Sleepless in Midland

Give Lois Lerner a break -- don't subject her to the cruel and intrusive treatment she inflicted on others

Lois Lerner took the Fifth while she was in the hot seat in front of an inquisitive House committee. They were looking into irregularities of the IRS in its aggressive treatment of Tea Party groups, and no doubt they would have subjected her to some very severe questioning.

Now some are trying to say she waived her right to take the Fifth. Well, I say let her take it. To subject her to the intrusive and belittling interrogation is exactly what she did to the Tea Party groups. The President wants us to believe she acted on her own. Maybe she did, maybe she didn't. But subjecting her to the same sort of treatment she dished out to the Tea Party applicants is such a harsh measure that no one should have to endure that.

Sure, what she did was despicable. And to inflict that on anyone is abhorrent in a free society. But we do not tolerate eye-for-an-eye retaliation. Cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited. And to subject her to the same treatment is like saying we should waterboard the waterboarders.

So fire her, send her to jail, whatever. But for heaven's sake, don't perform on her the same torture she performed on her victims. That's not who we are.

True the Vote's letter from the IRS

Finally the public gets a chance to see for themselves just how intrusive the IRS's requests to the Tea Party applicants were with True the Vote's court filing. Here's a link to the complaint in True the Vote, Inc. v. IRS, et al, cause 1:13-cv-00734 in the U.S. District Court of DC.

See the letter the IRS sent to True the Vote with all the questions here. The information requirements go on for eight pages and include this one:

13. Provide the following information for all the events you will conduct for 2012 and 2013:
a) The time, location, and content schedule of each event
b) Identify handouts you provided to the audience
c) Identify workshop materials that instructors will use
d) The names and credentials of the instructors
e) If speeches or forums will be conducted in the event, provide detailed contents of the speeches or forums, names of the speakers or panels, and their credentials. If any speakers or panel members will be paid, provide the amount will be paid for each person. If not, please indicate they volunteered to conduct the event.
f) The names of persons from your organization and the amount of time they will spend on the event. Indicate the name and amount of time they will spend on the event. Indicate the name and amount of compensation that will be paid to each person. If no one will be paid, indicate this event will be conducted by volunteers to each person.
g) Indicate the percentage of time and resources you will spend on these activities in relation to 100% of all your activities.

The letter was dated February 8, 2012, so question #13 required speculation about the future, under penalty of perjury, of course. But the election was in November of 2012, so why did they include 2013? Was this supposed to provide the IRS with plausible deniability?

Today Lois Lerner famously invoked the Fifth Amendment at a House committee hearing. The above letter was signed by Janine L. Estes with cc to Cleta Mitchell, Esq. and Richard F. Riley, Esq. So if the House needs more witnesses to question, there's a good place to look.

Post script. Many of the published IRS forms have a posted estimate of the completion time. Gathering all of the information they required here could take weeks. It's no wonder many of the Tea Party groups simply gave up.

Barack Obama, wow, isn't he great? -- Tips for addressing your IRS auditor

With so many people and entities being audited these days one needs to remember that there's more to it than simply documenting income and expenses. There's a political element. The hearing this past week in which Acting IRS Commissioner Steve Miller got grilled by Congress about how the IRS targeted Obama's political opponents in order to help with the re-election drove that home. But the IRS is still standing, and they’re doing business as usual.

So if you get audited, herewith are some things you might think about saying to endear you to your auditor:

That Barack Obama, wow, isn't he great?

Did you see Michelle's outfit? She certainly does have good taste!

I wonder which of the two Obama children will be President first.

I'll be glad when Obamacare gets fully implemented so that responsible people like you can take over our medical information.

Historians will say Barack Obama is the greatest president ever!

I didn't like Obama at first, but after hearing him speak, I saw the light.

He sure showed that bin Laden, huh?

When Hillary takes office she'll be the greatest president ever! Aw, silly me, ha ha! She'll be the 2nd greatest president ever!

Just tying to be helpful.

How do you distract low information from all the scandals? Hey look, new apps to help with boycotts!

Punish conservatives, baby!  New apps to help you boycott Koch brothers, boycott Monsanto!

