IRS division chief will take the 5th, refuse to testify before House committee

Hey citizens, guess what?

You'll never guess!  It's so, like, totally unexpected.

Remember that head of the IRS division in charge of tax-exempt designations, Lois Lerner?  The House committee investigating that trivial little overreach by overzealous, low-level employees of just one IRS office asked Ms. Lerner to appear and answer a few questions about it.  Under oath. 

And guess what?

Her attorney has asked that the committee just forget the whole thing--that his client not be made to appear, since she intends to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to not testify on the ground of self-incrimination.

In a letter, Lerner’s attorney asked committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., if he'd just let his client skip Wednesday’s hearing since she would be pleading the Fifth.  In a move sure to elicit tears of sympathy from Democrats as well as conservatives targeted by the IRS, her attorney claimed that forcing Lerner to appear “would have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her.”

Geez, we'd never want to "burden" this wonderful Democratic functionary by, y'know, actually having the gall to ask her [GASP!] questions about how this policy of targeting conservative groups came about or anything.

Because Obama assured Americans that his administration was gonna be "the most transparent administration in history."  So that means we don't need to ask anyone in it questions about possible unconstitutional and illegal policies.  Cuz they're so transparent and all that.

Blogger catches NY T**** red-handed re-writing story on IRS

The NY T**** has always supported Democrats, and will cheerfully, shamelessly slant news stories to minimize any damage to Democrats.

Ah, I can hear my liberal friends and relatives whining that "You wingnut Rethuglicans just make this shit up, cuz you're all paranoid, bitter clingers," or some such crap.  So for any of you who think this is all just a figment of conservatives' imagination, read on:  Because blogger Brian Cates ("Draw and strike") has caught 'em red-handed.

I encourage you to click on the link, because Brian has absolutely nailed the bastards--caught 'em in a way they can't deny or wave away with any of their myriad tired excuses (like, "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is").

But if you're in a hurry, here's the gist:  After former IRS chief Miller's brazen barrage of lies at last Friday's congressional hearings on the targeting of conservative groups, junior Times reporter Jonathan Weisman wrote the story like this:




Notice the headline: "Treasury knew of IRS inquiry in 2012, official says."  Then look at the lede 'graf, which skillfully summarizes the story in a single sentence.  The first sentence.  Which ends, "...disclosing for the first time...that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign...."

Wow!  Guess the vaunted "layers of editors" at the Times must have all been getting back from three-martini lunches or something, because there's no other way to explain how this got past every single one of 'em.

And apparently the young reporter, Weisman, hadn't read the "real" NYT style guide, which would have told him a) we don't put anything remotely critical of Democrats in the lede 'graf; and b) we never, ever criticize Obama.

Oooooh, now what do we do to recover?

Answer:  Send a more politically-reliable reporter to re-write the thing.  Oh, and re-write the headline too.

Enter Jeremy Peters.  And here's the result:






Notice the headline has been changed from "Treasury knew of IRS inquiry in 2012" to "Republicans expand IRS inquiry, with eye on White House."

Ah, yes, that does a much better job of alerting the reader to the real story:  It's not about a high official in the Obama administration who knew before the election that the IRS's inspector-general was investigating why the IRS seemed to be targeting conservative organizations.  Instead it's about Republicans trying to nick our Dear Leader with a presumably manufactured "scandal."

And note the lede 'graf: 

Congressional Republicans, not resting with the [IRS] scandal, are moving to broaden the matter to an array of tax malfeasances and "intimidation tactics" they hope will ensnare the White House.

Ah, that's *so* much better.  Takes the reader's focus off any possible illegal act by the Obama administration and puts it right where it belongs:  On those canny Rethuglicans, who've taken a trivial mistake by a couple of over-zealous, low-level employees in a single IRS office and tried their best to link it to the White House!  BAD Rethuglicans!

Whew!  What a relief that thanks to the fast reactions of editors at the T****, the early story that might have reflected badly on Obama has now been re-written to defend Him against the scandal-mongering Rethugs.

Lord, thank you for the Internet, which occasionally makes it possible for regular citizens to catch the opinion-shapers in the Press lying and air-brushing stories to protect their Democrat boyfriends.

Oh, and to the NYT editors who re-wrote Weisman's "real journalism" story:  Fuck you.  May you live to see the consequences of your prostitution.

Is trying to intimidate opponents or nosy reporters a standard Obama tactic?

In the wake of the revelations about the IRS attempt to intimidate conservative political groups I took a new look at a story from October of 2011, in which CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson said two functionaries in the DOJ raked her over the coals in a seeming attempt to intimidate her into abandoning her inquiry into the department's gun-running scheme called "Operation Fast and Furious."

Did the White House try to strong-arm a journalist in the wake of the Justice Department’s “Operation Fast and Furious” scandal? CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson says government leaders took a very aggressive tack following her revelations earlier this year.

