PK'S NOTE: Just a note, I think the Obama administration is corrupt from the top down; that's a given. The things to really not lose focus on are the Benghazi and the IRS scandals. They're attempting to divert us from the bigger crimes with the smaller ones and the media is like a little pack of dogs on the AP thing because it's one of their own. Benghazi is the big one -- people were murdered needlessly, the administration denied any form of help and then covered up to promote a political agenda and to get re-elected, and the govt was running guns to the Muslim Brotherhood. And the IRS thing is a clear abuse of power and federal law and there is precedence to act on the breach. And with these two, there's evidence and witnesses - and connectable/convictable crimes.
The Burden Is on Us
...Ultimately, the burden is on us, the sovereign. Contrary to what Obama, Clinton, and the entirety of the left believe, we, the citizens, rule this country. That ownership carries with it a sacred responsibility in perilous times such as these. We must prove to these charlatans that we recognize that we live in a republic, and not the two-bit banana republic into which Obama and his indecent, corrupt administration is attempting to transform us.Thomas Jefferson asked, "And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?"
Resistance can take many forms. Deluge your representatives with e-mail, phone calls, and letters demanding that they take action against this overbearing government. Express yourself in the 2014 elections by campaigning for and voting for individuals who pledge to uphold the rule of law and who will, regardless of party, bring these miscreants to account. Attend public meetings and protests; talk with your friends and family and make them aware of what is being done to the Constitution and, ultimately, their rights as free citizens.
Jefferson's question is again asked of us. Do we yet have that spirit of resistance that once booted out one the mightiest empires the world has known? Can we send the current band of liars and amoral statists out of the halls of government, or have we grown too lethargic and distracted to care? Are we worthy of our forebears? If so, the republic shall endure. If not, the victory will go to this tyrannical regime, our eventual fall will be further accelerated, and we will be judged responsible.
The choice is clear, and it is time to act.
The IRS itself admitted wrongdoing, and President Obama declared today, “it should not matter what political stripe you’re from — the fact of the matter is, is that the IRS has to operate with absolute integrity.” But that doesn’t mean there’s no one willing to defend the IRS.
First, there was the Jeffrey Toobin model, which argued, Hey, these guys were kind of trying to game the system because they’re not really “social welfare” groups, and sure the rules should have been applied equally, but the “real scandal” is that these tiny Tea Party groups and their unidentified donors are allowed to distort the democratic system! More on this notion in a moment.
The New Republic goes a little more audacious in its take on this “trumped-up scandal.” According to Noam Scheiber, the persecution of the Tea Party was caused by the Tea Party’s persecution complex. Their silly paranoia about the government was a self-fulfilling prophecy, you see, inexorably pulling the IRS into the unfortunate optics of the current situation by their perfectly logical profiling of conservative groups.
But, in fact, the IRS’s great conservative crackdown is even more innocent than that. It turns out that the applications the conservative groups submitted to the IRS—the ones the agency subsequently combed over, provoking nonstop howling—were unnecessary. The IRS doesn’t require so-called 501c4 organizations to apply for tax-exempt status. If anyone wants to start a social welfare group, they can just do it, then submit the corresponding tax return (form 990) at the end of the year. To be sure, the IRS certainly allows groups to apply for tax-exempt status if they want to make their status official. But the application is completely voluntary, making it a strange basis for an alleged witch hunt.
So why would so many Tea Party groups subject themselves to a lengthy and needless application process? Mostly it had to do with anxiety—the fear that they could run afoul of the law once they started raising and spending money. “Our business experience was that we had to pay taxes once there was money coming through here,” says Tom Zawistowski, the recent president of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, which tangled with the IRS over its tax status. “We felt we were under a microscope. … We were on pins and needles at all times.” In other words, the groups submitted their applications because they perceived themselves to be persecuted, not because they actually were…
So the crime here had nothing to do with “targeting” conservatives. The targeting was effectively done by the conservative groups themselves, when they filed their gratuitous applications. The crime, such as it is, was twofold. First, in the course of legitimately vetting questionable applications, the IRS appears to have been more intrusive than justified, asking for information about donors whose privacy it should have respected. This is unfortunate and intolerable, but not quite a threat to democracy.So, that’s what a good-faith effort to follow the law will get you. Why be skeptical of the federal government?
But let’s go back to the “social welfare” term on which Toobin’s argument and part of Scheiber’s rests. Josh Barro:
“Social welfare” is a term of art that doesn’t mean exactly what it sounds like. To qualify, a group must have the aim of producing benefits that accrue to the community as a whole, not just its members. “Benefit” and “community” are construed broadly; organizations do not have to demonstrate that the policies they promote are good or that they benefit everyone.
You can see this in the IRS regulations governing 501(c)(4) groups. These groups may engage in unlimited lobbying related to their social welfare missions. The IRS offers these specific examples of acceptable activity: “promotion of legislation on animal rights,” “advocacy of anti-abortion legislation,” “legalization of currently illegal activity” and “advocacy of changes in the tax law.”
The groups can also engage in electioneering, even endorsing candidates. Here’s the IRS: “An exempt IRC 501(c)(4) organization may intervene in political campaigns as long as its primary activity is the promotion of social welfare.”
So when Jeffrey Toobin writes in the New Yorker today that what the IRS did was OK in part because “501(c)(4) organizations must refrain from traditional partisan political activity, like endorsing candidates,” he’s wrong.As many pointed out today, Media Matters’ 501(c)4 is allegedly the same kind of “social welfare” organization as the Tea Party groups applying for exempt status, and no one would claim its aims are free of ideology or partisanship. Even 501(c)3s, which aren’t allowed to do any electioneering, are allowed to be ideological in nature. Think tanks like The Heritage Foundation and Center for American Progress are (c)3s. They certainly have views they push, and those views pertain to public policy, but they’re not dishonestly classified as (c)3s.
One last argument in defense of the IRS is that these conservative groups were all fronts for big sources of anonymous and corporate money meant to corrupt the democratic system. I don’t personally believe leaving political speech relatively unregulated corrupts the political system, but even if one does, the truth is it was small groups with few donors that took the brunt of this crackdown. As with any complex system, anyone with money enough to make campaign finance reformers want to shut them up, also had money enough for good lawyers who could get them through the system. Complexity is a subsidy for the big guys.
This is actually who suffers:
Stefano said she tried to start her own group called The Loyal Opposition between 2010-2011. But when she applied for tax exempt status, the IRS responded with a litany of questions that put her off.
