U.S. Border Patrol has seen a massive spike in southern border encounters with people on the U.S. terror watchlist between ports of entry, according to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) statistics.
CBP personnel came across individuals on the watchlist 78 times in those areas between October and August, the data reveals. There have been more than 2,000,000 migrant encounters on the southern border so far this fiscal year, a record-breaking surge.
CBP reported only fifteen southern border encounters with people on the watchlist between ports of entry in FY2021. No such incidents were recorded in FY2019.
There’s been dramatically less coverage of the 78 illegals on the terror watchlist than the 48 illegals who spent a night at Martha’s Vineyard https://t.co/FN531qGLjm
President Joe Biden appointed Vice President Kamala Harris to address migration’s root causes early last year, and she did not visit the southern border until more than 90 days later. Harris insisted in a “Meet the Press” interview released Sept. 11 that the border was “secure,” admitting, “We also have a broken immigration system and particular[ly] over the last four years before we came in and it needs to be fixed.”
Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz conceded under oath in late July that the southern border was in crisis. Texas Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar said Sept. 9 that the border was not closed, arguing the administration was “not on the same page” when it claimed otherwise.
The White House and CBP did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2022-09-21 17:42:592022-09-21 17:44:45Border Patrol Increasingly Encounters People On Terror Watchlist
The Florida senator criticized the class action lawsuit filed by three Venezuelan migrants Tuesday over the flight to Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts. Alianza Americas, a Chicago-based network of migrant-led organizations and the migrants — Yanet Doe, Pablo Doe, and Jesus Doe — argued they were used “for the sole purpose of advancing their own personal, financial, and political interests.”
“Think about this, okay? People came into this country illegally, violating our laws and the first thing they do is get lawyers and use our laws to sue an elected governor, to sue a state,” the senator said. “I mean, just think about that. They just got here, they’re not even here legally, they didn’t enter the country the proper way, and they’re immediately in court demanding rights and claims under our laws. This is outrageous. What other country in the world would that even be allowed? What other country in the world would even tolerate that?”
“This is not immigration, what we’re seeing,” he continued. “This is mass migration. That’s a very different thing. But to just think about the fact that somebody just came here illegally and within a week they’re in court and they have lawyers representing them in court suing the American government whose laws they just violated is unbelievable. It’s outrageous. It angers me and it should anger everybody.”
The migrants alleged that accomplices acting on behalf of DeSantis and his administration “manipulated” and “stripped” them of constitutional rights protected under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The accomplices allegedly pretended to be individuals offering the migrants humanitarian assistance.
“Defendants manipulated them, stripped them of their dignity, deprived them of their liberty, bodily autonomy, due process, and equal protection under law, and impermissibly interfered with the Federal Government’s exclusive control over immigration in furtherance of an unlawful goal and a personal political agenda,” the lawsuit stated.
Taryn Fenske, a spokesperson for DeSantis, said in a statement received by the Daily Caller Tuesday that the migrants voluntarily chose to board the two planes chartered to Massachusetts.
“The transportation of the immigrants to Martha’s Vineyard was done on a voluntary basis,” Fenske said. “The immigrants were homeless, hungry, and abandoned – and these activists didn’t care about them then. Florida’s program gave them a fresh start in a sanctuary state and these individuals opted to take advantage of chartered flights to Massachusetts. It was disappointing that Martha’s Vineyard called in the Massachusetts National Guard to bus them away from the island within 48 hours.”
Migrants received brochures informing them of their destination before boarding the flight to Martha’s Vineyard. The packets showed the location and offered a variety of resources on job opportunities and community services areas.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2022-09-21 16:36:082022-09-21 16:44:32Sen. Marco Rubio Calls Out Migrants’ Lawsuit Against Gov. DeSantis: ‘They’re Not Even Here Legally’
hat if your bank shared what you spent your money on with the federal government? By law, banks and other financial institutions (like car dealerships, jewelers, pawn shops) are required to report certain types of purchases people make to financial regulators. What do Americans think of this?
A new Cato Institute national survey of 2,000 U.S. adults conducted by YouGov finds that 79% of Americans believe it is “unreasonable” for your bank to share your financial records and bank transactions with the federal government. About a fifth, 21%, think it is reasonable.
Instead, and overwhelming majority—83%—think that the government should first obtain a warrant to access your financial records, while 17% think a warrant shouldn’t be needed.
Even in an era of hyper‐partisanship, Democrats, Republicans, and independents agree on this issue. Majorities of Democrats (68%), independents (83%), and Republicans (89%) think it’s unreasonable for your bank to share your financial records with the government. Similarly, overwhelming majorities of Democrats (82%), independents (76%), and Republicans (87%) think a warrant should be needed first.
The issue somewhat divides a portion of the Democratic coalition. Americans who identify as “very liberal” were the most likely (41%) group to think it’s reasonable for banks to share customers’ records with the federal government compared with 26% of mainline liberals. Nevertheless, strong majorities of both strong liberals (59%) and moderate liberals (74%) believe sharing what people buy with the federal government is unacceptable. Furthermore, the same percentage (86%) of both say the government should need to obtain a warrant before reviewing purchases people make.
Methodology
The Cato Institute 2022 Financial Privacy National Survey was designed and conducted by the Cato Institute in collaboration with YouGov. YouGov collected responses online August 17 to 23, 2022, from a national sample of 2,000 Americans 18 years of age and older. Restrictions are put in place to ensure that only the people selected and contacted by YouGov are allowed to participate. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 2.39 percentage points at the 95% level of confidence.
The topline questionnaire and survey methodology can be found here. If you would like to speak to Dr. Ekins on the poll’s results please contact pr@cato.org or 202–789-5200.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2022-09-19 18:36:362022-09-19 18:38:44It’s ‘Unreasonable’ for Banks to Share Your Financial Info With the Government, 8 in 10 Americans Say
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2022-09-18 20:03:452022-09-26 06:14:40I’m D.J. Trump and I Approve This Border Security Message by Bill Clinton
Mayor Lori Lightfoot has allowed criminals to take over the once great city of Chicago. As such, we are now seeing a corporate exodus out of the Windy City. How long before McDonald’s follows Boeing, Citadel, the Chicago Bears and others out of Chicago? Not very long at this rate. The city of Muddy Waters, John Belushi, John Hughes, and Michael Jordan is dying before our eyes. Little to no media coverage on Lightfoot’s willful incompetence. Shameful.
