So Much For Searching For The Truth In Congressional Hearings. For Democrats, It's All About Protecting The Administration.

Congressman Tried to Shut Down a Tea Party Leader at Thursday’s Hearing — That’s When a GOP Rep. Showed He Wasn’t Having Any of It

Feb. 6, 2014 3:34pm Becket Adams

13.7K

SHARES

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) dismissed a Tea Party leader’s concerns over supposedly being targeted by the Internal Revenue Service, prompting Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) to swoop in with a revealing set of questions.

Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of King Street Patriots, testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 6, 2014 (AP)

The incident occurred Thursday during a hearing of the House Oversight And Government Reform Committee on the IRS’ alleged targeting of conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status. Testifying before the committee was Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of the King Street Patriots.

During her opening testimony, Engelbrecht recounted the close scrutiny her family and her small business underwent from multiple federal agencies soon after she applied for her group’s tax-exempt status, suggesting that the reviews may have been politically motivated.

“After nearly 20 years of being in business,” Engelbrecht, said during the hearing, “and no agency coming to visit with us, the succession of agencies that have now come to us — for all manner of things — begs the question.”

“The statistical probabilities of what happened to me happening, without political motivation is staggering,” she added.

An incredulous Connolly took her to task.

“I would just note for the record,” he said, “because we’re so concerned about the law here, and making sure there are no violations of the law, are you aware of the fact that it’s actually illegal for … [the Occupational Safety and Health Administration] to give advance notice when it gives inspections? That’s actually a matter of law.”

OSHA visited Engelbrecht’s business soon after she filed an application requesting tax-exempt status for the the King Street Patriots. The OSHA visit resulted in her business being fined roughly$25,000 for various violations, including “the wrong type of safety glasses on an employee” and “the wrong type of seat belt on a forklift.”

“I’m not contending that they should’ve given us notice,” she said. “I’m only observing –”

“But you complained about it. You complained that you didn’t get advance notice,” Connolly shot back. “I understand the concern, but you understand that they can’t check in advance to see will you be there.”

“Nor did we try to do anything to discourage that process even though we weren’t on premise,” she said.

“And I absolutely take that at face value,” he continued, “but it’s a huge leap then, given that, to conclude that someone’s out to get you, Ms. Engelbrecht, that there’s any political motivation whatsoever with OSHA following its standard operating procedure.”

Fellow witness Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law, tried to jump in to lend Engelbrecht a hand, but was promptly shut out because he was not being questioned at that time in the hearing.

That’s when Jordan stepped in to make a simple but effective point.

“Ms. Engelbrecht,” Jordan said, “in the first 20 years of business, did OSHA ever visit your place of business?”

“No sir,” she responded.

“Never once?”

“No sir.”

“After you filed the [tax-exempt application for King Street Patriots], OSHA visited then, right?”

“Yes sir.”

“In the first 20 years of business did the [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] ever come to your business?” Jordan continued.

“No sir.”

“And they came a couple times once you filed your application?”

“Yes sir.”

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) pressed Tea Party group leader Catherine Engelbrecht during a hearing Thursday on Capitol Hill. (AP)

“And in your first 20 years of business, did the IRS ever audit you?”

“No sir.”

“But once you filed your application, they audited you?”

“Many times.”

“And in your first 20 years of business, did the FBI ever visit you?”

“No sir.”

“But once you filed your application, did they visit you?”

“Six times.”

Jordan made his final point: “Mr. Connolly wants us to believes that’s all a coincidence.”

Unamused with Jordan’s line of questioning, an agitated Connolly shot back, insisting that he’s merely looking for evidence of the scrutiny being politically motivated.

“You can believe it’s all a coincidence,” Jordan said. “I refuse to do so.”

“I believe in fact-based, empirical oversight,” Connolly responded. “And innuendo and drawing conclusions and paranoia do not substitute for fact-based, empirical oversight.”

