Tag Archives: Trey Gowdy

Only Obama Staffers Believe IRS ‘Lost’ Email

IRS-emails4-copyIf you’ve been skeptical about the IRS’ explanation that Lois Lerner’s email disappeared during a World of Warcraft online game that got out of control, I have good news. Particularly since you’ve also probably been a little reluctant to express that thought. No one wants to be called a racist in the latte line at Starbucks while you–know–who is in the White House.

But you are not alone. Barbara Boland of CNS News reports that an overwhelming 76 percent of the American public does not believe the email was “lost” and rumors have it Jay Carney’s support is slipping, too. This means IRS deniers aren’t bigots after all! Since only 63 percent of the total US population is white, that means 13 percent of the minority population is included among the hard drive crash skeptics. Even the trends are looking bad for Barack ‘What? Me Worry?’ Obama. In April only 7 percent of the public believed that Congress should continue investigating “until someone is held accountable.” Now that figure is at 74 percent.

Disbelief was so pervasive among poll respondents that only people who swallowed the IRS story were over 65–years–old and still using a rotary phone.

Even 63 percent of Democrats believe the potentially incriminating messages were “deliberately destroyed,” but of course they have not received any contributions from IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. Boland — who has been all over this part of the story, too — found that Koskinen gave a $5,000.00 donation to re–elect Obama in 2012 and a total of $19,000 to the Democratic National Committee from 1988 to 2008. He’s also contributed to every Democratic presidential nominee since 1980. And he even gave $3,800.00 to Hillary ‘What difference does it make’ Clinton.

I won’t bore you with pointing out that a Republican in similar circumstances would be asked to recuse himself from anything concerned with the investigation. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D–MD) was so honored by the IRS commissioner’s appearance before the House committee investigating the IRS scandal that he almost pre–paid his taxes right there. Sounding like the master of ceremonies at a Kim Jong–un birthday party, Cummings gushed, “I want to thank you for being who you are. I want to thank you for giving a damn and caring about our country.”

What Koskinen is, is an arrogant, long–time laborer in the Democrat vineyard who is offended that Republicans won’t take his word for it that email on Lois Lerner and six of her henchmen’s computers suddenly came down with a bad case of digital flu that wiped out the messages. The fact that this is exactly what your ex–wife says about your email requesting a week’s grace period on the child support check is just a coincidence. It’s simply chance that time period involved in the elusive email is the exact same time period the House has subpoenaed.

Just because grandma has her data backed up on the cloud — she calls it “heaven” just for laughs — doesn’t mean a giant organization like the IRS with an annual budget of $11.2 billion has to follow even an elementary data preservation protocol.

Although the Senate appears content to sleep through this data disaster, there could be repercussions among the public. Losing information certainly does nothing to create confidence in the IRS E–File program that uses the Internet to file tax returns and make payments.

What if tax collections fall a bit short and the commissioner decides to double dip and tell you there is no record of your payment? It makes me suspicious that maybe the reason for IRS audits is not because the bureau thinks you are cheating on your taxes, it’s because they lost your tax information and are hoping you kept the records. Any revenue the auditor can gouge out during the process is a bonus.

Of course if the situation were reversed, what are the chances the IRS would accept an explanation like this from a taxpayer? You know the answer is less than zero. Lack of data would be just the same as pleading guilty, with fines and imprisonment to follow.

For that matter Koskinen’s excuse is even worse than the “I only had two beers, officer” that the drunk always gives during a DUI stop right before he participates in a field sobriety test.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R–SC) is a former prosecutor and he has had it with Koskinen’s arrogance. Last Monday he lit into the commissioner’s glib assurances that the IRS was a paragon of probity.

“You have already said multiple times today that there was no evidence that you found of any criminal wrongdoing,” Gowdy remarked. “I want you to tell me what criminal statutes you’ve evaluated.”

“I have not looked at any,” Koskinen replied.

“Well then how can you possibly tell our fellow citizens that there’s not criminal wrongdoing if you don’t even know what statutes to look at?” Gowdy shot back.

No doubt Koskinen is surprised at Gowdy’s lack of confidence in his assurances. The mainstream media treats him like the Oracle at Delphi, but this backwoods hick with the aggressive hair is attacking him in public!

Meanwhile back at the White House, it’s interesting how Obama continues to deploy the Will Roger’s Defense — All I know is what I read in the newspapers — with a straight face every time his administration demonstrates its incompetence. Why didn’t George Bush think of that during Katrina, the US Attorney firings or Iraq?

Still, I do wonder what Obama does during his daily briefings. Surely he must get tired of playing computer solitaire occasionally and look up to ask a question. During the 30 months and counting remaining of his second term, I hope no low level minion ever forgets to pay the New York Times subscription.

Otherwise Obama will have to rely on his golfing buddies to keep him abreast of current events.

Sebelius Gets Education on the Constitution but Left Might Get a Weapon

The First Amendment is bandied about more often than just about any of the others, and it got a full work-out thanks to Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) during his grilling of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. It definitely is worth viewing, even if you’ve seen it before:

While that was undoubtedly painful for Sebelius, in theory, it may have opened a whole new can of worms. By taking it from the purely legal standpoint, Gowdy may have inadvertently opened an opportunity for the left on other issues, including abortion. Yes, there are religions out there that do not have strict restrictions against abortion, Judaism included. In theory, the left could use the same balancing act Gowdy used to justify preventing legislation against abortion, at least in the circumstances permitted by given religions.

Now, before anyone starts frothing at the mouth, that is an unlikely result of this little moment, if for no other reason, the left-wing would have to find people that observe those faiths to come forward and file lawsuits. That’s unlikely, of course.

But, the hearing did cause me to think yet again about the economic end of this perennial debate. Yet again, I am wondering about the feasibility of the I.R.S. adding a checkbox to tax forms that could settle it once and for all. If taxpayers could just tell the government whether or not they were willing to have their tax dollars be applied to public funds for contraception and/or abortion, then the crusade to end all abortions should be considered a purely religious movement. Arguably, it would be rendered moot, at least on the Federal level.

If no one is paying for something that they disagree with based on religious belief, then the government is not preventing anyone from observing their faith. Remember, the rights granted by the Bill of Rights end where the rights of another individual begin. That’s why those of us from the generally Libertarian neck of the woods don’t tend to join in social conservative crusades. It’s none of our business. It shouldn’t be the business of government. Gowdy had it right when he pointed out that Sebelius was wrong when she pushed the mandate for coverage of contraceptives. While what I’ve said here might annoy some social conservatives, keep in mind that I’m suggesting that we take Gowdy’s principle a step farther, and include individuals, not just religious institutions. If you personally do not believe it is moral to have contraceptives, your hard-earned money should not pay for it, ever. If you personally do not believe that abortion is acceptable for anyone, the same applies. But, that should be the extent of your rights. You do not have the right to force those that disagree with your belief system to comply with it. Fairly simple, so it’s highly unlikely it would work in this country. After all, we love having a government that could mess up a one man parade.

Crossposted at Goldwater Gal