by

News/Politics 5-14-13

What’s interesting in the news today?

First up..

GUILTY! From LifeNews

“The jury in the murder trial of abortion practitioner Kermit Gosnell returned a verdict and found him guilty on three of the four first-degree murder charges he faced.

Gosnell was found guilty of killing Baby A, Baby C and Baby D and found not guilty of killing Baby E. He was also convicted on hundreds of lesser charges ranging from infanticide to running a corrupt organization.

The guilty verdict on these three counts subjects the abortion “doctor” to the potential he will face the death penalty when a second jury considers his sentencing on the convictions. At minimum Gosnell will face three life terms in prison. The jury that will be tasked with sentencing Gosnell on the convictions will begin its work on May 21.”

NARAL and other pro-abortion groups would like to blame pro-lifers. The attempted spin from those who cover for abortionists like Gosnell is sickening. Also from LifeNews

““Kermit Gosnell has been found guilty and will get what he deserves. Now, let’s make sure these women are vindicated by delivering what all women deserve: access to the full range of health services including safe, high-quality and legal abortion care,” said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL.

But she went further in her statement and blasted pro-lifers and their efforts to limit abortions and put restrictions on late-term abortions in place. She also placed the blame for the Gosnell horrors on pro-life advocates.

“Anti-choice politicians, and their unrelenting efforts to deny women access to safe and legal abortion care, will only drive more women to back-alley butchers like Kermit Gosnell,” she said.”

Groups like them have enabled the Gosnell’s by fighting any and all restrictions, inspections, and attempts at accountability for decades. He is the result of their efforts, and no amount of spin will change that.

____________________________________________________

It’s getting hard to keep up with all these breaking scandals. There’s so much, we’ll just go fast and furious again. Pun intended. 

The latest to hit is the govt tapping AP reporters and their phone lines. From TheAP   With a Hat Tip to DrivesGuy

The White House plays dumb. Again. From Politico

But that seems doubtful when Holder signed off on it. From TheWashingtonExaminer

____________________________________________________

Next up is more on the IRS scandal.

Wider Problems Found at IRS. From TheWallStJournal

The lie that it was low-level employees has already been proven false.

IRS officials in Washington were involved in targeting of conservative groups. From TheWashingtonPost

The extent of the IRS malice is here. From NationalReview

White House counsel told of IRS review in April. From Politico

Also now called into question is the testimony under oath of IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman in March of 2012. At that time he testified that he had no clue about what was then a potential scandal.

Flashback Video: IRS Commissioner Testifies Before Congress Conservative Groups Not Being Targeted. FromWeaselZippers

That appears to have been a lie. They knew as far back as at least 2011.

“The Tea Party Patriots rejects the apology from the Internal Revenue Service,” Martin said in a statement. “The IRS lied. They lied before Congress in 2011, and they lied again [in the agency’s apology]. From CBSNews

Did he perjure himself? Certainly seems like he did.

Senator Cruz has this to say on the matter…

Cruz: IRS Scandal ‘Harkens Back to the Days of Nixon,’ Carney Guilty of ‘Flat-out Falsehoods’. From NationalReview

____________________________________________________

And just a little FYI…….

Articles of Impeachment against Richard M. Nixon

ARTICLE 2

“Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.

This conduct has included one or more of the following:

1. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.”

Just sayin’……..

____________________________________________________

And just when you though ObamaCare news couldn’t get much worse…..

Insurers predict 100%-400% Obamacare rate explosion

____________________________________________________

46 thoughts on “News/Politics 5-14-13”

  1. On Friday, Lois Lerner, head of the IRS tax-exempt-organizations division, said the agency was “apologetic” for what she termed “absolutely inappropriate” actions by lower-level workers. She said those workers had selected some conservative groups for extra scrutiny to determine whether their applications should be approved. She said they had picked groups for extra scrutiny according to whether they had “tea party” or “patriot” in their names, among other criteria.