Attkisson said DOJ spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler and White House associate communications director Eric Schultz yelled and screamed at her over the story.

“The DOJ woman was just yelling at me,” Attkisson said. “The guy from the White House on Friday night screamed at me and cussed at me.  Oh, the person screaming was Tracy Schmaler--yelling, not screaming. And the person who screamed at me was Eric Schultz at the White House.”

The reporter explained "I was asking for her explanation so there would be clarity and no confusion later over what had been said. She wouldn’t put anything in writing,” she said.  “So we talked on the phone and she said things such as ‘the question Holder answered was different than the one he asked.’ But the way he phrased it, he said very explicitly, ‘I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.’”

Attkisson also said the DOJ and White House representatives complained that CBS was “unfair and biased” because it didn’t give the White House favorable coverage on the developing scandal.

“They will tell you that I’m the only reporter, as they told me, [who] is not [being] reasonable. They say The Washington Post is reasonable, the LA Times is reasonable, The New York Times is reasonable — I’m the only one who thinks this is a story, and they think I’m unfair and biased by pursuing [the story].”

Hmmm.  Pattern?

How many Obama officials are married to media presidents?

Paranoid right-wing nutters charge that our wonderful media is biased in favor of our wonderful Leader.  This is a scurrilous rumor pushed by his political enemies and there's no truth to it whatsoever.

Of course it's a free country--unless you're a Tea Party insurrectionist, of course--so a few media types may have some distant connection to our wonderful Administration.  For instance, CNN VP and Deputy Bureau Chief of the DC bureau, Virginia Moseley, just happens to be married to a fellow who was Hillary Clinton's deputy secretary until this past February.

Virginia spent 18 years at ABC, most recently as senior Washington producer for “Good Morning America.” She has also been ABC’s senior political editor.  So yes, she's pretty influential.  But you can't possibly think...

Well, and the brother of the president of CBS News--David Rhodes-- (brother is Ben Rhodes) is a top official in the Administration.

Oh, and the sister of ABC president Ben Sherwood (Elizabeth Sherwood) is a high-level Obama advisor.

But no one could possibly believe that connections like these would cause any of these fine organizations to slant their coverage of our wonderful president by even an iota.  I mean, that's just utterly crazy!

I don't know any husband who would change any business decisions to help his wife gain greater influence in her job, or vice versa.  That's just crazy talk.

Obama evades reporter's question on whether WH knew about IRS. "Non-denial denial"?

Last Thursday, just after the revelation by Lois Lerner that the IRS had targeted conservative groups, Obama held a press conference with the Prime Minister of Turkey.  Since the IRS policy had just been revealed, afterward Bloomberg reporter Julianna Goldman asked Obama, "Can you assure the American people that nobody in the White House knew about the agency’s actions before your Counsel’s Office found out on April 22nd?” 
 

Obama replied, “I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press."

This strikes most people as a responsive answer, and it certainly sounds as if he's saying neither he nor anyone on the White House staff knew about the outrageous IRS policy before it was "leaked."

But wait a second:  the reporter didn’t mention the inspector-general’s report.  Why did it occur to Obama to mention that in his "answer?"

Moreover, the reporter clearly asked whether anybody in the White House knew (though phrased in the negative).  Obama didn't respond to that part either.

If you're older than 35 or so this careful phrasing--a "non-denial denial," as they say--may sound familiar.  It's the exact same tactic infamously used by Bill Clinton in denying any sex with Monica Lewinski.  

That would be the Slick Willy who parried an investigator's question with the famous line, "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

Charles Krauthammer thinks the president’s rhetorical handling of the IRS scandal makes even Bill Clinton's word games look unsophisticated.

Absolutely.  But no one in the press will *ever* ask Obama the more careful followup question that would either pin him down or reveal the too-clever parry.  Because that would get them kicked off the A-list for party invitations.

And so it goes.

Oh all right, you got me:  I'll admit the link is to a biased, partisan, unreliable website that constantly tries to mislead its millions of viewers.  So this report is probably totally made up.  If you click on the link, go to "read the transcript" and do a search for Julianna Goldman.

Latest Leftist scare-term: "Insurrectionist"

Ever heard the term  "Insurrectionist" ?

It's the latest buzzword in a long line of terms invented by leftists to try to make conservative positions sound absurd or extreme.  Some examples are birthers, denialists (people who don't believe humans are causing whatever tiny amount of global warming may or may not be occurring) and that oh-so-clever double-entendre, "teabaggers."

Their latest propaganda piece, "insurrectionist," is apparently intended to describe anyone who believes in the ordinary, obvious meaning of the second amendment:  "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Oooohh, can't have people believing that, eh?  An armed populace is soooo much harder to control!  Leftist/Democrat solution:  disarm those stupid, bitter clingers!

How?  Well for starters, try to get everyone with a gun to self-identify, by demanding--under threat of a huge fine--that everyone register every firearm they own.  Simple, elegant, easy to sell to the sheep.

