Perry indictment is part of campaign of harassment against conservatives

The news of the indictment against Texas Governor Rick Perry on charges of abuse of official capacity and coercion of a public official surprised the country and shook up the early presidential race for 2016. Debate ranged from how the charges would affect Perry’s chances at winning the Republican nomination and the White House to whether Perry would be convicted. A surprising number of liberals and Democrats have broken ranks to defend what many call an unconstitutional attempt to criminalize politics as usual. This is not the first time in recent memory that prosecutors have pressed charges against Republicans on dubious grounds.

In Texas, the Travis County DA office has prosecuted other high profile Republicans. In 1993, Rosemary Lemberg’s predecessor, Ronnie Earle, indicted newly elected U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison on charges of misusing her previous office of state treasurer according to National Review. Hutchison was originally elected in a special election and faced the prospect of running for reelection in 1994 with the indictment hanging over her head. She pressed for a quick resolution and, when the case went to trial, Earle told the court that he could not proceed without the admission of records seized from Hutchison’s office without a search warrant. The judge promptly ordered the jury to return a verdict of not guilty.

After the acquittal, Hutchison requested that the records be released, saying, “The case was not there. They turned around and ran because they knew the longer they went, the more embarrassing it was going to be. . . . They thought the lady would crack. Well, the lady wouldn’t crack.”

In 2010, it was Tom Delay’s turn to face the Travis County DA. Delay was convicted on money laundering charges stemming from accusations that he funneled corporate money to Republican candidates. Delay, a former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, was sentenced to three years in prison, but remained free on bail while he appealed. His conviction was overturned in 2013 by a three judge panel of a Texas appellate court. The decision said that evidence in the case was “legally insufficient” according to the Washington Post.

In 2008, Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) was indicted on felony charges of failing to properly report gifts less than four months before that year’s election. He was found guilty of making false statements on Oct. 27 and promptly lost his reelection fight to Mark Begich. A few months later in February 2009, an FBI agent became a whistleblower and revealed that prosecutors and FBI agents had withheld key evidence and witnesses that would have supported Stevens’ claims of innocence as well introducing evidence that they knew to be false. In April 2009, a federal judge vacated Stevens’ conviction. Politico reported in 2012 that a special investigator’s review of the case found that misconduct by the prosecutors and FBI had tainted the trial. Stevens died in a plane crash in 2010 and his Senate seat remains in Democratic hands.

Two other Republican governors, Chris Christie (N.J.) and Scott Walker (Wisc.), are also potentially under investigation according to Salon. In New Jersey, prosecutors are trying to tie Chris Christie to the “Bridge-gate” scandal as well as diversion of Port Authority money to New Jersey road and bridge projects and real estate deals by David Samson, Christie’s appointee to chair the Port Authority’s Board of Commissioners. According to Esquire, anonymous “sources with intimate knowledge” of U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman’s investigation say Christie’s Port Authority appointees and former chief counsel “face near-certain indictment and are being pressed to hand up Christie.”

Walker may come under investigation for illegally coordinating with outside groups in his 2012 fight against recall. Walker triumphed in the election, but, as described by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, the Milwaukee County prosecutor, a Democrat, launched a John Doe probe, an investigation allowed under Wisconsin law that allows the government to “compel people to produce documents and give testimony, as well as bar them from talking publicly about the investigation.” A federal judge ordered an end to the probe in May 2014, according to MSNBC, noting that no laws had been broken. Under Wisconsin law, issue ads that do not endorse or attack a specific candidate are not considered expenditures for a campaign and are not subject to laws regarding coordination with the candidate. This issue was previously decided in Wisconsin Right to Life v. Barland.

Republicans do not have to be prominent elected officials to attract the attention of partisan prosecutors. Since 2013, a series of articles in the Wall St. Journal have detailed how prosecutors in Wisconsin have subpoenaed 29 conservative groups in the John Doe probe. In June 2014, the Journal noted that so far prosecutors have failed to show probable cause that any crime had been committed and pointed out that the coordination in Wisconsin strongly resembled the President Obama’s 2012 campaign. Nevertheless, recent reports by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Fox News indicate that personal information from members of conservative groups such as Wisconsin Club for Growth were released by a federal appeals court and posted online, allegedly by mistake.

The John Doe probe in Wisconsin is reminiscent of the IRS harassment of conservative groups that has been ongoing under the Obama Administration. Far from targeting high profile Republicans, the IRS focused its abuse on grassroots leaders of Tea Party groups. In one instance, cited by the Chicago Sun-Times, Catherine Engelbrecht, a small business owner involved with two nonprofit political groups beginning in 2010, was suddenly subjected to more than 15 federal audits and inquiries. In addition to the IRS, she was contacted by OSHA, the FBI, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, among others.

The IRS admitted to both the harassment of conservative groups and illegally leaking confidential tax information to liberal groups during the 2012 presidential election. In June 2014, the Daily Signal reported that the IRS had agreed to pay $50,000 to the National Organization for Marriage. The IRS had leaked the group’s donor list, including names and contact information to the gay activist group, the Human Rights Campaign, which then published the data. Even though leaking confidential tax information is a felony, no criminal charges have been filed against anyone at the IRS.

There are also indications that Lois Lerner, the official at the center of the IRS scandal, may have had a history of malicious prosecutions at the Federal Election Commission as well. The Illinois Review reported that Republican senate candidate Al Salvi was the subject of several FEC complaints regarding campaign finances in the last weeks of his 1996 campaign against Dick Durbin. The complaints were ultimately dismissed in 2000, but not before Salvi received a strange offer from an FEC official he identified as Lois Lerner. Salvi says that, in a conversation that included Mike Salvi, his brother and attorney, Lerner told him, “If you promise to never run for office again, we'll drop this case.” Salvi refused. Four years and $100,000 in legal fees later, the FEC case against Salvi was dismissed.

These high profile cases are likely not the only instances of malicious prosecution of conservatives. At the state and local level, it is easy for such cases to avoid national scrutiny. The Wisconsin John Doe probe has largely been ignored by the national media. (Those aware of similar cases can contact the author.) In many other instances, such as harassment of California supporters of Prop 8 and the demonization of the Koch brothers, there was no prosecution, but a blatant attempt to intimidate and silence conservatives.