    That is rediculous. Low level employees do not initiate activities on their own. They have enough responsibility assigned to them. It has to do with allocation of resources and even mid-level (GS-13-14) administrators do not initiate activities of this magnatude.
    I’ve been there.
    It doesn’t happen.

    Like

    Reply

  2. I see by an AP article in today’s Times-News that Obama says the Benghazi investigation is just a Republican side-show and there is no cover up.

    Wellll? I guess that settles that.

    Like

    Reply

  3. I heard an interview last night with someone woman from the IRS saying something about 25%or 75% and then giggled that she “wasn’t good at math”. Huh?

    Like

    Reply

  5. IRS scandal — I am glad that the right wing is taking notice, perhaps now the practice of harassing through tax status will get the attention it ought so that the IRS does not engage in such practices no matter which party holds the executive branch. But impeachment? Long way from that — Nixon’s people actively used the information that the White House ordered retrieved. So, I have no doubt this IRS information will gin up yet more hearings. We’ll see what information it brings up.

    AP – I’m shocked that there’s nothing on the AP story up today. Guess since it was about tracing down a leak with respect to terrorism it was less glitzy.

    Benghazi – There’s no impeachment worthy scandal here. To me it looks like bureaucracies covering themselves and doing so poorly.

    It also looks like a transparent political attack on Hillary Clinton. Issa’s first report — such a shambles makes that apparent with its first charge regarding cables. It is State practice that the Secretary’s name is on the bottom of every cable that goes to the field. Example, a computer technician has a trip to Kingston to examine the systems, he asks for clearance to come to the country – the Secretary’s name is at the bottom of that cable or an office directory as a particularly interesting meeting in Washington and thinks the field may want to hear about and so drafts a cable to tell them about it – the Secretary’s name is on the bottom of that cable. If Issa and company are intent on spending taxpayer money on investigation, then they could at least do some minimal research. It might aid them with credibility at the very least.

    Like

    Reply

  6. CB, I percieve from previous posts that you have some experience in this. In your opinion, am I correct in my assessment about “low level employers”?

    Like

    Reply

  7. Well I was like 7 years old when Nixon was impeached, so I’m not going to spend too much time feeling hypocritical about my dislike of this IRS thing. But *TEA PARTIERS* shouldn’t feel hypocritical, either. Some conservatives? Yeah, maybe. But TEA PARTIERS–those more consistent ones–some would call them Paulians–have decried this kind of government overreach from the beginning. So that’s part of the the ball of wax in this mess. And liberals or lefties or whatever you want to call them have just as much propensity to overlook these kinds of things when their guy’s in office as do conservatives. Really, those Paulians should be credited for their adherence to principle. It’s pretty rare.

    Like

    Reply

  8. I’m sure nobody is missing the irony that it’s Tea Partiers who are the victims of the IRS abuse–the very thing Tea Partiers have decried since their beginning.

    It reminds me of the moron, Bill Maher–a real life clown–when he said “Gun Nuts” were silly for being up in arms about 2nd Amendment rights when, in reality, claimed Maher, all the *other* rights were actually being trampled on. Well yeah! That’s why 2nd Amendment rights are so important! What a doofus.

    Like

    Reply

  9. Just so everyone knows, Nixon was not impeached. He resigned before any proceedings were started. The people in his administration who threatened to use the IRS were Haulderman and Dean.

    Like

    Reply

  11. While the administration is taking some major political damage (and there’s no denying that that is pleasing in some quarters), that doesn’t mean there isn’t a “there” there, as our president so eloquently put it.

    Who led the charge in Watergate as that began to unravel? The Dems in the House, of course (and being a fairly liberal college student at the time, I can tell you many were, indeed, thrilled with the unfolding of those events). But there also was something there that needed to be investigated.

    There will always be a partisan advantage to one side or the other.

    But that doesn’t mean it’s not a very legitimate story and that wrongdoing has occurred and is being covered up (stupidly and badly in this case).

    Really, I am trying not to gloat. 😉 Trying, trying, trying.

    Like

    Reply

  12. I’m just pleased to see the fourth estate is finally engaged–perhaps the blindfold has slipped in the last month.

    Thanks, CB, for that insight about the State cables.

