October 19, 2014
Vote No to Jeanne Shaheen
Jeanne Shaheen is one of seven Senate Democrats who signed a March 2012 letter requesting Douglas H. Shulman, Commissioner of the IRS, "to immediately change the administrative framework for enforcement of the tax code as it applies to groups designated as 'social welfare' organizations."
Shaheen's letter got results. A year later in May 10, 2013 a headline in the Washington Post read, "IRS admits targeting conservatives for tax scrutiny in 2012 election." Lois Lerner, the IRS official who oversaw tax-exempt groups, blamed the Cincinnati Office saying, "They used names like Tea Party or Patriots and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title."
When asked about this at a congressional hearing Lois Lerner, the IRS official who oversaw tax-exempt groups, refused to testify invoking her fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. What better indication of improper political activity by IRS than this? In effect the IRS suppressed the conservative message through tax policy in order to enhance Barack Obama's re-election chances.
Another four years of Barack Obama. Lucky us. But there is a point to this. If you don't believe the IRS should be working for the Democratic party, vote "No" to another six years of Jeanne Shaheen.
October 18, 2014
Hope and Change!
This ought to be a bumper sticker!
A hat tip to Michael Walsh!
October 01, 2014
You Are Not Mary's Cause
The charges leveled in this powerful campaign ad by Elbert Guillory against Louisiana encumbant Senator Mary Landrieu could also be said of any other Democrat running this year... and those not running, as well.
September 23, 2014
A New Innovation of the Obama IRS
Perusing the IRS Inspector General's report, Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, a Professor of Law at Georgetown, noticed a troubling finding.
According to the inspector general’s report (pp. 30 & 38), this particular IRS targeting commenced on Jan. 25, 2012 — the beginning of the election year for President Obama’s second campaign. On that date: “the BOLO [‘be on the lookout’] criteria were again updated.” The revised criteria included “political action type organizations involved in … educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.”
It wasn't just Tea Party groups who were subjected to heightened scrutiny by the IRS.
This is a new low for American government — targeting those who would teach others about its founding document. Forty years ago, President Richard Nixon went to great lengths to try to conceal the facts of his constitutional violations, but it never occurred to him to conceal the meaning of the Constitution itself, by targeting its teachers. Politicians have always been tempted to try to censor their political adversaries; but none has been so bold as to try to suppress constitutional education directly. Presidents have always sought to push against the constitutional limits of their power; but never have they targeted those who merely teach about such limits. In short, never before has the federal government singled out for special scrutiny those who would teach their fellow citizens about our magnificent Constitution. This is the new innovation of Obama’s IRS.
We have an important election coming up.
September 22, 2014
Climate Change - The Stakes
Climate Change, formerly known as Global Warming, is a high stakes game, and the hysteria on display yesterday afternoon in New York provides dramatic emphasis.
Naomi Klein, author of a new book on the “crisis,” This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, said, “I have seen the future, and it looks like New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.” In her new book she demands that North America and Europe pay reparations to poorer countries to compensate for the climate change they cause. She calls her plan a “Marshall Plan for the Earth” and acknowledges that it would cost “hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars.”
Can you guess where those "hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars" will come from? Bingo, if you guessed the American tax payer. Ms Klein has a different answer, though.
“Need more money? Print some!”
Apparently, her understanding of monetary theory is on a par with her understanding of the climate. News flash for Ms. Klein: There is no free lunch. Printing more money will only shift the cost climate boondoggles to poorest of us, the ones who can't protect what little they have by fleeing the sinking dollar for something else that might hold some value.
No matter. Climate hysteria works for Naomi Klein. She's become a best selling author by grinding the anti-capitalist axe. With her latest effort, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, she both promotes and cashes in on the anti-capitalist hysteria by predicting the end of civilization, an eventuality brought on by catastophic climate change, which of course is the bitter fruit of corporate profits.
"Hundreds of billions if not trillions" buys a lot of hysteria, and said hysteria will undoubtedly bring in a load of cash for Ms. Klein. Her book was scheduled to be released this month, so you might say the Climate Summit in New york is the culmination of her book tour. What a brilliant marketing strategy!
The cllimate itself, however, is not at stake, no matter how hysterical they get down in the Big Apple. Activist powers that be didn't change the name from "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Change" for nothing.
Oregon-based physicist Gordon Fulks sums it up well: “CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea-level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring . . . and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.”
May I suggest, a new approach to Climate Science is needed. Stop worrying about the CO2 and start paying attention to the USD. In other words, follow the money.
Note: This is not a review of Ms. Klein's new book. In fact, I have no intention of ever paying money for a copy, so my chances of ever reading it are slim to none.
September 17, 2014
The Allure of Secession
And which of the last true-believing pilgrims in the Church of Hope and Change, his fraying Shepard Fairey T-shirt his only protection against the chill of the frozen-foods aisle at Trader Joe’s, does not dream of living in a nation with no SUV-driving Rick Perry voters who drink cheap beer un-ironically?
