Tag Archives: morality

IRS and Politics

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that in the last election season, the Internal Revenue Service demanded of a number of nonprofit organizations information about the nature of their politics, who their contributors were, even asking about family members.  The IRS intended to use this information to challenge the organizations’ nonprofit status.  That this was a biased request is demonstrated by the fact that only conservative nonprofits were targeted, and they were targeted on the basis of the presence of terms like “patriot” and “tea party” in their organizational names.

The then-IRS commissioner, of course, denied this.  Douglas Shulman told Congress in March 2012,

There’s absolutely no targeting.  This is the kind of back and forth that happens to people….

Turns out he was lying.  Lois Lerner, head of the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups, said,

That [demand] was wrong.  That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive, and it was inappropriate.  That’s not how we go about selecting cases for further review[.]

Then she said,

The IRS would like to apologize for that[.]

Well, Madam, when will the IRS apologize for that, instead of just talk about wanting to?  And what assurances are you or Steven Miller, the acting IRS Commissioner, going to provide that guarantee this politicization of the IRS’ function has been erased and will not recur?  When will we see IRS action on these assurances?

This…behavior…makes me wonder if David Axelrod has gone to work for the IRS.  Or whether Janet Napolitano, DHS Secretary, is directing the IRS’ oversight function.

When is an Hispanic not an Hispanic?

Posted on by
Reply

When a Progressive says so.

Former New Mexico Gov Bill Richardson said Sunday that Republican Sen Ted Cruz, whose father was a Cuban immigrant, should not be “defined as a Hispanic” because of his stance on immigration legislation.

Richardson justified his redefinition with this:

I don’t like his politics…. No, I don’t think he should be defined as a Hispanic[.]

Just like conservative blacks must be uppity Uncle Toms and conservative women must be sluts, so an Hispanic who holds views that are disapproved by Progressives must be drummed out and denied his heritage.

Why does the Left insist on being racist?

Because they think they can accrue political power with it, and they can get away with it.

An Attack on Religion

Posted on by
Reply

…and not just on our freedom of expression.

Todd Starnes has the tale.

A Texas high school track team was disqualified from competing in the state championships because one of the runners made a gesture thanking God after he crossed the finish line.

Derrick Hayes, the anchor of the Columbus High School 4×100 relay team had just crossed the finish line when he raised his finger to the sky—thanking the Lord for winning the race that would send them to the state finals.

But a judge with the University Interscholastic League, the governing body for high school athletics in Texas, ruled that the gesture was a violation of the taunting rule….

The University Interscholastic League, which governs this tournament, defends its…behavior…with this statement, issued with an entirely straight face:

The meet official indicated the athlete crossed the finish line and gestured upward with his arm and finger and behaved disrespectfully toward meet officials, in their opinion.  In the judgment of the official, this was a violation of NFHS track & field rule 4-6-1.

The rule in question says this in pertinent part:

[u]nsportsmanlike conduct is behavior that is unethical or dishonorable. It includes, but is not limited to, disrespectfully addressing an official, any flagrant behavior, intentional contact, taunting, criticizing or using profanity directed toward someone.

Thanking God is taunting and/or disrespectful, is it?

The only ones who could be taunted by such a thing or feel disrespected by it are those who spend their energy looking for excuses to be offended.

Yeah, And?

Posted on by
Reply

President Barack Obama, through his State Department, had this to say about al Assad’s massacre of Syrian civilians last Thursday [emphasis in the original]:

Massacre in al-Bayda
Press Statement
Jen Psaki
Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
May 4, 2013

The United States is appalled by horrific reports that more than 100 people were killed May 2 in gruesome attacks on the coastal town of al-Bayda, Syria.  Regime and Shabiha forces reportedly destroyed the area with mortar fire then stormed the town and executed entire families, including women and children. We extend our deepest condolences to the families of the victims of this tragedy.

We strongly condemn atrocities against the civilian population and reinforce our solidarity with the Syrian people.  As the Assad regime’s violence against innocent civilians escalates, we will not lose sight of the men, women, and children whose lives are being so brutally cut short.

We call on all responsible actors in Syria to speak out against the perpetration of unlawful killings against any group, regardless of faith or ethnicity.  Those responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law and serious violations and abuses of human rights law must be held accountable.

So, what are you going to do, Ace?  Besides sitting on the sidelines whining about it all, I mean?  “[W]e will not lose sight of the men, women, and children whose lives are being so brutally cut short.”  No, we’ll watch the hell out of the butchery, while lowing meekly.

Smooth move, Ace.

 

h/t The Weekly Standard

Answering the Phone

Posted on by
Reply

Adam Housley, writing for Fox News, had this on the Benghazi fiasco:

On the night of the Benghazi terror attack, special operations put out multiple calls for all available military and other assets to be moved into position to help—but the State Department and White House never gave the military permission to cross into Libya[.]

Normal ops in locations like Benghazi has the Chief of Mission in charge—Ambassador Chris Stevens in this case—who has procedures for calling for help and transferring authority in exigent circumstances.  With Stevens (and such protection as he was allowed to have) trapped, his “distress button” was pushed, and authority was transferred to State, where again in the Benghazi case, response oversight and authority transferred to then-Secretary Hillary Clinton and one of her Undersecretaries, Patrick Kennedy.

Housley cited some of his sources:

Sources said that shortly after the attack began around 9:40 pm, special forces put out the calls for assets to be moved into position.

“What that does is that enacts…every asset, every element to respond and it becomes a global priority,” one source said.  “I would tell you that was given and the only reason it was given is because of special operations pack.”

However, the source said, “Assets did not move.”

It seems apparent that when the phone rang at 4 am, Clinton said, “What difference does it make,” rolled over, and went back to sleep.