    Like

    Reply

  13. It also brings to mind Katrina, a mishandled episode from which Bush never recovered. Second terms typically aren’t pretty. In this case, we also have a president who’s simply not used to being questioned and challenged very much.

    Calling Benghazi a political sideshow? Really? With 4 people dead and nothing that really never added up? When it’s clear the government did nothing — nothing — to try to intervene and send in help, whether it would have gotten there in time or not? “Sideshow?” “Circus?” “It was the video, we will arrest that guy”?

    These kinds of responses are simply arrogant & insulting.

    And the IRS scandal is pretty fascinating to watch, there will likely be more fallout from that in time.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/05/irs-scandal-about-to-blow-wide-open.php

    Like

    Reply

  16. What bothers me the most about Benghazi was when Hilary Clinton went up to one of the victim’s survivors and flat out lied to them that these folks who faithfully served their country died because of a stupid You Tube video.

    Like

    Reply

  18. I am no Constitutional lawyer, but I have a copy of it here. Amendment VI says that everyone has the right to a speedy trial. If the film maker has violated a law, he should be tried or released.

    Like

    Reply

  21. CB,

    Like Solar, I’m not sure what you mean by that.

    Also this,

    “Nixon’s people actively used the information that the White House ordered retrieved.”

    Two words for ya.

    Koch brothers.

    The Obama WH used it too. You can ignore the obvious, after all that’s what liberals have been doing with all of these scandals. I’d expect nothing less. Just don’t expect the rest of us to play along. These groups worked against Obama’s re-election. His admin and IRS harrassed them for their efforts.

    Now as for the Hillary part, I doubt you’ve seen what Issa and those investigating have. And they insist there’s more. While you and left leaning folks may have found one detail wrong, the evidence shows a cover up in Hillary’s State Dept, the CIA, and the WH. So of course you use that one little thing to dismiss it all. Just like Dems and their mainstream media flunkies. Not surprising, but not an honest assessment of things.

    Like

    Reply

  22. Chas

    It depends on the agency and the topic matter in my experience. I don’t know what the IRS rules are for 501 c 4’s — it may be that the rules are clear enough to encompass occupy whatever and tea party x. If they are then I could see a GS-15 or 14 manager getting into trouble without high level instruction. We’ll have to see what more detail emerges.

    AJ,

    sorry, I missed the one little piece you had on the AP story.

    Bengahzi — I will say up front I have almost no patience on this issue (part of the reason I have stayed away from wandering). Why you may ask? State and its employees have so often been the target of ire and derision from right wing politicians it is hard for me to listen to the crocodile tears shed fallen State employees. That said, I do understand how State works – quite well and don’t need the media or a left wing or right wing pundit to explain it to me. The “evidence” — testimony from 3 guys that seem each to have a bit of an axe to grind if you listen to them closely (I did listen to all of the hearing.) and talking points for a high profile appearance going through the clearance process are not evidence of a criminal cover-up so much as evidence of not wanting to fully and publicly address the systemic issues — see the arbitration review board panel for that scathing assessment. If Issa were trying to address the systemic issues and fix them, I’d say bravo. That is not what he is doing. And this meme, about people dying because Obama and Clinton lied … really? They died before any commentary on Benghazi was made. At least right wingers could try to get a slogan right … but then why bother for the right wingers these guys were guilty of something the day they entered into office.

    IRS — I do have this thing about facts which is probably why I have such an issue with republicans and Benghazi. I’ll wait to see what emerges before I make a judgement. I don’t expect you to play along with anything. You already have your mind made up. Your mind was made up in the first term — probably only days after he beat McCain.

    Donna

    The filmmaker was on probation for committing fraud on the internet. Nice to see you sympathize with him.

    Like

    Reply

  23. A little microcosm’ing goin’ on here. CB gets all huffy about how little details say so much, and so much is overblown based on little details and all that, but sure didn’t stop her from claiming AJ (and conservatives, by association) only goes for the glitz (what’s that? Is that supposed to be like conservative spin or something). Of course, she missed the inclusion of the AP story, so please just overlook her bluster there–the charge still holds, I guess!