“I was pregnant and on a single income and they were asking me questions like, ‘Are you on Facebook,” she said incredulously. “They wanted my personal Facebook page.”
“A lawyer told me, ‘They’re going to come after you and if you make one mistake they could ruin your life’,” Stefano added. “I like to think of myself as very tough, but I’m ashamed to say I was intimidated and frightened, and I shut it down.”Or, this one:
Anastasia Przybylski, co-chairwoman of the Bucks County-based Kitchen Table Patriots, said she continues to experience a similar IRS response, with her most recent interaction coming last week.
“When we started, we were apprehensive,” Przybylski said. “Our families and friends thought we were crazy. Now, I don’t feel comfortable. I wish that wasn’t the case. I wish they weren’t using these kinds of tactics, but the fact is that they are. For a tiny organization like ours, is it really worth it?”
Once the 2012 tax filing for the group is fully processed, she said the group will likely shut down.
“We’re still going to have the organization,” Przybylski said. “I just don’t know if we need the [tax exempt status]. If the amount of money in our account is just $2,000 total, I don’t see the benefit to it. I know plenty of people who have a website and an organization without having a formal entity.”And, this one:
“We’re just regular citizens,” said one member who only spoke on condition of anonymity. “It’s not like we have access to resources to deal with this. Whenever you get pushback from the IRS of this magnitude you’re not able to deal with it.”
The member said the IRS replied to their 2009 application for tax exempt status with the same multi-questionnaire response other groups had gotten. Six months, thousands of dollars, and countless hours later, they gave up.
“As a result of receiving that questionnaire, the person who was our treasurer quit, and the group decided to not move forward with tax exempt status,” the member said. “That’s an example of the type of affect this type thing has.”That’s just Pennsylvania. But didn’t the Kitchen Table Patriots bring it on themselves, what with their $2,000 in shady money and their overzealous attempts to comply with tax law?
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/15/the-new-republic-hey-didnt-tea-parties-kinda-bring-this-on-themselves-by-trying-really-hard-to-follow-the-law/
IRS Scandal: The Union Connection
Jeffrey Lord of the American Spectator has done us a great favor by investigating the left wing union that represents IRS and other Treasury employees - 150,000 of them in 31 separate government agencies including the IRS. The union has signed on to the left wing agenda, and has funneled 94% of its political contributions in 2012 to Democrats.The report is long and informative, and should be read in its entirety. Some key excerpts:
If you are working in the IRS, and you are an NTEU member, and you know your union leadership is funneling your union dues to anti-Tea Party candidates, and your union has so much raw power within the IRS that they even control whether you, an IRS employee, can get even such mundane tech gear as a Blackberry - what attitude are you going to display as you review Tea Party applications that must, by law, come in to the IRS for approval?
You already know what to do. And inside the IRS, that's exactly what was done. The Tea Party, in the vernacular, was screwed. By IRS bureaucrats whose union money is being used to attack the Tea Party. Of course these IRS employees know what to do - most probably without even being asked. There is no need to ask. And if they don't follow the union program - and want a Blackberry - tough luck.
The union power, in the hands of committed leftists, is substantial:
The President of the NTEU - a union that has gone out of its way to use IRS employee money to defeat the Tea Party - has a "vital role in recommending raises for most federal employees" - which includes, of course, IRS employees.
And the best is yet to come (if you are acommitted leftist):
With the IRS assuming serious police powers of Obamacare, in effect the members of one left-wing labor union will have access to the private health care records of every single American.
Lord documents the sordid history of IRS employees leaking confidential information - as happened in the 2012 elections.
If Americans depend in the IRS to be fair and neutral, then the unionization of employees and the confiscation of part of their paychecks to fund union dues laundered into contributions to the Democrats is very problematic. Left wingers love to discuss "root causes" when it comes to excusing criminality and social pathology. Well, let's apply that same analytical framework to the IRS. OIt is clear at this moment that permitting federal employees to unionize was a huge blunder. Even FDR understood that.
I do hope that the House committee investigating the IRS scandals will subpoena union officials and ask them how they imagine IRS employees that influence can be fair when the union itself is so rabidly anti-Tea Party.
IRS Scandal: Low-Level Cincinnati Workers Say They Simply Followed Bosses' Orders
It's rigorous work keeping pace with all of these scandals, as House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer discovered earlier this week, but we're doing our best nonetheless. On the IRS targeting issue, we covered a lot of ground yesterday and earlier, but the "fun" never ceases. It will come as a surprise to no one that IRS employees lean heavily Democratic. Their livelihoods depend on the existence of big, complicated government, so of course they'd vote blue. In the 2012 cycle, during which their agency's abusive methods were in place, IRS employees donated to Barack Obama over Mitt Romney by more than a 2-to-1 margin. What did the political contribution break-down look like in Cincinnati -- where the tax exemption office is based? Cough:The Cincinnati office where the political targeting took place is much more partisan, judging by FEC filings. More than 75 percent of the campaign contributions from that office in the past three elections went to Democrats. In 2012, every donation traceable to employees at that office went to either President Obama or liberal Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio.One. Hundred. Percent. The office's director is an Obama donor, too. The undue logistical hoops through which conservative groups were forced to leap are being document left and right; this one's especially egregious. Even as the president expresses (feigns?) outrage over the IRS' victimization of groups he's demonized throughout his presidency, and even after the IRS admitted wrongdoing, some liberals are still trying to justify the agency's actions. Some say the Tea Party deserved it because they're racist terrorists; others say their brought it on themselves through their "persecution complex" and attempts to abide by the law, or something. Meanwhile, Fox 19 in Cincinnati explored the significant local angle to this story and mined this juicy quote, which further eviscerates the IRS' "it was basically just two local guys" fable:
These four IRS workers claim "they simply did what their bosses ordered". Keep in mind, as FOX19 reported on Tuesday, the report by the Office of Inspector General states that senior IRS officials knew agents were targeting Tea Party groups as early as 2011.One more piece of the hierarchy puzzle, via the Wall Street Journal: "The IRS is many things, but 'independent' isn't one of them. It is formally part of the Treasury Department and is headed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who is appointed by the President. The Commissioner is accountable to the President reporting through the Treasury Secretary." So much for all that "totally independent" pablum we've been spoon-fed in recent days.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/05/16/irs-scandal-lowlevel-cincinnati-workers-say-they-simply-followed-bosses-orders-n1598023
IRS Rationale for Tea Party Scandal Is Debunked by Data
Applications for tax exemption from advocacy nonprofits had not yet spiked when the Internal Revenue Service began using what it admits was inappropriate scrutiny of conservative groups in 2010.In fact, applications were declining, data show.