Chris Kempczinski spoke last and says the violence has been a problem when trying to convince employees to come back
He said: ‘Everywhere I go, I’m confronted by the same question: ‘What’s going on in Chicago? There is a general sense out there that our city is in crisis’
Crime is up 37 percent from this point in 2021, according to the city’s own data
Murders and shootings are down double digits but thefts are up a shocking 64 percent
Previously, Kempczinski appeared to blame parents of two children who were shot and killed in a McDonald’s drive-thru in Chicago to Mayor Lori Lightfoot
Kempczinski – who lives in the city with his family – pledged to not only keep the golden arches headquartered in Chicago but build a new innovation center
The CEO of McDonald’s is speaking out about the crime crisis in Chicago and believes the lack of safety is keeping employees from returning to the fast food giant’s Windy City HQ in a warning to Democrat Mayor Lori Lightfoot.
Chris Kempczinski spoke last Wednesday at the Economic Club of Chicago, where he says the violence has been a problem when trying to convince employees to come back.
He said: ‘Everywhere I go, I’m confronted by the same question: ‘What’s going on in Chicago? There is a general sense out there that our city is in crisis.’
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2022-09-18 14:08:192022-09-18 14:11:12McDonald’s CEO Warns Chicago Mayor Lightfoot that Soaring Crime is Leaving its Corporate Staff Too Terrified to Return to HQ
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals preserved Texas state law Friday that would stop large social media platforms from restricting particular opinions.
Texas’ HB 20 was signed last year and generally prohibits platforms with over 50 million monthly U.S. users from censoring them based on their viewpoints. The Computer Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and the NetChoice organization, representing social media companies, argued that aspects of the law were unconstitutional but failed to convince the court.
“In urging such sweeping relief, the platforms offer a rather odd inversion of the First Amendment,” the court’s majority decision said. “That Amendment, of course, protects every person’s right to ‘the freedom of speech.’ But the platforms argue that buried somewhere in the person’s enumerated right to free speech lies a corporation’s unenumerated right to muzzle speech.”
The appeals court must give the district court that previously decided the case written instructions for the law to become effective, according to Politico. A 5-4 May U.S. Supreme Court ruling had halted the law from going into force after an emergency request by the CCIA and NetChoice.
Appealing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton celebrated the circuit court’s decision Friday, tweeting, “#BigTech CANNOT censor the political voices of ANY Texan! The 5th Circuit ‘reject[s] the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say.”
BREAKING: I just secured a MASSIVE VICTORY for the Constitution & Free Speech in fed court: #BigTech CANNOT censor the political voices of ANY Texan! The 5th Circuit “reject[s] the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say. pic.twitter.com/UijlzYcv7r
CCIA President Matt Schruers decried the ruling, stating, “Forcing private companies to give equal treatment to all viewpoints on their platforms places foreign propaganda and extremism on equal footing with decent Internet users, and places Americans at risk,” according to The Hill.
The Supreme Court could still be asked to directly consider the law’s validity, the outlet reported.
In May, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a block on enforcing parts of Florida Senate Bill 7072, which would require social media platforms to explain the reasons for individual acts of supposed censorship, deplatforming and shadow banning and stop them from censoring a “journalistic enterprise based on the content of its publication or broadcast,” according to The National Law Review.
“We are disappointed that the Fifth Circuit’s split decision undermines First Amendment protections and creates a circuit split with the unanimous decision of the Eleventh Circuit,” NetChoice Vice President and General Counsel Carl Szabo said in a Friday press release. “We remain convinced that when the U.S. Supreme Court hears one of our cases, it will uphold the First Amendment rights of websites, platforms, and apps.”
NetChoice declined the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment. The CCIA did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2022-09-18 10:06:052022-09-18 11:57:20Federal Court Upholds Texas Social Media Bill, Rules Corporations Do Not Have ‘Right’ To Censor
What total HYPOCRITES and liars the socialist lefty NIMBYies with their Sanctuary Cities are – take a look at this sign by the Martha’s Vineyard community which is now saying the 50 illegals flown to them by Gov DeSantis is a “humanitarian crises”; they don’t have shower and other facilities for them; whah whah whah! What total BS – what about the 4 Million illegals who have invaded across our open Southern Borders thanks to the policies of Obama 3 administration.
This invasion is happening just since Biden occupied the White House!
POTUS Trump had stopped this flow to a trickle using existing immigration laws which the lawless Democrats now totally ignore.
How many of these illegals are were terrorists, rapists, violent gang members, drug pushers, human traffickers, disease carriers, and/or an overall huge burden on our national economy and a threat to our national sovereignty? Answer – all of them!
Keep sending them to Massachusetts, Delaware, Illinois, Washington D.C. and every other Democrat Sanctuary city please.
According to a new cost analysis by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), providing for the needs of illegal aliens who entered the country under President Biden adds an additional $20.4 billion annual burden on American taxpayers. This figure is in addition to the well over $140 billion a year cost burden taxpayers are already bearing to provide benefits and services for the longer-term illegal alien population.
The Biden administration has willingly released approximately 1.3 million illegal aliens into the country’s interior after removals and Title 42 expulsions are accounted for. Add to this figure approximately 1 million “gotaways” according to FAIR’s sources within U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and it can be safely estimated that approximately 2.3 million illegal aliens successfully entered the country’s interior after President Biden took office.
Based on the most recent comprehensive cost study, FAIR conservatively estimates that each illegal alien costs American taxpayers $9,232 per year.
“Even in an age in which trillion dollar spending packages are considered modest, the additional $20.4 billion the Biden Border Crisis has heaped onto the backs of American taxpayers is still staggering,” noted Dan Stein, president of FAIR. “$20.4 billion could address some very important needs of the American public, instead of covering the costs of the surge of illegal migration triggered by this administration’s policies.”
The $20.4 billion that taxpayers will spend this year, on just the illegal aliens who have entered the country in the last year and half, could cover the cost of:
Providing every homeless veteran in America $50,000 per year for a decade. This would effectively end veteran homelessness.
Giving every family in America earning $50k or less a grocery voucher of roughly $410.
Providing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to more than 7 million additional needy families.
Funding and expanding the entire National School Lunch Program.
Hiring more than 315,000 police officers to combat rising crime across the country.
Hiring of 330,000 new teachers, which would easily end the long-standing teacher shortage in America.
Construction of nearly the entire Southern Border Wall (which could prevent millions more illegal aliens from entering).
