Taylor claimed that Lerner’s life has been threatened if she testified. TheDC has independently verified Taylor’s claim.
Taylor claimed that Lerner’s life has been threatened if she testified. TheDC has independently verified Taylor’s claim.
Fusion TV’s Jorge Ramos spoke with Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards during a segment called, “Is there a Place For Planned Parenthood in Politics?” Ramos, who’s been dubbed the Walter Cronkite of Hispanic media, asked Richards when she believed life begins, and he didn’t let America’s foremost abortion advocate get away with filibustering her answer. She tried to dodge the question by saying, “this is a question that I think will be debated through the centuries, and people come down with very different points of view on that.” Ramos pressed her, “but for you what’s that point.”
Cecile, growing annoyed, answered “it is not something that I feel is part of this conversation….I think that every woman has to make her own decision…what we do at Planned Parenthood is make sure that women have all their options…” etc etc etc.
He let her go on like that for awhile, and then he asked for a third time, “why would it be so controversial for you to say when life starts?”
Cecile, sensing that her filibuster was coming to an end, blustered, “well – I don’t think that it’s controversial, but I don’t know that it’s relevant to the conversation. For me, I’m the mother of three children…(brace yourselves)... for me life began when I delivered them. Um..They’ve been probably the most important thing in my life ever since…but that’s my own personal decision.”
Life begins precisely after the doctor pulls the baby out of the mother.
She carried three children to term and none of them became human beings to her until after they were born. Before then, they were lumps of tissue mass at the mercy of her feminist whims. If she had changed her mind one day before her due date, and personally decided not to become a mother - that late term abortion would have been hunky-dory because the child wasn’t human. It’s not a human unless a woman says it is (it is for her to decide) and Cecile Richards said her unborn children weren’t human until after they were born.
There is no objective truth. There is only what is convenient and expedient. If the unborn is convenient, it’s a human. If it isn’t convenient, it’s a thing.
I’ve always considered “hope and change” to be a euphemism for Communism. There are a lot of useful idiots out there who haven’t figured that out, yet.
They say one picture is worth a thousand words – just look how chummy they all look in the picture above – those three fellow travelers, Obama, Chavez and the thug Maduro smirking in the background.
Via Carin, a preview of things to come here perhaps in the not so distant future?
Just turn your eyes to Venezuela.
Think of not being able to buy soap, rice or toilet paper or order a cup of coffee, where even the rich are feeling poor. “In the serene private clubs of Caracas, there is no milk, and the hiss of the cappuccino machine has fallen silent. In the slums, the lights go out every few days, or the water stops running. In the grocery stores, both state-run shops and expensive delicatessens, customers barter information: I saw soap here, that store has rice today. The oil engineers have emigrated to Calgary, the soap opera stars fled to Mexico and Colombia. And in the beauty parlours of this nation obsessed with elaborate grooming, women both rich and poor have cut back to just one blow-dry or manicure each week.”
Toyota Motor Company shut down assembly. GM and Ford aren’t assembling cars either, because they can’t get parts. Inflation is at 50%. The TV stations are all now state controlled. Propaganda posters boast of socialist Venezuela, while there isn’t even toilet paper to wipe their asses.
They ran the country into the ground nationalizing huge segments of the economy just like Obama is trying to run our country into the ground….nationalizing huge segments of the economy… Read this and tell me how it differs from what we are going through, in the United States.
The genius of the Left — Chavez’s for example — is that it destroys things from the inside out. They pervert religion, collapse the mores, abolish the family, shred the constitution and gradually expropriate the property. The differences from one day to the next are apparently imperceptible, but it is harder and harder to go back until finally there is no reversal of ‘progressive gains’ possible at all. The public is finally faced with the stark choice between chaos or authoritarianism. And most people will chose the Boss over the Mob.
The problem with Venezuela is that Chavismo has left people with nowhere else to go. It’s burned the bridges. There’s no reopening the car plants or restarting the factories, or even repairing the power plants. The engineers have all emigrated to Alberta, Canada. The same can be said of Syria. Who wants to open a store in Homs? In ten years nobody left in Homs will even remember how to do it. A whole generation of children is now growing up who know nothing other than war.
The Obama Regime’s war against religion – against the family, his shredding of the Constitution, etc. Yes, the steady changes that are made from day to day, seem imperceptible to those who are not paying attention.
Apparently, the Regime is trying to take on the role of “moderator” in the clashes between the Chavista government and the protesters, and failing badly.
Fears of more clashes between pro- and anti-government supporters ratcheted up in Venezuela as both sides prepared to march in the capital Tuesday and opposition leader Leopoldo López dared authorities to arrest him when he reappears in public.
The competing demonstrations loomed one day after President Nicolás Maduro’s government gave three U.S. Embassy officials 48 hours to leave the country, claiming they were supporting what he says are opposition plots to topple his socialist administration. The U.S. denied that.
Supporters of López, who is Maduro’s strongest foe and the target of an arrest order, rerouted their protest march away from the central plaza in Caracas where pro-government oil workers planned their own demonstration.
The Venezuelan government accuses the Obama administration of siding with student protesters it has blamed for violence that led to three deaths last week. Maduro claims the U.S. is trying to stir up unrest to regain dominance of South America’s largest oil producer.
In Washington, the State Department said allegations that the U.S. is helping to organize protests are “baseless and false” and called on Venezuela’s government to engage the opposition in “meaningful dialogue.”
This excellent primer of what is happening in Venezuela has been making the rounds:
LauraW at AoSHQ: It’s Happening Again – Communism Fails:
Communism* is nothing more than an organized crime ring run by the state. It just extorts, parasitizes, and kills everything it touches, and then fails. Always. Always, and again. Punitive redistribution absolutely requires the creation of a brutal tyranny to carry it out.