Scottish secession, an extraordinarily foolish hope?
September 16, 2014
A former Deputy Assistant Secretary at the State Department has come forward with what some would consider a startling allegation. Others, like myself, find nothing startling about it.
According to Raymond Maxwell an after-hours session was conducted in the basement at State Department headquarters in DC, to prevent any damaging documents from being turned over to the Accountability Review Board investigating the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya.
“She told me, ‘Ray, we are to go through these stacks and pull out anything that might put anybody in the [Near Eastern Affairs] front office or the seventh floor in a bad light,’” says Maxwell. He says “seventh floor” was State Department shorthand for then-Secretary of State Clinton and her principal advisers.
“I asked her, ‘But isn’t that unethical?’ She responded, ‘Ray, those are our orders.’ ”
I'd be more startled if anybody could show that no such scrubbing took place. The story has a familiar ring.
September 15, 2014
Leadership, Obama Style
In his essay, Myron vs Atilla, Richard Fernandez observes that it is "the neglected, boring area of workaday life is the secret sword of the West." The Cold War was won because Reagan outflanked the Soviets, says Mr. Fernandez. America outproduced the Soviet Union, and Fernandez calls this America's "productive flank."
The productive flank solves scarcity problems by growing out of it, while Islamism and Socialism solve the same problem by plunder and rationing respectively.
So why, he asks, with threats looming throughout the world, why isn't America "rampaging down the productive flank?"
One possible explanation is that the president, Great Man that is, isn’t aware of the potential of plumbers or drilling or nuclear energy. For him, the field is still dominated by titans such as himself who will solve everything from the socialist equivalent of a pulpit: the teleprompter.
Yes, that would be one explanation. But is ISIS a problem that Obama feels obligated to solve? You wouldn't think so, if you were to judge by the number of conditions he puts on fighting it. There has to be a coalition. The U.S. will not be the leader. American troops will not be deployed in combat roles. Iraq must have a more inclusive government or America won't take part in the effort.
It was the resignation of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki that may finally have backed Obama into the corner. Al Maliki was the impediment to that inclusive Iraqi government, upon which military assistance depended. With him gone Obama had little choice but to commit America to the war against ISIS. So far, I'm aware of no deadlines that have been set for pulling America out of the impending fight, but Obama may set one later on to give himself an escape hatch.
In any case, the "secret sword" will remain in its sheath. While we may ultimately prevail by productively outflanking ISIS, I doubt that it will be while Obama is still in office. He'd really rather not unleash the productive might of America. Otherwise, the Keystone Pipeline would have been approved long ago. His promise to defeat ISIS is just so much talk, as transitory as any of his pronouncements, meant only to stave off a rout of the Democrats in the midterm elections. Obama's real enemy is not ISIS.
The coalition Obama leads to crush his real enemies is the one comprised of the IRS, the Justice Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Labor Relations Board, and the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It's the only place where Obama shows any real leadership. Isn't it funny that he can never let that show up on his resume.
September 12, 2014
Quote of the Day
Howie Carr wonders what became of the anti-war crowd.
The anti-war movement is MIA as this war, er counterterrorism operation, begins. Back when Bush was waging war, dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Now it’s “racism.” If you speak truth to power in the Obama era, they call it hate speech. The IRS will audit you.
June 17, 2014
Sharyl Attkisson on the Missing IRS Emails
Is there any possibility that the Obama administration and the IRS are not criminally obstructing the House Ways and Means Committee investigation into the targeting of Tea Party and conservative groups? On Friday the IRS announced that it had lost email communications between Lois Lerner and outside agencies for the period between January of 2009 and April of 2011. A computer crash, the IRS said.
It so happens that the emails requested by Ways and Means included Lerner's communications with the White House, the Treasury Department, the Department of Justice, the Federal Elections Commission and the offices of congressional Democrats. Just those communications, for just that particular time period when the IRS was admittedly targeting Tea Party and conservative groups, are the ones that the IRS now claims were lost because of the crash. How is that possible?
In light of this announcement Sharyl Attkisson has formulated some questions for the IRS.
- Please provide a timeline of the crash and documentation covering when it was first discovered and by whom; when, how and by whom it was learned that materials were lost; the official documentation reporting the crash and federal data loss; documentation reflecting all attempts to recover the materials; and the remediation records documenting the fix. This material should include the names of all officials and technicians involved, as well as all internal communications about the matter.
- Please provide all documents and emails that refer to the crash from the time that it happened through the IRS’ disclosure to Congress Friday that it had occurred.
- Please provide the documents that show the computer crash and lost data were appropriately reported to the required entities including any contractor servicing the IRS. If the incident was not reported, please explain why.