It is increasingly evident that the harassment, intimidation and malicious prosecution of Republican officeholders and conservative activists, often in the name of campaign finance reform, are an integral part of the Democratic playbook. As long as such attempts at stifling free speech succeed with no consequences for the left, they are likely to continue.

 

Read the full article on Examiner

GOP senate prospects good in 2014

Forecasts for the 2014 senatorial elections increasingly favor the Republican Party. The trend toward the GOP is likely driven by a combination of factors including the economy where President Obama’s approval has fallen to 35 percent in an August 15 Gallup poll. The problems with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act are also a drag on Democratic candidates. Rasmussen reports that only 41 percent of likely voters now have a favorable view of the health care law while 53 percent view it unfavorably. The Obama Administration’s scandals, particularly the IRS scandal and NSA wiretapping, have also hurt Democrats. A Fox News poll from early August showed that largely majorities of Americans believe that all of the Obama scandals should be taken seriously and investigated.

Rasmussen’s generic congressional ballot for August 12 shows 39 percent for both Democrats and Republicans, but the prior week showed the GOP with 41 percent to 38 percent for the Democrats. The two parties have spent much of the past four months in a statistical tie.

Over the summer, the Cook Political Report moved four races into the GOP column. One Democrat seat (Mark Pryor of Arkansas) moved from the Democratic column to tossup. No races were changed from likely Republican victories to Democrats.

In 2014, there are 15 Republican seats and 20 Democratic seats up for election. Republicans currently control 46 seats in the Senate. That number will probably drop to 45 in October since the Democratic candidate, Corey Booker, is expected to dominate New Jersey’s special election to replace the deceased Frank Lautenberg. This means that the GOP will likely need to win six seats to take control of the Senate next year.

So far there are seven announced Senate retirements for 2014. Five of these (Max Baucus of Montana, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Carl Levin of Michigan, and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia) are Democrats. This means that the Republicans only have to defend two open seats in Georgia and Nebraska, where Saxby Chambliss and Mike Johanns are retiring. Of the Democrat open seats, Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia voted Republican in 2012, making them likely pickups for the GOP.

There are four other tossup races. All of these are seats that are currently held by the Democrats. Most observers consider Arkansas (Mark Pryor), Louisiana (Mary Landrieu), Alaska (Mark Begich), and North Carolina (Kay Hagan) to be in play. All four states voted for Mitt Romney in 2012.

A statistical edge is not a sure thing. Republicans had a similar edge in 2012 and lost two seats in the final analysis. The Republican losses were largely due to missteps by candidates such as Todd Aiken in Missouri and Richard Mourdock in Indiana. Republican chances will hinge on the selection of viable candidates in next year’s primaries.

Democratic victories in 2012 were also due the party’s technological edge in identifying potential voters and urging them to the polls. The effect of IRS suppression of conservative groups leading up to the 2012 also cannot be discounted. These advantages may be hard to repeat in 2014.

At this point there are ten Senate races to watch for 2014:

Alaska: Mark Begich (D) was elected to the Senate in 2008, winning largely due incumbent Ted Stevens conviction for failing to properly report gifts just prior to the election. (The conviction was later overturned.) Alaska is a reliable Republican state in presidential elections and in a 2010 Senate election the two Republican candidates split 75 percent of the vote according to the N.Y. Times. Joe Miller, who won the 2012 Republican primary, but lost to Lisa Murkowski in the general election, is a likely challenger, as is Sarah Palin.

Arkansas: Mark Pryor is a two term Democratic senator in a state that has voted Republican since 1996. A recent internal GOP poll shows likely challenger Tom Cotton with a two point lead.

Georgia: Republican senator Saxby Chambliss, in office since 2003, is retiring. Georgia is a deep red state with a growing Republican delegation to Congress. Michelle Nunn, daughter of longtime Democratic senator Sam Nunn, is the Democratic frontrunner. Several prominent Republicans including congressmen Paul Broun and Gingrey and former gubernatorial candidate Karen Handel have announced for the seat. While the Republican candidate is favored in the race, many pundits believe that a growing minority population and a weak Republican candidate might make Georgia the best chance for the Democrats to pick up a Republican seat.

Iowa: Tom Harkin (D), senator since 1985 is retiring. Iowa has trended toward the Democratic presidential candidates in the past 20 years with the exception of 2004 when the state went for George W. Bush. Congressman Bruce Baley is the likely Democratic nominee, but there is no clear frontrunner among the GOP candidates. Baley is the favorite, but if 2014 is a bad year for Democrats a strong Republican candidate could pull off an upset.

Louisiana: Mary Landrieu has been a Democratic senator since 1997. Louisiana has voted Republican since 2000. Congressman Bill Cassidy is the Republican frontrunner.

Michigan: Carl Levin (D), senator since 1979, is retiring. Michigan is reliably Democratic in presidential elections, but elected a Republican governor in 2011. The economy in this Rust Belt state, including the bankruptcy of Detroit, may make it questionable for the Democrats. Congressman Rick Snyder is the likely Democratic candidate, but there is no clear frontrunner among the Republicans.

Montana: Max Baucus (D), senator since 1978 is retiring. Montana has voted reliably Republican in presidential elections since 2000. Cook currently rates Montana as leaning Republican. Former governor Brian Schweitzer announced in July that he would not run, leaving the Democrats without a viable candidate. There is no clear frontrunner from either party.

North Carolina: Kay Hagan is another member of the Democratic class of 2009. North Carolina has been swing state in recent presidential elections, but went for Mitt Romney by two percent in 2012. Thom Tillis, the likely GOP challenger, is off to weak start due to controversial fundraising tactics.

South Dakota: The retiring Tim Johnson has been a Democratic senator since 1997. South Dakota has voted for Republican presidents for his entire tenure. Rick Weiland (D) and former governor Mike Rounds (R) are the early frontrunners.

West Virginia: Jay Rockefeller, who is retiring, has been the Democratic senator since 1985. The state has voted Republican in presidential elections since 2000. In the 2012 senate elections there, popular former governor Joe Manchin (D) won 60 percent of the vote. The early GOP frontrunner is congresswoman Shelly Moore Capito. As yet there is no strong Democratic candidate.

