Holder Refuses to Replace Obama Donor IRS Scandal Investigator. Inadvertent Transparency Reigns.

obamaholderAnd, you thought President Nixon was a crook…

Chron.com reports that…

A request by Sen. Ted Cruz to have a special prosecutor appointed to probe allegations the Internal Revenue Service has been targeting conservative groups was denied by the Department of Justice.

The IRS has been accused of targeting conservative groups and denying them tax-exempt status based on political views.

The Texas freshman Republican senator sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder on Jan 22 saying the investigation was currently being led by a “partisan Democrat” selected from “the most politically charged division of DOJ.”

Cruz asked that a special prosecutor “with meaningful independence” be appointed and pointed out the current lead investigator, Barbara Kay Bosserman, had contributed around $6,500 to President Obama’s two presidential campaigns.

The Department of Justice said the authority to create a special prosecutor has “rarely been exercised” and was “not warranted” in the IRS matter.

The letter went on to say “the Department remains committed to integrity and fairness in all of its law enforcement efforts without regard to politics,” rebutting Cruz’s accusations of bias.

Senator Cruz issued the following statement after the judge’s ruling:

It is the height of hypocrisy for the Obama Administration to claim that the investigator leading the investigation into the IRS’s illegal program has no conflict of interest. The investigator is a partisan Democrat who has donated over six thousand dollars to President Obama and Democrat causes. Just as nobody would trust John Mitchell to investigate Richard Nixon, nobody should trust a partisan Obama donor to investigate the IRS’s political targeting of President Obama’s enemies. Sadly, “in the discretion of the Attorney General,” Eric Holder has chosen to reject the bipartisan tradition of the Department of Justice of putting rule of law above political allegiance.

Both Nixon Administration Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Clinton Administration Attorney General Janet Reno appointed special prosecutors whose integrity was beyond reproach; Eric Holder should do likewise. To date, nine months after a damning Inspector General report, nobody has been indicted, many of the victims have not even been interviewed, and Lois Lerner has twice pleaded the Fifth. And yet the Attorney General refuses to allow a genuine–and impartial–investigation.

The integrity of the Department of Justice deserves better. The American people deserve better.

Back on January 12th, the Washington Times gave us the details, concerning the hand-picked “investigator”…

Barbara Kay Bosserman is a trial lawyer at Justice who likes nothing better than stuffing envelopes with a contribution to Obama for America or the Obama Victory Fund. She has done this on 13 occasions, and counting.

She sent an additional $650 to the Democratic National Committee. She’s to be in charge of the “impartial inquiry” into the IRS harassment of conservatives.

This outrages the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, as it should. The committee has been trying for months to get to the bottom of what happened, only to be obstructed by repeated stonewalling from the administration.

Rep. Darrell E. Issa, the committee chairman, and Rep. Jim Jordan, a subcommittee chairman, demand that Ms. Bosserman be removed from the case at once.

“It is unbelievable that the department would choose such an individual to examine the federal government’s systematic targeting and harassment of organizations oppose to the President’s policies,” the Republican members wrote.

Messrs. Issa and Jordan are engaging in only a mild bit of hyperbole. This turn of events is in fact entirely believable. This is the most partisan Department of Justice in a generation.

For months, the administration has dismissed the revelations of abuse as a “phony scandal.” Those who suffered IRS harassment feel otherwise, and they’re rightly furious with this attempt to rig the outcome.

The American Center for Law and Justice represents 41 targeted Tea Party and conservative organizations.

“Appointing an avowed political supporter of President Obama to head up the Justice Department probe,” says Jay Sekulow, the group’s chief counsel, “is not only disturbing, but puts politics right in the middle of what is supposed to be an independent investigation to determine who is responsible for the Obama administration’s unlawful targeting of conservative and Tea Party groups.”

The administration and its media acolytes want all eyes on Chris Christie’s traffic-cone scandal. Shutting down a lane on the George Washington Bridge to create gridlock to pay back a small-town Democratic mayor was dumb, foolish and petty, and Mr. Christie was rightly humiliated because it happened in his administration.

But it pales as scandal next to using the IRS, the most feared and abusive government agency, as the instrument of payback to conservative and religious groups for opposing Barack Obama.

The media acolytes that have been consumed by the traffic scandal should allot a few lines of type to a scandal of epic proportions.

Mr. Holder and his minions refuse to acknowledge anything wrong with the selection of Ms. Bosserman, delivering the standard-issue denial that they do not take into account the “political affiliation of career employees” when making personnel decisions.

Yeah, right. And,Mooch, Mudear, and the girls are in China on a “fact-finding mission”.

