Nurse faces felony charges after 'driving half a mile to lighted parking lot before stopping for cop who pulled her over on dark rural road'

• DelRea Good of Portage, Indiana was charged with resisting arrest after she drove to a 'safe and well-lit area' before pulling over
• Porter County Sheriff's Department Patrolman William Marshall arrested Good because she was 'uncooperative' 
• Marshall allegedly also accused her of having a controlled substance that turned out to be Advil 

A nurse, 52, who was driving by herself on a dark country road faces felony charges after she didn't immediately pull over for a cop because she didn't think it was a safe place to stop.

DelRea Good of Portage, Indiana says that on March 23 she was charged with resisting arrest because she hit the brakes for Porter County Sheriff's Department Patrolman William Marshall about a half a mile down the road from where he asked her to halt her vehicle.

Good was speeding and was driving at 54 mph in a 35 mph zone at 11:21 p.m.

+4

Charged with resisting arrest: Portage resident DelRea Good said she did not immediately pull over for the flashing lights behind her because, as a 52-year-old woman traveling alone at night on a dark county road

'I felt I didn't do anything wrong,' Good told NWI.com.

'I got to a safe place and I told him that.'

Good says that when she was ordered to pull over, she put on her emergency flashers, and waved her hand out the window to let the cop know that she was aware of his presence and that she planned to stop.

She finally turned off the gas at a well-lit Kohls parking lot.  

Good said Marshall was enraged with her when she pulled over and said, 'What in the hell are you doing? I could arrest you for this.'

Good has no previous criminal record and says that if she is convicted of a felony then she will lose her job.

Marshall claims that Good was 'highly agitated and uncooperative' and said she told him, 'I don't care who you are I don't have to stop on a county road, I'm a single female.'

+4

No criminal history: DelRea Good is a nurse with no criminal history and says that is she is convicted that her job will be in jeopardy 

Marshall arrested Good after she 'failed to listen to how speeding endangers other drivers.'

'I follow rules every day or people could get hurt,' Good said in reference to her nursing career. 

'This could be your mom, your sister, your daughter next time.'

Good even accuses the cop of bullying her on the way to the station and says he accused her of having a controlled substance, which turned out be be Advil.

Good's attorney Bob Harper has argued that his client's concerns are absolutely warranted.

Harper brought up a 1991 case in which a woman pulled over for a man pretending to be a cop who later attacked her.

+4

New motto: Good has decided to promote female safety by painting this on the back of her car and by assigning herself the hashtag #femalesafetymatters

+4

Rough arrest: Good posted this photo on her Facebook showing the alleged bruises she got during the arrest

Harper then said that two years prior, Portage police issued a warning say that a man impersonating a police officer by flashing red and blue lights tried to get a woman to pull over.

Portage Police Sgt. Keith Hughes said that the woman who refused to stop a few years ago exercised good judgement.

He recommended that drivers call 911 if they expect someone is impersonating a cop and said if they are unable to get through to anyone they should wave to the officer them stop at a well lit area.

Porter County Sheriff's spokesman Sgt. Larry LaFlower said after the current incident that 'The sheriff's office supports our officer's decision in this matter.'

Good has been posting to her Facebook following the incident and decided to assign herself the hashtag  #femalesafetymatters.

She wrote that her lawyer is representing her free of charge because 'he feels this is a travesty of justice.'

Good also posted a picture of bruises on her arm from the arrest and claimed that the officer was too rough with her.  

Speaking out: Good said her lawyer decided to represent her free of charge because he feels her arrest was a 'travesty of justice'

REP. BLACKBURN RIPS FCC INTERNET TAKEOVER: IF IT AIN’T BROKE DON’T FIX IT

REP. BLACKBURN RIPS FCC INTERNET TAKEOVER: "IF IT AIN’T BROKE DON’T FIX IT!"

AP Photo/CBS News, Chris Usher

by ALEX SWOYER1 Apr 2015Washington, DC155

Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee is firing back at President Obama for his Federal Communications Commission (FCC) led internet takeover–which the administration bills as “net neutrality” and critics call “net neutering”–saying it can lead to censorship. Still Democrats are backing the President, saying his policies mean equal access for all.

The FCC responded to President Obama’s push for Net-Neutrality to regulate the internet with a 3-2 vote over objections from some Republicans. According to Blackburn’s office, the courts have previously rejected the FCC’s attempts to regulate the internet.