Connolly concluded by muttering the word “McCarthyism”:

"Junk" Cancelled Policies May Be Allowed For Another Three Years! Another Law Being Changed Without Congressional Approval

White House Reportedly Considering Yet Another Obamacare Extension – and This One Could Be HUGE

Feb. 6, 2014 4:21pm Becket Adams

7.8K

SHARES

WASHINGTON, DC – JANUARY 31: U.S. President Barack Obama speaks as Vice President Joseph Biden listens on January 31, 2014 in the East Room at the White House in Washington, DC (Getty Images)

WASHINGTON (TheBlaze/AP) — The White House is reportedly considering an extension for Americans who have had their health insurance policies cancelled under the Affordable Care Act.

Avalere Health CEO Dan Mendelson said Thursday that the administration may let policyholders keep their individual insurance policies for as long as an additional three years — even if they are not compliant with the health care overhaul

Mendelson stressed that no decision has been made.

If the White House moves forward with this extension, it would be a major reversal. The Obama administration and its allies initially dismissed complaints of cancelled policies by explaining that those policies were no good anyway.

Policymakers are waiting to see what rate hikes health insurers plan for the insurance exchanges that are key to the overhaul’s coverage expansions.

“The administration is entertaining a range of options to ensure that this individual market has stability to it, and that would be one thing that they could do,” he said.

Avalere Health is a consulting firm, but Mendelson said his company was not advising the administration on exchange policy. He said he has had informal discussions with administration officials about the extension, but he didn’t identify them.

Health and Human Services spokesman Joanne Peters confirmed that the issue is under discussion, saying: “We are continuing to examine all sorts of ways to provide consumers with more choices and to smooth the transition as we implement the law. No decisions have been made.”

Aetna Inc. Chairman and CEO Mark Bertolini also told analysts during a conference call Thursday to discuss quarterly earnings that he had heard the plans may be extended. Aetna is the nation’s third-largest health insurer and has about 135,000 paid customers so far through the exchanges.

Aetna Chief Financial Officer Shawn Guertin said in an interview after the call that there have been discussions about whether the plans should be extended again, but he didn’t have any more details.

Individual policyholders were hit with a wave of cancellation notices last year because their coverage was “less robust” than what is required under the law, and many states allowed insurance companies to simply cancel them

This became one of the most politically explosive issues in the transition to a new health insurance system under Obama’s law. The wave of cancellation notices — at least 4.7 million of them — hit just when the new healthcare.gov website was experiencing some of its worst technical problems, and it undercut the president’s well-publicized promise that if you liked your plan you could keep it.

The law included a scheme called “grandfathering” to try to deliver on Obama’s pledge. It was intended to shield policies in force at the time of the law’s 2010 enactment from many new requirements, provided the policies themselves changed little. But insurers considered it impractical. And many of the cancelled individual policies would not have been eligible for relief anyway, since they were purchased after the law’s passage.

The predicament of millions of Americans who had cancelled policies and a hard time getting new ones because of the dysfunctional government website put the administration in an even more uncomfortable position.

At first the White House went into damage-control mode, arguing that many of the cancelled plans were “junk” insurance and consumers would be better off with the broader coverage available through the health care law’s new insurance markets.

But soon Obama was forced to reverse course, urging insurers and state regulators to allow policyholders to keep their existing plans for an additional year. Most states complied with the request.

WASHINGTON, DC – NOVEMBER 15: U.S. President Barack Obama (R) speaks as Marilyn Tavenner (2nd R), administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Senior Adviser of Health and Human Services Office of Health Reform Michael Hash (3rd R) listen during a meeting with CEOs from across the health insurance industry at the Roosevelt Room of the White House November 15, 2013 in Washington, DC (Getty Images)

Now the administration is considering adding more time to the extension to avoid another wave of problems if rates on the exchanges climb too high and people are left without affordable coverage. Health insurers are supposed to submit by May the rates they want to charge for coverage they sell on the exchanges next year.

The exchange coverage just started last month, so that doesn’t give insurers a lot of time to figure out what sort of claims will come from this new coverage. They need to understand this before they set premiums for the next year.