- Please provide a list summarizing what other data was irretrievably lost in the computer crash. If the loss involved any personal data, was the loss disclosed to those impacted? If not, why?
- Please provide documentation reflecting any security analyses done to assess the impact of the crash and lost materials. If such analyses were not performed, why not?
- Please provide documentation showing the steps taken to recover the material, and the names of all technicians who attempted the recovery.
- Please explain why redundancies required for federal systems were either not used or were not effective in restoring the lost materials, and provide documentation showing how this shortfall has been remediated.
- Please provide any documents reflecting an investigation into how the crash resulted in the irretrievable loss of federal data and what factors were found to be responsible for the existence of this situation.
- I would also ask for those who discovered and reported the crash to testify under oath, as well as any officials who reported the materials as having been irretrievably lost.
Is it still possible to believe that Obama himself had no hand in the targeting? Hard to imagine.
Update: Mark Tapscott notes in a Washington Examiner column:
On the same day the new HOGR report was made public, Mitchell -- a partner in the Foley & Lardner law firm -- reminded Justice Department attorneys that multiple federal laws require preservation of all emails concerning official government business.
The emails must also be preserved as evidence in litigation, including the civil suit Mitchell filed against the government and a dozen individual IRS employees on behalf of True the Vote, one of the Tea Party group's most egregiously harassed by the IRS.
In other words, besides destroying federal property, anybody who may have had a hand in making that computer crash could also face evidence-tampering charges. Serious jail time follows convictions.
This isn't going away soon.
May 04, 2014
The Broader Policy Failure
Up until disclosure of the Ben Rhodes email outlining Benghazi talking points for U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, the Obama administration has managed to keep the narrative away from the central issue that was the reason for a coverup in the first place. According to the White House there wasn't a coverup, but the Ben Rhodes email and others that were procured by Judicial Watch all but confirm that there was and that the White House had a hand in it.
Let's step back for a moment. In the months leading up to the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens by Islamic terrorists, the State Department had denied several requests by the ambassador for additional security at the consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Aside from testifying that she took responsibility for what happened, Hillary Clinton who was Secretary of State at the time, never satisfactorily addressed the issue of why those requests were denied. Oh, a few State Department careerists were shuffled from one job to another in a show of accountability exacted, but that was pretty much the end of it.
In Washington today, particularly the Obama administration, saying that you take responsibility does not mean you are responsible. That sort of talk is just for show. In another day you might expect a resignation to follow when someone takes responsibility for such a gross failure of security. You would expect real men and real women to own up. But not now, and certainly not Hillary Clinton, not ever.
No, Hillary blamed a film maker and promised a grieving father that the film maker would be brought to justice. Susan Rice laid the groundwork for it when just days after the attack, she made the rounds of five Sunday morning talk shows, reciting the Ben Rhodes talking points at each one: There was a spontaneous protest, not an attack. And this was supported by the best intelligence available to the administration at the time. Even after it became inescapably clear that there were no protests, the administration stuck with the "best available intelligence" story. They still do.
But the damaging issue is why the ambassador's requests for more security were denied. The administration began by maintaining a Sergeant Schultz style of innocence: "I know nothing! I see nothing! NOTHING!" A CNN article purporting to "fact check" statements by Joe Biden and Paul Ryan during their Vice Presidential Debate in October, 2012 quoted the Vice President saying just that:
Biden: "We weren't told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security."
Ryan: "There were requests for extra security. Those requests were not honored."
On Wednesday, the State Department's former point man on security in Libya told the House Oversight Committeethat he asked for additional security help for the Benghazi facility months before the attack, but was denied.
Various communications dating back a year asked for three to five diplomatic security agents, according to testimony at Wednesday's hearing. But Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, said he verbally asked for 12 agents.
The request for 12 agents was rebuffed by the regional director of the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Nordstrom testified.
Biden went on to say that Republicans were to blame for the lapse in security, anyway. He argued that the ambassador others who were killed were actually victims of Republican budget cuts. The Obama administration couldn't afford to beef up security in Benghazi.
A scramble was on to evade blame. Hillary Clinton testified, "specific security requests they didn't come to me. I had no knowledge of them." Is it possible that those two, Joe and Hillary, really didn't know about the dangers that Ambassador Stevens faced in Benghazi? Let's just say we're willing to concede the point: They didn't know.
The fact is, they should have known. And the email from Ben Rhodes makes clear that they knew that they should have known.
The Rhodes email was sent on sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 8:09 p.m. with the subject line: “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” The documents show that the “prep” was for Amb. Rice’s Sunday news show appearances to discuss the Benghazi attack.
The document lists as a “Goal”: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”
As the attack was being carried out, all of them knew. Security at consulate in Benghazi was insufficient and somebody should have done something about it. The Ben Rhodes email portrays a quick thinking politically minded administration settling on a political strategy to address a domestic political crisis.