Net neutrality supporters say the regulations will increase investment in internet based services. The rules prohibit broadband providers from blocking or regulating internet traffic in a selective manner.

According to the Tennessee Republican, there is no need for the FCC to be preceding internet service providers because the internet has worked effectively for decades.

“The internet is not broken, it does not need the intervention of the FCC,” Blackburn said.

“What this in essence does is to give the federal government the right to determine priority and value to content – so they’re ultimately going to be able to censor everything that you have.” Blackburn added. “We don’t need this. It will run up costs and lead to new regulations and new taxes,”

But Democratic Representatives Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Adam Schiff (D-CA) disagree with Blackburn.

Van Hollen said he supports President Obama’s objectives for an open internet.

“As the interest develops, if the President doesn’t adopt the policies he has proposed, you would actually slow down easy access to all content on the internet,” he said.

“In fact what the president wants to do is make sure that we do not move into a system where people who pay more get faster easier access to content – we want to make sure we have content neutrality here and net neutrality,” Van Hollen added.

Schiff also said he is a strong supporter of what President Obama is doing.

“I’m a strong supporter of net neutrality – I think it would be a real set back economically for us if we have a situation for us where the ISPs can create fast and slow lanes,” said Schiff.

Schiff said he wants to keep the free market on the internet in place.

Blackburn is continuing her push to stop the Obama Administration’s efforts to regulate the Internet through Net Neutrality regulations. She reintroduced her Internet Freedom Act on March 3, 2015, which would halt the FCC’s Net-Neutrality rules.

On March 12, 2015, the FCC released its order publically.

“I reiterate my disappointment in the lack of transparency that accompanied this process,” read Blackburn’s response to the order.

New Pro-Gun Rights Amendment Could "Shut Down Parts of the United Nations"!

By Tim Brown / 2 April 2015

Several gun owner rights victories have occurred recently in the united States Senate, including a vote that shut down the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

Among those victories is Senator Jim Inhofe's amendment, which Gun Owners of America claims has the potential to shut down parts of the United Nations if they stay on course with the ATT.

First, Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) added a committee amendment to deal with Obama's DOJ and their anti-gun Operation Choke Point. As a result, the bill wasn't even taken out on the floor of the senate. Well done, Senator Crapo.

As you recall, Operation Choke Point was a huge overreach of federal powers by the usual criminal, Attorney General Eric Holder, which sought to strong arm gun businesses and other businesses the Justice Department deemed "risky" business, in order to put pressure on banks to sever ties with gun dealers.

Also, Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) was able to put in an amendment to shut down the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The vote was 59-41.

Gun Owners of America said that the amendment that Inhofe put forward was "so far-reaching that it has been accused, probably correctly, of potentially shutting down parts of the United Nations if that organization continues to push the ATT."

Inhofe's Amendment 649 reads as follows:

SEC. ___. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO PROHIBITING FUNDING OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS DURING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS ARMS TRADE TREATY PRIOR TO SENATE RATIFICATION AND ADOPTION OF IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION. 

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to funding, which may include prohibiting funding for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty Secretariat or any international organizations created to support the implementation of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty prior to Senate ratification and adoption of implementing legislation by the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided that such legislation would not raise new revenue and would not increase the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2020 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

"Senator Moran and I have shown time and again that the Senate will not ratify the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. Today, the Senate also spoke against taxpayer dollars being used to help fund the treaty's implementation," Inhofe said. "The President should remove the United States' as a signatory nation on an ambiguous treaty, which does nothing to guarantee the protection of personal gun ownership and could potentially interfere with the United States' ability to aid allies."


GOA legislative counsel Michael Hammond spoke to Freedom Outpost and explained that the Inhofe amendment would defund particular portions of the UN related to the ATT.


"This amendment would clearly defund the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty Secretariat or any international within the UN or outside the UN, which has been deemed to have been created to support the implementation of the ATT," said Hammond. "I take that to mean in whole or in part."


Hammond said that this is at the very least a "placemark" as to defunding anything in the UN that would advance the ATT. This is a good thing as the United Nations is the vehicle by which American tax dollars are being used, under the guise of helping the world, to bring in communism on a global scale.


Of course, over 130 congressmen said that they opposed the ATT in 2013, but more importantly, the senate has already passed a resolution informing Barack Obama that they would not ratify it. As such, the treaty remains null and void, according to the US Constitution.

The treaty also poses many dangers to undermining America's sovereignty and the Second Amendment, including a national gun registration.