“According to another new report, 35 percent of U.S. families with a full-time worker struggle to meet their basic needs. These are the people President Biden pledged to champion. Instead, he is choosing to divert an additional $20.4 billion away from their needs, in order to fund a radical open borders agenda with no end in sight,” concluded Stein.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Royal A. Brown IIIhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRoyal A. Brown III2022-09-17 12:51:362022-09-17 15:15:52NOT IN MY BACKYARD: ‘Sanctuary Cities’ Martha’s Vineyard, Chicago, D.C. Total Hypocrites
At a House Judiciary Committee meeting on Wednesday, smear merchant Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), best-known for his lunatic concern that too many troops stationed on Guam would cause the island to tip over, smeared parents at school board meetings as the equivalent of the “MAGA Republicans” who entered the U.S. Capitol on January 6.
“January 6 2021, will never be forgotten, an infamous day in American history. MAGA Republicans descended upon the Capitol, engaged in an insurrection,” Johnson lied. There was no insurrection.
“They occupied the Capitol. Five people were killed, hundreds injured, including hundreds of Capitol Hill police officers attacked and bludgeoned. It was a day that we’ll never forget,” Johnson continued.
Every bit of that statement is a lie too. Fact checks: 1) the only person killed that day was an unarmed Trump supporter shot dead by Capitol police; and 2) hundreds of Capitol Hill police officers were not attacked and bludgeoned.
Johnson went on to compare parents who protested school board meetings to the Capitol rioters.
“And people on the local level at affected school board meetings, they won’t forget the MAGA Republicans descending on their school board meetings after January 6. Like January 6, disrupting meetings,” Johnson said. “It was a quote coordinated attack happening across the country Americans won’t forget about it.”
Another lie: there was no “coordinated attack” on school boards. Parents across the country were legitimately, spontaneously outraged at the discovery that their children were being indoctrinated by a progressive educational agenda including the divisive racism of Critical Race Theory — an indoctrination Johnson supports.
Johnson also referred to a letter the National School Boards Association sent to the Biden administration demanding federal law enforcement’s help for the protesting parents, whom they smeared as “domestic terrorists.” The Department of Justice subsequently opened an investigation into those parents. Johnson supports treating these parents as domestic terror threats.
Johnson and his fellow Democrats are liars who will stop at nothing to seize and consolidate totalitarian power, including demonizing concerned parents as terrorist threats. Hank Johnson and his ilk are the true enemies of democracy.
In a January 1, 2019 speech at a Baptist church in Atlanta, Johnson likened President Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. Among his remarks were the following:
“Much like how Hitler took over the Nazi party, Trump has taken over the Republican Party.”
“Hitler was accepting of violence towards the achievement of political objectives. Trump encouraged violence against protesters at his rallies.”
“Americans, particularly black Americans, can’t afford to make that same mistake about the harm that could be done by a man named Hitler or a man named Trump.”
“Americans elected an authoritarian, an anti-immigrant, racist strongman to the nation’s highest office. Donald Trump and his ‘Make America Great Again’ followers…want to return American back to a time where white men and white privilege were unchallenged, and where minorities and women were in their place.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Discover The Networkshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDiscover The Networks2022-09-15 20:20:142022-09-15 20:21:29Dem Johnson: Parents at School Board Mtgs Are a ‘Coordinated Attack’ ‘Just Like’ Jan. 6 Rioters
A reader who has a friend living in California sent us the below which was posted by Renee who is the Oklahoma Connecting Consciousness USA coordinator about Governor DeSantis who is doing very well in the Sunshine State and beyond.
A receptionist at Martha’s Vineyard Community Services looked up late Wednesday afternoon to find a group of 50 people – men, women and children – standing in the center’s parking lot.
[ … ]
The migrants thought to be from Venezuela were flown by a chartered aircraft from Florida and/or Texas.
Foxnews.com reported that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis sent two planes full of migrants to Martha’s Vineyard as part of his “promise to drop off undocumented migrants in progressive states.”
Oklahoma is the only state where neither Obama nor Biden won even one county in the last election.
WHILE EVERYONE IS focusing on Arizona, Georgia, and Texas’ new laws, LOOK what Oklahoma has been doing!
Oklahoma has passed a law in the state to: “incarcerate all illegal immigrants, and ship them back to where they came from unless they want to get a green card and become an American citizen”.
All the illegals literally scattered! HB 1804.
This was against the advice of the Federal Government, and the ACLU. They said it would be a mistake. Guess what… Oklahoma did it anyway.
Recently Oklahoma passed a law to include DNA samples from any and all illegal’s to the Oklahoma database, for criminal investigative, purposes. Pelosi said it was unconstitutional SB 1102
Guess what… Oklahoma did it anyway.
Few realize that several weeks ago, we again, passed a law declaring Oklahoma a Sovereign state, not under the Federal Government directives joining Texas, Montana, and Utah as the only states (so far) to do so.
MORE STATES are now likely to follow: Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Carolina’s, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi and Florida.
Save your confederate money, folks, it appears the South is about to rise again! HJR 1003
Your federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns. Oklahoma, a week ago, passed a law confirming people in this state have the right to bear arms and transport them in their vehicles. That’s a setback for criminals, and The Liberals didn’t like it, BUT… Oklahoma did it anyway.
Just this month, Oklahoma has voted and passed a law that ALL drivers’ license exams will be printed in English, and only English, and no other language. They have been called racist for doing this, but the fact is that ALL of the road signs are in English only. If you want to drive in Oklahoma, you must read and write English. Really simple, folks.
By the way, the Liberals don’t like any of this either. Oklahoma is doing it anyway.
And guess what… the people I’m sending this to, will send it on. Well, at least the ones who love and believe in freedom will! For those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2022-09-15 12:15:302022-09-15 12:49:24A Californian Speaks out as Governor Ron DeSantis Sends 50 Illegals to Martha’s Vineyard
The pandemic policies of 2020 flattened economic freedom in the United States.
The Fraser Institute’s 2022 Economic Freedom of the World Index report has been released. This year’s report covers the year 2020. The index development was led by Dr. James Gwartney in the late 1980s and early 1990s as a way of measuring economic freedom in each country.
Countries are rated on the basis of several categories and are put in four groups (quartiles) ranging from “most free” to “least free.”
The index calculates the score every year since 2000, and in five-year intervals as far back as 1970. The index rates 165 jurisdictions in the most recent report.
The report on the year 2020 is bad news for lovers of freedom in the United States. The US fell in the rankings from the 6th freest country economically to the 7th. And while that fall represents only falling by one rank, the actual decline in economic freedom is quite large.