 

Originally published as Elections Examiner

Barack Obama as a benevolent dictator

The White House quietly announced on Wednesday that members of Congress can still their federal health insurance subsidies in spite of a clause in the Affordable Care Act that specifically says otherwise. The law requires members of Congress to purchase unsubsidized insurance on Obamacare’s new exchanges “notwithstanding any other provision of law.” Obama made a “personally request” that his Office of Personnel Management continue to pay the subsidies to congressional members and staffers with salaries as high as $175,000 according to the Wall St. Journal. In response, the OPM decided to interpret the clause completely opposite from the way it has been traditionally understood.

According to NPR, the prospect that Congress would have to pay the same insurance rates as the rest of the country led to a “bipartisan uproar” and fears of a “brain drain” as staffers retired to keep their benefits. When rumors of a congressional exemption became public last April, a Rasmussen poll indicated that 95 percent of Americans believed that Congress should face the same requirements as all other Americans. It would have been a political nightmare for Democrats in Congress to enact legislation exempting themselves from an unpopular law just prior to a hotly contested election. Fortunately for Congress, President Obama stepped in to save the day.

“No one so far who's really looked at this sees a legal way for them to do this,” Ed Haislmaier, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation told NPR. Haislmaier is one of the authors of a paper detailing the congressional health insurance problem and argues that only Congress could pass legislation to deal with it.

“Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting,” President Obama said in July 2011. He continued, “But that's not how -- that's not how our system works…. That’s not how our Constitution is written.” The evidence shows that Barack Obama has succumbed to this temptation, not once, but many times.

The move to exempt Congress from Obamacare comes only a few weeks after President Obama also unilaterally delayed the implementation of the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate. On July 3, the White House announced the president’s decision to not require that businesses provide their employees with health insurance until 2015 according to The Hill. The law does not give the president the authority to delay implementation of the mandate, one of the central tenets of his signature piece of legislation.

These decisions were not the first time that the Obama Administration had violated the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. Since the law’s passage in 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services issued more than 1,400 waivers that allowed businesses to not meet the law’s requirements according to the Daily Caller. The problem is that these waivers were not authorized by the Affordable Care Act. Instead, President Obama’s Health and Human Services department issued new rules and regulations that gave itself the power to waive the law. Congress did grant waiver authority to HHS in some aspects of the law, but not the provision that required businesses to increase the amount of health insurance provided to employees.

The Obama Administration’s disrespect for the rule of law is not limited to Obamacare. Less than four months into his presidency, in April 2009, President Obama unilaterally ordered the bailout of General Motors and Chrysler using TARP funds even though TARP was specifically limited to financial institutions by Congress. When the auto giants went bankrupt anyway, President Obama and his advisors ignored established bankruptcy law and placed politically favored unions ahead secured creditors. National Affairs details how the president browbeat investors, including pension funds for state retirees, to write off their losses and then put the auto companies under the control of his “car czar,” Steve Rattner.

It was also in the auto bankruptcies that the first hints of the Obama Administration’s targeting of political opponents became public. In the summer of 2009, rumors flew that the Administration’s car czar was targeting car dealerships owned by Republicans for closure while sparing the majority of Democratic dealerships. In September 2009, Factcheck.org denied the rumors, but with the recent revelations of the IRS targeting of conservative groups, two congressmen are calling for a new investigation of the Treasury Department’s role in closing the dealerships.

There are many other instances of President Obama’s executive overreach as well. In May 2010, after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Obama, again unilaterally, ordered a six month moratorium on deepwater oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. When a judge struck down the ban on drilling, Obama’s Interior Department ordered an almost identical ban the next day, an action that the judge to hold the Obama Administration in contempt of court. The contempt ruling was overturned in 2012 by a panel of judges though the order striking down the ban was upheld.

In April 2011, President Obama’s National Labor Relations Board filed a complaint against Boeing alleging that the company was engaged in illegal retaliation against unions by opening a new plant in the right-to-work state of South Carolina. Bloomberg notes that the complaint was suddenly dropped in December after Boeing reached an agreement with its machinist union.

In December 2010, President Obama’s FCC imposed “net neutrality” rules on internet companies by issuing a regulatory rule. According to CNET, the FCC had previously tried to impose net neutrality in 2008, but a three-judge panel ruled that Congress had not given the FCC the authority to regulate the network management policies of internet providers. When Congress failed to pass a net neutrality law, Obama’s FCC chairman imposed the rules anyway. A case challenging the FCC rules is currently before the Supreme Court.

In March 2011, even though President Obama had criticized President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, Obama decided to intervene militarily in the Libyan civil war. Unlike President Bush, who sought approval from Congress as required by the Constitution and the War Powers Act, Obama gave the order to go to war in Libya unilaterally. Obama did not seek congressional approval for the war and denied that the War Powers Act applied.

In January 2012, Obama made three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and one to the new federal Consumer Protection Bureau. While the Constitution does allow presidents to make recess appointments under certain circumstances, it requires Congress to actually be in recess when the appointments are made. Three federal courts ruled that Obama’s appointments were unconstitutional, but the NLRB simply ignored the rulings. The case was headed for the Supreme Court when Senate Democrats and Republicans reached a deal on the use of the filibuster. The deal may affect whether the Supreme Court hears the case.

In June 2012, as the election between Mitt Romney and Obama heated up, the president mobilized Hispanic support by unilaterally deciding not to enforce portions of current immigration law. Obama announced as part of his “We can’t wait” [for Congress to pass a law] campaign that he would stop deportation proceedings against young immigrants who had entered the country illegally. The decision derailed congressional work on the DREAM Act and was in direct violation of U.S. immigration law.

After the Newtown massacre, Obama bypassed Congress and issued 23 Executive Orders designed to further his gun control policies. According to Reuters, Obama said, “Where they [Congress] won’t act, I will.” Obama stopped short of ordering an assault weapons ban though he urged Congress to pass one.

Earlier in his presidency, Obama had asked Congress to pass cap-and-trade legislation to regulate carbon. Congress declined to pass the bill, even when Democrats controlled both houses, so President Obama is once again using executive agencies to legislate. The Washington Post reported in June 2013 that the EPA will use the Clean Air Act to impose carbon regulation on new coal and gas power plants.

To some extent, Obama’s executive actions are the result of an abdication by Congress. Timothy Lee pointed out in Forbes that the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank financial reform law both require thousands of pages of regulations that are written and enforced by unelected executive branch bureaucrats. Much of Obama’s executive overreach can be blamed on no one but Obama himself however.