Out came Susan Rice with their story: There was no attack by armed terrorists. There was no connection to Al Qaeda. A mob of otherwise peaceful civilians, our Libyan friends, became justifiably incensed by an insulting video. Out of the blue. Completely without warning. Who could have predicted a protest would get so badly out of control? Send in the troops against civilians? Enlightened administrations don't do that sort of thing.
It implied that leaving the Benghazi consulate unprotected was what anybody in the same circumstances would have done. With a little stretching it might even explain why there was no military response, no attempt to save the ambassador, when the attack on the consulate was under way — when everybody, Obama and Hillary included, knew it. That was what the internet video was intended to explain away.
In actuality the Obama administation had implemented a policy to normalize operations in Libya. Several weeks after the embassy was attacked, a Washington Times report described what that policy meant.
The shift in narrative from the State Department comes amid revelations the Obama administration told U.S. diplomats during the months leading up to the attack to draw down security in Libya in an effort to show that life was returning to normal after the revolution that shook the North African nation last year.
That policy, formulated by Barack Obama and carried out by Hillary Clinton, was behind the denial of those requests. The bitter fruit of those denials is why there was this nonsensical story about an internet video. It's why Ben Rhodes outlined a strategy to "underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy."
The broader failure was in imposing a policy that dictated a denial of each and every request by Ambassador Stevens for the security forces that might have prevented his death. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both knew it. The Ben Rhodes email was the administration plan for shielding themselves from blame for their own policies. That's the normal operation in the Obama administration. It was like that in the Clinton administration. (Who can forget Bill, wagging his finger?) It will be like that in the next Clinton administration. If there is one.
April 30, 2014
Politics Before Transparency?
Under the headline "National Journal Writer: Obama W.H. Put Politics Before Transparency on Benghazi" the Washington Free Beacon reports:
National Journal’s Ron Fournier on Wednesday argued the Obama Administration always “put politics first” rather than disclosing the truth when dealing with their latest scandals.
I would go much further than that. I suspect that Obama administration had put politics even ahead of security at the Benghazi consulate, refusing Ambassador Christopher Stevens' many request for additional forces because administration political goals were to promote Barack Obama as having decimated al Qaeda. Beefing up security would have been an uncomfortable contradiction to that narrative.
The more important questions arose months earlier. Those questions centered around apparent refusals to beef up security at the consulate in Benghazi, even in the face of repeated requests for more of it.
Eric Nordstrom earlier told congressional investigators that he had requested more security but that request was blocked by a department policy to "normalize operations and reduce security resources."
Too bad four Americans died so that Barack Obama could hold that pose as conquering hero.
April 29, 2014
As we've all thought all along, that idiotic story blaming the death of Ambassador Christopher Steven on an internet video was a tale cooked up by the White House to cover for Obama. Documents procured by Judicial Watch through a June 21, 2013 FOIA lawsuit included an email by senior White House advisor Ben Rhodes dated September 14, 2012 8:09 pm ET.
Subject: RE:PREP CALL with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET
This was the email that outlined the plan for Susan Rice to hit the Sunday morning talk shows and say that according to the best intelligence Christopher Stevens died in a protest over a video. Among other things it said:
To underscore that these protests were rooted in an Internet video, not a broader failure of policy.
However, in the same trove of documents received by Judicial Watch were emails contradicting Rhodes' contrived story line. The Judicial Watch press release describes the contradictions:
The documents obtained by Judicial Watch also contain numerous emails sent during the assault on the Benghazi diplomatic facility. The contemporaneous and dramatic emails describe the assault as an “attack”:
As reported, the Benghazi compound came under attack and it took a bit of time for the ‘Annex’ colleagues and Libyan February 17 brigade to secure it. One of our colleagues was killed – IMO Sean Smith. Amb Chris Stevens, who was visiting Benghazi this week is missing. U.S. and Libyan colleagues are looking for him…
At 8:51 pm, Pelofsky tells Rice and others that “Post received a call from a person using an [sic] RSO phone that Chris was given saying the caller was with a person matching Chris’s description at a hospital and that he was alive and well. Of course, if the he were alive and well, one could ask why he didn’t make the call himself.”
Later that evening, Pelofsky emailed Rice that he was “very, very worried. In particular that he [Stevens] is either dead or this was a concerted effort to kidnap him.” Rice replied, “God forbid.”
- September 11, 2012, 4:49 PM – State Department press officer John Fogarty reporting on “Libya update from Beth Jones”:
Beth Jones [Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs] just spoke with DCM Tripoli Greg Hicks, who advised a Libyan militia (we now know this is the 17th Feb brigade, as requested by Emb office) is responding to the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi.”
Understandable that the White House would be loath to release such damning information, especially after the entire administration stayed on the internet video message for months. Rice, Clinton, and Obama all maintained that the attack was not an attack but a spontaneous protest. They kept it up through the November election and all the way through the congressional committee hearings the following year. They had help from the media who studiously ignored the story.
