They fired him just long enough to be able to claim objectivity, and now they are bringing him back for the election.
I've occasionally noted in recent days that the Washington Post seemed to be making more of an effort to cover both sides of political issues. The goodwill they earned doing that is easily squandered by a boneheaded move like this one.
He's not even trying anymore. Obama just orders the coverup with a big shit-eatin' grin and laughs his ass off, secure in the knowledge that whatever blackmail goods he's got on Congress will keep him safe and secure for the next year and a half.
What to make of Obama's comments about the IRS scandal?
He said this the day before two facts came to light:
1) Judicial Watch received emails proving that the IRS, including Lerner, sought to audit individual donors to conservative groups, including using a tax which has been invalidated by the Supreme Court for 30 years.
2) The Government Accountability Office issued a report indicating that controls at the IRS to prevent political targeting are deficient.
He knew that was happening and so he decided to get out in front of the issue with his big lie.
In other words, despite all the noise, the IRS admitted to nothing, changed nothing, and continues to target the political opposition in whatever ways they think they can get away with. How does the IRS respond to this report? Denial. They even got Obama to go on late-night comedy TV to peddle the Big Lie.
Let's recall that the whole controversy started when Lerner, trying to get ahead of an Inspector General report that claims targeting did occur, admitted and apologized for the targeting in response to a planted question, and that Obama himself called the admittedly improper targeting outrageous and vowed to hold the IRS accountable (which he has notably failed to do).
It's time for American corporations to rediscover political neutrality
You may have heard about the ongoing video expose' of Planned Parenthood selling the parts of aborted human babies for profit (and "I want to have a Lamborghini"). I'm generally opposed to abortion as an individual matter, but less comfortable with the government imposing a nationwide ban. I think Roe v Wade was conjured from thin air, that states can and should have the power to regulate abortion within their borders, and people can pick where they want to live on that basis. I also hope everyone reasonably sane can agree that selling the body parts of aborted fetuses for profit is despicable.
But I ran across a list of the companies supporting Planned Parenthood directly, and frankly, it surprised me. There are a lot of corporations there that you would think are relatively political neutral -- that is, companies that should be trying to actively avoid political controversy simply because taking sides on a contentious issue will inevitably offend their customers.
ICE director refuses to enforce immigration law without amnesty
At some point, impeachment for failure to faithfully execute the laws needs to be put on the table. For lesser officials if not Obama himself. Unfortunately, it's too late in the political cycle for that to be effective; we'll have a new president before any such action could be completed.
The Left is clueless on immigration, but may be coming around on the IRS
That quote he's referring to is inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty, a national monument. What else is part of the Statue of Liberty National Monument? Ellis Island, where millions of immigrants went through a legal process to enter the country.
The reason there hasn't been much attention paid to denials is that a denial can be appealed or the organization reorganized or disbanded to either meet the requirements, operate as some other type of organization, or give up. A denial is at least a decision. The brilliance of the IRS tactics was to keep organizations in limbo, without making a decision. Thus, they could not claim tax-exempt status effectively or appeal a denial of that status. They were stuck in red tape for years while elections passed them by.
Daily Signal calling for convention of the states to address tyranny
They specifically mention the IRS/DOJ tax-exempt scandal, the Wisconsin John Doe investigation, and Benghazi.
I don't see any other way out. While these are perhaps poor examples -- it's difficult for a convention of the states to address determined abuses of process -- all three scandals are indicative of the attitude Washington, DC holds towards the people. DC is more interested in ruling the people than representing them. And the issues a convention of the states can more easily address, such as a balanced budget amendment and the implementation of term limits, can help those of us in real America bring DC back under our control.
It seems the latest gun control measure by the Obama administration is to put people who aren't capable of managing their own financial affairs on the list of prohibited persons. They have been doing this with veterans for years, targeting people who had an assigned fiduciary to manage their benefits, and it's slipped mostly under the radar. Now they are expanding it to people receiving social security benefits through a fiduciary as well. That's going to be a problem that hits several million people:
I can help explain what they are thinking, beyond the obvious. To Obama, these are just more names to add to a list. The bigger the list, the fewer people in America who have guns. But targeting social security recipients has a certain kind of cunning.
You see, these are mostly older people, and if they are on the fiduciary list they will be people who aren't able to fight to defend their own rights. That makes them easy targets. But they are also people who likely already have guns, and are likely to pass away in the near future. When they pass, something will happen to their guns; likely those guns will be passed down to their children, even if they sat unused in a safe for the last few years. If Obama can keep them from acquiring more guns, he can keep those guns from being passed down to their children. And I'm not exactly sure of this point, but if someone is on the NICS prohibited list to buy a gun, it would provide an excellent excuse to confiscate their existing guns.
