Visit Counter

Saturday, June 8, 2013

Cincinnati IRS employee: Washington 'throwing us under bus’




"Low level rouge agents in Cincinnati"
"It was the video" 
"You can keep your doctor"
"Workplace violence"
"I heard about it when you did"

 And this is just a smattering.

The common thread. They're all lies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- 




In interviews with House Oversight Committee investigators, Cincinnati IRS employees said that they believed that targeting of conservative groups came from Washington, not from a couple of "rogue agents. "

Sunday the House Oversight Committee released partial transcripts of Oversight Committee investigators' interviews with unnamed Cincinnati IRS employees, which contradicts the line coming from the White House.

"It's impossible," an IRS employee responded to an investigator's question about the allegations that the targeting of conservative groups was due to "two 'rogue agents." "As an agent we are controlled by many, many people. We have to submit many, many reports. So the chance of two agents being rogue and doing things like that could never happen."

Answering a question about the employee's reaction to news reports that the targeting was contained in Cincinnati and the fault of the Cincinnati office, the employee said that Washington has been throwing them under the bus.

"Well, it's hard to answer the question because in my mind I still hear people saying we were low‑level employees, so we were lower than dirt, according to people in D.C. So, take it for what it is," a Cincinnati IRS employee said. "They were basically throwing us underneath the bus."

The employee further noted that it was a supervisor who requested they do a search for tea party and similar applications in March of 2010.

"Did [your supervisor] give you any indication of the need for the search, any more context?" an investigator asked.

"He told me that Washington, D.C., wanted some cases," the employee responded, going on to answer that by April 2010 the group was handling fewer than 40 cases and had sent seven cases to Washington, D.C.

When asked for the reason behind the request that cases be sent to Washington, D.C. the employee responded, "He said Washington, D.C. wanted seven. Because at one point I believe I heard they were thinking 10, but it came down to seven. I said okay, seven."

The employee explained that the Cincinnati office sent the first seven cases that had come into the system.

The employee further noted that Washington, D.C. had additionally requested the applications or parts of the applications for two specific groups.

Investigator: "But just to be clear, she told you the specific names of these applicants."
IRS employee: "Yes." 

Investigator: "And she told you that Washington, D.C. had requested these two specific applications be sent to D.C." 

IRS employee: "Yes, or parts of them."

According to the partial transcript, the employee noted that this was an unusual request.
The employee added that the Cincinnati IRS employees were just following orders and that the employee believed those instructions came from Washington, D.C. 


Investigator: "So is it your perspective that ultimately the responsible parties for the decisions that were reported by the IG are not in the Cincinnati office?" 

IRS employee: "I don't know how to answer that question. I mean, from an agent standpoint, we didn't do anything wrong. We followed directions based on other people telling us what to do."

 Investigator: "And you ultimately followed directions from Washington; is that correct?" 

IRS employee: "If direction had come down from Washington, yes." 

Investigator: "But with respect to the particular scrutiny that was given to Tea Party applications, those directions emanated from Washington; is that right?" 

IRS employee: "I believe so."



Another interviewee, described by the Oversight Committee as a more senior IRS employee, complained about micromanagement from Washington, D.C. that ultimately led the employee to apply for another job in July 2010.


"It was the whole Tea Party. It was the whole picture. I mean, it was the micromanagement. The fact that the subject area was extremely sensitive and it was something that I didn't want to be associated with," the more senior IRS employee told an investigator who was asking about his decision to find another job.


The more senior employee added that what was going on was "inappropriate."


Investigator: "Why didn't you want to be associated with it?"

IRS employee: "For what happened now. I mean, rogue agent? Even though I was taking all my direction from EO Technical [Washington, D.C], I didn't want my name in the paper for being this rogue agent for a project I had no control over."

Investigator: "Did you think there was something inappropriate about what was happening in 2010?"

IRS employee: "Yes. The inappropriateness was not processing these applications fairly and timely."


Sunday, Committee Chairman Darrell Issa unveiled that committee's findings on CNN, promised that the full transcripts will come out, and called White House spokesman Jay Carney a "paid liar."





Share/Bookmark

Friday, June 7, 2013

Cavuto: We owe them a better America




Yesterday June 6th was the anniversary of the D-Day Invasion. The country we are left with today. Is this what they fought and died for?


Please read what Neil had to say. Believe me it will be worth your while.

---------------------------------------------------------------




Nearly 70 years after they saved the world this is what's become of the world?

Almost seven decades, to the day after D-Day, this is the country they rescued today?


Soldiers who put it all on the line to protect--

A government now tapping our lines?

And targeting our tax returns?

And spying on our reporters?

And harassing campaign donors, with whom they might not agree?

While snooping on pretty much everyone else, whether or not they agree?

They died for this?

Forgive my memory, but 69 years ago--

Weren't they busy trying to topple a guy who did stuff like this?

Who targeted whole groups of people like this?

That guy went further, but don't you think those guys would be telling us today:

"Stop right there, before you go any further!"

What are we saying to the 600 World War II veterans who pass away each day what's become of this country they so loved today?

It's not fair. It's not right. It's not American.

How ironic.

That nearly seven decades after freedom struck a death blow to despots, we are now fending off American agencies headed by crackpots.

Listening in on our calls. Reading our e-mails. Tracking our movements. Our friends. Our families. Our finances. Our interests. Our lives.

Ask all those soldiers who never made it past that Omaha Beach whether this ain't a bitch.

