2.4% Q4 growth : Is anybody arguing that the stimulus worked?

By Silvio Canto, Jr
...On a more serious topic, Americans are also getting very impatient about a US economy that just doesn't seem to want to take off in a kind of a growth run.
According to Bloomberg, our old friend "Mr Revised Downward" is using his red pen again and marking down the prior results:

"Gross domestic product grew at a 2.4 percent annualized rate from October through December, compared with the government’s first estimate of 3.2 percent issued last month, revised figures from the Commerce Department also showed today."

...It looks to me that President Obama's legacy will be ugly:
1) ObamaCare;
2) A foreign policy that will keep him up at night; and,
3) GDP growth that will be tough to defend politically.
Other than that, "the stimulus" is doing just great and Press Secretary Carney is singing the same old song!

President Selfie strikes again

By Thomas Lifson
Yesterday saw an Obama trifecta of foolishness. Not only did the President deliver a weak response and declared a “Happy Hour,” as Vladimir Putin sent 2000 troops into Ukraine, he reverted to his penchant for taking selfie photos, this time with Bill Nye, the Science Guy, who has been doing yeoman duty defending the manmade global warming theory that has been on an embarrassing and unpredicted “pause” and Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist and foirmer PBS science serius host.
As tweeted out by far left magazine Mother Jones, this photo is really going to have Putin trembling in his boots.

The selfie has become a symbol of the Obama presidency, representing a self-obsessed egotist (he uses the personal pronoun more frequently than any politician I can remember) with little sense of appropriateness or gravitas.

America and the Aggressive Left

Half the country feels—and is—beset by government. That's not progress.

By Peggy Noonan
...The IRS is coming up with new rules making it harder for independent groups to organize and resist the constant messages and claims of government. Meanwhile it warns taxpayers they must be able to prove they have insurance coverage when they file their 2014 taxes or they'll face a fine (or tax, or fee), which the government has decided to call a "shared responsibility payment." It is $95 per adult and $47.50 per child to a maximum of $285, or 1% of your household income, whichever is higher. People already enraged by canceled coverage, higher premiums, huge deductibles, lost doctors and limited networks, fume. And the highest-ranking Democrat on Capitol Hill, Majority Leader Harry Reid, goes to the floor of the Senate to say of the ObamaCare horror stories that "all of them are untrue." They're "stories made up out of whole cloth" spread by "the multibillionaire Koch brothers."

Imagine that—you have real problems caused by a bad law, and Mr. Reid tells you that what you are experiencing in your own life is a lie made up by propagandists. He sounded like Lenin. There is no cholera in the new Russia.
The NSA is a real and present threat to your privacy, HHS actually never has to come up with a true number on ObamaCare enrollments or costs, and at the EPA no one talks anymore about why Al Armendariz, a top regional administrator, felt free to brag in a 2010 speech that his "philosophy of enforcement" could be compared with the practice by ancient Roman soldiers of crucifying random victims. When it surfaced, he left the agency. Did his mind-set?
People feel beset because they are. All these things are pieces of a larger, bullying ineptitude. And people know, they are aware.
Conservatives sometimes feel exhausted from trying to fight back on a million fronts. A leftist might say: "Yes, that's the plan."
But the left too is damaged. They look hollowed out and incoherent. Their victories, removed of meaning, are only the triumphs of small aggressions. They win the day but not the era. The result is not progress but more national division, more of a grinding sense of dislike. At first it will be aimed at the progressive left, but in time it will likely be aimed at America itself, or rather America as It Is Now. When the progressive left wins, they will win, year by year, less of a country.

Conn. officer says woman sounds 'anti-American' for questioning gun control law

By Joe Newby

In a video posted Thursday to YouTube, Connecticut State Police Spokesman Lt. Paul Vance is heard telling a woman identified as "GMN Producer Guerilla Girl Ashley" that she sounded anti-American for questioning the state's new gun control law.
...After about five minutes of give and take with Ashley regarding the law, Lt. Vance is heard saying Ashley sounds anti-American.
"I want to know, if it comes down to it, will the police go to my home if my husband refuses to give up a weapon that was formerly legal and now has been made illegal by a corrupt legislature?" she asked. "Will the police actually go to my home and threaten my family, 'cause I'm scared to death?"
"We don't threaten people, ma'am," Lt. Vance said. "That doesn't happen."
"If you're going with the force of government, that's a threat," she responded.
"Ma'am, it sounds like you're anti-American, it sounds like you're anti-law. I can't answer your question," Lt. Vance remarked.
Ashley told Lt. Vance in no uncertain terms she is pro-American and took exception to being called anti-American, a charge Lt. Vance tried to walk back.
He also told Ashley she should contact an attorney to learn what her options are under the law.
Later, after Ashley said Lt. Vance works for the people of the state, he informed her that he, in fact, is her master.
"You're the servant, we're the master," she said.
"I'm the master, ma'am. I'm the master," he said in response.