Measuring Economic Freedom
To understand why economic freedom is falling in the US, we need to consider how the index authors measure economic freedom. They do this by considering five categories. (Readers interested in a detailed methodology can check out the Fraser website.)
1. Size of Government
The first category is the size of government. The logic is straightforward—the more resources which are controlled by government, the less individuals can access resources freely. The category measures the size of government by looking at government taxes, spending, and the amount of industry controlled by government, among other things.
In this category, the US declined in freedom. The index measures each category from 1 to 10. Getting a score of 10 means your country is the freest possible for that measure. In other words, a “10” in the size of government category would mean you have a relatively small government. A “1” would mean the government spends and taxes at very high levels.
In this category, the US fell from a score of 7.32 to 6.79. This is a decline of over half a point which is very significant for a 10-point scale. The government increased in size significantly from 2019 to 2020 due, in part, to massive spending increases.
2. Legal System and Property Rights
Central to economic freedom is the ability of individuals to rely on courts for impartial decisions relating to property disputes. The extent to which government can enforce property rights and contracts in an unbiased manner is key to economic freedom.
So how did the US fare here? Over one year, the US didn’t have much change. The score for the legal system fell slightly, from 7.64 to 7.56.
3. Access to Sound Money
The authors of the index recognize a key aspect of property rights is access to a currency that enables exchange. When government prevents access to solid currencies and engages in policies that cause the value of a national currency to fluctuate wildly, they are hampering access to sound money and impeding mutually beneficial exchange.
The authors measure money supply changes, inflation variables, and access to foreign currencies
The US is historically very high on this measure. The fact that the US dollar is the world’s reserve currency should tell us something about its soundness. In 2020 the sound money score fell from 9.75 to 9.63.
This may seem like a small change, but readers should note that this score is for 2020—before massive inflation began. The rapid expansion of the US currency started in 2020 but didn’t conclude until March 2022. So while this decrease is certainly picking up some of the currency expansion of 2020, the high inflation we’re experiencing and continued money-printing in 2021 won’t be factored in until future years.
One last thing of note is that even though this seems like a small decrease, the sound money score for the US hasn’t been this low since 2009, the beginning of the financial crisis.
4. Freedom to Trade Internationally
Economic Freedom includes the ability to voluntarily exchange your property with whoever you want—regardless of national borders. The well-being gains which spring from specialization enabled by international trade have long been recognized by economists.
Tariffs, quotas, and other restrictions on international trade are considered in this category. Again, the US saw a slight decline in economic freedom here, with the score falling from 7.83 to 7.77.
Although slight, this decline is part of a much larger and protracted trend in which the US has declined from a score of 8.81 in 2000.
The last category of the index is regulation. Regulatory labor laws, restrictions on capital mobility (such as investing), and cumbersome licensing laws are a barrier to a truly free market. Laws that make certain contracts illegal because of their terms or the alleged qualifications of the participants are barriers to voluntary trade.
This category, like the size of government category, is where the US took a nosedive. From 2019 to 2020, the US fell from a score of 8.68 to 8.11. This sharp decline, over half a point, represents a massive increase in regulations.
In fact, this is the largest one-year increase in regulations in the US in this century, according to the Economic Freedom Index rankings.
The fact that the US became so much less free in the areas of “size of government” and “regulation” in 2020 should be no surprise. The rollout of massive COVID-19 spending policies and government interference in industry throughout 2020 represented a large growth of government that future taxpayers will feel for years to come.
At the same time, business regulations increased as the government attempted to use its power to stop COVID.
The author of the index, Dr. Gwartney, put it succinctly in saying, “people will continue to debate the appropriateness of the pandemic policies, but there is no question that they reduced economic freedom. The danger now is that many of these policies will remain in place in the future.”
Why Economic Freedom?
A critical reader might wonder why this matters. What’s the big deal if economic freedom falls?
Theoretically, the argument for freedom is clear. When people are free to own and exchange property, they work to improve the value of their property. Allowing for exchange enables individuals to trade things they value less for things they value more.
There’s much to be said for why free markets are good in theory, but the Economic Freedom Index also makes the point that freer countries do better in practice. In other words, the theory works.
The authors find consistently that the “most free” countries are wealthier, live longer, have more civil rights, and are more literate. Furthermore, the poorest in the most economically free countries are richer than the poorest in less free countries. In other words, economic freedom isn’t just good for the rich.
Critics may argue that the fact that the freest countries are better off on all these margins doesn’t prove that freedom is the cause, but when paired with a logically consistent theory for why economic freedom leads to economic growth, there is a very robust case that economic freedom is the cause.
Peter Jacobsen teaches economics and holds the position of Gwartney Professor of Economics. He received his graduate education George Mason University. His research interest is at the intersection of political economy, development economics, and population economics.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2022-09-14 14:39:272022-09-17 15:14:19Economic Freedom Falls in the United States, Global Report Shows
The war on parents is escalating. Here’s what’s happening on the battlefield:
A series of undercover videos exposed what school personnel are really up to, in their own words.
A private school director in New York City was caught on video admitting she misuses her position to sneak her left-wing political agenda into classrooms. “I just keep trying to disrupt wherever I can,” she said. “And now that I’m in this position, I have so many opportunities to do that.” She said she won’t allow Republican views to be expressed and trashed white boys as being horrible, awful people who are protected by capitalism. Wow.
Also in New York City, a middle school teacher was recorded encouraging students to engage in political violence and throw bricks at people who hold opposite views. She changed the words to the Pledge of Allegiance, so her class recites the idea America does not stand for liberty and justice for all, because black and brown people are excluded, they don’t get justice. If that’s true, why did Breonna Taylor’s family get a $12 million settlement from Louisville? The claim doesn’t make any sense. It’s garbage.
An assistant principal of an elementary school in Greenwich, Connecticut won’t hire Catholic teachers or anybody over 30 because they’re too conservative. He admitted to illegal age discrimination on video. He said he has progressive teachers who are adept at delivering left-wing messages to students without being obvious about it. “It’s subtle…. That’s how you get away with it,” he said.
Back in New York City, an assistant principal won’t hire teachers who believe in equality or a color-blind society. They have to give the correct Woke responses to diversity, equity, and inclusion questions and toe the party line on anti-racism or they won’t be hired. He would have fired a teacher who did not want to indoctrinate students with Black Lives Matter ideology, but the teacher quit first. Kindergartners at the school celebrate gay pride month by reading stories about a boy who wants to be a mermaid and encouraging children to be anything they want to be, genderwise. Transgender ideology becomes more explicit as the kids get older.
