Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

IRS targets Obama’s enemies in extraordinary scandal

May 18, 2013

“We are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate. The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous. No one likes what they’re seeing. The Justice Department’s assault on the associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration’s credibility deeply, possibly irretrievably damaged….Something big has shifted. The standing of the administration has changed. As always it comes down to trust. Do you trust the president’s answers when he’s pressed on an uncomfortable story? Do you trust his people to be sober and fair-minded as they go about their work? Do you trust the IRS and the Justice Department? You do not.” Peggy Noonan, ‘This Is No Ordinary Scandal’, The Wall Street Journal, May 18, 2013

President Obama, albeit sheepishly, acts as though these scandals are unconnected to the White House.Like the chief of police in Casablanca he is shocked, shocked, to discover in the newspapers what has happened! President Obama, however, is deeply connected to these scandals. He is not a bystander, like you and I. This happens to be his administration. The Justice Department and the IRS are his executive agencies. He runs and oversees them.

In this column, I focus on the IRS scandal, once again. For it is much the more serious of the two. There are two parts to the IRS scandal. The first is the obviously deliberate and targeted abuse harassment and attempted suppression of conservative groups. The second is the auditing of taxes of conservative political activists.

In order to suppress conservative groups the IRS demanded donor rolls, membership lists, data on all contributions, names of volunteers, the contents of all speeches made by members, Facebook posts, minutes of all meetings, and copies of all materials handed out at gatherings. When asked what its members were reading, one group responded: The U.S. Constitution! Now I can assure you from first hand experience that these questions are not routinely requested by the IRS. When The Locke Institute applied for 501 (c) 3 status in 1994, it took about a year to secure that status. But the questions were always fair and politically unbiased. And that was during the administration of President Bill Clinton, who was not above a dirty trick or two to harass his supposed enemies.

The second part of the scandal is the auditing of political activists who have publicly opposed the administration. Such politically-oriented audits constitute the use of government power to intrude on the privacy and shackle the political freedom of American citizens. The purpose is to overwhelm and intimidate – to kill the opposition, audit by audit by audit. Such behavior is to be expected of such low-lives as Vladimir Putin, Tsar of All the Russias. Perhaps now it must be expected by such low-lives as President Obama, Tsar of the United States of America.

Shame on you Barack Obama! You disgrace the high office that you are privileged to hold.

Late-term abortions and the Kermit Gosnell vervict

May 16, 2013

The United States is irremediably divided on the issue of abortion. About one quarter of the country wants a complete ban on all abortions. About one quarter wants no limits on abortion. And a half of the population wants a compromise.

The details of the Gosnell case, presented to a Philadelphia jury who sat for weeks listening to every grisly detail concerning how this abomination of a doctor set about murdering late-term babies by piercing and snipping them as they lay helplessly on the delivery table, born alive, are too horrific for many of us to stomach. The jury did the right thing. Kermit Gosnell was reluctantly spared the death penalty. Instead he will serve the remainder of his life in prison without any possibility of parole. He will not be pierced and snipped on death row.

So the law thankfully is now clear in the State of Pennsylvania. If a baby is outside the womb and is alive, and if a doctor performs a procedure on that baby that causes it to die, that is first-degree murder.

That said, in some states, if the baby is alive and inside the womb, late stage, when procedures similar to Gosnell’s are done, that is legal.The Gosnell verdict,nevertheless, has changed the abortion environment. Any doctor in the U.S. who performs abortions past 20 weeks is looking at that verdict and wishes that there was more clarity about what falls along the spectrum between a day at the office and first-degree murder.

The political debate about late-term abortions, inevitably, is about to recommence, following years of uncomfortable silence since Bill Clinton famously stated that ‘abortion should be safe, legal and rare.’