David Rhodes was named President of CBS News in February 2011.
As President, he is responsible for programs including the award-winning broadcasts "CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley", "CBS This Morning", "CBS Sunday Morning with Charles Osgood", "Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer", and "48 Hours." He directs network newsgathering for all CBS News platforms including television, CBSNews.com, and CBS News Radio.
Some news is quite obviously not worth gathering. Like Benghazi. It is particularly not worth gathering when you have a brother neck deep in the story.
Sharyl Attkisson, CBS’s top investigative reporter: gone, resigned, floating free, unchained, now viewed by the news establishment as an outsider, a defector, a weirdo with an axe to grind.
Among the controversial stories she covered at CBS: Benghazi. Just as she was digging below the surface of the Obama coverup, she was cut off and shut down by her network bosses.
Here’s the crux. The Rhodes brothers.
Ben Rhodes, David Rhodes.
Ben is a deputy national security advisor to Obama and writes speeches for him. In September 2012, Ben was “instrumental,” according to ABC News, in changing the White House talking points (the story) on what happened in Benghazi.
Ben’s brother, David, is president of CBS News. Attkisson was working for David. She was investigating all the changes (12) in the Benghazi talking points. She was shut down.
Nothing to see there, move along, eyes straight ahead, go back to sleep, zombie-zombie, it’s all good don’t worry, be happy, hope and change, the audacity of whatever.
Now, on top of this, Attkisson’s computers, at work and at home, were hacked while she was still at CBS. The network acknowledged this and said “they were investigating.” They’re still investigating.
Our "free press" colludes with, rather than reports on, the people who would be subjects of their stories. It's mutually beneficial. Ambitious "journalists" advance their careers further and faster by being nice to the powers be, and in return the powers that be get good press. Or as in this case, Benghazi, the powers that be get no press. Better still.
Senior White House advisor Ben Rhodes was a brilliant pick by Obama. No worries about "journalist" Rhodes ever speaking truth to, or about, Obama. And what a bonus! Rhodes has a brother who has been doing a bang up job of muzzling one of the original big three news networks, CBS, on behalf of Obama. It's mutually beneficial. Hell! It's family!
April 14, 2014
Obama Backs Off
Well, well. Barack Obama is backing off from his plan to hand over the internet to totalitarian-minded governance. Color me surprised.
Less than a month after announcing its plan to abandon U.S. protection of the open Internet in 2015, the White House has stepped back from the abyss. Following objections by Bill Clinton, a warning letter from 35 Republican senators, and critical congressional hearings, the administration now says the change won't happen for years, if ever.
"We can extend the contract for up to four years," Assistant Commerce Secretary Lawrence Strickling told Congress last week, referring to the agreement under which the U.S. retains ultimate control over the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, known as Icann. If the administration makes good on that reassurance, it would punt the decision to 2019 and the next president.
How unlike the president. Obama has never been bashful about shutting people up, insinuating that dark forces are at work buying up American democracy. He may be right about that, but the dark forces are labor unions and billionaire progressives who somehow manage to extract billions in loan guarantees, grants and gifts thanks to Obama's federally financed kindness. In return the progressive/labor coalition showers Obama and the Democrats with campaign cash.
Talk radio is a place where you might hear about these embarrassing connections. So is the Tea Party, so is Fox News, and so is the internet. Democrats have been complaining about talk radio and Fox News for years, and the Obama administration has even unleashed the IRS on the Tea Party. But up to now nobody has taken on the internet, except for those occasional cracks about bloggers sitting around in their pajamas. You have to give Obama his due. He's proven himself ambitious enough to take on the World Wide Web.
The Commerce Department tasked Icann to come up with a plan to invite authoritarian governments to participate while still keeping the Internet open. This is likely impossible—and wholly unnecessary. Nongovernmental "multi-stakeholders," such as engineers, networking companies and technology associations, now run the Internet smoothly. They are free to do so because the U.S. retains ultimate control over Internet domains, blocking authoritarian regimes from censoring or otherwise limiting the Internet outside their own countries.
The Obama administration proposal would have treated other governments as equal stakeholders, turning the concept of private-sector self-governance on its head. Robert McDowell, a former commissioner at the Federal Communication Commission, pointed out at the Hudson Institute event that "'multi-stakeholder' historically has meant no government," not many governments.
It is vintage Obama, leading from behind again. And up front could have been any number of dictatorial regimes willing and able crush inconvenient, embarrassing discourse on the net. But apparently the outcry, even from the left end of the political spectrum, forced him to back off. Some errant synapses, perhaps, firing in left leaning minds set off an epiphany about dangers of empowering somebody to silence your critics. When they have it they'll silence you. But who would ever have expected the left to get that?