That means insurers may lean toward higher rate increases in 2015, to make sure they collect enough money in case medical claims come in higher than expected.

Mendelson said the administration understands this and is considering ways to promote rate stability. It could wind up extending the coverage for just another year or not all. “If you’re trying to craft policy, you have to see first what’s going to happen in this market before you can respond,” he said.

It’s unclear whether policyholders will find any relief if they are allowed to stay with their extended policies. Insurers in several states where extensions were allowed for 2014 have said they planned to hike the cost of those plans.

One last question: If there is an extension, why three years?

“Because by then Obama will be gone,” Zero Hedge suggests, “and Obamacare will be someone else’s problem.”

Scalia Make It Clear, In Time Of War, There Are No Laws! Concentration Camps Could Be Part Of Our Future!

Thursday,February 06, 2014 [Editor's Note: The following post is by TDV Head Researcher, Justin O'Connell] Have you been one of those people who scoff when somebody mentions to you that the US government is capable of deplorable acts? Does it seem absurd to you when someone mentions that the government could build and use concentration camps against its own citizens?  Well, it turns out, the joke's on you. Concentration camps just went mainstream in the US. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told law students in Hawaii that the Supreme Court does not uphold the Constitution, and that they should anticipate the court to issue more rulings along the same lines as those enabling the internment of US citizens not charged with a crime, just like as happened during World War II. Why? To answer this question,  Justice Scalia quotes Marcus Tullius Cicero, who said that "laws are silent in times of war" (inter arma silent leges). Scalia was asked by one law student about his thoughts on the Korematsu v. United States case. In this case, two men were convicted of refusing to comply with an order to report to a prison camp even though the men had committed no crime. Scalia said the court was wrong, "but you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again." He went on: That’s what was going on — the panic about the war and the invasion of the Pacific and whatnot. That’s what happens. It was wrong, but I would not be surprised to see it happen again, in time of war. It’s no justification, but it is the reality. Scalia, as the longest-serving Justice on the Supreme Court, effectively told the students that the Supreme Court of the United States does not follow the Constitution in times of war. In the 21st century, with its unending "War On Terror", this means that, at any time, a similar decree to Executive Order 9066, the executive order which sent thousands of US citizens to concentration camps, could fall from above. How would internment in the US work today, a time when the US government no longer fights "conventional wars" but the "unconventional" war on terror in which everybody is a potential suspect and all continents potential battlefields?  You'll notice in the following video that Japanese internment became a necessity not because the US had become a battlefield, but because it had the potential to become one. As we can see from the militarization of local police units, and the continued fusion between the Department of Homeland Security, state and local agencies, anywhere across the US is considered a potential battlefield today. Click here or on thumbnail And, increasingly, it seems everybody is considered a potential terrorist. There are many documents released by government agencies which characterize potential terrorists as individuals displaying a wide-range of perfectly American activities: -someone who complains about bias -believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia -is frustrated with mainstream ideologies -lack positive identity with country, unit, family, or friends -is sympathetic to radical groups -visits extremist websites or blogs -attends rallies for extremist causes -associates with known radicals There have been numerous drills aimed towards native born "terrorists," like this one in Florida. Another drill in Boston targeted a terrorist cell called "Free America Citizens." So, ask yourself, are you a part of the Tea Party? Occupy Wall Street? A Ron Paul Support? An evangelical Christian? Do you retain a modicum of individuality? If so, you've been labeled an extremist. Your government wants to lock you up for having an over-active mind.  