Oh darn, looks like too many senators were worried about being unelected, so the senate wouldn't go along.  Looks like another "vast right-wing conspiracy"!

Okay, let's go with Plan B:  Start a campaign to paint supporters of the 2nd amendment as crazy anti-government nuts.  Yeh, dat's da ticket.  Sounds good, now we need a vague but scary buzzword.  Ho, we got it:  "Insurrectionists"!

Yeah.

All you statist, socialist bastards pride yourselves on being soooo clever, confident that you've always been able to win the propaganda wars.  Of course the reason that works is that 52% of the population knows almost nothing about history, including the history of socialism and other totalitarian regimes.  They're as defenseless as lambs being led to the slaughter.

Fortunately there may still be a few sheepdogs around the edge of the flock.

Oh, and we'll remember who led our less-knowledgeable countrymen to the slaughter.

Q to former IRS chief: "Your agency demanded to know the content of prayers. Izzat okay?" IRS chief won't answer.

Is there anything systemically wrong with Democratic party government?  Well this morning the former head of the IRS appeared before a House committee investigating the alleged IRS targeting of conservative groups.

Representative Aaron Schock was questioning former IRS chief Steven Miller.  Schock read a paragraph stating that a pro-life group in Iowa had received a letter from the IRS demanding that the group "list the content of the members of your organization's prayers."

You read that right.

Rep. Schock then asked the former IRS chief if he thought that was an appropriate question for the IRS to ask Americans.

Miller refused to respond substantively.  Here's the video clip; the question noted above is at 40 seconds in.

I thought the post that referred to this had to have been satire--until I viewed the clip.  If you wrote this as fiction no one would believe it--way too paranoid, they'd say.

In evaluating Miller's non-response, keep in mind that Miller was only the acting chief of the IRS for about six months.  His term was due to expire in just over two weeks, so Obama's "firing" him cut his term by a grand total of 20 days before when it would normally have expired.

So having already been "fired," one would think Miller could afford to be candid and admit that the demand by the IRS agent to "list the content of members' prayers" was not only inappropriate but outrageous.  But being a Democrat and Obama supporter, Miller did no such thing.

A normal person might be curious as to why Miller would be so reluctant to condemn a practice that strikes most people as outrageous.  What business does the IRS have demanding to know the content of a citizen's prayers??

Here's a theory:  Miller refused to condemn the outrageous question because he almost certainly encouraged his subordinates to ask it--just as his superiors up the chain told him to slow-walk applications by conservative groups.  If he'd criticized the practice--leaving division heads like Lois Lerner hanging out to dry--the chances would go way up that someone thrown under the bus would take exception to being the scapegoat.

Here's Miller responding to a representative who asked "Who told the IRS agents to target conservative organizations?" 
    Miller doesn't respond.
    Rep:  You conducted that investigation.  Who was responsible?
    Miller:  I don't have that name, sir.
    Rep:  Did you even *try* to find out?  Did you ask anybody?
    Miller:  Of course.
    Rep:  Who did you ask?
    Miller [hesitates]:  I'd be happy to provide a list.
    Rep:  You don't have that name either.
    Miller:  I asked the senior technical advisor.
    Rep [immediately]:  And what was the senior technical advisor's name?
    Miller [clearly taken aback by the fast followup question]:  Nancy Marks.
    Rep:  And what did Nancy tell you?  Who's responsible?
    Miller: That I don't remember to be honest with you.
    Rep:  You don't remember again.

It's an astonishing performance that can't be fully appreciated just from the transcript.  One can't help but come away with the overwhelming impression that the guy is lying his ass off.  And the big question is:  Now that he's been fired, why in the world is he lying about what he knew?

Oh, that's right:  He knows that if he rats out the Obama-supporting thugs he'll never be able to get a job again.

A union supports Democrats 94% to 6%. It's the union of Treasury Dept employees

You probably could have guessed that employees of the federal gummint's Department of the Treasury--the folks who run the IRS--have a union, the National Treasury Employees Union.

No one will be surprised to learn that in the last election 94% of contributions made by members of that union to either candidates for or members of congress went to Democrats.  Yep, here's the breakdown:

U.S. Senate:
   Contributions to Democrats: $156,750
   Contributions to Republicans: $1,000
U.S. House of Representatives:
    Contributions to Democrats: $391,062
    Contributions to Republicans: $23,000

So what do you think the chances are that NTEU members had a signifcant role in the writing of the recently released report from Treasury's Inspector General concerning the IRS's targeting of conservative organizations?

And finally, what do you think the odds are that the IG's report accurately describes the role of Democrat politicians in creating the policy of targeting conservative groups?

IRS: Tax-exempt organizations aren't allowed to protest or picket??

Examples of the abuse of power by IRS agents seeking to hamstring conservative organizations seeking tax-exempt status keep leaking past the media's defense shield.

