H/t Mary Katharine Ham

That old corny 80s PSA* came to mind today as I noticed that one of the two gentlemen Tim Gill my state sent to the Senate is suddenly in high dudgeon over the IRS criminal activity scandal that everybody seems to be recognizing as exactly what happens when too much authority is given to the Leviathan state find so fascinating these days.

Among Senator Bennet’s questions: “I don’t know how we get to the bottom of it, but I think somebody needs to be able to answer that. It doesn’t seem like it’s asking too much.” The “that” he’s referring to is who directed the illegal and unconstitutional decision to target Tea Party and other conservative groups for extra scrutiny.

Here’s a hint: It was you, Senator.

Perhaps he doesn’t recall, but Senator Bennet was one of seven luminaries who signed a letter to then-commissioner of the IRS Douglas Shulman in February last year demanding higher scrutiny of 501(c)(4) organizations.

Oh, but he didn’t stop there. While dislocating his arm patting himself on the back, Senator Bennet made perfectly clear just which sort of 501(c)(4) organizations had his hackles up. From the press release posted back then on his official Senate (yes, the one we as federal taxpayers fund) website:

For instance, long-time partisan operative Karl Rove is a senior official behind a 501(c)(4) “social welfare” charity, yet it’s common knowledge that his organization exists to elect and defeat specific political candidates. Elections operations such as Mr. Rove’s should not be allowed to masquerade as charities to take advantage of their tax exempt status and hide their donors from the public. It’s the IRS’s job to enforce the tax code and make sure that “social welfare” organizations are what they say they are.

(Italics mine.)

Funny he couldn’t think of any leftist, statist 501(c)(4) organizations. Considering the circles in which he travels (he’s now the DSCC chairman), that seems pretty unlikely. That he chose Karl Rove to target isn’t surprising whatsoever. That he is now feigning offense that the IRS followed his lead and did his bidding is also not surprising (he’s a politician, after all).

What would be much more sad than surprising would be if he gets away with it. I suppose that’s up to my fellow Coloradans.

*Perhaps someone who’s much more savvy with video/etc. than I am can reshoot this with the tagline changed from “Parents who use drugs have children who use drugs.” to something like “Senators who direct Federal employees to use their authority to target their political opponents have Federal employees who use their authority to target their political opponents.”

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HHQ)

As a private organization, they have the right to determine the qualifications for membership and leadership.  The state should stay out of it.  That said, I believe they should allow gay people to participate.

Now, to be sure, given the scandals in the Catholic Church (where most of the victims have been teenage boys), I can understand why they might be wary of having gay (male) scoutmasters.  But, there are ways to screen their leaders to make sure they don’t bring on men who would abuse boys. Most (but alas not all) gay men would never even consider taking advantage of teenagers, particularly those in their charge.

That said, I just don’t get why they would bar lesbians from being scoutmasters.  Lesbians tend not to be interested in boys and would not definitely molest them.  Thus, I was struck earlier today when HotAir linked this New York Times story, featuring a picture of a mother ousted as a “scout leader because she is a lesbian.”

The leadership of the Boy Scouts should make the decision on allowing openly gay members and scoutmasters.  And I would like to see them change their policy.

NB:  I had been meaning to blog on this topic for some time, but keep putting it off as I would like to write a more comprehensive, insightful post. But, my time being limited, this short piece will have to suffice.  For now.

• The Political Commentator – Nassau County Executive Ed Mangano going back…
• The Noisy Room – The Enemy Among Us – Even in Idaho
• Simply Jews – Glenn Greenwald or the douchebag’s lines of defense
• GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD – Shock And Shush
• Bookworm Room – Is the IRS scandal the worst political scandal in American history? I say “yes
• Gay Patriot – In 2008, we told you Obama wasn’’t the man you (thought you) were voting for. . .
• Joshuapundit-DHS Is Training Law Enforcement To Give Muslim Brotherhood, Radical Islamists A Pass
• The Razor – Scandal Scorecard
• The Colossus of Rhodey – New “Scotty” Spouts Off on the New Trek’sPolitics
• Rhymes With Right – My Response To @WhiteHouse #ObamaCareInThreeWords Meme
• The Glittering Eye -A Series of Unfortunate Incidents
• The Mellow Jihadi – Autumn Sandeen, a Sailor with No ESWS Pin?
• VA Right! - VA GOP Convention: Conservatives and TEA Party Send Republican Establishment a STRONG MESSAGE! Overcome DIRTY TRICKS and WIN!
• The Right Planet – #Scandalpalooza

