The Lois Lerner Defense

File it the next time the IRS calls you up…

Lois Lerner

By Mark Steyn

We have the president of the United States’ word as a gentleman that he knew nothing about the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of his enemies until he “learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this.”

Furthermore, although the commissioner of the IRS, Douglas Shulman, visited Obama’s White House no fewer than 157 times, which is 156 times more than his predecessor Mark Everson ever visited the White House, we know that this was for legitimate Easter-egg rolls, as he testified to Congress, and meetings to discuss Obamacare. The Easter Bunny, one should note, visits the White House two to four times as often as the average IRS commissioner did before Mr. Shulman came along. But you can’t make a health-care omelet without breaking Easter eggs: It is one of the many distinctive features of Obama-style “health” “care” “reform” that, while it has not led to the hiring of a single additional doctor, nurse, or hospital janitor, it did require the biggest expansion of the IRS since the Second World War. So, when he wasn’t rolling Easter eggs and advising the moppets on whether they needed to declare the luxury Belgian white chocolate balls with praline filling, he was participating in vital meetings on how many extra SWAT teams he was going to need to enforce the new colonoscopy non-compliance penalty.

Let us also overlook the excellent treatment received from the IRS by members of the president’s family. Although acting commissioner Steven Miller apologized for the “horrible customer service” conservative taxpayers had gotten, a gentleman by the name of Malik Obama received impeccable, express service when he took the precaution of mailing in his non-profit application from N’giya, Kenya, rather than notoriously slower mail processing centers such as Phoenix and Dallas. Malik, the brother of President Obama, runs the Barack H. Obama Foundation, named for the president’s father. On May 30, 2011, they applied for tax-exempt status, and had their approval signed less than a month later by Lois Lerner herself, and conveniently backdated by Lois to cover the two-and-a-half years the enterprising Malik had already been raking in “tax-deductible” donations from Americans. The Washington address of the Barack H. Obama Foundation appears to be bogus, and it’s not clear whether the funds are being used back in Kenya for anything other than supporting the famously lavish lifestyle of Malik and his twelve wives. Given that the IRS is not shy about asking American conservatives for Facebook posts and lists of who attends their meetings, Ms. Lerner surely would have been within her rights to ask Malik Obama about the “exclusive” photographs currently displayed on the Barack H. Obama Foundation website of a recent meeting in Sudan, one of only four countries the U.S. government designates as a “terrorist state,” and the Foundation’s apparently extensive association with the Sudanese president and blood-soaked genocidal war criminal Omar al-Bashir. Given that the IRS likes to ask conservative taxpayers whether their friends and relatives are planning on running for office, Ms. Lerner might like to ask Malik Obama when his friend President Bashir is planning on leaving office. After another quarter million corpses?

Whatever. Let’s take it as read that, when U.S. taxpayers wind up giving tax breaks to an entity linked to the butchers of Darfur, it’s pure coincidence that the racket turns out to be run by the president’s brother. Let’s accept that Malik Obama just got lucky that his letter landed on the desk of Lois Lerner, and that, when she backdated his application for two-and-a-half years, she’d momentarily forgotten that it’s illegal for her to backdate it more than two-and-a-quarter years. Indeed, let’s take the president at his word that the existence of this shadowy IRS entity working deep within the even shadowier U.S. Treasury planted in deep cover within the shadowiest conspiracy of them all, this murky hitherto unknown organization called “the Executive Branch,” that all this was news to him. What that means then is not that this or that elected politician is corrupt but that the government of the United States is corrupt.

There seems to be ever more evidence for that. Every day brings revelations that the IRS conservative crackdown went way beyond the Tea Party. McClatchy Newspapers reports that a woman known only as “Ms. Richards” in the Cincinnati office of the IRS told Coalition for Life of Iowa that their application for nonprofit status could only be approved if they signed a letter promising not to picket in front of Planned Parenthood. Mark Drabik, a military veteran, became politically active and started giving to conservative groups only to have the IRS challenge his church donations. Catherine Engelbrecht founded True the Vote to protect ballot integrity, and within a few months her family’s business, farm, and personal taxes had all attracted IRS audits. Hundreds and hundreds of groups were consigned to the purgatory of “pending” — a term for IRS customers not as favored as Malik Obama can stretch leisurely from six months to ten to twenty to thirty, and beyond. When the most lavishly funded government on the planet comes after you, eventual guilt or innocence is irrelevant: The process is the punishment.

I am an immigrant to this great land, and I love it, but I will make a small observation from my years in the United States which I hope won’t be taken the wrong way: Like citizens of almost all Western democracies in the 21st century, Americans are overly deferential to bureaucracy, but, in my observation, they are uniquely fearful of the state’s tax collectors to a degree I have never seen with Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs in London or equivalent agencies in Paris, Ottawa, Rome, Canberra. The IRS has, in American terms, extraordinary powers. It was, for example, amusing to see Lois Lerner plead the Fifth Amendment and exercise her constitutional right not to put herself at risk of self-incrimination. As the great Walter Williams pointed out the other day, every single American waives his Fifth Amendment rights every time he signs that tax return on April 15. Americans are fearless if some guy pulls some stunt in a shopping mall, but an IRS assault is brutal and unending. Many activists faded away, and the media began writing stories about how the Tea Party had peaked; they were over; they wouldn’t be a factor in 2012. And so it proved. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out the other day, the plan worked.