How Dem talking points get dispensed to the loyals

Thanks to Instapundit for these two links which direct us to Erik Wemple's article titled: Media Matters denies involvement in Justice-AP talking points. There, Mr. Wemple tells us that David Brock is in charge of both Media Matters for America, which is basically an attack dog website targeting anyone who is publicly critical of Democrats, and its partner, Media Action Network, which dispenses attacks and responses for Democrats to use.

The screen shot is Media Action Network's one pager for May 14, 2013 to preserve it in case it goes away.

But here's the good part. In the event anyone is wondering why the highly political Media Matters has remained silent about the issue of the IRS denying non-profit exemptions to Tea Party groups, look no further than their "about" page:

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Yep, it's a not-for-profit organization with the coveted IRS exemption denied to Tea Party groups. That phoney watchdog didn't bark about that issue. Oh the irony. Exemption for me but not for thee.

Which agencies has Obama NOT used for political gain?

The news two days ago was all about how the IRS used suppressive tactics on tea party groups.

The news yesterday was all about how the Department of Justice spied on the Associate Press. That one upsets the newsies because it affects them.

The news today is about how the Department of Justice will investigate the first item, above. Fox, can you find you own way to the hen house?

The Obama administration has left a trail of stories about how one agency or another did something to further Obama's political agenda, promote its constituents over others, or punish someone. For example, there was the time the NLRB sued to block Boeing from moving a factory from Washington, a forced union membership state, to South Carolina, a right to work state.

In the Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico environmental groups pressured the Fish and Wildlife Service to hamper the energy industry by trying to classify a lizzard and a prairie chicken as protected species. This is especially ironic given the vast open spaces in Texas and New Mexico and the relatively tiny areas actually used for oil and gas extraction.

There are probably stories like this coming from every red state. So the question is obvious. Which agencies has Obama NOT used to punish the people who do not support him?

What difference does it make, Hillary?

The testimony at the Benghazi hearings is jaw dropping. It's looking more and more like Hillary Clinton and President Obama dropped the ball big time.

But the way the main stream media have treated the whole scandal drives home the theory that if President Richard Nixon had been a Democrat then the public would have never heard about Watergate.

So Hillary asks "What difference does it make?" The answer depends on whether there was a Republican or a Democrat in charge. Since the Democrats were in charge, it makes no difference.

Why Joe Biden is so fond of shotguns

Because the sound made when ejecting a shell is the same sound his brain makes when he has an idea.

Joe Biden: buy a shotgun, not an assault rifle, to protect your home.

Experts -- If you are conservative you must be dumb

This theme really gets tiresome. But to their credit, these links are from last year's "pending" file. And the theme didn't get good mileage. I'll tell you why at the end of this post.

So here are the experts: Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice: "Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found."

Think less and become more conservative: "The less time or mental effort a person puts into thinking about an issue, the more likely they are to espouse a politically conservative perspective." But:

"Our findings suggest that conservative ways of thinking are basic, normal, and perhaps natural," the researchers concluded. "Motivational factors are crucial determinants of ideology, aiding or correcting initial responses depending on one's goals, beliefs, and values. Our perspective suggests that these initial and uncorrected responses lean conservative."

So that "uncorrected," "perhaps natural" conservative thinking can be corrected. Good to know. Perhaps we should spend more time watching Al Gore's TV network. Pardon me, that's Al Jazeera's TV network.

Finally, Newsweek's cover. Click thumbnail below and see lower left headline:

Since Newsweek couldn't make it as a print magazine one has to appreciate the intelligence displayed by the shuttering of an unprofitable enterprise, if not their presidential endorsements.

Finally, as to why the "conservatives are dumb" theme went flat, we need look no further than the presidential election results and who put Obama in office for a second term.

You know him, you love him. He's the infamous, easily persuaded "low information voter."

Here's your war on women

The claim that Republicans were conducting a war on women has been pretty much confirmed as a partisan hoax.

But if anyone wants to see what a war on women looks like, see these middle eastern news makers:

Tentative steps: Pakistani girl shot by Taliban leaves hospital to live with family in UK.

Afghan girl beheaded after refusing man’s marriage proposal.

Prominent Afghan female official shot dead.

Not that they would ever complain about any of this anyway, but American feminism goes dormant during Democratic administrations.