Honorable Mentions

• Ask Marion – Incompetent-gate, Corruption-gate and Progressive-gate – Part 1
• Liberty’s Spirit – The IRS, Obamacare,and Abuse of Political Power: An Issue
  

Non-Council Submissions

• Craig McMillan/WND -The Chicago mob in D.C.submitted by The Political Commentator
• Caroline Glick –Obama and the “Official Truth” submitted by The Noisy Room
• A.J. Adler/The Algemeiner – A Campaign of Willful Blindness on Terrorism submitted by Simply Jews
• Contentions – Exploit Hizballah’s Vulnerability submitted by GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD
• American Thinker/Thomas Lifson-Never Mind Impeachment; Keep your Eyes on the Prize submitted by Bookworm Room
• Commentary -Accepting Responsibility Would Blow Obama’’s Circuitssubmitted by Gay Patriot
• Jonathan Rosenblum – The Price Of Blindness submitted byJoshuapundit
• Reason –The Myth of the Scientific Liberal submitted by The Razor
• OpenMarket.org – IRS Abuse of Americans Is Nothing New submitted byThe Colossus of Rhodey
• Big Jolly Politics – The Real Scandal with the IRS: Organizing for Action and the Chicago-style Misuse of Governmental Power submitted byRhymes with Right
• Ta-Nahisi Coates/The Atlantic – How the Obama Administration Talks to Black America submitted by The Glittering Eye
• Amil Imani –Saluting Pamela Geller: a Champion of Liberty submitted byThe Mellow Jihadi
• Tea Party News Network – Lerner Pleads the Fifth, Issa Issues Subpoena for her to Appear Anyway submitted by VA Right!
• Doug Ross – That Crazy Benghazi Conspiracy Theory? It Just Got Less Crazy submitted by The Right Planet
• Mark Steyn – The Autocrat Accountants submitted by The Watcher
• Kirsten Powers/Daily Beast – How Hope and Change Gave Way to Spying on the Press submitted by Watcher

And Mr. Bloomberg has grandstanded repeatedly on limiting the ability of all citizens, including gay men and lesbians, to defend themselves against attack.

Perhaps if New York made it easier for law-abiding citizens to get concealed carry permits, bashers would be warier of confronting gay people knowing they could be armed.

NICK ADDS: As I’ve often said, the best way to fight “hate crimes” is for people to arm themselves. And as my buddies over at Reason.com have noted, for some in Seattle, “[i]t’s clearly inconceivable that anybody could actually hold in his or her mind, simultaneously, a regard for the right of people to love who they want and respect for the right of self-defense”

Jeff adds: Nick, good one! Following your link, I surfed on through Oleg Volk’s website to www.a-human-right.com, which has some of the best pro-gun posters I’ve seen, starting here.

Here’s a sample of their wares, with more below the fold:

(Jeff still talking) Only some of them are feminist. The above are just the ones that caught my eye. A few more:

But don’t worry, at least the IRS stands up for the Constitution: Lois Lerner has reportedly invoked the Fifth Amendment in her testimony before Congress, so as not to incriminate herself. Yup. Nothing illegal went on at the IRS, folks. Move along.

Seriously, the IRS scandal wasn’t just some rogue agents in Cincinnati: from the outset, they were guided by IRS lawyers in Washington. To his credit, Sen. Max Baucus (D) is asking why no heads have rolled yet over this scandal.

Kathryn Ruemmler, the top White House lawyer, may take a fall to give more plausibility to Obama’s “Nobody around here tells me anything!” defense. She may also take a fall over Benghazi.

UPDATE: The IRS had internal reports about their targeting of conservative groups, months before the election. And did not tell Congress, as they were obligated to!

It’s starting to look like the Obama crew won the 2012 election by hiding crucial information (sometimes known as lying). Had Americans known the truth about the IRS and about Benghazi, 2% (which is all it would have taken) could well have gone the other way.

Sometimes God answers a pet owner’s prayers…

But for those in the affected region  who aren’t as blessed, please help reunite pets with their owners and help take care of the four-legged friends that are displaced.

The American Kennel Club has an ongoing disaster relief program.  This is one of a number of ways you can help out.  Please donate!