As Barack Hussein Obama was assuming office in January of 2009, his minions posted the following promise on whitehouse.gov:

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.

Now, the following addendum has been added to the bottom of the page:

We’re updating the White House privacy policy. The new policy will go into effect on April 18, 2014. See the existing privacy policy here.

The White House is committed to protecting individual privacy and securing the personal information made available to us when you visit WhiteHouse.gov, use our mobile app, or visit White House pages hosted by other sites (such as our official profiles on social networking sites). This Privacy Policy describes what information is made available to the White House and how that information is used and retained, and provides information on:

  • Information we receive (when you provide it, visit WhiteHouse.gov, use the WhiteHouse.gov mobile app, receive email updates, or interact with official White House presences on third-party sites)
  • How this information is used
  • Sharing of this information
  • Data retention
  • Third-party tools and sites
  • Children and privacy
  • Security

If you have questions about this policy or suggestions for its improvement, please let us know at WhiteHouse.gov/Privacy/Feedback.

Yep. This Administration is transparent, alright. But, not in the way they claim.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Welcome to the USSA: Now, About That “Right to Privacy”…

obamabigbro Your personal information is no longer personal.

Per Reuters.com:

The Obama administration is drawing up plans to give all U.S. spy agencies full access to a massive database that contains financial data on American citizens and others who bank in the country, according to a Treasury Department document seen by Reuters.

The proposed plan represents a major step by U.S. intelligence agencies to spot and track down terrorist networks and crime syndicates by bringing together financial databanks, criminal records and military intelligence. The plan, which legal experts say is permissible under U.S. law, is nonetheless likely to trigger intense criticism from privacy advocates.

Financial institutions that operate in the United States are required by law to file reports of “suspicious customer activity,” such as large money transfers or unusually structured bank accounts, to Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).

The Federal Bureau of Investigation already has full access to the database. However, intelligence agencies, such as the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency, currently have to make case-by-case requests for information to FinCEN.

The Treasury plan would give spy agencies the ability to analyze more raw financial data than they have ever had before, helping them look for patterns that could reveal attack plots or criminal schemes.

The planning document, dated March 4, shows that the proposal is still in its early stages of development, and it is not known when implementation might begin.

Financial institutions file more than 15 million “suspicious activity reports” every year, according to Treasury. Banks, for instance, are required to report all personal cash transactions exceeding $10,000, as well as suspected incidents of money laundering, loan fraud, computer hacking or counterfeiting.

“For these reports to be of value in detecting money laundering, they must be accessible to law enforcement, counter-terrorism agencies, financial regulators, and the intelligence community,” said the Treasury planning document.

A Treasury spokesperson said U.S. law permits FinCEN to share information with intelligence agencies to help detect and thwart threats to national security, provided they adhere to safeguards outlined in the Bank Secrecy Act. “Law enforcement and intelligence community members with access to this information are bound by these safeguards,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

Some privacy watchdogs expressed concern about the plan when Reuters outlined it to them.

A move like the FinCEN proposal “raises concerns as to whether people could find their information in a file as a potential terrorist suspect without having the appropriate predicate for that and find themselves potentially falsely accused,” said Sharon Bradford Franklin, senior counsel for the Rule of Law Program at the Constitution Project, a non-profit watchdog group.

Despite these concerns, legal experts emphasize that this sharing of data is permissible under U.S. law. Specifically, banks’ suspicious activity reporting requirements are dictated by a combination of the Bank Secrecy Act and the USA PATRIOT Act, which offer some privacy safeguards.

Speaking of records, are you aware that your medical records are in the process of being digitized?

JudicialWatch.org reports that

In a classic example of how government blows through your tax dollars, billions have been squandered on a faulty electronic medical records system that operates with no oversight and continues receiving big wads of cash from Uncle Sam.

It gets better; by the time it’s all said and done—in about four more years according to government estimates—American taxpayers will have been fleeced $6.6 billion! It’s all part of the Obama Administration’s hostile takeover of the nation’s healthcare system. The idea behind this plan is to switch medical records from paper to digital to create a centralized system that supposedly improves the quality of health care.

The overhaul won’t come cheap and the government is offering hospitals and doctors billions to switch to electronic medical records. The money has come largely from President Obama’s fraud-infested $787 billion stimulus which was supposed to jump start the economy and put Americans back to work. Instead the economy is a disaster as the nation suffers through a staggering $16 trillion (and growing) deficit and unemployment is at record highs.