Cheering, Yelling Banned at Idaho Youth Basketball Game

A school in Idaho decided to crack down on overzealous parents by banning cheering at a youth basketball game. And thus, “Silent Cheer Day” was born.
“Silent Cheer Day” focused on sportsmanship and encouragement without spectators yelling negative or even positive remarks at the players or referees.
“Coaches said the kids played a little better because there was less noise,” said Post Falls recreation coordinator Justin Brown.
Brown got the notion for the silent cheer at a seminar he recently attended at the National Alliance for Youth Sports in San Diego. The goal is for parents and spectators to find less distracting ways to communicate their support for their kids, such as applause and signage, and eliminate some of the negativity that can come out during a game. If they were loud during Saturday’s games, they were given a red penalty card and sent to the penalty area for one minute.
“They think the only way they can encourage their kids is verbally,” Brown said, adding that he thought the event was a success.

NY Middle School Forces Girls to Ask One Another for “Lesbian Kiss” And Pretend Like They Are On a Date
By Duane Lester
Parents? Schools don’t think they need to talk to parents. After all, the children belong to the collective:

A recent anti-bullying presentation at a middle school in New York that focused on homosexuality and gender identity has angered parents after their daughters have come home to tell them they were forced to ask another girl for a kiss.
According to reports, the session occurred last week at Linden Avenue Middle School in Red Hook, New York, near Poughkeepsie. A group of students from Bard College led two workshops for the youth, separated by gender.
During the workshop for girls, the 13 and 14-year-olds were told to ask one another for a lesbian kiss. They were also taught words such as “pansexual” and “genderqueer.”
Parent Mandy Coon told reporters that her daughter was very uncomfortable with the exercise.
“She told me, ‘Mom, we all get teased and picked on enough; now I’m going to be called a lesbian because I had to ask another girl if I could kiss her,’” she lamented.
Coon stated that she was especially irate over the matter because parents were given no warning about the presentations, nor an opportunity to opt out.

Ask me again why I homeschool.

Taxpayer-Funded Planned Parenthood Promotes Sado-Masochism, Bondage to Teens in Video

By Dr Susan Berry
Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (PPNNE), which received more than $2.75 million in government funding in 2012, produced a video that promotes sado-masochism and bondage (BDSM) and proposes “rules” to follow to make BDSM “fun” and “safe” for teens.
As reported by CNS News, the video is hosted by Laci Green, who informs teens that BDSM is an appropriate topic for “National Kink Month.” In the video, Green states, “People sometimes think that those who practice BDSM are emotionally scarred or were once abused – not true, it’s a total myth. BDSM relies upon and creates trust.”
On its website page titled “For Teens,” PPNNE states, “We are dedicated to protecting the sexual health of teens by providing accurate information, opportunities to explore and establish beliefs and attitudes, and the skills to communicate their needs.”
“For teens who are sexually involved, Planned Parenthood is committed to providing resources for safeguarding their emotional and physical health,” PPNNE’s website adds.
The PPNNE link to the “Teen Resource Center” takes teens to “A Naked Notion’s” YouTube channel. Other topics covered by the videos include “Abortion Options,” “Pulling Out” as a means of birth control, “Telling Your Partner You Have An STI,” “Problems With Penises,” and “The Morning After Pill.”
In honor of Valentine’s Day, PPNNE also held a “Condom Contest” in which teens were asked to “guess the correct number of rubbers in the jar and win a Planned Parenthood gift basket!”
“It is so sad to see Planned Parenthood spending millions of dollars making videos for teens promoting bondage and sado-masochistic sexual liaisons,” Dr. Janice Crouse of Concerned Women For America told Breitbart News. “They are deceiving Americans by describing their mission as promoting the health and well-being for girls and women. Instead, Planned Parenthood betrays those sincere adults – mostly parents – who give them money. Worse, that money is used for projects like this that exploits girls who are young and vulnerable."
The online project “A Naked Notion” is only one initiative of the entire Planned Parenthood organization, which is now preparing to launch its most extensive and expensive political campaign in its history this year.
As reported by Politico, Planned Parenthood’s midterm campaign is expected to cost more than $18 million, making the abortion industry giant’s political arms – Planned Parenthood Action Fund and Planned Parenthood Votes – two of the biggest spenders for the left and the Democratic Party.