Self-regarded ‘elite,’ but actually very dumb journalists have to be shown this, and their own stupidity, over and over again, and the dimwits made to understand that the repetitive failure of leftist ideology to produce a livable state, is absolutely preordained by its own tenets and goals.
So how many times do we humans have to try Communism before wefigure out it doesn’t work?
As Carin notes, it’s happening in real time. Again. Right here in our hemisphere.
And the foolish newscasters are silent, because the foolish newscasters all loved Hugo Chavez, who was ‘democratically elected,’ in an election that was ‘certified by former President Carter!’
Egads, what fools they are all shown to be now; it is no wonder they want to avert their eyes from this mess.
“We thoroughly vetted her,” State health care exchange officials claimed after their Connect for Health Colorado director was indicted for stealing from her last employer.
51 year old Christa Ann McClure was indicted on January 16, on 8 counts of theft and fraud from a nonprofit housing agency in Billings, and she didn’t let her current employer know about it until after the story broke in Montana media.
Connect for Health spokesman Ben Davis said in a telephone interview that they had “performed a criminal background check and checked references before hiring McClure in March.”
Via The Denver Post:
“She was completely clean,” he said. Her position as executive director of Housing Montana of Billings, he said, made her well-qualified for her post as Connect for Health’s director of partner engagement — she was liaison with state and federal partners, such as Medicaid officials. The job pays $130,000 a year.
The charges against her are “very serious, and we are taking this very seriously,” Davis said.
The allegations are now part of a scandal-riddled narrative for federal and state health insurance exchanges — under the microscope of political opponents looking for missteps, local political and communications consultants said.
“This simply contributes to the fact that the overall implementation of health-insurance reform has been troubled by an endless series of embarrassments,” said political analyst Floyd Ciruli. “This can’t help.”
McClure has been released pending trial, and is facing potential penalties of five, 10 or 20 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for each of the counts in the indictment against her.
The 12-page indictment alleges that, while serving as executive director of the federally funded Housing Montana, McClure, between 2008 and 2010, paid herself “significant sums” for consulting services, although she was already on the payroll as a full-time employee.
She also made payments to her family and used federal money for personal travel, to pay family bills and to buy consulting services, the indictment alleges.
She also is accused of charging homeowners for a $750 warranty that did not exist, converting a laptop for personal use, inflating the hours she was to be compensated and writing herself a $21,000 check to which she was not entitled.
The indictment did not specify the total amount she allegedly embezzled.
McClure had oversight of a $514,000 federal rural development grant to Housing Montana to build 22 homes for low-income residents.
Anyone surprised that a system that is run by left-wing agitators is already fraught with corruption and fraud? Get ready for many more stories like this one.
Hat tip: NRO
With all of the horrific human rights violations going on throughout the world, right now – political prisoners, genocidal attacks on Christians, etc — this is what the UN Human rights Council focuses on.
The bulk of the report deals with the sexual abuse that went on for years – fair game, and obviously something to be denounced – but the U.N. committee “also severely criticized the Holy See for its attitudes toward homosexuality, contraception and abortion and said it should review its policies to ensure children’s rights and their access to health care are guaranteed.” Are you kidding me?
Via USA Today:
While most attention has focused on child sex abuse, the committee’s recommendations extended far beyond into issues about discrimination against children and their rights to adequate health care. By making specific recommendations to review Vatican policies on abortion and contraception, the committee waded deep into core church teaching on life. As a result, such recommendations will certainly be dismissed by the Vatican, which has a history of diplomatic confrontation with the United Nations over reproductive health care and similar issues.
Church teaching holds that life begins at conception; the Vatican therefore opposes abortion and artificial contraception.
The Human Rights Committee is composed of 18 independent experts who are persons of high moral character and recognized competence in the field of human rights.
Members are elected for a term of four years by States parties in accordance with articles 28 to 39 of the Covenant. Members serve in their personal capacity and may be re-elected if nominated.
The membership of the Committees as follows:
Name of Member
Term expires on 31 December
|Mr. Yadh BEN ACHOUR (Vice-Chairperson)||
|Mr. Lazhari BOUZID||
|Ms. Christine CHANET||
|Mr. Ahmad Amin FATHALLA||
|Mr.Cornelis FLINTERMAN (Rapporteur)||
|Mr. Yuji IWASAWA||
|Mr. Walter KALIN||
|Ms. Zonke Zanele MAJODINA||
|Mr. Kheshoe Parsad MATADEEN (resigned effective 9 January 2014)||
|Ms. Iulia Antoanella MOTOC
(resigned effective 4 November 2013)
|Mr.Gerald L. NEUMAN||
United States of America
|Sir Nigel RODLEY (Chairperson)||
|Mr. Victor Manuel RODRÍGUEZ-RESCIA||
|Mr. Fabián Omar SALVIOLI - [English | French | Spanish]||
|Ms. Anja SEIBERT-FOHR||
|Mr. Yuval SHANY||
|Mr. Konstantine VARDZELASHVILI||
|Ms. Margo WATERVAL (Vice-Chairperson)||
Father Z weighs in:
Let me get this straight.
While berating the Catholic Church for sexual abuse of children, the United Nations criticized the Church for opposing legalization of abortion… the ultimate child abuse… and wants the Church to change her teachings.