This has not affected the cash flow to government programs, however. In this case the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is the agency that cuts the checks to healthcare providers that agree to switch to electronic records. So far CMS has doled out $3.6 billion to 74,317 medical providers, but the agency doesn’t bother following up to assure the money is appropriately spent. In fact, CMS fails to verify if providers are meeting the required quality goals, according to a federal audit released this week.

Investigators from the Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General warn in their report that the electronic records program is vulnerable to abuse. Furthermore, they say immediate efforts should be made to strengthen oversight and prevent tax dollars from being wasted. This is not an unreasonable request considering doctors receive up to $44,000 and hospitals a minimum of $ 2 million to switch from paper to digital records.

Here is the scary response, included in the HHS watchdog report, from the head of the CMS (Marilyn Tavenner) on the idea of requiring healthcare providers to prove they’re meeting quality requirements before they get U.S. tax dollars. It would be burdensome, Tavenner said, and it would “significantly delay payments.” Spoken like at true government bureaucrat!

Michelle Malkin adds:

Oversight is lax. Cronyism is rife. The job-killing and privacy-undermining consequences have only just begun.

The program was originally sold as a cost-saving measure. In theory, modernizing record-collection is a good idea, and many private health care providers have already made the change. But as with many government “incentive” programs, the EMR bribe is a tax-subsidized, one-size-fits-all mandate. This one pressures health care professionals and hospitals across the country into radically federalizing their patient data and opening up medical information to untold abuse. Penalties kick in for any provider that hasn’t switched over by 2014.

So, what’s it to you? Well, $4 billion has already gone out to 82,535 professionals and 1,474 hospitals, and a total of $6 billion will be doled out by 2016. But the feds’ reckless profligacy, neglect and favoritism have done more harm than good.

Don’t take my word for it. A recent report released by the Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General acknowledged that the incentive system is “vulnerable to paying incentives to professionals and hospitals that do not fully meet” the program’s quality assurance requirements. The federal health bureaucracy “has not implemented strong prepayment safeguards, and its ability to safeguard incentive payments postpayment is also limited,” the IG concluded.

Translation: No one is actually verifying whether the transition from paper to electronic is improving patient outcomes and health services. No one is actually guarding against GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). No one is checking whether recipients of the EMR incentives are receiving money redundantly (e.g., raking in payments when they’ve already converted to electronic records). No one is actually protecting private data from fraud, abuse or exploitation.

Little is being done to recoup ill-gotten payments. In any case, such “pay and chase” policing after the fact is a crummy way to run government in lean times — or in fat times, for that matter.

Allow me to summarize all of this for you. The bottom line is this: The Obama Administration is gathering information about us (The Proletariat) in a manner eerily reminiscent of the old Russian Politboro.

Americans are not going to be able to buy a Big Gulp or have a hangnail removed without the Federal Government knowing about it.

Ted Cruz, Republican Senator from Texas, hit the nail on the head, when he said,

I think President Obama is the most radical president this nation’s ever seen. And in particular, I think he is a true believer in government control of the economy and of our everyday lives. In my judgment, we are facing what I consider to be the epic battle of our generation, quite literally the battle over whether we remain a free market nation.

Hang tough, Americans.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Unmanned Drones: Big Brother’s Eyes in the Sky

obamabigbroDo you remember the end of the third “Terminator” movie? John Connor was watching helplessly from a mountain bunker as a fully autonomous software system launched nuclear missles and devastated the planet.

Far-fetched, you say? Au contraire.

The Washington Post reports that

The United Nations, looking to modernize its peacekeeping operations, is planning for the first time to deploy a fleet of its own surveillance drones in missions in Central and West Africa.

The U.N. Department of Peacekeeping has notified Congo, Rwanda and Uganda that it intends to deploy a unit of at least three unarmed surveillance drones in the eastern region of Congo.

The action is the first step in a broader bid to integrate unmanned aerial surveillance systems, which have become a standard feature of Western military operations, into the United Nations’ far-flung peacekeeping empire.

But the effort is encountering resistance from governments, particularly those from the developing world, that fear the drones will open up a new intelligence-gathering front dominated by Western powers and potentially supplant the legions of African and Asian peacekeepers who now act as the United Nations’ eyes and ears on the ground.

“Africa must not become a laboratory for intelligence devices from overseas,” said Olivier Nduhungirehe, a Rwandan diplomat at the United Nations. “We don’t know whether these drones are going to be used to gather intelligence from Kigali, Kampala, Bujumbura or the entire region.”

Developing countries fear Western control over intelligence gathered by the drones. Some of those concerns are rooted in the 1990s, when the United States and other major powers infiltrated the U.N. weapons inspection agency to surreptitiously collect intelligence on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s military.