Iowa Refers 80 Cases of Voter Fraud to Prosecutors

By John Fund
...The Brennan Center for Justice says “voter fraud is essentially irrational” so it almost never happens. Voter fraud is so rare “you’re more likely to get hit by lightning than find a case of prosecutorial voter fraud,” insists Judith Browne-Dianis, co-director of the liberal Advancement Project.
Well, the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation disagrees. Not a state known for its hateful politics, Iowa’s DCI wrapped up its investigation this month and has referred more than 80 cases of voter fraud to county attorneys for possible prosecution. Since the investigation was initiated by GOP Secretary of State Matt Schultz a year and a half ago, five people have pleaded guilty to voter fraud and 15 others are facing charges.
Iowa governor Terry Branstad told IowaWatch.com that such investigations cut down on voter fraud because they increase the risks for perpetrators. “By people knowing that there is going to be an investigation and scrutiny of people that vote illegally, it serves as a deterrent to voter fraud,” he said. The number of races for Iowa’s legislature that have been decided by fewer than 100 votes has grown. A full ten races have involved margins of less than 50 votes since 2008.
Liberals aren’t convinced. They accuse Secretary of State Schultz of misusing his office resources to pursue insignificant amounts of voter fraud. “Schultz chose to spend his Secretary of State career collaring a relative handful of voters whose mistakes might have been cleared up with a public information campaign,” sniffed the liberal Quad City Times.
So voter fraud is almost nonexistent. Except when it isn’t, which is when it becomes insignificant. Or its pursuit is “hateful.”
You can never win with those who insist voter fraud is simply not an issue.

Will the Supreme Court Permit EPA Fraud?

By Paul Driessen
The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency. The case will determine how far EPA can extend its regulatory overreach, to control “climate changing” carbon dioxide from power plants and other facilities – by ignoring the Constitution’s “separation of powers” provisions, rewriting clear language in the Clean Air Act, and disregarding laws that require the agency to consider both the costs and benefits of its regulations and what it is regulating.
Put more bluntly, the Court will decide whether EPA may deceive and defraud the American people, by implementing regulations that have no basis in honest science and will be ruinous to our economy. It is the most important energy, economic and environmental case to come before the Court it in decades.
Suppose a used car dealership routinely rolled back speedometer mileage, deleted customer complaints from its website, posted fabricated compliments, and lied about defects and accidents. Or a manufacturer misstated its sales and bottom line, failed to mention major safety violations and fines, and made false claims about new product lines, to attract investors and inflate stock prices?
Both would be indicted for fraud. Now apply the same standards to EPA, whose actions and regulations will affect far more people: virtually every family, facility, business and community in the United States. Most jurors would rule that the agency is engaged in routine, purposeful deceit, dishonesty and fraud.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy insists there is “no more urgent threat to public health than climate change.” She is determined to impose President Obama’s anti-hydrocarbon agenda. “I just look at what the climate scientists tell me,” McCarthy told Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL). Translated, she means she talks only to those who advocate climate alarmism, and ignores all contrary scientists and evidence.
In fact, thousands of scientists and studies argue that there is no empirical, observational evidence to support any of her claims. Recent NOAA and NASA temperature data confirm that global warming ended in 1997 and continues today, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increase steadily, improving plant growth worldwide. Seas are rising at barely seven inches per century, and there is no evidence that recent weather events are any more frequent, intense or “dangerous” than what mankind has dealt with forever.
There is no convincing evidence that carbon dioxide emissions have replaced the powerful, complex, interrelated natural forces that have always driven climate and weather changes. No evidence supports the notion that slashing CO2 emissions and trashing our economy will “stabilize” global temperatures and climate variations, or that developing countries will stop pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
EPA brushes all this aside, just as crooked car dealers and manufacturers reinvent the truth to sell their shoddy products. The agency just assumes and asserts human causes and disastrous results, disregards any and all experts and evidence to the contrary, and ignores any and all costs imposed by its regulations.
It has also violated the Constitution and rewritten specific Clean Air Act provisions that specify 250 ton-per-year emission limits, in sections EPA is relying on for its climate rulemakings. To target and shut down coal-fired power plants, the agency arbitrarily raised the threshold to 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year, and ignored the fact that in 692 bills Congress never contemplated applying these sections to greenhouse gases. Unless the Supreme Court intervenes, EPA will continue rewriting the law, tightening its standards to control millions of natural gas generators, refineries, cement kilns, factories, paper mills, shopping malls, apartment and office buildings, hospitals, schools and even large homes.