    CB, get on the horn and tell some of the non-wanderers and liberals they need to tone down their concerns on this Bengahzi thing, ’cause they’re raising issues, too.

    Like

    Reply

  24. CB, I am wondering why you would say that Mr. Hicks has an Ax to grind. He is a registered democrat. He voted for Hilary Clinton during the primaries and Barak Obama. Yet when he questioned Susan Rice, he was demoted and threatened. Whether or not State, Defense, or the CIA were involved in bureaucratic infighting over the “talking points” is of little comfort to the families of the victims, especially when they were told by the Secretary of State (Clinton) that a lame YouTube video instigated the attack on their loved ones. If you served in the diplomatic corps, you should be empathizing with Mr. Hicks, since he is your colleague.

    Like

    Reply

  25. CB,

    “You already have your mind made up. Your mind was made up in the first term — probably only days after he beat McCain.”

    No. That’s wrong. I had it made up before he was even elected. Unlike the media, I actually read the stuff that told us what Obama was and is. I also didn’t ignore his radical past and radical friends, unlike the media. I could see exactly what he was. And I was correct. None of this shocks me at all. I knew all about his leftist ways and policies. Everyone had the opportunity to do so. But only some of us did. And I shared that stuff with everyone at World as well. But sadly we have to suffer with those too lazy to vet the guy, who voted for him ‘cuz it was the cool thing to do.

    So how is that Hope and Change thing workin’ out for everyone, in your opinion?

    And Hicks is a Democrat from way back. But hey, he’s now learned that Dems eat their young, so maybe he’ll change parties.

    Like

    Reply

  26. I think what bothered me, CB, about Benghazi was the insult to my intelligence. I haven’t been a journalist in 30 years, but on day 2 I thought the whole thing smelled like dead fish. It made no sense. I’m willing to concede that innocent mistakes were made, but just tell me you made a mistake, don’t lie about a host of other things and then smear anyone who disagrees with you.

    I also understand the concept of not having a need to know. I don’t need to know everything about Benghazi–but own up to the truth of what is pertinent.

    You add that into everything else that has happened, and I see real problems. The IRS thing is so unconstitutional as to boggle the mind.

    Like

    Reply

  27. And the filmmaker is in prison because they lied and tried to make him the patsy. He excercised his 1st Amend. Nothing more. Now that might not bother you, or Democrats, but it bothers the daylights outta me.

    And you seem to show no compassion at all for these whistleblowers who our govt has retaliated against for speaking the truth. So let me guess….

    You’re managment right? 🙂

    Like

    Reply

  28. Michelle,

    It’s the Chicago Way in play. Benghazi, the IRS, and the AP story. Lies and thuggish behavior to squash the truth and intimidate percieved enemies. And it was entirely predictable, as is most of what this President does.

    Maybe I’m wrong to always assume the worst from this admin. But that gut reaction has nearly always been accurate.

    Like

    Reply

  29. Solar

    And I admitted quickly that I had missed the line on the ap story. So you get on the horn and do whatever you wish with it.

    drives

    The only thing that is clear to me about Mr. Hicks is that he is unhappy in his current assignment — something State can’t say much about since it is a personnel matter. Whatever was said to families is not the subject of the Congressional inquiries. And lastly that I am not so empathetic ought to tell you something.

    AJ

    Whistleblowers. Funny. So we have a DS agent who in his testimony complains that DS should have a larger seat at the table and that seemed to be his main point for speaking (see bureaucratic turf battle). Then we have a deputy from counterterrorism whose main complaint is that he personally was not in the clearance process (see above, turf battle). Lastly we have an FS-01 (roughly equivalent to a colonel) who sings his own praises about his awards (awards are not uncommon) and how everybody called to tell him how terrific he was — above the assistant secretary level and then the assistant secretary calls with not such glowing praise. His main complaint is feeling that his current assignment is only a desk job and unworthy of him at his great rank (cough, cough). Whistleblowers? Funny.