PolitiFacts is too biased to be believable

The reason why msm political bias is so pernicious is that it trickles down throughout the downstream media before it can be corrected.

The case in point was the way Yahoo trumpeted the headline that Mit Romney had won PolitiFact's Biggest Lie of the Year in Yahoo's stream of interesting/useful/entertaining news items. It has since been removed, but it appeared in the number one spot yesterday and early this morning. The article is still online at Romney earns PolitiFact’s ‘Lie of the Year’ for Jeeps made in China, but it doesn't jump out at you like before.

Maybe that's because Tony Lee poked a hole as big as a Jeep Grand Cherokee in the analysis at Politifact Calls Factually Accurate Romney Jeep Ad 'Lie Of The Year'.

As for the biggest lie of the year, they should have looked at Barack Obama's claim that he called the Benghazi killings a terrorist attack from the beginning, with a timely assist from CNN's Candy Crowley, in a Presidential debate of all places. Astonishingly, PolitiFact did not even put that lie in the running.

Romney lost the presidential election, and he is not likely to try it again. So it raises questions.  Why do they keep trying to pick on him?  Furthermore, do all those newspaper people serving PolitiFact care that they are mere tools for Democrats?

Mainstream media appalled at petitioners for secession but yawn at call for violence from Democrats

Remember when President Obama won his second term and citizens were signing petitions for their states to secede? The mainstream media were quick to lecture and condemn the signers. Never mind that those who signed the online petitions were merely trying to send a satirical message knowing full well that a petition directed at Obama could never possibly get anything more a curt response from an Obama minion.

So now unions in Michigan -- good friends with Obama and facing new laws that give workers a *choice -- respond with a violent assault on conservative film maker Steven Crowder. A Michigan state representative threatens there will be blood. And Jimmy Hoffa predicts civil war.

All of this makes the secession petitioners seem pretty tame. But the mainstream media want to ignore it, and the downstream media will follow their lead with Fox News the only one reporting what the networks ignore.

And once again President Obama will have out maneuvered his political opponents with the sun in their eyes and the media wind at his back.

*Choice -- a word loved by liberals in other contexts is now an unholy wrong when it gives workers a right to control their own paychecks.

Obama Style

Nothing says Christmas in Washington quite like a performance of Gangnan Style by a South Korean performer who is now back-tracking from hostile remarks toward Americans.

Hey, he apologized, didn't he? Obama was of the same state mind at the time of Psy's anti-American remarks, so he certainly didn't need that apology. But Obama knows the value of famous fans, so none other than the President of the United States himself was supposed to be in the audience at the filming Sunday night. Don't be surprised if we learn Psy and the president had a meeting.

Meantime, while we wait for Obama to apologize to Americans for what he's done to the country, enjoy this Obama Style parody.

Hillary Clinton's first campaign ad for 2016 -- what, too soon?

As if the TV show "Political Animals" wasn't enough, Hillary Clinton now has a high quality video ad out to convince viewers how great she is.  Watch it at this Youtube link.

Various dignitaries from around the world extol her virtues in the video, like Salem Fayyad, Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority. Benjamin Netanyahu got a lot of face time. Even John McCain made an appearance -- surely he would have preferred being beaten by Hilliary in 2008 than by the person who could be remembered as the worse president ever.

My favorite part was where Madeleine Albright exclaimed, "she has a laugh that is completely infectious." Infectious like dengue or Ebola?  Naw, just annoying.

Absent from the video: Ambassador Christopher Stephens.

Via the Week via Mental Floss.

Ricism -- using race to protect an incompetent

President Obama was blasting critics of Susan Rice recently. He tried to paint Republican as either sexist or racist for criticizing Rice because she spread the fabrication that the murders of the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi resulted from riots over a bad movie.

The "racism" word has been thrown around so cavalierly that it has lost its punch. In fact, much of it is simply race baiting.  So let's coin a new word, "Ricism," meaning the inappropriate use of "race" and its variants to protect a political appointee who may be incompetent.

As for Susan Rice, Bret Stephens wrote a blistering assessment of her record in the 12/4/12 Wall Street Journal titled Failing Up With Susan Rice - Benghazi was not her first African fiasco. In it Stephens describes how Rice coddled African dictators, botched efforts to make peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea, encouraged the see-no-evil approach to genocide, and, by the way, encouraged avoiding the use of the word "genocide" because of the possibility it might influence Democrats' election chances.