Other aspects of Obama’s executive abuse are less benevolent. In May 2013, the IRS admitted to targeting conservative groups during the 2012 elections. Congressional investigations subsequently revealed that the IRS had been illegally working against Obama’s political opponents as early as August 2010 and possibly as early as 2008. Last week, the Federal Election Commission was implicated in the scandal as emails surfaced showing illegal collusion between FEC and the IRS officials investigating conservative groups according to CNN. On August 7, 2013, the Wall St. Journal reported that Democratic commissioners on the Securities and Exchange Commission tried to implement new rules on political contributions by public companies that would have also had the effect of making it more difficult for conservative groups to raise funds and speak out against Obama.

The sum total of Obama’s actions indicates that he may consider himself a benevolent dictator, an authoritarian ruler who acts for the benefit of the people rather than for himself. His repression of the free speech rights of his opponents is proof that a benevolent dictator is a dictator nonetheless. Rather than favoring the nation as a whole, Obama’s policies benefit favored demographic groups and political allies. President Obama’s “determined disregard” for the laws of the United States may be applauded by some who agree with his goals, but his actions set a disturbing precedent and raise grave questions about the future of the United States.

Originally published on Atlanta Conservative Examiner

Verizon phone records are different from IRS scandal

This week’s revelations of widespread data gathering by the federal government have shocked many Americans.  Coming on the heels of the recent scandals about Justice Department spying on reporters and IRS agents harassing political opponents, the new information about America’s intelligence gathering activities have drawn widespread opposition and indignation.  There are important differences between the activities of the National Security Agency and the other scandals, however.

On Wednesday, leaked court documents demanding that Verizon turn over phone records to the federal government sparked an uproar over the NSA’s phone surveillance program.  On Friday, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, released more details about the program.  Reported by the Associated Press, Clapper noted the program, which presumably includes other companies as well as Verizon, is reviewed every 90 days and the government is prohibited from indiscriminately examining the records of Americans.  The information obtained by the NSA does not contain the content of the calls, but only “metadata” such as the phone numbers involved, time, location, and duration of the call.

On Friday, the Washington Post also published leaked reports of PRISM, a secret program that analyzes internet traffic in a manner similar to the NSA’s examination of phone records.  According to the leaked documents, “e-mail, chat, videos, photos, stored data, VoIP, file transfers, video conferencing, notifications of target activity...log-ins, etc., online social networking details” were available from major internet companies.  A CNET analysis of the PRISM documents indicates that it is theoretically possible that the government has been reading private emails of American citizens.

Even though the amount of information collected by the NSA and PRISM is staggering, there is so far no evidence that it has been used to spy on Americans or intrude on their privacy.  Instead, it seems that the federal government has been engaged in a process called “data mining.”  Data mining is the use of computer programs to discover hidden patterns in data.  Private companies frequently use data mining to target advertisements to likely customers.  Cookies on websites and tracking software collect information about internet users, which is then sold to internet advertisers.  Computer programs can even “read” your emails to target ads to your screen.  Similar programs might be used to block suspicious credit card transactions based on the user’s past history. 

While the NSA is not interested in selling anything to Americans, it is presumably interested in suspicious contacts between the United States and known terrorists in other countries.  On Thursday, Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told Politico that “Within the last few years, this program was used to stop a terrorist attack in the United States.”  Rogers added, “It is a very valuable thing. It is legal.”

Rogers appears to be correct.  Both programs appear to be legal if they were implemented properly.  In 1979, the Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. Maryland that telephone users have no expectation of privacy with regard to telephone numbers dialed because telephone companies regularly track such information.  Likewise, CNET points out that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 2008 and the Protect America Act of 2007 permit intelligence gathering of internet data.  The Protect America Act is limited to people “reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States” (Section 105A) and the Section 702 of the FISA Act clarifies that U.S. citizens or people within the United States cannot be targeted. 

On Friday, President Obama defended the NSA programs, saying, “Nobody is listening to your telephone calls.” In a PBS transcript, Obama continued, “By sifting through this so-called metadata, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism. Now, with respect to the Internet and e-mails, this doesn't apply to U.S. citizens, and it doesn't apply to people living in the United States.” 

In a separate speech on Friday, transcribed by NBC Bay Area, Obama noted that “ if people can't trust not only the executive branch but also don't trust Congress and don't trust federal judges to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution, due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here.”

The other scandals of the Obama Administration have worked to diminish public trust in government, however.  Even before the recent scandals, Pew showed public trust in government at all-time low levels.  The reports of systematic abuses of power against the president’s political opponents (summary on Examiner.com) and spying on reporters have only heightened the crisis of confidence in the federal government.   A June 5 Rasmussen poll showed that an unprecedented 56 percent of Americans view the federal government as a threat to individual rights.  Even normally trusted agencies such as the FBI have been implicated in the Obama Administration’s apparent suppression of conservative groups.   Even the New York Times said Thursday that “The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it.”

Unlike the data mining by the NSA, the allegations against Obama Administration in the IRS and DOJ media spying scandals include the specific targeting of American citizens.  The IRS has admitted that it specifically targeted conservative groups and an investigation by McClatchy News confirmed that no liberal or nonpartisan groups received unfair treatment.  Several IRS employees have said that their scrutiny and harassment of conservative groups was directed by IRS officials in Washington according to the Associated Press.  Likewise, Attorney General Holder personally approved the warrant for surveillance of Fox News reporter James Rosen according to MSNBC.  Unlike the NSA surveillance, which was apparently a legitimate program directed at foreign terrorists, the IRS and Justice Department programs were specifically directed at Americans and apparently had political motives.

The NSA’s surveillance programs are not new.  They have been public knowledge since 2005 when the New York Times published an account of the program.  However, the programs are likely viewed with more concern by many Americans due to the recent reports of spying and abuses of power against American citizens.  If the IRS and DOJ could illegally target Americans for political purposes, many are concerned that NSA data might be used for the same reason.  

Originally published on Examiner.com

IRS and press harassment similar to other Obama scandals

The Obama Administration has become embroiled in three simultaneous scandals over the past few weeks. Much speculation has been made about what President Obama knew and when he knew it. Regardless of whether President Obama gave the order or had personal knowledge of spying on reporters or the harassment of conservative groups, the charges are well within the character of an administration well known for executive overreach and disregard for the law. The Obama administration has been hallmarked by disregard for the rule of law since its early days.