Obama Admin Announces 'Retroactive' Obamacare Subsidies

By Wynton Hall
On Thursday, the Obama administration quietly announced it will allow consumers in states with busted Obamacare websites to retroactively bag taxpayer-funded insurance subsidies, even if they purchased health insurance outside the Obamacare marketplace.
The move by the Obama administration will help Democratic candidates facing voters irate over Obamacare by now retroactively cutting checks to citizens in states with broken Obamacare websites. As CBS News reports, "Those who stand to benefit the most are Democratic governors who plunged ahead and ran into problems" because "Republican governors basically defaulted to federal control of online sign-ups in their states."
Democratic Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber was ecstatic, especially since his state's failed Obamacare website has yet to enroll a single person online, even though his state scored $304 million in federal grants to build its busted Obamacare website.
"I applaud the federal government for its efforts to make this financial assistance available for more Oregonians," Kitzhaber said.
The latest unilateral Obamacare change comes on the heels of 28 others. Republicans have blasted Obama for what it considers unconstitutional changes to a law without the consent of Congress. The procedures for how exactly customers will claim retroactive taxpayer-funded subsidy checks is presently unclear.
"We recognize that some states have experienced difficulties in processing automated eligibility determinations and enrollments, and (are) providing options to marketplaces to ensure eligible consumers have access to financial assistance and issuers are paid," said the Obama administration in a statement.

PK'S NOTE: Oh that's right, he's president to only half of America.

Obama Slams Republicans in Fiery Election Speech

President Barack Obama fired off a sarcastic, no holds barred attack on Republicans Friday that made clear his focus is now more on mid-term elections than deal-making with his foes in Congress.
Though it was the last day of February, Obama's speech to partisan Democrats was more in tune with the partisanship seen in the closing days of campaigns before November elections.
His broadsides had an almost surreal feel, as Obama arrived at the event at a Washington hotel amid a suddenly boiling foreign policy crisis with Russian accused of deploying troops to Ukraine.
Obama, in his second-year of his second term and with approval ratings down around 40 percent, has been tarnished by five years of political battles with Republicans.
His Democrats have almost no chance of recapturing the House of Representatives in November's elections, and are in peril of also losing control of the Senate.
So the president's political interventions are likely to be confined to firing up the party base and piling up tens of millions of dollars in campaign cash, rather than bailing out vulnerable candidates.

PK'S NOTE: ... And we're all stupid.

