Category Archives: rights

Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo, Redux

Posted on by
Reply

I wrote earlier about the Muslim Brotherhood and their assault on their fellow Egyptians’ freedom and on their very lives.

Here’s an update.

  • [Muslim Brotherhood] demonstrators torched two government facilities in Giza
  • attacks on Coptic Christians and their churches continued for a second day—as many as 39 incidents of violence against churches, monasteries, Coptic schools, and shops
  • protesters trapped a police Humvee on an overpass near the Nasr City camp and pushed it off…images…showed an injured policeman on the ground below, near a pool of blood and the overturned vehicle

Yet President Barack Obama is threatening a regime that answered the call of the people to get rid of the Muslim Brotherhood dictator Mohammed Morsi.  He’s condemning their role in attempting to restore order and reopen parts of Cairo occupied by the Brotherhood while saying nothing about the Brotherhood’s violence, torchings, and murders beyond the usual Obamatalk blandishments about the need for…restraint.  And he’s cancelled joint exercises with the Egyptian military—cancelled them, rather than postponing them so they’re not a distraction while the Egyptians attempt to restore order.

The IRS Sends a Letter

Posted on by
Reply

Thousands of small-business owners have received letters from the Internal Revenue Service questioning whether they are underreporting their business income….

Tax officials say the letters don’t constitute an audit and instead are simply a request for more information.

Sure.  Except that they’re not “requests.”

One typical letter to a small-business owner is headlined, “Notification of Possible Income Underreporting.”  It begins, “Your gross receipts may be underreported.”

The letter instructs the owner to complete a form “to explain why the portion of your gross receipts from non-card payments appears unusually low.”  It says the business owner must respond within 30 days.

No.  Tell me what crime you’re claiming I’m committing or at risk of committing.  Then we can talk about my business model, my decision to emphasize card transactions in my business.  And 30 days is a short deadline for small businesses to investigate their records of individual transactions over the year supposed to be in question.  While you’re about it, explain to me why I’m obligated to do cash transactions at a rate that suits your whim.  Cash imposes additional costs on me, including more accounting effort (card transactions automatically generate their own audit trail for my internal, business use) and greater security costs from having all that cash on hand.

And there’s this example of IRS disingenuousness:

Peter Fleming, a small-business accountant in Carnegie, PA, said a client with a gift and souvenir shop received a letter from the IRS in December saying the revenue she claimed in tax returns the previous year was lower than sales reported in merchant card and third-party payments data.  The retailer reported gross receipts of $243,462, versus $249,994 in the payment data, according to the IRS.  The letter told her to ensure she was “fully reporting receipts from all sources” and gave her 30 days to respond.  Mr Fleming said the discrepancy was because payments data included sales tax, which wasn’t included in revenue claimed in tax returns.  For small retailers, “Sales tax is a liability and is not reported as revenue,” Mr Fleming said.

Of course, the IRS knew a priori this discrepancy was sales tax; the IRS has lots of access to state and community sales tax rates and records.

And a final bit of IRS cynicism:

The IRS has told accountants that a principal aim of its program is to verify the quality of the card-transaction data the agency is getting.

Clearly not.  I if this were true, the IRS would have said so in its dunning letters to those 20,000 small businesses.

Again, Progress

Posted on by
Reply

EEOC v Freeman concerned an events company that used [criminal and credit] background checks in employment decisions between July 2006 and August 2011. The company had experienced problems with employee drug use, embezzlement, and workplace violence, and saw background checks as a legitimate way to screen applicants.

US District Judge Roger Titus scored the agency for…putting employers “in the ‘Hobson’s choice’ of ignoring criminal history and credit background, thus exposing themselves to potential liability for criminal and fraudulent acts committed by employees, on the one hand, or incurring the wrath of the EEOC for having utilized information deemed fundamental by most employers.”

And if that wasn’t a clear enough message, he continued: “Something more, far more, than what is relied upon by the EEOC in this case must be utilized to justify a disparate impact claim based upon criminal history and credit checks.  To require less, would be to condemn the use of common sense, and this is simply not what the discrimination laws of this country require.”

There’s more to this:

[T]he [EEOC] didn’t show that Freeman Co discriminated against black applicants by using criminal-background checks or credit checks in its hiring process.