This is all in their own words and on tape, folks, there’s no denying it. They’re coming for your kids, and it’s not just the east coast.
Indoctrination also starts in kindergarten in Portland, Oregon schools. Kids are being taught the male-female gender binary is just a white colonizer construct and the ‘infinite gender spectrum’ is where it’s at. Forget the 57 genders, the number of gender choices is now ‘infinite’. Isn’t progress wonderful? According to the curriculum, some girls can have penises and some boys can have vulvas. This is not just the schools taking over the job of identity formation from parents, the agenda goes deeper than that. After six years of identity indoctrination, fifth-graders are asked to make Chinese youth league-style promises to carry on the revolution. They are asked to pledge to learn more about the ideology and the history of black trans women. They pledge to use correct pronouns. They pledge to watch films and shows with LGBTQ characters and, most importantly, they pledge to become leaders in their school on these issues. As we’ve seen in other contexts, the Left is hell-bent on turning students into 24/7 left-wing activists. Mao’s Cultural Revolution lives, and anyone who gets in the way will be sent to the countryside, figuratively speaking, to learn from the peasants and be reeducated.
L.A. is in pretty much the same boat with “trans justice” now the linchpin of instruction. But field reports are pouring in from everywhere:
A high school teacher in California keeps a ‘queer library’ in her classroom with books about orgies, kinks, fetishes, and bondage.
Schools in one Florida county are expelling students if their parents object to having them fill out a gender identity questionnaire.
Schools in one Pennsylvania county are encouraging boys to wear dresses.
There are more reports from all over the country about mandatory drag shows, Woke math classes that destroy competency, indoctrination starting at age 3, snitching on family and friends for microaggressions, expelling students for misgendering classmates, and more. There are so many reports, I can’t keep up, anymore.
The war is on. They’re coming for your kids. Get active or get steamrolled. Get involved before your kids become unrecognizable to you and turn on you, like the good little commies they are being trained to be. Do nothing and you’ll just have to hope they don’t come after you with a machine gun, like in Pol Pot’s Killing Fields, because that’s what communists eventually do.
I only discussed teachers and administrators today. The War on Parents is coming from several directions. Tomorrow, I will tell you about some of those.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Skirmish - Liberato.UShttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Skirmish - Liberato.US2022-09-14 14:16:472022-09-15 09:26:32Mao’s Cultural Revolution Comes to America
John M. Grondelski:Pro-lifers should find ways of simplifying the message. Hold up an aspirin in a school board meeting, and ask why that, truly for healthcare, requires in schools parental knowledge and consent, but an abortion does not.
In the wake of Dobbs, pro-abortionists will leave no stone unturned to use – as they did before Roe – the most extreme cases, (like the 10-year-old Ohio girl who went to Indiana for an abortion) to tar the latest Supreme Court decision as “extremist,” while attempting to codify truly extremist abortion policy into law.
Today, as was true before Roe (1973), the vast majority of abortions – conservatively, at least 96 percent – are performed for social, economic, and other non-medical reasons.
Back then, that motivation was called “convenience,” a term clearly politically incorrect in contemporary discourse. Calling abortion “reproductive health care” now is how abortion advocates seek to disguise the reality: by redefining “health” in ever more elastic and innovative ways.
We need to be clear about pro-abortion extremism. While pro-abortionists will cite hard cases, their goal is not to debate them but to exclude any consideration of motivation from the abortion decision, a move necessary to shield the 96 percent-plus of abortions chosen that have nothing to do with rape, incest, or medical necessity.
Like the “no-fault divorce” movement, pro-abortionists aim to exclude any consideration of cause or reason for the “choice.” These are moral positions disguised under seemingly neutral legal terminology. What they really mean is that no marriage should ever be immune from dissolution, no pregnancy from termination.
This is wholly in keeping with a morally relativistic viewpoint that refuses to examine causes, but wants only to deal with consequences. Pre-teens should not be stopped from having sex; they should be issued condoms. If they get pregnant, they obviously should have abortions.
And if parents get in the way, well, America’s public schools should assimilate these “children” to the mores of “liberal democracy,” not their parents’ “outdated” views. After all, “children have rights!”
A full-on, frontal assault on this widespread propaganda is likely to be ineffective, largely because our culture has traded reasoned discourse for gripping soundbites, an exchange that benefits politicians even as it impoverishes political discourse.
So, I suggest an “incremental” approach, not because the rights of the unborn only deserve partial protection, but because the cultural corruption that has metastasized in the half-century-long culture of death following Roe will require baby steps to walk back. But as with every major turn in the moral life, everything starts with small steps.
Parents currently filling in school forms must sign multiple waivers to allow medication to be given to a child by a school during school hours.
Yet among Roe’s bastard jurisprudential offspring was Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, which launched a long line of federal and state court decisions limiting a parent’s right to consent or even to know if an underage daughter seeks an abortion – via a “judicial bypass” provision, because a judge, unlike father, always knows best.
Those seeking to “codify Roe” admit their proposals continue this curtailing of parental rights. And their “codifications” of Roe don’t just allow children to get everyday drugs like aspirin at school. They effectively exclude parents from a minor daughter’s abortion (though the parents, not a federal judge or a Congressperson, will have to care for the girl if something goes wrong).
Even in the states that have “codified” abortion – places like New Jersey or New York – local right-to-life groups should consider reopening those debates using parental rights as a wedge.
The same might be tried in places like Alaska where state supreme courts have belatedly discovered “abortion rights” in state constitutions. Or a place like Virginia, where there seem to be possibilities for moving beyond the old status quo and into the new moment post-Dobbs.
Parental rights can help advance the debate. You might not want to ban abortion after week X, but you certainly would see the value of parental involvement.
If change can’t be achieved in a given state legislature, parents should press boards of education to adopt pro-life policies regarding teen pregnancy. Find ways to emphasize the simplicity of the message. Hold up an aspirin or an asthma inhaler, and ask why those items, truly for healthcare, require parental knowledge and consent, but abortion does not.
If you succeed but the state claims the right to preempt such local policies, it’s an opportunity to re-litigate parental rights in the courts, which again shines a public light on the usurpation of parental rights.
The growing parental-rights counterrevolution against efforts to use schools to advance liberal race and gender ideologies against the consent and without the knowledge of parents offers a winning political dynamic that pro-lifers should latch on to.