April 13, 2014
Quote of the Day
As majority leader of the United States Senate, Reid holds one of the highest offices in the land. Using his high office to inveigh against the “Koch brothers,” Reid has shown an infinite capacity for disgrace, dishonesty and hypocrisy. He is the perfect face of the Democratic Party in the Age of Obama.
April 07, 2014
This Is What You Get...
...when you vote for Democrats. There is a "pervasive culture of retaliation and intimidation" at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. A senior enforcement attorney at CFPB has testified at a House Committee on Financial Services hearing that senior managers at the agency retaliated against her for speaking out against mismanagement.
Scott Pluta, the CFPB assistant director of the Office of Consumer Response, demoted Martin after she filed a formal complaint of discrimination for being “isolated” and prevented from doing any “meaningful work” in December 2012. Martin has not been assigned a single case or enforcement matter since she dissolved her own law practice to work for the CFPB in 2011.
After filing her complaint, Martin, a former civilian attorney for the judge advocate general at Fort Bragg, was then removed from all of her job duties.
Misty Raucci, a workplace private investigator who was hired by the CFPB to investigate the case, supported Martin’s testimony.
After six months, Raucci said she became a “veritable hotline for employees at CFPB, who called to discuss their own maltreatment at the bureau, mainly at the hands of Scott Pluta or [CFPB official] Dane D’Alessandro.”
Raucci said Martin was subjected to “open bashing, bullying, and marginalization” from D’Alessandro. Pluta removed Martin from her position as chief counsel in the Office of Consumer Response.
Raucci suggested that Pluta colluded with two lower-level employees—Cathaleen Skinner and Cora Hume—to have them file complaints against Martin. Skinner “stood to benefit directly from Ms. Martin’s removal from her position as Chief Counsel,” Raucci said.
This is how Democrats believe the U.S. government should work — by intimidation and retaliation. Consider this case concerning the EPA.
The US Supreme Court Wednesday ruled unanimously in favor of an Idaho couple seeking to have their day in court to challenge an Environmental Protection Agency order that scuttled plans to build their dream home on a subdivided lot the EPA said was a federal wetland.
The couple, Chantell and Michael Sackett, had started to fill the home site with dirt and gravel to prepare for construction. But the EPA intervened, announcing that the property was a regulated wetland. Agency officials ordered the couple to restore the land to its original state or face up to $75,000 a day in fines.
Or how about this one?
All Andy Johnson wanted to do was build a stock pond on his sprawling eight-acre Wyoming farm. He and his wife Katie spent hours constructing it, filling it with crystal-clear water, and bringing in brook and brown trout, ducks and geese. It was a place where his horses could drink and graze, and a private playground for his three children.
But instead of enjoying the fruits of his labor, the Wyoming welder says he was harangued by the federal government, stuck in what he calls a petty power play by the Environmental Protection Agency. He claims the agency is now threatening him with civil and criminal penalties – including the threat of a $75,000-a-day fine.
And if you don't happen to be a landowner subject to EPA regulations, there is the IRS to harass you if you should happen to stray from the liberal orthodoxy. Don't file for tax exempt status if your organization has Tea Party" or "Patriot" in its name.
The Obama administration obviously considers Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of two public service organizations, “King Street Patriots” and “True the Vote”, to be a very dangerous person. She apparently gained that ominous distinction soon after filing to obtain tax-exempt IRS status for King Street Patriots in July 2010…approval, incidentally, which has yet to be granted. Nor has tax-exempt status been awarded for a True the Vote filing which was submitted at the same time.
Catherine’s life has changed dramatically since submitting those applications. The organization has been questioned by the FBI on numerous occasions; she has had her personal tax returns audited by the IRS; and has also had her small manufacturing business tax returns audited by the IRS. In addition, her business has been subjected to two unscheduled audits by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, and Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) and has undergone another unscheduled business audit by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
And that's how Democrats think the government is supposed to work. Get in the way, and you get run over. It's what you get when you vote for a Democrat.
April 06, 2014
A Momentary Pause -- 17 Years and 8 Months
Yesterday Anthony Watts posted on his Climate Change blog Watts Up With That? an article by Christopher Moncton.
Times are not easy for true-believers just now. The RSS satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomaly for March, just in, shows no global warming at all for 17 years 8 months. This remarkable 212-month period, enduring from August 1996 to March 2014, represents half of the entire 423-month satellite record since it began in January 1979
Figure 1. The remarkable 212-month absence of global warming, notwithstanding a record rate of increase in CO2 concentration. The Pause – the least-squares trend on the data for the past 17 years 8 months – now extends to just over half the entire 423-month Remote Sensing Systems satellite record since January 1979.
That's quite remarkable — 17 years and 8 months with no warming. Signs of desperation are appearing as the global warmists rejoin the attack with a renewed ferocity, threatening ever more dire consequences should we ignore their warnings of climate catastrophe. Just because it isn't getting warmer doesn't mean it isn't getting warmer! Or something.