Well, duh.  The judge went on:

The story of the present action has been that of a theory in search of facts to support it.  But there are simply no facts here to support [the EEOC’s claim that black applicants were improperly discriminated against].

Freeman has 4,100 full-time and 25,000 to 30,000 part-time employees; that part-time to full-time ratio is a potful of turnover—which puts a premium on those background checks.

Progress, indeed.

Why Do Progressives Oppose a Safe Ballot?

Posted on by
Reply

Their latest opposition to protecting the sanctity of an American’s vote is in North Carolina, where the state’s government enacted a law that moves to protect a vote by ensuring the one casting it is the one who’s eligible to cast it, only casts it once, and is who he claims to be; and in front of the American Bar Association, in a speech by ex-Secretary of State and President wannabe Hillary Clinton.

The law contains these provisions, among others:

  • changes in how residents can vote that includes requiring them to show a photo ID at polling stations
  • eliminates a week of early voting, while maintaining 10 days of early voting
  • ends same-day registration
  • prohibits “out-of-precinct” voting
  • allows voters to cast a provisional ballot if they come to a polling station without proper ID
  • places additional campaign finance restrictions on lobbyists

Critics argue the true goal is to suppress voter turnout, especially among blacks, the young, the elderly and the poor.  Because blacks—especially blacks—are too…simple…to be able to plan ahead and get their—free—photo IDs well in advance of voting.  The elderly and poor are similarly incapable, claim Progressives; they, too, need to be led by the nose by their Betters.

More, the law suppresses other Progressive demographics—the non-resident voter; voters who don’t always vote, but when they do, they prefer to vote several times; illegal alien voters.

Clinton made similarly insulting allegations:

…she said some observers have defended the US Supreme Court ruling as a sign that discrimination has ended.  She disagreed and said it gave jurisdictions carte blanche to renew discrimination at the polls.

Because it’s impossible for people to change.  Because it’s still 1963, and the Party of Jim Crow still is rampant.  She’s projecting.

In the weeks since the ruling we have seen an unseemly rush by previously covered jurisdictions that will make it harder for our fellow Americans to vote.  Unless we act now, citizens will be disenfranchised and victimized by the law instead of served by it.

No, the only ones being disenfranchised are those ineligible to vote.  The only unseemly rush is the Progressives’ move to place disliked states back under the yoke.  In the mean time, states are moving to protect the sanctity of the vote.

Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

Much has been made of President Barack Obama and his colleagues’ assault on free speech through his IRS and apparently through his FEC and SEC.  It’s important to understand that, reprehensible and dangerous to America as these assaults are today, Obama and his are simply channeling one of their Progressive forebears.

Here’s President Woodrow Wilson on the usefulness of government censorship, during another war in which the US was, at the time, participating only peripherally.  He wrote this letter to Congressman Edwin Webb in May 1917.

My dear Mr. Webb:

I have been very much surprised to find several of the public prints stating that the administration had abandoned the position which it so distinctly took, and still holds, that authority to exercise censorship over the Press to the extent that that censorship is embodied in the recent action of the House of Representatives is absolutely necessary to the public safety.  It, of course, has not been abandoned, because the reasons still exist why such authority is necessary for the protection of the nation.

I have every confidence that the great majority of the newspapers of the country will observe a patriotic reticence about everything whose publication could be of injury, but in every country there are some persons in a position to do mischief in this field who can not be relied upon and whose interests or desires will lead to actions on their part highly dangerous to the nation in the midst of a war.  I want to say again that it seems to me imperative that powers of this sort should be granted.

Cordially and sincerely yours,

WOODROW WILSON

The “recent action of the House” concerned a provision for explicit Federal government censorship of the press that Wilson had demanded be included in The Espionage Act of 1917, then under debate in both houses of Congress.  In the event, the Act was passed in June without the provision (the Senate having removed it by a one-vote margin) and signed into law by Wilson, even though he continued to protest the necessity of the “right” to commit censorship.

Authority to exercise censorship over the press is absolutely necessary to the public safety.

While Wilson didn’t get that power of censorship in the Espionage Act, he did get it in the Sedition Act of 1918:

Whoever…shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States…shall be punished….

The added invention of the Obama claque is that “some persons in a position to do mischief” are conservative persons who criticize the Obama administration.  Such criticisms are viewed by today’s Progressives as “disloyal” and “scurrilous.”  And plainly “abusive.”

Hmm….