And remember: all this is no more than the advancing of two key principles of Catholic social thought: that the most vulnerable, including the unborn, deserve protection of their fundamental rights from conception; and that parents, not the state, are the primary teachers and guides of their children.
John Grondelski (Ph.D., Fordham) is a former associate dean of the School of Theology, Seton Hall University, South Orange, New Jersey. All views herein are exclusively his.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Catholic Thinghttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Catholic Thing2022-09-13 08:29:092022-09-13 08:29:09Recovering the Right to Parent
”The greatest lesson of September 11. Not that we will never again face a setback, but that in a moment of great unity we also had to face down the worst impulses, fear, violence, recrimination directed against Muslim Americans….” — Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., September 11, 2022
The Islamic terrorists and their motive were never mentioned or discussed. Fearfully, this is in accordance with the sharia (do not criticize Islam under penalty of death). And there you have, the ultimate victory of 9/11.
“Joe Biden read off his teleprompter at the 9/11 Memorial Ceremony at the Pentagon Sunday, and his speech was filled with the usual pious blather about how much he admires the heroic first responders who never cross his mind on the other 364 days of the year. In the course of his semi-coherent meanderings, which WhiteHouse.gov had to clean up with several strikethroughs and corrections in the official transcript, Old Joe informed us what the “greatest lesson of September 11” was. Was it that death can come at any moment, so we should value life and cherish our loved ones? Not even close. Was it that we should be willing to pay any price to ensure that free societies survive and prosper? This senescent authoritarian wasn’t about to say that. No, Biden’s “greatest lesson of September 11” was that we must not be unkind to Muslims. Yes, really. And indeed, we shouldn’t. But is that really the primary takeaway from the murder of nearly 3,000 people by Islamic jihad terrorists?”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2022-09-13 07:17:522022-09-14 08:45:55Biden: ‘Greatest Lesson of September 11’ Is That We Should Not Offend Muslims
Too little, too late. Where were they when it mattered?
A new Harvard/John’s Hopkins study found that for every one COVID hospitalization prevented, “18 to 98 actual serious adverse events” have have been caused.
The vaccine and vaccine mandates have been an enormous mistake, and studies are proving it.https://t.co/5Z4wweBC9i
A team of nine experts from Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and other top universities has published paradigm-shifting research about the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines and why mandating vaccines for college students is unethical.
This 50-page study, which was published on The Social Science Research Network at the end of August, analyzed CDC and industry-sponsored data on vaccine adverse events, and concluded that mandates for COVID-19 boosters for young people may cause 18 to 98 actual serious adverse events for each COVID-19 infection-related hospitalization theoretically prevented.
The paper is co-authored by Dr. Stefan Baral, an epidemiology professor at Johns Hopkins University; surgeon Martin Adel Makary, M.D., a professor at Johns Hopkins known for his books exposing medical malfeasance, including “Unaccountable: What Hospitals Won’t Tell You and How Transparency Can Revolutionize Heath Care”; and Dr. Vinayak Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist, who is a professor in the UCSF Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, as well as the author of over 350 academic and peer-reviewed articles.
But among this team of high-profile international experts who authored this paper, perhaps the most notable is Salmaan Keshavjee, M.D., Ph.D., current Director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Global Health Delivery, and professor of Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Keshavjee has also worked extensively with Partners In Health, a Boston-based non-profit co-founded by the late Dr. Paul Farmer, on treating drug-resistant tuberculosis, according to his online biography.
COVID-19 vaccines are the best way to protect your children 6 months and older from getting COVID-19.
As the study pointed out, students at universities in America, Canada, and Mexico are being told they must have a third dose of the vaccines against COVID-19 or be disenrolled. Unvaccinated high school students who are just starting college are also being told the COVID-19 vaccines are “mandatory” for attendance.
These mandates are widespread. There are currently 15 states which continue to honor philosophical (personal belief) exemptions, and 44 states and Washington, D.C. allow religious exemptions to vaccines. But even in these states, private universities are telling parents they will not accept state-recognized vaccine exemptions.
Based on personal interviews with some half a dozen families, The Epoch Times has learned that administrators at some colleges and universities are informing students that they have their own university-employed medical teams to scrutinize the medical exemptions submitted by students and signed by private doctors. These doctors, families are being told, will decide whether the health reasons given are medically valid.
5 Ethical Arguments Against Mandated Boosters
Though rarely reported on in the mainstream media, COVID-19 vaccine boosters have been generating a lot of controversy.
While some countries are quietly compensating people for devastating vaccine injuries, and other countries are limiting COVID-19 vaccine recommendations, the United States is now recommending children 12 and older get Pfizer-BioNTech’s Omicron-specific booster, and young adults over the age of 18 get Moderna’s updated shot.
Against a backdrop of confusing and often changing public health recommendations and booster fatigue, the authors of this new paper argue that university booster mandates are unethical. They give five specific reasons for this bold claim:
1) Lack of policymaking transparency. The scientists pointed out that no formal and scientifically rigorous risk-benefit analysis of whether boosters are helpful in preventing severe infections and hospitalizations exists for young adults.
2) Expected harm. A look at the currently available data shows that mandates will result in what the authors call a “net expected harm” to young people. This expected harm will exceed the potential benefit from the boosters.
3) Lack of efficacy. The vaccines have not effectively prevented transmission of COVID-19. Given how poorly they work—the authors call this “modest and transient effectiveness”—the expected harms caused by the boosters likely outweigh any benefits to public health.
4) No recourse for vaccine-injured young adults. Forcing vaccination as a prerequisite to attend college is especially problematic because young people injured by these vaccines will likely not be able to receive compensation for these injuries.
5) Harm to society. Mandates, the authors insisted, ostracize unvaccinated young adults, excluding them from education and university employment opportunities. Coerced vaccination entails “major infringements to free choice of occupation and freedom of association,” the scientists wrote, especially when “mandates are not supported by compelling public health justification.”
The consequences of non-compliance include being unenrolled, losing internet privileges, losing access to the gym and other athletic facilities, and being kicked out of campus housing, among other things. These punitive approaches, according to the authors, have resulted in unnecessary psychosocial stress, reputation damage, loss of income, and fear of being deported, to name just a few.
22,000 to 30,000 Previously Unaffected Young Adults Must be Vaccinated to Prevent Just 1 Hospitalization
The lack of effectiveness of the vaccines is a major concern to these researchers. Based on their analysis of the public data provided to the CDC, they estimated that between 22,000 and 30,000 previously uninfected young adults would need to be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent just a single hospitalization.