Top IRS officials have been saying that a “significant increase” in applications from advocacy groups seeking tax-exempt status spurred its Cincinnati office in 2010 to filter those requests by using such politically loaded phrases as “Tea Party,” “patriots,” and “9/12.”
Both Steven Miller, the agency’s acting commissioner until he stepped down Wednesday, and Lois Lerner, director of the agency’s exempt-organization division, have said over the past week that IRS officials started the scrutiny after observing a surge in applications for status as 501(c)(4) “social welfare” groups. Both officials cited an increase from about 1,500 applications in 2010 and to nearly 3,500 in 2012. President Obama ask Mr. Miller to resign on Wednesday.
The scrutiny began, however, in March 2010, before an uptick could have been observed, according to data contained in the audit released Tuesday from the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration.
The number of 501(c)(4) applications for all of 2010 was actually less than in 2009.
“It doesn’t bear out the statement that there was a surge in 2010,” said Bruce Hopkins, a tax attorney specializing in nonprofits. “That’s inconsistent with what Lois said last week.”
'Inappropriate Criteria’
The audit says the IRS began to use “inappropriate criteria” to single out applications in March 2010. By April 2010, a “sensitive case report” was issued on “Tea Party cases,” indicating that managers in Cincinnati were aware of the sensitive nature of the reviews.According to the audit, 1,735 groups applied for 501(c)(4) exemption for the federal fiscal year that ended September 30, 2010—six months after the IRS began its scrutiny. That was down slightly from 1,751 the prior year.
The number grew to 2,265 during the fiscal year that ended September 30, 2011, and to 3,357 in 2012. By then the criteria the IRS was using to flag groups had changed three times to include searches for groups with names that contained “Bill of Rights,” “educating on the constitution,” and “limiting/expanding government.”
Mr. Miller wrote in USA Today on Monday that the IRS began to centralize those applications in 2010 because the division that supervises tax-exempt organizations observed a sharp increase in the number of applications from groups “potentially engaged in political campaign intervention” that were seeking either 501(c)(4) status or designation as a 501(c)(3) charity. He then cites the increase between 2010 and 2012.
The audit shows that 501(c)(3) applications also declined in both 2010 and 2011 from the previous years.
Official Response
Ms. Lerner offered the same explanation for why the applications were being heavily scrutinized when she publicly apologized for the procedures during an American Bar Association conference last week in Washington.“Between 2010 and 2012, we started seeing a very big uptick in the number of 501(c)(4) applications we were receiving,” she said. “It more than doubled.”
IRS officials did not return requests for comment about the discrepancy in how they accounted for their actions. Since her comments, both Democrats and Republicans have condemned the procedures. The House Ways and Means Committee is scheduled to question Mr. Miller at a hearing on Friday, and the Justice Department is conducting an investigation of the agency for any possible criminal actions related to these cases.
In the IRS’s official response to the inspector general’s audit findings also cites that surge when explaining why agents needed to centralize these applications.
The letter, written by Joseph Grant, acting commissioner for tax-exempt and government entities at the IRS, said the agency’s review was also motivated by “numerous referrals from the public, media, watchdog groups, and members of Congress alleging that specific section-501(c)(4) organizations were engaged in political campaign activity to an impermissible extent.”
Paul Streckfus, publisher of EO Tax Journal and a former IRS employee who reviewed tax-exemption applications, said he believes that pressure from those referrals caused the IRS to start using the criteria that have gotten it in trouble.
“It wasn’t so much the number of applications but the complexity,” Mr. Streckfus said.
Typical applications from advocacy groups submitted before 2010 had never involved such a massive grass-roots political network like the Tea Party, which advocates for smaller government, he says.
“The initial problem wasn’t that there was so many but that there wasn’t any guidance on how to deal with these cases,” he said.
Seeking Neutrality
David French, senior counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, which represents 27 Tea Party groups that were singled out, said the IRS is clearly on record as citing the increase as a reason for its scrutiny.“In fact, the number of 501(c)(4) applications dropped between 2009 and 2010, when the IRS began its unconstitutional targeting. That’s plain from the IG report,” Mr. French said. “Even if applications did increase—as they eventually did—the solution is to create viewpoint neutral, constitutionally appropriate criteria for evaluation, not to implement ideological screening.”
Says Mr. Streckfus: IRS officials “have a lot to answer for.”
http://philanthropy.com/article/IRS-Rationale-for-Tea-Party/139277/
IRS to pro-life group: Send letter pledging not to protest Planned Parenthood to get your tax exemption
The Inspector General of the Treasury reported this week that the IRS began applying extra scrutiny and conducting harassment of Obama administration opponents as early as March 2010. However, for at least two pro-life groups, that scrutiny appears to have started a year earlier. Joel Gehrke reports that one group was told its tax-exempt application depended not on promising to stay out of electoral politics, but on pledging not to protest Planned Parenthood — a prominent supporter of Barack Obama:IRS officials refused to grant tax exempt status two pro-life organizations because of their position on the abortion issue, according to a non-profit law firm, which said that one group was pressured not to protest a pro-choice organization that endorsed President Obama during the last election.
“In one case, the IRS withheld approval of an application for tax exempt status for Coalition for Life of Iowa. In a phone call to Coalition for Life of Iowa leaders on June 6, 2009, the IRS agent ‘Ms. Richards’ told the group to send a letter to the IRS with the entire board’s signatures stating that, under perjury of the law, they do not picket/protest or organize groups to picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood,” the Thomas More Society announced today. “Once the IRS received this letter, their application would be approved.”Most have assumed that the obstructionism on the application from conservative groups came because the IRS assumed that they would get involved in politics, but the laws on 501(c)4s don’t prohibit that, as Mary Katharine explained yesterday. Their purpose and work has to be primarily for “social welfare,” but that can take on any number of forms.
In this case, though, there wasn’t even a pretense of suspicion about electioneering. If this is true, then the IRS was actively attempting to intimidate a pro-life group into curtailing its perfectly legal activism. In fact, protests against Planned Parenthood by this group would be exactly the kind of “social welfare” protected by an exemption. This not only infringed on the group’s free-speech rights, but also its religious liberty, at least indirectly.