The senate failed to fight off eight anti-gun amendments put forward by Democrat Senators Chuck Schumer (NY), Dick Durbin (IL), Chris Murphy (CT) and Richard Blumenthal (CT), which, according to Gun Owners of America, "dealt with fraudulent non-issues like guns and domestic violence, guns and sex trafficking, and so forth."


Additionally, Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) introduced legislation that would repeal Washington, DC's gun ban.

According to GOA, "The Rubio/Jordan bill (S. 874/H.R. 1701) would repeal Washington's gun license requirement.  It would repeal the semi-auto ban and the microstamping requirement, and would turn D.C. into a "shall-issue" jurisdiction -- an achievement which, while it wouldn't be a big deal in pro-gun parts of the country, is a huge deal in this cesspool of anti-gun liberalism."


"In order to achieve the American Dream, people need to be able to live in safe communities and be able to protect themselves, their families and their properties from danger," Rubio said. "For years, the District of Columbia has infringed on its residents' Second Amendment rights and rendered them vulnerable to criminals who could care less what the gun laws are."


Jordan echoed Rubio's comments adding that the bill would "restore the original intent of the Second Amendment to our nation's capital."


Well, the bill will have to go a lot further to restore the "original intent of the Second Amendment." It's going to have to go way beyond guns to include any and all arms as I've written about before.


However, at least there are some victories that move us in the right direction. For that, I am thankful.

http://eaglerising.com/16813/new-pro-gun-rights-amendment-could-shut-down-parts-of-the-united-nations/ 

What Would Happen If Martial Law Was Declared In America?

         
What Would Happen If Martial Law Was Declared In America?


Michael SnyderEnd Of The American Dream
April 2, 2015


In recent weeks, there has been a lot of concern that an upcoming eight week military exercise on U.S. soil known as “Jade Helm” is actually a dress rehearsal for the imposition of martial law in this country.


One of the reasons for the high level of concern is that we have seen a dramatic increase in the number of “urban warfare exercises” conducted by the U.S. military in major U.S. cities over the past decade – including exercises where “dissidents” are hunted down, arrested and hauled away. 


As our world becomes increasingly unstable, and as our society rapidly decays from within, many believe that it is only a matter of time before the executive branch will have sufficient excuse to use the extensive martial law powers that it has been accumulating since 9/11. 


When that day arrives, what will our nation look like?  What would actually happen if martial law was declared in America?


Well, the first thing that you need to know is that the U.S. Constitution would be “suspended”.


In other words, you would suddenly have no rights at all.
There would be no freedom of speech, no freedom of the press, no freedom of assembly and you could be arrested at any time for any reason whatsoever.


For the duration of the “emergency”, the military would be in control.  There would be troops in the streets, a curfew would almost certainly be imposed, and armed checkpoints would be set up.


If the “emergency” lasted long enough, we would probably see authorities go house to house confiscating firearms, ammunition and food supplies.


And perhaps most troubling of all, “dissidents” and “subversives” would likely be rounded up and imprisoned.


Perhaps you don’t think that this could ever happen in the United States in 2015.


Well, we do know that this is precisely what the FBI had a plan to do in the 1950s.  The following is an excerpt from a recent RT article…

Documents show the FBI created a “Plan C” during the Cold War, which could have been triggered in the event the US underwent a nuclear attack. It included putting the nation under martial law, rounding up “subversives,” and interning enemy diplomats. 

The documents, acquired by transparency journalism organization MuckRock, detail the FBI plan created in 1956, which was shared with several top officials from every governmental department. The FBI also distributed papers regarding the plan to its field offices. The plan would have gone into effect “after a war has begun in which the US is involved or may become involved and prior to an actual attack on the US itself,” according to the documents. 

Under Plan C, martial law would be declared and the FBI would enact its ‘Emergency Detention Program,’ which entailed apprehending individuals whose affiliations with subversive organizations “are so pronounced that their continued liberty in the event of a national emergency would present a serious threat to the internal security of the country.” The document shows that as of April 1956, almost 13,000 people “were scheduled for apprehension in an emergency.”

Very sobering.


And we do know that the federal government had a list of at least 8 million names of people that were considered to be “threats to national security” back in the 1980s.  This list was known as Main Core, and it is not known whether this list still exists today.


I have a feeling that it does, and that it is probably much larger than it was back then.