Barack Obama, March 2013: “There’s no there, there.”We know, man. That’s what THIS guy was saying last summer! twitter.com/GayPatriot/sta…

— GayPatriot (@GayPatriot) May 21, 2013

Sen. Tom Coburn deserves credit for sticking with his position that all emergency aid spending should be offset.

“He’s always had the same position since the Oklahoma City bombing,” Coburn spokesman John Hart wrote in an email. “We should offset disaster aid by sacrificing less vital areas of the budget.”

Coburn, Klein reminds us, has, in the past, insisted that northeastern disaster relief should be offset by spending cuts elsewhere.

But by remaining consistent even when his own state has been at the receiving end of a brutal storm, Coburn gives more credibility to the limited government position.

Kudos, Senator. Would be nice if more elected officials followed your lead, reminding us that federal funds are limited and the government should prioritize its spending.

Just as do most Americans.

Turning to Obama scandal news, there is lots of it:

• Claims that new, damaging revelations on Benghazi will be coming. Also, one of Clinton’s scapegoats is starting to balk at being scapegoated for Benghazi.
• Even the liberal-ish Washington Post begins to agree that the ‘Benghazi emails were doctored!’ canard has been debunked.
• Lois Lerner, who “apologized” for the IRS/Tea Party harassment (as if that covers it) and who some insist is “apolitical”, has a history of targeting conservatives from her 14 years at the Federal Election Commission. There she showed a remarkable curiosity about the content of conservatives’ prayers, just as the IRS later did. Coincidence?
• Americans are becoming aware of these scandals, with 55-56% believing that the administration has engaged in a Benghazi cover-up and in deliberate IRS targeting of conservatives. The scandals haven’t yet hit Obama’s approval ratings; then again, they haven’t been clearly tied to his inner circle yet. 59% approve of *the GOP’s* handling of Benghazi.
• Adding to the Department of Justice’s spy-on-AP scandal, as of yesterday we have the spy-on-Fox scandal, in which the DOJ basically makes investigative journalism a crime.
• For background, let’s not forget that AG Holder “has prosecuted more government officials for alleged leaks under the World War I-era Espionage Act than all his predecessors combined, including law-and-order Republicans John Mitchell, Edwin Meese and John Ashcroft.” So much for openness and transparency.
• But Obama’s DOJ seems to be in the habit of smearing critics, as well as prosecuting and/or spying on them.

In the comments, please remember: If another’s argument is ludicrous, there is no need to engage in personal attacks; just tear it apart point by point.

UPDATE: Via HotAir, here is 2008 video of candidate Obama saying, in essence, that a sitting administration must not prosecute or spy on reporters and critics:

Click here to view the embedded video.

But what I really love about the clip is how Obama looks down his nose, as he speaks. It’s that note of contempt which his white liberal admirers fell for, going “Ooh, he’s so smaaarrt! He has deep integrity and wisdom!” I saw through Obama’s act from the beginning.

Just read the whole thing for his thorough analysis.

Interesting that although the Rosen piece which spurred their investigation was published nearly four full years ago (on June 11, 2009), the Department of Justice has yet to bring charges against Rosen. (Would be interesting to find out how long it took for the Justice Department to inform the FoxNews reporter about their investigation.)

Another thing to consider (as per my previous post) is that despite the claims many of the immediate past president’s critics made about that good man, his administration did not snoop around in the private affairs of its ideological adversaries 0r adversary journalists.  Despite serious concerns that New York Times reporting compromised administration efforts to keep us safe, the Bush team did not attempt to obtain the e-mails of that paper’s reporters.

Charles C. W. Cooke wonders why those who freaked out about the PATRIOT Act and how it might lead to people’s library records being seized aren’t so concerned about the IRS asking conservative groups to hand over their Facebook posts and a list of books they were reading. Or for records of conversations they had or their positions on issues. Shouldn’t the ACLU be as up in arms about the IRS’s intrusion into people’s privacy as they were about Homeland Security looking at suspected terrorist’s use of library computers?

Did the immediate past president — or his henchmen — ever demand that his political adversaries, in order to receive a benefit from the government, reveal the content of their prayers or the names of their members?

Commenting on a report that President Obama met with Miss Kelley “the day before agency targeted Tea Party“, Ace wonders, as should we all, about the strange coincidence and considers the meaning of the meeting. He surmises how events might have unfolded in circumstances similar to this one, with a hypothetical President Tee meeting with the head of Union N which had supported him politically:

It would seem that President Tee could choose to go outside the normal chain of command to issue an illegal order by simply telling the head of Union N to inform the union members she leads to pursue the policy, rather than issuing a formal order to the head of the IRS.