In the spring of 2009, the Obama Administration ignored established bankruptcy law to cast aside secured creditors of Chrysler and GM in favor of unsecured but better connected creditors such as the United Auto Workers pension according to National Affairs. Creditors were denied their right to have input on the company reorganizations through a sub rosa plan in which the assets of “old” Chrysler and GM were “sold” to “new” Chrysler and GM, bypassing creditors in the process. When some investors stood up for their rights, President Obama attacked them as “speculators” in a speech at Chrysler.

The closing of dealerships in the aftermath of the auto bankruptcies fueled speculation and rumors that the Obama Administration was using the auto bankruptcies to target political opponents. The Washington Examiner pointed out at the time that dealers on the list of closures had donated millions to Republicans, but only $200 to Obama. The list of closures seems to have been dictated by Steve Rattner, President Obama’s “car czar.”

On the heels of the auto bankruptcies came “Fast and Furious.” In the spring and summer of 2009, Democrats from Secretary of State Clinton to Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) claimed that 90 percent of the guns used in Mexican crimes came from the United States. While claim is not accurate, thousands of the guns that actually did get to Mexico from the United States apparently were allowed across the border by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). Whistleblowers later told Congress that they had orders to let smugglers take illegally purchased guns across the border into Mexico. As Examiner reported in 2011, several of the illegal weapons were found at the scene of the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on December 15, 2010. The guns turned up at numerous other crime scenes in Mexico as well. In 2011, another American officer, Jaime Zapata, was murdered in Mexico with a gun that had been tracked by the ATF according to CBS News. The Mexican government was not pleased with the revelations that the Obama Administration allowed thousands of illegal guns into their country.

After the BP oil spill in 2010, President Obama issued a unilateral moratorium on deepwater drilling. When a court ruled that the drill ban was unconstitutional, the Department of Interior still refused to issue new drilling permits. This led a federal judge to hold the Obama Administration in contempt of court for its “determined disregard” for its continued drilling restrictions.

In the spring of 2011, after dithering for months, President Obama approved U.S. intervention in the Libyan civil war. Obama notified Congress within 48 hours as required by the War Powers Act, but neglected to seek congressional approval within 60 days. Obama also failed to end American involvement within 30 days of the deadline for seeking congressional approval as required. The N.Y. Times called the Libya intervention “illegal” and said that it “set a troubling precedent that could allow future administrations to wage war at their convenience — free of legislative checks and balances.”

The matter is all the more stark because President Obama had said in 2007 that “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” After Libya, Politifact rated the statement a “full [flip] flop.”

Also in 2011, the Obama Administration’s loan to Solyndra, a solar panel manufacturer, went sour. While most analyses of the Solyndra scandal focus on the poor judgment involved in making a loan that ultimately cost taxpayers $535 million according to Yahoo, laws might have been broken here as well. According to the Christian Science Monitor, it may have been illegal for the Obama Administration to restructure Solyndra’s loan to put private creditors ahead of taxpayers.

In 2012, the Supreme Court affirmed the power of the government to compel its citizens to purchase a private product, keeping Obamacare’s individual mandate intact. The legal status of other parts of Obamacare remains questionable. The mandate that all insurance policies cover contraceptive and abortifacient drugs has been successfully challenged in court as a violation of the freedom of religion.

Since 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services has issued more than 1,200 Obamacare waivers to companies according to The Hill. As noted in Examiner, the language of the Affordable Care Act did not permit such waivers. In 2013, Politico reported that members of Congress were secretly negotiating an exemption from Obamacare’s requirements under concerns that staffers would face sharp increases in premiums when Obamacare goes into effect.

More recently, faced with a $1.5 billion shortfall in funds to implement Obamacare, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius resorted to soliciting donations from insurance companies according to the Washington Post. As Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) points out in the Wall St. Journal, the Constitution and other laws do not permit the government to spend money that has not been appropriated by Congress. Soliciting donations from companies that Sebelius regulates is likely a conflict of interest as well.

Earlier this year, President Obama received a strong rebuke from a federal court for several appointments that he had made to the National Labor Relations Board. The president styled the appointments as recess appointments even though Congress was still in session. The decision, described on Examiner, stated that Congress, not the president, decided when it was in session and then went a step further, stating that recess appointments could only be used to fill vacancies that arise during a recess. A second appeals court issued a similar ruling in May after the NLRB ignored the first court’s ruling and continued to issue decisions on cases heard by the invalid members.

President Obama also has a record of issuing executive decrees when Congress fails to act. In December 2010, the EPA announced plans to regulate carbon after Congress failed to pass cap-and-trade legislation. At the same time, the FCC unilaterally issued “net neutrality” rules in spite of a court ruling stating that the agency did not have the power to regulate the internet. Before even asking Congress to enact new gun control laws, the president signed 23 executive orders relating to guns.

The new scandals, lying to public about Benghazi, spying on reporters to ferret out leakers within the administration, and using federal enforcement agencies to quash political opposition, are merely the latest in a long line of abuses of power by President Obama and his deputies. The common threads among all of the Obama scandals are abuse of executive power disregard of the law for political gain. The new trio of scandals is no different.

A form of this article was originally published as Atlanta Conservative Examiner.

Obama can relax, he won’t be impeached

The “perfect storm” of political scandals that has embroiled the Obama Administration over the past few weeks has some conservatives and Republicans speculating that President Obama might be impeached or be forced to resign in disgrace. While there are plenty of serious accusations of misconduct in the White House and federal government, the scandals are all still in their infancy and President Obama’s precise role is not known. It is all but certain, however, that the president will not be impeached.

The first scandal, the cover-up after the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, is the most advanced. The White House released emails earlier this month that showed that references to al Qaeda had been scrubbed from the administration’s talking points about the attack according to ABC News. ABC reported as early as Oct. 9, 2012 that the street protests were non-existent. More than two weeks after the attack, President Obama was still blaming a “crude and disgusting video” that allegedly “sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world” in a speech to the United Nations. President Obama’s only mention of al Qaeda in the speech was to call it “weakened” in reference to Osama bin Laden’s death. There is still no satisfactory explanation as to why there was no rescue attempt.