We also know that government documents produced during the Obama administration openly discuss rounding up “dissidents” and taking them to internment camps.  Just consider the following example from Infowars…

A leaked 2012 US Army Military Police training manual, entitled “Civil Disturbance Operations,” described how soldiers would be ordered to confiscate firearms and kill American “dissidents.” The manual also revealed that prisoners would be detained in temporary internment camps and “re-educated” to gain a new appreciation of “U.S. policies,” in accordance with U.S. Army FM 3-19.40 Internment/Resettlement Operations.

So who would those “dissidents” be exactly?
In “72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered ‘Potential Terrorists’ In Official Government Documents“, I detailed how official U.S. government documents specifically identify those that believe in “conspiracy theories” as possible threats. 


Others that the government is concerned about include those opposed to abortion, globalism, communism, illegal immigration, the United Nations and “the New World Order”.


I wish that none of this was true.  Go check out the article for yourself.


Another very disturbing government document talks about the need for the U.S. Army to prepare to battle political dissidents in “megacities” and to neutralize groups “who can influence the lives of the population while undermining the authority of the state”.  Here is more from Infowars…

The U.S. Army is preparing to fight political dissidents who challenge the power of the state as “megacities” become the battleground of the future, according to a new report in the Army Times. 

The article details how the Army’s Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC) worked with US Army Special Operations Command, the chief of staff’s Strategic Studies Group and the UK’s Ministry of Defence earlier this year to wargame the future of armed combat, which will revolve around the neutralization of groups “who can influence the lives of the population while undermining the authority of the state,” a chillingly vague description which could easily be applied to political dissidents. 

The plan foresees an unprecedented realignment of U.S. military strategy focused around putting “boots on the ground” in megacities to deal with “politically dispossessed” populations while relying on “more lethal and more autonomous” methods.

Very alarming stuff.


And if we did see martial law declared nationwide, it is likely that all elections would be suspended indefinitely.
That could also potentially include the 2016 presidential election.


Is it possible that Barack Obama could use his emergency powers to stay in the White House beyond his second term?  There are some out there that believe that this could actually happen under the right circumstances. 


For example, check out what Dr. Ben Carson said during an appearance on the Alan Colmes radio show…

COLMES: What do you mean though when you say there may not be an election in 2016? 

DR. BEN CARSON: There may be so much anarchy going on. 

COLMES: Anarchy? So you really think we risk risking an anarchic America to the point where elections might be put on hold, or some kind of emergency is declared with such anarchy that there wouldn’t be a Presidential election in a couple of years? 

DR. BEN CARSON: I don’t want to find out. I really don’t want to find out, I don’t want to continue down this pathway that we’re going down.

And the groundwork has certainly been laid for such a scenario.


During his time in the White House, Barack Obama has signed a series of executive orders that give him and his minions an extraordinary amount of power in the event of a major national emergency.


For example, read the following excerpt from an executive order that Obama signedin March 2012…

Sec. 201.  Priorities and Allocations Authorities.  (a)  The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:
(1)  the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;
(2)  the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;
(3)  the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;
(4)  the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;
(5)  the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and
(6)  the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

That sounds like it covers just about everything.
Basically, during a time of martial law all of the things that you take for granted today would be out the window.
You would have no rights, and the federal government would be able to do just about anything that it wanted to do.


If that sounds really bad to you, then maybe now you are starting to understand why so many people get upset when they see preparations being made for the eventual imposition of martial law in this country.

Related posts:

1. Alex Jones On Coast to Coast: The Exploding States’ Rights Movement & Martial Law
2. The Infowars Flu Pandemic Resource
3. Preparing for Civil Unrest in America
4. BATTLEFIELD USA: De Facto State of Martial Law Declared In Boston *Pics From the War Zone*
5. “Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?” by David Ray Griffin

This article was posted: Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 5:26 am

http://www.prisonplanet.com/what-would-happen-if-martial-law-was-declared-in-america.html

Obama Declares ‘National Cyber Security Emergency’

New Executive Order: Obama Takes Total Control of Internet: Declares ‘National Cyber Security Emergency’