Hat Tip: Daniel Henninger, ‘America’s Second Civil War, The Wall Street Journal, May 16, 2013

The IRS is a criminal agency for corrupt presidents

May 15, 2013

The Internal Revenue Service, with a few lapses – Truman, Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, Bush Senior, and Bush Junior – has been a criminal agent for corrupt presidents beginning with the reign of FDR. Throughout the presidencies of FDR, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Clinton and Obama, the IRS has been manipulated malevolently by the Oval Office explicitly for political purposes.

A sequence of weak and corrupt agency beads has pursued audits and harassment against named individuals and organizations – left and right depending on the politics of the president – deemed to be dangerously critical of White House activities. A few examples will suffice to tell the story.

FDR used the IRS to harass newspaper publishers who were opposed to the New Deal. Those so attacked included William Randolph Hearst and Moses Annenberg. FDR also dropped the IRS hammer on Democratic Party political rivals, such as Huey Long and Father Coughlin as well as on such prominent Republicans as Andrew Mellon. In 1944, he reached out to spike an IRS audit of illegal campaign contributions made by a government contractor to Congressman Lyndon Johnson. Johnson’s political career would have justifiably ended in 1944, but for that illegal intervention.

JFK was a quick learner from FDR. Within days of capturing the presidency, King Arthur of Camelot launched the Ideological Organization Audit Project. This targeted right-leaning groups such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade and the Foundation for Economic Education. Steel executives who defied the administration were singled out for IRS audits.

Richard Nixon was determined to take Republican revenge. He created the Special Services Staff to mastermind what a memo called ‘all IRS activities involving ideological, militant, subversive, radical and similar type organizations. More than 10,000 individuals and groups were targeted because of their political activism or slant between 1969 and 1973.

There followed a lull in IRS political harassment until Bill Clinton assumed the presidency in 1993. In 1995, The Clinton White House and the Democratic National Committee produced a 331-page report entitled ‘Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce’ that attacked magazines, think tanks, and other entities and individuals who had criticized the president. More than twenty organizations identified in that document – including the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute – and almost a dozen high-profile individuals, including Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers, were audited.

So now that a truly third rate president occupies the White House, it is not at all surprising to find that low-grade harassment has been meted out by the IRS against organizations that have such epithets as ‘tea party’ or ‘patriot’ in their nomenclotures. No doubt the epithet ‘Christian’ or even ‘true American’ will have elicited White House rage from the current occupant.

What manner of men and women are attracted to senior positions in the IRS? Evidently, not individuals with any regard for the rule of law or the First Amendment to the Constitution. History suggests that many IRS appointees stem from the dregs of society, no doubt from the Mafia gangs that extract protection monies from hard-working businessmen in the big cities, and from the crooked police forces that protect the guilty and harass the innocent.

Hat Tip: James Bovard, ‘A Brief History of IRS Political Targeting’, The Wall Street Journal, May 15, 2013

Britain should exit the European Union

May 13, 2013

Fortunately for Britain, the European Union does not prohibit member countries from seceding. No Abraham Lincoln sits in Brussels, willing or able to wage a war of continental aggression, should Britain decide to leave an organization that imposes net economic costs upon it.

The economic case for exit is now dominating debate across the Pelagic Isle. The large single market of the EU has brought benefits to Europe’s many small economies,especially those with a relatively large industrial base. It is bringing transfer benefits to the profligate PIIGS who are exploiting the charity of German savers. The UK, however, is a large economy with a small industrial base. It is fully capable of correcting its own fiscal excesses, especially under Conservative Party governance. For the United Kingdom, the regulatory burden of the single market massively outweighs the benefits.

The key assumption that underpins this judgment is that Britain – in the absence of becoming a member of the European Economic Area – Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein – would still enjoy access to free trade with the European Union. This assumption is highly probable, since Germany and the Netherlands – the two best functioning EU economies – would welcome open access to the large British market. A negative trade shock imposed on the UK is in the economic interest of no EU economy, however perfidious, Albion may be regarded by some of its former allies and enemies.

Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, one of the two treaties known together as the Lisbon Treaty, provides the option for an exit. Negotiations would be required between the British government and the various European institutions. Most likely, Britain would secure an exit placing it into a comparable situation with Switzerland i.e. a bilateral free trade deal. This would be a sweet deal for a country that desires to retain the City of London as Europe’s major financial center, and to evade the strangulation of the financial transactions tax and European-style banking regulations that the EU bureaucracy is panting to impose.

So, contrary to the advice given today by President Obama to Prime Minister David Cameron in the Oval Office, my advice is that Britain should exit now, without attempting to reform the EU from within. A country operating outside the euro-zone has precious little leverage to secure a deal that will weaken the social market philosophy that now dominates euro-land. Remember that Britons are still predominantly Anglo-Saxons, Prime Minster Cameron, and that their ties remain closer to North America and other former colonies than to Old Europe.

Hat Tip: Wolfgang Munchau, ‘Lawson is right – Britain does not need Europe’, Financial Times, May 13, 2013

Sir Alex Ferguson: the bagpipes honor a remarkable career

May 12, 2013

As an Englishman residing in the United States, I have retained an abiding love for the beautiful game – soccer – a game that has yet to reach its true status in the United States. Soccer is a game for extremely fit men (and women) who can stay on the field for a full 90 minutes of fast, highly-skilled movement. Soccer players do not retire to an oxygen tent after 5 minutes on the field as do so many American footballers. I doubt if anyone carrying in excess of 200 pounds has ever played for a premier soccer team. No 450 pound body-armor-protected fatties for the beautiful game. Soccer players do not require continuous radio contact so that the manager can tell them which is left and which is right, and where to move on every play. For the most part, they have sufficiently high IQs that they can think for themselves within a general strategy defined by the team manager.

Throughout my time in Virginia the team that I have supported is Manchester United, the Red Devils, a team that has dominated the English soccer scene for the past 26 years. Throughout that time period, Man U has been managed by Alex Ferguson, now Sir Alex Ferguson, who announced his imminent retirement last week at the age of 71 years, after 1,500 games in charge of what has become one of the world’s richest and most popular sports clubs. Few Britons have been more successful, in any sphere, in recent times.

His longevity as manager is a mark of this success. There are twenty clubs in the Barclay’s Premier League. Over the past year alone, 8 of these clubs have sacked their managers. Many others have faced speculation about their imminent demise. Only Sir Alex, a Glaswegian Scot from the blue-collar shipyards of that famous city, has been entirely secure, so secure indeed that he has been privileged to choose his own successor, and has been elevated to the Man U board of directors following his retirement. Sir Alex has earned job security and widespread respect because he is a winner. Under his leadership, the Red Devils have lifted 38 trophies – Premier League, F.A. Cup and European Championship – a record that no future manager is ever likely to match.

How has he achieved such success? Hard bloody work is one answer. Sir Alex is not some Spanish, Portuguese or Italian playboy management consultant, like Jose Mourinho. He is a rough-hewed, gritty, foul-mouthed Scot, prepared to apply the dreaded ‘hairdryer’ to under-performing stars during the half-time interval, even to kick a soccer boot at the head of one of his most famous stars, David Beckham, when the occasion so deserved. Sir Alex controls everything in his club, from brand-management, to talent-spotting, to the players’ tea. When Wayne Rooney experiences the ‘red mist of rage’ on the soccer pitch, he knows that he will be benched by his manager and that he will experience a much more dreadful red-rage from that fearsome Scot, once he returns to the dressing room.

Economy is another answer. Soccer management is about squeezing out more performance per salary pound than one’s highly competitive rivals. This Sir Alex has done, season after season, spending a lower proportion of the club’s revenues on wages than any other Premier League club. This achievement has attracted the attention of businessmen and political leaders, especially from those within his beloved Labour Party.In particular, Sir Alex and Tony Blair bonded deeply, each recognizing the leadership qualities of the other. Although Gordon Brown is a fellow-Scot, Sir Alex despised his shambolic leadership, though he was never tempted to cross party lines.