But, of course, there was no plan, was there? So let’s take Obama at his word that he had no idea all this was going on. In that case, he might like to take the lead in calling for the abolition of a corrupt agency and its grotesque tax code, and their replacement by a bureaucracy with more limited powers commensurate with a free society and a simplified tax regime with lower rates and thus fewer bewildering, mercurial “exemptions” that make the citizenry dependent on the caprices of Ms. Lerner and her colleagues. That’s a prize worth fighting for. In the meantime, the next time the IRS call you up with demands for this and demands for that, simply tell them, “I am filing the Lois Lerner defense,” and then say as she did to Congress “I have not done anything wrong. And I will not answer any questions.” Every man his own Lois Lerner!

— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is the author of After America: Get Ready for Armageddon. © 2013 Mark Steyn

IRS in Defense Over Dance Video:

(CNN) – A newly obtained video has the IRS running damage control on a new front, as the embattled agency prepares for the release next week of an inspector general report that will be critical of how money was spent on staff conferences.

In the video, an apparent team-building exercise, employees are taught the Cupid Shuffle dance move as they prepare to present the dance as a group at a 2010 conference.

The IRS said Friday night the video “was unacceptable and an inappropriate use of government funds.”

The video’s narrator describes the group of individuals as executives from the Small Business/Self Employed (SBSE) department. They say they’re competing “to become the next great dance sensation.”

The IRS said the video cost $1,600 to produce, and it played at the end of a 2010 leadership and education meeting in Anaheim for 2,600 managers in the SBSE division.

“The meeting took place at a time where the IRS needed to ensure that managers had proper training to address significant new programs, major staff turnover and a substantial increase in security threats following the suicide attack on an IRS facility in Austin earlier in the year,” the IRS said in a statement.

Throughout the nearly-three minute video, the employees poke fun at each other as they try to learn the dance moves.

The new video comes as the IRS takes heat over its admitted targeting of conservative groups who sought tax exempt status.

Next week, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) will release an audit showing excess spending at the IRS conference.

The IRS has already come under scrutiny for Star Trek and Gilligan’s Island-themed training videos it produced that costs tens of thousands of dollars. The Star Trek video, reported earlier this year, played at the same conference as the dance video.

“And I thought doing the Star Trek video was humiliating,” one woman says in the new video.

In fact, one of the employees in the Star Trek video was also in the new dancing spot.

Acting Commissioner Danny Werfel, appointed in recent weeks, said in a statement that the report will focus on an IRS conference that took place in 2010 and labeled it an “unfortunate vestige from a prior era.”

Really????

Keep reading…

Obama Is In Charge; This Is on Him - David Limbaugh

Time to Kill the IRS Says Mark Levin

Incredible: The Official in Charge of the IRS Office Responsible for Targeting Conservative Groups Now Heads the Agency’s Obamacare Office

Obama Fires IRS Commissioner as Scandal Grows

Chief IRS council William Wilkins helped Rev. Wright’s church get out of probe

Why the IRS Scandal Should Lead to Obama’s Impeachment

Incompetent-gate, Corruption-gate and Progressive-gate – Part 1

IRS apologizes for targeting tea party groups

Technorati Tags: Lois Lerner,IRS,scandal,Obamaland,Mark Steyn,National Review,IRS-gate,smoke and mirrors,cover-up,cover-ups,lies,corruption,demand the truth,Internal Revenue Service

If You Give Up Your Rights….

Photo by: amgrassroots American Grassroots

"If you give up your rights now, don't expect to get them back" -@SenRandPaul #StandWithRand #Filibuster pic.twitter.com/rs82KdZc6s

Rand Paul, With a Little Help From Some Patriotic Friends, Conducts Old Fashioned Filibuster Over Brennan Nomination… Focused on Drone Issue, That Every American Should See and Hear!

Victory:  Eric Holder Sent Letter To Rand Paul On Obama’s Authority To Target U.S. Citizens With Drones: ‘The Answer Is No’

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced during Thursday’s briefing that Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) this morning regarding the administration’s policy on drone strikes targeting Americans on U.S. soil. Holder’s letter stated definitively that the U.S. would not use “weaponized” drones to targets American citizens on domestic soil. Read Full Article HERE

Technorati Tags: Rand Paul,Ted Cruz,Marco Rubio,John Brennan,Eric Holder,DOJ,Obamaland,victory,tea party,changing of the guard,John McCain,Senate,filibusters,Rand Paul filibuster,saving America,drone,5th Amendment,Fifth Amendment,Constitution,Bill of Rights,New Guard,GOP

Senior creditors: Chrysler deal violates 5th Amendment

If the Obama administration expected the senior creditors of Chrysler to fold their tents under political pressure, they may have gotten a rude shock today.  Thomas Lauria, who accused the White House of threatening the creditors withn humiliation at the hands of the White House press corps, has filed a motion to halt the administration’s machinations on behalf of the UAW in the Chrysler bankruptcy.  Lauria and his allies claim that the Obama administration has violated the Constitution in their bid to devalue the senior creditors’ holdings on behalf of junior creditors, and have some precedent to support the allegation.