The second scandal involves abuse of power by Internal Revenue Service. The IRS admitted on May 10 that it had targeted conservative groups for additional scrutiny during the run-up to the 2012 election. It quickly became apparent that the problem was much more widespread than the IRS had admitted. In fact, the IRS approved no conservative groups at all for a 27 month period beginning in February 2010 according to USA Today. There were other abuses as well, including audits of Obama’s political critics and attempts to force a pro-life group to stop protesting Planned Parenthood according to Examiner. The IRS had even planted the press conference question that Lerner answered to ignite the scandal in an apparent attempt to preempt a government report on the matter.

President Obama and his aides claimed to learn of the scandal “when it came out in the news” according to Yahoo News, however multiple reports show that the White House counsel learned about the internal investigation of the matter several weeks earlier. Lois Lerner, the IRS official who broke the story, learned about the matter as early as 2011 according to the Washington Post. Several senators were also aware of the investigation, but had been unable to get answers from the IRS before Ms. Lerner’s apology.

The third scandal, the Obama Administration’s broad seizure of Associated Press phone records, may prove to be the most dangerous to Obama. In the course of investigating a leak, the Department of Justice, in another scandal that was wider than initially admitted, secretly subpoenaed phone records for five AP offices and hundreds of reporters over a two month period according to the Washington Post. Typically, government investigators ask news organizations for records or at least provide advance notice of such a subpoena. In this case, the DOJ did neither.

The government cites national security concerns for the phone records, but the case in question, the report of an al Qaeda bomb plot disrupted by federal agents, was actually the subject of a White House news conference on the same day that the AP published its story according to NBC News. Further, the press conference by counterterrorism advisor John Brennan contained an important detail that the AP story lacked: the fact that an inside informant had helped to disrupt the plot. Obama claimed not to know the details of the AP case as late as May 16, three days after the story broke according to Mediaite. Attorney General Eric Holder claimed to have recused himself from the investigation according to USA Today.

The Associated Press scandal may prove most dangerous for Obama because the media has traditionally been sympathetic to Democrats. By launching heavy-handed investigations of media outlets, the Administration risks transforming the cozy relationship to an adversarial one. The problem is compounded by the recent revelation that the FBI secretly monitored a Fox News journalist as a “criminal co-conspirator” in a 2009 leak case. Ironically, the failure of the media to look deeply into other Obama Administration scandals such as Fast and Furious and Solyndra may have encouraged members of the administration to pursue ever more risky political strategies on the assumption that they would not be subjected to rigorous fact-checking by the media.

Regardless of the severity of these scandals, there is almost no chance that any combination of them will result in the president’s impeachment. Under the Constitution, the House of Representatives has the power to impeach the president for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors” which are not defined. Since the House is controlled by Republicans, a vote to impeach should pass handily, so why impeachment so unlikely?

The second step is that the impeached president must then be tried in the Senate in order to be removed from office. The Democrats currently control the Senate 55-45 (including two independents who would probably vote with the Democrats). The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote to remove the president. This means that even if all Republicans in the Senate voted to remove Obama from office, they would still need the votes of 21 Democrats or independents. It would be pointless and possibly counterproductive for Republicans to impeach Obama when they are not able to remove him from office.

In all of U.S. history, only two presidents have been impeached. Neither was removed from office. In 1868, Andrew Johnson was acquitted in the Senate by a single vote after seven senators broke party ranks to support the president. In 1998, Bill Clinton was also acquitted with 45 guilty votes on a perjury charge and 50 votes on an obstruction of justice charge, 21 and 16 votes short of removal respectively. Several Republicans voted for acquittal while no Democrats voted guilty.

The chance that Obama might be forced to resign is slightly better, but still a long shot. Richard Nixon was the only president to resign from office. In the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, Nixon resigned in 1974 to avoid impeachment. President Obama is unlikely to take similar action since the threat of impeachment is so remote. President Obama would probably not consider resignation unless he lost the support of his Democratic base.

Liberals can breathe a sigh of relief that President Obama’s job is probably safe. On the other hand, conservatives can take encouragement from the possibility that Obama may be so damaged by the scandals that he is unable to advance his second term agenda. Likewise, the Democratic Party’s troubles means that Republicans might have better odds in the 2014 midterm elections. Republicans can take comfort from the fact that if Obama were removed from office, Joe Biden would be next in line.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/scandals-won-t-result-obama-impeachment

IRS manager in problem office got bonuses, now leads Obamacare unit

Sarah Hall Ingram was the IRS official in charge of the Internal Revenue Service Tax Exempt Division from 2009 through 2012. Her division has recently made headlines as part of the IRS that singled conservative groups who were seeking tax exemptions.

One might expect that Sarah Hall Ingram would have been dismissed from the IRS after President Obama announced his displeasure over the IRS scandal. Obama requested the resignation of acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller after the scandal broke.

In reality, the IRS confirmed Friday to ABC News that Ingram, rather than being fired or demoted, now heads up the IRS Affordable Care Office. The Affordable Care Act dramatically expands the size and power of the IRS by putting the IRS in charge of enforcing the individual and employer mandates. The IRS also controls and regulates the Affordable Care Act’s federal subsidies for health insurance.

Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the Republican candidate for vice president in 2012, called the IRS connection to Obamacare “rotten to the core.” Speaking today on Fox News Sunday, he said, “The IRS is now going to be granted huge amounts of unprecedented power over our health care in the implementation of Obamacare. And so this is just rotten to the core. This is arrogance. This is big government cronyism. And this is not what hard-working taxpayers deserve.”

Other conservatives wondered whether the IRS might limit the availability of health care, health insurance or federal subsidies in cases where patients were critical of the Obama Administration or the federal government. In answer, Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) has introduced the Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act of 2013. The law would prohibit the IRS from implementing or enforcing the Affordable Care Act’s provisions.

Acting Commissioner Miller’s firing has also been greatly exaggerated. ABC News also reported that Miller’s 210 day term would have expired on June 8. In the meantime, Miller is still on the job. No final date for his departure has been announced. A copy of his resignation letter to IRS employees in the Washington Post referred to Miller’s focus “on an orderly transition,” which seems to imply that his departure will not be immediate.

The brunt of the blame seems to be falling on Joseph Grant, who became deputy commissioner of the tax exempt division in 2007, serving under Ms. Ingram. Grant was promoted to Ms. Ingram’s old position only two days before the IRS announcement that sparked the scandal. USA Today reports that Grant will retire on June 3.