In one of the newest examples the service demanded that as a condition of receiving that status, one pro-life group had to promise that it would not  "picket/protest or organize groups to picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood."

'Cuz ya see,citizen, tax-exempt groups aren't permitted to do any protesting.  For example, you never see "Organizing for America" protesting or pushing a favorite Democrat policy, right?

The agent who made that demand went on to detail how that assurance to happen:   She demanded that every member of the board sign a letter swearing under penalty of perjury that they would not picket or protest Planned Parenthood.

Do you think the IRS made the same demand of Organizing for America?  Or of any other Democrat-supporting group?

Oh, but believe us, citizen, none of the IRS's grilling was politically motivated.

Not. A.  Bit.

How vast is the divide between Dems and conservatives?

How big is the division between Dems and conservatives?  Read a few of the *comments* to this post at TPM.

Or not.  It would just make you ill.  The article describes how IRS division chief Lois Lerner revealed that her division had been targeting conservative organizations applying for IRS approval as tax-exempt organizations.  Some of these organizations had been trying to win IRS approval for as long as three years, only to see a series of increasingly detailed demands to turn over lists of their donors, lists of volunteer, lists of members, lists of their reading materials and so on.

The IRS even demanded that one conservative organization furnish the names of every student it had taught or planned to teach in the future.

But as far as all the Left/Democrat commenters at TPM are concerned, there's no problem.

As one commenter put it, "We don't really know yet if this is really even much of a scandal. Because the IRS says they weren't deliberately targeting the right wing."

Riiiight.

When someone noted that the far-left Obama-supporting group "Organizing for America" had the tax-exempt status the conservative groups were seeking, Dem stalwart Mark Garrity responded "Actually these days Organizing for America is only about issue advocacy. Those issues coincide with the D agenda, background checks and immigration reform, but nonetheless we don't talk about candidates...."

Sounds like exactly the sorts of issues the Tea Party wanted to push their side of the story on.  But Democrats can't let conservative organizations do that, because it's wrong for tax-exempt groups to engage in issue advocacy.  Unless they support Democrat goals and politicians.  In that case it's just fine.

Every day it gets harder not to hate these people for their single-minded lust for power, and their willingness to overlook *everything* to maintain their lock on it.

Do high-level bureaucrats hugely support Dem presidents?

For those who may wonder how IRS division chiefs could decide to target conservative groups for harassment and delay in approving tax-exempt status for years, while waving liberal groups through in less than a month, consider this:

Government bureaucrats view Republican presidents as occupiers, and Democrat presidents as liberators.

Think about it:  Which party is constantly pushing for a bigger, more powerful federal government?

So if you were a government bureaucrat, which scenario would give you more power, more influence and a bigger salary:  a weaker federal government, or a bigger, more powerful one?

So since power-hungry people are *way* more determined and motivated than the average, over time all government bureaucracies would become Democrat-heavy...at all levels but even more so at the top.

And civil-service regulations make it virtually impossible to fire corrupt ones, including those who merely abuse the power of their office.

I'm certainly not implying that all gummint employees are either power-hungry or willing to abuse their powers, but frankly I think this simple, logical mechanism would explain a LOT.

When governments run the economy, things just work better!

Experience all over the world has shown that when the government controls something, that sector of the economy works SO much better and more efficiently!  

Do I have to tell you that was sarcasm?

Consider the latest triumph of government control of markets:  Venezuela is running out of the most basic of necessities — toilet paper.

In case you think that's just an aberration, they've also run short of other basics like cornmeal, milk, butter and even--astonishingly--coffee.

Not surprisingly the socialist government blames political enemies for all such shortages.  President Nicolas Maduro, hand-picked by Hugo Chavez as his successor, claims anti-government forces--and he specifically included the private sector--are causing the shortages, in order to destabilize the country.  Commerce Minister Alejandro Fleming blamed the shortage of toilet tissue on "excessive demand" built up as a result of "a media campaign that has been generated to disrupt the country."

See, it's not government mismanagement, it's a plot by enemies of the Benevolent Socialist State!  People are deliberately using the toilet more than normal, in order to cause a shortage.

One imagines roving gangs, funded by rich speculators, hijacking truckloads of toilet paper as they travel from factory to cities.

But experts say the shortages are due to two things:  price controls, imposed by the government to make basic goods cheap (a vote-buying scheme); and government controls on foreign currency.
 

Many factories in Venezuela operate at half capacity because the currency controls make it hard for them to buy imported parts and materials.  Chavez imposed currency controls a decade ago to stop capital flight as his government started seizing land and dozens of businesses.

As a result of government mis-management, consumers face long lines at supermarkets and pharmacies. Shoppers often spend several days looking for basic items.

But don't worry, citizen:  Venezuela's problems can't possibly apply to Obamacare.  Because our statists are a lot smarter than their statists.  The experts in the Obama administration have promised us that no shortages will occur under Obamacare.  Instead, medical costs will fall for everyone, without losing any doctors or overwhelming medical providers with patients.