However, this estimate does not take into account the protection conferred by a previous infection. So, the authors insisted, “this should be considered a conservative and optimistic assessment of benefit.”
In other words, the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 are essentially useless.
Mandated Booster Shots Cause More Harm Than Good
But the documented lack of efficacy is only part of the problem. The researchers further found that per every one COVID-19 hospitalization prevented in young adults who had not previously been infected with COVID-19, the data show that 18 to 98 “serious adverse events” will be caused by the vaccinations themselves.
These events include up to three times as many booster-associated myocarditis in young men than hospitalizations prevented, and as many as 3,234 cases of other side effects so serious that they interfere with normal daily activities.
At a regional hospital in South Carolina, the desk clerk sported a button that read: “I’m Vaccinated Against COVID-19” with a big black check mark on it.
“What about the boosters?” a hospital visitor asked. “It’s starting to seem like we need too many shots.”
“It does seem like a lot,” the clerk agreed. “It’s hard to know what to do.” But she did have some advice for the visitor: “Just keep reading and educating yourself, so you can make an informed decision.”
This new paper is essential reading for anyone trying to decide if they need more vaccines. The authors concluded their study with a call to action. Policymakers must stop mandates for young adults immediately, be sure that those who have already been injured by these vaccines are compensated for the suffering caused by mandates, and openly conduct and share the results of risk-benefit analyses of the vaccines for various age groups.
These measures are necessary, the authors argued, to “begin what will be a long process of rebuilding trust in public health.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2022-09-13 07:06:432022-09-16 08:59:51Experts from Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Other Top Universities: ‘Unethical’ Vaccine 98 Times Worse Than Covid
Washington, D.C. – Judicial Watch announced today that it received previously sealed court documents, including depositions of IRS officials Lois Lerner, the former director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and Holly Paz, her top aide and former IRS director of Office of Rulings and Agreements, which show that they knew most Tea Party organizations were legally entitled to tax-exempt status in the run up to the Obama reelection in 2012.
The release comes in the December 2017 amicus curiaebrief (friend of the court) filed by Judicial Watch in NorCal Tea Party Patriots, et al. v. The Internal Revenue Service, et al. (No. 1:13-cv-00341). Judicial Watch argued that the documents sought may shed light on government misconduct, and the shielding of internal government deliberations does not serve the public’s interest.
Lerner’s and Paz’s depositions were sealed by Judge Barrett in April 2017, after Lerner’s and Paz’s lawyers claimed the two officials were receiving threats. The court finally ordered the unsealing of the depositions four years after plaintiffs requested the depositions be unsealed and only after plaintiffs filed for a writ of mandamus to force action in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. (In December 2017, Judicial Watch submitted an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in support of plaintiffs’ request that the depositions should be unsealed.)
The sworn depositions were given in 2017 by Lerner and Paz. In the newly unsealed deposition transcripts, the two IRS officials repeatedly have memory lapses and regularly plead ignorance of the fundamental matters in question.
The unsealed Lerner and Paz deposition transcripts reveal through sworn testimony the bureaucratic tangle created by the Obama IRS to single out, delay and deny the processing of conservative, especially Tea Party non-profit groups’ applications for tax-exempt status and to disclose their donors’ names. At the same time, Paz admits under questioning that she knew from the beginning there was not sufficient legal basis to deny most of the targeted groups tax exempt status:
Q: [T]he organizations had filed applications representing …what they were organized for and what they have done and also their intended activities, and you thought that … for the majority of those applications that that would warrant the recognition of exemption?
[ *** ]
The Witness [Paz]: My recollection is that at the time, my thinking was that the majority of the (c)(4) applications, while they may have indicated some amount of political activity, that we would not have enough basis to make a determination that that would be their primary activity and deny them exempt status.
Q: And, therefore, they would receive an approval or recognition of exemption?
A: Correct.
The records also include an unsealed court filing by NorCal Tea Party Patriots that provides a detailed description of the ordinary process by which the IRS determines whether to grant an organization tax exempt status and how the process under Lerner deviated from that norm after the IRS brought Tea Party groups under special scrutiny following the Citizens’ United Supreme Court decision. (The Citizens United decision held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.)
Lerner expressed strong feelings about the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. FECdecision. In a June 1, 2012, email exchange with [redacted], Lerner wrote that “Citizens Unitedis by far the worst thing that has ever happened to this country.” Later in the same email exchange, Lerner expanded on her views of Citizens United:
We are witnessing the end of “America.” There has always been the struggle between the capitalistic ideals and the humanistic ideals. Religion has usually tempered the selfishness of capitalism, but the rabid, hellfire piece of religion has hijacked the game and in the end, we will all lose out. It’s all tied together— money can buy the Congress and the Presidency, so in turn, money packs the SCt. and the court backs the money—the “old boys” still win.”
Lerner sought to reverse the impact of Citizens United. In a June 11, 2012, email exchange with Robert Stern [former chair of the Council on Governmental Ethics Laws] about Stern’s report discussing states’ responses to Citizens United, Lerner wrote:
I like it! Very easy to find specific information, as well as get the big picture— you done good! Now, if you can only fix the darn law!”
[ *** ]
In a February 13, 2012, email exchange among Lerner and various of her subordinates about [proposed] federal legislation that would require tax-exempt organizations to disclose their donors, Lerner wrote: “Wouldn’t that be great? And I won’t hold my breath.”
The NorCal Tea Party Patriots filing also describes Lerner’s targeting Tea Party groups after Citizens’ United:
Lerner began to worry that applicants for exemption would rely on Citizens United to challenge the IRS’s regulations on political activities by (c)(3) and (c)(4) organizations.
Lerner particularly worried that Tea Party groups would seek to challenge IRS regulations. In an email exchange concerning the February 1, 2011, SCR [Sensitive Case Report], Lerner told Paz and others: “Tea Party Matter very dangerous…This could be the vehicle to go to court on the issue of whether Citizen’s United [sic] overturning the ban on corporate spending applies to tax exempt rules. Counsel and Judy Kindell need to be in on this one please needs to be in this. Cincy should probably NOT have these cases—Holly please see what exactly they have please.’
Later in that exchange, Lerner directed her subordinates to find a reason other than political activity to deny the Tea Party applicants exemption under § 501(c)(3) to prevent them from challenging the exemption rules based on Citizens United:
Thanks—even if we go with a 4 on the Tea Party cases, they may want to argue they should be 3s, so it would be great if we can get there without saying the only reason they don’t get a 3 is political activity.