Let's get right down to the heart of darkness. What this means is that, at any moment, men dressed in executioner-black uniforms can bust into our houses, apartments, condos or studios, kidnap us and/or our loved ones, and send us/them to a concentration camp for an undetermined amount of time. Who is to stop them? Two-thirds of the nation live in "Constitution Free Zones." (I am not even going to cite this one, it should be common knowledge)  So, the Constitution won't stop this process. Further, Scalia does not have a problem with internment of innocent US citizens, even though he seems to be the one sounding the alarm. In 2004, he used the above Cicero quote when he slammed a decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld which allowed the detention of an US citizen without charge. He said: Many think it not only inevitable but entirely proper that liberty give way to security in times of national crisis that, at the extremes of military exigency, inter arma silent leges. Whatever the general merits of the view that war silences law or modulates its voice, that view has no place in the interpretation and application of a Constitution designed precisely to confront war and, in a manner that accords with democratic principles, to accommodate it. "FEMA camps", as the conspiracy goes, have gone mainstream, and can no longer be considered the paranoid utterances of conspiracy theorists. They're a probability. Or, in Scalia's head, they are a guarantee.  We are guaranteed to get locked up. Or, if not us, our children.  To learn more about "FEMA camps," watch this following video: Click here or on thumbnail A US Army internal document provides some additional insight: The document makes it clear that it applies “within U.S. territory” and involve, “DOD support to U.S. civil authorities for domestic emergencies, and for designated law enforcement and other activities,” including “man-made disasters, accidents, terrorist attacks and incidents in the U.S. and its territories.” The manual states, “These operations may be performed as domestic civil support operations,” and adds that “The authority to approve resettlement such operations within U.S. territories,” would require a “special exception” to The Posse Comitatus Act, which can be obtained via “the President invoking his executive authority.” The document also makes reference to identifying detainees using their “social security number.” Aside from enemy combatants and other classifications of detainees, the manual includes the designation of “civilian internees"; that is, citizens who are detained for, “security reasons, for protection, or because he or she committed an offense against the detaining power.” Your God-given powers of ratiocination should be informing you one thing: the government of the United States has no problem trampling over your natural rights. It will throw you in a concentration camp. A Supreme Court Justice of the United States just confirmed it. One need to look no further than sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorizes the indefinite detention of American citizens on US soil without due process, to know the future, in many ways, will likely be a bleak one. Are faint images of your public education telling you that the Japanese internment camps (which also targeted Germans and Italians) weren't so bad? If so, a slave mentality is strong in you. I suggest you break your conditioning ASAP. Your life depends on it.  The following poem circulated one Japanese internment camp, where temperatures could fall below 40 degrees fahrenheit: That Damned Fence By: Uknown They've sunk the posts deep into the ground They've strung out wires all the way around. With machine gun nests just over there, And sentries and soldiers everywhere. We're trapped like rats in a wired cage, To fret and fume with impotent rage; Yonder whispers the lure of the night, But that DAMNED FENCE assails our sight. We seek the softness of the midnight air, But that DAMNED FENCE in the floodlight glare Awakens unrest in our nocturnal quest, And mockingly laughs with vicious jest. With nowhere to go and nothing to do, We feel terrible, lonesome, and blue: That DAMNED FENCE is driving us crazy, Destroying our youth and making us lazy. Imprisoned in here for a long, long time, We know we're punished--though we've committed no crime, Our thoughts are gloomy and enthusiasm damp, To be locked up in a concentration camp. Loyalty we know, and patriotism we feel, To sacrifice our utmost was our ideal, To fight for our country, and die, perhaps; But we're here because we happen to be Japs. We all love life, and our country best, Our misfortune to be here in the west, To keep us penned behind that DAMNED FENCE, Is someone's notion of NATIONAL DEFENCE! Scalia has created a truly historical event, possibly knowingly: a Supreme Court Justice saying internment will happen again is a big deal. From sea-to-shining-sea, non-conspiratorial minded history buffs (generally, these types prescribe to what's termed the "coincidental view of history") are shaking their head and saying, "I sure hope that doesn't happen." These are the ones that will still feel patriotism from behind "that damned fence." For the rest of us, we still have the luxury of getting out now. Or, accepting your "guaranteed" fate, you can inform yourself and subscribe to the TDV newsletter by clicking here, where you will gain access to TDV Groups and many other resources to help you survive and even prosper in the USSA.

