On Monday, President Obama weighed in on the alleged targeting of conservative nonprofit groups by the Internal Revenue Service, calling for a full investigation into what he said would constitute “outrageous” conduct. That’s one way to put it. Here’s another: depressingly normal. For much of the last century, abuse of the IRS for political ends has been the rule, not the exception. Under Republican and Democratic presidents alike, the IRS has gone after communists, students, black activists, young conservatives, and mainstream political rivals. Here are some prime examples:
Please post links of your prove. There was Nixion but wasn’t he impeached?
I don’t recall the IRS apologizing to libs when bush was in office…
I love how Mother Jones actually doesn’t go after the fact that even if it were normal, it doesn’t excuse the fact that it happened under the Obama admin. But I also don’t remember this getting this bad under Bush towards liberal groups as it has under Obama towards conservative groups.
I thought Liberals said Obama was going to change all those bad things about Government, and here he is, bringing Chicago politics to the white house!
Ya you can’t point to one wrong to justify another wrong. As the classic saying goes. Two wrong don’t make a right. Because Bush broke the law does not mean Obama has that same right. By that logic if my friend robs the bank and gets away with it. I should also have that right to do the same thing.
Again its more about, my guy can do no wrong. Its the other guy doing all the wrong. Both parties are corrupt and should be removed from our political lives.
Senate Democrats have decided that holding the Internal Revenue Service accountable is not a priority right now.
On Tuesday the Democratic leadership in the chamber blocked a resolution by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to investigate the federal agency and fire all people responsible for improperly targeting conservative organizations.
“President Obama should terminate the individuals responsible for targeting and willfully discriminating against Tea Party groups and other conservative groups,” the resolution states.
His resolution also demanded an investigation “to determine if other entities in the administration of President Obama were involved in or were aware of the discrimination and did not take action to stop the actions of the Internal Revenue Service.”
The freshman senator asserted that he introduced the legislation to protect the First Amendment rights of the American people, and not to drive attention to the partisan nature of the scandal.
“This resolution is not about Republican vs. Democrat or conservative vs. liberal,” Paul said in a statement. “It is about arrogant and unrestrained government vs. the rule of law. The First Amendment cannot and should not be renegotiated depending on which party holds power.”
“Each senator took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, yet Senate Democrats chose to block my resolution and thus refused to condemn the IRS for trampling on our First Amendment rights,” he continued. “I am incredibly disappointed in Washington’s party politics and I am determined to hold the IRS accountable for these unjust acts.”
While Paul is personally a member of the Tea Party movement, he had previously acknowledged that he was offended by the IRS’s actions.
“I’m offended when any kind of government entity targets people for their political or religious beliefs,” Paul said at an Iowa GOP fundraiser, “so it’s, you know, particularly offensive, since I’m one of the groups they were targeting. They didn’t audit me personally, but, you know, government should never be used to bully people.”
While this week has been a bad week for the president, one has to wonder if the IRS scandal was deliberately released in order to distract attention from the Benghazi scandal. It would seem, that either there has been a nefarious plot by the White House to flood the scandals from the Executive Branch across the land now in order to avoid political impacts in the 2014 and 2016 elections. But if that’s the case then we could be in for a bumpy ride, as yet another new scandal is hitting the media today.
This one should be big based on the target. You know if this was a Bush initiative it would have been thermonuclear. Let’s see what happens.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative’s top executive called a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into how news organizations gather the news.
The records obtained by the Justice Department listed outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, for general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and for the main number for the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. It was not clear if the records also included incoming calls or the duration of the calls.
In all, the government seized the records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown, but more than 100 journalists work in the offices where phone records were targeted, on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.
In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.
By every logic this should be a big deal for the media. They were the ones being looked at by the administration. I’m doubtful it will be, but time will tell.
According to U.N. Watch, the U.N. Disarmament Conference which began on May 13 is being chaired by Iran. U.N. Watch executive director Hillel Neuer declared, “This is like putting Jack the Ripper in charge of a women’s shelter.”
Are you kidding me? The U.N. Needs to be shut down and removed from New York, because they are a joke. We have countries who are human rights violators on Human Rights councils and now this is being chaired by Iran…
Yearly gun-related deaths amount to about 0.01 percent of the population, or one hundredth of one percent. Roughly half of these are suicides. As Gavin McInnes points out in a piece over at Taki’s Mag, there are other, more lethal things in our society that make up a larger percentage of American deaths.
So when liberals call for stricter “gun control” laws but not stricter laws to “control” America’s deadlier elements (prescription drugs and automobiles, for example, both cause between three times and ten times more deaths per year than people with guns), we know there must be an ulterior motive.