Hat tip: Geo
I blogged about this at The Conversation earlier, today: President Declares ‘Not a Smidgen’ of Corruption in IRS Scandal Despite Ongoing DOJ Investigation:
White House Dossier’s Keith Koffler brings up another thing from the Obama/O’Reilly interview more people should be talking about – Obama’s total dismissal of the IRS scandal as a big Fox News driven nothingburger with “not a smidgen” of corruption involved – was articulated while there’s still an active investigation going on!
I can’t think of a better example of Chicagoland politics than to signal to your investigators how the probe is supposed to turn out. Now, Justice Department officials have their marching orders. And anyone who uncovers a “smidgeon” of corruption will have to worry about making the boss look like a liar or a fool, not to mention worrying about their employment status.
Actually, the fix has been so in with the DOJ sham IRS “investigation”, I don’t think we have to worry about any officials worrying about making their boss look bad.
The boss, by the way, did the same thing during his softball interview with Chrissy Matthews on MSNBC, back in December.
Kudos to Jonathan Karl for catching this. Bill O’Reilly admitted on his show just now that he missed it.
Karl asked, “Jay, in the president’s interview with Bill O’Reilly, last night, he said that there was not even a smidgen of corruption regarding IRS targeting of conservative groups. Did the president misspeak?”
Carney, scoffing, answered, “no he didn’t.” And then demonstrating that he was anticipating an question about Obama’s dismissal of the IRS scandal, he arrogantly went on, “but I can cite I think I have about 20 different news organizations that cite the variety of ways that was established including by the independent IG….etc etc bs bs bs…” and read from a prepared script about how it has been so concretely established
But before he could finish talking, Karl threw him the curve ball he wasn’t expecting: “Jay, he said there wasn’t a smidgen of corruption – nothing about some qualifier about being outside the IRS, and there’s an active Justice Department investigation – unless it’s been concluded without anyone telling the news media – I mean – there’s an active Justice Dept. investigation – doesn’t the president prejudge that investigation? To which Carney could only mumble in response, “what we have learned through the independent Inspector General and through the testimony that we’ve seen, completely backs up what the president said.” He went on to say that “a lot of that has been very good reported on by various news organizations” ( which he makes sure to sneer), some people might have missed.” One wonders what they hell he’s talking about. Daily Kos, Huffpo, PMSNBC? The Oversight investigation into the scandal isn’t over, although the Regime has been stonewalling their investigation. They’ve found evidence that it goes to the White House. Lois Lerner pled the fifth.
“So the Justice should just pull the plug on this investigation?” Karl pressed. Carney shot back, “obviously we don’t interfere with a Justice Dept. investigation.”
A favorite Carney ploy is to use peer pressure against reporters who ask tough questions. “Hey dummy, everyone in this room knows the IRS scandal is over, except you. “
I’m so glad Karl isn’t intimidated by it. He keeps coming back with more headaches for Carney.
Starts at 9:18:
On Sunday, the Cuomo administration lashed out at the New York Post and its Albany bureau chief, Fred Dicker—a one-time Cuomo supporter who now stands accused of being an “extreme conservative” for reporting Cuomo’s claims.
In an open letter posted to the governor’s website, Mylan Denerstein, counsel to the governor said, “As we approach the political season we expect the campaign dialogue to become more heated on both sides. We understand the New York Post is an opinionated newspaper and that Fred Dicker is an extreme conservative. However responsibility must not be forsaken. Dicker’s story that the Governor said Conservatives have no place in New York is unfair, false and the exact opposite of what his tenure as Attorney General and his state administration has been all about.”She added, “The Governor was making the point that he makes often: New York is a politically moderate state and an extremist agenda is not politically viable statewide. New York has a long history of electing Democrats and Republicans statewide who are moderate rather than on the extreme ends of the political spectrum. That is an inarguable fact.”
Via Fox News:
Conservative activist James O’Keefe is accusing New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration of targeting his group with document requests and a subpoena, claiming the Democratic governor’s recent comments critical of conservatives “aren’t simply words.”
O’Keefe, whose Project Veritas is behind a series of hidden-camera investigations against left-leaning groups and causes, made the claims on the heels of the controversy over a recent Cuomo interview. In it, Cuomo blasted “extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay” and said they “have no place” in New York. He later walked back his remarks, and said they were being taken out of context in the media.
But O’Keefe claimed that Cuomo’s government is acting on those words, revealing that the Department of Labor has hit his office in Westchester County, N.Y., with demands for financial documents for months. He compared it to IRS targeting of conservative groups nationwide.
And by “overwhelmingly negative” I mean 0 1 positive out of 717 comments, thus far. Where are the tea- party haters – the anti-Koch brothers paranoids spewing their hate? I
see nothing but overwhelmingly intelligent, literate, well-reasoned comments.
The proposed rule, “Guidance for Tax-Exempt Social Welfare Organizations on Candidate-Related Political Activities” does not impact labor unions or the Chamber of Commerce, but does impact the Tea Party and other conservative groups.
It is out in the open that the IRS is targeting perceived political opponents, but this truth is frustratingly not being shouted from the rooftops by the mainstream media or the Republican establishment, who have been quite clear in their disdain for the Tea Party.
Speaking of the proposed rule, professor of law at the University of Tennessee Glenn Harlan Reynolds, wrote an article for USA Today yesterday saying in part,
“…the Obama administration is currently changing IRS rules to muzzle Tea Partiers.”
In fact, it is believed that this rule has been “reverse engineered” in such a way to specifically target common activities among Tea Party groups and recategorize them as “candidate-related political activity,” as reported by Kimberley A. Strassel of the Wall Street Journal.