But it hasn't been getting warmer for almost two decades, and though warmists have been at a loss to explain it, they've acknowledged the truth of it. Realizing that rising temperatures have not been rising for quite some time, the warmists traded in their "Global Warming" title for the more versatile, "Global Climate Change." Not sure if it's going to be hotter or colder? Global Climate Change! That's the ticket. No matter which way the satellite data goes, we've still got a crisis!
And it's a crisis that has not gone to waste.
According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion over this period, increasingly advancing over others in total share. Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.”
The excerpt above is from an August, 2011 article in Forbes. I'm not going to add up the billions, but a lot of spending has gone on and is still going. It doesn't get the mention that it should. What you'll hear instead is from the parties cashing in on the government funding binge. Deniers are in the pay of the oil industry! So the hysteria continues.
And Obama has no plan to curtail it or cut spending of any kind. Well, that's not true. He will cut defense spending, but certainly not climate change spending, even if it's stopped getting warmer. We had more snow in New Hampshire this winter than a lot of people have seen in years — or ever. No matter. There has to be a crisis, so global warming will get a lot of government cash.
But the real crisis is political. Democrats expect to be in for a bad election year, so Obama's spending, global warming included, is the kind that's intended to win votes and campaign contributions for the Democratic party. It doesn't matter what the satellite data says.
Update: The Wall Street Journal notes the U.N. IPCC's "Fifth Assessment Report" on cimate which is somewhat less alarmists than reports past, but not by much.
The IPCC also turns out to have an agenda that's less about climate change than income inequality and redistribution. What else given the liberal fashions of the day? "Recognizing how inequality and marginalization perpetuate poverty is a prerequisite for climate-resilient development pathways," the IPCC insists, before suggesting that the costs for "global adaptation" should run between $70 billion and $100 billion a year from now until 2050.
Then we come to a bit of WSJ naivete.
[I]f you believe that the risks of climate change are sufficiently plausible that we should at least be considering an insurance policy of sorts, then the IPCC's policy recommendations could hardly be worse. The best environmental policy is economic growth. The richer you are, the more insurance you have. Wealth is what pays for robust safety standards and prevents sensible environmental regulations from being ignored or corrupted.
Yet the IPCC supports the very regulation, income redistribution and politically favored misallocation of resources that will make the world poorer—and less able to adapt if the climate threat proves to be as real as the U.N.'s computer models claim.
Income redistribution is the whole point of the global warming hysteria.
Another update: The report also says this:
"Existing gender inequalities are increased or heightened by climate-related hazards," says the report, while dilating on the deleterious effects global warming has on "discrimination based on gender, age, race, class, caste, indigeneity, and (dis)ability."
I wonder if that's "settled science" as well.
April 02, 2014
The Supreme Court ruled today that individuals may not be limited in the number of political candidates to whom they can contribute during an election. At the same time the justices left in place the maximum donation that can be made to a single candidate, which remains at $2,600.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in the controlling opinion in the 5-4 ruling, said that while the government has an interest in preventing corruption of federal officeholders, individuals have political rights that include being able to give to as many candidates as they want, in order to show support.
“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects,” the chief justice wrote. “If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”
Under the current limit, a donor can’t give more than $123,200 to candidates, parties and political action committees. Of that, just $48,600 can go directly to candidates.
That means if someone wanted to give the maximum donation, he could only contribute to nine candidates.
Chief Justice Roberts said it made no sense that someone couldn’t give to a 10th candidate or more — and said the government didn’t offer a clear line on where corruption would come into play.
Progressives were overwrought already, demonizing the libertarian leaning Koch brothers over their bankrolling of anti-ObamaCare political ads. Democrats' fight for campaign finance reform has always been about limiting the voices of private citizens in the politics, while inviting massive spending and corruption by activist labor unions. Fourteen of the top 25 political contributors are unions.
• The top campaign donor of the last 25 years is ActBlue, an online political-action committee dedicated to raising funds for Democrats. ActBlue’s political contributions, which total close to $100 million, are even more impressive when one realizes that it was only launched in 2004. That’s $100 million in ten years.
• Fourteen labor unions were among the top 25 political campaign contributors.
Democrats say that money from wealthy individuals will corrupt the system, but there are two sides to every transaction. If influence can be bought, there is somebody to sell it. While Democrats complain about money from shadowy groups they have no second thoughts about where their own money comes from. Campaign finance limits are for the other side. Remember when the Obama campaign disabled credit card address verification? That meant campaign money was potentially untraceable. If there is corruption it will be from rent seeking Democrats more often than not.
Make no mistake. This is a victory for libertarians.
April 01, 2014
Quote of the Day
From Susan Vass, under the pseudonym Ammo Grrrll writing in “Thoughts from the ammo line” on its diversity.