“These new transcripts expose new details and the cover-up of how the Obama IRS intentionally suppressed the Tea Party movement during the 2012 presidential campaign,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These documents show how the Obama administration easily used the IRS to suppress an entire political movement threatening his reelection. The Obama IRS abuse is the epitome of election interference. Given this largely unchecked abuse by the IRS, the Biden administration’s massive new expansion of the IRS should concern all Americans.”
Lois Lerner retired with full federal benefits in September 2013.
The original NorCal Tea Party Patriots lawsuit in which Lerner and Paz gave depositions was a class-action lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of the Treasury and named individual officials claiming that:
Elements within the Executive Branch of the federal government, including Defendants, brought the vast powers, incomprehensible complexity, and crushing bureaucracy of the IRS to bear on groups of citizens whose only wrongdoing was their presumed dissent from the policies or ideology of the Administration. In other words, these citizens were targeted based upon their political viewpoints.
The lawsuit was settled in 2017 when the Justice Department awarded the plaintiffs over $3.5 million for “attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, and incentive awards.” In settling the case, the DOJ admitted the IRS abused its power and the criteria it used to screen applications for 501(c) status was inappropriate. Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated:
The IRS’ use of these criteria as a basis for heightened scrutiny was wrong and should never have occurred. It is improper for the IRS to single out groups for different treatment based on their names or ideological positions. Any entitlement to tax exemption should be based on the activities of the organization and whether they fulfill requirements of the law, not the policy positions adopted by members or the name chosen to reflect those views.
Judicial Watch uncovered troves of documents about the Obama IRS scandal (see, for example, here and here). Judicial Watch filed at least nine Freedom of Information Act lawsuits about the IRS scandal, and much of what is known about the scandal resulted from Judicial Watch litigation and investigations.
Here is a partial summary of Judicial Watch disclosures:
In September 2014, a Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit forced the release of documents detailing that the IRS sought, obtained and maintained the names of donors to Tea Party and other conservative groups. IRS officials acknowledged in these documents that “such information was not needed.” The documents also show that the donor names were being used for a “secret research project.”
In April 2015, Judicial Watch released court ordered IRS documents that included an email from Lerner asking that a program be set up to “put together some training points to help them [IRS staffers] understand the potential pitfalls” of revealing too much information to Congress. The documents also contain a Lerner email from 2013 in which she says she is willing to take the blame on some aspects of the scandal. She also indicates that she “understands why the IRS criteria” leading to the targeting of Tea Party and other opponents of the President Obama “might raise questions.”
In July 2015, records showed the IRS scandal also included the Justice Department and FBI as well. According to documents obtained by Judicial Watch under court order, in an October 2010 meeting, Lerner, Justice Department officials and the FBI planned for the possible criminal prosecution of targeted nonprofit organizations for alleged illegal political activity. As part of that effort, the Obama IRS gave the FBI 21 computer disks, containing 1.25 million pages of confidential IRS returns from 113,000 non-profit, 501(c)(4) social welfare groups as part of its prosecution effort. According to a letter from then-House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, “This revelation likely means that the IRS – including possibly Lois Lerner – violated federal tax law by transmitting this information to the Justice Department …”
Also in July 2015, Judicial Watch released Obama IRS documents confirming that the agency used donor lists of tax-exempt organizations to target those donors for audits. The documents also show IRS officials specifically highlighted how the U.S. Chamber of Commerce may come under “high scrutiny” from the IRS.
In July 2016, Judicial Watch through a federal court order in one of its FOIA lawsuits(Judicial Watch v Department of Justice (No. 1:14-cv-01239)) obtained FBI “302” documents, which contain detailed narratives of FBI agent investigations, revealing that top Washington IRS officials, including Lois Lerner and Holly Paz, knew that the agency was specifically targeting “Tea Party” and other conservative organizations two full years before disclosing it to Congress and the public.
The FBI 302 documents also confirm the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) 2013 report that said, “Senior IRS officials knew that agents were targeting conservative groups for special scrutiny as early as 2011.” Lerner did not reveal the targeting until May 2013, in response to a planted question at an American Bar Association conference. The documents reveal that then-acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller actually wrote Lerner’s response, where she admits:
They [IRS staff] used names like Tea Party or Patriots and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate.
In November 2016, after the IRS refused to acknowledge its targeting of conservative groups, Judicial Watch forced the release of IRS records revealing the agency used “inappropriate political labels” to screen the tax-exempt applications of conservative organizations. IRS agents were targeting organizations requesting tax-exempt status based on “guilt by association” and “party affiliation.” Judicial Watch brought to light that the IRS was going to require 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations to restrict their alleged political activities in exchange for “expedited consideration” of their tax-exempt applications. FBI “302” documents uncovered by Judicial Watch also reveal that IRS officials stated that the agency was targeting conservative groups because of their ideology and political affiliation in the summer of 2011.
Judicial Watch also separately uncovered in its lawsuit Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:13-cv-01559) that Lerner was under significant pressure from both Democrats in Congress and the Obama Justice Department and FBI to prosecute and jail the groups the IRS was already improperly targeting. In discussing pressure from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) to prosecute these “political groups,” Lerner admitted, “it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political activity.”
In March 2017, Judicial Watch obtained IRS documents through its FOIA lawsuit Judicial Watch v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:15-cv-00220) that contain admissions by IRS officials that the agency used “inappropriate political labels” to screen the tax-exempt applications of conservative organizations. Other records uncovered reveal that the IRS was going to require 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations to restrict their alleged political activities in exchange for “expedited consideration” of their tax-exempt applications.
In June 2018, Judicial Watch obtained internal IRS documents through one of its FOIA lawsuits (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:13-cv-01559)) revealing that Sen. John McCain’s former staff director and chief counsel on the Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee, Henry Kerner, urged top IRS officials, including then-director of exempt organizations Lois Lerner, to “audit so many that it becomes financially ruinous.” Kerner was appointed by President Trump as Special Counsel for the United States Office of Special Counsel.
In response to Judicial Watch’s litigation, the IRS initially claimed that emails belonging to Lerner were supposedly missing. Later, IRS officials conceded that the “missing” emails were on IRS back-up systems.
RELATED TWEET:
Every single Republican should commit to not funding Biden’s army of IRS agents.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Judicial Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJudicial Watch2022-09-13 06:13:442022-09-13 08:09:59Unsealed Depositions of Former Obama IRS Officials Lerner and Paz Detail Knowledge of Tea Party Targeting