Tea Party activities oftentimes include issue advocacy, candidate forums and voter registration drives, but Strassel reported that the rule would effectively
“…shut up hundreds of groups that pose a direct threat by restricting their ability to speak freely in an election season about spending or ObamaCare or jobs.” [emphasis added]
Not one of the 686 (out of 9,532) comments currently available for viewing is supportive of the measure.
It’s 717 comments, as of this writing, and before I could post, one anti-Koch brother moonbat appeared (probably via Instapundit’s link.) And true to form, the lib is a lofo with no idea what he/she is talking about.
More effective regulation of political activities by 501(c) groups is long overdue. People like the Koch brothers, and the groups they fund such as “Americans For Prosperity” have demonstrated how ineffective current regulations, and their enforcement, are in preventing 501(c) groups from being used to avoid taxes and to engage in obviously political activity.
Regulations and enforcement need to cover ANY politically- or financially-motivated activities such as Americans For Prosperity placing fake eviction notices on homes in Detroit, mailing “We know you didn’t vote” correspondence to people and threatening to tell their neighbors you didn’t vote, and making awards or special recognition to politicians who promote the group’s political agenda.
The Kochs, other plutocrats, and corporations should not be allowed to hide their political funding by funneling it through 501(c) groups. Consider requiring that all groups designated as nonprofit make available a complete disclosure of contributions and from whom they were received.
Why do these people never mention George Soros, or liberal groups like Media Matters and the Tides Foundation, I wonder?
The proposed regulations do not affect 501(c)(3) nonprofits, they “provide guidance under section 501(c)(4) relating to the measurement of an organization’s primarily activity and whether it is operated primarly for the promotion of social welfare, including guidance relating to political campaign intervention.” Via Regulations.gov(complete with gaffetastic misspelling of primarily.)
In one comment, the left-wing Bauman Foundation demanded public hearings on the rule. Interestingly, the rule would not apply to them as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, but they were concerned that the rule for 501(c)(4)s would confuse their donors.
501(c)(3) organizations are either a public charity, private foundation or private operating foundation with open membership whereas 501(c)(4) organizations are civic leagues or associations operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare or local associations of employees with limited membership.
When it comes to lobbying and political activity, 501(c)(3) organizations can appeal directly to legislative bodies and representatives and may support issue-based legislation. However, they must notify the IRS of their intent to lobby by filing form5768, which formally informs the federal government that one has elected to use the expenditure test to have the organization’s lobbying activity measured. Under this test, lobbying capacity is typically limited to spending less than 5 to 20% of the organizational budget on lobbying activities, depending on the size of your organization.
501(c)(4) organizations can engage in unlimited lobbying so long as it pertains to the organization’s mission. 501(c)(3) organizations are not permitted to engage in political activity, endorse or oppose political candidates, or donate money or time to political campaigns, but 501(c)(4) organizations can do all of the above.
The Obama IRS is changing the 501 (c) (4) rules so the IRS can continue targeting conservative, libertarian leaning groups legally.
Here is tea party atty Cleta Mitchell explaining the proposed IRS rule changes.
The House Ways and Means Committee chair wants more time to investigate the agency’s targeting of conservative groups and to review potential rule changes.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) introduced legislation (H.R. 3865) last week to block the Internal Revenue Service from finalizing new restrictions on the political activities of 501(c)(4) social welfare groups.
Camp, who led an investigation into the IRS’s targeting of organizations seeking 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status, said that the investigation is still ongoing and that the committee needs more time to review documents they are still waiting to receive. His bill would delay implementation of the new rules for one year to allow the committee to complete the investigation and review public comments on the proposal.
“It is premature to publish new rules before getting all of the facts,” Camp said in a statement. “The administration’s proposed rules openly target groups that are exercising their First Amendment rights. We cannot allow these draft regulations to go into effect. Congress must make sure every American’s right to participate and engage in civic debate is protected, and this legislation will provide some much-needed assurance that IRS targeting and surveillance will not continue.”
Last year, the IRS scandal shocked the nation when it became apparent that the Obama administration had weaponized the IRS to target its political enemies. According to some analysts, the political suppression of tea party groups from 2010 through 2012, easily cost Mitt Romney the election.
What the Regime was caught doing, last year, they’ve now codified into law.
The Internal Revenue Service has quietly announced a new rule that strictly limits the ability of 501(c)(4), tax-exempt organizations from working on their core missions in the months leading up to federal, state, and local elections. The proposed regulations would prohibit these organizations from engaging in candidate-related political activity, which, by the proposed rule’s definition, includes any mention of a candidate’s name or political party even if presented in a non-political context. Further, organizations would have to ensure that any references to candidates in past communications are not publicly available, including online, during the pre-election window. These regulations would, in effect, prohibit organizations from providing the public with candidate comparisons and voting records, engaging in get-out-the-vote activities, or encouraging informed civic participation, among other activities. They would severely limit both the organizations’ First Amendment free speech and the public’s ability to hold elected officials accountable for their actions.
Cleta Mitchell, a partner in the Washington-based law firm Foley & Lardner LLP, has produced a YouTube video to explain that the goal of the IRS is to limit the free speech of conservative groups:
“This is a real assault on the First Amendment rights of American citizens, and we need to do everything we can to stop the IRS from implementing these new rules,” Mitchell says.
The proposed rule change does not apply to labor unions or trade associations because as Cleta notes, “the Obama administration is not looking for ways to restrain labor unions from using member dues to conduct similar activities.”
The establishment GOP and the tea party must stand together in fighting this latest abuse of power.
Cleta Mitchell is urging conservatives groups and individuals to file comments with the IRS right away, arguing it is “impractical, burdensome and unacceptable for the IRS to interject itself into the workings of every citizens group in the country.”