The details of how that would happen are up in the air. I don't see police specifically going out to homes with fiduciaries and demanding to take their guns. But you can bet that any excuse that presents itself will be used.
If Obama's idea grows -- and the fact that it is being expanded from the VA to the Social Security Administration indicates that he's trying to grow it pretty aggressively behind the scenes -- then it could be a way to block the generational transfer of firearms, countering the nature of the modern firearm as being a durable tool passed with a sense of tradition from father to son to grandson.
An argument for impeaching IRS Commissioner Koskinen
Koskinen has evidently lied to Congress, by omission if nothing else, on multiple occasions. His IRS has demonstrably destroyed records under Congressional subpoena, a matter which could and should have been prosecuted criminally. He has stalled and stonewalled the Congressional investigations into conduct for which his predecessor was forced to resign. For all of these things, he should by rights be impeached and removed from office.
But even if the House musters the courage to impeach, the chances the Senate will convict with a two-thirds majority are slim, and the impact of impeaching an official of a president in the final year of his term are minimal. At best, the spectacle will limit the ability of the IRS to influence the election. That may be worth it.
Why does the DOJ need to see documents before Congress sees them? Remember, DOJ is complicit in the efforts to prosecute these nonprofits. If they were actually investigating on their own, they would make their own document requests. Since they want to piggyback on Congress, though, it's clear their role is not to investigate but to cover up. They can spin documents better if they know what Congress is going to see, and they can make sure to clean up any evidence before Congress can make new document requests. Like, say, magnetically erasing backup tapes when it becomes clear that the Inspector General is looking for them and found where they were stored. (Remember, those tapes were erased when the investigation was in full swing, long after the scandal broke).
So, there was a study published recently that suggested the sun might be heading into a new extended minimum around 2030 or so. The last time we had such a minimum, we gave it a name (the Maunder Minimum) and noticed that it coincided pretty closely with the Little Ice Age. So is a new ice age coming? Ars Technica's resident global warming idiot says no, and his reasoning is so poor it made my jaw drop.
I'm going to take this moment to point out that the Wisconsin John Doe investigators were engaged in suppression of their political opponents, and that at least one of those investigators worked closely with Lois Lerner, who was engaged in similar activities at the IRS, and through her, the DOJ was also involved. We have reports that in some cases (eg, True the Vote), harassment by the federal government also came via multiple other agencies.
Moms Demand Action appears to be claiming a false Whataburger victory
I don't blame Whataburgher for having a long-standing policy against open carry of firearms inside their restaurants in Texas, because until this year, all open carry in Texas was pretty much either law enforcement (presumably allowed by the policy) or long guns. And who brings their rifle into a fast food restaurant? That's carrying your gun at people, as Tam would say.
As it turns out, Whataburger's policy allowed (and still allows) licensed concealed carry, and the Demanding Mommies probably had nothing to do with the decision -- which has been in place a long time and is not a reaction to the Texas open carry law.
So what should we take away from the Moms Demand Action publicists claiming a victory?
Well, first, that they are desperate for one.
Second, that they don't mind lying by implication.
And third... the sweet plastic scent of astroturf, as always.
Evidence shows IRS sought individual audits of donors to targeted organizations
You know, just yesterday I remember seeing some sort of article claiming that there was no evidence of Lerner's group initiating audits of their tea party targets. Now, we have this bombshell evidence of IRS efforts to target individual donors to political organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce. It's almost like someone in the administration is getting a look at what is about to be released so they can pre-spin it in the media!
The opponents of communism are obviously mad and should be locked up
There's a lot of truth to this argument. Consider as just one example the case of Dinesh D'Souza:
The end game of this trend is involuntary commitment for political opponents. And if we are already at the mandatory, court-ordered psychological counseling stage, we aren't very far from that end game.
IRS meetings with FBI over targetted groups went on for 3 years
The basic information that the IRS met with the FBI seeking to find ways to persecute targeted groups is not news, but Judicial Watch continues to use the courts effectively to force out more documentation on those meetings. And it now appears that the two agencies engaged in numerous conversations on the topic over at least three years:
Three years is not a casual thing, and it demonstrates without doubt a significant, ongoing program to target political opponents of the administration. Not to mention the Department of Justice's involvement in a scandal it is still pretending to investigate, something that would normally be considered a conflict of interest and result in the appointment of a special independent prosecutor. Instead, DOJ has kept the investigation in-house and run by a maxed-out Obama donor, while document production at the IRS is managed by one of the Obama appointees involved in the scandal.
Boehner admits to pushing amnesty against the will of the people
If the American people do not want immigration reform and are of such strong minds on the topic, the Speaker of the House of Representatives should consider whether pushing for immigration reform anyway is actually representing the people.
Or simply step down, because he's not fooling anyone.