The heart of the argument starts on page 8 (via HA commenter Outlander):

III. The Taking of Collateral through a Direct or Indirect Use of TARP Authority is Unconstitutional.

13. The Treasury Department relies on TARP as the purported authority to justify the disparate treatment under the 363 Sale, even though TARP was enacted after the Senior Lenders’ liens on the Debtors’ property were already in place. The Supreme Court long ago recognized, however, that a secured creditor’s interest in specific property is protected in bankruptcy under the Fifth Amendment. Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U.S. 555, 594 (1935). That case involved a Depression-era statute that was intended to help bankrupt farmers avoid losing their land in mortgage foreclosure. The statute in Radford provided that the bankrupt debtor could achieve a release of the security interests either (i) with the lender’s consent, purchasing the property at its then appraised value by making deferred payments for two to six years at statutorily-set interest rates; or (ii) by seeking from the bankruptcy court a stay of the proceedings for up to five years during which time the debtor could use the property by paying a rent set by the court, which payments would be for the benefit of all creditors, with a purchase option at the end of that period. Id. at 856-57.

14. Justice Brandeis noted that the “essence of a mortgage” is the right of the secured party “to insist upon full payment before giving up his security [i.e., the property pledged].” Radford, 295 U.S. at 580. In invalidating the statute, the Court stated that “[t]he bankruptcy power . . . is subject to the Fifth Amendment,” and that the pernicious aspect of this law was its “taking of substantive rights in specific property acquired by the bank prior to the act.” Id. at 589-90 (emphasis added). Thus, Congress could not pass a law that could be used to deny to secured creditors their rights to realize upon the specific property pledged to them or “the right to control meanwhile the property during the period of default.” Id. at 594. That is precisely what the Treasury Department would have Chrysler do here, with respect to the Chrysler Non-TARP Lenders’ property rights that were acquired prior to the enactment of TARP.

15. Relying on purported authority provided by TARP, the Treasury Department is demanding that Chrysler’s assets be stripped away from the coverage of the Senior Lenders’ liens – thereby impairing the rights of the Senior Lenders to realize upon those assets – so that those assets may be put in New Chrysler and used to the benefit of unsecured creditors in this proceeding, who will then be paid much more than the Senior Lenders. But, even assuming that TARP provides the Treasury Department with authority to provide funding to the Debtors and impose the transfer of collateral away from the Senior Lenders, TARP was enacted long after the Senior Lenders contracted with the Debtors and received senior liens on the Debtors’ property. Radford specifically disallowed the use of a law to retroactively alter existing liens on property.

16. Here, the proposed sale of the Debtors’ assets will leave the Senior Lenders with a diluted pool of assets and no further interests in the operating assets covered by their specific liens. The Constitution forbids this application of a law retroactively to undercut the Senior Lenders’ pre-existing property rights in favor or inferior creditors.

17. Finally, that the Treasury Department would take these unconstitutional actions to help the United States address difficult economic times is not an answer. Indeed, the same justification was expressly rejected in Radford, where Justice Brandeis noted that a statute which violated secured creditors’ rights, but which was passed for sound public purposes relating to the Great Depression, could not be saved because “the Fifth Amendment commands that, however great the nation’s need, private property shall not be thus taken even for a wholly public use without just compensation.” Id. at 602.

18. What is really striking here is that what is being proposed by the Sale Motion would strip the Collateral away and allow it to be put to use as new capital in New Chrysler for the benefit of existing and other creditors – even though the Chrysler Non-TARP Lenders have been given no opportunity to realize upon that Collateral to the point of full repayment ahead of at least $14 billion of selectively identified unsecured creditors.

One might think that a Constitutional scholar like Barack Obama would have already known that, but either this precedent escaped him or he doesn’t care about it at all.  Brandeis acted to uphold contract law, especially in the face of a government interest in paying off politically-connected unsecured creditors ahead of the senior creditors.  There is no other reason for Brandeis to make that decision, as only government could insert itself into the contractual relationship during a bankruptcy proceeding — just as Obama has done with Chrysler.

Lauria’s argument seems very compelling here, especially given Brandeis’ rather clear assertion that bankruptcy proceedings have to fall within the 5th Amendment — and that government can’t implement a taking to satisfy its own arbitrary aims by ignoring the relationship of the creditors to the default.  We’ll see whether the court rebukes Obama.

POSTED AT 1:36 PM ON MAY 4, 2009 BY ED MORRISSEY