Sir Alex may be a committed Labour Party supporter, but that does not mean that he is anti-capitalist. Far from it. He embraced New Labour long before Tony Blair invented the name. English soccer would become the best, during his 26 year reign at Old Trafford, because it pays the most. The average weekly wage in the Premier League rose by 1,500 per cent between 1992 and 2010. Sir Alex accepted his fair share of the rewards. He named his mansion Fairfields, after the dockyard where his father once labored.

Most of all, Sir Alex’s success was based on an enthusiastic embrace of globalization. He inherited a squad that contained two Danes, four Irishmen, and 18 Britons. He leaves a squad with players from a dozen countries, including Serbia, Ecuador, and Japan. In this respect, the politician whom Sir Alex most resembles is not Tony Blair, but rather his Tory nemesis, Margaret Thatcher. Of course, Sir Alex claims to detest the Iron Lady, for her blue rather than his red color. Yet, in truth they are very similar. Both won global success through a combination of simple truths and relentless drive. Both revered aspiration and opportunity. Both made Britain great.

The man that I honor today is no Red Alex but rather he is the Iron Man.

Hat Tip: Bagehot, ‘The socialist international’, The Economist, May 11, 2013

Obama White House is corrupted by Chicago machine-politics

May 11, 2013

Just about any one who has followed this week’s discussion of the Benghazi terrorist attack knows that President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Rice repeatedly lied about the nature of the event and why American government officials were not protected by F-16s and SAS forces.

A not-uncommon response to the sequence of lies exposed by Gregory Hicks, Mark Thompson and Eric Nordstrom before the House oversight committee this week is ‘who cares?’ The dead are long buried, other events now dominate public discussion, and come 2016, Hillary Clinton will be on her way to the White House. The victors get to write the history.

Now all this may be true. It is an old adage that a democracy gets the government it deserves. And the present government is showing itself to be about as despicable as one could ever imagine. So that pretty much sums up the moral and intellectual caliber of the electoral majority that currently controls the United States political market-place.

However, I beg to differ with this dismissive view of Benghazi. What Benghazi told a watching world is that the President and the Secretary of State of the United States both care more for their political prospects than for the honor of their country. Both are prepared to lie, not just to the world at large, but to the families of the fallen, about the reason for their murders and the retribution that will be exacted. For an al Qaeda attack on U.S. property and personnel, a crackpot California video-maker will be wrongly jailed. Some honor regained, some retribution extracted!

“From the day of the attack until this week, the White House spin was too clever by half. In the weeks and months after the attack White House spokesmen said they were investigating the story, an internal review was under way. When the story blew open again, last week, they saiud it was too far in the past: ‘Benghazi happened a long time ago’, Jay Carney, The White House press secretary, really said that. Think of that. They can’t give answers when the story’s fresh because it just happened, they’re looking into it. Eight months later they don’t have anything to say because it all happened so long ago. Think of how low your opinion of the American people has to be to think you can get away, forever, with that.” Peggy Noonan, ‘The Inconvenient Truth About Benghazi’, The Wall Street Journal, May 11, 2013

Well, not the entire American people. Just those who sheepishly voted a Chicago-machine politician back into office in the teeth of one of the worst first-term records in the history of the Republic. These voters truly got what they expected and what they deserved. Their children and their grandchildren may well live to despise them for their failure of good judgment if, that is, they are not wiped out by a nuclear terrorist attack on their undefended homeland.

College students should wake up to market signals

May 10, 2013

In general it is better from a job-seeking perspective to earn a college degree rather than a high school diploma. Unemployment is much more significant for the latter than for the former graduates. However, earning a college degree is no sure way to obtaining a job with good prospects in the post-2008 U.S. economy.