The growing American use of drones in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere to identify and kill suspected terrorists has only heightened anxieties about their deployment as part of multilateral peacekeeping missions.

U.N. officials have sought to allay the suspicions, saying there is no intention to arm the drones or to spy on countries that have not consented to their use.

The U.N. drones would have a range of about 150 miles and can hover for up to 12 hours at a time. They would be equipped with infrared technology that can detect troops hidden beneath forest canopy or operating at night, allowing them to track movements of armed militias, assist patrols heading into hostile territory and document atrocities.

“These are really just flying cameras,” said one U.N. official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic. “Our best method of protection is early warning. We recently had a patrol ambushed in Darfur. If you had a drone ahead of the patrol, it could have seen the ambush party.”

“If you know armed groups are moving in attack or battle formation early enough, you can warn civilians,” the official added.

The United Nations, which manages a force of more than 100,000 blue helmets in 15 peacekeeping missions, views drones as a low-cost alternative to expensive helicopters for surveillance operations.

Wait a cotton-pickin’ minute. Did that report say that unmanned drones were in use in OUR country, the good ol’ U.S.A.?

You betcha, Red Ryder.

As foxnews.com reported on May 14th, 2012

Unmanned drones could soon be buzzing in the skies above many U.S. cities, as the federal government green-lights the technology for local law enforcement amid widespread privacy concerns.

The Federal Aviation Administration on Monday began to explain the rules of the sky for these newly licensed drones at potentially dozens of sites across the country. The agency, on its website, said that government “entities” will have to obtain a special certificate in order to fly the aircraft, adding that the FAA is “streamlining the process for public agencies to safely fly (drones) in the nation’s airspace.”

In doing so, the government is taking a tool that has become synonymous with U.S. counterterror warfare in countries like Pakistan and Yemen — and putting it in the hands of U.S. law enforcement.

Unlike some of the drones used overseas, these will not be equipped with missiles. They are to be used purely for surveillance. But that alone has raised serious privacy concerns on Capitol Hill and beyond.

“Our Founding Fathers had no idea that there would be remote-control drones with television monitors that can feed back live data instantaneously — but if they had, they would have made darn sure … that these things were subject to the Fourth Amendment (protecting individual privacy),” Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, told Fox News.

Drones have already been employed domestically. In what was described as the first case where an unmanned drone was used to arrest an American citizen on U.S. soil, a North Dakota SWAT team reportedly borrowed a Department of Homeland Security drone to monitor Rodney Brossart — who was involved in a 16-hour standoff at his North Dakota farm over six cattle that had wandered onto his property and which he claimed as his own. The SWAT team apparently used the drone to make sure it was safe to arrest him, though his lawyer has since claimed Brossart was subjected to guerrilla-like police tactics and had his constitutional rights violated.

Advocates, though, say the drones are a force-multiplier for local cops.

“They’re not going to be used for constant surveillance — typically they can stay in the air for about 30 minutes, so they’re only going to be used for specific missions,” said Gretchen West, executive vice president of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International.

She said the drones would help law enforcement have “more eyes in the sky to help … assist them when they’re going into potentially volatile situations.”

Lawmakers like Barton say there are “legitimate uses” for drones on U.S. soil, but that strict privacy standards will be needed.

“It would be okay for a drone to be used in order to make sure that all the cattle on a ranch are identified on an ongoing basis. It’s okay … to survey a forest to make sure there are no forest fires. But it would not be okay if that individual who purchased the drone then decided ‘I think I’ll go and check and see what’s going on over in my neighbor’s backyard’,” Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said. “That would be wrong and that has to be protected against.”

And, if the thought of spies in the sky is not enough to scare you, how’s this story reported by the BBC grab ya?

A laser weapons system that can shoot down two drones at a distance of over a mile has been demonstrated by Rheinmetall Defence.

The German defence firm used the high-energy laser equipment to shoot fast-moving drones at a distance.

The system, which uses two laser weapons, was also used to cut through a steel girder a kilometre away.

The company plans to make the laser weapons system mobile and to integrate automatic cannon.

The 50kW laser weapons system used radar and optical systems to detect and track two incoming drones, the company said. The nose-diving drones were flying at 50 metres per second, and were shot down when they reached a programmed fire sector.

If these lasers can shoot down unmanned drones, what, or who else can they be aimed at?

Waging war by pushing buttons. How…sanitary.

Unmanned Drones watching our every move. Will “Skynet become self aware”?

Until He Comes, 

KJ