Mrs. Obama Schools 'Confused and Bewildered' Grocery Shoppers

By Jeannie DeAngelis
I’m “confused and bewildered,” and here’s why: Does Michelle Obama think I’m stupid, or is she the stupid one for believing that intelligent, capable women are “defeated” by grocery shopping?
...Then why stop there? There must be loads of things Michelle could teach. How about addressing the bewildering dilemma of flossing our teeth? Surely, the first lady could share shoe-tying techniques. Hospital corners on the bed, anyone?
Personally, of all the Meddling Michelle annoyances, dictating to American women how to grocery shop has got to be right up there with her unsolicited breastfeeding initiative and her recommendation that women who need to know where every restroom is within a five-mile radius of home “Drink Up.”
...Michelle talked of women pondering, “Is 50 percent of the daily allowance of riboflavin a good thing or a bad thing?” Well, if it’s a Vitamin B-2 overdose it’s a bad thing, especially for those recently kicked off their health care plan.
Expressing what shoppers are surely wondering, FLOTUS asked, “How on Earth could this teeny little package contain five whole servings?” But what’s really confounding Americans is how 40-hour paychecks end up so small.
The first lady told shoppers what they think, saying, “This stream of questions and worries running through your head when all you really wanted to know was, should I be eating this or not?”
No, all anyone really wanted to know was how long the torture of listening to this sort of drivel is going to plague this nation.
Michelle believes that “unless you [have] a thesaurus, a calculator, a microscope, or a degree in nutrition, [you’re] out of luck.” Talk about “confused and bewildered,” would someone please explain what in God’s name this woman is talking about? Wouldn’t one assume that if a grownup veered down the snack aisle toward the Snyder’s Bacon Cheddar Pretzel Pieces they would be fully aware of what they were about to do?
Not according to Michelle Obama! She thinks Americans buy junk food because we can’t understand what the labels are telling us.
That’s why, according to the first lady, shoppers feel “defeated” and give up and go back to “buying the same stuff” that we unhealthy Americans bought before Michelle Obama took it upon herself to harangue the living daylights out of us about our food choices.
Mama Obama says: “As consumers and as parents, we have a right to understand what's in the food we're feeding our families. Because that's really the only way that we can make informed choices -- by having clear, accurate information. And ultimately, that's what today's announcement is all about.”
Dollars to donuts, oops, sorry, greenbacks to gluten-free crackers, Michelle Obama doesn’t feel that way when it comes to women understanding and then making informed choices with the help of a sonogram prior to having an abortion.
So once again, duplicitous double standards reign supreme as another progressive know-it-all attempts mind control by planting the idea that without the direction of the woman in the $12K party dress, grocery shopping makes American women “confused…bewildered…[and]…defeated.”

Good Grief! Obama Plays Charlie Brown to Putin's Lucy Once Again

By John Sexton
Remember the Peanuts cartoon where Lucy promises to hold the football for Charlie Brown then pulls it away at the last moment? Something similar happened between the U.S. and Russia this week. From the Russian soldiers now stationed in Crimea you can probably guess which side is flat on it's back and which side is holding the ball.
Last Friday President Obama and President Putin had a one hour phone conversation focused on events in Ukraine. Several news outlets reported on the call in general terms. Politico quoted a senior State Department official who described the call as "constructive."
Wednesday, as Putin announced military exercises along the Ukrainian border, Secretary of State Kerry gave an interview to MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell. In the course of the interview, Kerry revealed an additional detail about what transpired during the call between the two presidents. "President Putin, in a telephone conversation with President Obama just the other day, committed to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine," Kerry said. In other words, Putin will definitely not send troops across the border.
Whether this was a slip by Kerry or an attempt to box Putin in with his own promise is not clear. In either case, Putin did not keep his word. Friday, Russian helicopters, armored troop carriers, and soldiers entered Crimea and took over two airports.
In response President Obama gave a "hastily arranged" statement on the new developments which mentioned his call with President Putin but did not mention Putin's promise. The core of Obama's speech adopted a grammatical construction which suggested events that had already happened had yet to occur. "Any violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity would be deeply destabilizing," Obama said. "It would represent a profound interference in matters that must be determined by the Ukrainian people," he added.
In keeping with this apparent desire to avoid acknowledging what had already happened, the administration labeled the situation an "uncontested arrival" rather than an "invasion." As Charlie Brown might say: Good grief! Ukraine's Interior Minister was more blunt, calling it a "military invasion and occupation."
Only Samantha Power, our representative at the United Nations, spoke clearly Friday. She told Russia to "pull back" and "stand down." The next time Putin wants to talk maybe she should take the call.

U.S. assessment of Crimea: This isn’t an invasion, it’s an … “uncontested arrival”

...Popehat’s right: “Uncontested arrival” is the best Orwellian euphemism for war since “kinetic military action.” Laying aside the fact that we’re now lending rhetorical support to aggressive irredentism (the Tatars in Crimea are going to “contest” this “arrival,” I’m pretty sure), explain to me why he went out there an hour ago and blathered about his “deep concern” for violations of Ukraine’s sovereignty if we’re adopting the position that maybe Ukraine’s not the rightful sovereign in Crimea after all. I took his statement to be a condemnation of Russian action today, but maybe I have it wrong. Maybe all he meant was that a broader invasion of Ukraine would threaten the country’s sovereignty — although your guess is as good as mine as to how broad it’d have to be to trigger U.S. disapproval. A Russian incursion into the rest of eastern Ukraine might also go uncontested. At this point, if you’re Putin, hearing this reaction from the White House (and crickets from the EU, do note), why not give it a go?
By the way, while Moscow’s digesting the green light it just got from the U.S. to consolidate its gains, Obama’s at DNC headquarters kicking off happy hour for Democrats. I’m not kidding.