Some Democrats admit their real agenda is ultimately to ban all guns. Other times we must rely on internal memos to reveal to us that Democrats acknowledge gun control doesn’t work and that the only way to achieve their professed goal of there being fewer gun-related deaths is to confiscate guns duplicitously and obliquely through gun buy-back programs.
The point of eliminating guns is ostensibly to eliminate mass shootings by the criminal and psychotic, secondarily to safeguard against accidental deaths by the irresponsible.
But as we saw back in February of this year with Officer Chris Dorner, a member of the Los Angeles Police Department, even cops can succumb to the psychosis that triggers rampage. There are just shy of 10,000 police officers in the LAPD, which means that Dorner made up 0.01 percent of the force, the same percentage of deaths per year in the United States attributed to gun violence. If Dorner’s rogue-cop action was considered an anomaly, then so must all gun deaths in America. So why are we not hearing from outraged liberals that we need tougher restrictions on the LAPD? Why are we not hearing from the few liberals who are more open and transparent that we need to ban the LAPD? Statistically, they are as deadly as the rest of America’s gun-owners.
Then we come to the fascinating fact that police officers on the whole accidentally shoot 11 times more innocent civilians than the rest of America’s gun-owners. So why do we not seek to “control” the police and have them take part in a gun buy-back program? Why do we not ban the police, who are 11 times more deadly to civilians than armed citizens? Is it because protecting lives is not the object of gun confiscation, but that confiscation itself, the widespread disarmament of the American people, is the goal?
Of course I don’t believe in eliminating the police force. But if liberals really wanted to protect innocent civilians from rogue bullets, they would have the intellectual honesty to admit that, by their own logic, they’d do better to outlaw our men in blue than to outlaw the Second Amendment.
When a liberal tells me he supports gay marriage because he supports equality for all, I like to invent for myself a sister in her mid-teens and a father with whom I tell the liberal I am deeply in love, and who in turn are in love with me. Our mutual plan, I tell the liberal, is for the three of us to get married in a few years when my sister is of legal age, and to live a long life together in loving matrimony, just me, my sister/wife, and my father/husband.
It is at this point that the liberal, usually, will discover a sudden and strong respect for tradition. It’s a fun experiment.
Yesterday a self-described moderate sent me a message to ask me what my opinions are on gay marriage, adding that she is bisexual and in a loving relationship with another female. In my response to her, I conducted the above experiment, telling her of the incestuous but truly loving relationship between my sister, my father, and me.
Her response indicated that while it was all a bit shocking (“Are you really in love with your father and sister?”), she still didn’t mind as much as most liberals do. Even still, she said, “I guess I see your point.”
At that point I told her the truth:
I’m not in love with any of my relatives, no. I was making the point of the hypocrisy of those who say they support equality. A liberal says, “I support gay marriage because I support the freedom to marry whoever you love.” So I say, “Will you sign my petition to allow me to marry my two sisters? All three of us are so deeply in love.” And they suddenly become Puritans. This proves that their support of gay marriage has nothing to do with equality (they only say it does because it makes them feel righteous, justified, romantic, sanctimonious); it has everything to do with selfishness, and in some cases it has to do with actively seeking to destroy the very notion of marriage in the first place, as one gay-rights activist recently admitted). They want to destroy marriage because, as they know, marriage is a religious institution. And liberals by and large seek to eliminate all religions that differ from their own: Secularism.
Which leads me believe that the religious could coexist with the secular more happily if only the secular would permit it.
Marco Rubio’s page just posted “MYTH vs. FACT: Immigration Reform Could Lead To Democrat Bonanza Of “As Many As 11 Million New Hispanic Voters”.
The only “bonanza” going on here is for people who have said the guy has 0 ability to create a narrative for his team. This guy is such a political novice, it should be embarrassing that he’s a top contender for the nomination at all.
When your social media account is trying to explain why you aren’t trying to create millions of democrats, then you’ve already lost. This should be evidenced by the fact that there are more “comments” than “likes” on the post. That… means something horrible is going on.
Red Hook, New York – A recent anti-bullying presentation at a middle school in New York that focused on homosexuality and gender identity has angered parents after their daughters have come home to tell them they were forced to ask another girl for a kiss.
According to reports, the session occurred last week at Linden Avenue Middle School in Red Hook, New York, near Poughkeepsie. A group of students from Bard College led two workshops for the youth, separated by gender.
During the workshop for girls, the 13 and 14-year-olds were told to ask one another for a lesbian kiss. They were also taught words such as “pansexual” and “genderqueer.”
Parent Mandy Coon told reporters that her daughter was very uncomfortable with the exercise.
“She told me, ‘Mom, we all get teased and picked on enough; now I’m going to be called a lesbian because I had to ask another girl if I could kiss her,’” she lamented.