    Michelle

    Yeah — its ineptitude, no doubt. That does not make it criminal.

    Like

    Reply

  32. Pursuant to comments I made previously, anytime a multitude of new organizations are formed all with similar names (Tea Party this or Tea Party that…. some with the same geographical designation) it should send alarm bells. Others have been flagged for less. A quote from a left wing site “Had the IRS not flagged these magical money machines then I would highly recommend we re-train our IRS employees. Should I decide to create a 501(c)3 charity that is funded via a 501(c)4 social welfare group with masked donors… I’d expect an IRS agent to really make sure that I am on the level”. Apparently and you can tell me differently, 501 groups are supposed to be non-political.

    Recently I started reading Subversives which details how Reagan and Hoover worked together to undermine student radicals and how Hoover deliberately aided Reagan’s political ambitions. The use of the gov’t apparatus by politicians and/or by their aides is a rather consistent theme in American politics from the Anti-sedition act to the Palmer raids to McCarthy to COINTELPRO. Anti-war groups were harassed during the Bush administration, Occupy continues to be under surveillance, however, now that paleo-conservatives and libertarian elements find the spotlight of the state on them its news. Welcome to the club.

    Now that doesn’t make it right but it does put it into perspective. However, I’m still not convince this is nothing more than IRS agents being cautious about the numerous groups all claiming to be the same types of organizations. When you have two groups claiming to be the Florida Tea Party and who are suing each other, the IRS is right to be cautious and inquire further before granting non-profit status.

    As for Bengazi ….. stuff happens (embassies have been bombed and attacked prior to the Obama admin and will be after). And every time stuff happens, blame gets thrown around and stories are initially confusing. In this particular case, it looks like the Republicans seem intent on political gain as opposed to catching those responsible.

    Like

    Reply

  33. CB, I am partially with you. If something can be explained by sinister actions or stupidity, I never underestimate stupidity. I did see the clips of Susan Rice on all those Sunday shows soon after Benghazi and I remember thinking either: a. This very implausible story is true (probably not); b. Rice (unlike Hillary) is really willing to take one for the team; or c. Rice is really naive and/or dumb.

    Like

    Reply

  35. The issue of Benghazi is more about what was a feeble (if any) effort to protect and help those attacked (before and during); as well as the implausible “official” explanations, a nicer way of saying we probably were lied to. Either way, significant questions that (so far) haven’t been answered.

    Will some benefit politically from the fallout? Sure. But as with any scandal, including Watergate, if there’s something amiss that’s simply not the point.

    Like

    Reply

  37. ricky — the story on Hoover-Reagan cooperation has to do with Reagan’s political ambitions in California — and thus it centers on the California university system especially Berkley.

    Like

    Reply

  40. HRW, If targeting these groups was understandable then why did the IRS apologize and why did Obama and Holder pretend to be outraged

    Like

    Reply

  41. Because, kBells, apologizing doesn’t mean you’ve done anything “wrong.”

    At least I think that’s what the administration has said. 😉

    Maybe that was a Jay-ism.

    Like

    Reply

  43. To go back to basics, if you were in an Arab nation in North Africa that had recently had other nations’ diplomatic missions attacked and then removed, don’t you think you would would be on highest alert? Don’t you think that the whole American diplomatic establishment should have been prepared for trouble? It was 9/11 after all.

    Like

    Reply

  44. I know, AJ, I actually do feel for the guy. Presidential press secretaries are typically pummeled in the end. I hope he gets paid a lot.

    Like

    Reply

  45. HRW,

    Liberal groups doing the same type of thing from the other side had no such restrictions placed on them, despite a number of new groups from the left.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/

    “In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked.

    That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn’t be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months.

    In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.”

    Like

    Reply

  46. CB, I didn’t dispute you admitted to overlooking the AP entry–like that would be a big deal. It was your childish ‘glitz’ comment *based* on the oversight that was kind of cheeky and ironic. That’s all.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Chas Cancel reply