According to the Thomas More Society, the same is true in another case:
In another similar case, the IRS withheld approval of an application for charitable tax-exempt recognition of Christian Voices for Life, questioning the group’s involvement with “40 Days for Life” and “Life Chain” events. The Fort Bend County, Texas, organization was subjected to repeated and lengthy unconstitutional requests for information about the viewpoint and content of its educational communications, volunteer prayer vigils, and other protected activities.
“The application of Christian Voices for Life clearly indicated that the organization qualified as a charitable organization under section 501(c)(3),” stated Sally Wagenmaker. She added, “The IRS seemed to be intent on denying or delaying tax-exempt status based upon the organization’s pro-life message, rather than any legitimate exemption concern, through its exhaustive, cumbersome questioning. The implication that Christian Voices for Life somehow intended to engage in illegal activity was insulting.”Insulting? That’s the least of it.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/16/irs-to-pro-life-group-send-letter-pledging-not-to-protest-planned-parenthood-to-get-your-tax-exemption/
Get the IRS out of Speech Business
So, the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative groups (or, more precisely, groups displaying a bit too much gusto for limited government) was far more widespread than its initial apology would have led Americans to imagine.Yes, it is disturbing -- a dangerous abuse of power, no doubt. What's more disturbing -- or should be, at least -- is the fact that the IRS has the capacity to undermine free speech in the first place. Despite President Barack Obama's assurances, there are no safeguards that can be put into place to stop abuses of power.
The IRS doesn't just collect taxes. It also enforces speech codes. Americans assembling to gripe about Washington should not have to petition Washington for the right to do so. Yet Democrats (and Republicans such as John McCain) have, for a long time, advocated deputizing the IRS with deep and wide-ranging powers over free speech.
Some liberals have argued that it's reasonable for the IRS to pay special attention to the flood of tea party groups asking for 501(c)(4) applications (even though similarly motivated left-wing groups experienced little problems doing the same). In a 2012 editorial, in fact, The New York Times' editorial board praised the IRS for targeting tea party groups because they did not "primarily" engage in "social welfare," the designation used to merit tax exemption under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code.
I suppose I would argue that any organization advocating unfettered free markets is advocating social welfare. Somehow I assume The New York Times has other ideas about the world. The real mystery is why the IRS should have any opinion on the matter at all.
Washington already knows that the 501(c) designations are a joke, as those involved rhetorically tiptoe around any exceptionally partisan phrases. But to engage in a concerted political effort doesn't pivot on the need for direct communication when, intuitively speaking, everyone knows what to do.
Example: It's not as if the Obama administration sends The New York Times' editorial board talking points, yet The New York Times' editorial board always seems to get it just right.
Why have so many on the left been defensive? Well, politics, of course. But there are other reasons. Just listen to the left treat tax-exempt status as a privilege bestowed by government. Taxes have morphed from a societal obligation into moral code. And our convoluted tax structure reflects this mindset, allowing politicians to favor trade and offer populist giveaways to solidify political power. Any simplification or flattening of that code would strip Washington of its most effective tool.
Any attack on the credibility of the IRS matters because soon enough, it will be forcing us to buy things, as well as regulating speech. Obamacare's unprecedented expansion tasks the IRS as dispenser of the "penalty" coercing Americans to partake in a collective health insurance scheme -- and discerning the intent of more than 40 new taxes, to boot. This will be handled by the same fine organization that was recently hit with a class action suit alleging it improperly accessed and stole the health records of some 10 million Americans -- some 60 million medical records, including psychological counseling, gynecological counseling, sexual/drug treatment and other medical treatment data.
Yes, reasonable people understand that government isn't systematically trying to find out what they had for breakfast or what they watch on TV. That would be as paranoid as believing that the National Rifle Association and the Koch brothers have the power to control millions of voters. But rational people understand that abuse happens. If you're worried about the government's invading your privacy, there is no agency with more means to do it than the IRS.
So though this is a fine time to push the politics of scandal -- because occasionally, politics is substantive -- it would be more constructive for the GOP to push for tax and IRS reform.
http://townhall.com/columnists/davidharsanyi/2013/05/16/get-the-irs-out-of-speech-business-n1597944/page/full
One of the questions that needs to be asked of these rogue IRS officials and their impertinent inquiries about our personal political activities is: Have they heard of the Bill of Rights?
IRS’ actions raise disturbing questions about intent
...Exactly what part of the First Amendment don’t they understand? It says very clearly in the Constitution that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …”This also means that no government agency or federal official can subject law-abiding citizens to any interrogation about their political views, beliefs or associations.
But the government under Obama is now aggressively challenging those freedoms, and even denying them. The most recent example is the Justice Department’s seizure of cellular, office and home telephone records of reporters and an editor at The Associated Press, the nation’s largest news-gathering service.
The administration wants to know its sources for a story AP reported last year on a foiled al-Qaida plot. The AP’s president called the document seizure a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into news-gathering activities and operations “that the government has no conceivable right to know.”
When the government starts questioning our political associations and interferes in our right to organize, and then challenges the freedom of the press, we no longer live in a truly free society.
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/05/16/irs-actions-raise-disturbing-questions-about-intent/
Know Nothing
AG Holder repeatedly claimed ignorance during congressional testimony
Holder, who says he has recused himself from an intelligence leak probe in which the Department of Justice subpoenaed phone records from Associated Press reporters, repeatedly dodged questions about the growing scandal.
When asked whether the DOJ attempted to work with the AP before seizing the phone records, Holder said, “I don’t know what happened. I was recused from the case.”
He added that he was not sure when he recused himself from the leak investigation and did not know when the subpoena had been issued.
“I think [the recusal] was towards the beginning of the matter,” he said. “I don’t know when.”
The attorney general was also unaware whether his deputy was interviewed as part of the investigation.
“I don’t know. I don’t know. I assume he was but I don’t know,” he told the committee.
Holder announced a criminal investigation into the IRS targeting of conservative organizations this week but was unable to answer numerous inquiries from lawmakers.
When asked whether the IRS had targeted any liberal groups, Holder said, “We’re at the beginning of the investigation so I don’t know who—what groups—were targeted. All I know is what I’ve read about in the case.”