The legally constituted function of the IRS, Mitchell argues, is to collect tax revenues, “not to snoop and trample on First Amendment rights of the citizens.”
At stake this November is the possibility conservative tax-exempt groups campaigning for conservative Republican candidates for Congress might increase the Republican majority in the House and grab enough seats in the Senate to topple the current Democratic Party majority, she explains.
The Democrats in Congress appear this year to be particularly vulnerable given the debacle witnessed by the nation in the Obamacare implementation plus increasing economic data that shows job growth slowing, with historic numbers of Americans dropping out of the labor force.
How to file comments opposing IRS proposed rule
Conservative groups or individuals may submit comments electronically opposing the proposed rule changes at Regulations.gov, searching for the citation IRS REG-134417-13, an Internet search that yields a page entitled “Guidance for Tax-Exempt Social Welfare Organization on Candidate-Related Political Activities.”
The proposed rules can be found published in the Federal Register here, again under the title “Guidance for Tax-Exempt Social Welfare Organization on Candidate-Related Political Activities,” dated Nov. 29, 2013.
In a fact sheet Mitchell is distributing to conservatives, Mitchell is advising clients to file comments before the deadline on Feb. 27, 2014, to a series of new regulations the IRS proposes to implement with the goal of making sure conservative organizations with 501(c)4 status are prohibited before the upcoming mid-term elections in November 2014 from any activity associated with supporting a political candidate or influencing the outcome of an election.
“Conservative groups that do not submit comments to the IRS opposing these rule changes before the Feb. 27 deadline will not have standing to participate in the final rule-determination process required by law before the rules are implemented,” Mitchell explained.
Obama has a track record of this type of political thuggery.
In May of 2011, I wrote, Obama Still Poised To Silence Critics:
Very early in Obama’s presidency, on February 19, 2009 to be exact, I wrote a post about how this thin skinned president was poised to silence critics of his regime.
We already knew about Obama’s history of intimidation, and character assassination. We knew how he had tried to destroy his political enemies – at least regular readers of this site know, because I covered it while it was happening, here, and here, and here. While projecting an outward appearance of near messianic magnanimity, his underlings, lawyers, and political allies were always working feverishly to steamroll over critics, (and plaintiffs).
Mark Hyman of The American Spectator wrote about Obama’s Chicago brand of hardball politics, recently in an article entitled, Obama’s Enemies List. As many of us feared, the “Chicago way” has found a home in The White House:
In only his third full day as the 44th president Obama personally went on the offensive against a media personality. On January 23rd, Obama warned Congressional Republicans against listening to Rush Limbaugh. The man who offered to sit down with Holocaust denier and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without any preconditions whatsoever views an American radio talk show host as a dangerous threat.
In precedent-setting action, Obama moved his director of political affairs, a highly partisan post, from the Old Executive Office Building into the West Wing. Political operative Patrick Gaspard was given White House access not experienced by his predecessors. Obama official Shauna Daly, a non-lawyer and career opposition researcher described as a “partisan dirt-digger,” was assigned to the White House counsel office. The move signals not only a new low in partisan activities, but suggests the office assignment may be intended to hide Daly’s political activities under the guise of the counsel’s attorney-client privileges.
Fast forward over two years later, and nobody even bats an eye at White House enemies lists, lies, threats, intimidation,bullying, corruption, and opposition research of anyone who looks like a threat to His Highness.
This is the new normal.
Let’s not put up with “the new normal”, folks.
The Right Scoop: UGH: Sarah Palin’s father HARASSED SIX TIMES by IRS since 2008…
Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer criticizes the Obama administration for using government agencies as political tools on Monday’s Laura Ingraham radio show:
“I mean, the politicization of these agencies, particularly Justice, is truly a scandal,” Krauthammer said. “Again the press isn’t that interested. It gets slightly upset when the Department of Justice is reading AP’s emails because it’s about them. But the minute it’s not about them – it’s about IRS or conservatives or Tea Party, they have a day of interest and then it’s gone.”
Up is down, down is up, wrong is right, right is wrong. Only in Obama’s America would the DOJ persecute the Little Sisters of the poor – but appoint a cop killer’s attorney to top civil rights position. Up with the defenders of killers…down with the defenders of life.
Adegbilem spent the last decade engaging in extreme racial politics as the Legal Defense and Education Fund of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).
He is an opponent of criminal-background checks by employers, and a supporter of extreme racial-hiring quotas. But it’s his work trying to free the unrepentant cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, that has the hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers represented by the National Fraternal Order of Police appalled that the president would appoint him to a top spot in the Justice Department.
Chuck Canterbury, President of the National Fraternal Order Of Police sent a hard hitting letter to the president, expressing “extreme disappointment, displeasure and vehement opposition” to Adegbile’s nomination.”
In another scathing letter to the President, PA Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick wrote, “Respectfully, I could not be more incensed and confounded by the nomination of Mr. Debo Adegbile as the next Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice,” Fitzpatrick opened the letter. “Under Mr. Adegbile’s leadership, non-profit attorneys were recruited to defend convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal. Jamal’s cold-blooded murder of Officer Faulkner is not in doubt. The efforts of those attorneys perverted the justice system and have made a mockery of the jury’s verdict and the court’s sentence.”
“A shameless ‘cottage industry’ of money and promotion has arisen from Jamal’s heinous act which continues to torture Officer Faulkner’s widow and family,” continued Fitzpatrick. “This nomination is a direct affront to the thousands of law enforcement officials who serve in harm’s way to protect our families, and the communities who rely on their service and sacrifice.”