And journalists should be asking Jay Carney, in his next press briefing, to tell us what transpired in that meeting.  And they should ask the president as well.  Reporters should be doing what they can to learn what passed between the president and the union boss in March 2010.

UPDATE:  Maybe there is nothing to that meeting.  But, the time is indeed curious.

RELATED:  Over on the National Review’s home page, Andrew Stiles has a good piece on Miss Kelley’s union:

The IRS may be “an independent enforcement agency with only two political appointees,” in the words of White House press secretary Jay Carney, but its employees are represented by a powerful, deeply partisan union whose boss has publicly disparaged the Tea Party and criticized the Republican party for having ties to it.

UP-UPDATE: Doug Powers has more.

The White House on Monday once again added to the list of people who knew about the IRS investigation into its targeting of conservative groups — saying White House chief of staff Denis McDonough had been informed about a month ago.

Press secretary Jay Carney said again that no one had told President Barack Obama ahead of the first news reports: not his top aide McDonough, nor his chief counsel Kathy Ruemmler, nor anyone from the Treasury Department.

Monday’s revelation amounts to the fifth iteration of the Obama administration’s account of events, after initially saying that the White House had first learned of the controversy from the press.

Various folks that I follow on Twitter have asked important questions over the past few days such as this one:

I want to know the names of the folks who get to decide what Obama doesn’t need to know. What are their credentials? Who elected them?

— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) May 20, 2013

If Obama Doesn’t Know What Going On, Who’s Running This Administration? bit.ly/19VEQFr

— Duane Lester (@Bodhi1) May 20, 2013

And my observations regarding the multi-scandals now enveloping our supposed brilliant and awesome President?

Obama had time to get personally involved with @sandrafluke‘s birth control obsession, but not #Benghazi or #IRSabuse. Got it.

— GayPatriot (@GayPatriot) May 20, 2013

White House officials on Sunday dismissed Republican attacks over three simmering scandals as a partisan witch hunt, hoping to put behind them President Obama’s single worst week in office and to move Washington’s attention back to his second-term agenda.

While Obama was delivering a commencement address at the historically black Morehouse College in Atlanta, his top surrogates fanned out across the Sunday morning talk shows to defuse claims that the administration has violated constitutional boundaries and to blame the controversies on partisan politics as usual.

“We’ve seen this playbook from the Republicans before,” Dan Pfeiffer, a senior Obama adviser, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “What they want to do when they’re lacking a positive agenda is try to drag Washington into a swamp of partisan fishing expeditions, trumped-up hearings and false allegations. We’re not going to let that happen.”

Well, they wouldn’t need go on any fishing expeditions if Mr. Pfeiffer and his team would just answer the questions Republicans have been asking. It’s unfortunate that instead of answering those questions, Mr. Pfeiffer has chosen to blame Republicans.

Wish Mr. Pfeiffer had instead listened to his boss who just over four years ago spelled out for Jay Leno what he intended to do as President of the United States, including breaking that “pattern in Washington where everybody is always looking for somebody else to blame.”

Guess that’s a pattern Mr. Pfeiffer isn’t interested in breaking.

As the French say, Plus ça change. . . .

. . . a fundamental disconnect between the White House’s actions and the White House’s words on the IRS scandal. The White House has repeatedly claimed that the President is “outraged” over the targeting — but there are surprisingly few actual consequences for outraging the leader of the free world. One of the folks involved in harassing conservatives got a promotion. Another got several thousands of dollars in bonuses. Even the thought of legal consequences is tossed aside as “irrelevant.”

The president’s outrage coincides with the story of the IRS scandal hitting the headlines.  Interestingly, as Jonah Goldberg observed on Friday, when people the president “views as his ‘enemies’” first “complained about a politicized IRS, what did he do? Nothing.”

If Obama were truly outraged by the targeting, he would have ordered the IRS to investigate as soon as the first reports became public.  And would use stronger terms than he has.  He would be ordering the Treasury Secretary not just to hold “those responsible for these failures accountable”, but would also be making clear that those responsible could lose their jobs — and face prosecution.