He said he was not sure whether rogue, low-level IRS employees were responsible for the targeting effort, as top agency officials have claimed or whether the orders came from a higher level.
“I simply don’t know at this stage,” he said.
Holder also did not know about the transfer of any detainees from Bagram Air Base for trial, whether the Justice Department has ever enforced the Born Alive Infant Protection Act under his tenure, or what questions the Boston bombing suspect was asked by federal law enforcement.
He said he did not know whether his interpretation of the anti-lobbying act applied to Health and Human Services grantees, who may have spent the money lobbying government officials.
“I think you might be referring to what I only read about in the newspapers involving what HHS is doing with implementation of the act. I don’t know whether or not—what funds are being used or whether that letter would apply to that effort,” said Holder. “I just don’t know.”
Holder told the committee that he was not sure at what point former CIA Director General David Petraeus or Director of National Intelligence James Clapper were informed about an FBI investigation into Petraeus’ extramarital affair that ultimately led to the CIA chief’s resignation.
“I don’t remember when that happened. I knew about it for a while before [Clapper] was notified, I don’t know exactly what the time frame was,” said Holder.
He added that he was “not sure” and did not remember whether there was any attempt by the DOJ to find out whether the IRS had leaked tax information about Mitt Romney during the 2012 election.
Holder had a tense exchange toward the end of the hearing with Rep. Louie Gohmert (R., Texas) over the FBI’s handling of the Boston bombing investigation after Gohmert suggested the FBI had not been thorough in its interrogation of one of the terror suspects.
“You have characterized the FBI as being not thorough or taken exception to my characterization of them as being thorough,” said Holder. “I know what the FBI did. You cannot know what I know. That’s all.”
http://freebeacon.com/know-nothing/
PK'S NOTE: I stopped listening to the hearing yesterday because it was getting so redundant.
Eric Holder’s abdication
As the nation’s top law enforcement official, Eric Holder is privy to all kinds of sensitive information. But he seems to be proud of how little he knows.Why didn’t his Justice Department inform the Associated Press, as the law requires, before pawing through reporters’ phone records?
“I do not know,” the attorney general told the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday afternoon, “why that was or was not done. I simply don’t have a factual basis to answer that question.”
Why didn’t the DOJ seek the AP’s cooperation, as the law also requires, before issuing subpoenas?
“I don’t know what happened there,” Holder replied. “I was recused from the case.”
Why, asked the committee’s chairman, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), was the whole matter handled in a manner that appears “contrary to the law and standard procedure”?
“I don’t have a factual basis to answer the questions that you have asked, because I was recused,” the attorney general said.
On and on Holder went: “I don’t know. I don’t know. . . . I would not want to reveal what I know. . . . I don’t know why that didn’t happen. . . . I know nothing, so I’m not in a position really to answer.”
Holder seemed to regard this ignorance as a shield protecting him and the Justice Department from all criticism of the Obama administration’s assault on press freedoms. But his claim that his “recusal” from the case exempted him from all discussion of the matter didn’t fly with Republicans or Democrats on the committee, who justifiably saw his recusal as more of an abdication.
“There doesn’t seem to be any acceptance of responsibility in the Justice Department for things that have gone wrong,” said Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), after Holder placed the AP matter in the lap of his deputy. “We don’t know where the buck stops.”
The best Holder could do was offer an “after-action analysis” of the matter and pledge the administration’s renewed support for a media shield law (the same proposed law the Obama administration undermined three years ago). But that does nothing to reverse the damage the administration has already done with its wholesale snooping into reporters’ phone records and its unprecedented number of leak prosecutions.
“I realize there are exceptions and that you have recused yourself, but it seems to me clear that the actions of the department have, in fact, impaired the First Amendment,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) told Holder. “Reporters who might have previously believed that a confidential source would speak to them would no longer have that level of confidence, because those confidential sources are now going to be chilled in their relationship with the press.”
In a sense, the two topics that dogged Holder most on Wednesday — the AP phone records and the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups — were one and the same. In both cases, Americans are being punished and intimidated for exercising their right of free expression — by the taxing authorities, in the conservatives’ case, and by federal prosecutors, in the reporters’ case.
But Holder cared so little about those two issues that he said not a peep about either the IRS or the AP in his opening statement. When he was questioned about the AP case, his first response was to suggest the criticism of him was political. “I mean, there’s been a lot of criticism,” Holder said. “In fact, the head of the RNC called for my resignation, in spite of the fact that I was not the person involved in that decision.”
Republicans on the House committee had voted previously to hold Holder in contempt of Congress, and Holder made clear the feeling was mutual; he informed Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) that his line of questioning was “too consistent with the way in which you conduct yourself as a member of Congress. It’s unacceptable, and it’s shameful.” Some of the Republicans provided Holder justification for his disdain. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), defying the chairman’s gavel, shouted a stream of exotic accusations at Holder, closing with the complaint that Holder was casting “aspersions on my asparagus.”
But there would be more sympathy, and support, for Holder if he took seriously the lawmakers’ legitimate questions about his department’s abuse of power in the AP case. He may have recused himself from the leak probe that led to the searches of reporters’ phone records (a decision he took so lightly that he didn’t put it in writing), but he isn’t recused from defending the First Amendment.
Didn’t the deputy attorney general who approved the subpoenas have the same potential conflict of interest that Holder claimed?
“I don’t know.”
When did Holder recuse himself?
“I’m not sure.”
How much time was spent exploring alternatives to the subpoenas?
“I don’t know, because, as I said, I recused myself.”
But when the Justice Department undermines the Constitution, recusal is no excuse.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-eric-holders-abdication/2013/05/15/61a42d12-bdaf-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html?wprss=rss_opinion
This Supercut of Eric Holder Claiming Ignorance During Wednesday’s Hearing Is Pretty Incredible
Transparency and accountability (via the WFB):http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/16/this-supercut-of-eric-holder-claiming-ignorance-during-wednesdays-hearing-is-pretty-incredible/
Headlines:
IRS Official Who "Resigned" Over Scandal Was Already Leaving in June
Documents: IRS letters harassing conservative groups came from Washington, DC headquarters and from California offices, despite Inspector General's focus on Cincinnati employees
Chaffetz: Released Benghazi Emails a ‘Smidgen’ of 25,000 Documents
NBC News Reporter (Lisa Myers): AP Scandal Angers One Of Obama's 'Most Important Constituencies - The Press'
Chris Matthews: “White supremacy” is a pretty big part of all of this opposition to Obama
PK'S NOTE: One of the other scandals going on...Examiner Editorial: Kathleen Sebelius skirts law by seeking private cash for Obamacare
Even though it is for a worthy cause, most working adults know how awkward it is when the boss comes by their desk with a form asking how many boxes of Girl Scout cookies they want to buy. They may already be inclined to support scouting, or maybe they just like cookies, but the entire exchange still seems vaguely coercive.This is why the Code of Federal Regulations specifically forbids government employees from soliciting gifts of any kind from anyone or any company doing business with the federal government. Specifically, 5 CFR 2635.101 states that no government employee is allowed to "solicit or accept any gift or other item of monetary value from any person or entity seeking official action from, doing business with, or conducting activities regulated by the employee's agency, or whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee's duties." This common-sense, easy-to-understand federal law could not be clearer as to what's not permitted.