Justin O'Connell is the Head Researcher at Dollar Vigilante, author of the first full-length bitcoin book, Bitcoinomics, as well as a co-host at Our Very Own Special Show, a lifestyle podcast about music, news, life and other topics. While in boy scouts as a young boy, Justin was introduced to punk rock. Since his father, a police officer, would not let him listen to rap, he gravitated towards bands like Bad Religion, Anti-Flag and numerous anti-authoritarian bands.  Justin's worldview evolved into that of a "naturalist," and he began seeking enlightenment in the natural world. When studying history at college in Portland, Ore., Justin focused on totalitarian societies such as, Soviet Union, Nazi Germany & the German Democratic Republic. Justin has numerous full length books coming out in 2014, including Change Of Ideas: Bad Religion In The New America, as well as an EP with his band Fencesitter.

Permits In East Jerusalem For All Races, Sexes And Religions (Including Muslims.) US State Department Continues Its Anti-Israel Rant

U.S. Condemns Planned Construction in East Jerusalem

Posted by: Ahuva Balofsky February 6, 2014 , 11:56 am

3Share 1Tweet 0 0 0Email 6Share

“And the officers shall speak unto the people, saying: ‘What man is there that hath built a new house, and hath not dedicated it? let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man dedicate it.” (Deuteronomy 20:5)

Construction in Jerusalem. (Photo: Deror Avi/ Wiki Commons)

At a time when Palestinian violence against Israel has been increasing and Hamas is preparing to attack, Israel is once again drawing criticism for building homes.  On Wednesday, the Jerusalem municipality authorized building permits for 558 new units in three East Jerusalem neighborhoods.  386 units are planned for Har Homa, 136 for Neve Yaakov, and 36 in Pisgat Zeev.  Critics say the timing of the permits is inflammatory, as peace negotiations with the Palestinians are at a critical stage and the latter claim the land in question as their own.

Palestinian leaders were quick to voice their disapproval.  Senior Palestinian official Hanan Ashrawi called the decision a “deliberate provocation of the Palestinians to drive them to leave the negotiations.

“Israel is not only capable of sabotaging the talks, but it is flagrantly destroying the chances of peace and stability throughout the region,” she said.  ”Israel is engaging in the deliberate provocation of the Palestinians to drive them to leave the negotiations in protest of Israeli violations, and therefore should be blamed for the destruction of the peace process.”

“The international community must hold Israel accountable for this policy,” said Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat.  ”This proves that Israel prefers settlement over peace.”

Even within the municipal government itself, the decision was disputed, with Deputy Mayor Pepe Alalu (Meretz) declaring the approval of building permits a cynical attempt to undermine the final status arrangements.

Throughout the current peace negotiations, settlement construction plans have been announced and permits approved, repeatedly drawing the ire and condemnation of Palestinian and international leaders.  However, despite threats, the announcements have not halted the negotiation process.

The U.S. State Department was quick to condemn the newly planned construction. “Our position on Jerusalem is clear,” said State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki told reporters at a daily briefing. “We oppose any unilateral actions by either party that attempt to prejudge final status issues, including the status of Jerusalem.

The construction is needed to support the natural growth of the communities in question.  Back in 2009, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained his position: “I have no intention of building new settlements in the West Bank… But like all the governments there have been until now, I will have to meet the needs of natural growth in the population. I will not be able to choke the settlements.”

Now, the permits in question are being authorized as one of the final stages for construction plans that were initiated years ago by private contractors.  The plans themselves were approved much earlier.  The permits issued this week are the last authorization required to begin the actual building.

The municipality was quick to point out in a statement responding to Alalu that the building permits were not only for Jewish homes.  Permits were also issued for construction in Arab neighborhoods, as “the municipality has no legal right to deny proprietary rights of land owners.”  Permits were awarded equally, without consideration of race, religion or gender of applicants.

Is The Military "Ethics" Issues, A Smoke Screen For Eliminating More Senior Officers Or Is There A Real Problem?

FILE - In this Jan. 24, 2014, file photo, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel speaks at the Pentagon in Washington. Hagel is ordering military leaders to put a renewed emphasis on moral behavior across the force following a series of ethical lapses that have included cheating scandals among the Navy and Air Force's nuclear missions. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)

Hagel orders urgent push for ethics crackdown

Thursday, February 6th 2014, 3:13 am

Lolita C. Baldor - Associated Press

Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on printShare on emailMore Sharing Services

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel wants military leaders to inject more urgency into ensuring "moral character and moral courage" in a force suffering a rash of ethical lapses.

Hagel has been worried by a string of scandals that has produced a wave of unwelcome publicity for the military. But in light of new disclosures this week, including the announcement of alleged cheating among senior sailors in the nuclear Navy, Hagel on Wednesday demanded a fuller accounting of the depth of the problem.

Last month the Air Force revealed it was investigating widespread cheating on proficiency tests among nuclear missile launch officers in Montana, and numerous senior officers in all branches of the armed forces have been caught in embarrassing episodes of personal misbehavior, inside and outside the nuclear force. The Air Force also is pursuing a drug use investigation, and a massive bribery case in California has ensnared six Navy officers so far.

At the same time, hundreds of soldiers and others are under criminal investigation in what the Army describes as a widespread scheme to take fraudulent payments and kickbacks from a National Guard recruiting program.

The steady drumbeat of one military ethics scandal after another has caused many to conclude that the misbehavior reflects more than routine lapses.

"He definitely sees this as a growing problem," Hagel's chief spokesman, Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby, told a Pentagon news conference Wednesday after Hagel met privately with the top uniformed and civilian officials of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.

"And he's concerned about the depth of it," Kirby said. "I don't think he could stand here and tell you that he has — that anybody has — the full grasp here, and that's what worries (Hagel) is that maybe he doesn't have the full grasp of the depth of the issue, and he wants to better understand it."

Hagel's predecessor, Leon Panetta, had launched an effort to crack down on ethics failures more than a year ago, and the matter has been a top priority for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, for even longer.

Kirby said Hagel has come to realize that he needs to investigate as well.

"We don't fully know right now what we're grappling with here and how deep and serious it is," Kirby said. "And I think, you know, for a leader at his level with the responsibilities that he carries every day, not knowing something like that is something to be concerned about. And he wants to know more."

Hagel believes that the vast majority of military members are "brave, upright and honest," and he is encouraged by efforts already underway to curb misconduct, including sexual assaults, Kirby said.

But Hagel told the service leaders Wednesday that he "also believes there must be more urgency behind these efforts" and that all Pentagon leaders must "put renewed emphasis on developing moral character and moral courage in our force."

Kirby was asked whether Hagel believes ethics lapses are a symptom of overuse of the military for the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"He believes that that is a factor that should be looked at," the spokesman said.

A significant portion of the concern about military misbehavior is aimed at two segments of the nuclear force: the Air Force's land-based nuclear missile corps and the Navy's training program for operators of nuclear reactors used as propulsion systems for submarines and aircraft carriers. Neither of those fields was directly involved in significant ways in either of the wars since 2001.

The Navy announced on Tuesday that it opened an investigation into cheating allegations against about 30 senior sailors representing about one-fifth of its instructors at a school for naval nuclear power reactor operators based in Charleston, S.C.

Unlike an Air Force cheating probe that has implicated nearly 100 officers responsible for land-based nuclear missiles that stand ready for short-notice launch, those implicated in the Navy investigation have no responsibility for nuclear weapons.

The Navy said its implicated sailors are accused of having cheated on written tests they must pass to be certified as instructors at the nuclear propulsion school. A number of them are alleged to have transmitted test information to other instructors from their home computers, which if verified would be a violation of restrictions on the use and transmission of classified information.

The matter was being probed by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.

Separately, Kirby announced that the Pentagon has picked two retired officers to lead an independent review of personnel problems inside the Air Force and Navy nuclear forces. They are Larry Welch, a former Air Force chief of staff, and John Harvey, a retired Navy admiral and nuclear-trained surface warfare officer.