And if you don't know much about economics, or human nature, or history, or current events--which is to say, if you're a typical low-information voter--you'll believe that nonsense.

Scandals? Lies? Sic'cing the IRS on political enemies? Naw, nothin' to see here, citizen

So now we've got the IRS giving retroactive tax-exempt status to the "Barack Obama Foundation," started by Obama's half-brother, in a record-fast 30 days.

Meanwhile conservative groups applying for the same status were grilled by the IRS for up to three years.  In some cases the service demanded that they provide lists of all their recommended reading materals, the names of all their volunteers and all those they planned to teach in the future.

Same deal in the notoriously lawbreaking EPA:  Former head of the agency Lisa Jackson was discovered to have used an email account with a phony name so she could conduct agency business and avoid turning over those emails if the agency got a congressional subpoena.

Oh, and the EPA waived fees for information for pro-Democrat interest groups ten times more often than for conservative groups.  But that's trivial.

And let's not even get started on the administration's seizure of phone records for two months of phone records for phones used by 100 AP reporters, allegedly in an effort to pinpoint the source of a leak.  The InJustice Department has yet to disclose the exact classification of the information disclosed--whether Secret, Top Secret or Politically Embarassing.

Well...the Democrats have started damage-control procedures--and predictably, here's how the defense is shaping up:

"Entirely the work of overzealous, low-level employees."  (IRS division chief Lois Lerner used the marvelously vague term "front-line employees.")

"This is all just partisan politics--attacks by Republicans who have been eager for the past five years to trap this amazingly talented president who's always championed the interests of the middle class."

“They’re hyperventilating about Benghazi. President Obama was absolutely right to call this a sideshow. This is about smear politics and nothing else.”  --Democrat Harry Reid

"If there actually turn out to be any minor problems it's not the president's fault, because government has gotten too big for one person--no matter how amazing and talented--to control by himself."  (Axelrod actually said something very much like this.)

"Seizing the phone records for the AP reporters is actually the fault of Republicans, because they voted against a bill that would have protected reporters from this sort of thing."

And finally,

"At this point, what difference does it make?"

On the off chance that the public might be...shall we say, a bit put off by the recent IRS thuggery, or the lies on Benghazi, the leftist rag Politico has started the pre-emptive defense:  "Establishment Democrats, never big fans of this president to begin with, are starting to speak out."

Did they actually write that?  "Establishment Democrats" were never big fans of Obama?

Wow, keep tellin' those whoppers, dudes.

Okay, time for a prediction:  All the posturing by the media is just theater.  They'll never abandon Duh Won, because they have so much credibility invested in him.  And the moment reporters sense the crisis is past they'll revert to form.

Story that IRS grilling of Tea Party organizations was "done by low-level employees" is falling apart

If you follow politics at all you may have heard that the IRS sent letter to a wide variety of conservative groups demanding that they give the agency a list of their members and donors, and copies of all communications as to the nature of the organization's political leanings.

If so, you may also have heard the official party-line response:  that this policy was entirely created and run by a handful of overzealous employees in the agency's Cincinnati office.  Lois Lerner, head of the IRS tax-exempt-organizations division, told reporters Friday the “inappropriate” actions targeting groups with “Tea Party,” “patriot” or “9/12″ in their names were done by “front-line people” working in Cincinnati.

One can't know with certainly what Lerner meant by the term "front-line people" but the implication is that the policy was "done" by low-level employees.  Lerner is clearly implying that these employees were acting on their own.

Well guess what?  Turns out that--in what must surely be an amazing coincidence--*four* widely-separated IRS offices around the country were carrying out the same policy!

Wow, what a coincidence, eh?

I mean, what are the odds that employees in four scattered offices of the IRS would not only get the same illegal idea at the same time, but would actually execute such a policy?

Now if we find--as we will--that the wording of the demand letters from the various IRS offices just happen to be almost identical...well, just another in a string of coincidences, comrade.

Honestly, folks, if someone caught Obozo on videotape personally ordering the IRS to put the heat on conservative groups--or to approve the DOJ scheme to sell guns to Mexican drug cartels, or to order his fixers to create a fake birth certificate, or to blackmail a Supreme Court justice--the media would wave it away as being "just coincidence."

Think I'm kidding?  Well guess what:  The Washington Post knew about this policy a year ago, but you're just now hearing about it, right?  That would mean the Post sat on the story for a whole year.  Gee, wonder why? 

Now that conservative organizations are onto the story, the Post is covering its skirts by publishing short CYA stories on page B-156 (that's sarcasm).

Being drunk is a valid defense to assault--if you're a Muslim in the UK

Another bit of information from our former cousins in the UK.  At first it may strike you as trivial.

You'd be wrong.

The original incident:  A group of three Somali "women" got drunk and ganged up to brutally beat a 22-year-old white female.  During the attack they yelled "Kill the white bitch."