Last night, Megyn Kelly had on both men to talk about Obama’s nomination of the radical attorney, Debo Adegbilem to be the nation’s top civil rights lawyer.
Kelly asked Fitzpatrick what it said about the nominee that he would involve himself in the case of unrepentant cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Fitzpatrick said, “his attorney’s, at the conclusion (of his trial overturning the death sentence) attended a rally in the city of Philedelphia and said they could not have been prouder than to have the opportunity - not to represent justice, not to fight for the constitution, but to represent Mumia Jamal. And the fact that they chose to insert themselves in this 33 year old case, pretty much tells you everything you need to know about this nominee and about the administration’s committment to constitutional and civil rights of victims and of police officers.”
PhillyMag.com asked, Was Obama Wrong to Nominate Mumia Lawyer Debo Adegbile to DOJ?
Of course, lawyers represent bad people all the time, right? Canterbury addresses that point as well:
We are aware of the tried and true shield behind which activists of Adegbile’s ilk are wont to hide–that everyone is entitled to a defense; but surely you would agree that a defense should not be based on falsely disparaging and savaging the good name and reputation of a lifeless police officer.
Certainly any legal scholar can see the injustice and absence of ethics in this cynical race-baiting approach to our legal system.
Meanwhile, Maureen Faulkner, the widow of the police officer whom Abu-Jamal was convicted of gunning down, went on Fox News to express her disgust at the nomination:
In Adegbile’s corner, there are 75 organizations that have signed on to a letter to the United States Senate, urging the senators to confirm the nomination. Those organizations include everyone from the AFL-CIO to the National Center for Transgender Equality to the National Bar Association.
The poll shows 75% of respondents agreeing with the Republicans, the Police Union and Faulkner’s widow.
22% agree with Obama and the transgender community, AFL-CIO and Bar Assoc that it ain’t no big deal – lawyers represent bad people all the time. Another 3% say Adegbile should be given a medal because Mumia’s innocent.
Obama has sppointed some shockingly inept and/or radical individuals to positions of power, these past five years, but his pick be the nation’s top civil rights lawyer is his worst appointment, yet.
Adegbilem spent the last decade serving as the Legal Defense and Education Fund of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).
He is a staunch affirmative action supporter who is an opponent of criminal-background checks by employers, and a supporter of extreme racial-hiring quotas. But it’s his work trying to free the unrepentant cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, that has the hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers represented by the National Fraternal Order of Police appalled that the president would appoint him to a top spot in the Justice Department.
Yesterday, they sent a hard-hitting letter to Obama, expressing “extreme disappointment, displeasure and vehement opposition” to Adegbile’s nomination.
Judicial Watch reported:
In a hard-hitting letter to President Obama, the group expresses “extreme disappointment, displeasure and vehement opposition” to Adegbile’s nomination. “As word of this nomination spreads through the law enforcement community, reactions range from anger to incredulity,” the letter says, reminding that there is no disputing that Officer Faulkner was murdered by the “thug” who Adegbile continues defending.
“This nomination can be interpreted in only one way: it is a thumb in the eye of our nation’s law enforcement officers,” the letter continues. “It demonstrates a total lack of regard or empathy for those who strive to keep you and everyone else in our nation safe in your homes and neighborhoods—sometimes giving their lives in the effort.” Adegbile will certainly exacerbate the growing division and distrust between law enforcement and minority communities, the FOP claims. The group ends by telling the commander-in-chief of its hope that candidates with records of “fairness and respect to all Americans” are considered for future leadership positions in the administration.
Fox New’s Megyn Kelly had on Maureen Faulker (Wife of slain police officer killed in line of duty) and J. Christian Adams (Former Department of Justice Official) to get their reactions.
Adams said that “to defend a cop killer – by choice – should disqualify you from a position at the Justice Department”, and then he went on to discuss Adegbilem’s radical racial background.
Faulkner was positively seething. At the end of the segment, she said that Obama nominating such a person to a top position at the Justice Department “is like spitting on all our officers and our federal agents throughout America.”
Kelly ended the segment by noting that the police have vowed to fight this nomination until can be fought no longer.
Born Wesley Cook, the former Black Panther often referred to affectionately in radical circles as simply “Mumia,” enjoys celebrity status on the Left and is a frequent guest speaker at college commencement ceremonies.
“The question of Abu-Jamal’s guilt is not a close call,” according to John Fund. “Two hospital workers testified that Abu-Jamal confessed to them: ‘I shot the motherf***er, and I hope the motherf***er dies.’ His brother, William, has never testified to his brother’s innocence even though he was at the scene of the crime. Abu-Jamal himself chose not to testify in his own defense.”
As Faulkner tried to arrest Abu-Jamal’s brother during a traffic stop, Abu-Jamal shot the policeman once in the back and then stood over him and shot him four more times at close range, once directly in the face. Multiple eyewitnesses were present during the crime.
In a new book reviewed by Bob Woodward, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates is harshly critical of Obama:
Reporter Bob Woodward reveals some forthcoming secrets from Gates’ new book, Duty, which will be published next Tuesday. Woodward describes the book as “an antagonistic portrait of a sitting president.”
One of the revelations Gates makes in the pages of Duty is a discussion between Obama and former rival Hillary Clinton regarding opposition to President George W. Bush’s surge policy in Iraq:
Hillary told the president that her opposition to the  surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary. . . . The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.
Gates writes that by early 2010 he had concluded the president “doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out.”
“Which is what is so galling”, says Ace.
Men are being killed at three times the rate as they died under Bush’s leadership, and Obama is not even trying to win.
