What’s interesting in the news today?
1. Eric Holder took to the talk show circuit this weekend to tell everyone what a great job he and the President were doing. I find that amusing, but he’s actually serious.
But what kind of top law enforcement official calls an investigation of crimes thorough and complete, without ever talking to the victim of the crimes?
From IJReview “No one from True The Vote, the highest profile organization targeted by the IRS in the scandal involving improper scrutiny of conservative-leaning non-profits, has been interviewed by the FBI or investigators from the Department of Justice, according to the group’s President, Catherine Engelbrecht.
This stunning revelation comes just days after Attorney General Eric Holder rebuffed the suggestion that an independent investigation is needed into the growing scandal. Holder told ABC News this weekend that a special investigation was unnecessary because “career people” and FBI agents were “doing a good, professional job” investigating the matter.
When I raised Holder’s assertion to Engelbrecht Monday morning during an interview on WMAL radio in Washington, DC, I asked her what her involvement and experience has been with the FBI and the DOJ, considering Holder’s claim that they were doing a “good and professional job” investigating the IRS scandal.
“That would be exactly ‘no.’ Zero. at no time have they approached us. Only when they are investigating us. Only when they are being adversarial towards us do we ever hear anything from the Department of Justice. There has been no outreach to try and get to the bottom of the scandal at any time. “
Maybe he meant it was a thorough and complete cover-up.
_______________________________________________
2. Anyone else noticing a pattern?
From TheBlaze “House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) on Monday made yet another request to the federal government for details about a crashed hard drive that may have contained information allowing criminal charges to be brought against a federal official.
Issa’s newest letter concerns the hard drive of April Sands, a former employee at the Federal Election Commission who resigned in the spring after admitting to violations of the Hatch Act. That law puts restrictions on the ability of government officials to conduct political activities while on the job, or from government offices.
Issa noted that while Sands admitted to violating the law, the FEC just recently told Congress that it could not recover her hard drive, which made it impossible to seek criminal charges against her.
“Recent information obtained by the committee suggests that the FEC OIG could not pursue criminal prosecution for the misconduct because the attorney’s hard drive had been recycled by the FEC,” Issa’s letter said.”
_______________________________________________
3. Meanwhile, the White House wants Issa to drop the subpoena that seeks answers on the White House’s Hatch Act violations. If past scandals are any indication, I’d expect more hard drive crashes soon.
From Politico “The White House is asking Rep. Darrell Issa to withdraw a subpoena of a senior adviser to President Barack Obama and is offering instead to hold a private briefing on activities in the administration’s political affairs office.
In a letter sent Monday, White House Counsel W. Neil Eggleston offered to brief Issa, a California Republican who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on the role of the the Office of Political Strategy and Outreach on Tuesday. That’s one day before the office’s director, David Simas, is under subpoena to testify on potential violations of the Hatch Act.
The Hatch Act prevents executive branch employees from engaging in political races and campaigns. The White House insists the office is in line with the law, while Issa is accusing Simas of leading an organization designed to boost Democrats.”
_______________________________________________
4. There’s a hearing today on the bill Democrats are pushing to undo pro-life legislation passed by states. Must protect their Precious, and their blood money.
From LifeNews “Senate Democrats will hold a hearing on a bill tomorrow that would wipe out almost every single pro-life law on abortion.
S.1696 is deceptively titled the “Women’s Health Protection Act” even though it revokes protections for women and their unborn children. Instead, the bill would be far reaching in how it would topple pro-life laws passed in virtually every state in the country.
Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of state right-to-life organizations, is one of the only pro-life speakers testifying against the legislation. She tells LifeNews that four months before the mid-term congressional election, Senate Democrats are pushing into the national spotlight “the most radical pro-abortion bill ever considered by Congress.”
Tobias commented, “We believe that many voters will be appalled to learn that nearly two-thirds of Senate Democrats have already cosponsored a bill to impose nationwide the extreme ideological doctrine that elective abortion must not be limited in any meaningful way, at any stage of pregnancy.”
Why is anyone shocked? Everyone knows Democrats are the pro-abortion party. It’s also not shocking that the pro-abortion press keeps it hush-hush.
_______________________________________________
5. Maybe it’s just me, but I’m thinking maybe they shouldn’t have kids.
From Slate “I’ve been wavering on the subject of motherhood for what seems like decades. Like Ruth Graham, who wrote of her fear of parenthood on Slate not long ago, when I contemplate jumping the gap between not-mom and mom, I see only catastrophe. The physical changes, the financial challenge, the increased difficulty of travel—having a baby seems like saying goodbye to my freedom. On the other hand, I’m 36, and if I ever were fancy-free, I’m not now. I don’t have a super-active nightlife, and I already pack little survival Ziplocs of nuts and carrots wherever I go. I’m willing to allow that being a mom might strip me of some independence, and the bright little faces of my nieces are a good argument that there would be ample compensation. What I most worry about is that motherhood might make me hate my darling husband.
When I talk to my female friends who are moms about motherhood, the conversation often drifts to the changes that children have brought to their relationships with their spouses. It’s not just my friends: In a survey of the psychological literature in her recent book All Joy and No Fun, Jennifer Senior points to multiple studies cataloging the many arguments couples have after they have children. For a person like me, a feminist with a keen awareness of the generally unfair division of domestic labor, my friends’ irritated gripes, or the findings in books like Arlie Hochschild’s 1989 classic The Second Shift, are little horror stories. “Many women carry into their marriage the distasteful and unwieldy burden of resenting their husbands,” Hochschild wrote. I can see how this would happen to me, and I Do Not Want.
So what’s the solution? People get prenups. What about drawing up a pre-pregnancy contract? (Not, under any circumstances, to be called a “prepup,” as my husband joked.) Wouldn’t a not-at-all legally binding document, outlining expectations and setting a course for periodic re-examination of the division of labor, alleviate my fears, and prevent aggravation, or fights, or divorce, in the future?
_______________________________________________
Wandering Views 