Should anyone want more on Susan Rice, see 30 Reasons Why Susan Rice Should Not Get Promoted.

Republicans see through her, but we all know who won the election. And elections have consequences.

How did the CBO conclude that paying people not to work would create jobs?

Answer: They didn't. They pulled numbers out of the air.

The other day the morning paper contained a short unsigned Associated Press filler piece titled, "Report: Extending jobless benefits creates jobs" in which AP says the following:

Washington -- Extending the current level of long-term unemployment benefits for another year would add 300,000 jobs to the economy, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office.

The Washington Post elaborates:

The report notes that extending unemployment insurance is a particularly effective form of stimulus when the economy is still struggling. That’s because jobless workers who receive benefits are extremely likely to spend the money right away. So, the CBO estimates, if Congress extends all the programs, GDP will likely be 0.2 points higher and employment will be 300,000 higher at the end of 2013 than if Congress does nothing at all.

[They are referring to the CBO report of 11/28/2012. Click Unemployment Insurance in the Wake of the Recent Recession to get the CBO summary, and download the full PDF here.]

One not so minor problem: The economy is much too complex to make predictions like that and expect them to come true. And another contributing factor that can't be measured is the rampant fear present today that things will only get worse.

The report says that the CBO estimates that if unemployment benefits are extended the payoff to the GDP will $1.10 for every $1.00 of budgetary cost in 2013. And they don't admit it, but that's just a wild guess. Researchers are all over the map on whether or how much government stimuli influences the GDP.

Valarie Ramey has analyzed the research on the effects of stimuli on GDP, and she reported in a podcast interview by Russ Roberts with her last year that the effect varied from about $0.80 to $1.20 increase in GDP for every $1.00 the government spent. Download or listen to that interview at econtalk.org.

For Mr. Roberts' own 2010 evisceration of CBO estimates, see CBO estimates. And for the Heritage blog take, see Unemployment Benefits: No Free Lunch.

In any event, here's some good news for the unemployed. The CBO currently has four job openings. Go for it. Their standards really can't be very high.

Leftists cry racism again

There was a time when there was genuine prejudice against black people in America, and many people suffered as a result. Everyone can agree on that. However, to their credit, most Americans have changed their attitudes. And today discrimination of the basis of race is a crime or a civil cause of action.

Maybe there are examples of racism around today, but judging from all the blanks fired by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, those examples are hard to find.

But this time the alleged racist is Mitt Romney who spoke to an audience at the NAACP convention and said he wanted to end many expensive government programs, including "Obamacare," the offending word which drew a smattering of boos from the audience members and charges of race baiting in the Daily Beast.  (This comes to us via Tim Carney.)

The false charge of racism has been leveled at white people so many times that it has lost its impact. So who is supposed to be moved by this? It has to be the people who swung the election toward Obama in 2008 but who now seem unmoved to do it again. The Obama team must think that if they build a big enough fire under them maybe they'll get motivated to help him again.

Rational Americans can see through that, however, and are not likely to let President Obama's own race baiting set race relations back. "Turn the clock back for Obama" is not a winning slogan.

Collateral damage in Afghanistan -- silence from the left

President Obama toils over his kill list trying to decide who the next drone target will be. And it's inevitable that a missile is going to miss and kill some innocent people.

Just last week in Afghanistan some 18 or so civilians perished in a fire fight resulting from an attempt by U.S. Marines to capture a Taliban operative.

With all the apologizing Obama did to other nations in his first couple of years in office, he's absent on this one. Instead, a Marine General had to go with hat in hand to apologize to the grieving families. It's barely news in the U.S.

Go back in time, way back to George H. W. Bush's presidency. Following the expulsion of the Iraq invaders from Kuwait, sanctions were placed on Iraq. Remember that?

What about all the innocent babies who starved to death because of those sanctions? That was a ruse perpetrated by Saddam Hussein. But it was plausible enough that the left in the U.S. used it like a club against Bush 41.

So where is the left now that innocents are dying? It's the dog that didn't bark. There is and always has been less concern for innocent deaths than for scoring political points.