Mac Slavo April 1st, 2015 SHTFplan.com                                                                                                                                                                       It should be obvious given the recent hacks   against essential infrastructure that America faces a major cyber security threat from foreign governments and rogue organizations. In just the last few years it has been reported that hackers have infiltrated everything from critical physical components that manage water utilities to 23 orbiting spacecraft managed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The problems have been highlighted by major cyber security firms like Symantec and McAfee. The threat is real and the government knows it. In an open letter to her successor, outgoing Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano warned that a massive attack against the U.S. power grid is imminent. Notoriously known as “Big Sis” for her role at the Orwellian mega-agency, she claims the supposed ‘imminent’ event will pose challenges to all aspects of life, and make powering homes, providing food and facilitating transportation difficult.  Napolitano seems so sure, one wonders how she knows that such a catastrophe is not only possible, but sure to happen, as she prepares to officially leave office September 6th. The outgoing Homeland Security Secretary has a warning for her successor: A massive and “serious” cyber attack on the U.S. homeland is coming, and a natural disaster — the likes of which the nation has never seen — is also likely on its way. But while private and public organizations should be working to secure their networks and prevent outside access to components that could bring down the grid, the question of how much involvement is required by the Federal government has now come to the forefront. According to the Obama Administration’s latest move, it is apparent that they believe central control is the only solution. As such, President Obama has issued a new Executive Order that, for all intents and purposes, cedes total control of the internet and domestic infrastructure to the U.S. government. It’s business as usual in Washington. President Obama has just signed another Executive Order declaring a National Emergency to deal with cyber threats: *OBAMA ORDER CREATES NEW AUTHORITY TO RESPOND TO CYBER THREATS TO BE USED IN ‘TARGETED MANNER’ *OBAMA ORDER ALLOWS SANCTIONS FOR CYBER THREATS    This new authority, yet another layer of government oversight, we are sure is for your own protection and in Obama’s words will “augment work to fight cyber threats.” All your internet is belong to us… The national and economic security of the United States depends on the reliable functioning of the Nation’s critical infrastructure in the face of such threats.  It is the policy of the United States to enhance the security and resilience of the Nation’s critical infrastructure and to maintain a cyber environment that encourages efficiency, innovation, and economic prosperity while promoting safety, security, business confidentiality, privacy, and civil liberties.  We can achieve these goals through a partnership with the owners and operators of critical infrastructure to improve cybersecurity information sharing and collaboratively develop and implement risk-based standards. Full Executive Order via Zero Hedge The new Executive Order will, among other things, give the government access to all infrastructure components that they deem critical to national security. That means everything from physical power grid components to virtual servers like your web hosting company. As used in this order, the term critical infrastructure means systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters. So, basically everything that is connected to a network now falls under the control of the U.S. government. And whatever policy the government says needs to be followed will be followed. The Cybersecurity Framework shall include a set of standards, methodologies, procedures, and processes that align policy, business, and technological approaches to address cyber risks. The E.O. stops short of getting into certain policy specifics, especially regarding what to do in the event a cyber security attack to our critical infrastructure is identified, but given that the President has already reserved the right to shut down the internet using a kill switch as he deems necessary, we can take a pretty good guess at what would happen, and we’re fairly certain that this will soon be written into policy. Whether those regulations will be made available to the public remains unclear. What we do know is that this executive order, combined with a previous action by Obama known as the Executive Doomsday Order, gives the President jurisdiction over not just the internet, but every resource in America, including your very person: The latest executive order signed by President Obama on March 16, 2012 makes clear that in the event of a nationally deemed emergency all of these resources will fall under the authority of the United States government.  The signing of the National Defense Resources Preparedness executive order grants the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labor, the Department of Defense and other agencies complete control of all US resources, including the ability to seize, confiscate or re-delegate resources, materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense as delegated by the following agencies  Full report here: Executive Doomsday Order: Obama Authorizes Gov to Seize Farms, Food, Processing Plants, Energy Resources, Transportation, Skilled Laborers During National Emergency There is apparently a national emergency in America, and as we know, the politicians in D.C. can never let a good crisis go to waste. Now all they need is another crisis, whether real or imagined, to implement what will be nothing short of martial law on the streets of America.  http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/new-executive-order-obama-takes-total-control-of-internet-declares-national-cyber-security-emergency_04012015

 

Russia Takes Over BRICS Chairmanship From Brazil

Russia accepted on Wednesday the chairmanship for the BRICS group of major emerging national economies, from Brazil


 

BRICS courtesy Sputnik

Wed, Apr 1 |


MOSCOW (Sputnik) — During the one-year chairmanship, a series of events will be held, including the July 2015 BRICS seventh summit in Russia's southern city of Ufa on July 8-9.


The official website dedicated to Russia's chairmanship in BRICS has been launched on Wednesday. The address of President Vladimir Putin on Russia's chairmanship has already been released on the website.


Diego Pautasso, Professor of International Relations at the University Universidade Vale do Rio Doce and at the higher school of Advertising and Marketing in the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul, believes that Russia's chairmanship in BRICS will help the organization to develop an alternative to US hegemony.


"Russia's chairmanship in BRICS clearly shows exactly what is the essence of this association. That is a political and diplomatic initiative aimed at countering certain challenges from the American hegemony in the international arena," Diego Pautasso told Sputnik.


Earlier in the month, President of the Russian Chamber of Commerce Sergey Katyrin, who became BRICS Business Council head April 1, told RIA Novosti, that Russia would focus on the launch of the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB) as its chairmanship priority.
The agreement on the creation of the NDB was signed on July 15, 2014, in Fortaleza, Brazil.


The bank's aim is to support infrastructure projects and embrace sustainable development in the BRICS and other countries with developing economies. The NDB, with a stated capital of $100 billion, is expected to become one of the most important institutions of its kind in the world.


The lower chamber of the Russian parliament, the State Duma, ratified the agreement on establishment of the NDB on February 20.


The BRICS group of prominent emerging economies was established in 2010, when South Africa joined Brazil, Russia, India and China in what was previously known as BRIC. The BRICS countries make up about 40 percent of the world's population and command a combined economy of about $16 trillion.


http://russia-insider.com/en/russia-takes-over-brics-chairmanship-brazil/5216

IRS chief to GOP: You can't abolish us

  
IRS CHIEF TO GOP:  "YOU CAN'T ABOLISH US!" 

By Bernie Becker - 03/31/15 03:55 PM EDT  

The IRS commissioner on Tuesday brushed aside GOP proposals to abolish his agency, insisting the U.S. would have to have a tax collector one way or another.


“You can call them something other than the IRS if that made you feel better,” the agency’s chief, John Koskinen, said after a speech at the National Press Club.


Republicans have heaped even more criticism upon the agency than usual over the last 22 months because of its improper scrutiny of Tea Party groups.


Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) perhaps has made the most prominent calls to get rid of the IRS. While launching his presidential bid earlier in March, he floated the idea of “a simple flat tax that lets every American fill out his or her taxes on a postcard." “Imagine abolishing the IRS,” he added.


Koskinen said Tuesday that, even under the simplest of tax codes, the federal government would need an agency to collect revenue and administer the tax code, something Cruz’s own aides have also admitted.
“Somebody has to collect the money, and then somebody also has to make sure when you fill in the small card, you’re putting in the right numbers,” Koskinen said.


But Koskinen also said he understands why politicians seek to tap into public anger at the IRS. Conservatives have become increasingly angry at the IRS because of the Tea Party controversy, but Koskinen insisted that an overly complicated tax code spurred much of the anger at his agency.


“I think that’s a lot of what’s behind, you know, ‘get rid of the IRS.’ It’s really ‘get rid of this complicated tax code.’ And to that extent, I think that’s a reasonable goal,” Koskinen said.


Koskinen made his comments after a speech in which he said that the agency was doing its best to put the controversies of the last few years behind it. In addition to the Tea Party investigations, Congress has also rapped the IRS for excessive spending on conferences.


Congressional investigators have accused the central figure in the Tea Party controversy — Lois Lerner, who formerly led the IRS division overseeing tax-exempt groups — of using her personal email account to conduct agency business.


Scrutiny of that practice has only grown in recent weeks, after former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged not having an official government account while heading the department. Clinton is expected to announce her own presidential bid in the coming weeks.


Koskinen said Tuesday that the IRS has clear rules barring staffers from using personal accounts for their public work and that he strictly follows that policy. But the IRS chief also acknowledged that “we have 87,000 people. Does that mean no one is doing it? I can’t guarantee you that. But I can guarantee we’re keeping a close watch on it."


To illustrate how seriously the IRS takes that policy, Koskinen noted that he had sent draft congressional testimony to his home computer for editing early in his tenure.


“Within a couple days, I had a visitor from IT security,” the commissioner said, adding technology staffers quickly got him “a computer and a printer for home from the IRS."


“I have never, other than sending a couple of pieces of draft testimony to my email account, certainly never discussed IRS business on my own personal account,” he added.


http://thehill.com/policy/finance/237510-irs-chief-to-gop-you-cant-get-rid-of-us