Unfortunately, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius thinks she is above the law. Last Friday, the Washington Post reported that Sebelius was calling "health industry officials" and asking them "to make large financial donations" to a nonprofit entity founded by a former Sebelius aid to help implement Obamacare. The New York Times followed up with a story Sunday reporting that the donations that Sebelius was asking for were in the seven-figures. That's a heck of a lot of Girl Scout cookies.
On Friday, HHS acknowledged that Sebelius was raising money for a nonprofit called Enroll America, but it insisted a separate section of the Public Health Service Act enables the HHS secretary to encourage others to support nonprofit groups working to provide health information. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, for example, has given $10 million to Enroll America in response to a Sebelius request. HHS also stressed that at no time did Sebelius solicit funds from any "entities regulated by HHS." This seemingly contradicts the New York Times report, which claimed Sebelius "had made calls soliciting support from the health care industry, including insurance and pharmaceutical executives."
Perhaps Sebelius did call these health care industry executives, who absolutely are "entities regulated by HHS," but she only pressed for nonmonetary support. Who did Sebelius call? What specifically did she ask for? Even if she didn't ask for financial contributions, wouldn't any request for support violate the law's ban against seeking "other item(s) of monetary value"? Members of Congress should be asking these questions and more. And they should not stop until they get answers. As The Washington Examiner's Phil Klein details today on page 36, Sebelius has a lengthy record of violating statutes like the Hatch Act, which have gone unpunished. That must change.
According to a Pew poll taken last month, the federal government is more unpopular today than it ever has been. If top officials like Sebelius are allowed to break the law with impunity, government will only become more unpopular, and everybody will suffer as a result. Congress must do whatever is necessary, including holding or reducing HHS appropriations, until Sebelius is held accountable.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/examiner-editorial-kathleen-sebelius-skirts-law-by-seeking-private-cash-for-obamacare/article/2529755
Lawsuit Alleges IRS Stole 60 Million Medical Records
More than 10 million Americans impacted
IRS agents “stole more than 60,000,000 medical records of more than 10,000,000 Americans, including at least 1,000,000 Californians,” according to a lawsuit filed in March by an unnamed company in California superior court.
“This is an action involving the corruption and abuse of power by several Internal Revenue Service agents,” the plaintiffs claim.
The lawsuit could fuel public outrage at the IRS, which is already under fire for targeting Tea Party groups for increased legal scrutiny while allowing liberal groups to operate relatively unimpeded.
The IRS is also the chief enforcement agency for the Affordable Care Act, making concerns about their handling of health care records of particular note.
The lawsuit, which lists 15 unnamed IRS officials as defendants, claims that those officials illegally seized records during a March 11, 2011 raid on the “John Doe Company.”
The raid involved alleged wrongdoing by a former employee of the company, but the complaint says IRS agents seized millions of records that did not pertain to that investigation and failed to offer even “the illusion of legitimacy and legality.”
“No search warrant authorized the seizure of these records; no subpoena authorized the seizure of these records; none of the 10,000,000 Americans were under any kind of known criminal or civil investigation and their medical records had no relevance whatsoever to the IRS search,” it states.
“These medical records contained intimate and private information of more than 10,000,000 Americans, information that by its nature includes information about treatment for any kind of medical concern, including psychological counseling, gynecological counseling, sexual or drug treatment, and a wide range of medical matters covering the most intimate and private of concerns,” the complaint adds.
An IRS representative said it is the agency’s policy not to comment on pending litigation.
After IRS agents illegally seized the medical records in question, the suit continues, they remained in the office and used a company television to watch the NCAA tournament. The Connecticut Huskies, who would go on to win the tournament, topped the Syracuse Orange by a score of 76-71 on March 11, 2011.
The IRS is currently embroiled in scandal after top agency officials admitted that they targeted conservative political groups for increased scrutiny. Liberal groups conducting comparable activities were not similarly targeted.
Concerns over the IRS’ handling of medical records raise concerns about the agency’s impending health care authority under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, according to Scott Gottlieb, who has served in the Food and Drug Administration and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
“The Obama Administration shouldn’t settle for this. Neither should we,” wrote Gottlieb, now a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
“Americans should demand that the Obama team work a little harder to get its signature legislation off the ground without pulling the IRS so deeply into our healthcare.”
http://freebeacon.com/lawsuit-alleges-irs-stole-60-million-medical-records/
PK'S NOTE: Midnight. People from terrorist-sponsoring countries, Nope, nothing going on here.
7 Caught Trespassing At Quabbin Reservoir; Patrols Stepped Up Across State
Shortly after midnight Tuesday, seven people were caught trespassing at the Quabbin Reservoir.State Police say the five men and two women are from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore, and “cited their education and career interests” for being in the area. The men told police they were chemical engineers and recent college graduates.
The Quabbin, in Belchertown, is one of the country’s largest man-made public water supplies. Boston’s drinking water comes from the Quabbin and the Wachusett Reservoirs.
State Police say there were no warrants or advisories on any of the individuals and “there was no evidence that the seven were committing any crime beyond the trespassing.”
All seven were allowed to leave and will be summonsed to court for trespassing. The FBI is investigating and routine checks of public water supplies have been increased following the incident.
The seven individuals currently live in Amherst, Cambridge, Sunderland, Northampton and New York City. Police have not released their names because a court date has not been set.
State police said they were cross-checked with international databases and no warrants or advisories were found for any of those questioned and there was no evidence of terrorism.