To die. For this.

A government that has grown so big, so intrusive, and so annoying that the best defense its culprits have, is that they had no idea.

69 years.

From guts. To gutless.

From guys who knew all too well the cost of freedom.

To guys who just keep hiking the costs under the guise of freedom.

Well, I have a very good idea what those guys back then would say, if they could see all this now.

My dad was one of them.

Gone now, and in a way, I'm almost glad now, so he wouldn't have to see this now.

A man who signed up to fight right after Pearl Harbor was bombed.

Not because he had to, because, he told me, he wanted to.

Because he wanted to protect something he and a whole generation of his buddies and family saw as something important.

And he didn't have anything. No money. No status. No power. No nothing.

Because back then, guys like my dad didn't weigh things by their price.

They fought for something they knew in their gut was just priceless.

Forget about whether we owe ourselves a better America, without all this nonsense.

We owe them a better America, once and for all, putting an end to this nonsense.




Share/Bookmark

Thursday, June 6, 2013

It's official Sarah Ingram breaks Shulman's record with 165 recorded White House visits







So between the both of them they visited the WH a whopping 322 times! Is anyone truly going to swallow, they never, not once, talked about targeting conservatives? 

This is beyond absurd-- its inconceivable!

---------------------------------------------------------------------




Separate from Shulman, IRS official Sarah Hall Ingram recorded 165 White House visits


Sarah Hall Ingram, the IRS official currently in charge of overseeing the agency's implementation of Obamacare, has logged 165 recorded visits to the White House 165 times since 2011, according to an analysis of White House visitor records compiled by the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity.

Ingram headed the IRS' tax-exempt division in 2010 when the scandal-ridden agency began improperly targeting the tax-exempt nonprofit status of conservative groups.

Despite logging 165 visits, Ingram's meetings never overlapped with those of former IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman, who, as The Daily Caller reported, has appeared in the White House visitor logs 157 times since September 15, 2009.

The Franklin Center's record of White House visits covers a period after Ingram had left the division at the center of the targeting scandal. The IRS has said she left to head the Affordable Care Act division in December 2010. It is not clear whether the Center's record is of actual visits or scheduled visits that may or may not have occurred.

Ingram visited with President Obama six times, according to White House visitor logs. All of Ingram's 165 recorded visits involved meetings with White House staff.

Ingram took many of her White House meetings with Jeanne Lambrew, deputy assistant to the president for health policy.

Considering that Ingram and Shulman never visited the White House together, the two IRS officials have been responsible for more than 300 public visits since the beginning of the Obama administration.

Ingram received more than $100,000 in bonuses between 2009 and 2012.




Share/Bookmark

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

The new standard














Share/Bookmark

This shoots a hole...






About a yard wide through the  "workplace violence"  con job Barry tried to pull off. 

The Hasan case is as close to workplace violence as Benghazi was to a video.


After Nidal Hasan Admitted Helping the Taliban, Can We Treat the Fort Hood Massacre as a Terrorist 
Attack?




Back in April, the Pentagon shot down an item in the DAB to award Purple Hearts to the victims of Nidal Hasan by asserting that, "The DoD position is the Purple Heart is awarded to Servicemembers who are killed or wounded and require treatment by a medical officer, in action against the enemy of the United States, as the result of the of any foreign hostile force, as the result of an international terrorist attack against the United States. To do so otherwise would irrevocably alter the fundamental character of this time-honored decoration."

And the response insisted that Hasan was a lone wolf unaffiliated with any terrorist group, even though Hasan had corresponded with Al Qaeda leader Anwar Al-Awlaki.

Hasan asked Anwar Al-Awlaki, if he considered Muslim soldiers who killed Americans like "Hasan Akbar or other soldiers that have committed such acts with the goal of helping Muslims/Islam (Lets just assume this for now) fighting Jihad and if they did die would you consider them shaheeds (martyrs)?"

Hasan's defense now makes it clear that this is how he considers his actions. Despite the best attempts to cover up his actions, he stated in open court that he had acted to aid the Taliban.

The judge read from his request for a continuance, seeking to confirm Hasan's defense: that he acted "because death or grievous harm was about to be inflicted on the members of the Taliban and Mullah [Mohammed] Omar specifically by the people against whom you used deadly force."

"That is correct," Hasan said.

There is no longer any dispute about Hasan's motives or affiliations. He was acting to aid the Taliban after corresponding with an Al Qaeda leader.

If that doesn't mean the definition of enemy of the United States and international terrorist attack, what does?

The Pentagon denial was made with the additional excuse that it "would undermine the prosecution of Major Nidal Hasan by materially and directly compromising Major Hasan's ability to receive a fair trial. This provision will be viewed as setting the stage for a formal declaration that Major Hasan is a terrorist, on what is now the eve of trial. Such a situation, prior to trial, would fundamentally compromise the fairness and due process of the pending trial.

"That is no longer an issue. Hasan has all but declared that he is a terrorist. The claim of workplace violence is no longer tenable. Hasan's defense is that he was acting in support of the Taliban. It is ridiculous to argue that awarding a Purple Heart to the survivors will undermine his defense more than his claim that he was acting to protect Mullah Omar.

There is no further basis for denying that Fort Hood was a terrorist attack. There is a better case for Nidal Hasan being charged as a terrorist than there is for many Muslims who have been charged as terrorists.

It's time to end the charade.




Share/Bookmark