At their hearing their attorney used this novel defense:  "They're Somalian Muslims and alcohol or drugs isn’t something they’re used to.”  The attackers also claimed the victim's male partner used unreasonable force to defend her.

And amazingly--no, check that:  *Sadly and all too predictably,* Brit judge Robert Brown gave the Muslims a suspended sentence. 

Now:  The significance isn't the attack by a trio of drunk Muslima thugs--after all, in this sorry age Muslim attacks on non-Muslims are so frequent as to get scarcely a mention in U.S. papers. Rather, the significance is that the Brit judge accepted this ridiculous assertion.

Mark this day well:  If you think this won't be used by other attorneys you're crazy.  More significantly, once judge Robert Brown set the precedent by accepting this absurd defense and wasn't immediately tarred and feathered for that outrage, it opened the door for other foolish, politically-correct judges to do the same.

Oh, but I hear you saying that this would never happen in the U.S.  Because...because...uh...our judges aren't that politically correct, or cowardly, or corrupt, or....  

Yeah, right.

25% of guest lectures at UK universities now segregated?? By...can you guess?

For some years now conservatives have noted that feminists and leftists never utter a word of protest against bizarre, sexist Islamic policies.  In fact, Code Pink and others have actually supported militant Islam.

Well, sweethearts, your support of evil is coming to the U.S. with the momentum of a freight train.  Example: In formerly "Great" Britain--now hopelessly mired in Islamic lawsuits and the paralysis of political correctness--a quarter of guest lectures at public universities were segregated.

Segregated, that is, by gender.  At the insistence of Muslims.

Gotta tell ya', I'm well over 50 and don't have any kids so I got no dog in this hunt, but if you've got a daughter--or if you're female--news like this should make you mad as hell.  Because it's nothing less than the representatives of the enlightenment fleeing like scared rabbits before Islamic fucktards.

Are you willing to condemn your daughter to not leaving her home unless accompanied by a male relative?

Are you willing to give up music, dancing, fine wine and pork at restaurants-- because that's the destination, just as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. 

And if you don't believe it you're too goddamn naive to reproduce.

LOOK AT HISTORY, folks.  Look at *every* *single* country where the cancer that is Islam has taken over.  Can you not read?  Can you not understand what you read?  Or do you just think "Oh, this is so ghastly that it can't possibly be true! 

Right, it's all just a plot by a bunch of foreign reporters to make Islam look bad.  Cuz, everyone knows Islam is--can we say it all together?  "The religion of peace."

What a bunch of horse shit.  If you believe it you're fools. 

But of course, 52% of you elected a guy who *himself* claimed to be born in Kenya for 20 years or so, and who refused to release the "long form" birth certificate that--if it existed--would have settled all questions.

Ah, well.  Time for a drink.

Rare "hot ice" blows off Canadian lake, damages or destroys 20 homes

Global Warming!!!  The scientists warned us it was happening, and that you were causing it by a) driving; b) using electricity; c) flying more than 482 miles a year; and d) exhaling CO2.

But did you listen?  Noooo, you did not.  And now look what's happened:

On a lake 60 miles northwest of Winnipeg a huge wall of ICE blew off the lake and damaged or destroyed 20 homes!

Long-time residents said they'd seen ice get blown off the lake before, but never this bad.

See?  Glowbull Warming!!

What?  You say you fail to see how this proves Global Warming is a) real; and b) caused by humans?

You must be a DENIALIST!  Denialist!  Denialist!  Denialist!  Denialist!

It proves global warming because SHUT UP, that's why!

Oh, and when Lord Obama gets through solving all the OTHER problems in the world, all you deniers are gonna' hafta pay an extra $3000 apiece each year in *carbon tax*!  So there!  Neener neener neener!

And no, we won't have to pay the carbon tax.  Because we're EEEEeee-leeets, that's why.  And you peons pay our salaries, and for our jets and limos, so we must be better than you.  That's why.

Stupid bitter clingers.

Washington P***: "Universal basic income" would end poverty

A few months ago I wrote a satirical post along the lines of "Hey, wanna end poverty overnight?  It's easy:  we just need to have the federal gummint write everyone a check every year for, say, $100,000."

As noted, the post was satire.

Well you'll never guess what's happened:  the Washington P*** has published a blog column by a so-called "progressive" who's offered this exact suggestion, apparently seriously:  He wants to have the federal gummint give every person in the U.S. a "universal basic income."

what are some advantages of providing a universal basic income?  [It] would create greater equality by ending poverty and providing a minimum living standard. It would also increase bargaining power for workers, who could demand better working conditions with a safety cushion.   

Did you catch that?  The author not only claims this would end poverty, but would also increase bargaining power for workers, since they could demand better conditions--and presumably would have an easier time calling a strike if the employer didn't cave to their demands--because the workers would have the taxpayer-funded "basic income" to live on during the strike.