The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority released a statement Wednesday saying the water in the Quabbin is safe. “MWRA operates a state-of-the-art, real-time monitoring system around the clock to ensure the safety of our water supply. Any abnormalities are detected immediately. As an extra precaution, water quality samples were analyzed at MWRA’s lab yesterday and all came back normal. There is no evidence of any water quality issues at the Quabbin Reservoir following the trespassing incident.”
The trespassers will be summonsed to court.
“I want to reiterate that there was NO evidence of terrorism or any crime committed beyond the trespassing,” State Police spokesman David Procopio said in a statement.
“Further investigation is being undertaken because of the late hour when they were observed, their curious explanation for why they wanted to see the reservoir, and the fact that they were in an area marked no trespassing.”
Troopers are increasing the number of routine checks at water supply facilities around the state as a precaution.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/05/14/7-cited-for-trespassing-at-quabbin-reservoir-patrols-stepped-up-across-state/
D.C. Considering Requiring $250K Insurance Policy for Gun Buyers
The District of Columbia is considering a proposal that would require gun buyers to maintain at least a $250,000 insurance policy, CBS DC reports:
The D.C. Council is considering requiring people to purchase liability insurance before they can get a license to own a gun.
The bill would mandate that prospective gun owners maintain at least a $250,000 policy. The policy would cover damages from negligent acts or intentional acts that aren’t undertaken in self-defense.Lawmakers in a number of states including California, Maryland, and New York have proposed similar bills, likening the requirement to auto insurance — but none have passed the legislation.
Rather than impacting only those who wish to purchase a gun, the bill would also require citizens who already have licenses to obtain liability insurance. Its intent is to provide compensation to individuals who are harmed as a result of gun violence.
Introduced by Democratic Councilmember Mary Cheh, CBS D.C. reports that the bill will be discussed in committee later today. Critics are speaking out against the proposal, noting the cost it will impose on gun owners. It’s currently unclear how much a $250,000 liability insurance policy would cost, but Cheh also said that she is open to lowering the coverage amount, pending it is too expensive.
While insurance would surely help victims of gun violence, there is a gaping hole in the proposal, as crimes committed with an illegal firearm potentially wouldn’t yield coverage for victims (i.e. people who own guns illegally likely won’t have mandated insurance) And insurers have concerns about the concept, the New York Times reported earlier this year, because insurance does not generally cover intentional or illegal acts:
The insurance industry is wary of some of the proposals to require gun owners to buy liability coverage — and particularly of bills, like one that was filed in New York, that would require coverage for damages resulting not only from negligence but also from “willful acts.”
Robert P. Hartwig, the president of the Insurance Information Institute, said that insurance generally covered accidents and unintentional acts — not intentional or illegal ones. “Insurance will cover you if your home burns down in an electrical fire, but it will not cover you if you burn down your own house, and you cannot insure yourself for arson,” he said.
Some claims stemming from shootings have been covered by homeowners’ insurance — even by policies that said they did not cover illegal acts.http://freebeacon.com/d-c-considering-requiring-250k-insurance-policy-for-gun-buyers/
PK'SNOTE: Ok, here's a bone about the AP thing:
Well, it turns out national security might not have been why the subpoenas were obtained in secret:
Stealing the Obama administration’s thunder is now grounds for secret subpoenas on the press.
Is this America?
- See more at: http://www.therightsphere.com/2013/05/why-did-the-doj-get-aps-phone-records/#sthash.jHtpjVBp.dpuf
For five days, reporters at the Associated Press had been sitting on a big scoop about a foiled al-Qaeda plot at the request of CIA officials. Then, in a hastily scheduled Monday morning meeting, the journalists were asked by agency officials to hold off on publishing the story for just one more day.That’s right, boys and girls. That sound you heard was the “national security” justification going POOF! The AP dutifully held back on reporting the story in order to protect national security and the Obama administration screwed them anyway. The AP reported the story only after it was made clear that the information wasn’t sensitive anymore. The information was going to be used for PR purposes by the Obama administration and the AP essentially stole their thunder.
The CIA officials, who had initially cited national security concerns in an attempt to delay publication, no longer had those worries, according to individuals familiar with the exchange. Instead, the Obama administration was planning to announce the successful counterterrorism operation that Tuesday.
AP balked and proceeded to publish that Monday afternoon. Its May 2012 report is now at the center of a controversial and broad seizure of phone records of AP reporters’ home, office and cellphone lines. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the unauthorized disclosure about an intelligence operation to stop al-Qaeda from detonating explosives aboard a U.S. airliner was among the most serious leaks he could remember, and justified secretly obtaining records from a handful of reporters and editors over a span of two months.
Stealing the Obama administration’s thunder is now grounds for secret subpoenas on the press.
Is this America?
- See more at: http://www.therightsphere.com/2013/05/why-did-the-doj-get-aps-phone-records/#sthash.jHtpjVBp.dpuf
Why Did The DOJ Get AP’s Phone Records?
When the scandalous story about the DOJ secretly obtaining the phone records of phones used by the Associated Press, the usual suspects tried to excuse it as a “normal” case of the government investigating possible leaks of classified information. Sure, it was an unprecedented breach of freedom of the press, but hey, national security.
When the scandalous story about the DOJ secretly obtaining the phone records of phones used by the Associated Press, the usual suspects tried to excuse it as a “normal” case of the government investigating possible leaks of classified information. Sure, it was an unprecedented breach of freedom of the press, but hey, national security.
Well, it turns out national security might not have been why the subpoenas were obtained in secret:
For five days, reporters at the Associated Press had been sitting on a big scoop about a foiled al-Qaeda plot at the request of CIA officials. Then, in a hastily scheduled Monday morning meeting, the journalists were asked by agency officials to hold off on publishing the story for just one more day.That’s right, boys and girls. That sound you heard was the “national security” justification going POOF! The AP dutifully held back on reporting the story in order to protect national security and the Obama administration screwed them anyway. The AP reported the story only after it was made clear that the information wasn’t sensitive anymore. The information was going to be used for PR purposes by the Obama administration and the AP essentially stole their thunder.
The CIA officials, who had initially cited national security concerns in an attempt to delay publication, no longer had those worries, according to individuals familiar with the exchange. Instead, the Obama administration was planning to announce the successful counterterrorism operation that Tuesday.