Unfortunately neither U.S. students nor U.S. colleges are well-tuned into the market-place that awaits those who work their way to a baccalaureate degree. One remarkable statistic indicates how far out of tune they are.

Over the next decade, American colleges will mint 40,000 graduates with a bachelor’s degree in computer science. The U.S. economy is slated to create 120,000 computing jobs that require such degrees. No one has to be a math major to do the math. The economy will create three times the number of jobs as we have people qualified to fill them. No wonder employers hunger for all those Asians from India and China who have a better grip on the U.S market-place.

Any youngster who grew up and went to school in the U.S. will have been educated in a system that has eight times as many high-school football teams as high schools that teach advanced placement computer science classes. How many of those students expect to make a lucrative career in sports? Do college students realize how many more graduates there are in languages, literature, history, sociology, and other liberal arts disciplines than there are jobs available relevant to those specialisms? A ratio of 100:1 would not be at all excessive. Yet still so many students come, like moths to the flame, unaware of the heart-break that lies ahead.

The American market-place is increasingly dependent on information technology. Employers are looking for hires who know enough about how these information systems work to function effectively in such an environment. Such hires are not restricted to engineering and programming functions. Suppose that you are in sales and a customer asks you how long a certain digital project is slated to take. Unless you understand the principles and machinations of coding you can only guess an answer. And guessing will not promote your career.

So canny students who want a job in media, technology,or a related field would do well to forego time on the sports field in order to learn a basic computer language. Teach yourself just enough of the grammar and logic of computer languages to be able to see the big picture. Become acquainted with APIs. Dabble in a bit of Python. Immediately you have opened the door to lucrative job opportunities. Once you can claim familiarity with at least two programming languages, start sending out those resumes. And you will receive a great deal of interest from would-be employers, excited to find a nugget of gold among all that worthless ore.

Hat Tip: Kirk McDonald, ‘Sorry, College Grads, I Probably Won’t Hire You’, The Wall Street Journal, May 10, 2013

Obama-Clinton BS on Benghazi

May 9, 2013

In pursuit of two presidential victories – Barack Obama in 2012 and Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2016 – President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton manipulated their puppet-on-a-string, Susan Rice to spread a false message to the American public following the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the US diplomatic mission in Benghazi.

U.N. Ambassador Rice blanketed the Sunday talk shows to deny that a terrorist attack had occurred. Rather, what happened on September 11, she span, was a spontaneous protest in response to a video insulting Islam. Well, there are lies, damned lies and Benghazi lies, and there can be few superiors to Susan Rice in the relaying of White House and State Department whoppers. Susan Rice looks like a witch, walks like a witch and sounds like a witch. Pretty much, that identifies her as an apparition that would not relish a bucketful of water.

At yesterday’s hearing before the House oversight committee, three witnesses – Gregory Hicks, Mark Thompson and Eric Nordstrom – corrected the lies that emanated from the twisted lips of Witch Rice. Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission at the embassy in Tripoli recalled his last conversation with Ambassador Christopher Stevens who told him: ‘Greg, we’re under attack’. At that moment Mr. Hicks knew that Islamic terrorists were behind the assault. Mr Hicks personally briefed Hillary Clinton that night on the nature of the attack. Yet Clinton advised the father of Tyrone Woods much later that the YouTube video maker ‘would be prosecuted and arrested’. Trustworthy couple, those Clintons over matters appertaining to their political futures.

After Stevens and an aide were killed at the mission, the terrorists turned on the CIA annex nearby. On the advice of the military attache in Tripoli, Mr. Hicks asked for U.S. fighter planes to fly over the complex in an attempt to scare the attackers away. He was advised that no fighter planes were available. Early the following morning, two Americans died in a mortar attack on the CIA compound.

The Pentagon says that no F-16s were on call that night. Why not? Had Hillary Clinton gone to bed without requesting them? Was she asleep in bed instead of on alert for that crucial 3 am call?