The Washington Examiner also reported this week that Sarah Hall Ingram received more than $100,000 in bonuses during her tenure as the head of the tax exempt office. During the years from 2010 through 2012 when IRS persecution of conservative groups was at its highest levels, Ingram received between $26,000 and $35,000 in annual bonus money. Ingram also received a bonus of $47,900 in 2004. During the four years in question, the average bonus paid to IRS employees was $5,500.

The Examiner points out that Office of Personnel Management guidelines state, “If the recommended award is over $25,000, the Director of OPM reviews the nomination and forwards his/her recommendation to the President for approval.” The guidelines also note that managers should ensure that “the proposed award recipient has not been involved in any action or activity that could cause the President embarrassment.…”

Originally posted on Examiner:

http://www.examiner.com/article/manager-of-irs-scandal-office-now-heads-obamacare-unit

IRS scandal is worse than Benghazi for Obama

Over the past week, the Obama Administration has been repeatedly rocked by scandals. Beginning with last week’s hearings on the pre-election attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that resulted in the death of ambassador Chris Stevens, President Obama has endured a steady stream of bad news.

Although the Benghazi hearing has raised the ire of conservatives, the real danger to the Obama Administration comes from the domestic scandals. In particular Obama’s problems with the Internal Revenue Service can fire the imaginations and anger of the American people.

As reported by Examiner last October, the fundamentals of the Benghazi fiasco were known within weeks after the attack. The recent hearings have confirmed that President Obama lied about the nature of the attack to avoid having his foreign policy questioned just before the election. Benghazi never captured the public’s imagination, however. Even though a U.S. ambassador, a consulate employee, and two former Navy Seals were killed by al Qaeda-linked militants, the media mostly ignored the story of the cover-up. The American public, weary of war after more than a decade of fighting, seemed unwilling to get angry over the attack, even if it was the result of Obama’s foreign policy or Secretary of State Clinton’s refusal to reinforce the consulate’s security forces. This week’s revelations of IRS bullying and Justice Department subpoenas of Associated Press phone records seem likelier to hit home, each for different reasons.

In the best of times, the IRS is probably the most reviled federal agency. Nobody likes taxes. Tax collectors have been unpopular with taxpayers since long before the days when Matthew and Zacchaeus repented of abuse of power in their chosen profession. More recently, the IRS scandal began with an apology from Lois Lerner, director of the Exempt Organizations Division, for what she termed as the targeting of conservative groups for additional scrutiny on their applications for tax exempt status. The problem, she said, lay with low level workers in Cincinnati who acted independently. It quickly became apparent that the IRS confession barely scratched the surface.

· In 2009, the IRS tried to force board members of a pro-life group to sign a statement promising “under perjury of the law, they do not picket/protest or organize groups to picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood” in order to gain tax exemption according to the Thomas More Law Center.

· In 2010, Z Street, a pro-Israel group, sued the IRS after being told that its application would take longer because it was “connected to Israel” according to the Jewish Press.

· In September 2010, the Weekly Standard reported that Austan Goolsbee, the head of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors, criticized Koch Industries, citing confidential tax information that was not publicly available.

· Anne Henderschott, a Catholic professor and blogger, was targeted by the IRS for audits after she wrote several articles challenging liberal Catholic groups who supported Obamacare. According to the Blaze, many of the questions in the audit were political.

· In April 2011, Secure America Now, an organization critical of Obama’s foreign policy toward North Korea, Iran, Israel and Libya had its tax exemption held up twice by the IRS according to the WSJ. The investigation intensified after the group produced a popular video about the Benghazi attack.

· In May 2011, Bloomberg reported that the IRS had attempted to retroactively tax gifts made to tax exempt groups “supporting Republican causes.”

· In March 2012, the Puffington Host published private information about donors to the National Organization for Marriage that it admitted had been obtained from the IRS.

· In June 2012, Idaho businessman Frank Vandersloot was subjected to a series of audits after being mentioned in an Obama campaign as one of several “wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records” who donated to Romney. VanderSloot passed the audits with flying colors.

· From December 2012 to January 2013, the IRS gave the left-leaning group Pro Publica confidential tax information about conservative groups.

· In April 2013, just a few weeks before the scandal broke, CNET reported that internal IRS communications state that Americans have “generally no privacy” in electronic communications such as email and Facebook chats. The IRS position is that no warrant is required to access email. This in spite of judicial rulings to the contrary.

As new victims of IRS abuse come forward, it is evident that the IRS harassed only conservatives. It is also apparent that the problem went beyond merely denying tax exempt status to conservative groups. The IRS sought membership lists from conservative groups, targeted Obama opponents with audits and slow-tracking of approvals, and leaked confidential tax information to liberal groups. The IRS also apparently tried to influence and limit the political speech of individuals and groups opposed to President Obama.

Contrary to the official IRS explanation, at least two IRS offices were involved. According to the Washington Post, letters to conservative groups seeking information about donors also came from the Washington, D.C. and California offices. At least one group was told that their application was under review in Washington.

While such heavy-handed tactics were once the province of many Democratic presidents from FDR to JFK according to historian James Bovard, Congress has since enacted legislation to restrict political contacts between the IRS and the White House. To put President Obama’s current predicament into perspective, the second article of impeachment against Richard Nixon involved using tax information for illegal purposes and auditing political opponents.

The matter of the Justice Department’s AP investigation is less pressing to most Americans, but has the potential to turn members of the media against the Obama Administration. The New Yorker called the AP investigation “aggressive.” The Wall Street Journal notes that the AP subpoenas were “broad, violating normal Justice practice of narrowly tailoring requests that concern the media.” The Justice Department overreach may entice a press corps that mostly sympathizes with Obama to take a more adversarial tack.

President Obama immediately tried to distance himself from the scandals. On May 13, he called the IRS an “independent agency,” an assessment that Factcheck.org disputes. The IRS is actually a branch of the Treasury Department. The president appoints the heads of both the IRS and the Treasury Department, a fact subtly acknowledged by President Obama when he fired Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller on Thursday. Miller would have left the post in June anyway.

President Obama’s problems may not be solved that easily. Abuse of power in federal agencies seems to be increasing under President Obama. According to the Wall St. Journal, the Environmental Protection Agency has favored groups that share its political agenda, charging conservative groups for Freedom of Information Act requests while waiving fees for liberal groups. Earlier this year, a court ruled the president’s appointments to the National Labor Relations Board unconstitutional, but the board keeps issuing rulings. In Obama’s first term, several courts decided that the EPA acted outside its legal authority as Examiner reported last year. Obama’s Interior Department was held in contempt in 2010 for refusing to issue new drilling permits after Obama’s unilateral drilling moratorium was ruled unconstitutional.