Wow, sign me up!  The author goes on to claim that this will actually "eliminate unpleasant work"!  You may wonder how that would occur.  The author explains:

Such bargaining power “will generate an incentive structure for employers to seek technical and organizational innovations that eliminate unpleasant work,” which would “have not just a labor-saving bias, but a labor-humanizing bias.” 

If that strikes you as a bit of a reach, hey, the author is just getting started!

The fact that it is universal is crucial. This eliminates income traps that can cause severe work disincentives. A UBI answers the Foucauldian critique about the welfare state being a way for the state to stigmatize and control marginalized populations. There are no state officials determining whether or not a single mom “deserves” help or drug tests and other invasive, humiliating requirements.

Oh, absolutely.  Those "income traps" are absolutely *vicious.*  And we wouldn't want anyone seeking taxpayer-funded money to have to actually, y'know, show they were eligible to receive it or anything.  And the very idea of denying benefits to drug users is...well it's just a ghastly plot by the GOP to "stigmatize and control marginalized populations."

Oh, and lest you think this idea is just being pushed by this one goofy, nutty Leftist, the author wants you to know that those on the Right also support it:

The right likes basic income because it would allow for the removal of many overlapping and piecemeal government programs, such as food stamps and unemployment insurance, as well as programs the government directly runs. 

What??  He says "the right" actually likes this idea?  Oh, I'm sure.  And as to his alleged reasoning:  I'm totally certain that if only Republicans would agree to write everyone a check for nothing, the Left would absolutely *promise* to remove "many" of the overlapping and piecemeal programs that distribute tax dollars as welfare.  He specifically mentions that we could pay for the "universal basic income" by ending "Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, virtually all transfer programs and certain tax breaks." 

I guess this is supposed to show he's ever so fiscally responsible, and not just trying to take more money from taxpayers.  Cuz' everyone knows that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are the biggest items in the federal budget.  And if we'd just do as he asks, the Left would agree to scrub them??  So by implication the "universal basic income" won't cost taxpayers a dime?  Oh yeah, I'm totally believing that.

Sure, just like they promised you Obamacare would both cut your health insurance costs and save the government money.

Just.  Like.  Obamacare.

Gosh, with an idea this great there must be a catch.  And sure enough, the author finds one:

Eliminating poverty is an essential part of any egalitarian project, and a universal basic income could finish that in one move. But the question then becomes: What projects would still animate the left?

Ah yes:  With poverty eliminated, what projects would remain to "animate" the Left?  Read on:

One project would be to make sure merit goods are sufficiently provided to everyone who needs them. There are certain goods that we owe to each other — education, health care, a secure retirement  — and it isn’t clear that the private market is capable of providing a basic minimum across society. In addition, the government that allow it to provide these goods more efficiently. [sic]  Medicare is able to hold down costs better than private insurance, and Social Security is significantly better than 401(k)s or private pensions in providing income security in old age. These programs work very well....

Notice the author's phrasing:  It's not "you taxpayers owe people X" but rather We owe these goods to each other.  A far more pleasant phrasing, eh?   Just how everyone is supposed to do this for each other is of no concern to the author.  But don't worry, citizen: it'll all work out fine.

The author claims certain "goods" should be provided by government, but not through "market logic."

the goal... is to...remove markets from the way people interface with certain goods, such as education or health care. As the welfare-state theorist Gøsta Esping-Andersen argued, "de-commodification" is defined as a situation in which “a service is rendered as a matter of right, [so] a person can maintain a livelihood without reliance on the market.” 

That's so wonderful!  I want to be able to "maintain a livlihood" without having to "rely on the market."  In case that strikes you as too vague, the author explains that "A UBI would de-link survival and subsistence from the labor market, advancing this goal."

Still too vague?  Yeah, I'm pretty sure that was the author's intent.  "De-linking" subsistence from the labor market means having the government give people money, period.  No need to be anxious about the drudgery of work, or even to pretend to look for a job--government will give you a check regardless.

Hey, count me in!  Why should I have to work to live?  Why can't I relax and get stoned all day, and have you pay my expenses?  As far as I'm concerned, my survival--at your expense--is my basic right as a human.  It necessarily follows from this that it's your obligation as a taxpayer to give me anything I claim I need to survive.

If you cave to that, my next demand for "de-linking" will be that you give me anything I want.

Still have doubts about this benefits of universal basic income?  There's more!

Another project is to expand the say workers have in their workplaces. This includes not only unionization, but also a more general project of democracy that doesn’t end once you walk through your employer’s door.

Yes, businesses must be democratic.  Because businesses aren't really private enterprises, started by entrepreneurs who are willing to bet their entire assets that they can succeed.  Rather, all businesses are properly owned by their employees--just like Barack acknowleged when he gave controlling interest in General Motors to his union supporters.  So each employee should have an equal voice in decisions affecting the company.  Makes perfect sense.

