Surveillance, Traveler Intrusion.” Register now!
The TSA’s strip-search machine notice will be published in the Federal Register tomorrow, and the public will have 90 days to comment. The law requires the agency to consider those public comments before it finalizes its policies. If the comments reveal the TSA’s policies to be arbitrary or capricious, the policies can be struck down.
But what is there to comment on? The TSA’s brief document defends a hopelessly vague policy statement instead of the articulation that the court asked for. And as to the policy we all know it’s implementing, TSA hides behind the skirts of government secrecy.
When the court found that the TSA was supposed to take comment from the public, it wanted a clearer articulation of what rules apply at the airport. The court’s ruling itself devoted several paragraphs to the policy and how it affects American travelers.
[T]he TSA decided early in 2010 to use the scanners everywhere for primary screening. By the end of that year the TSA was operating 486 scanners at 78 airports; it plans to add 500 more scanners before the end of this year.
No passenger is ever required to submit to an AIT scan. Signs at the security checkpoint notify passengers they may opt instead for a patdown, which the TSA claims is the only effective alternative method of screening passengers. A passenger who does not want to pass through an AIT scanner may ask that the patdown be performed by an officer of the same sex and in private. Many passengers nonetheless remain unaware of this right, and some who have exercised the right have complained that the resulting patdown was unnecessarily aggressive.
The court wanted a rulemaking on this policy. In the jargon of administrative procedure, the court demanded a “legislative rule,” something that reasonably details the rights of the public and what travelers can expect when they go to the airport.
Instead, the TSA has produced a perfectly vague policy statement that conveys nothing about what law applies at the airport. In the regulations that cover screening and inspection, the TSA simply wants to add:
(d) The screening and inspection described in (a) may include the use of advanced imaging technology. For purposes of this section, advanced imaging technology is defined as screening technology used to detect concealed anomalies without requiring physical contact with the individual being screened.
Not a word about the use of strip-search machines as primary screening. Nothing about travelers’ options. Nothing about signage. Nothing about the procedures for opt-outs. Nothing about what a person can do if they have a complaint. It’s not a regulation. It’s a restatement of “we do what we want.”
That’s contemptuous of the court’s order requiring TSA to inform the public, take comments, and consider those comments in formulating a final rule. TSA is doing everything it can to make sure that the airport is a constitution-free zone, and this time it’s lifting a middle finger to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
It is possible, even in a relatively short document, to articulate how billions of dollars spent on exposing the bodies of millions of law-abiding Americans makes the country better off. What’s amazing about the document is how little it says. TSA doesn’t even try to justify its strip-search machine policy. Instead, it plays the govenment secrecy trump card.
Here is everything TSA says about how strip-search machines (or “AIT” for “advanced imaging technology”) make air travel safer:
[R]isk reduction analysis shows that the chance of a successful terrorist attack on aviation targets generally decreases as TSA deploys AIT. However, the results of TSA’s risk-reduction analysis are classified.
Balderdash.
Under Executive Order 135256, classification is permitted if “disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism.”
“If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information,” the order continues, “it shall not be classified.”
Assessing the costs and benefits of TSA’s policies cannot possibly result in damage to national security. The reason I know this? It’s already been done, publicly, by Mark G. Stewart of the University of Newcastle, Australia, and John Mueller of the Ohio State University. They published their findings in the Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management in 2011, and national security is none the worse.
Walking through how well policies and technologies produce security can be done without revealing any intelligence about threats, and it can be done without revealing vulnerabilities in the policy and technology. But the TSA is playing the secrecy trump card, hoping that a gullible and fearful public will simply accept their authority.
I anticipated that the agency might try this tactic when the original order to engage in a public rulemaking came down in mid-2011. In a Cato blog post, I wrote:
Watch in the rulemaking for the TSA to obfuscate, particularly in the area of threat, using claims to secrecy. “We can’t reveal what we know,” goes the argument. “You’ll have to accept our generalizations about the threat being ‘substantial,’ ‘ever-changing,’ and ‘growing.’” It’s an appeal to authority that works with much of the American public, but it is not one to which courts—a co-equal branch of the government—should so easily succumb.
If it sees it as necessary, the TSA should publish its methodology for assessing threats, then create a secret annex to the rulemaking record for court review containing the current state of threat under that methodology, and how the threat environment at the present time compares to threat over a relevant part of the recent past. A document that contains anecdotal evidence of threat is not a threat methodology. Only a way of thinking about threat that can be (and is) methodically applied over time is a methodology.
The TSA published nothing, and it hopes to get past the public and the courts with that.
Its inappropriate and undeniably overbroad use of secrecy will be in our comments to the agency and the legal appeal that will almost certainly follow.
Crucially, agency actions like this are subject to court review. When the TSA finalizes its rules, a court will “decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action.” Sooner or later, we’ll talk about whether TSA followed the court’s order, the lawfulness of wrapping its decision-making in secrecy, and the arbitrary nature of a policy that has no public justification.
View full post on Cato @ Liberty
The big banks are even bigger than most think.
I was 30 when I began to realize the absolute genius (evil and good) inherent in modern accounting. My whole life I had thought it was just simple inflows and outflows. Boy I had no idea of the level of creativity.
The world is driven by accounting. What’s an asset? What’s a liability? Questions with seemingly easy answers (and they are fundamentally,) but ones which when thrown into the alternate universe of high finance accounting are not.
That is why, as this article reports, the size of the big banks is actually much larger than they report. They are composed partially of “banking dark matter” which though unseen nonetheless increases the mass of the behemoths, bending and warping the economy around them.
(From The New York Times)
Under American accounting rules, banks that trade a lot of derivatives can keep literally trillions of dollars in assets and liabilities off their balance sheets. Since 2009, they have at least been required to make disclosures about how large those amounts are, but the disclosures leave out some things and — amazingly enough — in some cases do not seem to add up.
The post The big banks are even bigger than most think. appeared first on AgainstCronyCapitalism.org.
View full post on AgainstCronyCapitalism.org
Canadian • Canadian debt at record highs, even as net worth increases:
Canadian debt at record highs, even as net worth increases: report
The Canadian Press
Published Friday, Mar. 15 2013
Debt levels remained at record highs in Canada in the fourth quarter, even gaining slightly from all-time marks set in the third quarter of 2012.
A report from Statistics Canada said the household credit market debt to disposable income was still sitting at almost 165 per cent. Which means Canadians owe $1.65 for ever dollar of after tax income they earn.
However, the report notes overall leverage was largely unchanged in the quarter, with owner’s equity as a percentage of real estate remaining just under 69 per cent.
Household borrowing in consumer credit, loans and mortgages totalled $14.7 billion in the fourth quarter, led by $11 billion in mortgage borrowing.
By the end of the quarter, mortgage debt hit $1.1-trillion, consumer credit debt stood at $477-billion and the level of debt was up 5.5 per cent on an annual basis.
In addition, the national net worth increased to $6.9-trillion in the fourth quarter, up one per cent from the third quarter of 2012.
It says higher prices for many assets led the advance, while national saving accounted for 29 per cent of the increase in national net worth.
Household net worth rose 1.4 per cent in the fourth quarter, led by gains in the value of equity holdings and pension assets.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o … le9812639/
Statistics: Posted by yoda — Fri Mar 15, 2013 1:12 pm
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com