Contrary to anti-gun propagandists who assert that the only gun owners are certifiably insane old white men, the ammo line also reflects our diversity. The guy who beats me there on Saturdays is a black great-grandpa I’ll call Steve, on account of that’s his name. He shows up pre-dawn after his swing-shift job. Today he is wearing a T-shirt that says “Ammo is scarce – there will be no warning shots.”
Media -- Got the Memo
If Nate Silver is to be believed, the Democrats are in for a tough time this election season. Silver gives the edge to a Republican takeover in the Senate. Dragging the Dems down are a number of things: failure of ObamaCare to deliver anything but higher costs and fewer options, politization of the IRS, Obama's pathetic responses to Bashar Assad's war on his citizens and the Russian incursion into Crimea to name a few.
Unable to defend their policy choices, Democrats turn to a familiar game plan. Demonize the Koch brothers.
The Nevada Democrat, in the first of two floor speeches on the subject Wednesday, questioned the veracity of new advertisements from Koch-backed groups that feature individuals sharing stories about the apparent hardships they've faced because of the Affordable Care Act.
One features a Michigan resident who said she was fighting leukemia and had her insurance canceled because of the new law. The woman says Rep. Gary Peters' vote to pass the law "jeopardized my health." Peters is the Democratic candidate for Michigan's open Senate seat.
Reid called that ads "absolutely false," and said it was part of an effort by the Koch brothers to "buy" the election.
But he returned to the floor hours later with a hint of a retraction, saying he was not in position to say that all ads from the group were lies — only "the vast, vast majority of them."
But he went further in attacking the ads' fiscal backers.
"It's time that the American people spoke out against this terrible dishonesty of these two brothers, who are about as un-American as anyone that I can imagine," Reid said.
The Koch brothers are Un-American liars, said Harry Reid from the Senate Floor. There's a reason he stood at the Senate podium to deliver his diatribe. He's immune from any charges of libel when speaking in the Senate. The news media are shielded from libel, too. Rarely do public figures win libel suits. So following along from Harry's lead, lefty news media outlets are jumping on the anti-Koch-brother bandwagon. Here is The Nation hyperventilating in its headline:
What’s Really Behind the Koch Attacks on Democrats
Hint: it’s not about healthcare.
Do you want to guess what it's all about? Here's a hint: Oil. Well, OK that was more than a hint.
The Kochs’ investments in fossil fuel include petrochemical complexes and thousands of miles of pipeline and refineries in Alaska, Minnesota, and Texas, an empire that emits over 24 million tons of carbon pollution every year, about as much as 5 million cars. Thanks to a recent investigation by the International Forum on Globalization, we now have confirmation of what was long suspected: the Kochs are one of the biggest investors in Alberta’s tar sands, with a Koch subsidiary holding leases on 1.1 million acres of land in the region, giving them a major stake in the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline—despite their insistence otherwise. [My emphasis]
Every couple of years the left breathlessly reveals the same nefarious plot. It's the one where dull witted, unsuspecting Americans are lured into gas stations to fill up. Fools. And who's to blame? Why, the Koch brothers, of course.
There is, however, some dispute over the Koch brothers' interests as relate to the Keystone Pipeline. According to PowerLine Blog, the Koch brothers have none, as John Hinderaker explained to the Washington Post, who also jumped on Harry Reid's bandwagon.
On Thursday, the Washington Post published an article by Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilperin titled “The biggest lease holder in Canada’s oil sands isn’t Exxon Mobil or Chevron. It’s the Koch brothers.” The article’s first paragraph included this claim:
The biggest lease holder in the northern Alberta oil sands is a subsidiary of Koch Industries, the privately-owned cornerstone of the fortune of conservative Koch brothers Charles and David.
The theme of the article was that the Keystone Pipeline is all about the Koch brothers; or, at least, that this is a plausible claim. The Post authors relied on a report by a far-left group called International Forum on Globalization that I debunked last October.
So Thursday evening, I wrote about the Post article here. I pointed out that Koch is not, in fact, the largest leaser of tar sands land; that Koch will not be a user of the pipeline if it is built; and that construction of the Keystone Pipeline would actually be harmful to Koch’s economic interests, which is why Koch has never taken a position on the pipeline’s construction. The Keystone Pipeline, in short, has nothing whatsoever to do with the Koch brothers. [All emphasis in the original]
Which is not to say that the Koch brothers don't support approval of the Keystone Pipeline. To be honest, I don't know if they do or they don't, but I would be willing to bet that they do — not because they would profit from it, since apparently they would not, at least in the immediate term, but because it would strengthen America. It would create American jobs. It would boost the economy.
But elements of the media have gotten the memo, so to speak. There is so little that Democrats can campaign on in the current election season. Their stewardship has been dismal at best, if we're talking about the economy. Foreign policy? A disaster.
That leaves only one thing. Find a target and demonize it: The Koch brothers. Isn't it heart warming to know the media is there to help.