If you're a conservative you might well be worried that universal guaranteed income might give too much power to workers.  Well don't worry, citizen!  As the author explains,

a universal basic income would help workers by giving them more bargaining power.  [It would also] force innovations and productivity gains by industry to balance out workers’ new power.

Got that?  Forcing innovations and productivity gains would actually balance out workers' new power.  In fact, the author concludes by noting that a "universal basic income" would actually show a "general commitment to democracy."  And to freedom, and individual rights, and self-determination, and any other buzz-phrase the Left thinks might resonate with low-information voters.

Just...wow. You can't make this stuff up.

"Nothing to see here, citizen."

I've been watching the reaction of Democrats and their media allies to the testimony before a congressional committee looking into the killings of our ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi.  Both seem to be spinning the story like this:

*The testimony contained no revelations, nothing new, simply a re-hash of old claims and accusations.

*The CIA wrote a memo giving their best estimate of the cause, and if a few trivial words were changed between the original author and some minor government functionary on Sunday morning talk shows, what difference does it make?

*Someone may have denied pleas for assistance, and later some nameless functionary in the government may have denied that the government ever received such requests, but hey, mistakes happen.  "Fog of war" and that sort of thing.

*In explaining the terribly confusing situation to the press, Hillary Clinton and President Obama relied on talking points--prepared by other, unnamed functionaries.  So IF--emphasis on if--either Hillary or Obama ever really said that the attack was sparked by an anti-Muslim video on the internet, and that later turned out to be incorrect, it wasn't Clinton's or Obama's fault because they were just going with the talking points witten by someone else.  And of course Obama claims he said *from the outset* that the attack was carried out by terrorists.  So what makes you wingnuts think you heard something different?

*It's not useful to try to find out what the original CIA talking points said, or whether they were changed, or if they were, who might have done it, because none of this will help.  As Madame Clinton said:  At this point, what difference does it make?

Uhhh...yeah.  And Watergate was a "third-rate burglary" not worth paying attention to.

It seems glaringly, blindingly obvious that the U.S. has stopped being a nation of laws, in which all legal principles were governed by Constitutional restraints and rights.  The Obama administration began disregarding the Constitution almost from their leader's first month in office, and it's only gotten worse.

Attorney-General Eric Holder's subordinates are caught selling high-grade weapons to Mexican drug cartels.  Obama claims Holder never briefed him on the program.  Congressional Republicans subpoena Holder to find out what the hell happened.  Holder ignores the subpoena and then asks Obama to shield him from having to testify, under the theory of  "executive privilege."

But in all the history of the republic, this doctrine requires that in order to invoke the privilege, the official must have advised the president on some aspect of the action in question.  Yet Obama claimed Holder had never briefed him or counseled with him about the scheme.

And the lying media shrugged.

Early in his first term Obama violated bankruptcy laws in arbitrarily giving controlling interest in General Motors to his union buddies, and in yanking Chrysler franchises from franchisees in good standing.

And the lying media yawned.

The "Porkulus" bill was supposed to create a zillion "shovel-ready jobs," but somehow the Obamites ended up giving most of the money to banks and Wall Street firms.  Admittedly the $787-billion program did create a couple of thousand jobs--at an estimated cost of just $11 million per job.

And the lying media gushed at Duh Won's great compassion for working families.

Team Obama gave $26 Billion in taxpayer loans and loan guarantees to crony-owned firms in the "green energy" field.  An amazing number of these firms promptly went bankrupt--though not before giving their executives hefty bonuses.  If a Republican had been president it would have been a huge scandal.

With Obama in office, the lying media yawned.

Now former SecState Clinton lies about having seen any requests for better security at whatever was going on at the non-consulate annex in Benghazi.  Someone high up in government invents a bullshit story about the cause of the attack, then denies it, then the Obama administration arranges the arrest of the man who made the film that allegedly sparked the attack, then clams up.  The lying media yawns.

The lie created about Benghazi by Team Obama wasn’t due to confusion--the fog of war--but was instead a deliberate attempt to hide a truth that would have embarassed Obama. Since Obama had told American voters that thanks to his leadership Al Qaeda was no longer a threat, everyone in his administration was determined to blame the attack on anything *except* Al Qaeda.

So the fable was invented:  After all, no one could possibly hold Duh Won responsible for a shady film-maker posting a video insulting to Islam on the internet.

Team Obama lied--and far better people than anyone in this administration were left to die--to ensure that Obama and Clinton wouldn't be hurt by the politically-damaging truth.  

It seems clear that the media believe progressive goals are all good; and thus anything the media can do to support those policies must be good.  In particular, individual freedom and Constitutional principles can be trashed at any time if it helps further "progressive" goals.  And if you're a progressive I guess it makes perfect sense.

"Fathom the hypocrisy..."

"Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured...but not everyone must prove they are a citizen.  And now [thanks to Obamacare, all those who NOT citizens] will receive *free* insurance, paid for by those who are *forced* to buy insurance--because they *are* citizens."  --Ben Stein