All the President's IRS Agents

The targeting of groups opposed to the Democratic agenda has not ended—it's gotten worse.

By Kim Strassel
Few presidents understand the power of speech better than Barack Obama, and even fewer the power of denying it to others. That's the context for understanding the White House's unprecedented co-option of the Internal Revenue Service to implement a political campaign to shut up its critics and its opponents.
Perhaps the biggest fiction of this past year was that the IRS's targeting of conservative groups has been confronted, addressed and fixed. The opposite is true. The White House has used the scandal as an excuse to expand and formalize the abuse.
About a month after the IRS inspector general released his bombshell report about IRS targeting of conservative groups last May, Acting IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel unveiled a "plan of action" for correcting the mess. One highlight was that targeted groups would be offered a new optional "expedited" process for getting 501(c)(4) status.
The deal, which received little public attention, boiled down to this: We'll do our job, the IRS said, if you give up your rights. Those taking part in the "expedited" process had to agree to limit to 40% the amount of spending and time (calculated by employee and volunteers hours) they spend on political activity. Current 501(c)(4) rules allow political spending up to 49%, and have no "time" component. The clear point of the "deal" was to use the lure of 501(c)(4) approval to significantly reduce the political activity of targeted conservative groups going forward.
Some groups, desperate to get their tax exemption, took the deal. Others refused to be victimized twice. One of them is the Tea Party Patriots, run by Jenny Beth Martin, who told me that she didn't feel it was right that"every other 501(c)(4) would get to live under a different standard than those of us who had been targeted, and had been waiting for a determination for years." She let the deadline for using the expedited process pass.
Not long after, the IRS was back hounding the Tea Party Patriots with new requirements. In addition to re-demanding information that Ms. Martin's group had already supplied, the IRS insisted on new details, like the groups' fundraising letters from 2012. Cleta Mitchell, an attorney representing targeted groups, tells me one of her clients suffered the same fate. The IRS called to ask if the group would take part in its expedited process. When it turned down the IRS, the government agency hit the group with new questions about its activities. This all happened last summer.
As of last week, Ms. Martin's group had been waiting three years and three months for its 501(c)(4) letter. (Before Mr. Obama was president, the average time was three weeks.) The targeting has had its intended effect: Ms. Martin notes that supporters of her group have asked to be dissociated, for fear of their own IRS audit.
Now comes the fitting end to this spectacle. Late last week Ms. Martin's name appeared among those scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee this Thursday. On Wednesday, she got a call from the supposedly apolitical IRS. Her group's application for 501(c)(4) status? Suddenly, miraculously approved.
Politics is also guiding the Justice Department's alleged investigation of IRS abuses. The Oversight Committee held a separate hearing on Wednesday, at which legal experts laid out the ludicrously partisan nature of Justice's probe—including the choice of Barbara Bosserman, an Obama donor in the liberal civil-rights division, to handle it.
Ms. Mitchell, the attorney, was due to testify before the Oversight Committee Feb. 6. On Feb. 4, she filed her written testimony, which explained that nine months after this scandal broke, neither she nor her clients had yet to receive a phone call from the FBI or Justice. Three hours after filing, she told me, a Justice representative called, wanting to check on this targeting thing.
And now we have new IRS regulations, which will formalize the crackdown on 501(c)(4) political speech. The IRS has no business here—there is a bipartisan Federal Election Commission to enforce laws about political speech. But the FEC can't be controlled by the White House, and Democrats have been unable to pass new speech restrictions through Congress.
Democrats are instead fully vested now in using the IRS to shut down criticism by outside groups of ObamaCare, overspending or (ironically) the IRS targeting. Even liberal groups are howling about the White House's use of the IRS to silence political speech, and the House on Wednesday passed a bill to delay the regulations. The White House's response? A veto threat.
At a Senate Judiciary Committee markup Thursday morning, Texas's Ted Cruz offered an amendment to prohibit IRS employees from deliberately targeting individuals or groups based on political views. It was unanimously rejected by every member of the Democratic majority.
The IRS targeting was shocking because Americans expect that agency to be free of politics. In the age of Obama, that era is over. Only when Washington recognizes the IRS for the political tool it has become can it start to fix the problem.