To note, as per Jonah’s point, the president didn’t ask the immediate past Treasury Secretary to take action when the story first came to light.  Nor has he specified how those responsible would be held accountable.

Doesn’t seem like the consequences will be very severe.

• IRS told pro-life groups that they should stop peacably demonstrating. Where is the ACLU on this? You know: freedom of assembly, something the ACLU proudly defended in Skokie? Are pro-lifers really lower (in the ACLU’s eyes) than actual KKK-hooded neo-Nazis?
• The “Benghazi e-mails were doctored!” canard, refuted.
• Senior White House Advisor Dan Pfeiffer, discussing the IRS and Benghazi scandals this morning, apparently did Obama no good with his over-use of the word “irrelevant”.

UPDATE: There seems to be controversy over Pfeiffer’s remark on the IRS scandal, “The law is irrelevant.” Here is his full quote, for context:

“I can’t speak to the law here. The law is irrelevant. The activity was outrageous and inexcusable, and it was stopped and it needs to be fixed so we ensure it never happens again.”

Superficially, Pfeiffer said: The IRS activity was outrageous, regardless of whether it was illegal. Which sounds like taking the high road.

But Washington-speak is notoriously indirect. Pfeiffer may have been saying: The administration/DOJ is giving NO focus to the question of legality, as we intend to have no prosecutions.

To make my view clear: On current information, there should be prosecutions. If the Obama administration won’t send malefactors to court, then the Obama administration isn’t serious about repairing the scandal’s profound moral damage. As Gabe at Ace points out, “…the most obvious of crimes related to the IRS scandal [is] the public release of confidential information, something punishable by up to a year’s jail time.”

UPDATE: Per ABC, Pfeiffer later tweeted “Before folks quoting me out of context get too far ahead of themselves, of course the law matters, IRS conduct is wrong even if legal.”

Again, note Pfeiffer’s posture. While expressing outrage over what the IRS did, he carefully plants the suggestion that it might have been legal – which would mean that no prosecutions are needed. Sorry Mr. Pfeiffer, I don’t think so.

She talks about the excitement and exhilaration people felt in 2008 when Obama was elected:

It was mostly young people marching – from varied backgrounds. Many of these parades ended up in front of the White House where chants of “goodbye Bush” (or some variation thereof) began. It was the same slogan heard as Barack Obama was sworn in as president in January 2009 and Bush flew away in a helicopter.

There was a belief, especially among voters in their 20s and 30s, that Obama was going to be different. That his promises to “change the culture in Washington” were real. That his administration wouldn’t be beholden to lobbyists and conduct executive power grabs.

Interesting how part of their celebration relates to the departure of the much (and usually wrongly) maligned immediate past President of the United States.

What evidence, beyond the candidate’s rhetoric, did they have that Barack Obama was an agent of change?

They were clearly not aware, as many conservatives reported in 2008, that the great Democratic hope had always been a loyal foot soldier in the Chicago Democratic machine.  In his twelve years as an elected official based in that city, Barack Obama failed to challenged its authority — as he failed to root out corrupt practices and cronyism that defined its government.

His record, as we have pointed out repeatedly, was at odds with his rhetoric.

We (that is, conservative and libertarian bloggers and pundits) told you that back in 2008.  We told you that you were voting for an image crafted by political consultants and projected onto a charismatic Chicago politician with a mellifluous speaking voice.   But, you were so eager to see George W. Bush replaced that you trusted the words of man who delighted in maligning that Republican, but about whom you knew very little.  And are only now seeing as he is today — and was back then.

William A. Jacobsen has been trying to find out why, and Judicial Watch announced last Monday “that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and Office of the Attorney General (OAG).” The lawsuit follows D.C. having stonewalled on Jacobsen’s earlier FOIA request for documents. Godspeed!

• Questions about “the content of their prayers“
• Queries about the books they were reading
• Requests for the name of teenage interns
• Demands for lists of members and donors
• Lists of names of books they were reading
• Questions about “activation with the news media” (whatever that is)

And if these progressive groups were not subject to such scrutiny, could someone at the IRS please explain why not.

Thanks!

UDPATE:  Did they ask any “progressive” groups to agree not to protest any social conservative institutions as a condition of receiving their 501 (c)(4) status from the federal government?

UP-UPDATE: Seems a handful of “progressive” groups were singled out for extra scrutiny: Nonconservative Groups Say IRS Scrutinized Them, Too (Via HotAir headlines).