Those men remain there out of political cowardice. Men are dying for Obama’s political cowardice.
On Special Report, Tuesday night, Charles Krauthammer called it “a shocking revelation.”
“I had assumed that he didn’t believe in the war from his own actions, he said. “But here from somebody sitting with the president, three months in! And I do think that this is an indictment of the president that rises above everything else he’s done in his presidency.”
Well, that’s a tough call – there’s so much to choose from. But sending men into harms way to die at three times the rate of his predecessor (because of his suicidal rules of engagement) for a cause he doesn’t even believe in - is about as bad as it gets.
Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post: How Bob Gates’s memoir could haunt Hillary in 2016:
I’m guessing the part where she admits her opposition to the surge was entirely political? (Conservatives already knew Democrats were playing politics with the war and were thoroughly disgusted by it. Now the whole world knows.)
Oomph. Just to jog your memory, Clinton announced that she opposed the Iraq surge being pushed by President George W. Bush in the days leading up to the announcement of her presidential bid. She instead proposed a freeze in troop levels in the country and advocated for a troop increase in Afghanistan.
The Wall Street Journal: Top 10 Revelations From Robert Gates’s Memoir:
1. Contempt for Congress
Mr. Gates expresses open disdain for Congress and the way lawmakers treated him when he testified at hearings. “I saw most of Congress as uncivil, incompetent at fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibilities (such as timely appropriations), micromanagerial, parochial, hypocritical, egotistical, thin-skinned and prone to put self (and re-election) before country.” Mr. Gates said he fantasized about storming out of hearings and quitting. “There is no son of a bitch in the world who can talk to me like that,” he writes of his fantasy.
2. Contempt for Vice President Biden
Mr. Gates expresses particular dissatisfaction with Vice President Joe Biden. He describes Mr. Biden as a “man of integrity” who “has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.” Specifically, Mr. Gates said he opposed Mr. Biden’s proposed limited strategy in Afghanistan to focus on counter-terrorism: “Whac-A-Mole hits on Taliban leaders weren’t a long term strategy,” he writes.
3. Suspicion of White House Control
Mr. Gates described the White House and its national security team as too controlling and says that he found himself at odds with Mr. Obama’s inner circle. At one meeting in the Oval Office in 2011, Mr. Gates said he considered resigning because of the White House micromanagement and strategy. “I never confronted Obama directly over what I (as well as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-CIA Director Leon Panetta and others) saw as his determination that the White House tightly control every aspect of national security policy and even operations,” Mr. Gates writes. “His White House was by far the most centralized and controlling in national security of any I had seen since Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger ruled the roost” in the 1970s.
According to MSNBC’s Joy Reid, the “Knockout Game” is a non- story that conservatives are going ”absolutely ballistic” about in order “to stoke issues of race.” The segment in which she made the comments was hosted by Al Sharpton, who was asking a panel of MSNBC regulars what they thought was the most overrated story of the year.
JOY REID, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Got to say the knockout game. Two videos that were in about a hundred different stories, no trend anyone could discern, but the right went absolutely ballistic over it because they want to stoke issues of race.
Two videos? No discernable trend? Really lady?
The St. Louis CBS affiliate KMOV would like to put her to some knowledge:
“One-hitter quitter,” “knock em’ and drop em,” “point em’ out and knock ‘em out” are all names for a disturbing trend now drawing concern nationwide.
In Pittsburgh, a teacher was punched so hard he collapsed head first into the concrete curb. A man in Brooklyn was also knocked unconscious. And even women are being attacked.
There have been seven recent cases in New York City alone. And the game has turned fatal in at least four documented attacks—in Syracuse, N.Y.; St. Louis; Chicago; and Hoboken, N.J., site of the latest fatal attack.
Boys—seen in video from a security camera after the incident—have been charged with the murder. They are just 13 and 14 years old.
Actually the CBS report is over a month old – it’s dated. There have been many knockout game attacks since then. At least three in just the past week.
The Knockout game isn’t even a new trend. It’s been going on for years. In July of 2011 The American Thinker published a piece entitled, The Knockout Game: Racial Violence and the Conspicuous Silence of the Media:
Most Americans have heard of recent violent ”flash mobs,” which are the bands of black teens that attack mostly white victims and white businesses, as even the New York Times once noted.
But the flash mobs, which are more accurately called “race riots” or “racial mob violence,” are not the only interesting topic to cover in our national conversation about race. There is also the “knockout game,” which is stunning in its brutal simplicity and stark racial significance.
The knockout game involves “unprovoked attacks on innocent bystanders,” according to police who have had to deal with it. A retired officer explained, “Normally it was a group of black males, one of which would strike him as hard as he could in the face, attempting to knock him out with one punch,” says retired Sgt. Don Pizzo. The victims are typically not robbed, but simply punched with no provocation. Such attacks have been reported in Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New Jersey.
Sgt. Pizzo noted that the attacks fit a pattern: “black attackers on a white victim — and the victim was often an older person walking alone.” In a thorough and sensible piece on the subject in a local arts and entertainment magazine, eight of the victims interviewed were white, one was black, and one was Latino. All of the attackers, or “players,” were black. Some witnesses claim that they have white relatives who play the game and that therefore the game is not a racial issue. But anyone who reviews the reporting — when race is revealed, at least — will see that the attackers are predominantly if not exclusively black.
As one player of the game says, “[w]e used to walk to where a lot of people be at and hit ‘em. If one of the homeboys didn’t knock him out, then the other would come. Whoever knock him out would be king.”
Why would one of the racialist regulars at MSNBC want to downplay this disturbing trend? Why – instead of sending a message strongly condemning it, like her colleague Al Sharpton - would she bury her head in the sand and pretend it isn’t happening?
Yes, even Al Sharpton, last month, condemned what he termed “a crisis” in a strongly worded piece at Huffington Post:
There is nothing funny or even remotely entertaining about attacking innocents walking down the street. This is not a “game”; it is inhumane behavior that has no place in our country or the world.
He said, “silence is akin to tacit acceptance” and announced that he would be meeting with ”other leaders to address our next moves regarding this crisis.”
As one who has fought for greater civil rights for all, I cannot watch this travesty unfold. We can discuss the many factors that may lead to this sort of destructive behavior, whether it be poverty, unemployment, etc., but at the end of the day, there is no excuse ever to bestow violence on others. There is no justification for brutally punching or attacking a person in this manner. These kids must be held accountable, and then they must receive the right guidance and mentorship to halt any further damage. In our own communities, we must work harder to spot disastrous behavior and intervene before anything horrific like these attacks take place.
But he was silent when Joy Reid made her ignorant remarks downplaying what he knows to be a “horrific” nationwide trend.
How else can one explain the MSNBC segment in which Melissa Harris Perry and pals mocked and belittled the Romneys and their black adoptive grandchild as seen in in the clip below?
This makes absolutely no sense to me – it’s like these people are from another planet.
First of all – MHP doesn’t get off the hook here, just because she initially had a nice thing to say about the photo – ”pretty cute – everyone loves a baby picture.” So why did she drag the picture out, and then ask her panel for “captions”? Notice how she held her head down as she did so – almost as if she was slightly ashamed of herself for inviting her guests to race-bait the Romneys for having the gall to have black member of the family. Was a little voice in her head (the sane one) telling her knock it off?
The photo in question isn’t “funny”. It isn’t an “awkward family photo” as seen in the board game or on the web. We’ve all seen those – and you know what? There’s nothing wrong with laughing at something that is truly goofy.
But the Romney family photo is not that. It’s a sweet photo of an attractive couple with lots of grandkids. One of them happens to be black.
Are mixed race families still such a novelty to lefties, that they don’t know how to handle it when they see one? Seriously? Or does the fact that a Republican adopted a black baby seem inappropriate and mock-worthy to them? I’m really trying to understand…
“One of these things is not like the other,” sang actress Pia Glenn, who was later surprised that some people didn’t see the humor. The “comedian” on the panel, Dean Obeidallah said the photo “really sums up the diversity of the Republican party.” He embarrassed himself further when he later “apologized” to the baby on Twitter, “for being used as a prop in a photo.”
I don’t even know what to say to someone who thinks that Republicans only adopt black babies so they can use them as props. How disordered is this man’s thinking that he would say such an idiotic thing? It’s deranged.
The Right Scoop‘s Caleb Howe torched MSNBC for persisting in the tired stereotype of the Republican Party being devoid of black people…
“Ah the never tired accusation, borrowed from every single left-wing blog and talking head during every gathering of two or more (or fewer) Republicans: He’s not a child adopted by loving parents prepared to provide him with a better life in keeping with the family’s values,” he wrote. “Nope. He’s just a token. A punchline, not a person. But it’s funny, because Republicans are racist, see? So it’s all fine!”
I find myself appalled and damn near nauseated nearly every time I catch a clip from this God-forsaken network. What is wrong with these people? And who in their right mind can watch their toxic, racialist garbage day in and day out and not cringe with shame and embarrassment?
You have to be mentally disordered, frankly. As I’ve said before - leftism really is a mental disorder.
SEE ALSO -
Twitchy has been on this story like no one else:
And now The Daily Mail is on it: Outrage as MSNBC panelists make Mitt Romney’s adopted black grandchild the punchline of a joke
A Sunday episode of MSNBC’s political commentary show Melissa Harris-Perry has sparked outrage because of a segment that turned Mitt Romney’s adopted black grandson into the butt of a political joke.
Host Harris-Perry stirred the pot by displaying a giant photo of Mitt Romney’s extended family Christmas photo to a panel of liberal pundits and comedians.
‘It really sums up the diversity of the Republican party, the RNC. At the convention, they find the one black person,’ joked Dean Obeidallah, just one of the uncouth digs the group made at the expense of Kieran Romney.
Dean Obeidallah offers a self-serving apology to the Romneys (but not the fuming wingnuts) in an article at The Daily Beast. And he didn’t mention his disgusting tweet about the Romney’s using the baby as a prop.
Melissa Harris-Perry also apologized Tuesday.
According to some of the commenters at The Daily Beast, conservatives are humor-impaired. Because Obeidallah’s “joke” was uproariously funny, or something. Look, there’s a reason nobody’s heard of this comedian before. He’s not funny. We get the “joke”, okay. Romney is white and his grandson isn’t. There aren’t as many blacks in the Republican party as there are the Democrat party. We’re not laughing because it wasn’t funny. Promulgating tired stereotypes about the GOP’s ”lack of diversity” isn’t funny. It’s pathetic.
A commenter at NRO put his finger on why conservatives are so aghast: “It’s hard to imagine how someone could hate so much to think racist jokes about an adopted child are funny. This is the kind of evil that, in a different context, commits atrocities.”
It’s scary sad that many of their viewers are defending the repellant segment.
I challenge MSMBC to get through one day – one entire day – without obsessing about race. I have a dream of a colorblind MSNBC- that only talks about race when it’s legitimately in the news – like the horrible knock-out game attacks that keep happening.
Or is that the kind of story the racialists at MSNBC find too inconvenient to cover?
Linked by Doug Ross, thanks!