AP balked and proceeded to publish that Monday afternoon. Its May 2012 report is now at the center of a controversial and broad seizure of phone records of AP reporters’ home, office and cellphone lines. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the unauthorized disclosure about an intelligence operation to stop al-Qaeda from detonating explosives aboard a U.S. airliner was among the most serious leaks he could remember, and justified secretly obtaining records from a handful of reporters and editors over a span of two months.
Stealing the Obama administration’s thunder is now grounds for secret subpoenas on the press.
Is this America?
Why Did The DOJ Get AP’s Phone Records?
When
the scandalous story about the DOJ secretly obtaining the phone records
of phones used by the Associated Press, the usual suspects tried to
excuse it as a “normal” case of the government investigating possible
leaks of classified information. Sure, it was an unprecedented breach of
freedom of the press, but hey, national security.
Well, it turns out national security might not have been why the subpoenas were obtained in secret:
Stealing the Obama administration’s thunder is now grounds for secret subpoenas on the press.
Is this America?
- See more at: http://www.therightsphere.com/2013/05/why-did-the-doj-get-aps-phone-records/#sthash.jHtpjVBp.dpuf
http://www.therightsphere.com/2013/05/why-did-the-doj-get-aps-phone-records/ Well, it turns out national security might not have been why the subpoenas were obtained in secret:
For five days, reporters at the Associated Press had been sitting on a big scoop about a foiled al-Qaeda plot at the request of CIA officials. Then, in a hastily scheduled Monday morning meeting, the journalists were asked by agency officials to hold off on publishing the story for just one more day.That’s right, boys and girls. That sound you heard was the “national security” justification going POOF! The AP dutifully held back on reporting the story in order to protect national security and the Obama administration screwed them anyway. The AP reported the story only after it was made clear that the information wasn’t sensitive anymore. The information was going to be used for PR purposes by the Obama administration and the AP essentially stole their thunder.
The CIA officials, who had initially cited national security concerns in an attempt to delay publication, no longer had those worries, according to individuals familiar with the exchange. Instead, the Obama administration was planning to announce the successful counterterrorism operation that Tuesday.
AP balked and proceeded to publish that Monday afternoon. Its May 2012 report is now at the center of a controversial and broad seizure of phone records of AP reporters’ home, office and cellphone lines. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the unauthorized disclosure about an intelligence operation to stop al-Qaeda from detonating explosives aboard a U.S. airliner was among the most serious leaks he could remember, and justified secretly obtaining records from a handful of reporters and editors over a span of two months.
Stealing the Obama administration’s thunder is now grounds for secret subpoenas on the press.
Is this America?
- See more at: http://www.therightsphere.com/2013/05/why-did-the-doj-get-aps-phone-records/#sthash.jHtpjVBp.dpuf
Gut Check: Intervention
by Greg Gutfeld...Back to Intervention. In case you don’t watch, it’s that show that follows a family as it prepares to intervene on behalf of a drug or alcohol addicted relative. While watching, you notice how families enable much of the self-destruction by simply letting it occur. It’s usually because one parent (the mom, most of the time) fears the addict will reject her if they attempt to get him to stop snorting or shooting or guzzling. So she lets him continue doing his bad stuff, while she looks on, in tears. “Poor moms,” is all I keep thinking when I watch Intervention.
I do not blame the kin entirely for the junkie's behavior. But I blame families in part for not cutting the cord and letting the addict reap the consequences from his own selfish decisions. A junkie survives on a relative’s love, fear of rejection, and money. But it is only when the junkie is forced to live by his own decisions that he can actually rebound and become a better person.
And so while some junkies live, Elvis died. No one had the balls to shout, “Stop," which is why he ended up full of bacon, booze, and pills, a whale beached in a bathroom.
And this Elvis syndrome is, oddly enough, happening again right now, politically. I saw this same enabling behavior happen in the last five years, as the media fulfilled the role of the hopeless mom to the self-indulgent Obama Administration. And now, this week, the chickens have not only come home to roost, they’re freebasing in the garage. The family is fed up.
As I mentioned yesterday on The Five (it features five people, at 5 pm, on FNC), our national hive of hacks are really nothing more than the Memphis Mafia, the folks who protected Elvis Presley through his worst excesses, until his particular administration ended on a toilet.
But why did the media become so much like this mafia? This behavior is caused by a deep desire to be liked and to be perceived as cool.
In fact, the media are so desperate to be liked by Obama that they are willing to overlook anything unseemly. When I look at the multitude of scandals, I cannot blame the President. My disgust is reserved for the media who let him wander so far off the reservation--because they love him more than their own principles. They love him, because they want him, really, to love them back. And the sad thing is--he really doesn’t care. He’s so aloof; it makes them only love him more. This is unrequited love, among wonks.
Here is a simple fact: a liberal president operating with a liberal media leads us to a really unpleasant place--populated with programs, policies, and principles that are woefully inept and corrupt. Obamacare, Benghazi, the IRS scandal, Pigford, and weird euphemisms for terror like "workplace violence" and "self-radicalization"--this isn't a comedy of errors, it's a tragedy of horrors. There is no guard rail anymore when you’ve got the left monitoring the left.
Which is why what is perceived as cool often ends in failure.
Cool gets a pass, even if the cool thing is incompetent. For questioning the competence of the cool puts the spotlight on you, which you don’t want. If you raise the possibility that whatever the media deems cool is troubling, you inevitably end up being mocked by the cool kids. See Saturday Night Live's spoof on the Benghazi whistle-blowers just days ago. We live in a time where the hip kids think it's funny to smear those who simply want answers to the most obvious questions. Like, why did four people die, and the administration blame it on a video? I guess, if you have a team of writers and a week to play with it, you can make that funny, too.
Nobody wants to be mocked by the cool kids. SNL makes it clear that if you step out of line, the velvet rope becomes a noose of ridicule.
The media had sold its soul for a version of heaven on earth, which to them is nothing more than acceptance by someone they adore. The deal came down to one simple thing: finally, I am cool, and I will be liked. I cannot give that up, even if it means I must ignore things I would have aggressively pursued if the culprit were an old white Republican.
Look at the IRS scandal: the Tea Party was singled out, because you could single them out. This is a group that never broke a window but only broke ranks. So while a peaceful group gets targeted, terror tots like Bill Ayers get tenure. And why is that?
It’s simple: a climate created by the media, by academia, and by the Administration, made it acceptable.
How much more does a liberal media type need to reconsider his own biases?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/05/15/Gut-Check-Intervention
No comments:
Post a Comment