The saddest part of yesterday’s hearing was the warning that had to be repeatedly administered by Republican members of the oversight committee against any attempt by the administration to seek career-damaging revenge against the three brave whistle-blowers who exposed the lies of Obama, Clinton and Rice on the eve of the 2012 elections. What kind of country is the U.S. when such warnings are required? And what kind of country is it when Democratic Party members worked not to reveal the truth but rather to protect Obama and Clinton from the cleansing power of the truth?

Hat Tip: Elliott Abrams, ‘Benghazi Truths vs. Washington Politics’, The Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2013

The left has gained no benefit from the 2008 crisis

May 8, 2013

The financial crisis of 2008 has been touted worldwide as a failure both of an economic system and a political system. More specifically, the apparent inability of democratic politics to handle its aftermath has threatened to undermine the consensus on liberal democracy and lightly regulated capitalism that emerged following the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

Contrary to many expectations, however, political groupings of the left have derived no benefit from the crisis. Socialist movements have waited for more than a century for capitalism to collapse from its own internal contradictions. Yet, when that prospect appeared likely to occur on their watch, leftist governments – especially in the United States and the United Kingdom – vied with each other to avert such a collapse by shoveling public money at the capitalists.

The ‘change you could believe in’, brought to the political arena by Barack Obama and by Francoise Hollande, was principally that they were not their predecessors. The failure of such leftist politics has now opened up opportunities for new political groupings – the Tea Party in the United States and the United Kingdom Independence Party in Britain – designed to destabilize the existing two party systems.

Such new groupings are disparate in nature, seemingly devoid of any unifying political program. What they have in common, however, is a new nationalism:

“Yet they share a resentment of others supposedly responsible for our problems – a media and a political class that supposedly fails to acknowledge popular concerns, and foreigners who do not share our culture or our heritage. United only in grievance, they are so varied because by their nature they can be only national.” John Kay, ‘Sinister or silly, protest politicians are united in grievance’, Financial Times, May 8, 2013

The Chinese Dream of Premier Xi Jinping

May 7, 2013

During his first weeks in power, Xi Jinping, the new head of the ruling Communist Party, has promoted a slogan designed to unite an increasingly diverse nation: The Chinese Dream. News bulletins across the nation are full of his dream, evoking its American equivalent. A talent show on television is looking for ‘The Voice of the Chinese Dream’.

Unfortunately,Xi Jinping’s dream falls somewhat short of the aspirations outlined so eloquently by Thomas Jefferson in The Declaration of Independence and by James Madison in the Constitution of the United States. It does indeed encompass the pursuit of happiness: ‘To meet our people’s desire for a happy life is our mission.’ Unfortunately, it falls well short of any desire to promote individualism, and especially to advance the liberty of each individual from the reach of the Communist Party.

Instead, Xi Jinping’s dream incorporates a troubling whiff of nationalism and of a repackaged form of authoritarianism. It is no coincidence that Mr. Xi’s first mention of his dream of ‘the great revival of the Chinese nation’ came in November 2012 in a speech at the national museum in Tiananmen Square, where an exhibition called ‘Road to Revival’ lays out China’s past suffering at the hands of colonial powers and its rescue by the Communist Party.

In bowing towards a renewed nationalism, Xi Jinping is already courting China’s armed forces. In December 2012, on an inspection tour of the navy in southern China, he spoke reverently of a ‘strong army dream’. Suggestively, he told the generals that the spirit of a strong army lies in resolutely obeying the orders ofd the Communist Party. The Chinese dreams, he stated is an ideal. Communists should have a higher ideal, and that is Communism.

Of one thing, one can be absolutely certain. Xi Jinping’s dream falls well short of any notion of the rule of law. The rule of law can only come to China when dictatorship collapses. And Xi Jinping’s dream does not carry with it any notion whatsoever of a martyr’s death.

Hat Tip: ‘Xi Jinping and the Chinese Dream’, The EconomistMay 4, 2011


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers