Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Jim Jordan wants to know what the White House knew about the IRS targeting scandal, and when they knew it-- as if we didn’t know. The conservative Representative from Ohio has penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal calling for a special prosecutor to investigate the activities of the IRS and, more specifically Lois Lerner, the former IRS official who is at the center of the controversy.

Jordan essentially is saying where there is smoke there is fire, and oh yeah, where there’s fire, there is fire too.

“Emails and testimony that we confronted Ms. Lerner with showed her saying that the tea party is ‘very dangerous,’” writes Jordan, “ordering a ‘multitiered review’ (read: delay) of the cases, and managing the optics of her operation so it would not be revealed as a political project.”

Make no mistake, this goes all the way up to the White House, to the Oval Office, and for that reason this will not be going away.

That was practically guaranteed when Lerner showed up at Congress twice and invoked her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself.

Those who try to ride the revolutionary tiger, by letting it out of the cage, make a tasty meal eventually.

And the tiger makes no distinction between the president and a department head.

Congress does however. And so does the electorate.

From the day that Congress passed Obamacare under Democrat control, there has never been a time in which Obama’s political position did not grow weaker. He lost the US House of Representatives in 2010, and only narrowly controls the Senate.

Sure he won reelection, but his second term could end up being more of a curse than a blessing.

The White House has been enmeshed in a series of scandals, missteps and poor politics that’s only become more obvious, and more quickly moving since Obama’s reelection.

As the president has grown weaker, he’s become more and more reckless, telling bigger and bigger lies.

I often tell candidates, especially ones who are political novices, that they have to keep one thing in mind about politics: eventually through the miasma of lies, distortions and rhetoric, politics, at the highest level, is eventually about truth; about absolute, positive truth.

The Soviet empire did not collapse because socialism is an inefficient form of government. It collapsed because as an inefficient form of government it tried to prop itself up with lies about record harvests and tractor production that just didn’t exist.

The beauty of economics, as it relates to politics, is that it will brook no lies.

The truth eventually wins out.

Obama can try to brazen his way through any one of dozens of scandals that now surround the most incompetent administration since Warren G. Harding, but the truth is out. The economics are against him.

And that’s why people no longer trust him.

Impeach him? Certainly, if you can prove beyond a doubt he’s committed a crime.

But there is no reason to make the man a martyr.

The only impeachment that was ever going to work was the one Obama eventually got; and that’s the one he provided himself.

He’s the guy we warned you about all along. In fact, he’s worse than the guy we warned you about.

And no matter what Lois Lerner or Jim Jordan have to say about it, Obama himself was the guy who caused his own impeachment of the public trust.

In the end, like the Politburo, Obama will be done in by his own lies.

It took the Soviets 70 years to collapse the system.

It took Obama about two years to collapse on himself.

That he got the two years to begin with was more about the group delusion that Obama was the Messiah than anything substantive he’s done.

“A nation and a woman are not forgiven the unguarded hour,” writes Karl Marx, “in which the first adventurer that came along could violate them.”

Let’s hope Marx got that part wrong too.

AP News

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate moved closer to a showdown over the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline Tuesday, as a related energy bill cleared an early procedural hurdle.

Senators voted 79-20 to take up an energy efficiency bill that Keystone supporters want to amend with language authorizing immediate construction of the proposed pipeline from Canada to the United States. Despite the vote, the two parties were still arguing over whether to allow amendments to the measure, including one by Keystone supporters that would end years of delay by the Obama administration on whether to approve the pipeline.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., denied a Republican request for an amendment on the pipeline, but said he was open to a stand-alone vote on a pipeline bill later.

Reid accused Republicans of trying to block the energy bill, which has bipartisan support.

Republicans said Reid was backing away from a promise to allow a vote on Keystone.

"Senate Republicans keep changing their requests," Reid said, noting that some Republicans first asked for a "sense of the Senate" resolution on Keystone and then later called for a binding vote.

"It seems like this is nothing but a game of diversion and obstruction to many Senate Republicans," Reid said on the Senate floor. "But it's not a game. Every time a group of Republicans feigns interest in bipartisanship, only to scramble away at the last moment, it is part of a calculated political scheme."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called Reid's claim "laughable," and said all that Senate Republicans seek is a full and open debate on energy policy.

"The American people have waited seven long years for a serious energy debate in the Democrat-run Senate," McConnell said, noting that the Senate has not approved a major energy bill since 2007.

In addition to Keystone, Republican senators have prepared a host of amendments to the energy bill, including one that would block the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants. Lawmakers from both parties also support a measure to speed approval of terminals to export liquefied natural gas.

"The American people deserve a real debate on how we can best tap our own extraordinary natural resources to achieve energy independence at home and how we can help our allies overseas through increased exports of American energy. But we can't move forward if the Democrats who run the Senate keep trying to protect the president at the expense of serving their constituents," McConnell said.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., one of the bill's co-sponsors, said the measure was an affordable approach to boost energy efficiency, which she said is the best way to save money on energy use.

"Energy efficiency is no longer about putting on a sweater and lowering the thermostat. It's about the technologies that can reduce energy use," she said.

Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, said the bill does not include mandates but merely encourages homes and businesses to increase efficiency.

"The least expensive form of energy is the energy we don't end up having to use," he said.
Last week's U.S. Supreme Court 6-2 ruling in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action et al. upheld Michigan's constitutional amendment that bans racial preferences in admission to its public universities. Justice Sonia Sotomayor lashed out at her colleagues in a bitter dissent, calling them "out of touch with reality." She went on to make the incredible argument that the amendment, which explicitly forbids racial discrimination, itself amounts to racial discrimination. Her argument was that permissible "race-sensitive admissions policies," the new name for racial preferences, both serve the compelling interest of obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body and inure people to the benefit of racial minorities. By the way, no one has come up with hard evidence of the supposed "educational benefits" that come from a racially mixed student body, and there's mounting evidence of harm done to minorities through academic mismatching.

Far more important than the legal battles over racial preferences in college admissions is the question of why they are being called for in the first place. The SAT's purpose is to predict how well a student will perform in college classes. Blacks score at least 100 points lower than whites in each of the assessment areas -- critical reading, math and writing. Asians score higher than whites in math and writing. SAT scores are also reported for Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans, Indians and others.

Blacks score lower than these minorities, who themselves score lower than whites and Asians.

If we reject the racist notion of mental inferiority of blacks, holding that blacks can never compete academically and that "racially sensitive" college admissions are needed in perpetuity, we must seek an explanation for their relatively poor academic performance.

My longtime colleague and friend Dr. Thomas Sowell offers some evidence in a recent column, "Will Dunbar Rise Again ( Paul Laurence Dunbar High School was founded in 1870 as the first public high school in the nation for black students. As far back as 1899, when tests were given in Washington's four academic high schools, Dunbar students scored higher than students in two of the three white high schools. Over the first several decades of the 20th century, about 80 percent of Dunbar graduates went on to college, a percentage far greater than that of high-school graduates of any race in the country at large at the time. Most blacks went to inexpensive local colleges, but among those who went on to Ivy League and other elite colleges, a significant number graduated Phi Beta Kappa. At one time, Dunbar graduates were admitted to Dartmouth or Harvard without having to take an entrance exam. One would have to be a lunatic to chalk up this academic success, in the early to mid-1900s, to Sotomayor's "race-sensitive admissions policies."

The shame of the nation is that poor black children are trapped in terrible schools. But worse than that is that white liberals, black politicians and civil rights leaders, perhaps unwittingly, have taken steps to ensure that black children remain trapped. Sowell says, "Of all the cynical frauds of the Obama administration, few are so despicable as sacrificing the education of poor and minority children to the interests of the teachers' unions." Attorney General Eric Holder's hostility, along with that of the teachers unions, toward the spread of charter schools is just one of the signs of that cynicism.

Holder's threats against schools that discipline more black students than he thinks they should add official support to a hostile learning environment.

The weakening of racial preferences in college admissions can be beneficial if it can focus our attention on the causes of the huge gap in academic achievement between blacks and whites and Asians. Worrying about what happens when blacks are trying to get in to college is too late -- as a matter of fact 12 years late.

LA public school district, superintendent Mohammed Z. Islam, assigns students to debate veracity of Holocaust

  / Jihad Watch
Holocaust Hoax Assignment
The assignment asked students to write about whether the Holocaust was “merely a political scheme created to influence public emotion and gain.” Has any reporter had the guts to inquire as to whose idea this was? Was Superintendent Islam aware of the assignment before it aroused controversy?

And now police are saying that Islam received death threats because of the assignment, even though we’re also told in this article that no parents complained about it. Have police actually seen the threats received? Are they sure that the threats themselves weren’t fabricated to deflect unwelcome attention and claim victim status, as we have seen in so many cases? In any case, they posted guards outside school district headquarters: threats or claimed threats to Muslims always get action, while death threats against counter-jihadists (I just got another yesterday) get scant law enforcement attention. They’re just business as usual.

“School District Officials Reportedly Threatened Over Holocaust Assignment,” CBS Los Angeles, May 5, 2014 (thanks to all who sent this in):
RIALTO ( — School district officials in Rialto have received death threats in connection to a class assignment instructing students to debate the veracity of the Holocaust, according to reports Monday.
Rialto Unified School District officials first responded last week to reports of the assignment, which asked students to compose a written debate over whether the Holocaust was “merely a political scheme created to influence public emotion and gain.”
The controversial question in the assignment read: “…write an argumentative essay, based upon cited textual evidence, in which you explain whether or not you believe this was an actual event in history or merely a political scheme created to influence public emotion and gain wealth…”
The district initially defended the eighth-grade assignment – which was one part of an 18-piece essay – as an exercise to help students “evaluate the quality of evidence made by advocates or opponents of an issue.”
Rialto Police Captain Randy De Anda told KCAL 9′s Tom Wait the school district’s interim superintendent, Mohammed Z. Islam, received death threats in connection with the assignment. A district spokesperson was also threatened, De Anda said.
Officers were seen Monday standing guard outside district headquarters in response to the reported threats.
“We do not know who the suspect is at this time,” De Anda said. “However we do have some leads to follow up on.”
District officials – who say they have not received any complaints from parents about the project – are now revising the assignment, admitting it was a mistake, Wait reported.
“We are striking the sentence that claims, ‘Did the Holocaust occur?’ Absolutely the Holocaust occurred,” Rialto District spokesperson Syeda Jafri. “It was an error and we have to correct it,” Jafri added.
Jafri also said that the Education Services department was behind the assignment, and will be required to undergo sensitivity training….