Whether President Obama personally ordered the IRS to investigate and bully conservative groups or not, there can be little doubt that he set the tone that encouraged the harassment. Kimberly Strassel points out that many of Obama’s speeches that deride conservative groups as “less than reputable” and made thinly veiled calls for their investigation. Senate Democrats went even further notes Karl Rove. On two separate occasions, in 2010 and 2012, Democratic senators sent letters to the IRS demanding investigation of political groups.

Voters are angry about the IRS scandal. A Rasmussen poll released Wednesday indicated that a majority of Americans feel that the IRS agents responsible should be punished. Forty-one percent believe they should be fired while 29 percent support a formal reprimand. Sixteen percent believe that jail time is warranted. Fifty-seven percent believe that the investigations were politically motivated and 55 percent believe that President Obama and his top aides were aware of what the IRS was doing.

While impeachment hearings will not be held any time soon, it is also unlikely that the IRS abuse of power scandal will disappear any time soon. Americans will likely think of their own tax troubles when they hear the tales of politically motivated audits. The problem may be even worse for Obama if voters realize that the IRS will be responsible for much of the implementation of the new health care rules under Obamacare.

Originally published on Examiner:

http://www.examiner.com/article/domestic-scandals-more-dangerous-to-obama-than-benghazi

Beware of tax protest conspiracies

As we approach April 15, the deadline for filing federal income tax returns for most individual taxpayers, many people question whether Americans are really required to pay an income tax. Scores of Youtube videos featuring people such as former IRS agent Joseph Bannister claim that the federal income tax is illegal and that Americans cannot be forced to pay taxes to the IRS. In celebration of the Ides of April, let us once again don our tin foil hats and delve into the world of income tax protesters.

One claim made by tax protesters is that there is no law on the books that permits a federal income tax. It is true that the original income tax signed into law by Abraham Lincoln in 1861 was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1895. This problem was fixed with the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913. Some tax protesters argue that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified. Professor Jonathan Siegel of the George Washington University Law School explains that the 16^th Amendment had the same ratification process as other amendments and really is part of the Constitution.

Another claim is that even though the Constitution permits an income tax, no federal law ever enacted one. Some tax protesters claim that even after years of searching that they have found no law establishing an income tax. In truth, they need look no further than Title 26 of the U.S. Code, commonly known as the Internal Revenue Code. Subtitle A, chapter one, subchapter A, part one legally establishes an income tax on individuals. This part also defines that wages are included in taxable income, debunking another claim by some tax protesters.

The “861 argument” against paying income tax is based on a section of chapter one of the tax code. Section 861 relates to resident and nonresident aliens working in the United States as well as foreign corporations. Section 861 does not apply to U.S. citizens unless they have income that has already been taxed according to Professor Siegel. If a U.S. citizen has paid taxes to a foreign government, the federal tax code allows them to use these payments as a credit on their federal income tax. Otherwise Section 861 does not apply to U.S. citizens.

Tax protesters also cite the names of many people who have allegedly “beat the IRS” in court. What they don’t say is that while these people may sometimes avoid jail time, they are not so fortunate when it comes to avoiding civil penalties and being forced to pay back taxes and penalties. Often tax protesters are sent to jail as well.

Vernice Kuglin, a former FedEx pilot who appears in some online videos as someone who beat the IRS in court, actually was acquitted in 2003 of falsifying W-4 forms and failing to pay taxes. Although she did not go to jail, she agreed to pay more than half a million dollars in back taxes and penalties and had her wages garnished by the IRS according to court documents cited on Tax Protester Dossiers. The Memphis Daily News reported in 2007 that the IRS had filed an additional tax lien against her house for $188,025.

Joseph Banister, the IRS agent who was mentioned in the first paragraph, also escaped jail although he was indicted for conspiracy to avoid taxes. According to Tax Protester Dossiers, Banister was acquitted of the criminal charge, but was disbarred from IRS practice. The California Board of Accountancy revoked his CPA license in 2007. The CBA website cites the cause for discipline as “providing erroneous advice to taxpayers” and “improperly advising them that tax returns were not required….”

Banister’s client in the case that led to his disbarment was Walter “Al” Thompson. Thompson refused to withhold taxes from their wages and file tax documents as required by law. According to etax.com, Thompson was convicted, fined $7,500, and sentenced to 72 months in prison on a variety of charges including filing a false return and failing to pay income and Social Security taxes for his employees.

Other tax protesters were also not as lucky as Banister and Kuglin. Sherry Peel Jackson, a Stone Mountain, Ga. resident and former IRS agent, was found guilty on four counts of failing to file tax returns. Jackson appears in some of the internet films espousing tax protest theories. She was sentenced to four years in prison. She surrendered her CPA license to Georgia authorities after her conviction.

Many other tax protesters have gone to jail when they followed their beliefs and failed to file tax returns. Other prominent tax resisters who have gone to jail include Peter Hendrickson, author of “Cracking the Code,” a book of tips on how to avoid paying taxes, who received a 33 month jail term and a $25,000 fine. Larken Rose, a proponent of the 861 argument, received a 15 month prison sentence and $10,000 fine. Irwin Schiff has gone to jail three times for criminal violations of tax laws. He is currently serving a 13 year sentence on tax charges and criminal contempt.

The lesson taxpayers should learn is that if there were an easy way out of paying taxes, nobody would pay them, taxes would not be a major political issue and the Republicans would not put such emphasis on tax cuts. Most obviously, if paying income taxes was not mandatory, people who do not pay taxes would not go to jail. It is not illegal to question the legality of the income tax. It is illegal to refuse to pay taxes or file a return.

Many conspiracy theories are ultimately harmless. Staying inside because of a fear of chemtrails may hamper one’s life, but it won’t ruin it. Believing that that JFK was the victim of a vast conspiracy, that secret forces were behind the September 11 attacks, or that Obamacare requires Americans to receive implants or establishes a secret police force probably won’t cause one to lose their job or family. While it is not against the law to espouse conspiracy theories about the income tax, acting on those theories can cost conspiracy believers years in jails and thousands of dollars in fines and penalties.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/tax-protester-conspiracy-theories-can-lead-to-jail-fines